As a CONSTANT 'reminder' and rejoinder to MANY, these aren't ''set in stone'' and certainly CAN become 'improved upon' or REVISED, sort of what DID 'happen' in the latest version huh? gee, I wonder why?...can YOU 'figure it out' as well? YES, we've ALWAYS been doing that ourselves, and for which is WHY I have 'created' many additional PIECES and 'Rules' to go along with those! Then we'll 'playtest' them and tweak those up or down in abilities if they're too STRONG or NOT strong enough and the like. It is also WHY there is an active and vocal 'Group' who are working on yet some MORE 'revisions' and expansions STILL!
However, when players from different basements get together, as happens in the PBEM clubs, there are aften problems. Each group believes they are the true purveyors of the honourable game, and refuse to change the way they play. The only way to solve the dilemma is to insist everyone play under a common ruleset, and most logically that is the ruleset as printed and distributed with the gameboard.
I am not casting judgment on house rules, or personal opinion on how the game could be improved. These variations may lead to improvement and new versions of the game. But to play within large PBEM clubs, everyone needs to play by the same rule set, and for now that is still the printed 2nd edition rules.
And your apology is accepted, GROGnads.
Always roll the high value columns first (4-3-2-1)
Action 1 (column 4)- Russian sub rolled first and missed. – no casualty
(subs roll 4 or less to surface ships not escorted by a matching destroyer.)
(subs are not allowed to attack other subs, since this is ahistoric.)
Action 2 (column 3)- Russian fighter rolled and hits. German player moves his transport or sub below the casualty line. What ever he selects does not really matter here, he will still roll back.
Action 3 (column 4)- German player can't roll for his sub , since subs are not allowed to attack other subs or aircrafts.
Action 4 (column 1)- German player rolls for his Tranny, it hits and Russian player must choose his sub or fighter as casualti.
Let units with high combat value roll dice before the low-value trash, and face a more realistic outcome, and fewer issues.
May I suggest we spend less time arguing and spend more time seeking improved doctrines.
After all … it is the ultimate game we all seek . 230
*NOTE*-ole 'Larry' did in fact AGREE with our 'definition' on THIS, in 'case' some of YOU missed that! He might be 'relenting' upon these due to his 'advanced aging', but it doesn't change the FACT!
If you are with me, post an happy smilie.
If you are against me, post an angry smilie.
This is the commie-style MB printed rule played by the PBEM clubs.
This rule favour the weak and cheap units.
MB rule quote:
3. Attacker fires. The attacker rolls 1 die for each attacking unit. Notice the battle board is divided into 4 columns. Resolve combat in Column 1 first, then Column 2 and so on.
This is how the rule would have looked if written by an patriotic American .
Lets call it the "Survival of the fittest" rule.
This rule will favour the strong, expensive units with high combat value.
"Right stuff" rule quote:
(Resolve combat in column 4 first, then column 3 and so on.)
If I understand mr. GROG's last post right, he is against any system or order, wich is just fine, as long as he play solitarie in his basement, or play with other friends in his basement, and they all agree in mr. GROG's way of solving problems.
The problems start when playing in EPBM clubs. Or against strangers/aliens. (from PEBM clubs.)
MB rule quote:
BlackBlood quote:"Using columns to dictate firing order is ok but only if the rule is stated and played the same way by all. "
The rule is stated in the MB printed rules, wich the clubs try to follow as closely as possible in their interpretations.
However, some respondants have tried to make it into an argument over who plays by better rules, claiming that one way is superior to the others. It is certainly true that the 2nd ed game can be improved upon, with a better map, better units, and new rules. And only through play testing of new variations can these be discovered, so this type of experimentation should be encouraged.
But while it may be true that a better game is played if adlertag's "survival of the fittest" rule is invoked, it is not the way the 2nd ed rules are written. And since PBEM clubs need a common, well known rule set to allow players from many nations across the world to sit down and immediately start playing, the 2nd ed rules are most practical. What is impractical is to start changing the rules to try an accomodate what each individual player feels "should" be the rules. That would only lead to anarchy.
Obviously this particular rule is written a bit ambiguously, to allow two sides to be argued so passionately. In twenty years it never occurred to me to resolve each column's casualties separately, but I guess this is the proper procedure for "Classic" A&A. I always assumed that since the attacker's and defender's fire were simultaneous, all fire within those subdivisions was simultaneous as well - an easy assumption to make.
"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests