Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 02:04:42 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Clay Subject: Re: CH and Duds On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Bill Stevens wrote: > On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Fred Timm wrote: > > > > I was the Canadians in Cat's Kill last night. The SPW251/16 had a blessed > > > existance. I critically hit it with a 57L (dud), > > > > A CH is never a dud. This shot should have killed it. I disagree about this. See my reasons below. > > > > Fred > > > > [cut] > > > > > > Rick White > > > Vancouver Canada > > Hello from Colorado, > Rule C 7.35 states that any TK DR of 12 is a dud and has no effect. I > looked in the CRITICAL HIT rules C 3.7 and I could not find anything that > would supersede C 7.35. I'd like to find out where in the rules it > states that a 12 DR on a CRITICAL HIT is not a dud. It has happened to I haven't found anything that refutes C7.35 that states that ALL 12 TK DR are duds, Critical hit or otherwise. > me a few times. > Bye.. > Bill > > Its happened to me too, and it is painfull to think that that AFV thats been troubling you would have just gotten blown away if it weren't for a dud on the CH... I looked thru the ASL index text file, and searched for 'CH' and 'dud*'. The only applicable rules sections are C3.7-.74 (CH) and C7.35 (duds). There is nothing in the CH section to say that a CH can or cannot become a dud. But C7.35 does say that "ANY Original TK DR of 12 (regardless of ammunition or Target Type) has no effect {15}. The emphasis is mine. Plus there is footnote 15, which talks about the rounds that shatter, fail to detonate, strike a glancing blow, or hit a non-vital part of the AFV. There are no Q&A's which change this, either. The round could have hit a critical location with a glancing blow, or shattered on impact, or failed to detonate. In my opinion, in the rules its pretty clear that a critcal hit can be a dud. Mike Clay ----- From: RCRUDGE@botzoo.uct.ac.za Date: 23 Dec 94 09:07:18 SAST-2 Subject: Re: luck Hi All Does the Canadian really have a chance in this scenario??? The german just walks up to the canadian setup line which he reaches by turn 3 (on board 10), infiltrates turn 4 and 5 with the recon dr information and then pulverises the canadian units. The HQ units then try to reinforce but it to much for them. Seems strange how they balanced this one, why didn't they leave the bren carriers out so the canadian could place starshells from the beginning??? > I was the Canadians in Cat's Kill last night. The SPW251/16 had a blessed > existance. I critically hit it with a 57L (dud), I then hit it again (dud). It > moved out of my LOS into the LOS of another 57L. I missed w/o rate and missed > with the intensive fire. It then survived about 6 attacks against the exposed > crew. It then melted a 57L with the right ft and broke 2 squads with the lest > ft. I then critically hit it with another 57L. This time it burned. However it > opened up a flank before its blessed existance came to an end. > > I also malfunction the hmg, 1 mmg and an lmg (later I destroyed the mmg). > > My opponent malfunctioned 2 panther ma's, 3 cmg's and 2 bmg's. So far he has > disabled 1 bmg and repaired both ma's, 2 cmg's and a bmg. > > One good point is I killed a panther with a piat. > This guy really enjoys throwing 12's Cheers Robin ----- From: RCRUDGE@botzoo.uct.ac.za Date: 23 Dec 94 09:27:48 SAST-2 Subject: Re: TACTIQUES Hi Jean-Luc I received Tactiques on tuesday here in Cape Town - at the very end of Africa. Well what can I say.. the magazine is fantastic, you guys have really done a great job - once again thank you and again thank you for all the help. Wish you also a great holiday, we'll be playing the tac scenarios, I hope you guys will be just as satisfied Regards Robin ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 00:56:05 -0700 (MST) From: Bill Stevens Subject: Re: CH and Duds Howdy Back! I came to the same conclusion. I am always interested in other peoples interpretaions of the ASL rule book. I am always open to learning. Bye.. Bill ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 09:29:04 -0500 From: as398@freenet.carleton.ca (Ian Carter) Subject: Re: CH and Duds > >Howdy Back! >I came to the same conclusion. I am always interested in other peoples >interpretaions of the ASL rule book. I am always open to learning. >Bye.. >Bill To lend further weigh to the conclusion, in the Annual with the summary article on armoured warfare, one of the reasons cited for why ASL armour is accused of being a 'dice game' is seeing a CH turn into a Dud. (I think it is 93a, around p.12). Not a Q&A, but it's in an Annual. Ian -- Ian Carter Intrepid Communications & Design 613-238-4064 ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 09:40:43 EST From: brian@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian Youse) Subject: COLORADO/LA Guys, Here it is for those who are interested. I'll be in colorado spgs 1/9 - 1/12. I then go to Denver 1/13 until 1/15 so I can attend the Denver tourny. Marty, can arrangements be made? Can you drop me a line with your phone number? I leave the 15th for Los Angeles, where I'll be staying darn close to LAX. Orange County, I guess, I've never been there. I'll be in LA for at least 3 days, I think, say I'm leaving the 19th. I need some games!!! Email me if you're a local to any of the above, we'll try to set something up. Mostly, however, I won't have a car, so keep that in mind when planning. BTW, I'm bringing a bunch of BB's out to Denver, if you've been waiting to pick one up that'll be the time (save on postage). Brian ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 11:36:45 -0500 From: ABillsASL@aol.com Subject: Ladder Game needed I managed to win a game,( Dreil Team, AOL ladder), and need to replace its position with another game. I'm dying to play the Americans in something. Scenarios that have peaked my interest A13 Able at Cesaro [if you like big scenarios] vs Italians TAC47 Des Roses Pour Vandervoort [I'm still translating] vs Germans 72 Sea Of Tranquility [If you like Japanese] vs Japanese I only have one game going, and its rapidly becoming a loss. I'm also AREA rated if that helps. Alan PS Do I sound really desperate? I need my fix! ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 13:48:10 -0700 From: thh@cccc.cc.colorado.edu (Tom Huntington) Subject: Re: The index Hey! I see you posted the new version of the index. Thanks for cleaning up the mess -- I begin to wonder if Macs are supposed to EVER talk to UNIX machines. Still not sure what went wrong. Tom Huntington ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 15:29:20 -0600 From: Keith St Clair Subject: Find AOL I was wanting to know if anybody discusses ASL on America On Line and if someone could direct me to the proper path to it. Sincerly, Keith St. Clair ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 16:18:59 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Luck F> A CH is never a dud. This shot should have killed it. This is a new one to me. I couldn't find it in the tome- what's the rules ref for this? This rule could alleviate a lot of frustration. As slim as the probabilities are, we've seen lots of snakes for crits foiled by a followup of boxcars for the effect. If we've been playing this wrong, I'd be happy to change! -Grant. ... Diplomacy is saying "nice doggy" until you find a rock. -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- From: bprobst@melbpc.org.au (Bruce Probst) Subject: Re: Gully LOS Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 10:37:30 -1000 In article <941222210012_5124382@aol.com>, SKyle26160@aol.com wrote thusly about "RE: Gully LOS ": >> I need clarification on rule A6.3 (DEPRESSIONS). It says that units with a >> clear LOS between them through other continuous depression "hexsides" do not >> count those intervening Depression hexes in determining the necessary height >> advantage (to see INTO the Depression hex). In the illustrated example, >> reference is made to the Depression "depiction". B19.2 refers to the >> Depression "depiction" when checking LOS from units IN a gully hex to another >> non-adjacent gully hex. B19.51 uses the term "hexside" for LOS through a >> Crest-Depression hexside. >> >> These rules indicicate that a unit at ground level can see into a >> non-adjacent gully hex if its LOS crosses continuous depression hexsides, >> regardless of the actual gully artwork. However, a unit IN the gully must >> trace LOS through the gully artwork to see into another non-adjacent gully >> hex. I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation because the A6.3 >> illustration implies that the ground level unit also must see through the >> gully depiction. >> >> I would assume the wording of A6.3 takes precedence over the example, but I >> want to check it out with you guys. Clear as mud, isn't it? B19.2 seems to state very clearly that if you're not ADJACENT then you need to be able to trace LOS through the gully depiction. Then it says "see 19.5 for LOS to a gully that crosses a Crest Line", which implies that in that particular circumstance whatever it says there will take precedence. So what does 19.5 actually say? On close examination what I _think_ it says that if you're at the same level, or lower than, the units IN the Hill Depression, you have a LOS if (a) it passes through the Crest Line-Depression hexside, AND (b) it doesn't cross any "higher-level" artwork (i.e., a place where you could theoretically place a Crest counter). In simpler terms, you can only see up into the gully on a hill if the hill doesn't get in the way - which makes sense, I guess. (If you're at a _higher_ elevation, then A6.3 is in effect. Although A6.3 talks about "hexsides", I believe B19.2 is correct when it talks about the non-ADJACENT LOS needing to stay within the gully artwork, which makes the A6.3 example correct also.) I hope that's helped - I think this part of the ASLRB is more convoluted than it really needs to be, because the underlying concept is fairly straight-forward. Bruce Probst bprobst@melbpc.org.au MelbPC User Group CIS: 100033,3661 Melbourne, Australia ----- From: bprobst@melbpc.org.au (Bruce Probst) Subject: Re: Woods-Gully question Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 10:18:16 -1000 In article <9412221829.AA09658@mica.inel.gov>, tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) wrote thusly about "Woods-Gully question": >> When a gully hex has woods or brush on both sides of it, the woods or >> brush are considered part of the gully depiction, as stated in Chapter K >> (page K10, paragraph 4). >> >> Does this mean that a same-level LOS which crosses ONLY THE GULLY part >> of such a gully-woods hex WITHOUT CROSSING THE GULLY LENGTHWISE is >> blocked? The example in Chapter K covers the situation where the LOS >> goes lengthwise down a gully-brush hex, and Da Sarge mentions that the >> Brush hindrance does apply even though the LOS never crosses a brush >> depiction because the brush is on both sides of the gully and is thus >> assumed to occupy the Gully itself. It seems pretty clear to me. The woods are considered to be in the gully depiction (which as you note is stated in Chapter K as a "Brass ruling", i.e., errata). Now, if the LOS in question never crosses the _woods_ depiction (or the bit of the gully that's between the woods) then I would say it's not blocked. Otherwise, I would say that the woods block the LOS. (Mind you, the way the "Brass ruling" is worded it would be possible to assume that _every_ bit of the gully depiction in that hex has woods in it - i.e., from one side of the hex to the other - but it seems unlikely to me that that would be the intent.) In other words, the way I would play it is that you just "fill in" the woods depiction over the gully and base your LOS on that. Bruce Probst bprobst@melbpc.org.au MelbPC User Group CIS: 100033,3661 Melbourne, Australia ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 21:21:11 -0500 (EST) From: Paul F Ferraro Subject: Hill 621 Balance Uh, I hope this hasn't been bandied about already. Assuming the balance for Hill 621 doesn't (balance), what would? ***************************** Paul F. Ferraro Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ***************************** ----- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 23:43:29 -0500 From: SKyle26160@aol.com Subject: Re: Woods-Gully Question >Subj: Woods-Gully question >Date: 94-12-22 13:54:20 EST >From: tqr@inel.gov >To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov >From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) >To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov [snip] >Now. Playing Panzers Marsche, LOS from 5X4 to 1I8. The LOS crosses the >gully-woods hex 5X8, but ONLY along an edge of the gully depiction, not >lengthwise down the gully. If one were to extend the woods depiction >across the gully to join both sides of the woods in the Gully, the LOS >would not cross the woods. But does Chapter K mean to say that the woods >are supposed to run through the entire gully depiction and therefore the >LOS is blocked? >Guess common sense says that the woods really should only exist in the >part of the gully that is between the woods depictions on either side of >the gully, but it's an interesting nit to pick. Especially since there's >a German MG nest who are very interested in this LOS. >Tom I think you're right. If the woods are not on both sides of the LOS, they don 't block it. If the woods were Dense Jungle they would block LOS as inherent terrain. I checked out the LOS you mention and on my boards its a little "iffy" whether or not the woods block, but that's an issue for you and your opponent to work out. >Subj: Re: Woods-Gully Question >Date: 94-12-22 14:28:43 EST >From: nadir@netcom.com >To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov >From: nadir@netcom.com (Nadir A. El Farra) >To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov (ASL mailing list) >Forwarded message: >> From tqr@inel.gov Thu Dec 22 10:54:35 1994 >> Message-Id: <9412221829.AA09658@mica.inel.gov> >> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 11:30:32 -600 >> From: tqr@inel.gov (Tom Repetti) >> To: asl@tpocc.gsfc.nasa.gov >> Subject: Woods-Gully question > > > > >Tom's asked: >> When a gully hex has woods or brush on both sides of it, the woods or >> brush are considered part of the gully depiction, as stated in Chapter K > >(page K10, paragraph 4). > > >[snip] > > >> Now. Playing Panzers Marsche, LOS from 5X4 to 1I8. The LOS crosses the >> gully-woods hex 5X8, but ONLY along an edge of the gully depiction, not >umm, by SSR, isn't the gully a Deep Stream? I can't imagine that the >ASLRB is going to tell us that the woods are part of the stream, are >they? I would play it (in fact I AM playing it - Hi Bahadir!) that the >woods end where their depiction ends and that they do NOT follow the >gully (stream in this case) all the way through. Of course, one could >make the argument that the trees line the edge of stream.... :-) [snip] >-Nadir According to B13.2 a woods hex in a Depression hex (which includes streams [B20.2]) is still a level 1 LOS obstacle. B19.21 says that a combination wood s-gully hex is still a one level obstacle. B20.3 says that barring other terrain in the hex, a stream is considered Open Ground for TEM and rout purposes. Also, B20.4 includes "the depth of water in a stream is the only th ing that distinguishes it from a gully hex". I don't think that a Woods-Deep Stream hex would be treated any differently for LOS purposes than a woods-gully hex (although MF costs are different). So, Nadir, between the two of us we've got .04. Steve ----- Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 04:56:04 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Snow Subject: CH/dud While CH's may not prevent a dud, a CH against a hull-down target still hits. Maybe that was the mis-remembered rule about a CH. Marty ----- From: r.schaaf1@genie.geis.com Date: Sat, 24 Dec 94 23:16:00 UTC Subject: Re: Wind Change and Drifting S > The drifting smoke vanishes immediately when the wind changes (i.e. in > the RPh), according to A24.61. It then reappears in the new locations > at the start of the AFPh. > > -- > > -Doug Gibson > dag@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu Doh! I'll read the whole para more carefully next time. BoB S. ----- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 10:46:01 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Shields Subject: Time on Target I got two ASL gifts for Xmas. My wife really does love me! I got "Hollow Legions" which I think is probably TAHGCo worse module. Two desert boards (come on guys lets see some terrain), some vehicle notes (wherein most of the vehicles never get used but are given anyway), and three counter sheets (would have thought 4 sheets would give the Eyties enough men to do something!). Mind you I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth.... I look forward to playing those Eyties scenarios now. "Time on Target," now that was a fine, no, a classic gift for the ASLer. The scenarios look quite interesting, if not outstanding. The reading material and new SSR are well researched and add some neat stuff to the game. I give it ***** (5 stars) as new material for ASL. I would have liked to see more but, hey, who wouldn't. It was a steal at $8 and it will be bargain for $10, especially if you already have KGP (which will be next year on the Xmas list, after Gung Ho!). Hope you all got some neat booty! Cheers, Jeff ----- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 10:49 EDT From: Dan Sullivan Subject: Tank Acqusition Hey Guys, Quick question for a slow day. I gearing up to play a ftf game latter on today and we will be tackling some armor. This makes me an armored leader for maybe the second or third time, so I was rereading the rules to get a better grip on what might happen. I thought I remembered a discussion here about using the tanks mg's to gain acquistion. I couldn't find a back up for this tactic in the rules at all. Is this a valid move or is my long term memory rolling box cars? Dan ----- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 94 12:19:35 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: luck I am sorry for the confusion on CH and Duds. After going through the rules book there was some proposed errata that was dropped that would make Duds not apply to CH. Since it was not published (nor about to be) it does not apply. Again I am remembering rules changes that were not made. One note though. I CH on a Gun will still kill it and it maning infantry even if it a Dud. Fred ----- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 94 12:33:53 PST From: Frederick.Timm@Eng.Sun.COM (Fred Timm) Subject: Re: Tank Acqusition > > > Hey Guys, > > Quick question for a slow day. I gearing up to play a ftf game latter > on today and we will be tackling some armor. This makes me an armored leader > for maybe the second or third time, so I was rereading the rules to get a > better grip on what might happen. > > I thought I remembered a discussion here about using the tanks mg's to > gain acquistion. I couldn't find a back up for this tactic in the rules at > all. Is this a valid move or is my long term memory rolling box cars? Mg's don't help gain acquistion, but firing the CMG at another target cause loss of acquistion (D1.82). Fred > > Dan > ----- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 15:36:50 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Serafini Subject: iift question (not trying to stir up trouble) merry christmas everyone... now, i'm not trying to start trouble with this, although i have the feeling that i might be, but, i was curious if avalon hill ever made any statements about the iift? i mean, the merits/drawbacks of the iift have been debated here many times, and both sides have valid arguments. but, has ah every made a statement saying whether they prefer the thing, whether it was just an interesting variant, whether it was is not in the intent of the rules (i.e., 5 fp should be the same as 4 fp, except in melee...) like i said, i'm not trying to start a riot, because i could use either table, i don't really have a preference (i use the original ift most of the time). i'm just curious, since i know that several people on the list know people at ah. i hope this doen's turn out to be one of those curiosity killed the cat type of things... have fun, 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: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 15:42:37 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Serafini Subject: mg through the years... hello, and happy holidays. this is a question that has bugged me for a while. why doesn't asl differentiate between mg models throughout the war years? i mean, a german lmg is 3-8 (etc.) in 1939 and in 1945. i'm assuming that they improved things in the mean time, but maybe not... do you thing that the "new" types of guns are just folded into sw allocation (you get more mmgs and hmgs later in the war (looking at the dyo section, that isn't necessarily true anyway....), or into the troops themselves. or, is it that mgs were pretty much the same throughout the war. i would say the same things about other types of support weapons, but they seem to be covered (like the bazooka and panzerfaust, to name a couple). thanks for any response, i'm a curious person. 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: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 12:30:51 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Tank Aq D> I thought I remembered a discussion here about using D> the tanks mg's to gain acquistion. I couldn't find a back D> up for this tactic in the rules at all. Is this a valid D> move or is my long term memory rolling box cars? I can't recall this one. Some guys have tried using the MGs to spin the turret so the MA doesn't have to pay huge DRMs, but this tactic is illegal as well. -Grant. ----- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 12:30:43 -0700 (MST) From: N431532374@amuc.mtroyal.ab.ca (Grant Linneberg) Subject: Hollow Legions j> I got two ASL gifts for Xmas. My wife really does love me! j> I got "Hollow Legions" which I think is probably TAHGCo j> worse module. Two desert boards (come on guys lets see j> some terrain), some vehicle notes (wherein most of the j> vehicles never get used but are given anyway), and three j> counter sheets (would have thought 4 sheets would give the j> Eyties enough men to do something!). Mind you I'm not j> looking a gift horse in the mouth.... I look forward to j> playing those Eyties scenarios now. I know what you mean. I felt the same way when I got Hollow Legions. But your opinion may change after you've played a few scenarios. They're pretty good. Sure, it's tough being the Italians 'cause you have lousy troops and a low ELR (sometimes a 1!), but you get lots of the buggers, and some of the Italian vehicles are pretty fun. I like scenarios like A HIGH PRICE TO PAY, RETRIBUTION and HALF A CHANCE. Give 'em a try, and you may not be rating this baby at the bottom of the heap any more. Now, THE LAST HURRAH, that's another story :^)... -Grant. ... "Suicide Hotline...please hold for the next available..." -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 21:16:24 -5 Subject: Re: iift question (not trying to stir up trouble) From: Kevin Serafini > now, i'm not trying to start trouble with this Oh yes you are! :-) >, i was curious if avalon hill ever made any > statements about the iift? As I have mentioned last week, AH has published the IIFT as a variant. They have even published various arguments, pro and con, about the IIFT. Their official position is that it is a variant. Whether it is good/bad is up to the individual to figure out for themselves. They have listed it again as a variant in the most recent ASOP that came out in Gung Ho (I believe). Personal opinion is that AH is doing the right thing keeping it as a variant. And, like freedom of religion, I may not believe but I am tolerant and that's all anyone can ask. BTW, I doubt AH will go to the trouble of taking any more of a position since they have positioned themselves away from AH. Remember the '94 Annual? I'd like to but it brings bad memories. :-) +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=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: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 19:24:35 -0700 (MST) From: Bill Stevens Subject: Re: Tank Acqusition On Mon, 26 Dec 1994, Dan Sullivan wrote: > > Hey Guys, > > Quick question for a slow day. I gearing up to play a ftf game latter > on today and we will be tackling some armor. This makes me an armored leader > for maybe the second or third time, so I was rereading the rules to get a > better grip on what might happen. > > I thought I remembered a discussion here about using the tanks mg's to > gain acquistion. I couldn't find a back up for this tactic in the rules at > all. Is this a valid move or is my long term memory rolling box cars? > > Dan > Hi Dan, MG of any sort never gain acquisition. You can fire MA or SA of > or = to 20 mm in any phase to gain acquisition. Motion vehicles may not unless gyro-stabilized. I think you were thinking of turning the entire vehicle to shoot at a target in the AdvFPh (sleezy but legal). Remember that the only way to gain acquisition on a concealed target is by firing on it using the area table (all ROF is lost). LATW do not gain acquisition either. BYE.. Bill PS: Come to the FireFight Tournament in Denver on January 14, 1994. Call Tom S. for more info at 303-423-5170. BYE.. Bill ----- From: "Carl D. Fago" Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 21:24:38 -5 Subject: Re: mg through the years... From: Kevin Serafini > why doesn't asl > differentiate between mg models throughout the war years? i mean, a > german lmg is 3-8 (etc.) in 1939 and in 1945. I would guess several reasons... 1) Ease of play. Its enough of a pain having a variety of bazooka counters. 2) There wasn't much done during the war. The Germans, for instance, didn't really develop any strikingly new machine gun weapon during the war years. The MG34 and 42 were developed before the war started. 3) Any differences that did occur are below the resolution of the game system. Just my thoughts. +-------------------------------+------------------------------+ | *-=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: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 19:44:40 -0700 (MST) From: Bill Stevens Subject: Re: Hollow Legions On Mon, 26 Dec 1994, Grant Linneberg wrote: > j> I got two ASL gifts for Xmas. My wife really does love me! > j> I got "Hollow Legions" which I think is probably TAHGCo > j> worse module. Two desert boards (come on guys lets see > j> some terrain), some vehicle notes (wherein most of the > j> vehicles never get used but are given anyway), and three > j> counter sheets (would have thought 4 sheets would give the > j> Eyties enough men to do something!). Mind you I'm not > j> looking a gift horse in the mouth.... I look forward to > j> playing those Eyties scenarios now. > > I know what you mean. I felt the same way when I got Hollow Legions. But > your opinion may change after you've played a few scenarios. They're > pretty good. Sure, it's tough being the Italians 'cause you have lousy > troops and a low ELR (sometimes a 1!), but you get lots of the buggers, and > some of the Italian vehicles are pretty fun. I like scenarios like A HIGH > PRICE TO PAY, RETRIBUTION and HALF A CHANCE. Give 'em a try, and you may > not be rating this baby at the bottom of the heap any more. Now, THE LAST > HURRAH, that's another story :^)... > > > > -Grant. > > > ... "Suicide Hotline...please hold for the next available..." > > -== IceIQle v2.04 ==- > Howdy from Colorado! I LOVE the Italians and they are my favorite nationality to play because everyone expects so little from them (including their human commander) anything that they can accomplish is a victory in unto itself. I've played a DYO from the General's scenarion generating system that featured the Italians in 1940 vs. the French. Silly vs. Sillier. What a great time. Bye.. Bill ----- From: p.cocke@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 27 Dec 94 03:48:00 UTC Subject: corporate gossip The following is taken from the business section (Washington Business) of Monday's Washington Post (12/26/94). ========================================================================= BOARD GAME Novelist Tom Clancy and Rep. Helen Delich Bentley (R-Md.) will join the board of Monarch Avalon Inc., a Baltimore maker of battle and strategy games. The two agreed to join the board even though "we're very cheap," Chairman A. Eric Dott told the Associated Press. "We don't pay anything. We just give them lunch" when they attend meetings. Clancy is a fan of the company's Civil War strategy game Gettysburg, said Dott, and Bentley was impressed by another strategy game called Fifth Fleet during a recent visit to the company. Clancy and Bentley, who will leave Congress next month, replace Reg Murphy, former publisher of the Baltimore Sun, and accountant Charles Wolpoff on the board. ========================================================================== OK now for the rumors behind the facts: Clancy has a new, small slice of the Baltimore Orioles and Bentley is a fixture in Baltimore politics. They seem to share a similar political philosophy. Bentley was defeated in the Republican primary for the Maryland governorship when she non-chalanted it. Bentley was renowned for her support during the various difficulties in ex-Yugoslavia of all things Serbian. Clancy was in the news lately about some running tiff with Wm. F. Buckley's son Chris. The noted-author has been rumored to be interested in elective office in MD. I'll just say that I can think of other notables whom I would rather have on MY board, but I am sure Monarch Avalon sees them as a feather in its cap. At least one board member is a "fan" of board games. ....Perry ----- From: j.farris4@genie.geis.com Date: Tue, 27 Dec 94 02:56:00 UTC Subject: iift question (not trying to s Kevin wrote: >now, i'm not trying to start trouble with this, although i have the >feeling that i might be, but, i was curious if avalon hill ever made any >statements about the iift? i mean, the merits/drawbacks of the iift have >been debated here many times, and both sides have valid arguments. but, >has ah every made a statement saying whether they prefer the thing, >whether it was just an interesting variant, whether it was is not in the >intent of the rules (i.e., 5 fp should be the same as 4 fp, except in >melee...) >like i said, i'm not trying to start a riot, because i could use either >table, i don't really have a preference (i use the original ift most of >the time). i'm just curious, since i know that several people on the list >know people at ah. i hope this doen's turn out to be one of those >curiosity killed the cat type of things... Then Carl Wrote: >> now, i'm not trying to start trouble with this >Oh yes you are! :-) >>, i was curious if avalon hill ever made any >> statements about the iift? >As I have mentioned last week, AH has published the IIFT as a >variant. They have even published various arguments, pro and con, >about the IIFT. Their official position is that it is a variant. >Whether it is good/bad is up to the individual to figure out for >themselves. I have heard some comment, some hearsay, in regard to the IIFT from folks on the HILL. The comments were positive ones about the IIFT with none of the "don't use it stuff" that has been heard. We probably will never know the whole story until someone, after they leave/left, the Hill takes some time to write about what the thinking was at AH HQ while all the "debating" was going on. I think it will be interesting to know the decisions that lead to the IIFTs publication and to its placement in the ASL system as the only, I think, Variant....and a good one. >They have listed it again as a variant in the most recent ASOP that >came out in Gung Ho (I believe). I think it was Croix de Guerre...with the French. >Personal opinion is that AH is doing the right thing keeping it as a >variant. And, like freedom of religion, I may not believe but I am >tolerant and that's all anyone can ask. I think Carl is right here. The 'ole however though...."what was their thinking about the quality of the table?" .....obviously high enough for it to warrant an official status. Toleration? A must....half my games are on the IFT.... >BTW, I doubt AH will go to the trouble of taking any more of a >position since they have positioned themselves away from AH. [ASL ?] >Remember the '94 Annual? I'd like to but it brings bad memories. I have heard there are some folks working on trying to get all the printed IIFT/IFT debate comments in one place. There may be a time when those who didn't experience the debate first hand can read about it and make your own decision about the table you like best. Me? I like the best table--the Incremental IFT--but then again, like Carl says, one has to go along to get along on this thing. +---------------------------+--------------------------------+ : Wheel or John : Time goes, you say? Ah no! : : j.farris4@genie.geis.com : Alas, Time stays, we go. : : GEnie - J.FARRIS4 : : : John H. Farris : Henry Dobson : : PO Box 547, Norman, OK 73070 USA : +---------------------------+--------------------------------+