Sparafucil3

They were pretty good but they also got a few bounces along the way. -- jim

The game was much closer than the score would have indicated. The good news is we get to do this all over again next year. Well played to your men. -- jim

I know Jens follows hockey. I am not sure who else does. Good luck in the finals tomorrow (but not too good). I wish I knew the tournament was in Gothenberg. I would have come and we could have hung out. Hope everyone is doing well. -- jim

I wish we Americans were less unfriendly at the border. I also wish the Swedish contingent were coming over in 2023. I need to know when you do come. I will do my best to get there so we can catch up. -- jim

I try to keep my articles up to date as errata and Q&A are posted. Sadly, I am not infallible in this task either. I am glad this issue was resolved.

By rule, 5/8" Dummies are removed as if Infantry. I don't think VTT is even a valid Target Type for them. Would be an interesting question for @Klas Malmström. I am not sure how I would handle it if an MG could fire TH/TK against a Dummy stack pretending to be an AFV. That is one of the positive aspects of the Q&A. It side-steps this issue. Doesn't mean I like it though

I agree, and between friends, I would consider playing without it. But if we showed up to play a tournament, I would expect we would use the Q&A unless it was outlined in the tournament rules. JMO though.

For what it is worth Melvin, this is a perfect example of a Q&A I happen to disagree with. I do believe an MG firing a TH/TK vs a concealed target is covered with the +2 Case K TH DRM and SHOULD be allowed to affect a concealed AFV. But I don't play it according to my beliefs because the Q&A exists. I am not trying to change your mind, this just provided me a chance to point out I don't always agree with the Q&A.

This is the natural order of things. People play it how they think it should be played and then they get exposed to the "right way" and begin again. As I said, I played it this way because I am aware of the Q&A. I was made aware playing a game with Steve Pleva at ASLOk. He showed it to me. I have played it this way ever since. I don't believe Q&A or Errata are infallible. Far from it. But I do agree to be bound by them because it is the only way we have a reasonable chance to be playing the same game. I travel far and wide to play ASL with folks. Seems only fair to be trying to play the same game.

I played it this way (2/4) in the past because I was aware of the Perry Sez.

I think the Q&A is wrong. But we live with it

A .50 is not a unit but I bet you would properly point out a unit manning an HMG can interdict out to 16 hexes.

I submitted a Perry Sez on this. There is no Interdiction. You can find it in Klas' collection.

Congratulations Christoffer!

I hope you all have fun. It was hard to choose between Supporting Fire and Bounding Fire, but I have never been to Bounding Fire and that means new people to meet. Perhaps next year. -- jim

Thanks!

My blog doesn't pretend to be able to teach good players how to play the game. I might occasionally surprise you with something but I don't expect that to happen very often, if ever. I am trying to help new players and middle-level players. Thanks for reading though. You are welcome to create and an article and I will post it for you.

I don't think I would add too much traffic (not that many people are reading my blog) but I don't want to create problems for you. -- jim

@CTABKA Do you have a link where your Leaflet House Rules are available outside of this forum? I don't want to flood the forum with people coming to look for the rules. If you do not have a link, do you mind if I post a copy of the most current on my blog? I am writing an article on OBA systems and I will be speaking about yours and I want to direct people to the rules if they would like to try them. I don't think it would be fair to expect them to sign up here, nor would it be fair to the forum members here to have to wade through a bunch of new people. Please let me know. Thanks! -- jim

FWIW, you need to change the wording of your rule too IMO: Red AND Black permanently removed and second red chit is drawn is a dead deck per this. Black OR Red and second red chit is also a dead deck per this. The same logic would hold for RED and/or RED. It is only your example which makes your intent clear. The rule should probably read something like: This is more in line with your example. Just my .02. -- jim

Thanks for letting me know your reasoning. I am working on an OBA article seeking to understand the various methods of altering the double-red issue. The one you use is one sometimes called "Modified Pleva" rules in the the US. Based on all my work, each of the systems are excellent protecting against double red. Each system can still pull nothing but red cards and still get no OBA. Systems that add red cards back into the deck are most likely to suffer from this. As the number of Red Cards becomes equal to half the black cards--for what ever reason--the decks become very chaotic. Adding Red cards to the deck makes this happen quicker. Each of these systems also do a very good job of staying close to the Standard model for 10 turn games or shorter. Systems that ADD Red cards break down from this point, significantly deviating from the Standard model. Which system is best depends on your design decisions. For these decisions, it comes down to your beliefs on how OBA "should" be done and there is no way to measure or quantify that. FWIW, all these systems try to protect the radio so I am not going to speak to that. It is worth noting that LHR won't even let the Radio malfunction, let alone break/X. PLEVA: I spoke with Steve. He had a couple of reasons for his method. First, he wanted to stop the double Red. But second, he didn't want OBA to EVER go away because once it does, the other side starts playing differently. He wanted the player facing OBA to always be under the threat of a new mission. His system accomplishes this. Steve is OK with the added red chits affecting EXTRA CHIT draws. His reasoning is there should be some price to pay for your OBA never going away. Borås: Based on your post, your reasoning sounds much like Steve's for his system. I did not include this system in my last graphic as it is not statistically different from Steve's system. The profile looks much the same and it responds much the same. LHR: Per Melvin's post above, there is a goal of stopping double red from stopping two Fire missions. It does this flawlessly. Melvin also worries about extra red cards effect EXTRA CHIT draws. His system accounts for this too. It is pretty elegant and, IMO, better than schemes which ADD cards to the decks. LHR1B: This system has all the same objectives of the LHR EXCEPT a belief that there should be two FFE at a minimum. Otherwise, it is exactly like the LHR rules. If you want to remain true to the "Standard" distribution of FFE, then LHR1B is the best system out there. If you think there should be 2 FFE, then the LHR is hands down better. If you worry about the effects of extra red cards on extra chit draws, then the LHR-based rules are best in class. If you want the OBA to ALWAYS be a threat, then either RED card addition system will work. The are relatively the same. If I were designing OBA today, I would use LHR1B. It remains truest to the original rules without skewing the resultant number of FFE significantly compared to the standard model. It also sidesteps the extra card problem. I would probably also maintain Melvin's "Radios don't break" position as well. I think that makes a lot of sense for something this critical to the game. Perhaps I would allow the radio to malfunction, make the repair dr 1 - 3/4, and a 6 would not eliminate the radio. But IMO, making OBA even more dicey than it already can be is a bad design decision.

Melvin, Could you write me a couple of sentences about what you were trying to do with your OBA system? What were your goals? What was your intention? What do you want it to accomplish? I am asking because I am going to write an article discussing the merits of all these different OBA systems to expose them to a broader audience. I don't want to misrepresent your intentions. Thanks. -- jim

IMO, you give scenario designers too much credit. I wish scenario designers would publish notes about how the OBA worked in playtesting. So many designers have said "you can win without the OBA". All that does is tell me the scenario is a dog if I get my OBA. Most designers I have met are not good players themselves.

LHR is much like car insurance: just because you didn't need your car insurance doesn't mean you aren't covered against accident. A simple statement like "75% of the time" doesn't cover it either. For ANY deck, the only failing pulls are RED RED, RED BLACK RED, or BLACK RED RED. Any other pull combination will have 2 BLACK before the second RED. So for a 5B/2R deck, the chance of failing to get 2 FFE is about 15%. For an 8B/3R deck its about 15%. For a 10B/3R deck, its about 11%. Now a 5B/3R deck--Russians with Scarce Ammo--has about a 28% chance of NOT/NOT getting 2 FFE. Broadly speaking, every deck which has RED cards < half the number of Black Cards (FRD) is likely below your 75% threshold. Any combination where the number of RED >= half the number of BLACK cards (FRD) is likely above your 75% threshold. Decks where the number of RED cards is equal to half of the BLACK cards come very close to your 75% threshold but are generally below it. Again, broadly speaking, unless the deck is inflicted with Scarce Ammo, the chances of using protection against the three bad sequences is generally below 15%. Of all the rules I have examined WRT OBA, the LHR are by far the best I have seen. I intend to adopt them in my game play with the modification for 1 BLACK chit I outlined above. To me, that is the perfect balance between protecting against 2 RED cards without making OBA more effective than the standard model.

There is no doubt there are many things that can't be accounted for in a simulation. The real game is too complex. Accounting for those differences and the model are up to the player. After all, your second chit is not of much use if it too, shatters off target, or suffers a string of bad DR, results in no effect. I am not trying to measure results. Imagine all the possible combinations of TEM and OBAs column alone. Then add in LOS requirements, conversion requirements, accuracy DR's, malfunction DR, and any other rule applicable and it becomes impossible to predict the outcomes. That way lays madness. I am trying to measure opportunities (BLACK Cards drawn) and show the possible range of outcomes measured in possible fire missions for those conditions. What all of that means and how it gets integrated into an ASL game is on the player. Thanks everyone for the reasoned discussion. Much appreciated. -- jim