[ASLML] Rommel's Remedy and tracks (was F.13.1 Broken Terrain)

[Chas Argent]

Pete-

It is important to resolve this; Matt Romey says on the ASL Forums that he
playtested under the assumption that an SSR would dictate "by SSR tracks
were supposed to have been non-boggable for all purposes". Did other groups
playtest it this way? 

It would be good to know if the final version of the scenario was a result
of use of such an SSR or not.

-Chas "Can't WAIT to play this!" Argent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aslml-bounces at asl-forums.net [mailto:Aslml-bounces at asl-forums.net]
On
> Behalf Of Pete Shelling
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 7:08 PM
> To: Keith Todd; bprobst at netspace.net.au; Aslml at asl-forums.net
> Subject: [ASLML] Rommel's Remedy and tracks (was F.13.1 Broken Terrain)
> 
> Listenmenschen:
> 
> I don't how Matt's team played it during their tests, but during the ASLOk
> and WO tournament tests, this subject did come up. However, in the
original
> version of Rommel's Remedy, the Axis had to exit 60 DVP (which some
players
> had done) It is now down to 45, and the Brit OB was also scaled back a wee
> bit, IIRC. I think that really solved the problem without a rules
> change--although that seems to be under dispute right now. Is the problem
> that it is TOO easy for the Axis if played incorrectly? Or is it too tough
> on them if played correctly? I believe it should be just about right, if
> played correctly, and if the Axis player resists the temptation to take
the
> 88. JMO.
> 
> BTW, I'm totally ecstatic that some are interested enough in these
scenarios
> to discuss.
> 
> Pete 'made my day' Shelling
> 
> . ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Todd" <ket74 at comcast.net>
> To: <bprobst at netspace.net.au>; <Aslml at asl-forums.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:39 PM
> Subject: RE: [ASLML] F.13.1 Broken Terrain
> 
> 
> > Well, then I would like to ask Matt Romney if the scenario Rommel's
> > Remedy J79 was designed with this in mind as it makes a big difference.
> >
> > Are you out there Matt?
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Probst [mailto:bprobst at netspace.net.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:41 PM
> > To: ket74 at comcast.net; Aslml at asl-forums.net
> > Subject: Re: [ASLML] F.13.1 Broken Terrain
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:54:59 +0000, ket74 at comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > >And the rule reference is??
> > >
> > >> >Does a track also eliminate the Bog DR for broken terrain?
> > >>
> > >> No.
> >
> > That would be F13.1, the rule that covers Broken Terrain.  It gives *no*
> > exemption to the Bog check for tracks/roads.
> >
> > This is confirmed in F9.2, where again neither tracks nor roads are
> > granted any exemptions to "Broken Terrain" Bog checks.  (It might be
> > argued that this is an inadvertent omission, but until we see errata
> > about it, the rule only says what it says.)
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Bruce Probst              bprobst at netspace.net.au
> > Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
> > "What do you want from me?  I'm evil!"
> > ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
> >
> >
> >
> >
>