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
Units on blinds don't stay long on blinds as you can spot and this becomes pretty much automatic as the range closes.
Bought it, read it, never played it, still think BKC gives a quicker and better game.
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.
Quote from: Shecky on 22 August 2012, 06:43:16 PM
IABSM definitely takes a different mind set in a player's approach to the game.
That's certainly true.
QuoteI 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.
QuotePlayers 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.
QuoteHowever, this favors the player who makes the most of the opportunities as they are presented.
QuoteIn 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.
QuoteHowever, 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.
QuoteI 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. :(
QuoteIABSM 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.
Quote from: RubiconI'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!! :D
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.
Quote from: HPFlashman on 22 August 2012, 10:11:22 PM
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. @-) =O
<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.
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! :D
QuoteRule 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 :-\
Quote from: Malbork on 23 August 2012, 06:47:30 AM
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://meeples.wordpress.com/reviews/rules-reviews/i-aint-been-shot-mum-3rd-edition/)
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11999.phtml (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11999.phtml)
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. :)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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. :-[
:D
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 (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!??! ;)
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.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 24 August 2012, 11:50:37 PM
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. :d
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! 8-} ;D =O =O =O
See mechanics aren't important to SJ, he just wants to push tanks around, which is why he plays BKC.
Greetings
So long as you use 10mm Pandraken tanks ... ? :)
I had a packet of Western Desert British drop through the letterbox yesterday. They will serve both in BKC and IABSM I suspect.
Regards
Edward
I've just started playing IABSM after many many games of BKC. I've found that in the couple of games I've played thus far I've really really enjoyed the differences of the game. I'll still play both as we've almost always played BKC with a base = platoon scale which is not directly competitive to IABSM.
I've not found any of the silly name stuff annoying, and its not like it's part of the rules anyway, they're usually little explanations/demos. I have to admit I'm a bit leery of rules which are "toolkits" or ones which advertise that they're easily house ruled as that usually has meant that they're incomplete or lacking in definition. IABSM hasn't yet crossed that line for me, what I am seeing is that they've left the door open and signposted the way if you want to add more to adjust to your own ideas or taste.
I can see why the card based and variable turn length mechanisms can jar, I have had a number of turns where the run of cards didn't go my way. However, the tea break does give those units not yet activated chance to fire if there are close range targets, similar to the initiative phase in BKC. Also, it means that you have to plan properly in defense for sure. Being on blinds is far more useful than you seem to give credit for Luddite, it gives you an extra action, allows movement of multiple units together and more.
Played a British Civil War game this afternoon (well yesterday now!) My motorbike platoon of two sections roared up the road, got to exactly where I wanted them, and jumped off the bikes (they had satchel charges, and so were the A/T platoon!) and then...
didn't move for three turns, by which time the Fascist armoured cars had turned up and machine gunned them, pinning them down.
Now those who deride card driven movement point would say men don't do this. Look at it this way
16 blokes had jumped off bikes, needed to get them out the way (they might want them later!), and then ran to the nearest cover - a building between them and the panzer I. They froxe because they were trying to get the courage up to run up to a tin box armed with machine guns, and lob a bag at it! The non movement was actually about 2 minutes within the battle, which includes getting the bikes sorted out and forming up, then looking around trying to work out exactly how to get near the tanks, checking the house out etc.
I am not sure if It is bad form to resurrect old threads but I have just found this one having been reading IABSM since Saturday. I am not sure which edition I have, I presume the third one, but the rules seem quite clear to me. In fact I was expecting something far less professional in presentation based on some comments I had read on this forum. The rules read well, they are clearly written by people who know their historical onions, and nicely presented. If nothing else it has been a very interesting read with some different ideas.
Of course, the Devil is in the detail, and I was wondering about the ability to make a plan and to stick to it during the game? I see that is an issue raised here and wondered what experiences people had had?
Greetings
Sticking to a plan is difficult - because of friction - but usually can be done provided that you commit enough Big Men to keep things moving where you need to.
Of course trying to ram your plan home against opposition you weren't planning for can be a bad idea. However, I've also seen a number of games lost by the player(s) taking fright and changing their plans, leading to confusion, dispersion of force, reinforcement of failure and penny-packeting (and a number of these occasions have been me!).
Regards
Edward
Okay, thanks Edward. It seems to me that the leaders are critical to getting your plan implemented. Which seems perfectly reasonable.
I like the idea that external factors can mess up your day, you then have to react to that as best you can. That rings true of my reading of first hand accounts of WWII.
I am getting quite excited at the prospect of rolling out a game. Another read through first though.
Thanks.
Quote from: Baker Boy on 20 November 2012, 11:15:08 AM
Of course, the Devil is in the detail, and I was wondering about the ability to make a plan and to stick to it during the game? I see that is an issue raised here and wondered what experiences people had had?
In my experience its all but impossible, and relies almost entirely on the luck of the card draw.
I'll give you one of several examples.
We played a scenario with a dug in German platoon under assault by a British Company.
The British plan involved a basic frontal pin with two flanking manoeuvres.
After six turns of card cycles, the German has butchered everything in sight while the British had barely moved off their start line...all due to the German cards coming out and the British cards not. The Brits were forced cobble something together from their limited 'tea break' options.
Friction? Maybe.
Realistic? Possibly.
Fun? Not in any way.
And the plan was pretty much impossible to act on because of the cards.
We've encountered similar problems in other games, even with the judicious use of the 'Big Men'.
That said, other people love the rules so there must be something in them.
Never played these, but have played other TFL rules. I am a bit puzzled. I thought the basic principle on which these rules worked involved the cards being used to decide the order in which units were activated, not whether they were activated at all. In TCHAE for the ACW we have always played it that when the coffee card comes out, those units which have yet to activate are activated, within certain limits. To quote from TCHAE about the coffee card, "This signifies the end of the turn. Troops that are within close artillery or small arms range may now fire (simultaneously) if their commander's card has not been turned, or if the commander has reserved fire. Aggressive troops not on blinds, who have attack orders and are within 8" of the enemy, will now continue their move with no change of formation. Combat will be fought if they contact the enemy.". Is there nothing similar in IABSM?
Mollinary
Luddite. Thanks for the warning! That sounds like no fun at all.
From my limited reading through of the rules I am trying to imagine how such a result could happen. It seems very extreme! I need to get my figures sorted out before I can get a game to test these out. :-\
Millinery. I am not sure. I will re-read the rules later. From what I recall you have some choices about deploying and stuff.
Well, i'd reserve judgement old chap. My view is definitely a 'vocal minority'. ;D
Hope you enjoy the rules Baker Boy.
Personally i'm enjoying Bolt Action for tactical scale at the moment. Sure its 40k WWII but it seems to work pretty well.
Just a couple of points about IABSM:
1. Yes, some players can get frustrated with the end of turn "tea break" card. An umpire can counter this by either not using a tea break card, only putting it in the deck when shooting has started or using two tea breaks and ending the turn after the second is drawn. I have used all three options. If playing with people new to IABSM I tend to go with the two tea breaks inserted once the shooting starts.
2. Players need to remember all options available to them and not just have one plan. In other words be thinking about what may happen in a turn and how you will respond. For example, if platoon A is activated before the enemy platoon B then I will lay down fire with squad 1, pin the enemy with my MMG and assault with squad 2. But if the big man is activated first the I will call in artillery. If the enemy is activated first then I will use my activation to remove shock and maneuver with platoon C when the are activated.
3. Don't be afraid to come out of blinds. Once units are put on the table their cards go in the deck. If you still have blinds on the table the odds of them moving becomes reduced as more unit cards make up the deck. Don't think you're going to pull a ruse on the enemy with your dummy blind. I've only seen a ruse work once. Chances are your opponent knows its a dummy any way. Keeping real units under blinds once the fighting starts can reduce your options for action and increases the chance of a run on cards for your opponent.
4. Remember that units on blind can reveal themselves at the end of the turn and fire on targets within 9". This can be a real shock to an enemy who wanders in too closely and has used all their action points.
5. Call in artillery early and often. It will take a while to arrive so the sooner you call it in the better.
6. Don't be afraid to wait for an attack to happen. Too often I've seen a player launch an attack just because a unit is activated. It's ok to wait until you've softened the enemy before attacking. And think about reserving actions for firing later or at the end of a turn.
7. For the first couple of games with new players try playing without blinds and tea breaks. This will let everyone get used to the system.
8. Finally, for now, as an umpire, come up with what constitutes great, ok and poor shots. This is more to help you understand and be consistent in grading the firing than it is to help the players.
Greetings
Quote from: Luddite on 20 November 2012, 09:33:18 PM
In my experience its all but impossible, and relies almost entirely on the luck of the card draw.
I'll give you one of several examples.
We played a scenario with a dug in German platoon under assault by a British Company.
The British plan involved a basic frontal pin with two flanking manoeuvres.
After six turns of card cycles, the German has butchered everything in sight while the British had barely moved off their start line...all due to the German cards coming out and the British cards not. The Brits were forced cobble something together from their limited 'tea break' options.
Friction? Maybe.
Realistic? Possibly.
Fun? Not in any way.
And the plan was pretty much impossible to act on because of the cards.
We've encountered similar problems in other games, even with the judicious use of the 'Big Men'.
That said, other people love the rules so there must be something in them.
I can think of a number of reasons why this could go pear shaped if done in daylight without adequate supporting fires and smoke. Also if the flanking was tried without covered avenues of approach I can understand why there were problems.
It is of course true that the cards can really foul up your day and the approach is not for everyone - thre's no right way to play with toy solders after all.
Regards
Edward
Got to agree in particular with POINTS 1 & 2 by Shecky as aids for unfamiliar players clinging to "their inflexible one track ways". :P
Sorry, I may be missing something here. What are these inflexible one track ways?
Quote from: Baker Boy on 22 November 2012, 07:17:44 PM
Sorry, I may be missing something here. What are these inflexible one track ways?
*Awaits clarification with interest*
:)
OK, so we've been playing Bolt Action a lot lately, and loving it.
It's basically the core 40k mechanics retooled for WWII and works surprisingly well with mechanics and frictions that are very intuitive and tactically deep. Given its parentage i've been genuinely surprised at these rules.
However, it bolts on a random activation system that is superficially similar to IABSM. Unlike IABSM though, it works. I'm still trying to figure out how and why, for me BA works and IABSM doesn't, but i think its because there are no 'teabreaks'.
In BA every unit will act, its just that you're unsure of the order. This, like all random activation, gives that requirement to decide what to do at each point - but you know that by the end of the turn, your plans will be able to develop and you won't be shafted by an unexpected turn end.
I guess therefore that removing the teabreak from IABSM may get round the basic problem we've encountered, all too often, of one side sitting about while the other gets all the cards, and then pulling the teabreak to stop the chance of reacting.
Might be worth considering for your run through
Baker Boy, if you encounter the same dissatisfaction i did (which hopefully you won't and IABSM will bring you a great deal of fun and enjoyment).
Of course that raises for me, a additional irritation...house rules. If i'm shelling out £20-30 for a set of rules, i do not want to have to house-rule things.
I also don't really like the 'shoulder shrug' from game rules, where the intended effect of the rule as written is unclear and leaves you to have to interpret things for yourself.
IABSM
seems to enshrine this. What, for example, is a 'good shot'? Almost every other set of rules is able to establish something so basic, yet IABSM just sort of says 'make it up' :(.
Fair enough, but i can do that without shelling out cash to be told i can...
I'm really looking forward to reading your experience of IABSM
Baker Boy. Hopefully you'll love them and be able to tell me why i'm wrong not to!
:D
Quote from: Luddite on 22 August 2012, 11:12:42 PM
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! :D
:o :o :o
holy sh*t I have seen everything now Luddite actually liking something friggin hell what next hell freezing over :D :D :D
Quote from: Baker Boy on 20 November 2012, 11:01:52 PM
Luddite. Thanks for the warning! That sounds like no fun at all.
From my limited reading through of the rules I am trying to imagine how such a result could happen. It seems very extreme! I need to get my figures sorted out before I can get a game to test these out. :-\
It cant in v3 pretty much everything gets a chance to go, besides war is a bitch and hey the brits got shot up pretty good advancing in extended line in the same old way in Normandy so why not on the tabletop =) =) =) :D
hey Luddite re Bolt Action superfically like IABSM hmm i have to wonder the use random activation using dice liek cards, they use big men ideas which looks to me as a direct plagarising copy of TFL ideas that have been around for years hmmm not overly inventive by our GW friends is it but hey each to their own after all I support FOW too.... :d :P
Oh and before you reply to that last i remember seeing a post from you admitting you use them for your med game a bit of hyprocisy to stab them then use em buddy ;D ;D
Quote from: rexhurley on 27 November 2012, 08:21:07 AM
:o :o :o
holy sh*t I have seen everything now Luddite actually liking something friggin hell what next hell freezing over :D :D :D
There's an awful lot i like and i say so profusely. Check out my pro-rants for things like F&F, DBx, Legends of the Old West, Crossfire, Spearhead, some of the excellent painting and modelling on here, etc.
I'll also make my views clear with things i don't like.
This is a forum after all and like all forums it requires people to express their views! ;D That way 'debate' lies...
Quote from: rexhurley
they use big men ideas which looks to me as a direct plagarising copy of TFL ideas that have been around for years
TFL didn't come up with the idea of 'heroes' (what they call 'big men' @-) ). Indeed, GW in the early days were producing 'Chainmail' style games with heroes leading small bands of warriors, etc. ,and they were inspired by earlier uses etc. etc.
Quoteafter all I support FOW too....
Oh and before you reply to that last i remember seeing a post from you admitting you use them for your med game a bit of hyprocisy to stab them then use em buddy
No need for the personal attack old boy. :-t
And if you read my rants properly you'll find that yes we used FoW quite a bit when it was first released. VERY pretty rulebooks after all, and we'll try anything new that looks worth a go. We even played a game or two lately, with the latest version of the rules, to see if they'd improved. After a game in which a couple of British Universal Carriers appeared to combine the capabilities of Star Trek teleporters and a tactical nuclear missile we pretty much gave it up as 'no improvement there then'... =)
Unless its immediately dreadful or unworkable, we'll stick with it for a good few games. Heck we even spent a few sessions trying to play Mr Lincoln's War! ;D
In fact several of our groups still play FoW. We however abandoned it as a bad job after a good few sessions using them and becoming increasingly dismayed at the ridiculous results it produced. FoW is undoubtedly a popular game in the same vein as 40k. But it ain't a wargame and as i've said, its one of the worst WWII rulesets i've come across.
My views of IABSM are also from quite a bit of experience playing them, from first ed. to the latest edition. They
should work and we're always on the lookout for a decent tactical scale set of rules for our WWII games, which is why we've given them a fair go. And again at our club, the TFL rules are very popular. I've just had too many games with them where i've been pushing bits of cardboard about rather than pretty figures, or games where i've spent the evening sat about waiting for cards to be drawn while my opponent rampages all over the battlefield. (:|
Greetings
As we've said before different people like different things and so they should. What works for me (IABSM) doesn't for Luddite. While that's a shame I'd far prefer he play a set of rules he likes. :)
As I understand it (read but not played) Bolt Action basically randomises when a side will get an action, whereas IABSM will also randomise which unit gets to act (as well as other effects, bonuses etc). I think I am right in saying that quite a bit of IABSM is rooted in Kriegspeil concepts, hence the decision making over types of shot etc and common use of umpires.
Regards
Edward
Well said Luddite, nice replies, and believe it or not I actually agree re FOW and their current direction which is why I have moved on to .... well trying to the lazy side of me keeps trying to justify not learning another set
Re Blinds is there any thoughts if the game works well without them or is that core? Sorry I ask as I have indulged brought them but have yet to play (where I live is like a desert for gamers) plus I'm trying to be good and (a) finish my Maurice project and (b) not revert to what is known... :-X
oh and go the mighty AB's time for the hapless pongo's :d :d :d :d
You can certainly play the game without blinds. In fact, I would suggest new players not use them so they can focus on the other game mechanics.
In Luddite's tag line he quotes:
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
That's the idea I have when running IABSM. I think they work best with an umpire/game master. I'll surreptitiously change the order of the deck to prevent a run by one side, keep the turn from ending too soon, bring on reinforcements, get a player involved, etc.
We started playing IABSM with very simple forces - all infantry with few support weapons. As we became more familiar with the rules we began adding elements - off board artillery, snipers, support weapons, tanks, etc. We played without the tea break card, then added one, then two... And as we became more experienced the way players use blinds has become more interesting. Some players prefer to come off blinds as soon as possible, others lead with their the dummy blinds, and one guy even launched a flank attack with the dummy blinds which forced the other player to shift forces to deal with the supposed threat.
So long story short, use the rules as you see fit and add elements as you become more experienced.