$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 127.48

7,555 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
47.6% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
30 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Advanced Squad Leader» Forums » Rules

Subject: Tank trying to overrun and go HD on slope at the same time. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
mbmbmbmbmb
This cropped up during a game yesterday - an AFV on a level 1 hill moved into the slope hex of the hill and wanted to try to go hull down but was also attempting to overrun an infantry squad (already broken) in the same hex.

How does this work through - is it possible? Does the AFV spend the HD manoeuvre MF's before the overrun or after? Does it get HD (if successful) against defensive fire it takes in the hex?

Thanks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Tewksbury
United States
Ashburnham
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It's an interesting question and I can certainly think of good reasons for doing so.

The question in my mind is the timing. Since OVR is a form of Bounding First Fire, and you declare the MP expenditure for the OVR as you enter the hex, could you then also add in the extra 2 MPs for the HD attempt? Which would get resolved first?

So I look at the ASOP and I think I find the answer. "During the Mph" your AFV MAY declare OVR attack; MAY Attempt HD Maneuver. (it lists it in that order too)

So after resolving your OVR, I think you can then do your HD Attempt. However, you have to add in the extra 2 MP for the HD attempt before entering the enemy's hex. e.g. AFV with 20 MPs would expend 4 MPs for the OVR +2 MP for the HD attempt, for a total of 6 as it moves into that hex. Then, resolve the OVR, resolve the HD attempt and then must stop per D4.22..regardless of the outcome of the HD Maneuver Attempt, the vehicle must then immediately end its MPh by expending a Stop MP if still Mobile.

The MPs are spent simultaneously and before any DFF against the AFV.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelus Seniores
Belgium
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
realistically, it seems weird to do both at the same time;
with overrun you are driving into a position to eliminate the target effectively
with hd you are maneuvring to put your vehicle in a specific spot to reduce incoming fire
as such performing both maneuvers at the same time seems counterintuitive, you would have to be really lucky that its the same position that allows you to do both together, ovr is more likely to require intensive driving while hd needs careful driving.

i feel you should make a choice either ovr or the hd maneuver but not both.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
mbmbmbmbmb
Angelus - I agree it seems a little unrealistic to me as well, but if the rule-book allows it, or at least doesn't specifically disallow it, then you have to go with the rule-book as if you don't that is the way madness lies.

Chuck - thanks for the reply. The timing still looks a little awkward. The AFV is vulnerable to defensive first fire before the OVR happens, but a successful HD attempt means the DFF would be subject to the HD status - so, the HD attempt has to happen first before the OVR which only happens if you survive the DFF. This all assumes the AFV can do both at the same time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
domus_ludorum wrote:
..The timing still looks a little awkward. The AFV is vulnerable to defensive first fire before the OVR happens, but a successful HD attempt means the DFF would be subject to the HD status - so, the HD attempt has to happen first before the OVR which only happens if you survive the DFF. This all assumes the AFV can do both at the same time.

Even if the vehicles is knocked out the OVR is happens, albeit at half FP.

But even so I think that the HD determination dr is made before the OVR is resolved - strange (IMO) as that might be.

D4.22:
"...Any Defensive First Fire prompted by a HD Maneuver MP expenditure must await the outcome of the HD determination dr before being resolved...."

On the other hand D7.1 says:
"...instead, the OVR is resolved on the IFT immediately after the MP expenditure..."

I'd send this Q&A to MMP.


Personally I would not mind errata/change disallowing a HD mnvr while there are Known Enemy units in the same Location.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools

I'll start by declaring that I'm not an ASL player, but do play SL. I'm not familiar with the specific details of either of these maneuvers as ASL lays them out, but to me this is like dealing with a bear by choosing to both jump up and down, aggressively shouting and waving your arms, and hiding behind a boulder. A agree with Angelus, but it seems more than just counterintuitive.
I get that the game wants you to spend all your MPs as you enter a hex, but if you want to be able to do both then I would think you would need to conduct the overrun, resolve it, then attempt the HD.
As far as defensive fire, it seems that any fire at the AFV could be conducted at the AFV while it's moving (conducting its overrun).
With all of these complications, I would suggest that a HD attempt is not possible in a hex, in the same phase, where an OVR is attempted.

I agree that a question to MMP would be a good idea.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russell D
United Kingdom
Ewell
Surrey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I was Gordon's (OP's) opponent, and we did allow it, though if I remember correctly my DFF destroyed the tank so HD ended up being academic. I think it's impossible fully to follow the rules for both HD and OVR, because they require DFF to take place in mutually contradictory places. In which case by E.2, we have to follow the higher alphanumeric rule, i.e. D7.1 trumps D4.22. So the DFF takes place as permitted by the OVR rules, that is, during the OVR and before the HD attempt. If the AFV survives and HD is successful, the AFV still gets the benefit of HD for any subsequent fire.

I would also be in favour of an errata saying this is impossible, but as the rules currently are the above seems to me the best reading.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Tewksbury
United States
Ashburnham
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the order of operations given current rules would be:

1- AFV player declares the HD and the OVR and the total MP's to be expended in the hex he's going into
2- resolve HD Attempt
3- defensive first fire from outside the hex
4- resolve OVR

Convoluted? A wee bit
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I was wondering if I was missing something, and thought that these would be discrete, separate expenditures, until I had a closer look:

There are four things happening as the AFV enters the hex:

* It's expending MP to enter the Location.

* It's expending MP to perform an OVR.

Per D7.1, these are a combined expenditure, unless all of the enemy units in the hex are unknown (A12.41) (which was obviously not the case here, since the enemy unit was broken).

* It's expending 2 additional MP to perform a HD Maneuver attempt.

D4.22 makes it clear that these are spent as additional MP when entering the Location. So it's actually combined with the above.

* Finally it's expending a MP to stop (if able) (required by the HD Maneuver attempt). This is definitely a discrete, separate expenditure, but doesn't answer the question of the timing of the other events.

Since all Defensive First Fire must await the outcome of the HD attempt, and the resolution of the OVR must await the outcome of any DFF attacks, and the MP for the HD attempt and the OVR are simultaneous with the entry of the hex, then it seems to me that the rules are crystal clear: roll for the HD attempt, resolve any DFF attacks, resolve the OVR (which as noted, will still happen even if the vehicle has been eliminated; D7.11). Then, finally, assuming the vehicle has not already been immobilised, it expends a MP to stop. If it still has MP available, it must then expend them either in Delay or further movement. and ends its MPh.

I don't see any need for a Q to MMP. The situation is a little convoluted, but it doesn't throw up any questions that the rules can't already answer.

Note that if the enemy unit was unknown, the sequence would be different. The entry of the Location and the HD attempt are still a combined expenditure, and are still resolved first (because of the no-DFF-until-HD-attempt-completed rule). Then the enemy unit must either drop its concealment voluntarily or take a PAATC (unless exempt) (because that's done instantly per A12.41; I guess that means it must happen before any DFF). Then the vehicle must expend the Stop MP (D4.22 says it's immediate), and only then (after any DFF provoked by the Stop MP) does it decide whether it will declare an OVR or not (and if so, that is then a separate MP expenditure, which of course may provoke further DFF).

11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Tewksbury
United States
Ashburnham
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Tank trying to overrun and go HD on slope at the same time
all good points Bruce - agreed

except the Stop MP ends the AFV's Mph - has to delay out and couldn't restart and do something else in that Mph.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools

OK, the rules seem pretty clear on how to go about resolving that, and if you're happy with the way that happens then I'd say you've got a resolution--especially if you want to have a consistent explanation to take to others you may be playing the game with.
But when I think about what's being modelled here, my suspension of disbelief gets broken, and I have to take it in for repair. I can't fire at that tank spending a long time making a big loud noise and lots of smoke until AFTER it's done all that and gets to hide behind something!?shake

It is quite possible they didn't think about this combination occurring, and that it didn't come up in playtesting.
Just sayin'.

Wonder how often it even happens.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
mbmbmbmbmb
Bruce - thanks - that looks like it all makes sense/is consistent.

Russell - I'm pretty sure it's what we actually did as well as I remember I rolled for HD and made it, and placed the counter and it was your final DFF shot that destroyed the tank with a turret shot. What we didn't do was do a half FP OVR attack.

Tanik - I can just about see what this represents - the tank is heading towards the crest of the slope and the driver/tank-cmdr identifies a good spot to head for, where they think the slope will give it some cover from below and it heads there all guns blazing at the enemy infantry.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin REEVE
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see what the situation has to do with slopes.
It is just about gaining HD on a hill.
Or did I miss something?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
ctewks wrote:
I think the order of operations given current rules would be:

1- AFV player declares the HD and the OVR and the total MP's to be expended in the hex he's going into
2- resolve HD Attempt
3- defensive first fire from outside the hex
4- resolve OVR

Convoluted? A wee bit

#3 - DFF from within hex is also allowed before the OVR is resolved. Not Reaction Fire though.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools

domus_ludorum wrote:


Tanik - I can just about see what this represents - the tank is heading towards the crest of the slope and the driver/tank-cmdr identifies a good spot to head for, where they think the slope will give it some cover from below and it heads there all guns blazing at the enemy infantry.


I get that picture. My issue is that the bulk of the tank's time and activity in that hex is spent overrunning the infantry, but this doesn't allow for DF.
It's like the Panzerbush complaint. Tanks running around all over the place in the open, but because they end their turn in the woods you can't target them.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Stewart
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
It's sooo Hot out here...
mbmbmbmbmb
Great question.

Since the MP is EXTRA and not separate, it's simply part of the OVR MP expenditure.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
ctewks wrote:
except the Stop MP ends the AFV's Mph - has to delay out and couldn't restart and do something else in that Mph.


You're absolutely correct -- I've amended my original post. I'm not sure that it "delays out" though, since its MPh is immediately ended - expending Delay MP implies that its MPh is still in progress. The provisions of D8.5 only apply to vehicles that are "bogged/Immobilized" (even though those conditions will also "immediately" end the vehicle's MPh!).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
tanik wrote:
My issue is that the bulk of the tank's time and activity in that hex is spent overrunning the infantry, but this doesn't allow for DF.


Well, perhaps if you were an ASL player, you'd understand that expending more MP performing an action = more opportunities for the defender to fire.

That being said, expending MP is supposed to represent the passing of time. Most of the time it does this just fine. Nevertheless, it is perfectly true that one of the weaknesses of the vehicle simulation aspects of ASL is that it does not portray vehicle speed at all well (especially when performing proportional calculations, like an OVR). Without a complete overhaul of the ASL vehicle system, which I doubt very many players would be in favour of, I don't see that this will ever change.

For example: the slowest AFV in the game is the FT-17, with 5 MP (and it can't even get the 1/2 MP rate on roads). This means that an FT-17 performing an OVR must expend a minimum of 1 MP to enter the hex plus an additional 2 MP (5/4 FRU), for a total of 3 MP. Any units able to attack the FT-17 as it is doing this maneuver could attack up to 3 times.

The fastest tracked AFV in the game is (I believe) the M18 GMC, with 24 MP. It has no problem using the road rate when CE -- and since it's open-topped, that will be most of the time. So the least expensive (in terms of MP) OVR attack that it could make would be 1/2 to enter the hex via a road, plus an additional 24/4 = 6 MP, or a total of 6.5 MP. Any units able to attack the M18 as it is doing this could attack up to 6 times.

So, if we say expending MP is a measure of the passing of time, then the M18 is actually penalised for being nearly 5 times faster than the FT-17, since the OVR takes twice as long!

More simply, we can see that pure speed is also not taken into account when firing at a moving vehicle: an FT-17 crossing 5 open ground hexes will expend 1 MP per hex and can be fired at 5 times. The M18 zooming across the same terrain also expends 1 MP per hex to do so and can similarly be fired at 5 times!

If you're looking for "absolute realism", then this cannot be considered as anything other than a failure in ASL. Just as well, then, that ASL is not sold as a simulation, but rather as a game. ASL does, in fact, simulate many aspects of WW2 warfare tolerably well. We forgive it for its weaknesses because its strengths are unmatched by any other game that I am aware of. Many have tried ....

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools

BruceP wrote:
tanik wrote:
My issue is that the bulk of the tank's time and activity in that hex is spent overrunning the infantry, but this doesn't allow for DF.


Well, perhaps if you were an ASL player, you'd understand that expending more MP performing an action = more opportunities for the defender to fire.

I understand very well how the system works. What I don't know are the intricacies of ASL and how they differ from SL-GI.
But I must not be stating my position very well, because your statement is precisely my point.
The tank is spending more time with its overrun in the hex but the enemy is not allowed to target it performing this maneuver. Despite all this lengthy, attention-grabbing activity, the tank cannot be targeted until after it is (potentially) hull down.
This doesn't work for me, and the fix is easy. Allow DF before the tank performs the HD maneuver.
What seems to be creating the problem is the rules insistence that all MPs being spent in a hex must be spent all at once, therefore no DF is allowed until all the MPs have been spent in any one hex. I understand how this simplifies rules, because there are many examples of where movement expenditures could be divided up for DF, potentially creating a few nightmares for rulebook writers.

BruceP wrote:

If you're looking for "absolute realism", then this cannot be considered as anything other than a failure in ASL. Just as well, then, that ASL is not sold as a simulation, but rather as a game. ASL does, in fact, simulate many aspects of WW2 warfare tolerably well. We forgive it for its weaknesses because its strengths are unmatched by any other game that I am aware of. Many have tried ....



This is a pet peeve of mine. A simulation, by definition, is a model or representation. I'd rather we described games as good or poor simulations, but all wargames are simlulations. I would say ASL is a game sold as a simulation. And, of course it has issues. There is no way to create a playable war game that doesn't do something imperfectly.
However, I am in complete agreement with you that it lies at the 'Great' end of the continuum--well, maybe I'm a little out of line there as I have only played its little brother, but it's so great, big brother must be too.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Klas Malmstrom
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
tanik wrote:

This doesn't work for me, and the fix is easy. Allow DF before the tank performs the HD maneuver.

My "fix" would be to make a HD attempt NA while performing an OVR.

That a vehicle that is blazing away vs a close by enemy at the same time has the time to concentrate on finding a good a HD spot seems a little odd to me.

Not that I think a "fix" is in anyway needed, as this situation should be rare enough that it really (IMO, of course) is not a problem.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin REEVE
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
mbmbmbmbmb
tanik wrote:
A simulation, by definition, is a model or representation. I'd rather we described games as good or poor simulations, but all wargames are simlulations. I would say ASL is a game sold as a simulation.
I don't think that a game can be a simulation.
A game implies rather generic rules, which have to use abstractions.
One can consider that ASL or another wargame is more realist than another one.
But it is not a simulation - no more than a history book is history.

Added to that, everybody has his own idea of what reality should be and how it should be depicted by the abstractions of a game rule.
Often, a "reality argument" can be opposed by a mirror-image "reality argument".
So better abandon the illusion that ASL is a simulation and play the game with the same relaxed mind as looking at a Hollywood movie.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools

klasmalmstrom wrote:
tanik wrote:

This doesn't work for me, and the fix is easy. Allow DF before the tank performs the HD maneuver.

My "fix" would be to make a HD attempt NA while performing an OVR.


Yep, probably a better idea.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Robin wrote:
tanik wrote:
A simulation, by definition, is a model or representation. I'd rather we described games as good or poor simulations, but all wargames are simlulations. I would say ASL is a game sold as a simulation.
I don't think that a game can be a simulation.
A game implies rather generic rules, which have to use abstractions.
One can consider that ASL or another wargame is more realist than another one.
But it is not a simulation - no more than a history book is history.



One of the problems is that the word has been misused on this site for some time now. It's even used to describe a game mechanism within the database (applied to ASL, in fact). The history book analogy is a good one. Of course a book is not equal to the history it tells. It is a retelling, and some do a better job of that retelling than others. In the same way a game does not purport to be the same as the history it reflects. It is in a way, a retelling. This is the definition of simulation, which an online dictionary defines as follows;

dictionary.com wrote:

noun
1.
imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.
2.
the act or process of pretending; feigning.
3.
an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form; counterfeit; sham.
4.
Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical disorder to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective.
5.
the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose.

Number 5 is the one that is relevant here, but 1 and 2 and 3 shed some light on what is going on. 'Pretending', 'counterfeit', 'imitation'. It's an imitation, and no imitation is exactly the same as the real thing.
Robin wrote:
Added to that, everybody has his own idea of what reality should be and how it should be depicted by the abstractions of a game rule.
Often, a "reality argument" can be opposed by a mirror-image "reality argument".
So better abandon the illusion that ASL is a simulation and play the game with the same relaxed mind as looking at a Hollywood movie.

A game being a simulation gives me no illusions about how realistic it is. Some simulations are better than others, but even the best have little issues such as the one under discussion.
But ASL is definitely one of the best combat simulations.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Probst
Australia
Glen Waverley
VIC
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
tanik wrote:
and the fix is easy.


Oh, is it?

Firstly, you're assuming that there's anything that needs fixing. I don't think that there's anything that needs fixing: as I demonstrated above, the rules work just fine.

Oh, it's your personal sense of what's realistic that is raising an objection? Why should I care about that? Why should anyone care about that? That's your problem, not the game's problem. Now, if a substantial portion of the people who actually play the game on a regular basis consider something to be a real problem, that's a different matter. That's when you can start thinking about what needs to be changed to make that problem not be a problem any more.

Secondly, let's assume (for the sake of argument) that you're right, and that "something needs to be fixed". Your "easy" fix has been tested against all other relevant rules, right? Oh wait, no; you don't even know what all the relevant rules are (since, by your own admission, you have no familiarity with the ASL rules). I can assure you with the utmost sincerity that whatever knowledge of the SL rules that you possess is next to useless in determining the details of the ASL rules. Some things are almost the same; other things are radically different; and still other things cover situations that could never even arise under the SL rules.

Thirdly, there is no such thing as an "easy fix" in ASL. Even if, at the end of the day, it's determined that the only piece of errata required (for any hypothetical issue) is to change one word in one sentence, the process of determining that is very involved. That's because the rules, in total, cover a lot of ground, and often a change in one place has flow-on effects in other places, and those flow-on effects may not be at all desirable. Any proposed change has to be examined carefully before being implemented. It's never "easy".

And that's a very good thing; once you've invested the time and effort to become familiar with a game as involved as ASL, you don't want the basics of that changed willy-nilly; especially if the end result is only to make someone else (but not you) happy!

Now, if that means that you can't or won't play ASL because you just can't accept the base assumptions of the game: that's OK. You wouldn't be the first, and very likely not the last. It's a big world, and there are enough games out there to cater for all.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
BruceP wrote:
tanik wrote:
and the fix is easy.


Oh, is it?

Firstly, you're assuming that there's anything that needs fixing. I don't think that there's anything that needs fixing: as I demonstrated above, the rules work just fine.

Oh, it's your personal sense of what's realistic that is raising an objection? Why should I care about that? Why should anyone care about that? That's your problem, not the game's problem. Now, if a substantial portion of the people who actually play the game on a regular basis consider something to be a real problem, that's a different matter. That's when you can start thinking about what needs to be changed to make that problem not be a problem any more.

Secondly, let's assume (for the sake of argument) that you're right, and that "something needs to be fixed". Your "easy" fix has been tested against all other relevant rules, right? Oh wait, no; you don't even know what all the relevant rules are (since, by your own admission, you have no familiarity with the ASL rules). I can assure you with the utmost sincerity that whatever knowledge of the SL rules that you possess is next to useless in determining the details of the ASL rules. Some things are almost the same; other things are radically different; and still other things cover situations that could never even arise under the SL rules.

Thirdly, there is no such thing as an "easy fix" in ASL. Even if, at the end of the day, it's determined that the only piece of errata required (for any hypothetical issue) is to change one word in one sentence, the process of determining that is very involved. That's because the rules, in total, cover a lot of ground, and often a change in one place has flow-on effects in other places, and those flow-on effects may not be at all desirable. Any proposed change has to be examined carefully before being implemented. It's never "easy".

And that's a very good thing; once you've invested the time and effort to become familiar with a game as involved as ASL, you don't want the basics of that changed willy-nilly; especially if the end result is only to make someone else (but not you) happy!

Now, if that means that you can't or won't play ASL because you just can't accept the base assumptions of the game: that's OK. You wouldn't be the first, and very likely not the last. It's a big world, and there are enough games out there to cater for all.


Well excuuuuse me!
I didn't realize I had to belong to your cult before I could offer comments on your forum. I'm such an idiot!
I accepted your explanation of the rules, but what I object to is the artificial--no sorry, MY depiction of the artificiality of the situation (because nobody else expressed any issues with that). I hope you're happy playing the rules of ASL. I don't want to play rules. I want to play a game, and when the picture in my head doesn't work, yep--like an idiot I just jump in and change things without any thought whatsoever, as evidenced here. Who said you or anybody else has to follow those changes? I don't expect anybody else to think like me. You might find life is a little less stressful that way.
It's responses like this that contribute to the poor image that the ASL community garners among others. If this is representative of the ASL community, I can't imagine why I would want to belong, but I'm going to assume it's not.
Sheesh!

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.