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.

@Judgedoug:

I've been leaving the upgraded weapons like nukes for later along with the advanced rules like tunneling so I'll defer to your actual experience regarding those. They do sound unique and fun compared with games I've played though at least in theory.

I'm curious about your opinion on the pathfinders. At 5pts a pop over MI (at least at the starter costs you prefer), you seem to get alot. A squad of 5 pathfinders costs the same as 6 regular MI but you get better saves (iirc a 6+ dodge save... not reliable but occasionally useful), better reaction (12" versus 10" ), some tunneling stuff (not sure how often if ever you WANT to take your MI into bug tunnels!), slightly better close combat (again.. not sure if you ever WANT to get them into CC), and in cover save rerolls. I'm not sure about the WASPs though being worth 10pts extra per model for just a movement buff.

I agree that the MI survivability is laughable and it was a bit of a surprise for me. I guess I was expecting a mix of the novel suits (which are the cougars/grizzlies exosuits in the latter MI supplement) mixed in with Space Marine fiction for the regular guys. Just like with 40k, the power armored guys are NOT as survivable as the plot armor they wear in books makes them out to be. If I could get away with using the exosuit rules with the figs I want, I would but alas they're just too different visually and WYSIWIG. Is there an upgrade anywhere to make MI hits/2 (aka 2 wounds)? That would help alot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n815e wrote:

For the bugs, to deal with MI mobility you need to carefully position your units both above and below ground. Try to get the MI to think something is more threatening than some other group of bugs you have somewhere else and then pounce.
Lure them in with a "vulnerable" target and then pounce.
Hit them with bug batteries to get them to move from somewhere you don't want them to be.
Play a psychological game with your opponent. Don't play a Tyranid swarm, be a guerilla.

Get extra mobility from those reactions. Remember the flexible command structure of the bugs.

I haven't gone much over the army construction rules yet but are there "hidden" units you don't have to reveal in your army list to your opponent like TO and Camo markers in Infinity? Or is it open army lists like 40k? It's sounds like the former from what you wrote which would help a bunch in herding MI. I do appreciate the advice and rundown so thanks.

 warboss wrote:
@Judgedoug:
I'm curious about your opinion on the pathfinders. At 5pts a pop over MI (at least at the starter costs you prefer), you seem to get alot. A squad of 5 pathfinders costs the same as 6 regular MI but you get better saves (iirc a 6+ dodge save... not reliable but occasionally useful), better reaction (12" > 10", some tunneling stuff (not sure how often if ever you WANT to take your MI into bug tunnels!), slightly better close combat (again.. not sure if you ever WANT to get them into CC), and in cover save rerolls. I'm not sure about the WASPs though being worth 10pts extra per model for just a movement buff.

Tunneling, close combat, and cover save rerolls are mostly useless for the Pathfinders. So it's weighing the reaction increase and occasionally useful dodge (which can be negated entirely by lethal zone weapons if I remember correctly) for the 17% increase in points. Like I said, I did not like them, but my buddy loved them, so I feel it's one of those deeply meaningful personal issues that you'll need to meditate on. Or just go with the rule of cool and play Pathfinders since you seem to really want to IIRC the pathfinder list also has much less support options.

 warboss wrote:
I agree that the MI survivability is laughable and it was a bit of a surprise for me. I guess I was expecting a mix of the novel suits (which are the cougars/grizzlies exosuits in the latter MI supplement) mixed in with Space Marine fiction for the regular guys. Just like with 40k, the power armored guys are NOT as survivable as the plot armor they wear in books makes them out to be. If I could get away with using the exosuit rules with the figs I want, I would but alas they're just too different visually and WYSIWIG. Is there an upgrade anywhere to make MI hits/2 (aka 2 wounds)? That would help alot.

The power suit MI are from the series, so it's really more like an armored space suit with a jump pack. In which case, the stats make sense. The Exo Suits are definitely more survivable, being based on the novel.
Multihit models are not that great because if you go down to 1 wound you have 1 action, if i remember correctly? Which would just suck when you have a squad. And honestly multihit infantry models would only be very vaguely slightly more useful than single hit MI due to the nature of the gameplay - if there's warriors in close combat with you, you're going to lose the squad.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n815e wrote:
Units underground do not react to those above ground and vice-versa.

Units with the tunneling ability may move normally underground as long as they are moving towards or away from tunnel assets (bug holes, other tunnelers).
Part of the "game" is to alter your movement to keep the enemy from guessing what you have underground. You might have a hidden tunnel, but if you move in such a way that will make it obvious then you show your hand too early. But make your opponent think there may be a hidden tunnel somewhere.

You should use your tunnelers as a threat to herd the MI into your killing zones. Positioning of bug holes and tunnel markers and the order in which you move your tunnel markers is very important to try to get the most flexibility in the movement rules.
Maybe there is not much underneath there, maybe it is a tiger. If they ignore the tunnelers, then open up a hole under them and have brunch.

For the bugs, to deal with MI mobility you need to carefully position your units both above and below ground. Try to get the MI to think something is more threatening than some other group of bugs you have somewhere else and then pounce.
Lure them in with a "vulnerable" target and then pounce.
Hit them with bug batteries to get them to move from somewhere you don't want them to be.
Play a psychological game with your opponent. Don't play a Tyranid swarm, be a guerilla.

Get extra mobility from those reactions. Remember the flexible command structure of the bugs.

I hate being the guy that does "quoted for truth" but n815e hits the nail on the head with Arachid tunnel tactics. I got SST the moment it launched and the following weeks it was like watching the best movie ever or reading the greatest novel ever, slowly learning all these tactics as one read the rules and re-read the rules and began playing games, sharing tactical tips with all the new players on the forums, etc. And you realize just how absolutely fantastic the elegance of the game system is because of the sheer level of tactical depth that somehow exists in a system which is quite simple. This is why I believe it's Andy Chambers' finest work (and why i'm also cautiously optimistic about Dropfleet Commander, to see if he's Still Got It)

 judgedoug wrote:

Tunneling, close combat, and cover save rerolls are mostly useless for the Pathfinders. So it's weighing the reaction increase and occasionally useful dodge (which can be negated entirely by lethal zone weapons if I remember correctly) for the 17% increase in points. Like I said, I did not like them, but my buddy loved them, so I feel it's one of those deeply meaningful personal issues that you'll need to meditate on. Or just go with the rule of cool and play Pathfinders since you seem to really want to IIRC the pathfinder list also has much less support options.

Yeah, I definitely wear my Spees Marinez bias on my sleeve. There was something about them getting less support options as a spec forces even more mobile specialty platoon (basically IIRC they lose out on alot of the static defenses since they don't do garrison duty).

The power suit MI are from the series, so it's really more like an armored space suit with a jump pack. In which case, the stats make sense. The Exo Suits are definitely more survivable, being based on the novel.
Multihit models are not that great because if you go down to 1 wound you have 1 action, if i remember correctly? Which would just suck when you have a squad. And honestly multihit infantry models would only be very vaguely slightly more useful than single hit MI due to the nature of the gameplay - if there's warriors in close combat with you, you're going to lose the squad.

I believe you're correct on the wounded 1 action thing although I think they is a nice fluffy thing (the guy missing an arm that keeps firing while others yank him back to safety). It also makes that medic upgrade a bit more juicy (although not reliable though). I'll have to check if the medic rule has any effect on wounded multi-hit models or is just for "dead" guys.

I got SST the moment it launched and the following weeks it was like watching the best movie ever or reading the greatest novel ever, slowly learning all these tactics as one read the rules and re-read the rules and began playing games, sharing tactical tips with all the new players on the forums, etc. And you realize just how absolutely fantastic the elegance of the game system is because of the sheer level of tactical depth that somehow exists in a system which is quite simple. This is why I believe it's Andy Chambers' finest work (and why i'm also cautiously optimistic about Dropfleet Commander, to see if he's Still Got It)

Sadly, I suspect that experience is largely out of reach for a dead game like this for anyone new to the game reading the thread. Yes, yes, I know I can build the great wall of Starship Troopers of China and try to single handedly resurrect the game in my area possibly after months of effort with nothing approaching likelihood of success... no point in restating that earlier part of the thread. I might add a few MI and some clix aliens to my dead and dying game figure case that I bring with me to the FLGS and hopefully try it out. I first need to get those said MI counts-as models though.

 judgedoug wrote:


I hate being the guy that does "quoted for truth" but n815e hits the nail on the head with Arachid tunnel tactics. I got SST the moment it launched and the following weeks it was like watching the best movie ever or reading the greatest novel ever, slowly learning all these tactics as one read the rules and re-read the rules and began playing games, sharing tactical tips with all the new players on the forums, etc. And you realize just how absolutely fantastic the elegance of the game system is because of the sheer level of tactical depth that somehow exists in a system which is quite simple. This is why I believe it's Andy Chambers' finest work (and why i'm also cautiously optimistic about Dropfleet Commander, to see if he's Still Got It)

I think he is also working on the All Quiet on the Martian Front Venusians who are also tunnel based. I wonder how much his work on SST will influence his design choices?

 n815e wrote:
How similar to SST is Future Combat?

Pretty similar in many respects. Movement is centred around the unit leader and their coherency bubble. The statline and basic mini characteristics are pretty much the same, just shuffled around and renamed a bit (FC still includes the to-hit stat that Warboss isn't fond of) but with the addition of a Leadership stat, which plays a role in a few of the bigger differences.

The biggest difference, perhaps, is that FC's a unit activation game rather than IGOUGO. Players each nominate one of their units that they want to activate, and whoever gets the highest result from [unit leadership + modifiers + dice roll] activates their unit first. Another difference this creates is the absence of an automatic alert status and subsequent reactions, although there is an overwatch action. (IIRC the author mentioned that with unit activation, auto reactions become a little pointless)

There's also a suppression marker system that works largely like Epic: Armageddon's blast markers. Unit leadership is needed to regroup units that are shaken by this.

Unit coherency radius is based on the unit leader's leadership stat in inches, rather than a standard 6".

Lastly, the overall force leader's leadership stat is used to determine Command Points at the start of each turn - a pool that can be used to reroll any unit's actions.

Some other small differences - no flinching, no fire zones, unit abilities and weapon characteristics are expanded to allow for just about any sci-fi setting or scenario, and unit action options are increased too. Rather than the four SST actions of move, shoot, charge, ready, the list goes (in alphabetical order):

Assault
Close combat
Concentrate fire
Hide
Infiltrate
Move
Overwatch
Regroup
Shoot
Spot
Take cover
Use psi

And then there's vehicles, aircraft, buildings, unit/force list customisation, the bug supplement etc.

For what I have seen in the last 5 years, miniature games have received a lot of benefit from the exposure in youtube (BOW), twitter, forums, blogs and facebook. Also illustrations are really important to promote a game. Take for example Dropzone Commander, Mantic, Corvus Belli and GW.

For what I was reading Mongoose made a lot of mistakes like Rackham and those bad decisions affected the game.

 Capt. Camping wrote:
For what I have seen in the last 5 years, miniature games have received a lot of benefit from the exposure in youtube (BOW), twitter, forums, blogs and facebook. Also illustrations are really important to promote a game. Take for example Dropzone Commander, Mantic, Corvus Belli and GW.

For what I was reading Mongoose made a lot of mistakes like Rackham and those bad decisions affected the game.

If you go back and read Matt's own words on Dakka, he admits that SST was too successful and Mongoose couldn't manage the growth. It imploded under it's own weight - which is why the market was flooded for years afterwards with people dumping cheap armies (because, much like Warhammer, you can't play games anymore unless they are in print, right?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

I got SST the moment it launched and the following weeks it was like watching the best movie ever or reading the greatest novel ever, slowly learning all these tactics as one read the rules and re-read the rules and began playing games, sharing tactical tips with all the new players on the forums, etc. And you realize just how absolutely fantastic the elegance of the game system is because of the sheer level of tactical depth that somehow exists in a system which is quite simple. This is why I believe it's Andy Chambers' finest work (and why i'm also cautiously optimistic about Dropfleet Commander, to see if he's Still Got It)

Sadly, I suspect that experience is largely out of reach for a dead game like this for anyone new to the game reading the thread. Yes, yes, I know I can build the great wall of Starship Troopers of China and try to single handedly resurrect the game in my area possibly after months of effort with nothing approaching likelihood of success... no point in restating that earlier part of the thread. I might add a few MI and some clix aliens to my dead and dying game figure case that I bring with me to the FLGS and hopefully try it out. I first need to get those said MI counts-as models though.

Your best bet is to get a few like minded individuals interested in it for semi-regular games. Or just move to Richmond VA which is becoming a mecca of alternative and historical gaming. Joooiinnn usss.....
Though, SST is a property I'm resurrecting when I Hit The Lottery (tm), along with funding a 2nd Dredd film...

Look what I found...

http://twomarshals.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/28mm-bugs-v-marines.html

I feel weird saying this, but the GW guys have the OOP conundrum figured out: People buy miniatures first and play games second. A miniature wargame needs to have a constant flow of new products for people to buy to get played. Take boardgames, for example, with the Risk: Legacy and Pandemic: Legacy being time-locked into about the length of time it will take for players to get bored and move on. Particularly if there's something to move on to.

What year was this game put out?

@Judgedoug: Tell you what... If I win the lottery (powerball or megamillions), I'll commute for some SST tutorial games to see if I like it in practice. No guarantees on spending my megamillions though on Stallone to reprise his role as Dredd though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:
What year was this game put out?

2005 is the date of the Origins award decal on my recently acquired hardback rulebook copy. IIRC from reading the threads Judgedoug linked earlier on page 1, they started mucking around with the rules in 2007 and the deathknell came in 2008.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:
Look what I found...

http://twomarshals.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/28mm-bugs-v-marines.html

There is also a short game report in the rulebook as well as a PDF floating around the internet from Mongoose's magazine Signs and Portent that I found with a quick google search. Thanks for the link and I'll be checking it out later tonight. Hopefully the infantry actually live up to the mobile name because in the other two they don't really.

I suspect the short lived nature of these sort of licenced games is why their rule sets are remembered fondly,

They'll quite possible start of as a generic rule set somebody has put a lot of effort into, that then get balanced and steamlined to work in a particular setting,

and as the games don't last long there's much less chance of them falling apart from game designer fiddling, powercreep or 'OMG must sell new minis'

I any of them did last 20 years I think they would suffer as all rules sets do from the opposing forces of keeping all the old stuff (or upsetting old players) and introducing new stuff (that has to be good enough to get people to buy it, not just rely on their existing armies)

 warboss wrote:
@Judgedoug: Tell you what... If I win the lottery (powerball or megamillions), I'll commute for some SST tutorial games to see if I like it in practice. No guarantees on spending my megamillions though on Stallone to reprise his role as Dredd though.

I would pay you from my lotto millions to not have Stallone ever come near anything Dredd ever again.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:
Look what I found...

http://twomarshals.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/28mm-bugs-v-marines.html

No idea what ruleset this is though? Homebrew rules, it appears... Tau versus papercraft bugs? What an odd battle report


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a couple actual SST batreps

http://xinslair.blogspot.com/2007/06/bugs-on-train.html

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/518106.page

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/79722/battle-report-1-pluto-campaign
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/79798/battle-report-two-pluto-campaign
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/80257/report-three-pluto-campaign

I didn't realize it was a homebrew set of rules. Regardless, I'll peek tonight. In the meantime, message received. No Stallone but Rob Schneider is a go for the rereboot. Got it.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I suspect the short lived nature of these sort of licenced games is why their rule sets are remembered fondly,
and as the games don't last long there's much less chance of them falling apart from game designer fiddling, powercreep or 'OMG must sell new minis'
I any of them did last 20 years I think they would suffer as all rules sets do from the opposing forces of keeping all the old stuff (or upsetting old players) and introducing new stuff (that has to be good enough to get people to buy it, not just rely on their existing armies)

It was already about to suffer the Evolution rewrite - as Battlefield Evolution was the SST rules, changed and modified, and then the idea of SST Evolution was to re-modify the Battlefield Evolution rules and reapply back to SST.

Honestly, thankfully, it did not happen.

I very much disliked the Evolution ruleset, because the SST core rules were very much written as a perfect ruleset for mobile infantry versus arachnids. It very much breaks down when it's two shooting armies. It's not a good generic ruleset; however, it's perfect for what it set out to accomplish.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
They'll quite possible start of as a generic rule set somebody has put a lot of effort into, that then get balanced and steamlined to work in a particular setting,

The rumor was that SST started out as a series of ideas for 40k 4th, and when GW corporate did not want any radical changes to 40k, Andy Chambers left and then used it as the basis for SST. That's pretty fanciful, but Andy did make it abundantly clear that he left GW because of their unwillingness to change. So I'm always thankful he did, because he was able to then pour all of the ideas and creativity he'd been storing up into SST. But, as I mentioned above, the ruleset does not really work as a "generic" ruleset. It works perfectly for the subject matter, however. So I believe SST was designed from the ground up for this particular license.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
I didn't realize it was a homebrew set of rules. Regardless, I'll peek tonight. In the meantime, message received. No Stallone but Rob Schneider is a go for the rereboot. Got it.

You really want us to be mortal enemies, don't you?

If anyone's looking for minis, you could do worse than email Mongoose directly; when I was down there for Judge Dredd tournaments a year or two ago, they still had tons of SST box sets clogging the place up.

Also, does this fellow look familiar?
http://store.warlordgames.com/collections/the-justice-department/products/holocost-judge-in-h-s2

 Vermis wrote:
Look what I found...

http://twomarshals.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/28mm-bugs-v-marines.html

http://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/28mm-bugs-vs-marines/#post-33382

Link to the paper bugs in the thread above.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
If anyone's looking for minis, you could do worse than email Mongoose directly; when I was down there for Judge Dredd tournaments a year or two ago, they still had tons of SST box sets clogging the place up.

Also, does this fellow look familiar?
http://store.warlordgames.com/collections/the-justice-department/products/holocost-judge-in-h-s2

While the Holocaust suits are based on the molds... these are gonna be your best bet to getting Mobile Infantry
http://rebelminis.com/eafohogu.html

edit - and Warboss, I'm sorry, you're just wrong and you should feel bad about yourself re the Mongoose MI models - I love those Pathfinder models more than most other manufacturer's sci fi models, with the possible exception of Mantic Enforcer (plastics).

 n815e wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
Look what I found...

http://twomarshals.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/28mm-bugs-v-marines.html

http://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/28mm-bugs-vs-marines/#post-33382

Link to the paper bugs in the thread above.

Wouldn't also happen to have a link to those rules now would ya?

Not my stuff, I'm just sharing it.

With regards to the AAR at http://twomarshals.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/28mm-bugs-v-marines.html I have posted the rules in pdf format at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEoFmZ_iG3XM3p4VmZnM1FEX28/view?usp=sharing

regards

Alan

Nomeny wrote:People buy miniatures first and play games second. A miniature wargame needs to have a constant flow of new products for people to buy to get played.

I agree that minis (and background) are the main initial hooks for a game, but a constant flow... mmmnyeah I dunno. The churn, new and daft miniature tangents, and buybuybuy aspect of 40K (among other things) turns lots of people off. Not to mention the added turnoff adding to GW's own woes as they run out of shop space to even fit their ranges in. And the argument that all the new stuff added to arguably complete or at least well-rounded factions is more about selling to existing customers than about providing the bread-and-butter to new players. Might not pay to rely on that aspect too much!

In any case, I think it's well established that wasn't the biggest of Mongoose's SST problems.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I suspect the short lived nature of these sort of licenced games is why their rule sets are remembered fondly,

They'll quite possible start of as a generic rule set somebody has put a lot of effort into, that then get balanced and steamlined to work in a particular setting,

and as the games don't last long there's much less chance of them falling apart from game designer fiddling, powercreep or 'OMG must sell new minis'

I any of them did last 20 years I think they would suffer as all rules sets do from the opposing forces of keeping all the old stuff (or upsetting old players) and introducing new stuff (that has to be good enough to get people to buy it, not just rely on their existing armies)

Yup. I think Mongoose's SST is like GW's Specialist Games: still regarded as very good rulesets, and if you (and possibly some friends) have accumulated the books and plenty of miniatures, there's little reason you can't keep playing for years. (I hear 40K/FB players say edition churn is needed to keep the game fresh, but if that's not just a rationalisation, I'd say it's quite possible things get boring if the rules are a not-very-good exercise in listbuilding, and it's all you play)
The difference, IMO, is that SGs reached a wider market by dint of being GW products, and in some cases having a longer history, and being turned into free-to-download 'living rulebooks': meaning they're still out there, with a bigger presence in the second-hand market, and devoted fanbases ready to promote them to new players, to search out and even to create new proxy miniatures to play the game with. (More on that theme in a second)

Mongoose's SST doesn't have many of those advantages. Not terribly convenient for any new, interested gamers, and it's a pity 'cos I think SST is one of the more viable sci-fi settings for wargaming. But in that case I think gamers would be better served by loosening up a bit, not fretting so much about a license for a specific visual interpretation and tailor-made rules.
(I could point out a bunch of gamers building up gangs and armies for Game of Thrones, for instance, using 'generic' medieval minis that more closely match the original Song of Ice and Fire imagery, and suitable rules, despite the fact there's no official, stamped wargame and none on the horizon)

judgedoug wrote:

http://twomarshals.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/28mm-bugs-v-marines.html

No idea what ruleset this is though? Homebrew rules, it appears... Tau versus papercraft bugs? What an odd battle report

Odd? I think it's great, including for the attitude it represents: not struck down with officialitis and buying the 'right' thing; not hung up on an OOP ruleset or OOP minis to have fun; realising it's toy soldiers after all, and taking a bit of control of their hobby.

AndrewGPaul wrote:If anyone's looking for minis, you could do worse than email Mongoose directly; when I was down there for Judge Dredd tournaments a year or two ago, they still had tons of SST box sets clogging the place up.

Blimey.

Fell off the back of a lorry, guv'nor?

n815e wrote:
http://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/28mm-bugs-vs-marines/#post-33382

Link to the paper bugs in the thread above.

Ninja'd!

Two different sources for paper bugs there, too. Pity there's only the warriors, but I'm tempted to try them out myself. (With the price of printer ink it might not actually be much cheaper than plastic minis!)

And I want a digital die cutter for Christmas. I'd probably never use it, but I want it so bad...

BrookM wrote:Wouldn't also happen to have a link to those rules now would ya?

Try these ones, maybe.

Or, hey, look at what else turned up. (Plastic dollar store ants with 6mm rules. Andy Chambers would turn in his grave...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shedman wrote:
With regards to the AAR at http://twomarshals.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/28mm-bugs-v-marines.html I have posted the rules in pdf format at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEoFmZ_iG3XM3p4VmZnM1FEX28/view?usp=sharing

regards

Alan

... or that.

 Vermis wrote:

judgedoug wrote:

http://twomarshals.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/28mm-bugs-v-marines.html

No idea what ruleset this is though? Homebrew rules, it appears... Tau versus papercraft bugs? What an odd battle report

Odd? I think it's great, including for the attitude it represents: not struck down with officialitis and buying the 'right' thing; not hung up on an OOP ruleset or OOP minis to have fun; realising it's toy soldiers after all, and taking a bit of control of their hobby.

Well, sure, but this thread is about Mongoose's SST, and this batrep has zero connection to any of it - rules or minis. Just name alone

While I like SST, I would have preferred something a little more reminiscent of ants than the things that showed up in the Verhoeven film.

Nomeny wrote:
While I like SST, I would have preferred something a little more reminiscent of ants than the things that showed up in the Verhoeven film.

You mean game mechanics? How so? I assume you don't mean visually as the minis were pretty spot on for the movie arachnid visuals. The bugs swarm, have an option (for warriors at least from my reading) for endless respawning hordes, they tunnel, etc. Do you mean more along the lines of morale for bugs ala 40k's out of synapse for nids?

I mean I don't like the movie arachnid visuals, and i don't like the minis as a result.

I can respect that given my opinion of the faithfully reproduced minis of the god awful CGI trooper designs. I may not agree with it but I respect it.

Nomeny wrote:
I mean I don't like the movie arachnid visuals, and i don't like the minis as a result.

Now, this is something I agree with Nomeny on, I wasn't a fan of how the movie bugs looked either.

judgedoug wrote:
Well, sure, but this thread is about Mongoose's SST, and this batrep has zero connection to any of it - rules or minis. Just name alone

I know! Great, isn't it? Means folk don't have to sit around wondering what happened to an OOP book and OOP minis, to have a game in the setting.

Nomeny wrote:I mean I don't like the movie arachnid visuals, and i don't like the minis as a result.

It's a small point, but it looks like the minis are based more on the CGI Roughnecks visuals than the movie. Take a look at the movie warrior:



The Roughnecks warrior:



The Mongoose warrior:



There are a bunch of little differences between the movie and animated warriors: the movie warrior has thinner, straighter 'claws' or end leg sections; thicker middle leg sections; a difference in size between fore and hind legs; different leg joints; more curved arm sections; differently shaped and numbered ridges and spikes on the back of the upper jaw, etc. compared to the Roughnecks bug. Though the most notable difference is in the iconic jaws: the movie bug's jaws are straighter, deeper, subrectangular and with 'sharper', single edges. Like some kind of shears or, if you please, an ork killer klaw. The Roughnecks bug's jaws have more of a curve and taper much more to a thinner, shallower cross-section, resembling a more pincer-like arrangement; with more textured - even serrated - edges, and two edges and especially two jaw tips in the lower jaw, forming notches and grooves for the upper jaw to slot into.

It looks like the Mongoose bug follows the Roughnecks design, at first glance of the jaws and legs, although there are a few little subtleties more like the movie bug, and there are some things that it does for itself: different hind-jaw spikes; upper arm shape; much more tenuous connection between the abdomen and the sternum/coxa leg-connection mass. That one has me scratching my head. Anyways. I'm not the only one to notice.

So, yeah. Like I say, it's not very much, not a big game-changer; but I think it shows that, even though the overall look of the visual-media SST warrior is pretty recognisable, it's not immutable, and there's a surprising amount you can change and still have people satisfied with it. Heck, without people noticing, even. Makes me wonder what gamers would be willing to use post-Mongoose-SST (and twenty years after the movie), and where the balance is between producing something like that and something that'd make Sony pop a blood vessel.

I suspect the awkward looking waist was a compromise due to the limitations of making the model in plastic yet still easy enough to assemble. From above, it's not noticeable but only readily apparent when you get right down "eye level" to the model at which point it's a bit weird. It's an acceptable compromise IMO and something I noticed back in the day but didn't bother me enough to affect my decision either way.