I just got the new rulebook (along with Journal 3) the other day. I didn't get it right away, as some of the excitement surrounding it wore off since I was a proofreader. So, I ended up seeing several drafts in PDF format before it was finished. As such, when it was released, it hardly felt "new" and hardly worth parting with over $50 for. But, after playing a few games where my opponents had them, it became clear that I needed to "keep up with the Joneses" and stay compatible.
On the whole, I really like the new book. It's laid out well in a font that is easy on the eyes. And although it'll take some getting used to in terms of where rules are located, I've come to realise that the incorporation of the Q&A and errata alone is worth buying the new book. Furthermore there are a few rules areas that received some crucial clarification, especially the section on walls and hedges.
There has been controversy over a few sections, however. Although the most vocal debate arose over the platoon movement rules, I don't find that section to be the critical issue. The platoon movement rules were not changed from the first edition; they play the same way, and I suspect that people who played them incorrectly in the past will do the same now. What I do find problematic is a new little sentence that Perry Cocke (the MMP head rules guy) nestled in D.5, which reads:
"Fake DR/dr, e.g., for non-existent A-T mines, or for unnecessary Reliability DR, are NA, whether secret or not."
This seemingly inane rule prevents players from "psyching out" their opponents by rolling for phantom events and has some huge consequences. Furthermore, its justification is perhaps the absolute worst reason to change a rule (more on that later).
First, let's examine why this rule change may have some drastic consequences in many scenarios. The more significant issue is the performance of dummy stacks. In order for dummy stacks to be valuable in a scenario, they must act like real units. Part of acting like real units can often include making DR/dr for certain actions that would be appropriate or required of the unit if it were real. Of course, there are risks of revelation if a dummy stacks makes a roll that requires some consequence (a dummy stack "succeeding" in digging a foxhole with a fake entrenching DR for example). But the point remains that part of making dummy stacks seem real is to have them try and do real things, like making Bog DRs, hull-down attempts, and Reliability DRs for vehicles.
As for the other fake DR/dr that D.5 prohibits, I'm not sure that they were much of a big deal in the first place. I've never met nor played an opponent that made fake minefield rolls, and I wouldn't play a person again if he did that. Those types of rolls are cheating, as minefield attacks need to be declared. Simply put, unless it's a secret DR (i.e. like for Mud Bog), your opponent is entitled to know why a DR/dr was made and what the results are. That alone negates this sleaze, and it doesn't require the ammendment to D.5.
Why is all this a big deal? After all, you might be asking, don't dummy stacks still have the capacity to fool an opponent even without making a fake DR/dr now and then? Of course they do, but there are certain instances, and certain scenarios, where these fake DR/dr become crucial to the proper functioning of dummy stacks. One situation that will be common in many official and third party scenarios is where the defending side gets some dummy counters and some AFVs, some or all of which require Mechancial Reliability rolls. With the new sentence in D.5, there's hardly any point in setting up 3/8" dummy stacks. If you do, then you can't move them! The mechanical reliability roll is illegal for the dummy stack, and if you move the stack without making the roll, your opponent will know it's not a real AFV! Another example is the fact that D.5 makes fake Bog rolls illegal...now your dummy stack can't move into bog terrain, since making the Bog roll is illegal, and not making one will give away your stack. Even steering clear of Bog terrain that otherwise would be sensible to move through can tip your hand. Hull-down attempts by dummy stacks, even at the start of the scenario, are now illegal as well.
My personal experience shows that the elimination of certain fake rolls will have a large impact on the way we play. Even worse, the new wording of D.5 can, and probably will, upset the balance of many scenarios. In short, Perry used hasty judgement and completely failed to take into account the ramifications of his change. Take these examples of official scenarios that should be familiar and that were not playtested with the new rule:
1. J60 "Bad Luck" by yours truly out of Journal 3. The Americans get 6 dummy counters, and it might be a good idea for them to use two to fake a tank, since the German tanks will be on the prowl. There are also a lot of woods hexes that make good firing positions, and while it won't be common, it will probably be a good idea for the Shermans to duck into the woods now and then, especially to get the +1 TEM. Of course, any dummy stack pretending to be a tank will not be able to use this move. Furthermore, once nice spot to maybe place a dummy or a real tank (and try for hull-down) is 44D3; the lack of a hull-down roll will give away the dummy, and making such a roll will autmatically mean there's a real tank there.
2. ASL 57 "Battle for Rome" When I played this as the Italians, I used a dummy stack to act like one of my armored cars to pretend to shore up part of my line that was being pressed by German infantry. To do the move keeping concealment, I dipped briefly into the board 22 stream, making a fake Bog DR on the way out...this would be illegal now!
3. AP 11 "Swamp Cats" In my opinion, two of the German dummy counters must be used to fake the Panther at setup. This is the only thing keeping the Russian tanks from completely sweeping into the town. Of course, Panthers need Reliability DRs to start, so this tactic is severely hampeded by the new rule, and wipes out a very useful (and fun!) trick.
4. A98 "Crossing the Gniloi Tikitsch" In this one, the two Russian T34s probably want to try for hull-down positions on the board 40 hill. They also probably want to fake a tank or two with some of the 10 dummy counters they get...but the hull-down attempts will be illegal for the dummy stacks!
5. J1 "Urban Guerillas" I've played this as the Russians, and my opponent used two of his dummy counters to fake a Panther to great effect (rolling for Stall to make it convincing). It factored into my decision about what side to bring my IS-2m tanks on, and added a fun "fog-of-war" component to the scenario.
6. P "The Road to Wiltz" The Americans at the start only have a handful of decent AT weapons, one of which is the single M10 Tank Destroyer. It's obvious that the American player will use some of his dummy counters to fake an AFV or two. With all the hills, the Americans will be making several hull-down attemps at some point in the game...but not the dummy stacks!
7. G34 "The Liberators" By design, this scenario has a lot of fog-of-war revolving around not knowing what OB your opponent has chosen. The change to rule D.5 seriously reduces what the German player can do. Dummies can't masquarade as Panthers (which need Stall DRs to start), nor can they enter buildings (including the Factory with its vehicle-sized entrance!) since that would require a Bog DR.
8. Any Campaign Game. Dummy counters are a key component of campaign games, and D.5 now seriously limits their usefulness in pretending to be AFVs. Just think of trying to move through the terrain on the Red Barricades map; how many hexes can you travel before you are faced with a Bog DR? Or what about the Germans in any of the KGP CGs? With all those barbed wire hexsides, Reliability DRs, and Out-of-Gas DRs to make, the Germans might as well not even bother with 3/8" dummy counters!
9. Too many other scenarios to mention. This rule will also influence a huge number of thrid-party scenarios, as well as many other official scenarios not listed above. A casual review of your scenario collection will underscore my point.
The new rule in D.5 forbidding all fake DR/dr is terrible, since it has implications that are far reaching. The change will seriously influence the manner in which many scenarios are played, and may have serious balance and fun-factor consequences. No more faking a platoon of T34s as the Russians in Red Barricades!
Finally, the real kicker. Why was this rule introduced? His stated reason (in Journal 3, page 78) was annoyance at the extra dice rolling and to prevent dice from bouncing across the table and knocking stacks over. Yep. That's it. I realise that having control over the rules of the game that you love must be a tremendous power trip, but some perspective is needed in order to prevent the destruction of the game. I can't believe that reasons as trite and inconsequential as these are the basis for a significant rules change; this is a tremendously dangerous precident. This is quite ironic, given the fact that his essay in Journal 3 about producing the new rulebook is titled "First Do No Harm". In this player's opinion, D.5 causes serious harm. And that this harm is caused for a silly reason is even more distasteful. Although Perry has belatedly tried to clarify his position (there was a joke by Brian Youse on the Mailing List that had the reason for the change resulting from Perry losing a scenario due to bouncing dice knocking over dummy stacks) through emails to me and in a column in VFTT, this doesn't change much. The rule has been altered and for no good reason other than to limit "annoying" dice rolling.
Until I figure out a way to deal with this problem, my 1st Edition Rulebook will do just fine, thank you. Just Say No to D.5 in ASLRBv2! And a big "thumbs down" to Perry's "first do no harm" efforts...D.5 singlehandedly wipes out the fun and balance of a huge chunk of scenarios. In general, I refuse to play with house rules (see my page on that), although in this case I am pretty tempted. Players do have the option of sticking with v1 of the rules (in their entirety), but ultimately this perhaps gets us no-where. So, I call on MMP, specifically on Perry, to correct this huge error. Get going, Perry, and issue that errata!
Email me about this page.
Back to my ASL Page