Spectre game. Middle East and onwards

[flatpack]

Good question on the scales.

Most of my modern stuff is 20mm.
I have figures, vehicles, and buildings all for that scale.

Then somehow I bought Blotz 28mm Arab buildings (don’t know what happened then).

Then just before lockdown, we played Spectre using my 20mm and 28mm buildings, but I had no 28mm modern figures.
After that game, I bought a few 28mm modern figures, painted them, then bought a few more.
I also bought a couple of 28mm vehicles. But these were just cheap ones.
In fact it was such a good game (cheers Ian), that a few of us rushed out and bought 28mm figures.

So I’m now in the middle of situation where I can play either, but really my collection is 20mm, that has slowly moved on to 28mm.

[Digits]

Indeed...loads to paint! 

I have half a dozen or more 28mm technicals etc, a couple of which are Spectre that Could do with painting up.  As I’m crap at vehicles, I will need to pick your brains some time...

[Westbury]

And the good news is I've got some more 28mm done or on their way to being done. Afghan police, SAS (Dave's actually), Hezbollah, more insurgents, Apache gunship (courtesy of Pete) and the ruined city piece is coming along nicely (probably because I'm not doing it!).
We will play again 

[TripleBackflip]

I only really use 28s, I guess it's cos I started when I was younger with games workshop stuff and I always have this desire to use all my stuff at once in one mega inter-temporal war.

[Vagabond]

This is quite amazing, your detail brings such life to the table, something that is often absent. The stalls are sumptuous, I think that's the right word.
Thanks for posting this, lots of ideas for other periods as well as this one.
Cheers

[flatpack]

This is quite amazing, your detail brings such life to the table, something that is often absent. The stalls are sumptuous, I think that's the right word.
Thanks for posting this, lots of ideas for other periods as well as this one.
Cheers

Many thanks for these kind words.
I hope people can see and use any of these items, to enable them to explore and enjoy the hobby a little bit more.

[Mindenbrush]

Just found this thread and desperately trying to avoid buying a new period.
But the opening description of the game reminded me of a Force on Force game I played in at Historicon 2016 - Find the bomb factory in Faluja.

The most experienced FoF player on the Coalition side was a young lad who was given the Delta Force team who promptly drove down the main road and died in a hail of bullets and rpg’s.

Seems most players had never heard of the “pepper pot” manoeuvre 😖.

[flatpack]

A little more scenery for Middle East games.
I’m sure the AA or RAC could get it running again. 

[has.been]

AA & RAC don't cover RPG damage Bob.

[has.been]

First up, excellent set up Flatpack (& the usual top rated scoff,
bacon & sausage butties with lashings of tea & soft drinks).
It all looked fantastic.
Problems.
Now this may well be down to me, as Umpire & someone who had
read & re-read the rules multiple times in the weeks before the game.
These comments are from memory as I have handed back the rules.

1) No index. = very difficult to find 'that rule'
2) No glossary. Writers seem to have assumed players know modern
     warfare & understand all the acronyms. I didn't.
3) Rules dotted about, sometimes with no apparent logic.
     Despite a sequence that emphasised both sides do a casualty
     phase, in a completely different part of the rules you find that
     the Taliban/insurgents... just DON'T ??
4) Very few worked examples
5) Some explanations ARE open to mis-interpretation
    e.g. The section will TAKE (my emphasis) another round of shooting.
    Suffer one or give out one?
6) We all agreed with the rules when they said that sometimes you
    don't want to kill the enemy, just keep his head down, however
   despite lots of searching we could NOT find out how to 'Pin' a unit.
 7) We are all familiar with having a 'character/characters' advising
    & explaining to players concepts/rules/ideas. Having this IN the
    text, as opposed to in separate text boxes, just adds to the hassle
    of finding 'that rule'.
The quick reference sheet is very crowded. It has the look of 'lets
    get everything on there' , which though a noble aim has led to
    players having to move around it quite a lot. Not helped by the
    choice of colours. White on orange  & black on grey. which make
    reading under electric light harder.  Better would have been one
    colour heading for each 'topic' e.g. Firing, Wounds, Off table etc.
9) Some rules seem to have unnecessary 'clutter'
    e.g. Section fire is graduated by the cover the enemy is in (good),
    but then there is a 'Cover save throw' May-be we were mis-reading
    or just not getting it.
10) It also might be a mis-read, but the insurgents seem to deploy
    an mine (booby trap) by putting down a marker & it will explode
    when the Coalition troops obligingly walk passed it

Now some pictures of Bob's great set up.
520  The Brit's approach route
521   Drone's eye view of the Market
522   Ground view of the same
523   The hard worked interpreter (who the rules say adds +1 to
         any interaction with the locals, but we couldn't find what you
         add it to ?)
524   Sniper draws a bead on the lead British patrol
525   'Hearts & Minds be bu****ed!' Brits 'shove' back
        when shoved.
         Taliban victory points start to add up.


 
   

 

[flatpack]

Pete
I posted your comments on the Contact Front FB group, and Martin kindly replied.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments, always appreciated 🙂
Before I comment on them individually, I touch on the design/layout of the first version of the rulebook itself. There were certain ”restraints” regarding layout and page numbers which lead to some parts being cut or seem slightly crammed. Not an excuse, just a reason. When a version 2. might be published (no date know) some things might change on the layout side.

The way the rulebook is written was a personal choice, by the author and he knows it not to everyone’s taste, as it not done as we are used to have our rulebooks look. Could certain sections maybe have been done differently… possibly. From what I’ve seen of upcoming supplement, he’s definitely learning.

1)   No index. = very difficult to find 'that rule'
- Table of content has all the rule sections listed with page numbers. But yes there is not extensive index.

2) No glossary. Writers seem to have assumed players know modern
warfare & understand all the acronyms. I didn't.
-  This was cut due to the page numbers rising.

3) Rules dotted about, sometimes with no apparent logic.
Despite a sequence that emphasised both sides do a casualty
phase, in a completely different part of the rules you find that
the Taliban/insurgents... just DON'T ??
- The core rules allow for regular armies to be used by both sides, allowing for future supplements, which is why the insurgents have their own rules in a separate section. But I can see the initial confusing 🙂

4) Very few worked examples
- more would be better ofc, as I remember this was also a page number thing. Not sure.

5) Some explanations ARE open to mis-interpretation
e.g. The section will TAKE (my emphasis) another round of shooting.
Suffer one or give out one?
-  is this about the Unacceptable casualties chart result of 2-3? If so it means they give out another round of fire. But the general point is taken and have been mentioned before. This falls to me as I missed it during proof reading  If some other rule please let me know 🙂
 
6) We all agreed with the rules when they said that sometimes you
don't want to kill the enemy, just keep his head down, however
despite lots of searching we could NOT find out how to 'Pin' a unit.
- page 12-13: Section fire.

7) We are all familiar with having a 'character/characters' advising
& explaining to players concepts/rules/ideas. Having this IN the
text, as opposed to in separate text boxes, just adds to the hassle
of finding 'that rule'.
- noted
 8)The quick reference sheet is very crowded. It has the look of 'lets
get everything on there' , which though a noble aim has led to
players having to move around it quite a lot. Not helped by the
choice of colours. White on orange & black on grey. which make
reading under electric light harder. Better would have been one
colour heading for each 'topic' e.g. Firing, Wounds, Off table etc.
- agreed and a new QRS may be added when we find time. But the initial idea was to keep to a max of 2 pages. The release of the SF supplement and upcoming Afghanistan one may force the need for a new one.

9) Some rules seem to have unnecessary 'clutter'
e.g. Section fire is graduated by the cover the enemy is in (good),
but then there is a 'Cover save throw' May-be we were mis-reading
or just not getting it.
- there’s no cover save against sections fire, it’s incorporated into the target number. See page 12-13.

10) It also might be a mis-read, but the insurgents seem to deploy a mine (booby trap) by putting down a marker & it will explode when the Coalition troops obligingly walk passed it “
-   Only for IEDs/mines planted during the game, do you put down markers (which makes them more of a deterrent). Ones bought as a support option are marked on the insurgents map and only revealed once blown or detected.
It is not crystal clear from the text, I know, added to next FAQ version.

I’ll take your comments and add them to the feedback document I have. A few are relevant for the upcoming FAQ update, so thank you 

Regards

Martin
Contact Front group moderator

[has.been]

Thanks for the prompt reply.
I have returned the copy of the rule to Bob (Flatpack) &
therefore not able to look again at things you have pointed out.

[Westbury]

Well Bob, you got away with it   

[vodkafan]

Tee hee 

[flatpack]

It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it