Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thanks for the suggestions. I am again on a tablet, so will be brief tonight. I wish he would come onto dakka to discuss this further. It's not a suggest me a game, I can Google. I really wanted people to weight different game mechanics independently of the label, if that is possible.

To be honest, I get ramboed by his army lists often enough in Infinity, but as soon as we try a scenario, which we sometimes don't understand right, or there seem to be loose ends, then he usually loses or I use a TAG and loses and so he refuses to play TAGs. So I win some. I just have to use TO or other tools to do it. Otherwise Duroc roflstomps me quite easily.

He like Chain of Command a lot, it does fall into a resources & dice management game. I happen to believe that it favours both Germans and defender slightly, so to remain accurate, I'm often the British attacker. Regardless.

We played Tomorrow's War last night, just after I opened this topic. He had prepared a scenario from the book, I had not read the rules, he short-handed me through the game. The mechanics are simple. Some die roll are odd, but a lot of the rules are... incomplete. As in there are incomplete lists of outcomes. We both felt like being a more capable opponent (I was using d8s, he had more men but was using d6s) makes for a very lopsided engagement. I won purely because I went balls to the walls for the mission objective and didn't care about killing his guys. I never won so fast. It felt a bit cheap to be able to roll better than him and he couldn't do anything to counter my dice rolls.

I am taking all your suggestions to heart. Someone gave me a spare deadzone enforcers set and rulebook, so I am painting up 4 tablescapes tiles to give that a try next. Warpath alpha seems too incomplete to bother, at this point at least. We did somewhat enjoy SoBaH and the religious historical offshoot, OGAM, but if the dice won't roll right when you try to activate, it makes for a long evening...

X-Wing. Extremely simple basic rules, special rules for pilots, upgrades etc. are vast, but most often build on the basic rules and there usually aren't more than a few due to the limited amount of fighters. You literally understand the basic rules after a single game...but prepare to forget using actions for the first few games ;D

Crossfire sounds very interesting. I must buy a copy.

There has always been a tension in wargame rules between simulation and game, and simulation is complicated by the fact that real battlefields clearly don't work on principles of a unit can march 2 miles an hour and therefore will reach its objective 1 mile away in 1/2 an hour. Fog of war in an important factor that we helicopter generals find it hard to implement.

The Crossfire rules seem to address these issues by this mechanism of retaining the initiative until an action is failed. I have seen other mechanisms such as random turn length that decrease the player's knowledge and control of game conditions.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
We played Tomorrow's War last night, just after I opened this topic. He had prepared a scenario from the book, I had not read the rules, he short-handed me through the game. The mechanics are simple. Some die roll are odd, but a lot of the rules are... incomplete. As in there are incomplete lists of outcomes. We both felt like being a more capable opponent (I was using d8s, he had more men but was using d6s) makes for a very lopsided engagement. I won purely because I went balls to the walls for the mission objective and didn't care about killing his guys. I never won so fast. It felt a bit cheap to be able to roll better than him and he couldn't do anything to counter my dice rolls.

If you were playing the capture the pilot mission, that is a terrible and unbalanced scenario. It is very tough for the defender to pull off. I will say, the Tomorrow's War rulebook is tough to read and understand what is intended unless you have a decent grounding in Force-on-Force. It is frustrating!

However, I love the approach of just trying more games! Again, don;t limit yourself to commercial only sets or big companies. Indy games can be a ton of fun. Check out Free Wargames Wikia and the Wargames Vault.

I will. My friend wanted us to try a system he'd found from a guyin Italy, so going off the beaten path is not a problem.

It was the pilot mission. He had played it twife solo before I got a crack at it, but I just played it vastly differently than how he had played (I often chose to just roll for armour instead of firing back in order to stay mobile) so he was a bit taken aback by that.

Here is some generally held beliefs of the game developers I have talked too.

Strategy and tactics are like the meat and vegetables of a meal.
Some players prefer more loading on tactical (in game,) decision making.These are generally older more experienced players.

Some players prefer more strategic loading , (eg more focused on list building and deployment) .These are generally younger players who find it easier to learn lots of data, than try to develop over arching tactical plans .

Both tactics and strategy are vitally important to a war game! (lots of things labelled 'tactics' in 40k forums are actually strategic considerations, BTW.)

Special rules are like the herbs and spices.
They are JUST to enhance the flavor and textures of the meal.

If the meat and vegetables are bland and flavorless ,(the tactical loading is lacking for example.)The the game has to rely on special rules to make it palatable.
Like smothering a bland burger that was over cooked in special sauce to make it taste of something other than ash!

Well written rules deliver a good balance of tactical and strategic complexity with straight forward rules.

Eg the perfectly aged steak and expertly cooked vegetables do not need any thing added to improve flavor.

In the same way well written rules cover all the intended game play without having to use special rules .However some may be added sparingly and expertly where needed to delicately enhance the 'flavor'.

There are loads of game mechanics and resolution methods available to the game developer.its their job to use the ones that deliver the intended game play with the minimum of fuss /confusion.

Abstractions and simulations...
You can make a game that is purely abstract yet fun to play.BUT the more abstract the rules the more straight forward the rules have to be.EG Pass The Pigs, Snakes and ladders etc,

Most good war games are simple simulations. Eg the game play delivers the interaction the players expect.

So for example a WWII war game will give the players an experience that mimics their expectations .

The resolutions are simplified to make the game playable .Eg all the variable in the interaction could be covered by a dice roll .

So for example the wind speed, wind resistance , yaw from rotation , air resistance , angle of incident, angle of deflection ,variation in armour thickness in a single aspect, etc.Are covered by the D6 roll in the following resolution .

Basic Target Armour Value +D6 vs Basic Armour Penetration value.

So the resolution method is abstracted to make it simple but the results are not abstracted.

In the same way that tactics and strategy make up the basic foundation of a game.The amount of complication(number of systems in the game,) and complexity(number of functions in the game.)Define the over all 'shape' of the game play.

These are my terms for the 'shape' of a game.(Complexity is like muscle. and complication is like fat in a human body.)

'Weak' games have too little complexity to be interesting to a lot of players.

'Fat' games are too complicated to be worth learning to a lot of players.

'Healthy' games have enough complexity to entertain lots of players.But the level of complication is kept to a minimum.

'Weak-fat' is the worst possible shape for a game.The game play lacks enough complexity to be engaging, but tries to add lots of complication to detract from it.
(This is where 7th ed 40k is IMO. )

That is enough of my rambling for now...

I have to exalt this.

We are not averse to complexity of the basic rules. (Although I can never remember to do all my gut tests for some reason)

I've always felt that if you can have the game's flow hold on about 4 cheat sheets, then I can get behind it. Again, Infinity is a god basic system, I like it. Except for the gut roll, for some reason. Anyway, it's in the particulars that I get lost. I might not be the best example, though, because I play Pan-O, so relatively few special rules, and my friend doesn't want to allow link teams (they remind him of 40K squads too much).

I tend to prefer the impact in-game decisions have on the game, rather than what you refer to as the strategic loading. I'm a poor optimizer of points. And I like my lists to have narrative considerations, even if just for the sake of trying cool unit.

Are Force on Force and Tomorrows War related?

That is indeed a really nice analysis with enjoyable parallels to relate to.

Excellent work!

 Ratius wrote:
Are Force on Force and Tomorrows War related?

They use the same core rules. Force On Force came out first, but if I'm understanding things correctly, the system began life as a near-future sci-fi game, was published as FoF the modern warfare game then TW came from that.

You may also wish to look at Ground Zero Games' Stargrunt II (available for free, I think). Some similar concepts, such as the use of different dice, to FoF/TW, but I found the rules easier to understand. For a sci-fi game, they're quite limited (it's that brand of milSF which is basically "the 80s, but with better special effects", like Aliens ); no rules for aliens, for example. You wouldn't necessarily want a million different special weapon effects, but the morale and command rules may need changed depending on your aliens (The Kra'Vak from GZG's own setting, for example, would need a whole new set of morale rules to cover their described behaviour).

If I've read them correctly (and it was a few years ago), failing to deal with casualties (by having medics attend them, or escorting them to the rear) will negatively affect morale, and skill level and morale are decoupled, like in Flames of War.

One edition of Heavy Gear (3rd edition, I think; the one before Blitz) had the idea of making each side's objectives be of different importance; one side may be out to capture a hill, and it's top priority, so they're less likely to break and run, while the other side may be trying to recce the enemy forces, but it's relatively low priority, so in a heavy firefight they're likely to fall back and try to disengage.

That's the thing that most "big name" games simply ignore, in my experience; command, control and morale. It's usually reduced to "take x% casualties, then roll a dice to see if you run away". A lot of gamers treat the mere suggestion that their troops might not do exactly what they want them to do, when they want it done, flawlessly, as not only unwanted, but poor game design. It's one of the reasons that Warmaster and Epic Armageddon are better than Warhammer and 40k, IMO.

Fantastic overview. Great analogies.

Lanrak wrote:
Here is some generally held beliefs of the game developers I have talked too.

Strategy and tactics are like the meat and vegetables of a meal.
Some players prefer more loading on tactical (in game,) decision making.These are generally older more experienced players.

Some players prefer more strategic loading , (eg more focused on list building and deployment) .These are generally younger players who find it easier to learn lots of data, than try to develop over arching tactical plans .

Both tactics and strategy are vitally important to a war game! (lots of things labelled 'tactics' in 40k forums are actually strategic considerations, BTW.)

I've heard this myself and agree with it. Specifically that 40K's loading up on strategy and special rules are tailored towards younger gamers, who can soak up stats and rules, but have some trouble with tactical decisions.

Rick Priestley made that point himself after he left GW and was designing Hail Ceasar at Warlord.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

That's the thing that most "big name" games simply ignore, in my experience; command, control and morale. It's usually reduced to "take x% casualties, then roll a dice to see if you run away". A lot of gamers treat the mere suggestion that their troops might not do exactly what they want them to do, when they want it done, flawlessly, as not only unwanted, but poor game design. It's one of the reasons that Warmaster and Epic Armageddon are better than Warhammer and 40k, IMO.

Depends on the game system really and the control the player wants over their game pieces, I strongly dislike C&C taken to the simulation extreme, I would rather play with my troops than constantly roll dice to see what they do, some think this is good and truer representation o reality, I think the more realistic commant, control and moral are the less control players have over their game pieces, the less the game is.

Admittedly if you go full in a system that embraces this chaos and consciously know you will try to wrestle control from your units which try their best to behave as chaotically as they can, they you will enjoy the challenge, I personally feel this is more a simulation than a game and prefer games over simulations.

For me especially moral can be utilized as an extra "hit points" system that affect command instead of health.

That is the old tension between game and simulation at work.

The main difference between TW and SGII using different dice is that the dice you use in TW remains constant, whereas SGII uses a sliding scale of dice size. It sounds great on paper, but unless you were a tactical genius or used overwhelming force, you'd be stuck using d6 or d4 most of the time.

The Tomorrow's War (so FoF, I guess) system to deal with casualty and troop reactions to casualty was simplified compared to StarGrunt II, but that is to it's honour. A simple die roll gave the outcome of a turn of soaking up fire, and then you moved on to another phase.

What I did not enjoy at all from SGII was the overwhelming effect of suppression on the game. Firing on a squad was quickly reduced to a number of suppression markers, instead of casualties, and it became hard to do anything but spend your action points removing suppression markers, rather than doing anything. The same thing can be said of Chain of Command after a few rounds.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Depends on the game system really and the control the player wants over their game pieces, I strongly dislike C&C taken to the simulation extreme, I would rather play with my troops than constantly roll dice to see what they do, some think this is good and truer representation o reality, I think the more realistic commant, control and moral are the less control players have over their game pieces, the less the game is.

Admittedly if you go full in a system that embraces this chaos and consciously know you will try to wrestle control from your units which try their best to behave as chaotically as they can, they you will enjoy the challenge, I personally feel this is more a simulation than a game and prefer games over simulations.

For me especially moral can be utilized as an extra "hit points" system that affect command instead of health.

I'm fond of C&C in games myself, but I don't think too many - at least not the ones I've tried - go to those kinds of extremes.
Taking Andrew's examples: Epic: Armageddon, as I usually mention, was the first non-Warhammer system that showed me a different way of gaming, and I'm still fond of it's strategy rating, blast marker and especially the initiative mechanics.
Warmaster's got it's order and confusion mechanics (carried over in slightly modified form to Rick's trio of Warlord games, which haven't done too badly IIRC), and while the former's usually criticised for leaving your units high and dry if you blunder, it's only on a roll of 12 on 2D6, and can be mitigated by keeping your leaders handy, issuing brigade orders, using your general as backup, and initiative moves.
I love all that stuff that makes you assess the situation, and assessing the possibility and risk of what you and your resources might pull off if you push on. It's exactly what we've mentioned already - tactical decision making.

To be honest it's what made me pass over KoW, although the rest of the mechanics are up my alley. Heroes are basically slightly smaller single monsters. Generals give - what was it again? +1 to nerve rolls within a certain radius? Thats about the same or less than Warhammer. Meh. I think the chess clock option is their way of simul- representing the fog of war, as you race to personally 'command' all your regiments in an intelligent way, in a limited time frame; but as an optional extra I don't know how widely used or praised it is, and I'm not entirely convinced. Yet.

I think at the core your friend needs to move toward mostly standalone games that are written to meet a need for a given kind ruleset vs games that are designed to be constantly growing and selling more models. Malifaux, Warmachine, and maybe even Infinity are games like this where you're building combo's of units and trying to "pull something off". I think he would be happier with games for which the forces involved are dependent on the scenario you are playing rather than the CCG-like list-building of many current games

Tomorrow's war is on the right track. I'd give it another go, especially if you can find someone who knows it or FoF who can run it for you.
If you want something that's slightly cleaner written I suggest 5150 Star Army. However 5150 is a THW "reaction" system game and so it takes even more of the results of combat out of the hands of the players as it attempts to replicate the reactions of those involved.

Do you like Warmaster? If so, the "Commander" series of games uses the basic Warmaster command mechanic as translated into ww2, modern and sci-fi settings as "Blitzkrieg", "Cold War" and "Future War" Commander. SAGA is another ruleset with almost no list-building but where the decisions you make are crucial. The "battleboards" system means that despite the elemnt of chance, you still have to make alot of meaningful choices throughout every turn. Yet, it has a wide diversity of factions, each of which plays differently without resorting to adding many "special rules".

Lastly, good old fashioned Hott is a game that despite it's beer and pretzels reputation, still seems to satisfy many gamers need for tacitcal play.

Some game mechanics that I liked or disliked;

We used to play a Napoleonic game called Old Trousers. It had a command and control system that was incredibly frustrating and I wound up selling off my Austrians. Essentially, you got 1 order per 4 units in your game, unless you were French and then you got one order per 3 units. But, skirmishers could move without orders, and most of the French could skirmish. Note that I had Austrians. The end result was the only viable tactic I could use was to line up and shoot at things that got close enough. Assaults were laughably insane. I would endeavor to storm a position, and 1/4 of the troops moved ahead. Then stood there being shelled by cannon while the other slackers moved forward. Piecemeal attacks never work. And the rules mandated them. (unless you were French) You never had enough orders to do much of anything. I had cavalry charges stop within canister range and then stand there wondering what to do because I did not have enough orders to tell them to "KEEP CHARGING YOU MORONS!"

Another game that had some real neat features was Johnny Reb. I loved the way troops were kept off board until sighted. Regiments were usually about 20 figures, but you also had pickets. These were single figures on a base with a letter on the bottom. This corresponded to one of your units. The real unit was kept off board until spotted and the picket showed its position. You kept the unit in the formation you wanted and moved the picket. It was possible to guess what a unit was by the speed of its movement, but also possible to move you picket in a way to disguise that. Sighting ranges were based on the terrain. You also got a dummy picket for each unit. Approaching the enemy in rough ground was a nail biter. It was possible to group your regiments in to brigades, and use one picket for the entire brigade and the rest all dummies. Formations played a huge roll in movement and how much damage you would get. So if you were walking down a forest road in column everything went well, until the enemy picket turned out to be unlimbered cannon and you failed to spot them until you were mere inches away. Scouting became real important................. If you decided to deploy because you were afraid of enemy contact, then you could be horribly delayed by a dummy picket and waste a lot of time advancing in line against a phantom.

I mentioned Chipco earlier, and the morale clock that features in most of their games is pretty neat. It appears that the company that was handling the downloads is out of business so it might be impossible to get these rules anymore. With this system you counted points each turn, and the guy losing the most for that turn had the army morale drop. When one player had their morale drop to 0 the game was over. It meant that the fighting had died down, but it was possible to win the game and be the player with your morale clock at 0. You start at 9, unless you have a baggage camp and then you start at 10. In one game we had 2 armies that were not a good match. One was a skirmishing missile army and the other a Greek Hoplite force. The Greeks were losing 9-1 before they managed to get to grips with the foe. They ended up never losing another turn and winning the game.

Just a couple of mechanics I remember from various games.

Hi folks.
Killkrazy wrote ''That is the old tension between game and simulation at work.''

For war games I prefer to think of it as what parts of the warfare do you want to simulate in the war game.And more importantly at what level of detail do you think is appropriate!

For a simple analogy to video games.
A first person shooter is focused on simulation the tactical use of weapons from the perspective of the combatant.
Strategic 'resource management' is usually limited to how many grenades you have left!

A first person shooter , that had in depth strategic elements before you set off on your mission would be wholly inappropriate!
(Working out how much fuel, food, munitions and equipment arrived at any location to set the parameters of the mission for example!)

And at the other end , a strategic game looking at a major operation during a world war for example .Would not be enhanced by resolving 1, 000 FPS tactical battles before you can move a Division up one hex to join an Army Group!

Basically all war games simulate some things from real war, and ignore others.To meet the game play requirements .

So its more focusing on the game play you want to achieve , rather than trying to be everything to all players.

The reason there are so many different war games about is because people like all sorts of war games!

However, there are lots of ways to simulate these aspects of warfare, some are less complicated than others.

Referring to my earlier ramble , the more complexity in the game play (the stronger the game play is.)
The more complication it can carry before it is noticed by the players.(It can carry more 'fat' without it slowing down notably.)

Some players are more sensitive to complication in the rules than others though.

Noir wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
We tried Infinity for a while. The fact that a TAG with cheerleaders can clean a board. Would the game be as fun with 10 cheerleaders a side, all with the same rules? I actually happen to think so.

He suggests taking the example of chess and go as basic strategy and special rules games. On the one hand, go, where a single piece can have influence across the board, yet have no special rule that another piece does not have. Chess, on the other hand, is entirely predicated on simple core mechanics, with each piece having their special movement rules. Take the special rules out, you get checkers, which is boring as hell. To him.

Does this help a bit.

Not to be an ass, but trying Infinity for awhile (even only 1-2 dozens) is not learning to play Infinity. If a TAG can run the table, it the guys getting stomped who is likely at fault (unless the dice are just bending you over).

What he said. If a tag with cheerleaders runs the game, that screams "you don't know how to play."
There are so many answers to TAGs that if someone's relying on them, the other player doesn't have a clue what they're doing.
Hack em, blind em,etc.
And PP games "whoever has more focus wins?" Um...what?
Sounds like your friend tries a bunch of games without understanding them and moves on.
Tell him to learn the games first before giving up.
Like that children's story about the king that has the shoemakers make new shoes but each one's not as comfortable as his old pair. But then a shoemaker makes the king follow him around the kingdom and when he's done the shoe's broken in.

Hi guys,
I am Mathieu's friend.

First thanks a lot to all of you who provided great arguments and discussion points. I particularly enjoyed the culinary analogy... simply delicious... hehe...

Next, I would like to clarify my position in this debate... I feel like I have been simplified to basically a pouting child unhappy with his toys...

I am, in order of importance, a father, a full time wage slave, an Ironman training 15+ hours a week, a miniature painter, an amateur historian and a wargamer... The time I have to spare on my hobbies is pretty limited, so at the basis of all of this discussion is the fact that during that time, I do not wish to build lists and study special rules.

So, we began discussing the origin of the "fun" in various systems... and here we are.

About Warmachine, I think Mathieu (who never played the game) simply misunderstoodmy arguments. Simply said, it's the combo fiesta that i do not like.

About infinity, I love this game, I really do. I simply much prefer smaller games with few special rules and no super strong minis. I do not feel that TO camo (my main gripe) adds much to the game. Same thing about linked teams, and TAGs. Involving those make list building much more important, as you MUST include solutions for them.. to me, they are "fat" in this otherwise nice game.

Speaking of limited time, my free time is now over... Thanks again for the discussion, i'll keep following this thread.

I feel that a boardgame wargame would fit your needs better at this time, it looses a lot of parts compared to an actual wargame, but it gains in speed and standardization.

Keep that as a thought.

That was a rare sighting.

And now you've scared him off.

I was hoping we'd get Eilif on this one, because he seems to have tried so many different systems.

If we could maybe bring it back to the heart of the matter: What do you feel are the strongest core mechanics systems for skirmish levels. To my mind,it would have to allow you a broad enough set of options per figure to represent real battlefield choice, and be things that most troops in the game can accomplish. Again, to my taste, it would not be over-burdened by too long a list of weapons profiles and special rules. If they are present, they ought to modify slightly, but not invalidate the core rules. I think Infinity started as such a system, but the bloat of extra rules and add-ons leave me disenchanted. And I can't think of a clear line where I can cut out part of the system without killing it, or singling out specific rules. As a whole, if you're willing to spend the time, it does work. We just don't have the time.

For something that involves about a company's worth of minis, what works, what doesn't? I don't think you can expand on the skirmish system to just include more minis, as it just bogs progress down. I'm turned off by the passive side of 40K, I think Tomorrow's War was on to something nice. The basic system we played with was easy to learn (I never even read the book), but different power levels need to be carefully balanced, otherwise even winning isn't fun. It was an intro scenario, I figure there must be more options for units, rules for scouting and such. I was actually ok with having just a generic SAW and RPG add-on per fire team, rather than a list of different weapons. It put more emphasis on my choice as the situation arose. I don't even know if I could have sacrificed those weapons for more dudettes (I used my SoB) but that might have been a good choice. Anyway.

I'm going away on vacation until wednesday night, I'll pick this up when we get back. (Yes, a whole glorious three days, isn't owning your business grand?!!?!!??)

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I'm a fan of Malifaux,which is a set of simple mechanics, but wholly dependent on special rules interaction. I can somewhat understand him, in the sense that if you want to make the right choices, you kinda have to know what the enemy can do, which if your opponent has a lot more options than you (money), can be nigh on impossible.

I wouldn't go that far. If you ask more prominent competitive players, they don't have a suitcase full of everything for a faction. Most tournaments limit you to 100SS worth of models and 2 masters anyway. Having a 'core' set of models, roughly 20SS-25SS for each master you play, then a couple of additional options to swap out depending on schemes, will make you a better player than trying to master everything in a faction, let alone cross-faction options.

More options is good, but there comes a point when you have too many options and you start losing effectiveness across the board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ironbovin wrote:
About infinity, I love this game, I really do. I simply much prefer smaller games with few special rules and no super strong minis. I do not feel that TO camo (my main gripe) adds much to the game. Same thing about linked teams, and TAGs. Involving those make list building much more important, as you MUST include solutions for them.. to me, they are "fat" in this otherwise nice game.

If you haven't read the 3rd edition rules yet, I really recommend you do.

Alpha striking from camo is no longer a unit delete method. Modifiers are capped at stacks of 12, positive or negative. Camo also does not get an unopposed shot - any and all AROs can be made against them, with the normal modifiers.

Regarding TAGs, so many options have been added to deal with them. Isolation, Immobilisation, many hacking programs including the hilarious 'eject' (eject the pilot and shoot him instead). TAGs themselves have had their teeth removed due to weapon range band changes - the majority of the strong TAGs have some kind of HMG, which has been kicked in the pants at short and medium range. TAGs are so much easier to deal with now without resorting to list tailoring.

Link teams I do agree with. I don't enjoy the mechanics, and every time I've tried them, I've been unimpressed. We usually don't run them, even when running a sectorial. Human Sphere 3rd edition is releasing I assume some time this year, probably near the end since it's being teased already. It's going to have new link team rules according to the teaser. Many speculate it might be similar to the new coordinated order rules, which would be a lot less clunky and actually make every member of a link useful, if less dangerous.

I am sorry if my suggestion scared him, but what he described is a contained environment, wargames by definition fail to have such a contained environment by virtue of been open ended, while boardgames virtue is to be contained and close ended.

The wargame you describe wanting is in my opinion and this opinion is as subjective as you may get is Infinity, 3rd edition, sure the expansion books need to get in line with 3rd edition, but in time it will be a unified tight system.

The special rules do not bloat the system because while they are enough to give the flavor and variety a skirmish game needs units are not bloated with them and the reference in game is minimal.

I am not too enthusiast about game systems as 5150 or TW or SG2 for that matter, they need way too much effort to play them from players creating the scenarios and balanced forces to participate in them that are too time consuming in our time constrained era, to put it better if you have to put the effort for balanced forces and scenarios, put a bit extra and make the game system yourself.

I would say I can relate on your feelings about WH/H, the game system is nice and tight, but it relies too much on combos and frankly the "always can check control range" (however it is really called) is a bug transformed into a feature it would be better to just allow premeasure in my opinion and leave the gimmicky premeasure out.

(It's a slow sunday at work, I'm stealing some time for you guys)

No, no, your suggestion didn't really scare him off. I just meant that at 19 posts since 2011, it's not likely we'll see him in the thread again until 2016.

I also agree that Infinity seemed like a panacea at the time, no TO, no TAGs and no link teams meant I tended to watch from my side of the board and wait until it was all over. I could have started another faction, but money has been tight since we purchased our "esteemed retail establishment" that it wasn't really an option. If you say I3 is that good, then I might invest in the book. No sense getting Icestorm, I got the minis off someone else, and cardstock scenery is not to my taste. If HMG has been modified that way, so much the better. It was too powerful before, imho.

I do agree that systems were the crowd needs to chip in to balance forces and scenarios is not ideal to our situation, because we tend to suffer from ATP (Acute Time Poverty) when it comes to gaming.

And personally, as I said, I really like Malifaux, chief among them that I don't need to open the book to check stats, it's all on the card. It might be a smidge too character driven, but I can live with that.

Edited for pants on heads keyboard.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:


If we could maybe bring it back to the heart of the matter: What do you feel are the strongest core mechanics systems for skirmish levels.

It’s TM’s dice-type roll-off system. Its quick, clean, and intuitive. You only need a few stats and you don’t need any charts. Mixed weapons and Saves units are no problem, so go ahead, add that support weapon. Mixed weapons on mixed save attacks are resolved with just a few simple dice roles. Its also more fun to roll-off against your opponent than it is to roll against a static chart.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

To my mind,it would have to allow you a broad enough set of options per figure to represent real battlefield choice, and be things that most troops in the game can accomplish.

By using TM’s dice-type roll-off system you can modify a figure’s basic dice-type lay-out with higher dice-types and/or extra dice. The system is very flexible and simple, and deep. There are thousands of possible dice combinations.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

For something that involves about a company's worth of minis, what works, what doesn't? I don't think you can expand on the skirmish system to just include more minis, as it just bogs progress down. I'm turned off by the passive side of 40K, I think Tomorrow's War was on to something nice. The basic system we played with was easy to learn (I never even read the book),

I just had a long discussion with Lanrak over on Warseer about this very topic. He considers TM’s dice-type roll-off a good system for a Skirmish game its not good for a company size game. I disagreed but we both agree it’s a great system for a skirmish game. And really, that’s more important to me. I get together with friends at the FLGS once a week. Awe talk 40K, GW, Star Wars, Star Trek, movies, pop-culture. We show-off some painted figs and cool conversions, and we play a game. Lately its been X-Wing. It’s good gaming fun.

40k should be like that too. GW won’t do it. They only want to selling rules and models. Maybe if things really tank for them… But why wait for GW. We can do it ourselves. 40K skirmish using TM’s dice-type roll-off combat resolution system. It’s a good gaming fun project.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
If you say I3 is that good, then I might invest in the book. No sense getting Icestorm, I got the minis off someone else, and cardstock scenery is not to my taste. If HMG has been modified that way, so much the better. It was too powerful before, imho.

Just download the rules. They're up on the website.

In regards to the HMG, all weapons got rebalanced. The Spitfire is solidly mid-range now. The HMG is long ranged. The Sniper rifle is long to extreme range, with the largest +3 band in the game. The shotgun is now super close up, +6 under 8". Basically every weapon has a place now.

Oh good.

Regarding TM... can you mix different type of dice within a single roll? As an example, let's assume I have a fire team with three rifles and an RPG, could the RPG be given a higher dice to represent its greater damage potential?

Or, say, I have a terminator captain leading a squad of power armoured guys. Could the terminator captain roll armour on d12 while the rest roll on d10?

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
That was a rare sighting.

And now you've scared him off.

I was hoping we'd get Eilif on this one, because he seems to have tried so many different systems.

If we could maybe bring it back to the heart of the matter: What do you feel are the strongest core mechanics systems for skirmish levels. To my mind,it would have to allow you a broad enough set of options per figure to represent real battlefield choice, and be things that most troops in the game can accomplish. Again, to my taste, it would not be over-burdened by too long a list of weapons profiles and special rules. If they are present, they ought to modify slightly, but not invalidate the core rules. I think Infinity started as such a system, but the bloat of extra rules and add-ons leave me disenchanted. And I can't think of a clear line where I can cut out part of the system without killing it, or singling out specific rules. As a whole, if you're willing to spend the time, it does work. We just don't have the time.

For something that involves about a company's worth of minis, what works, what doesn't? I don't think you can expand on the skirmish system to just include more minis, as it just bogs progress down. I'm turned off by the passive side of 40K, I think Tomorrow's War was on to something nice. The basic system we played with was easy to learn (I never even read the book), but different power levels need to be carefully balanced, otherwise even winning isn't fun. It was an intro scenario, I figure there must be more options for units, rules for scouting and such. I was actually ok with having just a generic SAW and RPG add-on per fire team, rather than a list of different weapons. It put more emphasis on my choice as the situation arose. I don't even know if I could have sacrificed those weapons for more dudettes (I used my SoB) but that might have been a good choice. Anyway.

I'm going away on vacation until wednesday night, I'll pick this up when we get back. (Yes, a whole glorious three days, isn't owning your business grand?!!?!!??)

But I did post! Middle of the second page.

I have a tough time nailing down the best mechanics for a given scope of action because so many different approaches have been successful.

As for the Infinity example, I haven't played the game to comment specifically, but many games fall victim to this. I think it's just very hard for a game to expand it's narrative and product line without giving customers something "new" in the rules to reflect that. After this happens long enough a game will become too bloated and it's time for a reboot. In my opinion, the best reboots will simplify and streamline a bit, but not all games take that approach.

As for Tomorrow's war, if you're ok with abbreviated statlines and the emphasis on in-game decision making then I'd definitely give it another chance. You're correct though, that scenarios have to be either very well crafted, or played "to see what happens" with the foreknowledge that one side is probably going to win.

TW also satisfies IronBovine's dislike of list-crafting as the scenario largely determines the forces involved.