Your favourite sentence in ASLRB?

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,760
Reaction score
1,430
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
It's been a while since I checked, it might even have been back in the days of 1st edition, but I have an idea (possibly mistaken) that nowhere in the rules does it say that when you expend MF or MP to enter a new hex, that the new hex you enter must be adjacent to the hex that you're leaving. :p
Good point!
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,046
Reaction score
4,547
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
D2.11 - "A vehicle must move within its current VCA as it enters each new hex [EXC: Reverse Movement]."

Aside from the Captain Obvious ending, know why this is in the rules? Because 1st edition Squad Leader in 1977 had no prohibition on tanks moving sideways so as to always present a front facing to an enemy unit perpendicular to their path of travel. Which resulted in rule-lawyering idiots making a point of moving their tanks sideways simply because the rules permitted it, or rather, didn't specifically prohibit it.

View attachment 12739
Well, it happens ALL the time! :love:

Watch this:



Or this:



Or this:



Or this:


von Marwitz
 

buser333

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
786
Reaction score
261
Location
central WI
I played a game recently where masses of Americans were swarming around in the street, trying to get into a heavily fortified building. The Japanese defender had a DC Hero on the 3rd floor, and we both agreed that the rules really should allow him to jump out a window and detonate just before he hit the ground :LOL:
If that was the case just have him drop it.
 

holdit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
260
Reaction score
356
Location
Ireland
Country
llIreland
D2.11 - "A vehicle must move within its current VCA as it enters each new hex [EXC: Reverse Movement]."

Aside from the Captain Obvious ending, know why this is in the rules? Because 1st edition Squad Leader in 1977 had no prohibition on tanks moving sideways so as to always present a front facing to an enemy unit perpendicular to their path of travel. Which resulted in rule-lawyering idiots making a point of moving their tanks sideways simply because the rules permitted it, or rather, didn't specifically prohibit it.

View attachment 12739
I read once of a WW2 wargame (gaming one of the D-Day beaches) where a player moved his battleship inland with the justification that the rules didn't prohibit such a move. o_O

Anyway, I know someone who would undoubtedly approve of the ASLRB's writing style...

 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
792
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
A9.223... A MG may cancel its Fire Lane in order to gain freedom to fire elsewhere (/its manning Infantry may use Subsequent-First-Fire/FPF after establishing the Fire Lane) only if a TPBF/CC-Reaction-Fire situation occurs (8.312/D7.21) — in which case the Fire Lane must be cancelled....​
Or as Klas likes to remind us:

"A FL may be cancelled whenever it has to be cancelled." (paraphrase to the tune of a familiar jingle...)​
 

Binchois

Too many words...
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
1,732
Reaction score
792
Location
Michigan
First name
Lester
Country
llUnited States
I read once of a WW2 wargame (gaming one of the D-Day beaches) where a player moved his battleship inland with the justification that the rules didn't prohibit such a move. o_O
A similar story: I'm always surprised when an opponent complains about my infamous sneak attack. The rules do not prohibit climbing the trees into the first level of a woods hex! Get over it T.Y.!!
 

Robin Reeve

Aka the Swiss Moron
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
17,101
Reaction score
2,523
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
COD allowed sniper units to climb up onto treetops.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
2,859
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I read once of a WW2 wargame (gaming one of the D-Day beaches) where a player moved his battleship inland with the justification that the rules didn't prohibit such a move. o_O

Anyway, I know someone who would undoubtedly approve of the ASLRB's writing style...
ASL has the concept of COWTRA: Concentrate On What The Rules Allow. During early ASL playtesting, an opponent of 'Fish' Conner's did something not allowed in the rules and said nearly the same thing "the rules don't say I can't do this". In his next turn, Fish started using his Panther's as air craft, much to the consternation of his opponent. Soon there after, COWTRA was born. -- jim
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,046
Reaction score
4,547
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
ASL has the concept of COWTRA: Concentrate On What The Rules Allow. During early ASL playtesting, an opponent of 'Fish' Conner's did something not allowed in the rules and said nearly the same thing "the rules don't say I can't do this". In his next turn, Fish started using his Panther's as air craft, much to the consternation of his opponent. Soon there after, COWTRA was born. -- jim
Well,

the Russians tried the Antonov A-40:

12755


The Germans mounted a modified PaK 40, Bordkanone BK 7,5, with a cadence of 40 shots/minute in a Henschel Hs-129 B-3 and Junkers Ju-88 P-1. This is as close as it gets during WW2 for a flying tank I reckon. The recoil was such that it almost tore the aircraft apart, though.

12756

Henschel Hs-129 B-3


12757

Junkers Ju-88 P-1


That said, Fish was of course perfectly right in what he was doing. It couldn't have been done better...

von Marwitz
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
4,664
Reaction score
2,260
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Well,

the Russians tried the Antonov A-40:

View attachment 12755


The Germans mounted a modified PaK 40, Bordkanone BK 7,5, with a cadence of 40 shots/minute in a Henschel Hs-129 B-3 and Junkers Ju-88 P-1. This is as close as it gets during WW2 for a flying tank I reckon. The recoil was such that it almost tore the aircraft apart, though.

View attachment 12756

Henschel Hs-129 B-3


View attachment 12757

Junkers Ju-88 P-1


That said, Fish was of course perfectly right in what he was doing. It couldn't have been done better...

von Marwitz
Kenny's air force (SWPTO) also mounted a Pack 75 in the nose of a P-38. I can't remember how effective it was or how many problems they encountered though.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,273
Reaction score
1,004
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
A13.7: "Horses are units, but are never considered enemy units."
To be paired, of course, with:

ASL Index said:
Unit: Any game piece or counter with its own MF/MP allotment and normally capable of movement without being portaged, pushed, or towed. Infantry, Cavalry [but not horses], Dummy stacks, and vehicles (even if Immobilized) are all different types of units.
So, horses in ASL are actually a breed of Schrödinger cat: they are simultaneously a thing and not a thing.

And I see another entry for ASL Bingo: who amongst us has ever mounted 2 SMC on a single horse counter, as is permitted in A13.32?
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,046
Reaction score
4,547
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
And I see another entry for ASL Bingo: who amongst us has ever mounted 2 SMC on a single horse counter, as is permitted in A13.32?
It has a very old (if symbolic) precedence:

12760

The "SIGILLUM MILITUM CHRISTI" of the Knights Templar in use between 1168 and 1298.

von Marwitz
 
Top