REFLECTIONS: ASL Starter Kit #1 - by Ken Dunn (MMP)

This isn't a review, formally speaking, at least not in my usual style – I'm not looking to come to a conclusion on ASL SK #1, yet, I'm not going to give a system overview, and I don't have a thesis statement about what is worth talking about in the game. But I've played SK1 three times – S1 Retaking Vierville, S2 War of the Rats, S3 Simple Equation – with all its core mechanical components and a slight variety of victory conditions, and am moving on to SK2 for now. It seems a fit time to offer some thoughts about SK1. Those thoughts are: frustrated, engaged, disaffected.

What's wrong with it, then? Well, there's a raft of complaints about ASL (and therefore the SK series) that are best second order items: Are the squad stats historically sound (maybe not but that's not the point of tension)? Is the art style outdated and alienating (maybe and no, respectively)? Is even the SK series too full of exceptions and possibilities (not...necessarily)?

There's an aesthetic experience – in the broadest sense of the word aesthetic – involved in ASL which trades on certain design decisions and the art style, and that aesthetic experience is something people buy. I mean they buy it morally as much as physically: the delicate, antiquated, compelling line art on the old-colour counters, the lacklustre firepower and stubborn morale of the British compared to the torrent of American guns backed by indifferent spine, the existence of MMGs. It's a movie and it's a paean to a different era in wargaming. To attempt to ground objective judgements on these issues is to miss the real discussion, I think. The art style is well-rendered and the counter iconography, though imperfect, is perfectly functional; if you don't like it, it's a matter of taste, not beauty. If you want better simulation of weapon kitlists, you want a different game, not a “better” one.

But there is a discussion to have about ASL SK – do the bones support the torso, or not? Is it a good movie and paean? After a little experience with Infantry+SWs (so avowedly not the WHOLE experience), I think this isn't self-evident.

I'll offer two examples of cinematic gameplay that seem to me, finally, to be anti-cinematic, anti-dramatic; I cite them because they are often mentioned in (exciting, enjoyable) AARs.

EXAMPLE ONE: ELR. Field Promotions have a similar effect to this, but a more transparent mechanic, so I'll exclude them. ELR is a pretty central feature of units in ASL SK, because it means every failed MC must be checked against it for the breakdown effect, which itself requires access to hypothetically the whole collection of SMC/MMC for that nationality in this box. As the ELR rating is applied to the modified MC DR, you can't readily eyeball a roll before applying modifiers; if you do, the ELR check is one step later again. Given the relatively high failure rate on MCs (i.e. a 2d6 roll against a usual range of 5-8, modified by IFT results and terrain, often trending to negative modifiers once an MC is actually rolled), this is stuff you have to do a lot.

The upside is this: troops break down in combat, some troops turn out to be more resilient than others, and so forth (and Field Promotion accomplishes the reverse). This is fun. But the mechanic is distancing for me; fiddly, time-consuming, and requiring a larger table footprint (for the various counters potentially needed).

EXAMPLE TWO: Cowering. Simpler than ELR, certainly; if an MMC rolls doubles when firing without Leader Direction, its attack is resolved on the next-left column on the IFT. Great. This represents a unit failing to put its heart into the attack when unsupervised. But this struggles to make sense as a flat effect (thus requiring SSRs to let the stoic British 1^st Liners off!), is mechanically flavourless (that is, its flavour effect is nominal at the strictly mechanical level; arbitrary doubles turn into a column shift; no decisions, no special tables, just a flat and arbitrary effect), and is easy to forget in the moment unless one is a very seasoned ASL SK player.

Example One offers us emotionally distancing fiddle, whilst Example Two is weakly-flavoured chrome (to use a mixed metaphor). I'm not against fiddly games; try running through fire combat in Civil War Brigade Series or unit states in Musket and Pike, both of which I love, and you'll see what I mean! Nor am I against chrome. My point is that these examples seem to me to be examples of ASL SK utilising the wrong tools to accomplish its objective as a game. These examples of “cinematic mechanics” tend, for me, to make the game less cinematic and to be somewhat frustrating mechanics, too.

Now I can only assume that to some degree these concerns of mine will multiply with playing SK2-4 (all of which I own). Why torture myself? There are some secondary reasons: it's gaming history repackaged, I already own the games, and it's a cheapish and interesting way to get a wide variety of WW2 squad tactical (including PTO, looking at you Band of Brothers, including tanks, looking at you Combat Commander). But what's the main reason? Well, there's just very plainly something else going on here. It is undoubtedly the case that there is a game underneath the fiddle.

ASL SK is not simply a dirge-like calculation of factors, placement of confusing counters, and forgetting of obscure rules (though at a low point it can feel like that!). It's actually fascinating. The differing unit capabilities, the array of decisions/options (I still need to learn to use Smoke properly), the range of scenario designs within the SK series – all these speak strongly for the series. And it looks and feels good moving the counters, guessing LOS, applying the best of the chrome. It is an often-compelling experience.

It's not my favourite squad tactical, but its mighty pedigree is justified – there is a reason that ASL is a game which has justified five boxed games in a specialist starter series.