Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => VSF Adventures => In Her Majesty's Name => Topic started by: BugPope on 26 April 2015, 01:33:30 PM
-
Hi, I picked up IHMN a couple of months ago since I have a thing for simple skirmish rules and the whole Victorian adventures thing, but after three games, I've run into some pretty big obstacles. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot I like about this system (mainly that it's really fast, and easy to modify) but I keep getting the impression that this was either not playtested before release, or that the author simply forgot to include several really important rules. Or am I missing something?
Here's the rules I can't seem to find anywhere:
1. The section of terrain never actually seem to explain how terrain effects movement. So we've just assumed that level 2 terrain means you "pay" 2 inches for every inch you move and so on. But this is just a guess, since I can't find it in the rules.
2. Objectives, and how you pick them up and move with them. This is quite a big problem, since one of my friends completely lost interest in this game after he managed to get to the objective in the middle of the table in turn 1 and then back to his own table edge at the beginning of turn 2 with one of his African carriers, making for an extremely short game (and since this game makes it very hard to shoot someone in the first couple of rounds, I had no chance of stopping him). We've discussed making some kind of houserule that you can't run while carrying an objective, but there really should be official rules for this.
3. NPCs. Many scenarios in this game involve neutral miniatures that you either have to escort or destroy, but there are no rules for how this works.
Let's start with the escort missions. When can the NPCs move? How far? Do I need to stay in base contact with him? Can he run? What are his stats? I don't know, there are apparently no rules for any of this, not even in the erratas or on the blog. Bad Jack has stats, but he seems to be completely immobile as there are no rules for his movements.
There's probably more, but these are the main issues I've run into. I hope I don't come of as angry or anything, because I really want to like this game, but I have a hard time actually playing it or getting other people interested due to all the random missing rules. Or maybe I'm just missing something, I dunno. Is it something you have written down in your notes but forgot to print, or are the players expected to houserule this? And if it's the latter, does anyone have any good rules for these things?
Other than that, it's a pretty fun game.
-
Also, are there any plans to implement the Edison teleporter thing in any of the army lists? It seems like such a fun gadget, but nobody can use it.
-
To paraphrase the dread pirate Barbossa: IHMN is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
Or as one of the authors of IHMN famously said: I do like it when people take our work and make it their own. :D
So take the rules as "guidelines" and change them as you see fit, as the situation arises.
As to terrain, the rating is the associated penalty, so Type 2 terrain subtracts 2 inches from movement and shooting at someone in Type 2 terrain imposes a -2 on the attack role. Could certain terrain be, say, Type 2 for movement and Type 1 for Shooting? Sure....it's your game.
The authors clearly state that "The key design philosophy has been simplicity." So, no, by design there are no rules for every contingency. House rules are often the, er, "rule," not the exception.
As to the Bring Him Back Alive scenario, here's my take: give the VIP whatever stats you feel are appropriate, befitting his status. The VIP can neither shoot nor fight. The VIP can only move when in base to base contact with a figure, and neither may run. If the "escorting" figure leaves base to base contact, or is taken out, you could handle it a number of ways: 1) The VIP takes a standard move towards the nearest cover, moving as the last figure in the Movement, or 2) the VIP stays in place and does not move, or 3) the VIP moves a random number of inches (roll a d6) in a random direction, or 4) whatever you want.
-
1. A figure cannot run in terrain. Its normal movement is reduced by the level of the terrain. So level 2 terrain reduces its maximum movement by 2".
2. It's just barely possible to reach the centre of the board (18" away from the nearest point of the edge) if the figure starts 6" in and has speed 2 and has martial arts and there is no terrain between it and the centre. However, that doesn't happen too many times. How did your opponent manage to get from the centre to the edge of the board in one go?
3. I think neutral figures are pluck 6, no armour. We assume they move as per normal but that you have to accompany them in order to get them to do that.
4. Bad Jack is in a building in the centre of the board. He doesn't move. You have to go in and get him. We have played it where he moves randomly using d10 to work out in which direction and how far.
-
To paraphrase the dread pirate Barbossa: IHMN is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
So take the rules as "guidelines" and change them as you see fit, as the situation arises.
I do get that, but there's a difference between keeping the rules light and having half-finished rules, or scenarios that require rules that don't exist. I really don't want to come off as whiny, and I don't really get why people seem to presume that I don't understand the whole KISS thing, but after playing a few games, my main impression of the game is less that it's a foundation to build on and more that it's a first draft that got printed before play testing or proof reading. And I really don't think that is too much to ask for. Especially if it makes the game near impossible to play without extensive houseruling.
And what really confuses me is that the expansions don't try to fix this, or add advanced (or even basic) rules, it's mostly just new army lists. Which seems like really strange priorities to me.
1. A figure cannot run in terrain. Its normal movement is reduced by the level of the terrain. So level 2 terrain reduces its maximum movement by 2".
Where does it say the last part? I've read the chapter over and over and over, and I haven't seen it anywhere.
I don't have a huge gaming table, so mine is about 33'' across.
And if Bad Jack is inside a building (does the rules really mention that? I don't have my copy on me right now, but I don't remember that), can I still shoot at him, since the rules seem to treat houses as area terrain?
-
Where does it say the last part? I've read the chapter over and over and over, and I haven't seen it anywhere.
4.1.1 Difficult Terrain
"Difficult Terrain imposes restrictions on Movement depending on the figure or vehicle type attempting to traverse it...In this game, Difficult Terrain is rated as Type 1, 2, or 3 -- the number corresponds to the level of penalty associated with it."
Ergo, Type 2 Terrain subtracts 2 inches from movement.
-
4.1.1 Difficult Terrain
"Difficult Terrain imposes restrictions on Movement depending on the figure or vehicle type attempting to traverse it...In this game, Difficult Terrain is rated as Type 1, 2, or 3 -- the number corresponds to the level of penalty associated with it."
Ergo, Type 2 Terrain subtracts 2 inches from movement.
Ooooh, now I get it. After three months of reading that paragraph over and over again. So the idea is that I'm expected to see the capital M in Movement and understand that it refers to the actual Movement stat of the model, which isn't actually a stat in this game since all humans have the same base movement (not counting Speed)? Holy crap, that's probably the most obscure and vague way they could have possibly put that. See, this is why you should have other people read your rules before you print them.
I'm used to systems based on the Warhammer rules, so I intuitively interpreted that as "every 1 inch of movement inside the terrain counts as 2 inches".
-
'The number corresponds to the level of penalty associated with it'
So type 1 costs you 1" extra to move through, Type 2 costs 2" and Type 3 costs 3".
It's written in grammatical English rather than instructional. For a rule book instructional is better.
My books have been borrowed so I can't check but I'm pretty sure Bad Jack does start in a building yes. If you can see him through a window then yes you can shoot him (or the walls of it's a ruin).
The lack of stats/rules for the VIP bugs me hugely, especially as I pointed it out before the book went to print. Silbuster is correct in the intended method though.
-
'The number corresponds to the level of penalty associated with it'
So type 1 costs you 1" extra to move through, Type 2 costs 2" and Type 3 costs 3".
See, I didn't get that they meant that I'm supposed to subtract that from the full amount of inches the model moves (6'', normally). And I don't think this is just because I'm used to GW rules, because they really should specify this.
Also, can VIPs fight? Are they affected by Inspiring and other buffs that affect your own team?
The Bad Jack thing worries me, since it seems to imply that the game expects all building models to have interiors and removable roofs, so you can move models around inside them, and keep track on where they stand. And mine don't.
On an unrelated note, it kinda feels like Marksman is pretty overpowered. Maybe it's because I use a lot of jungle and other area terrain (growing up with the Tarzan novels has given me an incurable love for pulpy jungle adventures), but in the games I've played, the side with the most Marksmen always wins. Especially since it cancels out the Stealth skill completely. Might want to either make it more expensive or tone it down a bit, so it reduced the cover penalty instead of removing it completely.
Also, it feels odd that you don't get any bonuses from charging into melee. One would think the momentum and shock effect would count for something, at least.
-
See, I didn't get that they meant that I'm supposed to subtract that from the full amount of inches the model moves (6'', normally). And I don't think this is just because I'm used to GW rules, because they really should specify this.
Also, can VIPs fight? Are they affected by Inspiring and other buffs that affect your own team?
In fairness to the authors, it does specify this as that is what the line means, however I completely agree that it should be clearer and an 'example' would have made it simpler for people. You aren't the first to be confused by this.
So as an example, if you move through a thick hedge (Type 2) then you knock 2" of the distance you can move. If you move 3" in a wooded area then you have actually used 5" of movement as it is Type 2 terrain. Once you've got your head around it then it makes for very fast activation and movement as you don't need to track exactly how much of your movement took place in which type of terrain etc, you just take the penalty.
Shooting uses the same set up so Type 1 gives a -1 to hit when shooting through, Type 2 is -2 etc.
So if you were to shoot at Bad Jack through a window across the street then you'd suffer -3 to the shot because you'd be shooting into Type 3 terrain. But at least he hasn't moved ;)
No, the VIP can't fight or benefit from your Buff Talents as he isn't a member of your Company.
-
In fairness to the authors, it does specify this as that is what the line means,
I still can't see where they specify this in the paragraph, but thanks for clearing it up for me instead of just acting like I'm too stupid to understand the obvious.
For the record, I also had my dad (who got into wargames back in the early 1980's, so he's a veteran when it comes to deciphering rule books) read through this, and he didn't understand it either. So I'm not so sure that I'm simply an idiot who doesn't understand English, and the rule book is flawless.
By the way, while the highest terrain rating is 3, can Stealth and darkness raise that cover bonus even higher, or does it cap at 3?
-
I still can't see where they specify this in the paragraph, but thanks for clearing it up for me instead of just acting like I'm too stupid to understand the obvious.
For the record, I also had my dad (who got into wargames back in the early 1980's, so he's a veteran when it comes to deciphering rule books) read through this, and he didn't understand it either. So it's not simply that I'm an idiot who doesn't understand English.
You're reading and questioning a book in a foreign language, no one thinks you're stupid ;)
Marksman can be a powerful ability, particularly in Jungle terrain. It does mean assault troops don't have to worry about staying in cover though, it doesn't help them anyway :D
If you're playing exclusively in that style of terrain then designate terrain that blocks line of site completely in the same way that buildings would in an urban environment. Doesn't matter if you can shoot the wings off a fly in a snowstorm, you still have to be able to see it in the first place.
Also, change the scenarios to fit what you have terrain wise. So Bad Jack could be in a tribal hut, or a cave, or a really dense patch of Jungle...
-
You're reading and questioning a book in a foreign language, no one thinks you're stupid ;)
Oh right, the problem is that I'm foreign, and thus can't understand English even if I've read it since I was eight years old. Me thank you so much. Me forgot, since me primitive foreigner. Me feedback now invalid, me so sorry.
Seriously though, I appreciate the help and the fact that you at least admit the rulebook isn't flawless, but you people sure love jumping to conclusions about my inability to understand simple concepts like language and basic math.
And I never said that my problem with Bad Jack is that I don't have any houses that fit the jungle theme. Because I do have those, but you can't lift the roofs and keep track on exactly where the figures are standing inside them (so we just remove the figures from the table when they move inside, and then put them back on the table when they leave), which means I can't check if they're standing next to windows or not. So I'll have to make my own rules for it.
Hm... okay, figures can be shot at as if they were in cover, but only if they shot out of the windows during this or the previous turn? Sounds like that would work.
-
Oh right, the problem is that I'm foreign, and thus can't understand English even if I've read it since I was eight years old. Me thank you so much. Me forgot, since me primitive foreigner. Me feedback is now invalid, me so sorry.
Seriously though, I appreciate the help and the fact that you at least admit the rulebook isn't flawless, but you people sure love jumping to conclusions about my poor ability to understand simple concepts like language and basic math.
Not sure how I've given offence there but I clearly have so I apologise.
As far as I'm concerned language isn't a simple concept, I had French lessons when I was 11, I can't speak French. I had German lessons at 13, I can't speak German. I know words and phrases in both and can count pretty well but that's about it. I don't care if everyone you know can read and speak English fluently, I can count on one hand the English people I know who are properly fluent in another language. I always find that hugely impressive and slightly embarrassing that I'm not fluent in another language and nor are the majority of my nation.
-
Sorry, I get so frustrated when everyone here keep assuming that the problem must be entirely on my side, and most have just dismissed me completely since I'm simply too dumb to understand something so blatantly obvious. And when I get frustrated, I get sarcastic. It's a defense mechanism.
The thing is, when I say I read English, I mean that I've read English almost exclusively for over a decade. As in, I find it harder to read and write in Swedish now. So when someone says that I can't understand English, that's like saying that I can't read at all. And you have to admit that could be interpreted as an insult, even if it wasn't intended as one.
Anyway, I apologize for being so ornery, but I've struggled with deciphering these rules for so long now. And then when people say that this is obvious and that there must be something wrong with anyone who doesn't understand them, I feel like my questions and critique aren't taken seriously. I know I'm making a terrible first impression, but I really would appreciate if the answers could come without the added tone of "if you don't understand, we'll just repeat the part you didn't understand over and over, like if we were training a dog".
I like IHMN, I just think that it could do with a lot of improvements. And that's why I hope that if the author sees this, he will take my feedback seriously, instead of just dismissing it as the confused ramblings of a foreign simpleton. Again, thanks for the help, Dewbakuk, and I appreciate that you actually listened instead of just going "It's KISS, we don't have to explain anything".
-
No one has said you can't read English or that you're stupid, and I completely agree that the section in question should be clearer. I'm sure Craig will stop by and give his 2p when he recovers from SALUTE.
-
you people sure love jumping to conclusions about my inability to understand simple concepts like language and basic math.
No, we're not jumping to conclusions about your mental abilities, we're just trying to answer your questions. Because, yes, you're absolutely right, the rules are obscure in places. If I personally have given offense to you, I too apologize. :) What follows are just my personal observations about what I know and what I believe about the design and philosophy of IHMN, and of gaming in general.
See, this is why you should have other people read your rules before you print them.
I'm very sure the rules were play tested, as they are based on a popular set of skirmish rules set in the Warhammer 40K universe called In the Emperor's Name, which has been around since 2011. You can pick them up for free. I'm also sure that Osprey Publishing has high standards in this regard.
"It's KISS, we don't have to explain anything".
Well, let me try to explain where I'm coming from, then. Are the rules vague in spots? Absolutely. It may just be Craig's style, or his intent, or both! It may be the fact that Osprey imposed very strict limits on the amount of content to be contained in the book. Yes, the scenarios are just sketches, bare bones, absolutely devoid of detail. For the record, the Mad Jack scenario specifies that a building be placed in the middle of the board, but does not specify where Jack should be placed or how he is to be moved! And, yes, I too would like to have things spelled out at least a little more. Given the scarcity of the rules, my personal solution to this would be to set up my own rules governing Jack if I were gamemastering, or work them out with my fellow gamers before we start if I were playing. And I'm sure that's how Craig has intended things to be!
I recently got into All Quiet on the Martian Front, a fun and simple rules system. And for $40 (nearly three times the cost of IHMN) you get a very slick and plush-looking set of rules that are--literally!--two-thirds photos and fluff, and contain terrain rules that are--almost!--as vague as IHMN. I simply believe that IHMN, with all its joys :D and flaws :o, was created with a different philosophy: you are urged--and at times forced!-- to make of it what you want, and you don't have to interrupt play every 15 minutes to check some obscure rules question, as you are forced to do in many many rules sets I can think of.
That's also where this special forum comes in, where people can look for help, share ideas, or just vent! And where you can interact with the author, whom I too hope chimes in on this interesting discussion sometime soon.
-
Welcome to IHMN BugPope; don't worry, I'm totally with you in failing to understand terrain-related Movement penalties from the rulebook. (I haven't played with any area terrain yet, so this hasn't been a problem for me thus far, but this thread has helpfully resolved the issue.)
Also, are there any plans to implement the Edison teleporter thing in any of the army lists? It seems like such a fun gadget, but nobody can use it.
Feel free to add it a Company of your own making, or come up with a fluffy reason to make it an option for any of the 'cannon' Companies.
And I never said that my problem with Bad Jack is that I don't have any houses that fit the jungle theme. Because I do have those, but you can't lift the roofs and keep track on exactly where the figures are standing inside them (so we just remove the figures from the table when they move inside, and then put them back on the table when they leave), which means I can't check if they're standing next to windows or not. So I'll have to make my own rules for it.
Hm... okay, figures can be shot at as if they were in cover, but only if they shot out of the windows during this or the previous turn? Sounds like that would work.
If you can't physically put Bad Jack in the hut, how about either assume he is always visible through the window, or whenever someone has a line of sight onto the window, roll a die to determine if he is visible. Alternatively, maybe he's chillin' in a jungle clearing, possibly even moving randomly around, but staying within the clearing? As an added rule I use, if you get within 6" of him, he'll charge you & start scrapping.
-
Don't US Marines have the teleporter?
-
Good evening chaps :D
Having just done a 12 hour working day I shall have a look at what's been going on and give my infallible opinion ;)
Dear Bugpope, I will say first that we welcome all feedback, as my fellows here will attest I am sure, and I am sorry you seem to be struggling with our little rule book. I shall try to answer your many questions as fully as I can.
First, some background. Osprey Publishing, bless their hearts, did apply some restrictions to the first book, namely a 25,000 word and 64-page limit. As you can imagine trying to pack in everything we wanted people to have into that was a challenge and our writing did become quite spare at certain points. At that point, we had no idea we would have two more books, so it all had to fit in one.
OK, that said, I doubt that we would alter section 4.1.1 Difficult Terrain. Although we have heard of a handful of people who have struggled with it, the majority seem to have had no problems. Upon reflection, what it could do with is a clear example for Movement.
Shall we look at the section?
Difficult Terrain imposes restrictions on Movement depending on the figure or vehicle type attempting to traverse it. It also restricts visibility and may provide physical cover against Shooting.
In this game, Difficult Terrain is rated as Type 1, 2 or 3 – the number corresponds to the level of penalty associated with it.
It is also referenced in the general rules on movement (3.2.1):
A figure may be moved in any direction. Its movement may be slowed by the terrain and/or visibility (4.1).
When we wrote this we thought it simple and elegant. It states what is affected by Difficult Terrain and then that there are penalties. Perhaps we were wrong.
Onto your second point, Objectives.
Our spare writing style may be at fault again here, but the only standard scenario that uses objectives is 9.1.1 in which it states: A single figure cannot carry more than one objective. Which I would think indicate, especially given the example objectives mentioned, that a single figure can carry a single objective.
Neither of the two recommended scenario options allows for a company to win by seizing a single objective. I also wonder at your opponent's ability to get to the centre of the table and return in two turns. You seem to indicate it was one of his native bearers who accomplished this remarkable feat. Even allowing for a native bearer's +2 speed his maximum movement would be 11" running flat out. Even if he started 6" in, he would not reach the centre line and claim the objective on turn one if you were playing on the recommended 3' square table. And if he did he certainly would not get the objective off the table in the second turn.
We wrote the scenarios based on a number of assumptions including the standard table size. Given the word count restrictions we were working to we couldn't take into account lots of other options.
And onto your third point: VIPs.
On reflection, we could have added a couple of sentences here for the single scenario in which you have to escort a figure. However, we left it to player's good judgement. After all the scenarios "are some examples of what you could include in your games." and are not prescriptive.
Bad Jack. The scenario does not say, nor infer that this fiend begins in any building. In fact, it says that Bad Jack has escaped. It is up to you and your opponent to decide where Bad Jack starts out.
On the amount of 'unused' weapons, armour, equipment, weird science and talents, we included far more that was listed for the companies precisely so you could use it to supplement them if you wished, or to equip companies of your own design. Call it a tool box if you wish. As it happens the Edison Beam Translator does appear as an option in the USMC company :)
I do find this statement a bit confusing:
"I do get that, but there's a difference between keeping the rules light and having half-finished rules, or scenarios that require rules that don't exist. I really don't want to come off as whiny, and I don't really get why people seem to presume that I don't understand the whole KISS thing, but after playing a few games, my main impression of the game is less that it's a foundation to build on and more that it's a first draft that got printed before play testing or proof reading. And I really don't think that is too much to ask for. Especially if it makes the game near impossible to play without extensive houseruling."
You don't come off as whiny, just as a bit confused. It is a state I have seen many times before with players who are used to having rules for every single eventuality presented to them in voluminous tomes. It was our intention to treat our players as adults and give them a set of rules that were written in a spare style and that allowed them to change anything they pleased and take ownership of the games they played with them. We explained this in section 1.5 - The Power of Rules & The Gentleperson's Agreement.
It is true that any rules lawyer can drive a coach and horses through this book, and any regular tournament player may despair at the lack of direct instruction. However, these rules were written to encourage creativity and guide players to many hours of enjoyable games.
It took the best part of two years to write these rules, a process that included innumerable drafts and extensive playtesting by a range of people. We did submit the rules to proofreading by our publisher and number of errors did get through. In subsequent books, we engaged a number of enthusiastic reviewers including the indefatigable Dewbakuk.
Since then we have sold over 7,500 copies. Hundreds of players have come here, Facebook and other fora and related their enjoyment, described their games in detail, revelled in the freedom these rules have given them to create their own narratives. A few have asked for assistance with this rule or that and the community has rallied to them. That said we have not had anyone say the game is unplayable "without extensive houseruling".
As for the small matter of your English. It seems perfectly fine to me and if you had not mentioned it I would not have noticed. We have sold thousands of copies across Europe and the rest of the world and it seems to have been received and understood perfectly well.
I hope that my epic ramblings have helped clear the air. Please feel free to quiz me further and don't worry about upsetting me or the fine gentlemen here. We just wish to assist you to get the most out of the game.
-
Okay now I am a bit confused o_o. I have been allowing my VIP's to actually have a life! They have all the stats as one of the Companies players do and they wll indeed fight in self defense. Am I wrong in this ??? They follow the scenario but if attacked they will fight back.
-
Am I wrong in this ???
I don't think so. How scenarios are designed is up to you 8)
Which has been my point all along....
-
Okay now I am a bit confused o_o. I have been allowing my VIP's to actually have a life! They have all the stats as one of the Companies players do and they wll indeed fight in self defense. Am I wrong in this ??? They follow the scenario but if attacked they will fight back.
This is IHMN Kane. As long your opponent and you want a VIP who can take names and kick-ass then let it be so! :D
-
I don't think so. How scenarios are designed is up to you 8)
Which has been my point all along....
This!
-
Okay now I am a bit confused o_o. I have been allowing my VIP's to actually have a life! They have all the stats as one of the Companies players do and they wll indeed fight in self defense. Am I wrong in this ??? They follow the scenario but if attacked they will fight back.
I reckon letting them reciprocate in a bought of fisticuffs would only be sporting...
-
If they're being attacked I see no reason why they wouldn't retaliate, they just wouldn't ordinarily get any bonuses to the dice.
-
If I can bring a lighter note to these proceedings...
We run IHMN at shows, currently using the system as id with modifications to make the games faster, 100 point companies and set scenarios etcetera...
With respects to VIPs, we have one scenario called assassination (I cannot remember off the top whether this is an official version or home grown) where the VIP travels over the board in a carriage and one company has to assassinate her (yes, it is good Queen Vic), the other has to prevent it.
The question was how to run it. We use the basic rules for attacking vehicles, with the base rule that if the vehicle is destroyed the VIP gets placed by its side. This was fine but then one person wanted his Yeti to jump on the carriage. So we modified the rule, allowing the Yeti to make a Pluck Roll (-2 due to the movement of the carriage) to climb on. This the Yeti did and attempt to strike Her Majesty (which he did not). We had advocated that QV had a swordstick under her robes and at a mere FV+1, PL+0, she ran through and killed him!
All the players thought that hilarious and that is the point. These rules are not really meant for tournament, but are adaptable and are made to be so.
-
I love IHMN's simplicity. I find it much easier to change, adapt and add commonsense rules to a simple rules set that actively encourages you to make it your own than to a more comprehensive set where every eventuality has been covered.
-
First, I want to apologize for the thread necromancy, but I haven't really touched IHMN in over half a year. Then I recently felt like maybe I should give it another chance (or like a third or fourth chance, at this point), so I checked out the forum again, and saw that Craig had replied to it. "Hey, maybe he's addressed my criticism in a way that clears things out, instead of just calling me an idiot repeatedly?" I though to myself, but nope, shouldn't have gotten my hopes up.
First, some background. Osprey Publishing, bless their hearts, did apply some restrictions to the first book, namely a 25,000 word and 64-page limit. As you can imagine trying to pack in everything we wanted people to have into that was a challenge and our writing did become quite spare at certain points. At that point, we had no idea we would have two more books, so it all had to fit in one.
First of all, you're talking as if the missing parts of the rules are giant paragraphs or chapters of their own. This isn't the case. Usually, it's just a few sentences here and there that are missing. If you really that limited, why use that space for background lore and other fluff?
Neither of the two recommended scenario options allows for a company to win by seizing a single objective. I also wonder at your opponent's ability to get to the centre of the table and return in two turns. You seem to indicate it was one of his native bearers who accomplished this remarkable feat. Even allowing for a native bearer's +2 speed his maximum movement would be 11" running flat out. Even if he started 6" in, he would not reach the centre line and claim the objective on turn one if you were playing on the recommended 3' square table. And if he did he certainly would not get the objective off the table in the second turn.
We played the Pigeon scenario, where there is only one objective, and you win if you take it. This scenario states that the pigeon moves a random amount of inches every turn. And since it never specifies when that movement takes place (I guess there simply wasn't place for the single extra sentence that would clarify that...), we guessed that it happens at the start of the game. This took the pigeon close to my friend's half of the table, where he easily claimed it.
But let me guess: that's all our fault, right?
On the amount of 'unused' weapons, armour, equipment, weird science and talents, we included far more that was listed for the companies precisely so you could use it to supplement them if you wished, or to equip companies of your own design. Call it a tool box if you wish. As it happens the Edison Beam Translator does appear as an option in the USMC company :)
I still don't get why you waste so many pages on army lists that include characters that are sometimes impossible to find models for, and then pretend that you simply didn't have space left for rules and gameplay examples.
You don't come off as whiny, just as a bit confused. It is a state I have seen many times before with players who are used to having rules for every single eventuality presented to them in voluminous tomes. It was our intention to treat our players as adults and give them a set of rules that were written in a spare style and that allowed them to change anything they pleased and take ownership of the games they played with them. We explained this in section 1.5 - The Power of Rules & The Gentleperson's Agreement.
This is just downright condescending ad hominem. I've never once said anything about how I want "voluminous tomes" of rules, or requested detailed, minute rules for every single thing. I love simple and fast games, that's why I was attracted to this game to begin with. Take the VIP for example. You say that a scenario involves a neutral character that can be moved by a player and also be involved in combat, and then you just decide that the players will have to figure out how this works on their own. This is not simplistic game design, it's giving up in the middle of a paragraph.
It is true that any rules lawyer can drive a coach and horses through this book, and any regular tournament player may despair at the lack of direct instruction. However, these rules were written to encourage creativity and guide players to many hours of enjoyable games.
Encouraging the players to be creative is not the same thing as requiring them to write the rules for you. And in a skirmish game, scenarios should not be handled as trivial afterthoughts, that don't deserve rules. That's like skipping the rules for, let's say, shooting, and telling the players to make it up on their own.
I also never said anything excepting tournament worthy balance (in fact, that's the complete opposite of the kinds of games I like), so I honestly have no idea why you are trying to put these words into my mouth. Why not try focusing on what I'm actually saying, instead?
It took the best part of two years to write these rules, a process that included innumerable drafts and extensive playtesting by a range of people. We did submit the rules to proofreading by our publisher and number of errors did get through
If you spent all time time writing the game and it's still this unfinished, that's probably not something you should brag about.
I really wanted to like this game, since there are parts I really like, and some of the fluff is pretty good, but no matter how many copies you sold, it doesn't change the fact that I find it unfinished, and everyone I played with has given up after a few tries. But when the author responds to critique and questions by implying that I just don't get simplistic games as a concept, and is simply not creative enough, that kinda kills any desire I had to give this another try. You've been way more condescending than you had to be (and your constant attempts at making up facts about me and blaming everything on those don't exactly show a lot of respect) and it's a shame that you refuse to accept that your game isn't a flawless masterpiece. That's gonna hold you back.
Now I'll go play Pulp Alley instead. That game's author hasn't said that any flaws in his game must be the result of me not being adult enough, which is nice.
-
Bugpope,
You have chosen to take offence at a number of my statements to the extent that you regard them as 'ad hominem' attacks. I can only assure you that this was not my intent when I wrote them.
It is obvious that neither you nor I are going to agree on the issues you have raised, and that continuing this debate is only likely to inflame matters further. Thus I shall not comment on it again.
Pulp Alley is an excellent game written by a friend of mine. I hope you enjoy it far more than you have IHMN.
-
Well said, Craig. A Gentleman's disagreement it seems.
-
Some people like rules-light games and some like rules-heavy games.
For example, the Captain's Edition of Star Fleet Battles covers a lot of ground, but a bunch of new players aren't going to be able to open it up and play it with alll options available in one evening.
BattleTech was originally easy to start with, but as rules got added, it became less of a beer-and-pretzels game. The same can be said for Car Wars.
I think the Company lists are quite useful. They serve as examples and can also be used for new players or to save time (so you can play rather than work through a spreadsheet). Also, not everyone uses metal miniatures -- I'm happy to use markers or paper minis close enough to what they represent (sorry, I hate painting minis and do a terrible job anyway).
-
You seem to have a problem with the rules. Fair enough. No-one's making you play them presumably. The author seems to have been reasonable and polite in his responses to you. In return you make multiple unnecessarily aggressive and personal comments about him.
You will see from the rules (the Lead Adventure Forum rules that is) that's not acceptable here.
The thread post may well get deleted - that's for the board moderator to decide. But if it is, it won't be for the reasons you suggest.
Meanwhile, the thread is locked for the time being.
-
For the reasons Captain Blood has mentioned I have deleted Bugpopes most recent post and the thread will remain locked for the time being.