IABSM

[Rubicon]

I've recently been looking at IABSM as a possible alternative (definitely not replacement) to BKC for WWII gaming (one of the guys I play a lot of games with at the club doesn't like BKC) Unfortunately my only previous experience with the Lardys' stable of rules is Sharp Practice which I have to say didn't grab me - I really wanted to like it, and there did appear to be some decent ideas in what I did read of the rules, but the writing style and silly names really grated on me - to such an extent that I thought "nah!" and shelved them. I like card driven games and whilst I like hidden movement I have mixed feelings about the whole "blinds" thing - I like to see nicely painted toys on the table for the majority of the game rather than ovals of cardboard.
l am reluctant to shell out for IABSM in case it is SP all over again. Can anyone put my mind at rest/sell me on what is good about IABSM?

thanks in advance & happy gaming
Bob Mcleish

[Paint it Pink]

Units on blinds don't stay long on blinds as you can spot and this becomes pretty much automatic as the range closes.

[GordonY]

Bought it, read it, never played it, still think BKC gives a quicker and better game.

[Shecky]

IABSM definitely takes a different mind set in a player's approach to the game.

I find that IABSM models friction very well. Part of that friction includes the use of the blinds. The use of well played dummy blinds can help offset some of the disadvantages of a numerically inferior force.
Players also don't have full control over their units. As units take shock it becomes harder for them to shoot and move.  Also, with the variable end of turn, units may not always move or shoot when a player wants them to. However, this favors the player who makes the most of the opportunities as they are presented.

In games that I have run I have had players complain of the variable movement and units not doing anything in a turn.  However, players who understand the concepts behind the mechanics tend to enjoy the games more and want to play again.

I dont know if i can describe it well but from my experience I've noticed that players who are used to rules which tell them what they can do have a more negative experience playing IABSM than those players who try to solve a situation within the framework of rules.

IABSM is what got me back into WWII gaming. I now have early war French and German, as well as late war Brit/commonwealth, US paras and late war Germans.

[Luddite]

IABSM definitely takes a different mind set in a player's approach to the game.

That's certainly true.

I find that IABSM models friction very well. Part of that friction includes the use of the blinds. The use of well played dummy blinds can help offset some of the disadvantages of a numerically inferior force.

I disagree.  That's what the rules say they do but i've found that to be quite missing from the game really, certainly in regard to my understanding of WWII 'friction'. 

And i agree with Rubicon's problems with the whole 'blinds' thing.  Toys on the table for me, not cardboard ovals.  And frankly, the blinds while optional, are a bizarrely pointless mechanism.  After a turn or two, most stuff is off-blind anyway because its more advantageous to actually have your units in play.

Players also don't have full control over their units. As units take shock it becomes harder for them to shoot and move.  Also, with the variable end of turn, units may not always move or shoot when a player wants them to.

But other rules do all this and better.

However, this favors the player who makes the most of the opportunities as they are presented.

In games that I have run I have had players complain of the variable movement and units not doing anything in a turn. 

Aye, it does reward luck and mindless opportunism rather than sound planning, and with the random card activation there's actually very little you can do to effect a proper battle plan.  It's quite possible, especially if you have a few units on blind, for the card sequence to give all the activations to your opponent and the 'Tea Break', starting it all again.  So you have to sit their like a lemon while your opponent takes your force to pieces.  Tedious.

However, players who understand the concepts behind the mechanics tend to enjoy the games more and want to play again.

Um, isn't this a bit insulting?  I understand the concepts (indeed the rules set them out clearly) and ii'm mightily unimpressed with the rules; indeed with the whole TFL stable of rules really.

I dont know if i can describe it well but from my experience I've noticed that players who are used to rules which tell them what they can do have a more negative experience playing IABSM than those players who try to solve a situation within the framework of rules.

Hmm...i think you mean, IABSM doesn't really provide a stable set of rules, and in many cases you have to make up what happens because the rules don't really cover it.  I call that pretty poor.  The latest version at least looks like a proper ruleset.  the early versions really were 'back of a fag packet' affairs.  I also agree with your Rubicon, on the tone of the rules.  Rule examples involving a character caller Hugh Jarse just strikes me and cringeworthy.   

IABSM is what got me back into WWII gaming. I now have early war French and German, as well as late war Brit/commonwealth, US paras and late war Germans.

That said of course, each to their own and i certainly know many people, like you Shecky, who like them.

Personally i reckon at this scale you're far better off with something like Crossfire, or even the latest versions of Rapid Fire. 

I've recently been looking at IABSM as a possible alternative (definitely not replacement) to BKC for WWII gaming

It's worth noting of course that IABSM is at a very different scale to BkCII.  I think an entire IABSM game is basically a couple of bases in BkCII!!

Its all good though as long as we're all having fun!!   

[HPFlashman]

Good tread, I`ve just asked about the IABSM over at the VBCW forum and Mick A over there was very positive to them, but had the same notions of the blinds as been mentioned in here.  He would solve that by producing some all black figures on fully featured terrain bricks for using instead of the cardboard thingys. 

Personally, the friction and blind bits are what attracts me to the rules in accordance to Mr Murphys Law of "No plan survives initial contact" or some such notion.

That said, I`m fresh to table, so to speak.

[Luddite]

Personally, the friction and blind bits are what attracts me to the rules in accordance to Mr Murphys Law of "No plan survives initial contact" or some such notion.

That said, I`m fresh to table, so to speak.

I'll be very interested to read about your experiences with them Flashman  old chap.

I agree that no plan survives contact. 

The trouble with IABSM i find is that whatever plan you had won't survive and then the random nature of the card activation means there's very little you can do to actually recover or meaningfully react.

Personally i find that neither 'realistic', nor fun.   

[Shecky]

<quote>Quote
However, players who understand the concepts behind the mechanics tend to enjoy the games more and want to play again.

Um, isn't this a bit insulting?  I understand the concepts (indeed the rules set them out clearly) and ii'm mightily unimpressed with the rules; indeed with the whole TFL stable of rules really.

</quote>

As I wrote it I knew it was going to come across as a bit of a put down but that was not my intent. Some players prefer rules which prescribe a set movement rate - in IABSM movement is dependent on a dice result. They may also prefer a set sequence of events each turn - move, shoot, close combat, morale.  In IABSM the player decides what a unit will do and in what order when they are activated. That's not to say that IABSM is any better or worse - heck, I play and enjoy all types of rules regardless of their mechanisms. I've even played Crossfire and enjoyed it. I'd also like to play BKC too but I don't have figures based for it and everyone around here who does would rather play FOW.

I'm not a fan of the Piquet set of rules, which have been often compared to IABSM. However, the big difference between the two is that in Piquet the cards determine what actions a player may take (move, shoot, reload, do nothing) while in IABSM the cards determine what units are activated and the player determines the actions.

I've found that IABSM runs better with an umpire who uses the rules as a framework to produce a fun game. Not everyone has the luxury of a third person to arbitrate issues which arise during the game. But a good umpire has the liberty (like a good RPG gamemaster) to control the flow of the game. You can play with two tea break cards to increase the chances that a unit will be activated. I know people who even play with no tea breaks.  As an umpire, I've even been known to reorder the deck to prevent something really bad happening to a player who's been on the short end of the stick for a while.

[Luddite]

I share you're preference for a breadth of game play options, and card activation systems can work.

For example i'm currently just getting into Maurice, which i think is an example of how to do card activation well.  In fact its an example of how to do an awful lot of rules mechanics very well indeed!   

[Malbork]

Rule examples involving a character caller Hugh Jarse just strikes me and cringeworthy.   

Ouch, and I thought the suggestions for platoon leaders' names in my copy of PPig's PBI were bad: Russian - Andropov and Brezhnev, Japanese - Suzuki and Honda or some such.

I had been umming and ahhing about IABSM after reading various things on the web but I also have an aversion to "daft name syndrome" in rulesets so I think I'll be giving it a miss; Thanks Luddite

Mind you having said that I did think the name for Warlord Games' Romans personality figure Centurion Titus Aduxus was quite amusing; Must rethink my double standards

[Luddite]

Ouch, and I thought the suggestions for platoon leaders' names in my copy of PPig's PBI were bad: Russian - Andropov and Brezhnev, Japanese - Suzuki and Honda or some such.

I had been umming and ahhing about IABSM after reading various things on the web but I also have an aversion to "daft name syndrome" in rulesets so I think I'll be giving it a miss; Thanks Luddite

Mind you having said that I did think the name for Warlord Games' Romans personality figure Centurion Titus Aduxus was quite amusing; Must rethink my double standards

Well, i'm not keen on the rules mate, but opinions vary. 

I'd suggest reading some balanced and positive reviews before making your mind up!

http://meeples.wordpress.com/reviews/rules-reviews/i-aint-been-shot-mum-3rd-edition/

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11999.phtml

[HPFlashman]

I was a bit intrigued by the discussions and the reviews, so pulled the trigger on the PDF version. Will give it a read and some test runs, hopefully in the weekend.   

[sunjester]

I play both IABSM 3 and BKC 2. I think they are both great in very different ways. Looking at Luddite's comments I wonder if he has been playing earlier versions of the rules rather than the latest, TFL seemed to have dropped a lot of the "silly name" stuff from version 3.

My experience of IABSM is obviously very different,as I've had some great games. In fact one of the guys at the club had tried a Normandy BKC scenario he had downloaded, that really didn't work at all as a game. He scaled it down to IABSM and it worked perfectly!

For me, I have found I have to think far more about tactics with IABSM than I do with BKC. Certainly far more careful about tings like chucking troops across open ground.

It is a ruleset I recommend to anyone to try, but I'm aware that it will not be to everyone's taste.

[Nosher]

Agree with sunjester - I have had many an enjoyable IABSM game as well as BKC games. I predominantly play BKC solo and IABSM with a group of friends. The IABSM games we play are always umpired by a third party.

I am thinking of developing some of the mechanics from IABSM to suit weird war 2 (Secrets of the Third Reich) which has appalling game play but really nice figures.

[Last Hussar]

BKC is fine if you want to throw panzer models on the table to have a game with kids.  If you want to play WW2 play IABSM.

Blinds do give a definate advantage in early stages of the game; they keep a platoon together

SJ and I use a two stage Blind for hidden blinds firing- when they fire once put the blind down, then the next time they fire they come off the blind.

Its always fun watching BKC players in their first game - they throw men forward, who get shot up and don't regenerate.

I'm sure all the people called Jarce would like to know what you have against them!

[Steve J]

You have the option in BKC of leaving the hits on, so infantry etc 'die' quickly if not carefully handled. This helps when playing at the same level as IABSM, which I believe is where one stand equals one section rather than a platoon. As I understand, the blinds are very similar to the hidden deployment as per CWC, and so can be used in BKC.

In the end each to his own. I've looked at IABSM, which looks good, but given the limited gaming time at present, I'll stick with BKC.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I play both IABSM and BKC.  They're really different things.  BKC can be played as one stand = 1 platoon or one stand = 1 squad while IABSM is 1 figure = 1 man.

IABSM is definitely different and - as Luddite's post makes clear - isn't for everyone.   I am personally a fan of it.  I think (hope) Luddite's been unlucky with his experience and/or the approach just isn't for him. 

I've generally managed to get period tactics to work with my games of IABSM, albeit it's not easy to get right.  It's critical to deploy your key command personnel (Big Men) in the right place to maximise what you can do with them if you want to improve the chance of getting your troops to carry out the plan.  When things have gone wrong for me it's usually either because I've not done this and/or I've been tactically inept - in the last big game I played it was not using smoke from the platoon 2" mortars to cover movement and failing to use the supporting 3" mortars in time or to best effect (resulting in giving the opposing Italians entirely too good a target).   

The other thing to note is that users of IABSM - and indeed other TFL rules - are encouraged to treat them as a starting point and somewhat of a toolbox to get the game that best reflects their take on tactics in the relevant period or makes the game run better for them.  This, together with the Kriegspiel approach, is what I think Luddite alludes to in terms of 'making things up'.    One of the first times I played my opponent and I looked at a piece of terrain and agreed what precise effect we thought it had in that particular situation as cover - we applied guidelines and principles to fit the situation.

Page 69 of IABSM 3 says:
"I Ain’t Been Shot Mum is designed to be a tool box of rules that allows the gamer to play his games in the way that best suits him. As a result we encourage people to add their own
ideas to the game system. Indeed, the card system is perfect for adding all sorts of extras, be they for all your games or just specific scenarios."

Incidentally wouldn't worry about silly name syndrome as it's easily ignored and indeed few such instances remain in the current version.   

Regards

Edward

[Luddite]

Chaps at my club love the whole TFL thing and play everything from Sharpe Practice to Bag The Hun.

We really tried to like these rules, and played IABSM 1st Ed., a bit of Through the Mud and the Blood too.  Ditched it as a bad job.  

We came back to the current version of IABSM for a good few games too, and to be fair the latest version is an improvement, but its still just terrible.  

Or rather 'not my thing'.  Creaking, patchy rules and game play that doesn't live up the the 'play the period not the rules' hype.

Um...as i've covered above, in my opinion, other opinions are available, etc.  



It's all good though, after all there are lots of other options out there ( http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5803.0.html ) and if we all agreed there wouldn't be war.  Where would The Hobby be then!??!

[Last Hussar]

1st edition was very patchy

3rd edition is complete.  Ok there is the odd 'hold on, what does he mean' moment, but that is a product of being very much a 1 or 2 man band who didn't catch it in tests. The biggest weakness in my opinion is the armour rules, but then it is an infantry game.

The thing about Sunjester and mine games is that we have started really getting the hang on what to do tactics wise- how to win.  And we find what we are doing is using WW2 tactics.  What we found in our latest games is that close assaults have to be formed properly - you cant just charge forward willy-nilly as you can in many games of many periods.  I watched him waste a turn forming a platoon to storm a bunker that turned out to be empty. (I don't mean the 2nd turn because I didn't tell him it was empty, slightly gamey by me!)  BUT he couldn't afford not to do it by the book - if I had any one in there he would have died horribly had he not done it right.

FIBUA is a particular pain in the arse - you really do have to take time -Prep, suppress, close assault, repeat.

Personally I think BKC is pitched too low - it could have been a really good 1 stand = 1 company game, which is a gap in the market.

[sunjester]

Personally I think BKC is pitched too low - it could have been a really good 1 stand = 1 company game, which is a gap in the market.

An old disagreement of LH and I, so I'll publicly admit to my heresy.

They are not really a platoon or company, they are a stand of painted little metal men.

If you want to imagine them to represent a company, whilst my warped imagination sees them as a platoon, in the same game, that does not interfere with the rules at all!