After 40 Years of Gaming, is it Necessary to Change ASL?

[Evan Sherry]

After 40 years of gaming, is it necessary to change ASL and/or change the rules of the game?

With a rapidly aging and diminishing player base, is this the logical thing to do?

What miraculous updates will draw enough new players to justify product print runs and to replace us as we leave the hobby?

 

[hongkongwargamer]

No. For those who have done it for 10+ years. We are not quite done yet.

Not going anytime soon either. And we are finding new players every month/ week.

Gotta expand your circle some.

Now does it translate to more sales? Not necessarily

• ASL is not a consumable. There’s already a huge body of work out there.
• You only need one set per two players.

 

[M.Koch]

Absolutely no.

 

[Craig Benn]

I don't mind minor changes - I'd categorise the J16 errata as at the upper end but still within that. Its fine broadly but no more for a while.

 

[Blaze]

The game is what it is. There is no need to change it, not at this point. That's the downside of having multiple modules, HASL's, and other publications.
When I need a change, I play something else like PANZER albeit it is a totally different tactical game zoomed out a tad. But that's the point, different. Or maybe I'm in a ZOCbond mood...I'm an ASLer but it is not the only game I do. I like variety

The only way to change ASL would be to reboot it. At this point those of us with $1000's spent into the system having nearly everything, would get out torches and pitchforks.

If it isn't broke, don't fix it until it is broke...

 

[PresterJohn]

What sort of "change"?
Colour counters - too late, been done already.
Revised rules - too late, people already have diy electronic rules with integrated Q&A references.
Virtual products? Done.
Improved solitaire? Done.
PC software adaption? Done.
It's a bit late to think about change being necessary, because those tyre tracks down the middle of your back, well they were left when change ran you down when you were looking the other way.

 

[sswann]

after almost 40 years, change is not needed. [EXC: larger fonts]

 

[Blaze]

after almost 40 years, change is not needed. [EXC: larger fonts]

Yep that was the best change/adjustment. I actually upgraded all the core stuff to the newer large print when Chas started doing them a ways back.

 

[ScottRomanowski]

No, ASL should not change, or if it does, minor changes like the J16 changes.

Years ago, when D&D v4 came out and it gave it what I thought was a more video-game-like feel, possibly to appeal to younger gamers, I abandoned D&D and switched to Pathfinder. When Pathfinder v2 came out with, what I thought were some insulting design decisions ("Let's simplify things because counting is hard!"), I did not follow. If a new version of ASL comes out with major changes (especially if they dumb-it-down to attract players who think a page of rules is too long), I will not follow. IMHO a new version of ASL with major changes will split the hobby.

 

[Robin Reeve]

If I were fourty years younger, I would go for Heroes of Normandy or of Stalingrad.
Not for a simplified ASL.
ASL is a child of a generation.
Rejuvenating it would make it look like an aged movie star who tries to remain seducing through aesthetic surgery: we all know that only would make it uglier than bearing the natural effects of getting old.

 

[David Goldman]

I agree with Mr. Reeve. We do not need a Sunset Boulevard edition of the rules.

 

[Zakopious]

No, ASL should not change, or if it does, minor changes like the J16 changes. ----------
If a new version of ASL comes out with major changes (especially if they dumb-it-down to attract players who think a page of rules is too long), I will not follow. IMHO a new version of ASL with major changes will split the hobby.

Starter Kit has already come out with simplified rules, and it has to a limited degree split the hobby.

 

[STAVKA]

No, ASL should not change, or if it does, minor changes like the J16 changes.

There are 3 major/poor changes in J16, why do you call them minor J16 changes?

 

[Peter J]

I am not opposed to change. So, it is not a uncompromising or absolute 'no'. However, ASL has provided a very stable game system and any changes need to be properly considered and assessed. We need to ask is the 'juice worth the squeeze'? If you have a 'grudge' then you have the option for your own 'house rules' or design a scenario, or two, with your SSR/s.

 

[bendizoid]

It took me a long time to really learn how to play, lots of studying and reading. I don’t think I want to go through all that again.

plus a bunch of crushing loses from missing one small detail. Hard fought but valuable lessons to learn that I have little desire to relearn or unlearn.

 

[PresterJohn]

Of course the "change" being referred to might be a reference to the new map board artwork style.
Who knows.

 

[STAVKA]

It took me a long time to really learn how to play, lots of studying and reading.

Same for me, and I also had to go through learing to read Americano.

 

[Michael R]

I agree with the changes introduced in J16. I love that Perry et al are very conservative in applying changes. Is it necessary to make changes? Probably not.

 

[Sparafucil3]

There are 3 major/poor changes in J16, why do you call them minor J16 changes?

What are those? What makes them poor?

 

[Mister T]

J16 impacted around 0.06% to the eASLRB (in volume of charaters). 99.94% is unch.

Much more could be introduced to further improve the game.

Some rule sections getting no love from scenario designers could be recast and/or simplified.

Some rules could be added in a targeted manner to improve fun, for instance the repair-any-time rule.

With the eASLRB, the changes could be introduced in a easy and continuous manner.