Game: Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) Starter Kit #2

Thread: Re: Ammo Depletion Abbreviations

ACK ACK — 2008-11-07T04:57:54+00:00

Thanks, Todd. I'll edit my original so all the information is in one place.

Thread: Re: Ammo Depletion Abbreviations

tppytel — 2008-11-07T04:34:18+00:00

ACK ACK wrote:
C = ?? (Help me out here, guys? As seen on the American M2A1 105mm ART)
C = Canister. Basically it's a shell with splash damage over several hexes.

Thread: Ammo Depletion Abbreviations

ACK ACK — 2008-11-07T04:27:34+00:00

Let me make sure I know what these all mean:

A = APCR (Armor Piercing Composite Rigid); not used in ASLSK#2
AP = Armor Piercing*
C = Canister; not used in ASLSK#2
D = APDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot); not used in ASLSK#2
H = HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank)
HE = High Explosive (basic anti-infantry round)
IR = Illuminating Round; not used in ASLSK#2
s = Smoke
WP = White Phosphorus

In addition, the German 37L AA gun (3.7cm FlaK) has a special kind of HEAT round designated by H5[9] on the front of the counter. (How to treat this ammo is detailed in the Ordnance Notes on p. 19 of the ASLSK#2 rule book.)

Finally, on the gun's caliber
an overscore = no AP rounds
an underscore = no HE rounds
neither overscore nor underscore = infinite AP and HE rounds

*No counters in ASLSK#2 have an AP# on their reverse, but I imagine this does happen in the full OB.

Thread: Re: is the 40mm Bofors AT capable?

dude163 — 2008-10-19T13:14:03+00:00

Im re-reading all the old posts I made on the Sk forums as I forgot a lot over the summer ,

RE: 6 inch naval shell,
some of the late war russian tanks had 152MM guns and they had shells bounce off Tiger IIs and Panthers at extreme angles and range ,and 152 mm is 5.98 inches

Thread: Re: The Intermediate Step

fangorrn — 2008-10-17T17:34:14+00:00

richfam wrote:

One class of weapons that you won't find in ASL are the multiple rocket launchers (Nebelwerfers, Katyushkas, etc.).

Nebelwerfer actually is the plural (both s. and p. are the same for 'Werfer'). So there's no need for an aditional 's'.

Thread: Re: S9: Great Italian Defense

dogred — 2008-10-16T03:30:37+00:00

Apart from the outrageously illegal setup an entertaining AAR on one of my favourite scenarios. Im playing it at the moment, and for me it usually ends in an Italian win. The Americans have to use smoke and concentrated firepower to disrupt the Italians who will break easily on a good roll. The problem for me with this scenario is that the first turn seems to be a bit of a waste as the Americans barely get into a position where they can defensive fire at the fortified Italians.I tend to set the Italians facing North to deal with the Americans, and have a squad or two in reserve to cover the Brits advance from the rear. Once the Brits enter the Italians can withdraw closer to the square or S6 and adopt defensive positions in the stone buildings surrounding the square and hold onto the high ground in the town itself. Have fun!

Thread: Re: Buildings height SK vs ASL?

MerricB — 2008-10-07T22:01:59+00:00

deltarn wrote:
I suppose that for the ASL SK#2 scenarios, we assume that all buildings are level 1 obstacle
(in contrast to ASL where multi hex buildings are level 1.5 or 2.5).

For example in scenario S9, a italian unit setup on the hill in the middle of the map can see past building at ground level to other level 1 hill hexes, baring obstacles on level 1 hill hexes of course.

Correct. Multihex Buildings in the SK are only 1 level.

Cheers,
Merric

Thread: Buildings height SK vs ASL?

deltarn — 2008-10-07T14:34:24+00:00

I suppose that for the ASL SK#2 scenarios, we assume that all buildings are level 1 obstacle
(in contrast to ASL where multi hex buildings are level 1.5 or 2.5).

For example in scenario S9, a italian unit setup on the hill in the middle of the map (wO6) can see past building at ground level(wL4) to other level 1 hill hexes (wJ3), baring obstacles on level 1 hill hexes of course.

Thread: Re: LOS between units at different elevations

deltarn — 2008-10-07T14:22:44+00:00

ACK ACK wrote:
Hi all,

Does that work in reverse? That is, does a unit on a lower elevation see over the grain when targeting upwards?

LOS are always reciprocal. If Unit A can see unit B, unit B can see unit A.

Thread: Re: MMC - Inherent FP in addition to Ordnance?

deltarn — 2008-10-07T14:16:49+00:00

oskeewowwow wrote:

As an add-on question, squads and half-squads using a Gun would suffer the +2 TH DRM for non-qualified use, correct?

Thanks again!
Eric

Correct. Squad and HS get the non qualified use +2 penalty when firing any 5/8" inch ordnance counter, not when firing the small 1/2" counter like small mortar and personnal AT weapon like the BAZ/PSK.

Thread: Where you can find all the ASLSK scenarios

JoshBot — 2008-10-01T17:17:59+00:00

I made a file that indicates the source of all the ASLSK scenarios. I don't mean to spam but I'm posting this message to all three ASLSK forums so that anyone who cares will know about it.

Thread: Re: An ASLSK Tutorial (Part 4)

jalava — 2008-09-16T23:47:40+00:00

I'm waiting for Part 5 so much, because no matter how many times I start to read AFV rules, I always get bog down somewhere and find something else to do.

I'm trying to transition to ASL but I'm still going back to ASLSK rules for ordnance and vehicles, as it's almost impossible to understand chapters C and D without first reading the filtered down basics. After getting the basics down, I believe reading C&D chapters makes much more sense.

Getting some kind of a similar tutorial written for the full ASL would be a life saver for many. The MMP article on transitioning from SL to ASL doesn't really help with player that has no experience from SL.

Thread: Re: An ASLSK Tutorial (Part 4)

Marlowe_PI — 2008-09-11T12:59:53+00:00

Hear, hear. These have made learning ASL a lot easier than it might have been otherwise.

I find the biggest hurdle to be the fact that it isn't really clear to a noob that certain rules holes result because rules from ASL were streamlined out to make the Starter Kits (e.g., whether a broken unit can be pinned--the ASL rules say they can't; SK rules don't say). So, you can spend a fair amount of time looking for a rule that covers a particular situation, only to discover that it was edited out for the sake of simplification. This is why I find detailed tutorials like this to be absolutely essential to learning this game--because an experienced ASL player will be able to tell you why such-and-such a rule isn't in the SK rules, and how the main game would handle that situation.

I hope the task of churning out Part 5 isn't too overwhelming. Honestly, you're doing a huge service for us.

Thread: Re: Residual FP reductions

Raider — 2008-09-09T11:00:00+00:00

Residual FP are reduced by one IFT column for each positive IFT DRM caused solely by conditions outside the target hex.

No Walls and Hedges in the SK.

Best,
Robert

Thread: Re: Residual FP reductions

Periplaneta — 2008-09-09T08:40:11+00:00

But walls and hedges are not covered by SK rules, are they?

Thread: Re: Residual FP reductions

Tompy — 2008-09-09T02:31:11+00:00

Well also hedges and walls reduce Res. FP if the wall hedge is on a hexside of the target hex.

Thread: Residual FP reductions

JoshBot — 2008-09-09T01:25:33+00:00

I see that there is text on page 11 regarding Residual FP that was not present in ASLSK#1. Because I'm too unfamiliar with the rules (and too lazy to hunt for myself), are LOS Hindrances, CX status, and positive leadership modifiers the only things that can cause these Residual FP reductions, or are there others that are not specifically mentioned?

Thread: Re: Looking for S17 scenario

sbluerock — 2008-09-04T22:55:05+00:00

S7, S18, S19 are there now. I assume the rest will follow. http://www.multimanpublishing.com/news_text.php?nw_id=139

Thread: Re: IFE questions

richfam — 2008-09-02T19:27:50+00:00

Jeff is correct on all counts, but the ASLSK rules do not use the term "Sustained Fire" from full ASL, so we have to write it out the long way:

IFE can use Subsequent First Fire & Final Protective Fire (like an MG) with all the penalties.

There are three main ways in which a Gun using IFE differs from a MG:

* IFE never cowers
* IFE can never form a Fire Group with other units
* IFE must add any CA change DRM to the IFT DR

The last item was accidentally omitted from the ASLSK #2 rules, but this was corrected in the ASLSK #3 rules and is now official.

Thread: Re: IFE questions

Tompy — 2008-09-02T17:28:00+00:00

Yes and yes.

And I believe IFE can use Sustained Fire (like an MG) with all the penalties. Also I believe that an IFE shot reduces the ROF by 1.

I say I "believe" because it has been quite a while since I've fired IFE in anger.

Thread: IFE questions

oskeewowwow — 2008-09-02T16:18:43+00:00

The rules seem to suggest that a Gun using IFE should essentially be treated like a MG, but several specific questions which followed did not appear to be addressed...

Does IFE vs an adjacent hex have doubled FP?

May IFE during Defensive First Fire phase leave Residual FP (at expense of ROF)?

Thanks for any help!
Eric

Thread: Re: S9: Great Italian Defense

JackFlash — 2008-09-01T02:35:06+00:00

Good write-up! Welcome aboard!

Thread: Re: S9: Great Italian Defense

nickster22 — 2008-08-31T16:55:12+00:00

Haha, I can't believe I overlooked that qualifier in the Setup Conditions! Looks like I have to play this one again with a LEGAL setup

I still like the defense, I'll have to find another scenario where I can use it. Thanks for the replies guys!

Thread: Re: S9: Great Italian Defense

keethrax — 2008-08-31T16:13:19+00:00

Luis Calcada wrote:
One important lesson to take is "read the setup guidelines and victory conditions very carefully! Discuss them with your opponent if any doubt arises.

And this is an important lesson we all learn at some point.

In my case I set up my entire force for a scenario within three (don't remember the actual number) hexes of the west side of the map. They should have been on the east side of the map. Oops.

Thread: Re: S9: Great Italian Defense

dude163 — 2008-08-31T15:04:45+00:00

You also didnt use smoke very much with the US troops

( one of their key advantages IMO)

Thread: Re: S9: Great Italian Defense

Luis Calcada — 2008-08-31T12:46:03+00:00

Hello

Your Italian setup was illegal. Please read the setup conditions. It says ≤ 7 hexes from S6. One important lesson to take is "read the setup guidelines and victory conditions very carefully! Discuss them with your opponent if any doubt arises. Anyway your AAR (after action report) is well writen and fun.

Carry on!

Luis Calcada

Thread: Re: S9: Great Italian Defense

Agip — 2008-08-31T09:33:07+00:00

I don't know the scenario but this looks like an excellent defense from within a very tight spot!
Lets hope the Italians have some reinforcements themselves in order to break out of their surrounding!

Thanks for the illustrations It all makes for an excellent report for me.

Thread: S9: Great Italian Defense

nickster22 — 2008-08-31T06:06:36+00:00

Hello all! I'm pretty new to ASL, I play sort of consistently with a friend of mine that I've hooked on the game but it wasn't until recently that I tried playing a scenario solo. I decided to try out S9: Ambitious Assault. It wasn't until after I played that I looked at the S9 sessions that other posted. I realized that the Italian defense I set up was far different that anything I've seen on the forums, and so here it is:

I set up the Italians like so:

]]>

This set-up covers almost the entire North side of the board to harass the Americans as they enter. The Americans move onto the board and advance into these positions, breaking an Italian 7-0 and 3-4-6 in the process:

]]>

This next map displays the nature of the Italian defense. The Italian "Cascading Defense" (as I've come to call it) is to Defensive Fire as the Americans advance, decline Prep Fire, and the drop back and re-fortify. By doing this turn after turn, the Italians can fire on the advancing Americans while denying them their Prep Fire:

]]>

At this point, I was worried for the Americans. To advance up the hill to face the fortified Italians would be suicide, especially if the American troops would be given no chance to retaliate. I realized that the Americans could attempt to overrun the Italians and beat them to the center of the board -- by doing so, the Italians would have to fight past the Americans to achieve victory, and not the other way around.

]]>

Seeing that the Americans were trying to skirt the hill, the Italians reset once again to take advantage of their Defensive Fire:

]]>

The Americans continue to avoid the Italian Defensive Fire as they attend to skirt the hill:

]]>

Once again, the Italians "cascade" assuming new defensive positions to counter the American advance, taking minor casualties as they move. The Italians also move a few squads to a more southern hill to help counter the incoming British advance:

]]>

The Americans, still in a precarious position, attempt to advance against the better positioned Italians. One leader is pinned in open ground, while another and a 7-4-7 are broken and forced to rout back to the woods. To the south, the British finally enter and CX to double time towards the action:

]]>

The Italians "cascade" one final time taking cover in more southerly buildings, and taking control of the hill just north of Hex S7. To add to their advantage, half of the broken Italian troops rally this turn:

]]>

During the next Allied turn, the British advance, losing a squad to a KIA roll and are forced to rout their remaining broken units back. The Americans in a desperate attempt to advance on the Italians, make a mad dash to the stone buildings that lie closer to their rivals. One squad and a leader manage to make it closer, but more Americans are left behind either broken or with too few MF to advance.

]]>

With only one turn remaining, I don't see any way that the Allies can eradicate all the remaining Italian troops.

I believe that the Italian' "Cascading Defense" is a great example of how to survive in scenarios where you do not have to hold ground. By constantly conceding ground, the Italians can fall back and still be in position to fire on advancing enemy troops. I'd really appreciate hearing from you guys about how the scenario turned out!

Thread: Re: MMC - Inherent FP in addition to Ordnance?

Runes — 2008-08-27T10:14:44+00:00

According to the SW table on the chapter A divider, squads can fire light mortars like all other SWs.
They forfeit their inherent FP only by firing two of them.

Thread: Re: MMC - Inherent FP in addition to Ordnance?

b5mith — 2008-08-26T02:05:20+00:00

Sean4 wrote:
Unless the Gun is a mortar. In ASL, mortars preclude all other fire opportunities that phase (not sure if the ASLSK#2 rules include this, though).

This is new to me, do you have a rules reference Sean? I *think* you're wrong but if you're correct then it's time for me to re-read the rulebook!

7.351 A squad may fire any one SW/Gun without the squad losing its inherent FP..

Thread: Re: MMC - Inherent FP in addition to Ordnance?

oskeewowwow — 2008-08-26T01:52:23+00:00

Thank you all for the feedback. Apparently the ASLSK#2 rules aren't too specific on this. From your answers, my understanding is that a squad may use its inherent FP in addition to firing any ordnance (with exception of a mortar, which precludes any other fire), while a crew or HS using ordnance would forfeit its own FP.

As an add-on question, squads and half-squads using a Gun would suffer the +2 TH DRM for non-qualified use, correct?

Thanks again!
Eric

Thread: Re: Looking for S17 scenario

ctb123 — 2008-08-24T21:43:05+00:00

MMP is supposedly putting the Ops Mag scenarios on their website when it is redone. No ETA on that, though they had hoped to have the new website up months ago.

Thread: VASL Teacher

Jason Rahman — 2008-08-22T23:02:22+00:00

Hello:

I'm a newbie ASLSK #2 player and I'm looking for an experienced ASLer to help me learn over VASL. I have played SK2 solo some and have read through the forums quite a bit and so I have a very basic grasp of the rules. I want to play with an experienced player so I can get some tips about tactics, master some of the more confusing subjects such as defensive fire and to help me develop good playing habits, since I have a habit of forgetting to do things like place residual FP etc.

If anybody is interested please send me a message.

Thanks a bunch.

Thread: Re: MMC - Inherent FP in addition to Ordnance?

Sean4 — 2008-08-20T01:51:40+00:00

If a Squad fires a Gun then only the Gun is marked as having fired, leaving the squad to fire its inherent FP.

Unless the Gun is a mortar. In ASL, mortars preclude all other fire opportunities that phase (not sure if the ASLSK#2 rules include this, though).

Thread: Re: Looking for S17 scenario

tppytel — 2008-08-19T07:09:48+00:00

S17 was published in Ops48, which is still in stock at MMP. S8, which you just asked for a little while ago, was published in Ops47, also in stock at MMP. Only S7 (from Ops46) is out of print, and I imagine that could be found on eBay with a little patience.

Trolling for scans of OOP scenarios might be marginally acceptable, depending on who you talk to. But if the magazines are still in print, then support the publisher and purchase them.

Thread: Looking for S17 scenario

lawrence ho — 2008-08-19T06:11:05+00:00

I am looking for S17 Scenario of ASLSK2. Unfortunately, the Operation Magazine containing the said scenario is out of stock. Any suggestions?

Thread: Re: MMC - Inherent FP in addition to Ordnance?

bactrian5 — 2008-08-15T06:34:21+00:00

in ASL a crew counter forfeits it's inherent FP to fire a SW or ordinance. Squad counters don't usually fire ordinance weapons.

Thread: Re: MMC - Inherent FP in addition to Ordnance?

b5mith — 2008-08-15T06:00:44+00:00

Strange that I can't find a rules reference in the Starter Kit. If a Crew fires a Gun then the Crew is considered to have used its inherent FP (so both Crew and Gun are marked with Prep or First Fire as needed). If a Squad fires a Gun then only the Gun is marked as having fired, leaving the squad to fire its inherent FP.

Thread: Re: An ASLSK Tutorial (Part 4)

oskeewowwow — 2008-08-15T03:31:11+00:00

Thanks Jay! Just to know it's still in the works is very satisfying.

I believe I speak for a lot of folks when I say your hard work on these tutorials is truly appreciated. They've clarified the ASLSK#1 and #2 rules for me big time, and in a very entertaining way.

Thread: MMC - Inherent FP in addition to Ordnance?

oskeewowwow — 2008-08-15T03:22:22+00:00

Can an MMC use its inherent FP in the same fire phase in which it fires Ordnance? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but I cannot seem to find any statement in the rules regarding this.

Thanks in advance for helping me out!

Eric

Thread: MMP Customer Service

joelat713 — 2008-08-15T02:13:32+00:00

I ordered ASL Starter Kits 2 & 3 last week, eager to start teaching myself ASL from the ground up. The package arrived in about a week, but only had ASLSK 2 in the box. Dismayed I called MMP and told them of the problem. The next day I got a response and was told that the ASLSK 3 was on its way. Kudos to MMP for their prompt and satisfactory response.

Thread: Re: An ASLSK Tutorial (Part 4)

richfam — 2008-08-14T20:35:04+00:00

Allow me to correct my previous post:
"I hope to have it finished within the next ~~few weeks~~ few months."

There are simply no words that can adequately convey how impossibly difficult Part 5 has been for me to write. Of course, I almost gave up on writing Part 4 halfway through it, so I fully expected that Part 5 would be worse... I just never realized how MUCH worse it would be.

Still, Part 5 is mostly finished. The only topics left to cover are "tanks & terrain" and "tanks & close combat" which hopefully won't be too complex.

Now if I can just avoid any more burnout issues where months go by and I don't work on the article at all...

Thread: Re: An ASLSK Tutorial (Part 4)

oskeewowwow — 2008-08-14T18:34:54+00:00

Hi Jay,
I'm very much looking forward to Part 5 of your Tutorial. Any update on when you think you will be ready to unveil it?

Thanks,
Eric

Image

ulve — 2008-08-07T08:21:11+00:00

Guns in the grain

Thread: Re: Couple questions after last nights session

Sean4 — 2008-08-03T11:59:13+00:00

Paul,

I'm not an ASKSK expert, but I doubt it is contrary to the ASL rulebook. This is how smoke works in ASL:

1. Squads may only attempt to place smoke grenades once per turn; but an unlimited number of times in the scenario.
2. Guns may fire smoke once per turn (their ROF is consumed in the shot); and may attempt repeatably during the scenario as long as they do not equal/exceed the Depletion number.
3. Mortars may fire smoke multiple times during a fire phase (assuming they do not equal/exceed their Depletion number *and* they retain ROF); and may attempt repeatably during the scenario as long as they do not equal/exceed the Depletion number.

Not sure about the rulebook, but the penalty for changing CA for that shot is certainly on the TH chart.

Cheers, Sean

Image

Marasaurio — 2008-07-26T19:57:44+00:00

Beginning of a ASLSK2 solo game

Image

Marasaurio — 2008-07-26T19:56:16+00:00

End of a ASLSK2 solo game

Thread: Re: Couple questions after last nights session

Mark_WH — 2008-07-19T17:37:53+00:00

Regarding smoke, also keep in mind that no matter how many smoke counters you pile up in a hex, the smoke hindrance doesn't exceed +3 DRM (and an additional +1 if you're firing out of it)

Thread: Re: Couple questions after last nights session

Marasaurio — 2008-07-19T14:21:59+00:00

Imago wrote:
I don't think there's a limit to how many times a squad can try to pop smoke, other than MF limitations and the fact that their movement ends if they roll a 6. Similarly, I don't think there's a limit to how many times a squad can use smoke per game, but I might be wrong...

"No unit may attempt to place smoke granades more than once per MPh". Page 10.
Of course there's no limit per game.

Thread: Re: Couple questions after last nights session

JohNny45 — 2008-07-18T19:37:41+00:00

Thank you.

Thread: Re: Couple questions after last nights session

Imago — 2008-07-18T19:33:12+00:00

I don't think there's a limit to how many times a squad can try to pop smoke, other than MF limitations and the fact that their movement ends if they roll a 6. Similarly, I don't think there's a limit to how many times a squad can use smoke per game, but I might be wrong...

Guns can only change CA in their friendly fire phase in lieu of firing, they can't change CA in their MPh, I think, so the cost for CA change is built into the TH DRM.

Thread: Re: Couple questions after last nights session

JohNny45 — 2008-07-18T15:20:38+00:00

What about squads? Is there a limit to the number of times they can use smoke?

Thread: Re: Couple questions after last nights session

Tompy — 2008-07-18T14:16:54+00:00

There is no limit to the number of times a Gun or Mortar can fire SMOKE.

However, SMOKE usually comes with a Depletion number, so that rule is in affect.

Turning the CA is one of the Firer Based DRM, probably the first one (Case A in ASL). It depends on the type, whether it is turreted or non-turreted. It also depends on terrain.

Image

megadoux — 2008-05-03T11:52:46+00:00

Bleialf dec 1944 (ASL Scenario S15), aftermath: the Germans wipped out all the American troops without any single man lost.

Image

Joey_Jones — 2007-11-21T02:28:16+00:00

S12 - Over Open Sights: The German Advance, after Turn 1

Image

dude163 — 2007-10-17T20:37:10+00:00

last turnof the game , the 2-3-7 HS in 2 held up the US troops , long enough for the 88 to break eveyone else

Image

Mosse — 2007-04-29T08:33:51+00:00

S9: Ambitious Assault - the italians (me) have set up

Image

gt8595b — 2007-03-30T02:31:02+00:00

My Italian Init. Set Up for Scen. 9 Ambios Assault

Image

johannes — 2007-01-10T17:31:07+00:00

scenario 16 - Legio Patria Nostra

Image

johannes — 2007-01-10T17:21:47+00:00

scenario 16 - Free French punish the divided germans