From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 12:24:00 EDT Subject: Re: WE MARCH >> What is sad is that we are quick to criticize to death AH for a >> small amount of errors, yet, we ignore those found in the zines. Not! _On All Fronts_ has received mucho criticism from many of us, and for a number of good and bad reasons. And yes, I do/did subscribe, and yes, I've played many of their earlier scenarios - those from its "heyday." Jeff ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 07:37:51 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Spray Fire K/1 Result Don: If I'd gotten off my butt and opened my ASLRB, we wouldn't have had to post this question to the net; according to the ANNUAL '93b Q&A you treat the multi-location targets of a spraying-fire/cannister attack as one big stack for Random Selection purposes (i.e. one RS roll only). Brent ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 10:03:15 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: BAZ45 and WP Warren asks about BAZ and Table C4. As he points out, BAZ fire on their own special TH Table. Therefore, they do not use the C3 TO HIT TABLE nor the C4 modifications to it. AFAIK, *all* ordnance that does use the C3 TABLE also uses the C4 modifications. >In the situation at hand, the BAZ45 is firing WP at a range of 5 (TH of 4) >at units occupying a stone building. One of the units is concealed but >the others are unconcealed. What is the final TH for firing WP? For firing WP, DRMs are +2 for the concealed unit and 0 for the others, so you would hit with an Original 2 or an Original 4 respectively. For firing HEAT, DRMs are +5 for the concealed unit and +3 for the others, requiring Improbable Hit for either. It does pay to get in the habit of keeping your DRMs separate from your Base/Modified TH #s. Just like on the IFT you take 4 plus 2 shots (for example), so in the TH process do you also take 4 plus 2 shots (WP at the concealed unit above). My friend Steve Petersen even Rallies this (correct) way. Instead of saying that he needs a 4 to Rally a DM 666 in Woods, he calls it an 8 plus 4 attempt. Makes sense and works well. ....Perry ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:04:12 -0500 From: cdf1@psu.edu (Carl D. Fago) Subject: Re: Spray Fire K/1 Result Brent P said... >If I'd gotten off my butt and opened my ASLRB, we wouldn't have had to >post this question to the net; according to the ANNUAL '93b Q&A you treat >the multi-location targets of a spraying-fire/cannister attack as one big >stack for Random Selection purposes (i.e. one RS roll only). Well, I didn't check the Q&A (again). The rule was pretty clear to me so I didn't bother checking. To me this is a rules modification by Q&A. :-( ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 11:06:05 CST From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com Subject: Re: BAZ45 and WP > From pcocke@ssa.gov Wed Dec 14 10:48:44 1994 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 10:03:15 EST > From: "Cocke, Perry" > Encoding: 25 Text > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: Re: BAZ45 and WP > Content-Length: 1281 > > > Warren asks about BAZ and Table C4. As he points out, BAZ fire on their own > special TH Table. Therefore, they do not use the C3 TO HIT TABLE nor the C4 > modifications to it. AFAIK, *all* ordnance that does use the C3 TABLE > also uses the C4 modifications. > > >In the situation at hand, the BAZ45 is firing WP at a range of 5 (TH of 4) > >at units occupying a stone building. One of the units is concealed but > >the others are unconcealed. What is the final TH for firing WP? > > For firing WP, DRMs are +2 for the concealed unit and 0 for the > others, so you would hit with an Original 2 or an Original 4 > respectively. For firing HEAT, DRMs are +5 for the concealed unit and > +3 for the others, requiring Improbable Hit for either. > But don't they also get the +2 TH DRM for firing smoke, making a hit on an original 4 or 6, respectively? > It does pay to get in the habit of keeping your DRMs separate from > your Base/Modified TH #s. Just like on the IFT you take 4 plus 2 > shots (for example), so in the TH process do you also take 4 plus 2 > shots (WP at the concealed unit above). > > My friend Steve Petersen even Rallies this (correct) way. Instead of > saying that he needs a 4 to Rally a DM 666 in Woods, he calls it an 8 > plus 4 attempt. Makes sense and works well. > > ....Perry > > ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga x1768) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 09:52:13 -0800 Subject: Re: BAZ45 and WP Warren asked: > >In the situation at hand, the BAZ45 is firing WP at a range of 5 (TH of 4) > >at units occupying a stone building. One of the units is concealed but > >the others are unconcealed. What is the final TH for firing WP? Then, Perry said: > > For firing WP, DRMs are +2 for the concealed unit and 0 for the > others, so you would hit with an Original 2 or an Original 4 > respectively. For firing HEAT, DRMs are +5 for the concealed unit and > +3 for the others, requiring Improbable Hit for either. So, how do you resolve it if the non-concealed unit is hit with WP and the concealed unit is not? Do they both take the WP MC? Just the non-concealed unit? What? Dade ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 13:44:29 EDT Subject: Re: More stupid questions >> (2) Wherein is it written that a MMC with an enemy AFV in the same hex >> cannot DF, or DFF at targets out of its hex? [stuff deleted] > > This comes from the TPBF rules (A7.21). It has been a lively debate > whather a BU AFV is a legal target, but that's where it's coming from. The TPBF rules state that the Defender must attack any _infantry/cavalry_ in its hex with TPBF. Its the Target Selection rules from A7.121(?) that state that any enemy _unit_ entering the Defender's location must be attacked.... Since higher numbered rules take precedence over lower numbered rules, the implication is that _infantry/cavalry_ are the only enemy that can force TPBF. If such is the case then the sleaze tactic using an AFV shouldn't be allowed. On the other hand, it makes some sense that a Defender with an enemy in its hex wouldn't fire out of its hex. Also the QA for infantry surrendering as a stack or individually has an apparent contradiction. Why is this important (interrogation?)? What's the resolution of the contradiction? A20.21 When a stack of several broken units is forced to surrender by the RtPh method, do the units in the stack surrender one at a time or do all the units surrender simultaneously? A. One at a time. Note that a stack of broken units cannot rout _as_a_stack_ (A10.5). {RM} A20.21 When a stack of units must surrender during the RtPh, do they do so simultaneously or one unit at a time? A. Simultaneously, and they must be accepted or rejected as a stack. {93b} Cheers, Jeff jeff@back.vims.edu ( ) ( ) Dr. Jeffrey Shields (^ ^) (^ ^) Virginia Institute of Marine Science (^) . . (^) Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA \\ 0 | | 0 // \\__\\|}{|//__// \^ ^^ ^/ <====\^ ( ) ^/====> <====\^ ^/====> <====\ /====> ()===(____)===() ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 11:18:15 MST From: donnh@phx.sectel.mot.com (don hancock) Subject: Re: Spray Fire K/1 Result Carl said... > Brent P said... > > >If I'd gotten off my butt and opened my ASLRB, we wouldn't have had to > >post this question to the net; according to the ANNUAL '93b Q&A you treat > >the multi-location targets of a spraying-fire/cannister attack as one big > >stack for Random Selection purposes (i.e. one RS roll only). > > Well, I didn't check the Q&A (again). The rule was pretty clear to me so I > didn't bother checking. To me this is a rules modification by Q&A. :-( > It seems strange to me. Note that it is specific to KIA and Open Ground. :-\ Here it is: A9.5 & C8.4 If Spraying Fire (regardless of its source) or canister used vs > one Open Ground Location yields a 1KIA result, does the 1KIA apply separately in each such Location? A. No, use Random Selection once for all targets eligible to receive the 1KIA in those Locations. (Each such target that Random Selection exempts from the 1KIA suffers a break result.) {93b} So, why the special case for KIA in Open Ground? What this does is effectively reduce the affects of fire against units in Open Ground. What's the point? I don't get it. Don Hancock ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 14:28:26 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: More stupid questions Hi guys, >>> (2) Wherein is it written that a MMC with an enemy AFV in the same hex >>> cannot DF, or DFF at targets out of its hex? [stuff deleted] >> This comes from the TPBF rules (A7.21). It has been a lively debate >> whather a BU AFV is a legal target, but that's where it's coming from. Jeff said: >The TPBF rules state that the Defender must attack any _infantry/cavalry_ >in its hex with TPBF. Its the Target Selection rules from A7.121(?) that >state that any enemy _unit_ entering the Defender's location must be >attacked.... Since higher numbered rules take precedence over lower >numbered rules, the implication is that _infantry/cavalry_ are the only >enemy that can force TPBF. If such is the case then the sleaze tactic >using an AFV shouldn't be allowed. On the other hand, it makes some sense >that a Defender with an enemy in its hex wouldn't fire out of its hex. It's not the rule that says when you _must_ TPBF that's important, it's the rule that says Infantry _eligible_ (not necessarily forced) to TPBF can't fire outside its hex that matters here. Thus the higher-numbered rule here does not directly contradict the lower-numbered rule. The argument turns on whether a BU AFV is an eligible target for TPBF, even though such fire will not affect it. The interpretation that seems most popular is that such fire _is_ allowed, and this a BU AFV prevents enemy fire out of its Location, but it's Q&A bait. Clearly, a CE AFV in one's Location prevents fire out, since you definitely _can_ TBPF against it, even though you're not required to do so. >Also the QA for infantry surrendering as a stack or individually has an >apparent contradiction. Why is this important (interrogation?)? What's >the resolution of the contradiction? >A20.21 When a stack of several broken units is forced to > surrender by the RtPh method, do the units in the stack > surrender one at a time or do all the units surrender > simultaneously? A. One at a time. Note that a stack of > broken units cannot rout _as_a_stack_ (A10.5). {RM} >A20.21 When a stack of units must surrender during the RtPh, do > they do so simultaneously or one unit at a time? A. > Simultaneously, and they must be accepted or rejected as a > stack. {93b} Looks like Mac changed his mind. The 93b answer is (a) published and (b) more recent, so that's the one to use. Bas should probably delete the older answer to the same question from the Q&A file. (I got nailed with this one in an AGWAV, after reading the first answer and stopping.) Dave Ripton ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:33:42 -0700 (MST) From: Darren James Gour Subject: Re: BAZ45 and WP On Wed, 14 Dec 1994, Dade Cariaga x1768 wrote: (By the way, Hi Dade!) > > Warren asked: > > >In the situation at hand, the BAZ45 is firing WP at a range of 5 (TH of 4) > > >at units occupying a stone building. One of the units is concealed but > > >the others are unconcealed. What is the final TH for firing WP? > > Then, Perry said: > > > > For firing WP, DRMs are +2 for the concealed unit and 0 for the > > others, so you would hit with an Original 2 or an Original 4 > > respectively. For firing HEAT, DRMs are +5 for the concealed unit and > > +3 for the others, requiring Improbable Hit for either. > > So, how do you resolve it if the non-concealed unit is hit with WP and the > concealed unit is not? Do they both take the WP MC? Just the non-concealed > unit? What? > > Dade > I too am interested in the answer. It seems logical that everyone should take it as it is 5/8 and in the HEX, but then.... Another question about firing WP from Baz. Does the target still have to be in a building or behind a wall? This has vexed us at the club more than once I think as we can find nothing either way (if I remember correctly - or maybe we resolved this long ago...??) ? Thanks guys, Darren ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:06:05 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: Spray Fire K/1 Result Don: I think the question is worded that way (OG and 1KIA) because that was the game situation that generated the submission of the question. I simply would've asked something like: Q. When more than one location receives the same K/#KIA result from a spraying fire/cannister attack do you make: 1. one RS roll for all of the units 2. one RS roll to determine the affected location(s) followed by another RS roll for each affected location 3. separate RS rolls for each location? I think TAHGC answer would've been "1." given the answer the listed in the ANNUAL '93b. Brent ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 15:16:22 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Re: Tavronitis Bridge Tom writes... >Latest Record has the Brits winning Tav Bridge by a 13-4 margin, which >may indicate a bit of imbalance. This is grievous because it's an >interesting small scenario that automatically gets at least 4 stars in >my book because of the Gliders. Um, you give a scenario four stars for gliders but won't play a desert scenario? > >So what could be done to help the Germans here? The German play balance >of only allowing one MMC (+SMC/SW) to set up in the riverbed doesn't >seem real helpful; I don't imagine the Brits would set up more there Typical of some AH balances, that one is pretty lame. What is it, Agony of Doom, which has a balance which MAY never help since all it does is alter a reinforcement dr? Imagine giving the balance and then having it null/void? What's the point? I'm not a fan of the ABS, but at least it lets the scenarios be balanced ONCE players know about a scenario. >anyway. > >Increasing game length by one-half or one full turn? Giving the >Fallschirmjagers a 75mm RCL? The Fallschirmjagers didn't have RCL on the gliders. You may as well give 'em phasers and photon torpedos. 8) The RCL landed later on JU 52s with the mountain division. Shame, really, WHERE ARE THE RCL SCENARIOS? Seriously, this one is tough to balance due to its size and the vulnerability of the Krauts in the gliders. I'd add another squad or squad and a half for the Nazi's and try it from there. The problem is, this may not be historical either. I don't have the scenario in front of me, but I think the Germans (if I remember) are pretty close to maxed out on "historical" size. The real problem is that the Tavronitis river area doesn't look at all like it does in the scenario. It certainly isn't well portrayed by board 8. Where the hell did all those big buildings come from? A whole level for the dry stream bed? The cliffs should still be in place but I'd dump the houses and make the levels more like KGP slopes. THEN it'd be coming "close" to realistic. Of course, this is just based on what I've read and seen, not any arcane knowledge that AH may have stumbled across in the course of their extensive historical research! 8) (Just kidding, I'm sure this scenario is how it is due to the limits of our boardset. I'm really looking forward to the board/ scenario kits AH plans on doing, WE NEED MORE BOARDS!!!) Who knows, maybe now that I've got the vehicle it is time to dust off the Crete research papers?... Brian > >Tom ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 13:25:11 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: Re: BAZ45 and WP Smokers: [snip] > > So, how do you resolve it if the non-concealed unit is hit with WP and the > > concealed unit is not? Do they both take the WP MC? Just the non-concealed > > unit? What? Sans ASLRB I'd say everybody takes it but the "?" units only lose "?" if they fail the MC. I'm probably wrong, though and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it until I try this in a game... [snip] > > I too am interested in the answer. It seems logical that everyone should > take it as it is 5/8 and in the HEX, but then.... > > Another question about firing WP from Baz. Does the target still have to > be in a building or behind a wall? This has vexed us at the club more > than once I think as we can find nothing either way (if I remember > correctly - or maybe we resolved this long ago...??) ? I'm purdy-durn-sure that the building/wall limitation only applies to HEAT, not SMOKE. Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 16:41:33 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Re: Baz45 and WP I've not been following the discussion, but how's this... If you shoot WP into a hex with ? unit and unconcealed unit, and you only "hit" the unconcealed unit, doesn't that affect just the unconcealed unit? Is chapter C "higher" than chapter A? I dont' have the quotes, but under AREA fire I'm sure there is something to this effect. I'd say that the concealed guy does not suffer the effects of WP and keeps his concealment. I sure hope this was the question. 8) Bran (oops, Brian) ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 17:03:15 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Just for grins Guys, Just to stir up some discussion, and for grins, and possibly other things... How much would the average ASL gamer pay for a module containing new scenarios (8 to 10), and "half-maps" about 1/2 the size of a KGP map sheet. Say two maps? Is there any interest in "strategic" asl? I've described this before. You have a "battle map" which shows an area, say Holland. On that map are many boxes and lines and circles and stuff which represent an area where a single ASL scenario would be played. The Germans get some crap units, and a SS Panzer Division near Arnhem, the Allies get three rough and tumble air divisions and 30 Corps. Of course, the Axis and Allies get an ASL "portion" of these units, otherwise we'd make AH rich by buying more counters! 8) Anyways, the Germans deploy their company sized units and the Allies plan their drop. Day one. Resolve several hundred ASL scenarios. Day n. If then goto day one. Of course, Market Garden may be to large a topic for this. I have o thers in mind. Anyways, refit phases allow for movement between boxes based on blocking forces in the box, movement between boxes based on terrain, ... Kinda ASL meets A House Divided (or insert your favorite area movement game). Oh yeah, it would all be historical. 8) Actually, I could do this now. Easily, although it would take quite a while to balance, if I could use boards 1-41. I've got most of the details worked out in my head, and putting 'em to paper is pretty easy during the holiday lull at work. BUT, it 'aint very historical if you are forced to use boards 1-41. Kinda like Tactiques Kursk CG. While very cool looking (is there english translations for this Jean-luc?), it isn't RB. I kinda feel like I could have taken RB's map and not gotten lost in Stalingrad. That certainly isn't the case with boards 1-41. 'nuff rambling, give me some feedback. Brian ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 14:43:56 EST From: "Cocke, Perry" Subject: Re: BAZ45 and WP Matt asks: >But don't they also get the +2 TH DRM for firing smoke, making a hit on an >original 4 or 6, respectively? The +2 for Smoke within 12 hexes is a C4 modification to the C3 TO HIT TABLE and so does not apply to the BAZ. Dade asks: >So, how do you resolve it if the non-concealed unit is hit with WP and the >concealed unit is not? Do they both take the WP MC? Just the non-concealed >unit? What? I don't know off the top of my head. I'm afraid I was not thinking about this ramification of Warren's original question. This sounds like a familiar debate. Was there any resolution previously? ....Perry ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 17:19:53 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: Re: Tavronitis Bridge Nadir writes... >Brian expounds: >> >> Who knows, maybe now that I've got the vehicle it is time to dust off the >> Crete research papers?... > >Oh sure, just teeeeeease us, Brian! :P I'll just bust if I don't hear a >release date (hell, even an AH-style release date!) for this pretty damn >soon. =) > Ok, Ok, I'll give a release date for my Crete HASL module. December. There, you got it out of me. 8) Brian ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:38:12 -0700 (MST) From: "Tim S. Hundsdorfer" Subject: RE: Baz45 and WP Can you fire WP at a unit? Wouldn't it (as smoke) have to be fired as area target type at the HEX? Ergo, the BAZ uses the hit table on the back to hit the hex and all units are affected equally with a NMC (assuming the WP is placed successfully?) Why would the use of a BAZ negate the prohibition of direct firing smoke? [Other than the use of a different to hit table, of course.] Have I had too much >Bran ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 14:06:16 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Tavronitis Bridge Brian writes: > > Um, you give a scenario four stars for gliders but won't play a desert > scenario? > Heck yes. My Star DRM Chart looks like this: Gliders/Air Drop +2 stars Finns +2 OB Contains JgPz IV +1 (my favorite AFV) Somebody gets HIP +1 5-7 turns long +1 Uses bds 7,8,40,or41 +1 (river maps, as long as there's bridges) Partisans with SSR +1 (sewer movement, fanaticism, MOL, oh my!) SAN of 5 or more +1 Record sez "balanced" +1 (only with enough statistics, of course) French +1 Overpowering 10-3 -1 (no fun when he rules the field) Overpowering Gun/OBA -1 Reinforcement on a dr -1 (too luck-dependent) Boring tactics -2 (Shklov's Labors Lost, anyone?) 10 turns or more -2 High unit density -2 (no good for pbem) Desert -4 Night Rules -50 (sorry JR, don't know 'em yet) In reality, it's not that I WON'T play a desert scenario, it's just that I'm having too much fun with ETO and there's always better stuff to do than inflict the desert rules on my cranium yet again. > > The Fallschirmjagers didn't have RCL on the gliders. You may as well > give 'em phasers and photon torpedos. 8) The RCL landed later on JU > 52s with the mountain division. Shame, really, WHERE ARE THE RCL > SCENARIOS? > Gee I dunno, maybe somebody should notify the editors of one of the fanzines :-) Actually, this is a good chance to give an attaboy to Backblast for publishing that scenario that uses the Ammo Cannisters for the early-war German paras. I wondered if those rules would ever get used. Talk about a tense situation; landing onboard with unarmed units! > > The problem is, this may not be historical either. I don't have the > scenario in front of me, but I think the Germans (if I remember) are > pretty close to maxed out on "historical" size. Um, 9 468's if I recall. > I'm really looking forward to the board/scenario kits AH plans on > doing, WE NEED MORE BOARDS!!!) Indeed. Along the lines of boards 40 and 41. Interesting boards. Boards that whisper in your ear, "Play with me." > > Who knows, maybe now that I've got the vehicle it is time to dust off > the Crete research papers?... > What, your wife let you use the VW Minibus? You must be out of the doghouse :-) Like I said before, a HASL Crete module would be fun fun fun, but I'm weird that way. Tom ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 17:47:07 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Just for grins Sounds good. Will there be Gliders and 75 RCLs? ***************************** Paul F. Ferraro Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ***************************** ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:53:44 -0700 (MST) From: Bill Stevens Subject: Row Houses Are row houses considered one building for VC purposes unless specified by SSR?This is in regard to the scenario CATS KILL from CRITICAL HIT (Canadian vs. the SS in Normandy at Night 6 Pz. V etc. etc.) Thanks Bill ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:55:48 -0700 (MST) From: Bill Stevens Subject: Patton's Prayers Has anyone played the Critical Hit sceneario called Patton's Prayers? It is a tournament size scenario and I was woundering if the germans have managed to win any games? Thanks, Bill ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 17:56:21 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Re: Tavronitis Bridge > Ok, Ok, I'll give a release date for my Crete HASL module. December. > There, you got it out of me. 8) '95, right? ----- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 16:07:02 -0700 (MST) From: Bill Stevens Subject: ASL FIREFIGHT IN DENVER COLORADO COME ONE COME ALL TO THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION'S ONLY ASL TOURNAMNET. JANUARY 14, 1995 IN DENVER, COLORADO. 9:00 AM $5.00 AND TWO CANS OF FOOD FOR THE HOMELESS. CONTACT W.R. STEVENS AT wrsteven@carbon.cudenver.edu FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THIS TOURNAMNENT IS THE BEST IN THE WEST!!!! BYE, BILL ----- From: nadir@netcom.com (Nadir A. El Farra) Subject: Re: Just for grins Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 20:35:30 -0800 (PST) Forwarded message: > From brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov Wed Dec 14 14:41:33 1994 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 17:03:15 EST > From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) > Message-Id: <9412142203.AA05181@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov> > To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov > Subject: Just for grins > > Guys, > Just to stir up some discussion, and for grins, and possibly other > things... > > How much would the average ASL gamer pay for a module containing new > scenarios (8 to 10), and "half-maps" about 1/2 the size of a KGP map sheet. > Say two maps? I'd pay what I'm paying AH if the look and feel were 90% (perhaps even a bit less) of what they produce. That's put it in the $30-$40 range if you include counters, or $20-$30 without. (Are there enough RCL's in the current mix for Tom?) > > Is there any interest in "strategic" asl? I've described this before. > You have a "battle map" which shows an area, say Holland. On that map are > many boxes and lines and circles and stuff which represent an area where a > single ASL scenario would be played. The Germans get some crap units, and a so long as the movement system doesn't lend itself to generating similarly sized scenarios with similar objectives in each encounter - that would get old fast. If you set it up right (so many units arriving late or depleted by air attack or fate), it could get interesting. Balancing the 'area movement' game could make balancing the ASL portions pretty tough, but it is attractive. [snip]> > Anyways, the Germans deploy their company sized units and the Allies > plan their drop. > > Day one. Resolve several hundred ASL scenarios. > Day n. If then goto day one. maybe it's just me, I think you'd have to agree on either a single battle being representative of the larger conflict, or having a way to run the strategic battle separately and have the system 'kick out' two or three engagements (perhaps the most balanced ones?) for the players to run. > > Of course, Market Garden may be to large a topic for this. I have o > thers in mind. > > Anyways, refit phases allow for movement between boxes based on > blocking forces in the box, movement between boxes based on terrain, ... > > Kinda ASL meets A House Divided (or insert your favorite area movement > game). > > Oh yeah, it would all be historical. 8) > > Actually, I could do this now. Easily, although it would take quite a > while to balance, if I could use boards 1-41. I've got most of the details > worked out in my head, and putting 'em to paper is pretty easy during the > holiday lull at work. BUT, it 'aint very historical if you are forced to use > boards 1-41. Kinda like Tactiques Kursk CG. While very cool looking (is there > english translations for this Jean-luc?), it isn't RB. I think a new map would be a good selling point. AH has already proved that they'll work - more boards are just that: more boards. Big deal. A historical map lets you get right into the boots of your historical counterpart and fight the same battle. > > I kinda feel like I could have taken RB's map and not gotten lost in > Stalingrad. That certainly isn't the case with boards 1-41. well, why not start with something small - say a nifty little Battalion-level action with a map half the size of KGP and a few scenarios/rules. You could shrink wrap it (saving big bucks on the box) and prime/test the market with it. Maybe a 'starter set' for a larger product to be released later if demand is sufficient. To be brief - if the quality of the product is close to AH, it'll sell well if people know about. I think it's more of a marketing issue (and also a legal issue vis-a-vis AH's copyright). > > 'nuff rambling, give me some feedback. OK? now keep on rambling and let's see what we can do to get this thing out. As an 8-0 I can't help with the game part, but I _can_ assist on the research and perhaps the artwork if need be. -Nadir ----- Date: 14 Dec 94 23:57:42 EST From: craig cooper <74537.573@compuserve.com> Subject: Wacht Am Rhein Hey gang - Just curious: How many of you nutcases are planning on having a go at KGP I, The Road To Wiltz, etcetera on their actual 50th anniversary dates? Contemplating abandoning Xmas shopping for said purpose, craig ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:25:42 +0100 From: olav.marstokk@kjemi.uio.no Subject: Hitting with WP and Smoke I have been following the discussion about firing WP with BAZ, and there seem to be a general agreement that you add +2 to hit vs concealed units. Is this also true if you are trying to place SMOKE into an empty hex? I must admit that I have never added the +2 for concealed targets, nor have any of my opponents. I find it strange if you are to add +2, If you are trying to place a smokescreen then it would be as easy to aim at a tree or a building as aiming at people. So I think we will continue to ignore the +2 as a house rule. I also have two other questions: -Can an infantry leader direct a gun, adding his modifiers to the to hit roll ? -Can vehicular crew (and the 1-2-7 which is received in RB with HW plt.) man a gun ? (I haven't found anything which prohibits that in the rulebook) Thanks. Olav M. Olav Marstokk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Department of Chemistry University of Oslo, Norway Postbox 1033, N-0315 OSLO +47 22 85 55 94 (au travail) olav.marstokk@kjemi.uio.no Olav Marstokk Ostgaardsgate 5 0474 OSLO Norway +47 22 71 99 65 (a la maison) ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 08:01:55 -0500 From: Chuck Powers Subject: BB #1 I just wanted to let everyone know that BB #1 works great as a reference for Night Scenarios. I'm fairly new at the Night Rules, and found the charts on the back of BB #1 (along with JR's article) real helpful while playing a Night Scenario a couple a days ago. One of the few times I've found an ASL publication useful as a playing aid, except for maybe the IIFT in ASL '89. :) Chuck ----- From: "Al Boning" Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 08:33:18 EST Subject: HASL: Guadalcanal Is there any plans to produce an historical module for Guadalcanal? Is there any interest? Merry Christmas (JINGLE BELLS, jingle bells, jing.....) Al Boning ----- From: "Al Boning" Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 08:45:59 EST Subject: Re: BAZ45 and WP >Another question about firing WP from Baz. Does the target still have to >be in a building or behind a wall? The BAZ would use the area target type to effectively place the smoke and it's own to hit table to determine if it secures a hit against the infantry. Since WP is not a shaped charge (it's effectiveness is not depend on impacting a wall) it is exempt from the SCW rules. Merry Christmas (JINGLE BELLS, jingle bells, jing.....) Al Boning ----- From: "Shields, Rusty" Subject: RE: Just for grins Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 08:57:00 est >Guys, > Just to stir up some discussion, and for grins, and possibly other >things... > > How much would the average ASL gamer pay for a module containing new >scenarios (8 to 10), and "half-maps" about 1/2 the size of a KGP map sheet. >Say two maps? How much would I pay? $30. Take it or leave it. It's my final offer. Really. OK, $130. I don't care. Just sell me some new ASL stuff! Sorry, it's been a long year. Rusty (the usually quiet one) shields@ssims.nci.nih.gov ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 08:59:09 -0500 From: raines@sgllinas.chem.cmu.edu (Jim Raines) Subject: Terrain Mod'd for Rally (was BAZ45 and WP) > From: "Cocke, Perry" [stuff deleted] > My friend Steve Petersen even Rallies this (correct) way. Instead of > saying that he needs a 4 to Rally a DM 666 in Woods, he calls it an 8 > plus 4 attempt. Makes sense and works well. Hey, this brings up a question I've had for awhile: Isn't there a -1 DRM for rallying in woods, buildings, pillboxs and (something else). By the way, I agree with Perry that it is good to keep your DRM's separate. I makes things clearer in my opinion. > > ....Perry > Jim ****************************************************************************** Jim Raines, (temporary) Research Assistant Biophysics Research Division, University of Michigan raines+@cmu.edu ****************************************************************************** ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:09:29 -0500 From: loss@wpsmtp.bloomu.edu Subject: Actions in Norway A friend and I are developing a scenario based on the British raid on Vaagsoy. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to come up with a reasonable board and overlay combination to simulate a Norwegian fishing village, primarily because of the level changes. We've designed a half-board-equivalent HASL map that works, but isn't currently useable for any other scenario. I'd like some suggestions on other actions in Norway that might be able to use such a map (We've talked about the Lofoten raid, but haven't really looked into it yet). I'd also appreciate some discussion on whether there's any place for single-scenario micro-HASL modules. Also, does anyone have an elegant way of using SSRs (or anything) to simulate level changes that aren't printed on the boards? Doug Loss Cogito Eggo Sum Data Network Coordinator I think. I am a waffle. Bloomsburg University loss@husky.bloomu.edu Voice (717) 389-4797 ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 10:25:25 EDT Subject: Re: BAZ45 and WP >>Another question about firing WP from Baz. Does the target still have to >>be in a building or behind a wall? I'm sorry I haven't followed the entire argument but doesn't one use the TH chart on the back of the counter and apply all TEM or Concealment DRM as modifiers on the Morale Check? Isn't that what's stated in the ASLRB? Sans rulebook like usual.... Cheers, Jeff ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 10:32:28 EDT Subject: Re: Just for grins > Is there any interest in "strategic" asl? I've described this before. >You have a "battle map" which shows an area, say Holland. On that map are >many boxes and lines and circles and stuff which represent an area where a >single ASL scenario would be played. [stuff deleted] On All Fronts did this for a Normandy campaign. Their strategic ASL had 7 to 8 "boxes" that represented different terrains and villages. The Canuks or Pommies started in one area with the Germans in another. Each side moved a certain number of companies or battalions around the "boxes" until the enemy met. If a side was the first one to be in the box, they got to set up. If both entered at the same time, it was a meeting engagement. I don't remember how reinforcements were handled. I think I still have my copy of the campaign but I'd have to look around for it. Anybody out there play the OAF campaign? How was it? Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 08:00:55 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Serafini Subject: Re: Just for grins brian, campaign, or, as you put it, strategic, sized games have been a fetish of mine for years. actually, i first started scenarios like this before asl had come out. i actually played around with, maybe 10-15 scenarios, of two different types of mini-campaigns, one depicting the first days of barbarossa (fun for the germans, but the russians are probably not as fun) and the other dealing with the battle of the bulge. i used the unit descriptions in the back of panzer leader to create the ob's for everyone. these ob's describe the organization of german, british, and american corps/divisions/regiments/battalions in the 1944-45 time frame. a lot of the units are given in terms of panzer leader counters, but these are fairly easy to translate (5 Pzkv V's = 5 panthers, 50 men in a platoon = 5 squads, etc.). i had never got to the point where i actually came up with rules on moving units bwteen sectors, or anything like that. i kindof put a grid on some graph paper, and made up a few rules on controlling boards, reinforcements, exiting units, casualties, etc. each big unit controlled a certain frontage, and the attacker would just push along the frontage. not too creative, but it worked. i dunno, but i think games like that are pretty neat. i have never had a chance to play either kgp or rb, although i am starting an rb campaign game after the new year, (hi paul!). i guess we'll see how that goes. anyway, i wouldn't mind sharing some ideas, maybe we could come up with something cool. it would be even cooler if you could get several people to play, that way it would take a lot less time to play 100 games per simulated day. ;) wasn't there supposed to be a chapter in the asl rulebook about campaign games? i can't remember the letter, but i do know that it is there in the table of contents. maybe we could come up with our own. just some thoughts, kevin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Kevin Serafini | e-mail: | | Westinghouse Electric Corporation | serafik@h01.pgh.wec.com | | Software Technology & Development | s-mail: | | (412) 374-5041 | P.O. Box 355 | | WIN 284-5041 | Pittsburgh, PA 15230 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "All animals are created equal, although some are more equal than others." | | - George Orwell, Animal Farm | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 08:55:54 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: Re: Actions in Norway > I'd also appreciate some discussion on whether there's any place for > single-scenario micro-HASL modules. > If you mean a module(-tte?) that had one board and one scenario, I wouldn't think so. I'd say any module has to have at least 3-4 scenarios. > Also, does anyone have an elegant way of using SSRs (or anything) > to simulate level changes that aren't printed on the boards? > I've often wondered why I've never seen an SSR that turns a grainfield or forest area into a hill. Board 11 has two huge level 1 plateaus with grainfields on 'em that would be very easy to turn into level 2 hills via SSR; voila, new hill board! Heck, you can turn anything into anything else if the payoff is good enough. Tom ----- From: Klas Malmstrom Subject: New Q&A from The Hill Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 17:27:01 CET Hi, everyone Here are some new Q&A I received from Avalon Hill. Some answers are a bit strange. Klas Malmstrom ASL RULE QUESTIONS II --------------------- INDEX Accessible Is a hex Accessible even when the actual unit cannot advance into the hex (e.g. the ground Location is Fortified with a Good Order enemy squad in it, the hex is Bamboo and the unit is already CX, etc.) ? A. Yes. ADJACENT Shoudn't this rule state LOCATION rather than hex when defining if two units are ADJACENT ? A. No. CHAPTER A A.8 & Index If there are two (otherwise) ADJACENT Locations where only one of the Locations has a LOS to the other, while the reverse LOS is blocked (e.g. due to outgoing SMOKE Hindrance or Night & Illuminated Locations), are both Locations still considered ADJACENT to each other ? If no, does it mean that one unit (A) can be ADJACENT to another unit (B) while unit (B) is not ADJACENT to unit (A) ? A. Smoke hindrances are NA, but other situations can block the LOS. A4.43 & A12.141 Is dropping possesion of a SW a Concealment Loss Activity ? A. Yes. A7.352 If a HS/Crew fires a SW/GUN as Defensive First Fire and maintains ROF for that SW/GUN (and thus the SW/GUN is not marked with a First Fire counter) can it later (in the same MPh) instead fire its inherent FP as Defensive First Fire (since neither the HS/Crew or its SW/GUN is marked with a First Fire counter) ? A. No. A10.51 Can units expend more MFs than necessary to enter a hex when routing ? A. No. A10.51 This rule states that a broken unit can continue to rout after it has reached a woods/building hex if it can directly enter another building/woods hex in its next entered hex. Shouldn't it be that it can continue to rout if it can directly enter another building/woods LOCATION rather than hex ? A. No. A10.51 If a broken unit starts its RtPh ADJACENT to a Known enemy unit, is it allowed to rout to another Location ADJACENT to the same enemy unit, where the enemy unit has LOS to the broken unit, but the broken unit's LOS to the enemy unit is blocked ? A. No. A10.7,A25.31 & E11.52 A10.7 states "...may use his leadership modifier more than once in the same phase ... to assist units in the same ... moving stack with with a MC/Pin Check". Since all elements of a Human Wave/Column are moving as one "multi-hex" stack can a leader participating in a Human Wave/Column use his leadership modifier to assist all units in the "multi-hex" stack of that Human Wave/Column ?, or just the units actually in the same Location as the leader and moving with him ? A. The latter. A10.8 If a unit is Fanatic by SSR and by a Battle Hardening result, does its morale increase by one or two ? A. One. A11.16 & A11.2 Do broken units have to withdraw during any CCPh, or only if they are currently being held in Melee ? A. Melee. A11.2 Can you withdraw from CC (i.e. during the first CCPh, before Melee ensues) ? A. Only by infiltration A11.22. A11.622 Is a sN halved/quartered if the AFV is in motion ? A. No. A12.15 & A4.3 Assume the following situation: A unit bypasses a building (1 Move- ment Factor) and then attempts to enter a woods hex (2 MF) but is forced back due to the presence of enemy units in the woods hex. In this situation would the moving unit be forced back into the building it was bypassing (and thus be con- sidered to expend the 2 MFs in the building) or would it be forced back into the vertex/hexside it was bypassing (and thus be considered to expend the 2 MFs in the bypassed vertex/hexside) ? A. Into the building. A12.152 Does Searching reveal the contents of all Locations in the searched hex(es) ? Even those Locations that are not Accessible to the searching unit(s) ? A. Yes. A12.153 When a side successfully secures a Building by Mopping Up, does it im- mediately gain Control of all hexes of that building ? Does it immediatley gain Control of all Locations in that Building ? A. Yes. A12.34 May the crew of an Emplaced Gun always use HIP when the Gun sets up HIP ? A. Yes. A15.24 & A11.141 Can a heroic leader use both his heroic DRM and his leadership DRM in a CC attack ? A. No. A24.61 Assume Mild Breeze is in effect and a blaze counter exists at scenario start. Are the drifting Smoke counters placed at scenario start too ? A. Yes. A26.11 When an armed Good Order unit moves into a Building hex with an armed enemy ground unit in the same hex (on a different level), does the unit gain Control of its own Location, even though it does not gain Control of its hex ? A. Yes. A26.11 & B6.1 To gain Control of a bridge-gully hex, do you have to occupy the Gully Location, the Bridge Loction, or both Locations to gain Control of the hex ? A. Either, unless one side controls the other with a GO MMC. A26.16 Assume that one side deliberately Kindles the terrain in a hex it Controls: (a) Does the kindling side forfeit the Control of the hex when an Upper Level Location is kindled ? A. Just the Location. (b) Does Control change (to the non-kindling side) when a flame counter is placed ?, or when a Blaze couner is placed ? A. When a Blaze counter is placed. (c) If the kindled hex is Building hex, does the kindling side forfeit Control of the Building as well as the hex ? A. Only the hex. (d) When Control of a hex is lost, does the kindling side automatically lose Control of every Location of that hex ?, or does the Control of these Lo- cations change individually when a Flame/Blaze counter is placed in the Location ? A. The latter. (e) When may the kindling side regain Control of the Hex/Locations (important when playing campaign games) ? A. After blaze is extinguished and a friendly GO MMC reoccupies. CHAPTER B B8.42 The Sewer Emergence Chart on page B5 and the one on the Chapter B Divider differ: The drm causes 2 and 4 specify Known enemy units in the chart on page B5 which is not specified in the chart on the divider. Which is correct ? (If the chart on page B5 is correct, how can enemy units be Known, since the units in the Sewer has no LOS to any outside units ?) A. Chapter Divider is correct. B23.71 & C1.51 Consider a unit using "Rowhouse Bypass" to move form one Ground Level Location of a Rowhouse into another Ground Level Location of a Rowhouse. Now assume that both Ground Level Locations are in the same FFE Blast Area. When the unit makes the move is it attacked by the FFE once or twice (once when moving out of the first location to the vertex and then again when moving from the vertex into the second location) in the vertex ? Would it be any different if the two rowhouse locations were in different FFE blast areas ? A. Only in hex moving to. B23.9 Does the fact that an interior Factory Location is fortified affect an attack in any way when the LOF is drawn through the Location (except for the usual +1 Factory LOS Hindrance) ? A. No. B23.921 Is the TEM of a Fortified Building Location always one more than the normal TEM of that Location (i.e. an interior Factory Location has a TEM of +2 if the hex is roofed and +3 if the hex is roofless) ? A. Yes. B24.74 & B28.44 Assume a Good Order Infantry unit enters a Known minefield hex (that is also a Building hex) as per B24.74, but fails to clear the minefield. May the unit then (in a later MPh) exit the hex through a building hexside as per B28.44 without being attacked by the minefield ? A. No. CHAPTER C C1.21 & C1.731 When placing an AR in order place a FFE:1 as per C1.731 (i.e. in a Pre-Reg. hex) is an extra chit draw (as per C1.21) necessary (assuming it is necessary otherwise) ? A. Yes. C1.33 What are the allowed actions for an OBA observer when he cannot see the OBA SR, but can see a known unit in a hex adjacent to the SR (It seems like C1.335 should apply, but according to the rules it doesn't) ? A. C1.336, C1.337. C1.34 What OBA options do you have if you gain Battery Access but you did not have a LOS to the FFE's Blast Height during the current phase prior to achieving Access ? A. C1.343. C1.334 & C1.335 Does "Disregarding SMOKE" mean "Treat SMOKE as non-existent when determing LOS" ? A. Yes. C1.336 & C1.343 These rules imply that you don't have to attempt to place an AR (as per C1.31) after you have Cancelled the SR (C1.336)/Removed the FFE:C (C1.343), is this true ? A. Yes. If it is true, what would happen in the next PFPh/DFPh (assuming Radio Contact was maintained) when the Battery has no SR/FFE onboard, but the Observer has Battery Access ? A. May place AR. C1.731 & C1.732 If one chooes not to place a FFE:1 but instead a SR does C1.732 still apply to the accuracy of the SR ? A. Yes. C1.82 Does a hidden/concealed unit lose HIP/concealment if it passes its bombard- ment MC in LOS of unbroken enemy units ? A. No. C2.2401, D14 & E11 Assume two or more Vehicles using Platoon or Convoy movement, where all of these Vehicles wants to use Bounding First Fire at an enemy Gun, and this Gun wants to fire at these vehicles. How is this multiple Gun Duel resolved ? (Does it matter who wins the first Gun Duel ? May the Gun fire a second shot before other than the first Vehicle may fire ?) A. As per C2.2401. If platoon wins all units my fire before Defender. No. CHAPTER D D5.341 & F11.74 Can a vehicle expend more MPs than necessary to enter a hex when under Recall ? A. No. D13.32 Under what circumstances does the +2 sM DRM apply in your MPh ? while being treated as a moving target (C.8) OR while Non-stopped OR always ? A. See C.8 (89 Errata). CHAPTER E E1.101 & A.8 If two units are in adjacent hexes (e.g. two grain hexes) and only one of those hexes are Illuminated, are the units still considered to be ADJACENT (even though there is no LOS from the Illuminated hex to the non-Illuminated hex) ? A. Unit in Illuminated hex is Adjacent, unit out of NVR is ADJACENT. E1.53 Can units that are straying expend more than the minimum cost to enter a hex ? A. No. E1.53 Will a Straying unit enter any form of Residual FP ? A. Yes. E1.54 & A10.62 If a DM unit makes a Rally/Self-rally Original DR (at night) <= its current printed morale, must the DM be removed ?, or can it be retained as allowed by A10.62 ? A. The latter. E1.551 This rule states that "The 'Closest DEFENDER' is one or more Good Order non-hidden units in the nearest (in hexes) occupied hex". Since Dummy Stacks/ Cloaking counters are not Good Order units are these ignored when determining the 'Closest DEFENDER' ?, if not are they treated as any other unit exempt from Jitter Fire (i.e. if they are chosen - no Jitter Fire occurs) ? A. They are ignored. E1.91 Would the third event (i.e. "a Gunflash is placed due to an attack vs an enemy unit") allow both sides to place the first Starshell/IR ?, or just the "friendly" side ? A. Either. E1.91 First event: What is considered a friendly motorized vehicle for the pur- pose of this rule ?, an Immobilized friendly vehicle ?, a bogged friendly vehicle ?, a friendly LC ?, a "friendly" wreck ? A. Motorized should not have been used, "mobile" vehicle is the correct term. (All four examples where crossed over.) E1.92 The restriction of "one attempt to fire a Starhell may be made per hex.", is that in addition to any attempt to place an IR from the same hex ? A. Yes. E1.921 Must a hidden/cloaked unit be placed on board if it wishes to make a Star- shell Usage dr ?, or only if it actually fires a Starahell(i.e. passes the Usage dr) ? A. The latter. E1.921 Are the usage drs shown to the opponent ? Must one indicated which unit it is in a stack that is making the Usage dr ? A. Yes. Yes. E1.93 Can an IR be fired by leader(s) manning an IR-capable weapon at a time other than the beginning of the PFPh/DFPh ? A. Yes. E1.931 & C1.21 Can the " extra Battery Access draw" of C1.21 ever apply when placing an IR (even though you are not placing an AR) ? A. Yes. E1.931 Assume the followig situation: An Observer placed the first IR of an OBA IR Fire Mission (during his PFPh) which was then removed after the following CCPh. Now if the Observer fails to maintain Radio Contact in his next DFPh, is the second IR of the Fire Mission still fired ?, and if yes, what hex would it be placed in ? A. Yes, same hex. E1.941 Assume that there is no terrain obstacle of >= one level between a Blaze and a Location within the Illuminated zone, but the LOS from the Blaze to the Location is blocked (e.g. the Location is a Gully Location, behind Rubble). Does the blaze still Illuminate the Location ? A. No. CHAPTER H German Vehicle Note 93 (Goliath) The Goliath note says: "If a Goliath ... is de- tonated, it explodes ... vs all unarmored units in each hex adjacent to it". Does this really mean that the Goliath attack all levels of its own hex with 36 FP and all levels of adjacent hexes with 16 FP ? A. Yes. U.S. Ordnace Note 4 & Chinese Ordnace Note 5 On what IFT column would a CH achieved by the 4.2-in Mortar be resolved ? A. 36. CHAPTER O O11.4 CG9 (a) May German Infantry/AFV RG enter on between A45 and U1 on 23 Oct and all later days irrespective of edge hex control (Same question applies to 17 -19 Oct: A9-U1 and 20-22 Oct: A22-U1) ? A. Yes. (b) If No, when does these entrance areas apply ? (c) If Yes, what does "entry is always allowed on/between A9 and N0" mean ? A. Delete. O11.607 & P8.613 Assume that a unit without scaling capability is in an upper level Location, and during play all paths down are eliminated. If the unit sur- vives its encirclement MC, may it be repositioned like other units, or does it have to start the next CG day in the same Building ? A. Must set up in place. O11.6134 (a) Are FT/DC retained if they are deliberately eliminated by the enemy ? (b) Are FT/DC retained if they are captured by the enemy, but eliminated in step O11.6135 (captured weapon dr) ? (c) Are FT/DC retained if they are captured by the enemy and then eliminated by a effects DR conducted by the enemy ? A. Yes. Yes. Yes. O11.6235 The consequences of the part in paranthesis seems strange, should it really say that you have to take X more stone locations than you started with or should this rule just state that you have to take X stone locations if you don't lose any ? A. Does not say "take" it says "Control". Big difference. CHAPTER P SSR KGP12 Does a "1" sniper attack/K/KIA result in a +1 or +2 Stun against a German inherent crew ? A. +1. P8.51 SSR I.3: Assume a HIP U.S. Gun with no enemy units in its LOS. May the Gun be placed on-map to determine its CA ?, May the Gun fire (at an empty hex) to de- termine its CA ?, If yes, may the Gun retain HIP if the dr is <= 2 ? A. Yes. Yes. No. P8.51 SSR I.3: A HIP U.S. Gun fires at an enemy unit, but the player rolls >= 3 on its CA determination dr. Does the Gun lose its Concealment ?, For C3 Case A TH DRM determination, is the Gun considered to be set up with its newly deter- mined CA ? A. Yes. Yes. GAVUTU-TANAMBOGO Mini-HASL CG4.5 This rule mentions cloaked units. Since all units either begin on board or enter as PRC in LC's can there by any cloaked units ? No answer to this one. MISC. ASL Scenario A21 In ASL Scenario A21 "Counterattack On The Vistula" should there be one or three IS-2s in the Russian OB ? A. One. ----- From: dade_cariaga@MENTORG.COM (Dade Cariaga x1768) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 08:52:14 -0800 Subject: Re: Actions in Norway > I've often wondered why I've never seen an SSR that turns a grainfield > or forest area into a hill. Board 11 has two huge level 1 plateaus with > grainfields on 'em that would be very easy to turn into level 2 hills > via SSR; voila, new hill board! Heck, you can turn anything into > anything else if the payoff is good enough. I don't know, Tom. The example you point out isn't that bad, but one of my pet peeves is a scenario with SSR terrain modifications: 1) All buildings on hill hexes are really brush hexes. All grain is marsh. All marsh is grain. Islands do not exist. All gully-woods are rubble. Sheesh! Dade ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:56:43 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Nonay Subject: What does this sound like to you? Hi All I just came across this description of a new IBM clone game - does it sound familiar to any of you? (From Strategy Plus #50): "Instead of whole divisions or regiments, the player controls single tanks, squads, and most importantly, individual leaders. Players focus not on the whole war, but the very private and up close war of the front-line infantryman or tanker. The ground scale is 50 yards per hex and time scale is 2 minutes per turn. The system is designed to run the game in either real time or a more time-phased game system, tailored for gamers who prefer one or the other. Each game turn consists of movement, rally, and fire during the order phase. ..." "... The display shows individual tanks from a overhead view. Turrets move individually, tanks explode when hit, and smoke and fire billow as a reminder of the cost of war...." looks to me like AH/Atomic have missed the boat! This looks/sounds like what Beyond Squad Leader should have been!! For those curious, it is tentatively titled "Steel Panthers" from SSI, and is being designed by Gary Grigsby (of Pacific war and numerous others). This is the one I'll be getting. Not BSL. Enjoy! Randy ----- From: kinney@comanche.ATMOS.Ucla.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: Hitting with WP and Smoke (Re:) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 9:23:19 PST Olav Marstokk sez: > I have been following the discussion about firing WP with BAZ, and > there seem to be a general agreement that you add +2 to hit vs concealed > units. > Is this also true if you are trying to place SMOKE into an empty hex? Someone should put this to rest, so let me step up. Check the rules section covering the +2 DRM for concealed units. I believe it was updated in errata. It states that when firing SMOKE, the +2 must be added only if the hex contains non-HIP enemy units which are not Known to the firer. One of those omniscient player safeguards. Firing into an empty hex incurs no penalty. Therefore, when firing WP at a hex containing both concealed and unconcealed units, the +2 is not applied. This does not directly address whether the concealed unit must take an NMC if the WP is succcessfully placed, but the rules state a unit must take such a MC whenever WP is placed in its Location, so I believe it should. On a related note, Q&A on A8.1 and C8.6 state that WP fired during First Fire affects only moving units. rk ----- From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Wacht Am Rhein Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 10:45:53 PST Craig Cooper writes: > Hey gang - > > Just curious: > > How many of you nutcases are planning on having a go at KGP I, The Road To > Wiltz, etcetera on their actual 50th anniversary dates? Well, due to coincidence more than real planning, Rodney Kinney and I will likely be playing a KGP I CG scenario (20 PM) on the 19th. -- -Doug Gibson dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:59:08 -0800 (PST) From: Brent Pollock Subject: arty problem Attention gunners! Don Hncock and I have encountered an interpretive problem in the OBA rules (surprise, surprise) whilst playing ASL79 (BRIDGE OF THE SEVEN PLANETS). In his PFPh, his observer in 40DD2 landed an FFE:1 in 40H1 - no problem there. However, his observer advanced to 40CC2, putting it out of LOS of the FFE:2 and it's Blast Heights. Don's interpretation was that he would simply choose not to have his GO observer roll for Maintenance in the DFPh so the FFE:2 would be resolved normally (centred in 40H1) to an FFE:C. My problem with this is as follows: 1. this is voluntary loss of Contact according to the penultimate sentence of C1.22 ("However, failing to roll for Contact/Maintenance is considered voluntary loss of Contact only if the Observer has no LOS to the SR's/FFE's Blast Height...") so the mission is immediately cancelled 2. even he does maintain contact, his options are limited to C1.335/1.337 (i.e. correct or cancel it). Don obliged me by making a Maintenance DR and passing it...more trouble. The bizarre part of this is that if his Observer were not Good Order or if the Maintenance DR was > 9 then there wouldn't be a problem because this would be "...involuntary loss of Contact..." and "...the FFE would continue to be resolved as per 1.5-.51...". The only logic I can come up with for this is that the designer intended that the Observer should try to maintain LOS to the FFE at all times. Can anyone help us out? Share & Enjoy! Brent Pollock ----- From: Tom Jazbutis (contract) Subject: (fwd) Historical Iwo Jima ? Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 13:20:36 MST Has anyone considered doing an historical module for Iwo Jima? I'm not sure but I think that the whole island would fit on a reasonable sized map (maybe?). Jazz > > Hi, > I'm looking for the person who was working on the ASL Guadalcanal > campaign. > > PLEASE contact me at brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov. > > Thanks, > Brian > > > ============================================ > | Brian Youse, Managing Editor | > | Backblast | > | The Tactical Journal for ASL Enthusiasts | > | | > | email: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov | > | voice: (301) 497-2506 | > ============================================ > > ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 13:26:23 +0700 From: markg@laplace.idec.sdl.usu.edu (Mark Greenman) Subject: Re: Kurhaus Clash > From WITEK@suvax1.stetson.edu Mon Aug 29 09:46 MDT 1994 > Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 11:21:43 -0500 (EST) > > I'm getting set to play "Kurhaus Clash" solo as part of my ASL autodidactic > project, and I was wondering what the wisdom is on the US setup. The > SS have to cross a wide boulevard, but if the US wants to make them pay > for that, the GIs need to set up what looks to me like too far forward. > > The somewhat unusual VCs (which seem to amount to: "Proceed to Board 16 > and kill each other + take buildings"). The US also gets foxholes for everyone, > and it seems like they'd like to get as many of those as posssible, since > the Rout paths on Board 16 are so few. > > The Record seems to show this as pro-German, and I can see more US mistakes > than good ideas. Any thoughts? > > Rusty > witek@suvax1.stetson.edu > I know this is a little late but... I am just setting up for a match of Kurhaus, and I am the Ami's. One thing my opponent and I pondered was the proper Ami setup area. We concluded that the GI's can only setup on 23, not on board 16. It really is a challenge to setup the GI's. The problems I see are 1) the Germans can pound you on Turn 1 Prep, so you don't want to expose too much, yet you want to protect that Boulevard if possible. I finally put a few screening units to protect the boulevard, but kept most of the force back behind the hedges, ready to withdraw back to Board 16 as needed; 2) You must cover a wide front with those 4 Baz to prevent the Panzers from dashing to the rear. 3) The German player can dictate whether he is going to dash for board 16 and then try and bottle you up on 23, or just try and smash a section of the Ami board 23 force. Regards, Mark ----- From: moleary@math.nwu.edu (Michael O'Leary) Subject: Re: (fwd) Historical Iwo Jima ? Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:18:10 -0600 (CST) > > Has anyone considered doing an historical module for Iwo Jima? I'm > not sure but I think that the whole island would fit on a reasonable > sized map (maybe?). > Actually, it would not. The island is about (quick look at map) 10000 yds by 5000 yds, so about 250 hexes by 125 hexes, give or take a bit. The real difficulty with doing an Iwo historical module is the unit density. Despite its small size, there were an enormous number of men on the island. The Americans invaded with two full Marine divisions, and landed most of a (and the) third as reinforcements. As for the Japanese, their garrison numbered some 13,500 men, which is obviously the wrong scale for a squad level game. On the other hand, each day's fighting only netted a few hundred yards at most, so a small scale CG type scenario might be possible. Further, since large portions of Iwo are desert-like, the terrain can be easily simulated with desert boards, some overlays and some SSR. In fact, if anyone is interested, I am working on just such a thing at the moment. The scenario describes the fighting around the airfield known as Motoyama #2. Over the course of a day's fighting, two companies of marines advanced about 1000 yards over terrain described as "a pool table" to assault a group of Japanese dug in to a small steep hill. The Marines charged the hill, reached it and were then beaten back. A second charge saw them to the top when friendly artillery knocked them back off. A third try got them across, where they were met by a Banzai charge of the remaining defenders. The entire battle would fit on just two boards, yet held two companies of Marines (about 30 squads!). Japanese strength is not given, but is noted that the area was heavily tunneled, and contained 800 pillboxes. That is not a misprint- 800 pillboxes. It is almost like Gavutu-Tanambogo in terms of unit density. If anyone is interested in trying to flesh these ideas into a playable form, please contact me. I have lots of research material, but am a novice at scenario design. Finally, I want to make a comment about ML8 Marines (Groan). The action described above (which was typical of the fighting on Iwo) cost these two companies 50% casualties in 6 hours, including every officer save one. On the other hand, in a book of Ambrose describing the exploits of a company of American Para's (Sorry, forgot which Co.) he points out that in the entire Normandy campaign, some 2 months, total casualties for that particular company were under 50%, and the same held true for Market-Garden and the Bulge, including Bastogne. ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 16:00:57 EST From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) Subject: Time on Target Guys, Last night I received my copy of "Time on Target". It's really great! R. Mosher described the scenarios in some detail, so I won't repeat that here. Some of my thoughts: The scenarios are printed on heavy cardstock just like AHGC's. They use the same two-color artwork (red numbers), and are nicely laid out. The pictures are a little lower in DPI density, but are still very legible. The scenarios are numbered 1 on one side of the page, 2 on the next. Next card: 3 & 4, and so on. Why couldn't AHGC think of this? The scenarios use some special rules that are detailed in the magazine: Bayonet Charges - used in some of the scenarios, and Informal Armor - ditto. Both SSR's are not recommended for use in already existing scenarios as they may skew play balance. They are recommended for scenario designers doing new work. The rest of the magazine consisted of a rather good, two page, article on informal armor (with some neat pictures). Finally, there was an editorial. Not too dull and somewhat informative. I think it was a good buy, and a great value. Hope you all agree? I'm already looking forward to the next issue. Doug ----- From: kinney@comanche.ATMOS.Ucla.EDU (Rodney Kinney) Subject: arty problem (Re:0 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 13:55:16 PST Brent Pollock sez: > His observer advanced to 40CC2, putting it out of LOS of > the FFE:2 and it's Blast Heights. > > Don's interpretation was that he would simply choose not to have his GO > observer roll for Maintenance > > My problem with this is as follows: > 1. this is voluntary loss of Contact, so the mission is immediately cancelled > > The bizarre part of this is that if his Observer were not Good Order > or if the Maintenance DR was > 9 then there wouldn't be a problem > The only logic I can come up with for this is that the designer > intended that the Observer should try to maintain LOS to the FFE at > all times. I think you handled it correctly. The involuntary/voluntary business is a mess, but a necessary evil, motivated I believe by the following counter-situation: Don calls down an FFE on some legitimate target, but it scatters over the hill and lands RIGHT ON TOP OF A WHOLE CONVOY OF HALFTRACKS CARRYING PIONEERS WITH FLAMETHROWERS AND UNARMORED VEHICLES WITH 90L GUNS AND LOTS OF BROKEN INFANTRY IN THE WOODS. Now, we wouldn't want Don's observer to casually click his radio off and mutter "Darn, the radio's acting up again." would we? No we must punish such meta-tactics by cancelling the fire mission immediately. However, if his observer tries in good faith to maintain contact and correct the FFE as he should, but fails through no fault of his own, then well, that's just the fortunes of battle. rk ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 18:03:41 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Terrain Mod'd for Rally (was BAZ45 and WP) Hi guys, Jim said: > > From: "Cocke, Perry" > [stuff deleted] > > My friend Steve Petersen even Rallies this (correct) way. In > > saying that he needs a 4 to Rally a DM 666 in Woods, he calls > > plus 4 attempt. Makes sense and works well. > > Hey, this brings up a question I've had for awhile: Isn't there a > -1 DRM for rallying in woods, buildings, pillboxs and (something > else). Yep. The "something else" is trenches, plus rubble when you're playing Red Barricades. Perry's numbers work if it's a Self-Rally attempt or there's a 6+1 "helping." > By the way, I agree with Perry that it is good to keep your DRM's > separate. I makes things clearer in my opinion. Yep. Doesn't really matter on rally attempts, but it becomes crucial on TH attempts because of the way CH work on the Infantry Target Type. Dave "crucial, not critical, because that would be silly" Ripton ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 18:22:03 EST From: ripton@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Dave Ripton) Subject: Re: Dash for the Bridge Hi guys, Various people said: >Same goes for the scenario (can't remember the name) where the map is 2 >or 3 boards LONG and the Russians can exit a certain number of vehicles >and roll a die for their re-entry on some road hex further down the >line. Just seems too weird to play with. >> I just played it (as Russians) and really won big. The german player >> is not a complete idiot (we've played ASL about 40 times and I've won >> about 50% of 'em). What's the win loss ration on this senario? >>>>> I played it as the russian awhile back and got my head handed to me. I put my infantry on the tanks and tried to get slick by running in bypass behind some buildings. I got ambushed and a whole bunch of infantry got scragged and a couple of tanks. Then I REALY screwed up by not pushing through the ambush but changing direction and running dead smack into another ambush site. Dumb. I have the mobility advantage, and chances are the kraut is spread thin, and once you get through in one spot you can run for the rear. The Record has Dash for the Bridge at 6:2 pro-German. I don't think it's really that unbalanced. Some things to keep in mind, based on my long-ago memory of this scenario: 1. The Russian infantry doesn't count for VC, like in Under the Noel Trees. So use 'em up. 2. Riders die. Infantry is too slow. So the dismounting point is a critical choice. Remember that unloading is a slow process, and it might be worth an intentional bail-out (TCA spin) with ML 8 troops at times. It's tough for the Russians to use their Infantry well. 3. The Germans need to keep some stuff offboard to reduce the offboard distance that the Russians can travel via the SSR. (It's not that weird an SSR, BTW.) Of course they'll leave off the worst stuff possible. Also, roads off the sides of the boards are important points to guard, both for outgoing and imcoming Russian stuff. (The German knows where stuff's coming in if it enters, since he knows the DRM on the SSR dr. Not that he's mobile enough to do a whole lot about it.) 4. Read the chapter H notes for H9 ammo. There are a couple of really obvious spots for the Guns (where there's a cross-road making a shot possible anywhere across the board) and the Russians need to do what they can to avoid getting plugged there. (Driving through at high speed sometimes works, with all the positive DRMs and the fact that only one shot will be allowed if you get the LOS right. But bypassing a tank into the out-of-CA side of the Gun hex works even better.) 5. Once German infantry are bypassed, they're effectively out of it; even with CX, they'll never catch up. 6. ATMMs rule in CC; don't forget to roll for them as the Germans. Also, full squads are much better than HS in CC; it's tempting to deploy to cover more ground, but any HS will be essentially one-shot PF pickets. 7. Don't leave unguarded tanks in Motion, where HIP infantry could run up ADJACENT without much difficulty. It's better to be able to shoot in your DFPh at the cost of a couple of MP. (The exception might be if you stop adjacent to a suspected PF den, but why would you stop there without sending in the infantry first?) 8. Don't ESB the Russian tanks unless necessary in the last turn or two to exit; immobilization is just like dying. 9. The roadblock (which is revealed when LOS exists) is useful for funneling the Russian advance toward your strongpoints. Put it where it can't be bypassed by a hex or two, which generally means near a board edge. 10. PF shots at moving tanks are hardly dependable. If the tank is nearing the end of its MP, it might be better to hold the shot and keep HIP, hoping for a shot at a stopped tank in the PFPh, or for the tank to stop adjacent where you can advance onto it for CC. Don't shoot too early; if all hexes in the tank's VCA are as good for shooting as its current hex, then wait. (The tank might come closer or stop in range, but not if you pop HIP too soon.) 11. Keep German Infantry out of backblast terrain, except at good Street Fighting points. 12. Bunch Russian tanks. Any given ambush point probably has only 1 or 2 PF's, and the rest of the tanks are home free. Spreading out lets more of the defenders in on the action, and may even let the same defender get multiple chances to kill things. 13. Remember that these tanks have problems while CE. Only do it when you really need the road bonus, and BU again in the APh. Pretty cool scenario for the German, since he gets the full-HIP setup and can play mind games. Not much fun for the Russian, though: "Drive, drive, drive, hope that ADJACENT HIP PF dude misses, drive, drive, drive, turn, hope that ADJACENT HIP Street Fighting stack misses his PAATC, hope he misses his ATMM roll, hope he gacks the CC roll, burn, whine. Repeat." Dave Ripton ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 23:21:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: PTO terrain in BB7 Is PTO terrain in effect for BB7 "The Pinnacle"? It's not mentioned in the SSR, so I guess it's not in effect. But is this an oversight? There's an important patch of brush/bamboo near the victory hexes, so it would make a big difference. Marty ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 23:36:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: Blaze in Castelo Fatato (BB8) I'm a bit confused about the SSR in this scenario. There's a Blaze at scenario start, but it will only spread "on a Final Spreading DR of >= 12". Since it's Extreme Winter & Deep Snow, isn't there an EC DRM of -3? Doesn't that make a final DR of 12 impossible? Even with the wind in the right direction it would only be +2 for a net -1 DRM. Am I missing something? As far as I can tell, the EC DRM does apply in this case. We played it as "Original DR=12" required for spreading, and the whole building still went up in flames. There was only one ground level location not ablaze by the end of the scenario. It actually was pretty exciting at the end. Advancing under a smokescreen from the blazing building (wind kicked up), the Italians had the castle surrounded. But two 6-2-8s were unleashing devastating fire at close range. Then a CH from the remaining unbroken gun blasted those two Guards to smithereens, and the Italians set up an impenetrable wall of bodies to prevent a last second counterattack by the Russians. It was a real lesson in tenacity. You keep playing, even though you think you've lost the game, hoping for some miracle shot to save the day. Well, sometimes those shots arrive. I really like the "Instant Village, just add water" in this scenario. Par Saint Georges from Tactiques is another scenario with the overlay village. I think the use of those building overlays really helps make a scenario less generic. Marty ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 17:21:43 EST From: brian@tpocc (Brian Youse) Subject: Submissions Guys, Over the past few weeks, we've seen that lots of people are "working" on stuff. Articles, scenarios, HASL mega/mini modules, whatever. I'd like to URGE everyone to consider submitting them to one of the now many amature magazines. Of course I would hope that everyone would put Backblast at the head of their submissions list (hint, hint! 8) ) but there are other editors like myself who would love to see what you've got. Of course, most editors don't want "ideas" they want actual product, but I personally like to get a committment on an idea, so that I can plan several issues ahead. So, if you've got half an article done, an idea for a cool scenario, variant, whatever, please consider contacting me and we'll talk about reserving you a space in a future Backblast magazine! Brian (oops) ============================================ | Brian Youse, Managing Editor | | Backblast | | The Tactical Journal for ASL Enthusiasts | | | | email: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov | | voice: (301) 497-2506 | ============================================ ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 17:01:36 From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) Subject: New amatuer zine available Hard on the heels of the recent announcements of the English version of Tactiques and Time on Target, Lone Geek Publications can now announce... THE COMMISSAR'S REPULSIVE UGLY DOGMA! (The CRUD) Get The CRUD! You NEED The CRUD! Rush right out and order The CRUD! Sure, it's easy for these fancy-shmancy fanzines to do painstaking research and come up with informative articles. And anybody can get a bunch of shmoes together to playtest exciting and finely-balanced scenarios. But it takes a special sort of something to put out The CRUD. In each issue, you get: * Rally Or Die!, the editor's opinion of what's wrong with AH, other fanzines, and people he dislikes. * A couple articles on things vaguely related to ASL by a few guys who couldn't get published anywhere else. In issue #1, you get: - "OBA Nits", a painstaking discussion of the hows and whys of voluntary and involuntary loss of contact! Wow! - "Location/LOCATION", a tedious treatise on every spot in the rulebook where it says "Location" instead of "hex". And vice- versa! - "Justify My Love", a pedantic exercise which attempts to justify every last Strength Factor for every nationality's MMC's. Did you know that Fallschirmjagers in 1943 should be 438's instead of 548's because the Bren 7.643 mm Super Scheissen SMG's weren't available until 3:15 pm on Jan 17, 1944? Wow! * Scenarios! - CRUD1 - "Deja Vu All Over Again" - Bunch of guys on board 2 blast the heck out of a bunch of guys coming across board 4! Wow! - CRUD2 - "Wake Me When It's Turn 14" - Finns vs Russians, 1941. Watch the Russians slog across Deep Snow! Wow! - CRUD3 - "Hedgerow Headache" - Bocage City, baby! With all kinds of opportunities to claim/lose Wall Advantage while your opponent's got his nose in the bocage section of the rules! - CRUD4 - "Tried and Tired" - Try to take the board 3 village while catching bullets from a MG nest in 3M2! Wow! - CRUD5 - "More is Less" - So big, you'll need to buy BV again just to get more 447's! - CRUD6 - "Tinker, Tinker, Stinker" - SSR's up the wazoo! Watch your opponent react in horror as he realizes he forgot one of the 15 bizarre SSR's and is completely hosed! - CRUD7 - "Fire From the Sky" - A tremendous scenario, as long as you get exactly as much OBA as you're supposed to. A real dog if you get any more or any less. - CRUD8 - "Hazed and Confused" - Desert scenario with so many SSR's, overlays, and desert terrain, you'll win if you can manage to drive around without hurting yourself! Supplies are limited, so get The CRUD now! Tom (just kidding folks) ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 16:24:42 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Blaze in Castelo Fatato (BB8) > > I'm a bit confused about the SSR in this scenario. There's a Blaze at > scenario start, but it will only spread "on a Final Spreading DR of >= 12". > Since it's Extreme Winter & Deep Snow, isn't there an EC DRM of -3? Doesn't > that make a final DR of 12 impossible? Even with the wind in the right > direction it would only be +2 for a net -1 DRM. Am I missing something? > As far as I can tell, the EC DRM does apply in this case. EC DRM do not apply to the spread DR if the fire is spreading in the same building. I don't have the scenario in front of me so I don't if this applys. Fred > [cut] > Marty > > ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 21:06:55 -5 Subject: Re: New amatuer zine available > Tom > (just kidding folks) No you're not, I can tell you're serious in your sarcasm! :-) (Loved it! BTW, I think the editorial title will be used in some future rag.) +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 21:03:53 -5 Subject: Re: Time on Target From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) > Last night I received my copy of "Time on Target". It's > really great! Ok, I see similar stuff on GEnie. I had to respond... ------------ Games RoundTable Category 21, Topic 2 Message 695 Wed Dec 14, 1994 C.FAGO1 [Carl Fago] at 20:46 EST All this gushing over T.O.T. I may have to get it before the price goes up. One thing I noticed. The price. Kinda spendy when compared to what you can get from other 'zines, even CH. For my money, the two color is nice but not necessary. Also, the card stock is nice but again, not necessary. Hell, the scenarios go into plastic folders anyway. Whether its a card that goes in the folder or copied sheets, doesn't really matter. I sure liked the $7 for BB, $10 for CH is ok (questionable since there was advertising), but the content goes down (from what I read) and we have T.O.T. for $10, to be $12. (Shipping cost included in all.) I'd rather have good quality B&W keeping the total cost under $10, preferably under $7 if the content is mostly scenarios. Just my thoughts as I become more of a penny-pincher in my old age. ------------ To which the following response was made from the T.O.T people... Games RoundTable Category 21, Topic 2 Message 702 Thu Dec 15, 1994 J.KNOWLES8 at 01:31 EST Re: TIME ON TARGET, 3rd announcement Gentlemen, There is some confusion about our pricing. Through December post marks, each issue is $8.00 plus $1.75 S & H. Repeat: December post marks. January and after post marks: $10.00 plus $1.75 S & H. I understand the comments about pricing. But if you take advantage of the December discount, I think your getting a bargain. Yes, we did an A+ job on the graphics. And we paid for it. Why? It's the way we wanted kick-off and also we had the opportunity via a local printer who discounted the cost unlike his competitors. One final thought on the quality versus price issue: we expect to publish counters, maps, rules, modules (probably Korea) et cetera. We need to establish a reputation commensurate to these tasks. Call it ambitious but we finally decided to saddle-up and move-out. If some object to the price, I understand and hold no malice. But I am happy to discuss who we are and what we are going to do. Another value I hope you consider is the quality of the scenarios. I can't tell you how much anticipation is building inside of me as I await comments on some of the initial playings. Several scenarios will challenge you like never before. Why? It's not that we are any better at design and development, the research/resources were detailed enough to give us a view towards invoking the rule book. And let me say, I was impressed how the rule book held up to the demands of the situations and aftermaths. We found only one small glitch: an action were SMOKE was layed on a muddy field (look it up, mud means no smoke). The gist was that it was muddy enough to bog M4's but apparently not enough to prevent a SMOKE screen. That was an easy fix. Another item, some of our peers haven't contacted us for their free copy. I hope its a matter that they haven't heard because we do it as a professional courtesy as is commonplace in publishing. ASL News? The Rout Report? OAF? Anybody else? Other news: some of our peers have been kind enough to establish a dialogue with us and without spilling the beans you people, the consuming ASL player, are going to see some things in the near future that will knock your socks off-I'm not talking about TOT-but about some of our better known peers. More and more people are designing scenarios, maps, campaigns, counters and player aids and on and on. And the network of people involved with these projects is becoming global. So a word of encouragement: you can do it, too. If you have a design but you need playtesters or source material or what ever, call me or any other publisher. Get involved and contribute to our hobby. Here is our previous add for ordering purposes: {Add deleted for bandwidth preservation} And to respond to Doug's note... > The scenarios are printed on heavy cardstock just like > AHGC's. They use the same two-color artwork (red numbers), > and are nicely laid out. Card stock...big deal. Its nice, but I don't want to pay more for it. Red numbers? Whoopy. John Knowles mentions "quality". Well, he is sorta biased. The quality of the scenarios put out by amatuer zines has been all over the map. Some not good enough to grace my garbage can, others that can be said to be "classics". No amatuer zine scenario sees the same amount of playtesting that the scenarios put out by AH pre-Fortenberry saw...and some of those were dogs, too. I have nothing to say that T.O.T. scenarios deserve cardstock more than CH or Bb scenarios. > The scenarios use some special rules that are detailed > in the magazine: ... > Both SSR's are not recommended for use in already > existing scenarios as they may skew play balance. They > are recommended for scenario designers doing new work. I gotta love this one. These are SSRs. Period. They apply to the scenarios that have the rule on the card. If an amateur zine _references_ them on a future scenario, they're making a big mistake in assuming their readership will have TOT. All that aside, TOT might be good but let's put things in perspective...price and unknown quality (I ain't talking print quality) of scenarios makes it my number 5 choice for purchase (Bb, Tactiques, CH, ASL News, TOT...) +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=Carl=-* cdf1@psu.edu | A sucking chest wound is | | GEnie - C.FAGO1 | Nature's way of telling you | | Carl Fago State College, PA | to slow down. | +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 19:28:07 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Nonay Subject: Steel Panthers On Thu, 15 Dec 1994, Granville, Tycho wrote: > Subject: RE: What does this sound like to you? >> Randy Nonay writes: >> looks to me like AH/Atomic have missed the boat! This looks/sounds >> like what Beyond Squad Leader should have been!! >> >> For those curious, it is tentatively titled "Steel Panthers" from SSI, >> and is being designed by Gary Grigsby (of Pacific war and numerous >> others). >> >> This is the one I'll be getting. Not BSL. > > Does the add list stuff like required RAM, CD-ROM only, pbem, etc? It'd be > interesting to know if it will require a monster machine to play, like BSL > is supposed to.... > > Tycho It is a preview article, and doesn't say what is required, but from the look it probably shouldn't require more than a 386... Randy ----- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:21:04 -0800 From: ghasting@halcyon.com (Greg Hastings) Subject: Re: Time on Target >From: ut00894@volvo.com (Doug Maston) > >> Last night I received my copy of "Time on Target". It's >> really great! > Sounds interesting - anybody have and address either email or smail? Greg Hastings ghasting@rmii.com Alice Dutton Time spent laughing is time spent with the gods. ----- From: r.mosher2@genie.geis.com Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 04:16:00 UTC Subject: TOT and stuff Doug, > For the record, this sounds suspiciously like "Tiger 222," a scenario > from a recent local tournament. If so, I'd have to agree... damn fine > scenario. Yep it is "Tiger 222". > Also for the record, Ron, your Bazooka rear shot on my King Tiger > shouldn't have happened; the graveyard isn't concealment terrain so you > can't HIP there. There seems to be a rule about this ----- somewhere. :) > Is Burn Down the Mission also in Time on Target? Nope. above a reply to-Doug Gibson - dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu Gang, I'm just a play tester type with these guys. The dude to write to is John Knowles over on GEnie at J.KNOWLES8@GENIE.GEIS.COM, he's the number two man with TOT. All your prior posts have been forwarded to him. As to shipping time I think a lot of copies were made and if you can get your order in ASAP they won't run out --but if you're slow off the mark you might have to wait for a second printing --remember a slug {pun intended) of these went to Europe already. returning to lurkin' - the bounced mail is killin' me, ron aka r.mosher2@genie.geis.com ----- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 00:24:34 -0500 From: SKyle26160@aol.com Subject: Re: Baz45 and WP This is my first time at the plate, so let me get some swings- WP causes all units to take a NMC and forces loss of concealment if in LOS of a Good Order unit (A24.31). C8.6 (White Phosphorous) also references this rule. To Hit Case K, Concealed Target, only applies to SMOKE if the target hex has at least one non-hidden enemy ground unit and no units are Known to the firer/Spotter (C6.2). So... if a hex contains both concealed and unconcea led units there is no +2 Case K DRM, and if the hex is hit by WP from a Baz45 everyone takes a NMC and all concealment is lost (assuming a Good Order enemy unit can see the concealed unit's location). If all units in the target hex are concealed, the +2 does apply, but if the only units in the hex are HIP it would not. When you fire SMOKE, you're not "hitting" a unit. It happens that WP has the potential to cause casualties to units in its hex due to its chemical composition (this stuff can cause fires, too). In HE Area Fire, the gun is spreading some shells around the hex and may hit something, with WP the effect is uniform throughout the hex. At least that's how it makes sense to me. Olav M. also asked: >-Can an infantry leader direct a gun, adding his modifiers to the to hit roll ? D3.4 says: "Infantry leaders have no effect on vehicular or Gun performance". The rule goes on to refer to vehicular Guns for Armor Leaders, but the first sentence is pretty clear. >-Can vehicular crew (and the 1-2-7 which is received in RB with HW plt.) man a gun ? (I haven't found anything which prohibits that in the rulebook) D5.1 says that a vehicular crew has the same capabilities of an infantry crew. Now a question of my own: In "One Log Bridge", the bridge is defined by SSR as a foot bridge. B6.44 defines a foot bridge as a 1/2" pontoon bridge counter. Pontoon bridges have no TEM. However, B6.31 says that non-pontoon bridges have a +1 TEM. My opponent argued that his unit on the foot bridge is not subject to FFMO since the bridge was only "represented" by a pontoon counter. I argued the opposite, since the pontoon counter that "represents" the foot bridge says "0 TEM" (its a one-log bridge, fer cryin' out loud!). We played it my way (and he won), but anyone have an opinion? 07| Steve Kyle ----- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 01:23:00 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Clay Subject: Re: Terrain Mod'd for Rally (was BAZ45 and WP) On Thu, 15 Dec 1994, Jim Raines wrote: > > > From: "Cocke, Perry" > [stuff deleted] > > Hey, this brings up a question I've had for awhile: Isn't there a -1 > DRM for rallying in woods, buildings, pillboxs and (something else). > > The something else is a trench. A10.61. -1 DRM for rallying in a building, pillbox, trench or woods. Mike Clay ----- From: Gord.Reid@f71.n246.z1.fidonet.org (Gord Reid) Date: 08 Dec 94 21:43:17 -0500 Subject: AH address Would someone have an Internet address for Avalon Hill? Thanks gord ... For access to the pirated files, type . ___ OMX/Blue Wave v2.12 ----- From: Gord.Reid@f71.n246.z1.fidonet.org (Gord Reid) Date: 15 Dec 94 07:54:46 -0500 Subject: PBEM Issue > My opponent responded to one of my MPh asking for the contents of a >concealed stack, and then indicated that, although the moves hadn't happened >yet, he was going to need to know the contents of the next stack I moved Da> happened. The desision to stop the move when he ran a unit in my LOS Da> was immediate as in a FTF game. He has the option to redo any part of I would assume that if the the phasing player would just reveal the contents of the stack as it moves into the LOS. If they are moving into the "LOS" of a concealed stack, I don't think it's unreasonable that a message be returned saying that their are units in the concealed stack (reveal one unit to prove it and return the ?) and then ask the phasing player to reveal the contents of the moving stack. gord ___ OMX/Blue Wave v2.12 ----- Subject: Re: 2 more questions From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 07:22:00 -5 Howdy, cdf1@psu.edu writes: >I contend that fire is allowed since only enemy units are affected by >the fire attack. Since there is no Melee or OBA attack, yes, the >halftrack and contents are "targets" but they will not be affected. >Fourth line down, "all those ENEMY (or Melee) units" (my emphasis) >are affected. No friendly units are affected, so how cna they be >"attacked"? Carl, you are right, and I was wrong. From the Q&A: A7.4 If there are both friendly and enemy Infantry/unarmored- vehicles/Vulnerable-PRC in a Location which are not yet in melee, may friendly units fire into that Location? Does such fire affect units of both sides, or only enemy units? A. Yes. Only enemy units. {KN} So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- Subject: HASL: Guadalcanal From: jonathan.vanmechelen@dscmail.com (JONATHAN VANMECHELEN) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 08:32:00 -5 Howdy, "Al Boning" writes: AB>Is there any plans to produce an historical module for Guadalcanal? AB>Is there any interest? I have looked over Guadalcanal with an eye toward producing accurate maps, which could be used for such a game. The problem I see is that Guadalcanal is large, and the number of battles fought in any one area small. Further, the battles did not even cover the whole of the Marine perimeter, but a campaign game would almost have to map these areas. Also, the battles tended to be broken by long periods of relative quiet, so a day-by-day historical module would be pretty dull. the area around the matanikau river seems to be the most fought over, but i couldn't imagine any coherent way to make a campaign out of it. Perhaps I just don't have sufficient imagination. So long, JR --- þ 1st 1.11 #2895 þ Foo ----- From: "Jeff Shields" Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 11:12:39 EDT Subject: PLAYMATE OF THE MONTH Our feature Playmate for December is none other than Tom Repetti! His vital statistics are a probable 42-32-36, and he weighs in at a delightful 180 pounds (81.8 kg)? What a kitten. "My Star Chart looks like this:" Turn ons: Gliders,Air Drops, Finns, Partisans, French [NB: Guess you could say he likes rugged foreigners!] Turn offs: Overpowering 10-3s, Deserts, Night Rules "(sorry JR, don't know 'im yet)," high unit density, long games. Favorite AFV: JgPz IV [NB: I think Tom would say: "Oooh, its so powerful up front, but has such a sensitive side!"] What our Playmate has to say about his least favorite module: "It's just that there's always better stuff to do than inflict the desert rules on my cranium yet again." [NB: Doesn't this sound like a Playmate? A little on the airy side? ;->] What he had to say about the ASLRB: "I wondered if those rules would ever get used." What he'll say to his "friends!" "What, your wife let you use the VW Minibus?" What he'll purr in your ear: "Like I said before, it [HASL module] would be fun fun fun, but I'm weird that way!" Favorite foods: Spuds, you can fix 'em up any old way and they still taste great. Hobbies: None, what's there to do in Idaho? Do it solitaire, Tom? [NB: Just fun, OK? All slurs intended!]