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.

Hello Dakkanauts,

I was prompted to start this topic by my friend, who's a bit of a philosophy of gaming geek.

We have tried to compare different gaming systems in order to satisfy his need for strategy and tactics, less reliance on special rules for fun and diversity.

He tried having this conversation on TMP, but was stymied because the only posts he got centered around "you need to have a good gaming group to have fun. Change gaming group." So to reiterate in case this happens here, we could be playing poker, or just having a drink, and we'd have "fun." Fun with friends isn't the issue. He wants a tactical challenge, a game that rewards good choices on the table, not before the game (list-building) Although I have never played it, he keeps telling me that PP games come down to one thing,how much focus can you use in one turn. It's the sort of thing that bugs him. He loved the original game, but the power creep, although equal among armies, turned him off. He says the point of the game has simply become to get your combo off before the other player, not playing the game for its own sake.

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.

We played Chain of Command (from two fat lardies) and this seems to be his baseline for choice-reward and minimal special rules. I tend to think the game is far too random, because of the command dice that rob you of a good deal of your possible choices because you are bound to only use what the dice tell you to.

Anyway, give me your take on this. Keep it polite,people.

Can you define what he is looking for in terms of strategy and tactics more? To some people strategy and tactics, includes special rules as it is part of how to learn to adapt and use those specific troops.

What do you define as 'special rules interaction'?

It is hard to gauge simply based on those definitions as they can be subjective. Simply listing particular gaming systems also doesn't entirely help as they all tend to have a bit of all things involved. It may be better to understand more of what he is looking for, in terms of strategy and tactics by defining them a bit more clearly.

How about crossfire or Bolt action? But i agree with DS what is exactly the question?

Infinity.

It is the only game I know of where real team tactics work and payoff.

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.

 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).

Generally, when someone begins a comment with something like "not to be an ass", it doesn't excuse them from polite conversation.

If a game requires scores of games and many of them a week to remain current or mastered, then it is not a game for people who have other commitments in their lives. We both have full-time jobs, family obligations, train for endurance sports and have a social life outside of gaming.

I was on the tablet earlier, I realize I was very curt. And I don't think the dice bending you over should be any kind of excuse. A good game ought to be able to help you mitigate for bad luck, if you're using sound tactics. My personal opinion of the game is that it does not reward careful behaviour. One is encouraged to be extremely rash and wasteful of human resources, which runs counter to modern doctrine.

Like Go, even if you know the rules someone that knows the game will always win. Except in Infinity a bad run of dice can change that, just like any game with chance, like any game that use dice/cards/short straw. But, if thatys your view of Infinity I point to my post above and you can get 2-3 Infinity game in the time same time as 1 GW game one your understand the system.


Anyways best of luck finding a game, I think your going to need it.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Generally, when someone begins a comment with something like "not to be an ass", it doesn't excuse them from polite conversation.

If a game requires scores of games and many of them a week to remain current or mastered, then it is not a game for people who have other commitments in their lives. We both have full-time jobs, family obligations, train for endurance sports and have a social life outside of gaming.

I was on the tablet earlier, I realize I was very curt. And I don't think the dice bending you over should be any kind of excuse. A good game ought to be able to help you mitigate for bad luck, if you're using sound tactics. My personal opinion of the game is that it does not reward careful behaviour. One is encouraged to be extremely rash and wasteful of human resources, which runs counter to modern doctrine.

I'm not really sure what you're looking for here. Are you searching for a game that ticks all your boxes, or do you just want to discuss game design? If the former, I think you might be disappointed.

You don't necessarily need to play a dozen games a week of any game to stay current at it; but most games systems are going to require you to play a few dozen games before you learn what the tactics are. Your friend's comment about Warhmachine before seems pretty telling to me - very reminiscent of what most new players are thinking after their first half-dozen games. But there are huge advantages to camping fury or focus; many of the best warcasters have low focus and run very light on jacks; and when you get experienced the uber-combos tend to get rarer and rarer, with infantry-spam lists being hugely popular ways of winning tournaments. There may be 'power creep', but I can still end up in the top quarter of a tournament using a list comprised almost entirely of MKI models.

If your complaint is that Infinity isn't a legitimate modern combat simulation, then I think you're going to be disappointed with pretty much any game. Most games are purposefully designed to be unrealistically/overly bloody, as it tends to improve player engagement in the game when both of you are moving/removing models. If you can't win Infinity using tactics which are bad for that game, that's not really the game's fault.

There are many games which do allow you to compensate for 'bad luck'. Often in wargames this means not taking models/abilities which are prone to bad luck (ie, throw out your single-shot high-powered weapons in exchange for multi-shot lower-power weapons); simply rolling more dice so that horrendously bad luck is unlikely; or constructing your list to get more re-rolls or buffs. Its very telling that even in games which seem dependent upon luck, as long as there is some player agency, the same people end up on top pretty consistently.


It sounds like chess might be a good game for you. Essentially no luck involved, all down to player agency, no pre-game, you can set up and play in very little time. Of course, I wouldn't expect to master it unless you ARE willing to play a dozen games a week, for dozen years.

In a more general tone:
If you want to go to the other extreme, Snakes and Ladders has zero player agency. Entirely predicated on rolling dice - a fun game for kids but quickly loses appeal when you get older.

If you're finding in some games that X ability is steamrolling other players, consider whether X is really 'overpowered' or whether it is 'first order optimal'. Something that has very high reward for very low learning curve - but there are other, better strategies that require more mastery of the game. Its good enough to give a new player some legitimate input into the game even against more experienced players, but its effect caps out very early and doesn't progress you as a player; other players learning to fight against (rather than with) this strategy become much better much more quickly. You can see this in a huge number of games with various strategies; Street Fighter and Throws; various FPS have 'Noob Tubes' or rocket launchers; WMH and assassination victories; 40k and gunlines. A good game will have a number of these good 'first order optimal' strategies, but a much much higher number of strategies with higher skill requirements which end up much more powerful. A bad game will have the FOO strategies be so close in power to the HOO strategies that no-one makes it to the high skill caps.

If you're worried about the pre-game phase of most war games - why do you think that pre-game list-building isn't or shouldn't be part of the skill of the game? If you're talking about 'modern doctrine', bringing the right tools for the job is definitely right up there in real-world tactics.

If you want to hear more about game design, I really like the Extra Credits youtube channel. Its about video games, but 99% of it is equally applicable to board games as well.

Bit early to judge, but hoping for a streamlined yet tactical game made me pledge for MEdge.

Maybe you should try some free gaming systems you can find on the web - the kind that have a few pages of simple rules.

You don't need a ton of special rules to have a good game - hell, you don't even need dice for that. Figurines are just here to make it pretty, in the end. Shouldn't be very difficult to make your own game, especially if you don't have diversity. It's easier to balance the game if everyone has the same things.

IMO your friend is going to have a really hard time, in fact impossible time, to find something that fits his needs exactly.
It cannot be done unless he is willing to create something himself.

And in doing that lies another problem, his gaming philosophy may end up with a game you do not want to play.

Actually just thought of a question or two:
Is your friend seeking his holy grail of gaming? what is the closest he has gotten to "perfection"?

Does this sentiment override any enjoyment you have plating games together or in your group?

Epic Armageddon scratches this itch for me – there's a list of short-hand rules, which used in combination across the game, make for surprisingly different formations.

In addition, because there are few statistics, and the range bands (movement, weapon range, other effects) are near-universally in 15cm increments, it's easy to keep everything in your head. As a result, you will quickly become familiar with the standards.

The thing that really puts it over the top for me is that there aren't any nasty surprises. While some infantry are more or less capable than others in detail, the tactics you apply to dealing with infantry are largely the same – and importantly, different from those you apply to dealing with other unit types.

As a result, the tactics largely 'make sense' – you use anti-tank units to deal with armoured units, anti-infantry units to deal with infantry etc. However, the strategy you use to apply them on the board relies heavily on position and manoeuvre, which makes a deceptively simple game rewarding to play – I never feel like I'm fighting the rules, and instead can concentrate on the pleasurable challenge of the other player's strategy.

I hear good things about Force on Force, if you're interested in a modern combat sim (and Tomorrow's War is the same rules, but for sci fi).

In both of those, as well as Epic Armageddon, my understanding is that "real" tactics work - i.e. you can take principles from actual military doctrine and training and apply them in the game to fight a battle, rather than the tactics relying on in-depth knowledge of game rules and combinations.

(as a side note, that sort of thing is important in Infinity; that "ramboing" TAG or other high-value model should be vulnerable to AROs from multiple angles, or to being hacked or immobilised. Of course, you can counteract that by using infiltrating or combat dropping models to outflank potential AROs, but then you're not "ramboing" any more and you're back to the appropriate use of combined arms again )

As it happens, I prefer games where most things are handled by the core rules and stat lines, rather than by a million unique special rules; I was never a fan of CCGs. Infinity's list of special skills and equipment is about as much as I can be bothered with. I like the basic rules of Warmachine and Malifaux (and the former works very well as the basis for the RPG rules, too), but I gave up when every model had four or five special rules and the stat cards became encrusted in funny symbols I could never remember.

Fantasy Rules! by Chipco. (second edition) This set has a lot of the elements you are looking for. First off, there is no fluff other than what you create to define your forces. You can use any miniatures, and there are 45 army lists in the rulebook.

There is a strategic element, such as how to deploy and conduct the overall battle. For example, you might overwhelm one section of the line while holding back in another. You can take a lot of light troops to ensure you out scout the enemy. You can hire thieves to attempt to steal enemy magic items before the battle.

Once battle is joined you have a lot of tactical decisions. Each melee can influence the ones connected to it and deciding how and where to place leaders and use your mana to cast augment spells will decide the battle on a tactical level.

I found the rules to be a lot different than the usual. There are few special rules, but all armies pull troops from the same generic types. Such as cavalry or hand weapons. Some armies have special rules, but these are limited and usually not enough to win or lose a battle. A Samurai army can have the general commit suicide to inspire the troops if he is losing, you can take a Holy Hand Grenade in some armies, etc.

Chipco only wrote the rules, they are not making minis. There is no marketing involvement in rules writing.

 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.

To be fair if the TAG and cheerleaders are beating the other army list, the other army list needs improvement. There are plenty of army lists that are good that do not include TAG and ultimately game comes down to objectives and tactics. Are you playing elimination, because if you are then that isn't the best test of Infinity honestly.

Other than Infinity, in terms of simple but provides some varying tactics and strategies... Deadzone is about the only thing I can think of.

I don't consider so much the rules or special rules that make a game less or more tactical/strategic, to me it all comes down to objectives and how you can accomplish obtaining them.

To be honest I'm a bit sceptical of all-in-one package games, that sell rules to sell models. One pandering to the other, with special rules and strategic 'builds' reigning over weak, shallow core mechanics; imbalance; and character-du-jour is what helped turn me off 40K and WFB, and turn me off Malifaux. (I played enough games of that to go beyond 'trying it out'.) Looking at the rulebooks (with heaps of special rules) and reading about Warmachine and Infinity doesn't fill me with confidence about those two either. And to be blunt I think some of the popularity of that lot, and the defensive replies here, stem from the fact that they're the first stops on the way out of Gamesworkshopville: offering a comfortable, familiar, GW-like experience (the 'package'; flashy models; listbuilding etc.), but 'aren't as bad', so there's less impetus to look at anything else, for a while. (I also wonder if this is why Noir and Mr. Burning think your task is so impossible.)

So yeah, there are certain games I just don't enjoy, no matter who I play them with. I played Malifaux with my best gaming friend, for example, and didn't warm to it. I can well understand your friend's frustration with the old grognards at TMP. (That place still going? I thought Bill would have alienated everyone by now.)

I say go with pure rules, sets that don't have an associated range of models to schill. I heartily second Apologist's recommendation and rundown of Epic: Armageddon. (The first game that showed me something was up with GW's core 2) I think it largely escaped being a modern-GW marketing tool by being Jervis' pet project, and a sideshow to the main 40K attraction, then by being 'killed' by GW. A bit like Obi-Wan - "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!" It was already in the hands of the fans by then, as a living rulebook and collection of army lists overseen by the Epic Rules Committee (a collection of ascended fans) answering to Jervis, and continues on in that fashion (minus Jervis, IIRC) as NetEA on the Tactical Command forum. Rather than being the chaotic mess with overpowered pet armies that 40K/WFB fans fear if those two games were handed over to the fans, it's remarkably organised, well playtested and concerned with balance. (The former two are more focused on imbalance to sell the latest shiny models, after all)
It's also a great time to try EA out, because there are several 6mm sci-fi businesses putting out suitable proxies for a number of armies, and taking full advantage of 3D sculpting and printing to do so. Personally, I'm in the process of unloading my GW 6mm marines just so I cam replace them with alternatives from Troublemaker Games (four successful crowdfunders and counting) and Onslaught Miniatures, in particular.

Also, I made up a list of alternative fantasy mass battle systems that allow any models to be inserted, particularly old WFB armies, since all this panic about 9th ed started. Here it is. Most on the list are also 'pure rules', as mentioned. The two that aren't are Kings of War and God of Battles, though they are good rules in their own right, developed as an antithesis of WFB, focused on maneuvre and the like rather than special rules. The biggest disadvantage of those two is that they're both associated with a sub-par range of fantasy minis; but as these are largely fantasy archetypes and the rules aren't exactly WYSIWYG-obsessed either, many players come up with very good looking proxy and counts-as armies.
My own personal favourite is Mayhem. Like a number of other rulesets on that list, it allows you to construct your units (each a square unit base, in most circumstances but not all) from a balanced collection of stats, equipment, and universal attributes. (Downloadable army lists by the author are also available, but imbalacing special-rules-heavy units and monsters will be difficult to find here) The mechanics themselves are a fairly deep experience, IMO: actions by units are performed by paying action points from the army's pool for the turn. The pool and how many points are paid for each action depend on number of leaders and standards, type of action, distance from leader, how many actions a given unit has already performed in the turn (they can perform several, if wished), and so on. Each unit stat is based on a particular numbered polydice with which you can decide to take the default result (half the value of the dice) rather than risk rolling a poorer result; and that can be changed to a different (more beneficial) dice or added to, depending on a wide range of factors like the position of the unit, presence of supporting units, type of unit, type of equipment etc. Equipment itself doesn't simply add an extra attack, point of strength or point of armour; though it still stays far from the realm of WFB style magic items. Spears are more effective against cavalry, as they are in a lot of other rulesets; but swords are also more effective against infantry (not just 'default' weapons), shields allow you to modify the combat result, to an extent, after a bout of combat, and axes nullify the effect of shields, as just a couple of examples. The whole thing gives the experience of thinking about your situation and the myriad of possible decisions and actions that might affect it, but without getting bogged down in too much detail. It's a bit like E:A in that regard; or, like your topic title hints and another gamer used to say, it's a complex game rather than a complicated game.
The ebook is available quite cheaply, and I'd recommend investing that small amount just to have a look at the rules. In fact, I'm so taken with them that I could recommend the author's other fantasy and sci-fi skirmish rules before looking at them. (He's a multiple Origins Award nominee, too!)

What else? I'm also fond of Victory Decision: Future Combat. Another pure rules game, with the up-front statement from the author that it's intended to allow you to use whatever sci-fi models you have. The author was a playtester on Epic: Armageddon and borrows some elements from that, which is aces in my book. Placement of the squad within the squad leader's leadership radius, and other elements of battlefield command, feature strongly. Granted, some types of weapons are pretty powerful, but then it's also a game of maneuvre - maneuvering into cover...

I could also go on about a couple of historical games, but I think I'll stop there.

Lastly, to KenofYork: is Fantasy Rules still available in some format? I had a look at that list of mine a while ago, and the Chipco website had been closed down. I couldn't see if there were any other stockists or some kind of download for it.

I don't even know wha tyou are asking, but if you want to talk game design that is great. We need more of that.

However, it sounds a bit like what your friend is really looking for is battlefield choice. Having to make decisions in the moment that will impact the outcomes of the game. For such games I recommend that you look for two things in your games: Action/Reaction mechanics and Resource Pools (I.e. Dice Pools) that you have to choose how and where you spend them in game.

I could give you a list of games, but that is no fun. The only way you will find what you want is to play lots and lots of games! I recommend you start at the Free Wargames Wikia!

Your welcome.

Easy E wrote:
I could give you a list of games, but that is no fun.

Well, it is a start. A lot I listed do have free downloads or previews, or relatively small price tags, so that giving 'em even just a look is no huge hardship.

However, it sounds a bit like what your friend is really looking for is battlefield choice. Having to make decisions in the moment that will impact the outcomes of the game.

Despite what certain 40K/FB boards on Dakka, Warseer etc. might have you believe, that could be summed up as 'tactics'.

It would be interesting to see a case study analyzing a game like 40k in terms of processes and procedures.

To be entirely honest, I came here thinking there would be a game design discussion and at least some debate about the complexity of game mechanics in relevance to scale and scope.

Not a suggest me a game thread.

For the later I suggest Infinity, read you didn't like it for the "rambo" effect, I would counter it the same as somebody saying me his opponent killed him in 40k because they used special and heavy weapons on their units, really basic, really low level strategy, one can work much more from that.

Now, luck in strategy games is an interesting debate, I would say most of us enjoy wargames more than abstract strategy games, because of the luck factor, luck can indeed ruin even the best plans in the best and most balanced game with plethora of ways to mitigate it.

As an experiment I did a few designs on non luck based game mechanics, to be frank, non worked in my opinion.

 Vermis wrote:

Easy E wrote:

However, it sounds a bit like what your friend is really looking for is battlefield choice. Having to make decisions in the moment that will impact the outcomes of the game.

Despite what certain 40K/FB boards on Dakka, Warseer etc. might have you believe, that could be summed up as 'tactics'.

I know! Crazy right!

Have you tried Monopoly?

On a serious note, though, JudgeDoug's sold me on Starship Troopers rules and maybe even on Terminator: Battle for Time (or whatever it's called). It sounds like there are lots of decisions that have repercussion, but simple enough mechanics to get a game going relatively quickly.

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).

To be an ass, if it takes more than two dozen games to even learn how to play, then that's a crappy game [to have fun with]. I haven't even had a chance to play my absolute favorite game in the universe two dozen times. Who has time to waste tens of hours learning to play a game before they can even know if they enjoy it?

If I can't get through the instruction manual and a couple of videos and get us playing by end of a single day, I'm never going to play that game. It can rot on my FFG shelf like the rest of them.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

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).

To be an ass, if it takes more than two dozen games to even learn how to play, then that's a crappy game [to have fun with]. I haven't even had a chance to play my absolute favorite game in the universe two dozen times. Who has time to waste tens of hours learning to play a game before they can even know if they enjoy it?

If I can't get through the instruction manual and a couple of videos and get us playing by end of a single day, I'm never going to play that game. It can rot on my FFG shelf like the rest of them.

Who is not having fun, I had fun learning chess, PP games, Epic, even 40K back in the day (it no longer any fun to play and I know the rules), all of the take dozens of game to "learn". Playing day one does take any skill and isn't hard, learn to play the game is.

So, you're talking about mastering the game as opposed to learning to play.

Most games are really easy to learn the rules.

Frankly the only thing you need to learn how to play Infinity is the first mission of Operation icestorm, 3 models per side all the fundamental principles of the game simple elimination scenario, done.

Now mastering tactics, interactions and gaining the reflex reaction when the events unfold before you, gaining the mastery to act in your opponents turn effectively with ARO, making and braking combos or employing countermeasures to your opponents skills (or eliminating his counters for your) takes much more time.

But hey that is how the game remains fresh, always something new to shift the way the players think about their units.

There are two games that have been mentioned that I cannot praise enough, and I think fit the bill for what you're looking for.

First, Epic: Armageddon. I think it's been covered pretty well by other comments so I won't go into detail, but it's my favorite wargame currently and has been for awhile. I've quit 40k, but I still love the 40k universe, so it's great to have a 40k ruleset where the rules match both the fluff and the battlefield outcomes you would expect. It's streamlined, decently balanced, gameplay is fluid, the army lists are simple and not weighed down by myriad false options, and victory is highly dependent on suppression, maneuver, and medium/long term planning. It's my favorite wargame and the only one I still currently play.


Second, this was mentioned once but really needs to be brought up again, Crossfire:

It's probably a bit obscure but it's simply brilliant. A slim set of rules for infantry-focused WWII/modern company level battles with a very innovative initiative system for handing off unit activations and a very strong emphasis on fire and maneuver. Pinning, suppression, and maneuver are the heart of the game. Since it's a historic game dealing with units at the squad level, there are very few stats and special rules needed - everyone's weapons and abilities are basically the same bar a few slight differences between nations and the crucial difference of troop quality - and there is very little to list building as the lists are based heavily on historic orders of battle for different types of units.

As for gameplay itself in Crossfire, there are several really innovative things. First, there are no ranges whatsoever in the game, and it's scale independent - the rules give you the recommended base sizes for units and you take it from there. A 4x6 board at 10-20mm scale is so small, with appropriate terrain density to block lines of sight across the board, everything is inside the effective range of almost every weapon in the game. Rifles, machine guns (light, medium, heavy), off-board artillery and mortar fire, etc - bullets don't magically stop after 24", so range doesn't matter for shooting. Movement has no range measurement either - it's from any one piece of cover to any other piece of cover in a straight line, so long as there are no intervening pieces of cover or units - it sounds weird but it makes sense when you understand the initiative system.

When a player has the initiative, they can keep performing actions with their units until they "fail" an action - successful actions would be things like completing a movement to the next piece of cover, or shooting and suppressing an enemy unit. The trick is, every time you perform a move, any enemy unit can shoot at you as a reaction, and since you're running through the open, it's likely you'll end up pinned down in open terrain - endangering your unit, failing your action, and handing initiative to the opponent.

Thus it's crucial to use your units to support one another - use your leaders to organize group shooting actions with multiple rifle squads, for a higher chance of successfully suppressing that enemy machine gun, which allows you to keep the initiative and safely move your unit across open ground to the next piece of cover, etc. Call down smoke rounds from your off-board 105mm artillery asset to screen your advance. That kind of thing. Killing enemy units outright is difficult without overwhelming firepower. This makes it crucial to maneuver in such a way that you can concentrate force, use leaders to organize group actions with multiple units, and flank enemy units to get the titular crossfire bonus to flush them out. If things get desperate, and you have sufficient numbers and a sufficiently demoralized enemy, you can clear them from a position with an assault. Basically the game plays the way you would want a WWII game to play.

Vehicles and field guns aren't the focus - their rules are simplified and they mostly function as infantry support, so if it's tanks you want this isn't your game.

In short the rules are elegant, innovative, very simple to learn, can be difficult to master, and feel like a very good representation of the fire-and-maneuver tactics of the second world war. It requires a good deal of terrain, but what game doesn't? And the models are cheap as chips, since there's no shortage of WWII infantry manufacturers in whatever scale suits your fancy. I cannot recommend it highly enough as it sounds like just what your friend is looking for.

Some great ideas in this thread for me. Been looking at some alternate rules to play using my 40k sets, mainly just to stretch the brain and learn some new mechanics. FoF and VDFC, look great. Cheers

Best Strategy System: The Mission Generation system from Adeptus Titanicus. Real missions instead of Easter Egg hunt. “Orders” like Epic SM and X-Wing.

Best Tactics: Alternating units activation like Epic SM and Bolt Action. It makes the game more of a chess match than a mindless “Move & Shoot” everything.

Best for Less Reliance on Special Rules: Force on Force/Tomorrow's War: Good, clean, simple core rules, not a lot of stats to fine-tune. Use a universal Weapons Range like X-Wing.

Best Fun and Diversity: Force on Force/Tomorrow's War:Combat resolution based on Roll-off of different dice types. Both Players Rolling-off is just more fun than one Player rolling for a number on a chart, and the roll-off gives a wider range of results. A dice pool of 5 dice types (D4, D6, D8, D10, & D12), --- used in singles, pairs, groups, and multiples of each --- gives you nearly unlimited diversity.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Generally, when someone begins a comment with something like "not to be an ass", it doesn't excuse them from polite conversation.

I've heard it called a word-shield. Things like, "I don't want to sound like a jerk but..." or "not to be an ass..." etc.

On topic. Chess and Gõ are board games. Have you guys just tried board games? There are so many good ones out there.

About Infinity: things are a bit different with the new edition. Have you guys tried that?