ASL -- Just begging for a Cease & Desist

The glossary doesn't work because it is incomplete. Half of the terms listed are acronyms with their expanded forms after them, the other half are the expanded forms with their acronyms after them. It's the right idea it's just incomplete. It's only one page so I can spend the time to run all the entries under S to figure out what SFF stands for, but at that point the thread of learning is broken, the sentence containing the original concept unhooked in order to scan the list. You come back to the original sentence needing to reread in order for learning to continue. Not a problem the first time, but one paragraph may have a dozen acronyms in it.

What they really need is an index, where the entry for LoS says "See Line of Sight" and the entry for Line of Sight lists the 17 places in the rules where it's addressed. Acronym defined, location in rules found. Most will be within a few entries from each other. I got three units fragged because I couldn't find the Line of Sight rule that applied, embedded in the Prep Fire section of the rules when I was in the Movement phase and was worried about Defensive Fire. It's disorganized to have it in Prep Fire, but it's sufficient if someone can find it via an index.

You could build an html cross-ref doc for this in a day that would be remarkably handy to have beside you when you play. A pdf would have solved my problem frankly, because a search on LoS would have found the section in Prep Fire. The page Prep Fire is on is largely a wall of text in the revised edition. It's there, had I reread I could have found it.

Terms are spelled out first time with their acronym following, then more or less just the acronym afterwards. That's not consistently followed, but I don't mind that. It never hurts to impart full information.

Part of the game is a huge amount of procedural crap, designed to keep order in a game where there's a thousand interrupts and rule-booking is considered part of the fun. Part of what Andy is teaching me is that you skip nothing -- you announce your count each time you move a piece, because when you're playing on a map with 300 pieces you'll need that. I personally would have recommended ASLSK1 be cut free of all of that as well as much of the baggage. As it stands now it's a Ford Focus pulling a thirty foot trailer. Once a player has been through the turn phase a dozen times in a few starter games the heavy will be much easier to apply.

For the record I played four different races in Star Fleet Battles, so I know what "big" looks like. The rules were rough there too, but the starter boxes were dead simple and very easy to read (this is thirty years ago). I'm suspicious that ASLSK1 may be a bit of a toll gate, not designed to make the game TOO accessible because it would set the wrong example early on. The thing that busts that theory is that some of the simple improvements (e.g., an index) would have no impact on the remainder of the dogma.

The original post was just in jest by the way, trying to blow off steam. I had walked into Line of Site (LoS) unintentionally, and Andy (DoL) explained to me in detail why it's a bad idea to have everyone standing in the same place on a hot battlefield. I felt bad that he had gone to the trouble and that I had been such an incompetent opponent.

Apparently standing in the forest is not sufficient to avoid detection. "Stop der vhistling Schaefer!"

S.

Totally agree with Sag here.

I used to have an HTML version of the original rule book, which was a godsend. The full RB is better organised so you can look up LOS and isn't in the Prep Fire section but it is still hard to use in the early days.

There are many people with pdfs, HTML, even Win Help files around. You'll have to scurry over to GameSquad forum where most hang out. Don't find CSW that useful. A subtle post and you'll get helpful PMs back. In the days of Pirate Bay, it was all a lot easier.

Sag, moving into the forest and rustling all the trees with 40 odd guys is the problem, when the forest is being closely observed.

See next.

Chapel wrote: Sag, We have a local group that has an excellent repository if useful ASL information, check out their download section(player aides for days):

www.texas-asl.com/

Including a link to a pretty good glossary:

texas-asl.com/download/_ASLSK-Only-Index...SLSK-Also-Listed.pdf

That I think matches the glossary that came with the original ASL book.

"What they really need is an index, where the entry for LoS says "See Line of Sight" and the entry for Line of Sight lists the 17 places in the rules where it's addressed. Acronym defined, location in rules found. Most will be within a few entries from each other. "

Yeah, that's what the Squad Leader guy was saying--that the indexing was the biggest part of a rules rewrite.



If you had an HTML version, you could use this:

www.bigfootjs.com/

And make informative annotations.

Such a big project, but MMP makes their money selling the rules, without which there is no new content.

Hasbro have not given permission for erules. MMPs hands are tied.

Hasbro worry a lot about illegal dissemination of the erules ultimately leading to a loss on their full rulebooks and, to a certain extent, I get their view. ASL is not a boxed game where the components are the expensive bit, it is primarily the rulebook which is required at entry level and already is priced below production costs. Losing this as a source of income would undoubtedly be bad business practice.

ThirstyMan wrote: Hasbro have not given permission for erules. MMPs hands are tied.

Hasbro worry a lot about illegal dissemination of the erules ultimately leading to a loss on their full rulebooks and, to a certain extent, I get their view. ASL is not a boxed game where the components are the expensive bit, it is primarily the rulebook which is required at entry level and already is priced below production costs. Losing this as a source of income would undoubtedly be bad business practice.

The ASL modules have an MSRP of 60-80 dollars.

If the rule book ($80) is being sold for less than the production price, it is not a revenue stream.

I am not trying to be a rules lawyer--help me understand where MMP is making their money. I respect their right to sell their IP for whatever they want. I would still torrent a copy of the rules for the same reason that I slow down when driving by freeway accidents.

By freeway accidents, I mean something terrifying, in this case, terrifying because of its complexity and ability to make me whimper in fear. Something that demonstrates that the safe, calm little world you've created (be it driving, or gaming) can be instantly disrupted by forces beyond the grasp of a single human mind.

You could try torrenting the rules, there actually aren't any out there. There's an unsearchable pdf scan from Brazil which is useless. You aren't going to find anything better. Private deals with ASLers who have developed their own erules will net you more.

MMP make money off ASLSK and the modules. I would guess ASLASK is better stream for them, at the moment. The full RB is a necessity for all of the full modules and you would never buy the RB without at least one other module or you won't have the counters or boards. To price the necessary RB any higher would block access to all further modules.

In this sense, the RB is a revenue stream that cannot have a serious price increase due to shutting potential players off from the actual modules which are profitable. Allowing access to a free RB doesn't seem to be a great idea when you can recoup at least some of the production costs of the rule book by charging whatever for it. Pricing has to be such that it wouldn't immediately shut out potential players. It doesn't shut potential players out. The RB is full of examples of play, charts and tables as well as an entire chapter on teaching the basics with a full walkthrough. I think it's good value especially compared to the bollocks sold on kickstarter for the same price.

Yes, it's complex but not unmanageably so. I friggin' learned it with no ones help and I am dumb.

From what I've seen at the con players review the rules for their particular scenario ahead of time, and it's usually a pretty short review. You don't need to know the rules for Panzer IVs if they aren't in play. So much of the rules don't apply for a particular session. Complexity isn't as bad as it sounds.

S.

Just finished my first turn (provided Andy doesn't make me back up and correct something) and I'll tell you what, I have experience with similar games and I couldn't have learned and played correctly without help. There's no introductory material, no fundamental concepts presented for each stage. Someone coming to it as a first wargame, which I'll grant you is unlikely, would be in a very bad place.

With mentoring and correction I've been able to work my way through, but two newbies coming to the game would absolutely have to depend on the Internet and the answers of a seasoned player to get the game working correctly.

I took the time to reread sections of the Valor & Victory rulebook, a game in the exact same space as ASLSK, and it is simply magnificent in comparison. It understands that it is written for an introductory audience and lays the groundwork to get a player acclimated to the large-scale concepts of the game prior to plunging them into the details. At 16 pages it's actually shorter, as it uses a much larger font and covers a broader amount of material (guns and vehicles are included in V&V's core rule set, essentially equivalent to ASLSK 1, 2 and 3.)

Second turn should go much more smoothly. I would be hard-pressed for it to go worse, especially when I rolled a natural 12 with my first attack.

S.

Here is a link to my dropboxed version of one guy's attempt at revising Squad Leader.

I'm not arguing that SL is superior, I just wanted to show an example of someone attempting a complex rules rewrite.

www.dropbox.com/sh/jpclsaa5830ffvv/AAC9P...xg_JZmcteJxt8ua?dl=0

This will probably go down in a day or two.

I have a friend who is notoriously bad at explaining games. He also has mountains of ASL in his basement.

The thought of revising ASL or making it friendlier reminds me of a book from the Danny Dunn series where Danny decides he is going to program the professor's huge computer to do his homework. By the time he's done (npi), he's had to do so much background reading that he ended up doing more work.

[Note: I am tired to the point where I might as well be drunk right now, or what I imagine being drunk is like]

I don't think anyone is trying to defend the ASL rule set, as such, and be careful not to compare trivial issues like rule sets with serious social issues, it doesn't sit well.

Part of the problem is that ASL, as a rule set, is designed to cover European fighting, and Pacific fighting using the same core ideas as well as vehicles and tries to put in a LOT of detail. No one is saying ASL is better than Combat Commander or even V&V. They deal with different things. Yes, you can simplify tactical combat and yes, Combat Commander does tell a decent narrative but, to be frank, it has no where near as many active gamers as ASL.

Why don't you see CC conventions? Because it isn't as expansive as ASL and does not cover all tactical situations. If you want to play tactical games then ASL is the go to rule set, eventually. ASL appeals to the same gamers that enjoy 'monster' games, that is, many interlocking parts and a huge variety of tactical approaches. VASL gave ASL a huge shot in the arm and introduced way more gamers to the topic.

As I have said before Squad Leader is incomplete and hence can't really be compared, considering that ASL was developed precisely because SL was incomplete.

I enjoy big monster games, I loved Europa and OCS and ASL is equivalently satisfying to me. For casual gamers, ASL is totally unsuitable and CC or V&V should be your tactical system or Conflict of Heroes, even Memoir 44 (which I despise). It's not as if you don't know what you're getting into with ASL.

I repeat, I learned it from one big rule book, by myself and really didn't have that much of a problem, maybe it's my experience with the big rule sets of monster games, I don't know. I, and many of my friends, have mountains of ASL stuff and they are played. I don't consider myself bad at explaining games but that would be for others to judge.

I keep forgetting you're in my timezone, and able to quickly call me on my crap. I removed the offensive comparison to serious social issues. I suppose one could argue that war itself is a pretty serious social issue.

I would say that you are, in fact, defending the complexity of the ASL ruleset, but that your defense makes sense, and makes me want to learn the game at some point.

I also highlighted part of my original message where I said that I wasn't trying to defend Squad Leader, just show someone trying to revise a ruleset.

Reading the intro to those linked rules, you quickly realize that it's a complicated process. Any attempt to make the ASL starter kit rules more accessible might be more work than it is worth.

I'm just repeating myself a this point, so I guess I'll take a breather from the thread.

Note that I'm not complaining about the rule set, I'm complaining about its exposition in the Starter Kit. With one pass under my belt I can see that the rules are pretty straightforward, the rule book is simply incomplete.

Valor & Victory's rule book is better organized, more thorough, and understands that its intended audience needs summary sentences that describe the overall concept to follow. I went over some of this in my article years back ( fortressat.com/analysis-toc/2482-knowledge-transfer , Rule 4) and nothing has changed. Frankly I wish I had had this rule book as a second negative example of the concept, because I gave the impression I was beating up on High Frontier with the overall article when that wasn't my goal.

For one of my issues last night I consulted the big ASL rule book which cleared up my understanding with one sentence that, though complicated, was clearly written. Returning to the Starter Kit rules I could reread the associated section and magically understand it now that the context provided by the larger rule set was already established. The Starter Kit rule wasn't wrong, it just wasn't well written for newbies, its intended audience. It was too brief.

My guess is that there aren't a lot of people coming to ASL without a mentor, and the Internet can always serve that role if they are because ASL players are about as helpful as you're going to find in the gaming world. I'm impressed with the community whenever I interact with it. So there may not be a lot of incentive to have someone revise the rules to make them more approachable.* These days the rule book can be all lawyerville, because the introductory material will be provided elsewhere with little trouble to the new player. The publisher can depend on experienced players to provide that portion of their explanation, free of charge.

S.


* My guess is that this is not the case, that the writers had experience with the game and did not sufficiently test the rule book with brand new players. It looks more like a case of someone pressing their own knowledge onto their audience. I could be wrong.

I'm not sure I quite get the appeal of stuff like ASL/SL, at least as an outsider who's only skimmed the rulebooks and read up on it a bit. Just a painful level of detail that still ends up with some cheesy "gamey" tactics (or is that not true any more, I read a lot of articles about this whole move, shoot and then move back round a corner gaminess etc). And what are you trying to achieve with that level of detail. Honestly, I feel like once you get to that amount of simulated detail, I'd much rather just read a historical book account of the conflict, because throwing dice and pretending it somehow tells a "what if" experience feels a bit daft if you're modelling everythging in such fine detail. I can believe the game has a lot of old timers, hard core guys lifestyle gamers, but I'd be more surprised if new gamers flock to that kind of game rather than more streamlined "modern" titles that focus more on the abstract and narrative with some level of historical accurary (this gun or unit is better than that one). But I have no idea if thats the case.