VaS Tournament 15th April 2007 Stafford Games

[juggler69uk]

Well, it strikes me that there are changes here, that are being done for the sake of it.

Personally I do not like the shooting changes as destroyers should be hard to hit, but once they are then they're as good as dead. Modifying the rules to allow hits at 7+ cahnges the balance of the rules completely. If you want to stand a chance of hitting a destroyer at long range, you need to use observation aircraft and radar. If youn have'nt got these you have to wait a little longer and use your secondaries instead (actually quite historical).

............, but I do feel that VaS is a good set of rules without any amendment at this time.

I know that this is only my one viewpoint, but I do hope that changes are not implemented too quickly to these rules, as I for one would end up with very few opponents for this game, as I will not adopt these house rules. New rules draw people into the hobby. Please dont make drastic changes to scare them away!

Trev

I agree with most of what you said Trev most of the rules are fine, however, under the current rules in order for secondries to hit them you do need a house rule that says secondries do not suffer the -1 for a fast moving target

 

[hyndridge]

I am amazed!

A lot of this forum is about suggested changes to the rules and when I go and try and incorporate some of these changes all I get is moaned at!

I will answer individual posts later when I have more time.

I have played this game since the day it was launched and have played a fair few games.

I have not played ACTA (an advantage I think) so do not interpret the rules taking into account what you do in that set of rules I simply play the rules as they are written and as they are written they need a lot of clarification.

This is what I have tried to do together with a few ideas of my own, some might work and some might not we will see.

The rules pack is not set in stone yet so if I have made any glaring mistakes or anyone disagrees with what I have done then I am open to suggestions especially from those attending the tournament.

Roland

 

[Evil Trev]

I dont agree, secondaries hit just as well as main turrets, and get the bonus's for spotters etc. I do agree that it is hard to hit destroyers etc at all, but we dont want it too easy do we. Dont forget that if they are going faster than 7" they are almost certainly at "Flank Speed" which makes it harder for the destroyer to hit as well, including torpedoes. I recently saved the Scharnhorst from a multiple destroyer attack, by adding the evasive action in (which I was fortunate enough to pass the test for). JP's British losing the majority of the "little" ships, to my running to keep the range as open as possible. Indeed, I did take some damage, but no crippled ships in the fleet at all.

Hopefully I will be able to get a re-match this week, now that the whole fleet is painted.

Trev

 

[hyndridge]

As for how Agile is played?

Agile means you get a complete turn when your ship finishes its move. This turn can be in addition to the normal complete turn a ship is allowed during its move.

In fact an agile ship can make 2 complete turns one after the other if it wants to. (Which if it has turning score of 2 means it will turn further than a single turn of with a score of 4.)

It would appear that my interpretation of 'Agile' is wrong and I may have to amend it in the rules pack.

I do not feel that strongly about it that I will change it for the sake of it, I was just clarifying my interpretation of the rule which now appears to be wrong.

Roland

 

[juggler69uk]

I am amazed!

A lot of this forum is about suggested changes to the rules and when I go and try and incorporate some of these changes all I get is moaned at!

I have not played ACTA (an advantage I think) ......

This is what I have tried to do together with a few ideas of my own, some might work and some might not we will see.


Roland

Hmmm some of this forum also seems to quote "its not in the rules, or not covered etc......" when certain things get queried, but are quick to propose their own changes (some quite radical), so I know how you feel.

I also have not played ACTA (also I think a plus) and dont intend to, I also dont think people should draw parallels to something that worked there.

As to your tournament, as most have said I do think you ought to play it as close to the "standard" rules as you can with as few house rules as possible in order to give anyone coming from outside the area a fighting chance of using them all and not have "locals" who know them all ruling the roost......errr... Waves

Plus hand them a sheet containing the "house" set as they arrive

 

[hyndridge]

Well, it strikes me that there are changes here, that are being done for the sake of it. After 35 years of gaming it is not necessary or even sensible to have a knee jerk reaction and make such drastic changes. I may not have played many games of this yet, but I have experimented with the seperate rules, and I felt that the game was reasonable before. I hope that these "house rules" are just that, and that they dont get adopted as a standard set of errata.
Trev

None of these changes are being made for the sake of it, what would be the point of that, but hopefully to clarify or improve the rules.

Maybe you should play a few more games before replying with such certainty, how about coming over to the tournamnet its only about 60 miles away.

These rules are purely for my tournament and have nothing to do with Mongoose so I don't see why they should be adopted by them. I will however let Matt know how the tournament ges and any thing that works or doesn't work.

Roland

 

[squiffy]

Errr... Evil Trev - in the rulebook Torps arent adjusted for fast moving targets. Is this a house rule that your playing?

 

[Evil Trev]

Errr... Eviul Trev - in the rulebook Torps arent adjusted for mast moving targets. Is this a house rule that your playing?

But they do get modified for Evasive action. Never said that torps were adjusted for it.
Not a house rule.............its in the book!

As for some of the other comments:

I am playing the tourney in Sheffield, mainly to learn more, but even though I am not the most experienced VaS player at the moment, I have been playing naval games since the early 70's as well as many other systems since then. You can often see how something is going to work (or not) without having to play the whole thing through. Thats where proof readers come into there own. I pointed out that the rules are young, and that it may be too early to adopt a set of house rules as a tournament set.

You can either listen to other peoples opinions as I have had to do for several years now with the WPS or you can choose to ignore them, but whether you like it or not, they still have opinions. Nowadays, I try to listen to everybody else's view before "blasting them out of the water". Pardon the pun.

I did say that I think there is a good ruleset here, and that I hope it does not get too heavily changed after 1 event. All that does, is make you feel there was not enough play-testing, which I am sure is not the case.

Have I missed a +1 for secondaries shooting, as I may be playing it wrong, but all the plusses and minuses surely apply to both the mains and the secondaries........dont they?

If you are looking for areas that IMO could be changed for a more historical and probably more important point "playable" game, then I would suggest

1. No flying in bad weather
2. The use of Flank speed should be limited.
3. Main Turrets should not be able to target different ships in the same turn..............it simply was'nt done.

Now thats my two bobs worth. I thought that dogfights also occured twice in the turn, and consequently as we are trying to play a naval game, I think that the fact that planes have trouble disposing of ships, then there is probably a good balance there. I also noted the change for your next event taking land based aircraft, subs, and the largest warships out. That should lean towards some well balanced cruiser actions.

I look forward to the opportunity of coming down further South for an event, but the principal reason I am going to the Sheffield event is, that it is on a Saturday, and Sundays are limited in my case. However, I will pick up the gauntlet and come down hopefully in the not too distant future.

I am very pleased that there are people out there that are still prepared to spend their own time and money getting things right, for all those that are'nt prepared too. Hopefully those that "DO" can perm some useful comments from my points.

Trev

 

[Court Jester]

I'd just like to say that the no subs, war-ships of land based aircraft is a good call.

 

[squiffy]

Sorry I thought that when you said "Dont forget that if they are going faster than 7" they are almost certainly at "Flank Speed" which makes it harder for the destroyer to hit as well, including torpedoes" you also ment it effects torps. Do'h!

Yeah pluses and minus effect main guns and secondaries. But we play in teh campaign game a house rule that means 8" guns and smaller dont get -1 for fast moving.

We also limit flank speed. Although we dont, as yet, limit flying in bad weather. It is a good point though and I may bring this in. I also thought that dogfights occur twice in a turn, or perhaps I should say, once for each player involved!

I agree about planes having a hard time taking out ships. Just look at the Prince of Wales and the Repluse and the rather large number of aircraft it took to sink them. I think in the end about 60+ planes attacked them. I have only recently read up on this attack. Previously we were using 3AD per flight, but I think 2AD is better now and the Stafford games tourney has taken this up. It did take 6 torpedo hits to sink the Prince of Wales, but all those that hit did do sever damage.

I think one of the best things I like about VaS is that its easy to pick up and play, but each player or gorup can add their own bits to it to make it more enjourable for them. Thats what house rules are for and are a useful tool for tweaking established systems, espcially ones that have some ambiguous statements!

In the long run, I think I would prefer a tournament without to many house rules, but I am more than willing to play in a game full of house rules. If only to see if there are any I can "borrow"!

So I shall partake in Stafford Game's Tournament, without moaning too much at the house rules. Apart from that very silly one.

 

[juggler69uk]

Have I missed a +1 for secondaries shooting, as I may be playing it wrong, but all the plusses and minuses surely apply to both the mains and the secondaries........dont they?

Trev

Dont think you missed any +1 anywhere Trev, but that means secondaries still suffer the -1 to hit a fast moving target theat the main guns do.

Wasnt the point of the secondaries to track faster and hit fast closing craft that the main guns could not change aiming for ??

 

[Poi]

Roland

Just to clarify, I'm not criticising house rules per se, just their use in a tourney.

 

[hyndridge]

Follow the link below for the tournament rules pack.

Keep checking back for any alterations.

If you have any queries please use this thread so everyone can see the answers.

http://www.staffordgames.co.uk/tournaments/VAS%20Tournament%20Pack.pdf

Roland

Tournament rules pack has now been updated in view of the 'discussions' on this thread.

If you have issues with speific rules, as opposed to general whinging, let me know.

Roland

 

[juggler69uk]

Tournament rules pack has now been updated in view of the 'discussions' on this thread.

If you have issues with speific rules, as opposed to general whinging, let me know.

Roland

Im not going to be there but thought i would give them a read. The following are observations and not intended as criticism or Whinging

AA ~ If you are going to give people a choice between doing things then they probably need to decide before they roll the dice and not roll first and decide after, picking the best option for the roll (example: Rats that roll doesnt kill off them so I will kill the others instead)

Multiple dogfights ~ Unless im reading it wrong I'm not sure the way you have it will allow an outnumbered plane (more than 2 to 1) a chance at shooting down an enemy, asume all dogfight +4 and 1AD

the group of three get 12 + a dice roll
the single can only score a max of 10 (4 + a dice roll) so can never win

 

[hyndridge]

[/quote]

AA ~ If you are going to give people a choice between doing things then they probably need to decide before they roll the dice and not roll first and decide after, picking the best option for the roll (example: Rats that roll doesnt kill off them so I will kill the others instead) [/quote]

It doesn't say whether you need to state how many AD you are rolling at each flight in the rules so it is just my interpretation of the rules and at least it lets everyone play it the same way.

[/quote]
Multiple dogfights ~ Unless im reading it wrong I'm not sure the way you have it will allow an outnumbered plane (more than 2 to 1) a chance at shooting down an enemy, asume all dogfight +4 and 1AD

the group of three get 12 + a dice roll
the single can only score a max of 10 (4 + a dice roll) so can never win[/quote]

That's the way it is written in the rules, no limit on the number of flights taking part!

Roland

 

[squiffy]

Tournament rules pack has now been updated in view of the 'discussions' on this thread.

If you have issues with speific rules, as opposed to general whinging, let me know.

Roland

Looking good! 8)

 

[juggler69uk]

I think you missed the point of me mentioning it, but in the long run its your tourny so no worries

 

[hyndridge]

Sorry if I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

If it is the fact that planes surrounded by several enemy fighters have no chance at all then you are right but that is how its written in the rules and I have already been accused of meddling with the rules too much already.

Roland

 

[andy]

Hi all,

Only played half a dozen games of Vas so far but like it's simplicity

True thre are a few areas in the rules open to interpretation, especially for new players like myself and I would appreciate some offical mongoose clarification

However since this tournements rules have been posted well in advance and not sprung on players don't see what all the fuss is about

I'm willing to accept that any clarification / changes for this tournement are there with the intention of keeping the fun element of the game

Since someone has taken the time and effort required to organise a VaS tournement, especially one I can easily get to I think we need to get this topic back on track

Victory at Sea is a simple and fun World War II Naval Game
There is a tournement at Stafford Games on the 15th Aprill 2007
Be there or be square

For those intrested in what all the fun is about click on the link below
http://www.staffordgames.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=165t

 

[juggler69uk]

Sorry if I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make.

If it is the fact that planes surrounded by several enemy fighters have no chance at all then you are right but that is how its written in the rules and I have already been accused of meddling with the rules too much already.

Roland

Just to try and clarify what I meant

With the AA ~ If they had to make the choice as to shoot at the one or the other before rolling, it would prevent the "gamey" situations that can arise, dont the rules currently say you split the AA AD as you want against different aircraft, I assume this to mean before you roll as Page 7 states Nominate target for each weapon that will be fired, and page 15 says AA may freely split their FIRE among multiple targets (It does NOT state freely split the damage)

With the dogfights ~ As I understand it the rules do not currently cover multiple aircraft dogfights, my point was in reality a single fighter could possibly take one with him as he goes down in flames, I dont know what the real solution is for this, maybe a single one to one combat, with a plus 1 for each extra plane, maybe the supplement will sort it out, maybe other ....

Anyway I hope the Tourny goes well whatever way you play it :wink: