An experiment in retrieval and tool use over a notoriously dense rulebook. The goal: answers accurate enough to trust at the table, for a cent or less per question.
Advanced Squad Leader's rulebook runs over a million tokens, densely cross-referenced and full of exceptions. Looking up rules mid-game is slow even for veterans.
A frontier model answers most rules questions well — at 25–30 cents a question. The experiment: how much tool scaffolding does it take before a model nearly a hundred times cheaper is trustworthy at the table?
So far: on easy questions, an open-source model with agentic tools reaches 100% recall and 86% calculation accuracy at about 0.4¢ per query. On a harder medium set, a real gap to the frontier remains. Results, including the failures, are on the evals page.
FastAPI on Digital Ocean; answers stream over a WebSocket. The core is the loop below: the model asks for exactly the rules it needs, code fetches them, and the loop repeats until it can answer. On the evals, this loop is worth about 30 points on calculation questions compared to plain retrieval.
Here is one real run from the eval set — twelve tool calls to settle a one-line stacking question, because the answer is spread across three chapters of the rulebook:
Rules questions split into retrieval ("which rule applies?") and arithmetic ("what does it compute to?"). LLMs are good at the first and unreliable at the second — the same model that cites the right rules will quietly drop a +1 DRM. So the math lives in code, in four tools the model must call instead of deriving by hand:
The model picks the tool and writes the explanation; the tool supplies auditable numbers, surfaced line by line.
Vector search finds the rule; the failures come from the rule next to it — a qualifier in a cross-referenced section that never entered the context. So the rulebook was made addressable: 2,781 numbered sections plus ~2,400 official Q&A entries, exposed two ways: