|
zokie posted:Teams gain shock individually but pin and rout as a section. Southern Heel, you had it right before. If a 10-man Section accumulates 11 points of Shock (the combined total of the teams if they're within 4" of each other), it is Pinned. If it accumulates 20 points of Shock, it will break and retire 2D6+6" immediately. But practically speaking, casualties will reduce the number of men in the unit, and thus the amount of Shock it can carry before becoming pinned/broken.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Ilor posted:No. This is not correct. Each team treats its Shock separately. So if your Bren team has 2 Shock and your rifle team has 4 Shock, but only the Bren team is shooting (perhaps because you're using the JL's 2 CI to focus its fire via the national special rule, and don't have a CI left to activate the rifle team), then it only subtracts one die for the 2 Shock it's currently carrying. The Shock on the rifle team has no effect on the shooting (or movement) of the Bren team. I guess I read 14.4 wrong then
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
It's an easy mistake to make, because the author isn't overly consistent with what constitutes a "Unit" (frustratingly, the term is used interchangeably for both teams and sections). The example in 14.4 only uses a single team, and therefore isn't very helpful in that regard. The sidebar example after section 14.1 is a little better in that it makes it clear that the Bren team only applies its own Shock when reducing its firing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
FWIW, this same mechanic is used in Sharp Practice 2; say you have a Formation comprised of 3 Groups of 8 men each. If they're carrying 1, 2, and 3 points of Shock respectively, they'll subtract 0, 1, and 1 dice each from their firing (a total of 2) rather than half the total amount. Otherwise, it would actually be worse to be in a Formation than in separate Groups, because the odds and ends would stack. Similarly for movement, if the player wanted to keep the Groups in Formation as they moved, they'd move at the speed of their slowest Group, meaning they'd subtract 3 from their movement roll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Yeah, I love 1:1 but the system looks hard even without the added layer of conversion. Could be I think you and I talked about this a little while ago as to 1:1, and on top of it massively multiplying the number of actual stands (if not models) I would need to have cluttering the table it also seemed like a pain in the rear end to actually break out each Infantry Platoon stand into individual elements like "Ok, this stand is AKs, this stand has the RPG-7, this stand has the AT-7" as opposed to just using the one-line unit profiles the game provides. You can of course if you want that granularity, but that sort of defeats the whole point of FFoT which is speed it up and spend more time actually playing, which is the exact reason I like that system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:00
|
|
thing about being more on the social sciences side than STEM.
|
Is GHQ's Micronauts a decent WW2 naval ruleset? Or maybe, what are some good ones? I bought a set of destroyers from GHQ to paint up, since I'm now reenacting a Soviet sailor. But I keep staring at them and thinking, "You know, if I had some German ships, and maybe a cruiser or two...."
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Thought FFoT has a bit of an Asiatic Hordes going for it, with NATO companies vs. PACT regiments IIRC. The Battle Report I read was modern Saudi Arabia versus a fictional neighbor state using modern US Export versus Russian Exports, and the exchange rate was surprisingly even. Soldier skill level is a huge thing it look like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
I've got the new El Alamein box on order, alongside my free copies of the conversion books for V4 FoW. But a guy at my FLGS wants to also introduce me to Battlegroup, which does look enticing. What other 15mm WWII rulesets are there that's good/fun?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Chain of Command
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
I've only tried Blitzkrieg Commander once, but I remember liking it more than FoW. But then I haven't tried FoW since the first edition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Are there WW2 rule sets that don't have any "lol randum" stuff like having to roll to see if your units get to move this turn? My group never got into Bolt action because of this, and Chain of command or battle group seem to have similar mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
You get to activate every unit every turn in Bolt Action, it's just not traditional IGOUGO where one player does their entire turn while the other player waits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Springfield Fatts posted:^^^ drat those are some good looking 15mm dudes. I'll totally have to borrow the bottlecap idea for JOPs. Numlock posted:Are there WW2 rule sets that don't have any "lol randum" stuff like having to roll to see if your units get to move this turn?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
I used to feel as you, Numlock. It took a while to get into random-intitiative type rules (via picking dice, drawing cards, whatever). But eventually, I've come to prefer them. I think it represents the uncertainty of the battlefield much better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
It just seems equally as unrealistic to us as troops always following orders exactly but far more annoying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
I feel like we've beat it into the ground the last few pages but Fistful of Tows 3 has WWII army lists. No random movement or activation, and there's a free quick play of the rules on the website to try them which is always a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Numlock posted:It just seems equally as unrealistic to us as troops always following orders exactly but far more annoying. It leads to way more exciting games when activations are functionally a resource. It needs to be implemented well, but going from something like CoC to a system without "battlefield friction" is really, really jarring. It's like a whole element is missing. It helps to consider the turns lasting an elastic length of time - your soldiers aren't running at a variable pace of 2D6 inches/turn, they're moving at a consistent speed and get 2D6 inches before something else happens .
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
I like CoC's mechanic because it gives you a pool of resources, but it's up to you how you spend them; how important is it to you to be able to activate 3rd squad this turn? Is it more important than activating your tank? Or will you forgo activating a junior leader and a team in order to activate your platoon sergeant because you desperately need to rally some shock off your bazooka team and get them back in the action? The choice is yours. Also, cross-posting from the Oath thread:    I also finished this l'il guy   
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
I like semi-random activations because it means I'm constantly engaged with a changing situation and get to do something every few minutes instead of sitting there for half an hour watching my opponent shuffle his army around and then it's my turn and I'm too drunk to remember how the rules work
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
I also like "random" activations, and I found that I like the system if shap practice even more than coc, as you switch back and forth more, so you feel more involved in every turn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Ilor posted:I like CoC
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
I think it depends on what you find more important; a system that attempts to capture the confusion of a battlefield vs. a system that tries to provide a balanced gameplay experience. Personally, I prefer alternative activation where every dude gets to do something, but play alternates back and forth between players for pickup games. For more historical, campaign experiences where everyone is keen on the actual history as much as playing a game, random activations can lead to a much more dynamic experience with a lot of the surprises you'd expect being on an active battlefield. In my own forays into game design, I've found I enjoy systems where everyone gets to do something, but not everyone gets to do everything. If that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
Heh, to the 12-year-old me, that joke never gets old. For the record, I like Big CoC even more.  Having everyone do something but not everyone do everything is the Bolt Action way. That's OK, and certainly makes things a little more balanced. But I do find that play is less dynamic. I had been introduced to BA a couple of times but it just felt sort of..."meh." But it only took a single game of Chain before I was hooked on WW2 gaming. It can certainly be a little swingy, though, and is best played in a campaign setting where the swinginess averages out over several games. In that sense, the swings provide an interesting challenge, as in, "well, you've suffered a stunning reversal of fortunes; how do you adapt?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Muskets & Tomahawks lets every unit go but in a random order, although there is a rule for an interrupt that re-shuffles the deck. That's a pretty interesting mechanic, and the one that won me over to this style of play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
RE FFoT 1:1 Yeah, we talked about it before. I think the book states that 1:1 is played at a smaller scale. If regular games have... dunno, brigades facing off, then 1:1 would have... batallions? Companies? So, you know, you're still pushing around a similar amount of bases. Trouble is, the organization tables at the back of the book aren't meant for that, so you have to do research, nooo! Other than that, doling out special weapons would be annoying, but not unusual. My 6mm TY Soviet dismounts have 5 figure bases for maneuver element and 2 dude bases for RPG. Why can't the military find a sane way of matchings squad sizes to vehicles...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
moths posted:It leads to way more exciting games.... Matter of opinion really. Endman posted:I think it depends on what you find more important; a system that attempts to capture the confusion of a battlefield vs. a system that tries to provide a balanced gameplay experience. my group would rather play a good game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Matter of opinion really. No one is telling you you have to do it some other way, we're just explaining why we think other methods are fun, and in some cases superior to IGOUGO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
IGOUGO is a holdover from old games. Anything that means one player can go off and get a cup of drinmk while you move your entire army should take a good look at its core values. While I can understand some people getting annoyed with "oh I rolled poorly now I can't do anything." alternate activation should be industry standard by now!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Well, okay, I guess someone is telling you you have to do it a different way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
One of my friends is unhappy with the possibility of the enemy having two turns in a row, starting with Age of Sigmar (legitimate gripe) and ending with Hobbit/LoTR (not a legitimate gripe).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
JcDent posted:One of my friends is unhappy with the possibility of the enemy having two turns in a row, starting with Age of Sigmar (legitimate gripe) and ending with Hobbit/LoTR (not a legitimate gripe). Hitler was also pretty mad that Stalin got two or more turns in a row.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
The difference is that AoS is IGOUGO, so you can be left holding your dick in your hands for two turns in a row while the enemy bashes your army in with ranged, spells and targetted melee. Thiss would be especially annoying when playing against Sylvaneth, since they are bullshit central. On the other hand, you still have reactions and stuff in other games, so you're not helpless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Matter of opinion really. It's actually not! Less unpredictability engenders more exciting gameplay, unless you're someone who gets surprised and excited by a predictable repetitions of events.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Anybody have those force compositions for red army
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Hitler was also pretty mad that Stalin got two or more turns in a row. Stalin also used the BS Russian Winter rules and abused the reserves mechanic. Colonial Air Force posted:Well, okay, I guess someone is telling you you have to do it a different way. Someone has to call a fool a fool  (That is a joke.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Stalin also used the BS Russian Winter rules and abused the reserves mechanic. It was the last straw. He took his ball and left for good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Why can't the military find a sane way of matchings squad sizes to vehicles... It's a massive oversimplification, but gets the idea of "poo poo changes, so requirements change" across pretty well. Colonial Air Force posted:Well, okay, I guess someone is telling you you have to do it a different way. Hey now, he can have badwrongfun all he wants. It's his right as a goon to be terrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Hey now, he can have badwrongfun all he wants. It's his right as a goon to be terrible.  Meanwhile, on the dismounts...  gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
^ I am quite dissapointed that (in the CoC rulebook at least) the russian ranks are just cyrilicised (?) western ranks.. сержа́нт is litereally 'serzhent' :/
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Aren't most Russian ranks just cyrilicizations of French ranks anyway (owing to the Romanov dynasty's love of all things French and absolute hard-on to be considered a "European" power)? Or did they change all that by the time the Soviets took over?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:16
|
|