Ranged Weapons on Miniatures - Abstract Ability or Optional Equipment?

[jet]

I've been working on a game for a couple of years, off an on - low model count (like 4 to 6). This particular issue keeps coming up. In the current iteration of my game, some models have a shooting ability but there is no equipment to keep track of. So, the Pilot has the short range attack ability, the Guide has the long range attack ability, and the Scientist doesn't have one at all. There is no means to gain or upgrade weapons. So, the Scientist will never shoot in the game.

But should it be otherwise? Do players like the idea of arming their scientist with a shotgun? or upgrading the Pilot's handgun to a rifle? And following that point, should there be a few different weapon profiles, for instance - Handgun, Rifle, Shotgun, Sub-machine gun?

I would really appreciate your input - Thanks, J

[Carrakon]

Such a low model count moves your game towards RPG-terrain imho and customizability is absolutely vital in that case, imho.
Of course there's no need to go all gun-nut about the whole affair with dozens of different boom-sticks - your idea of Handgun, Rifle, Shotgun, Sub-machine gun sounds good enough plus (depending on your setting) maybe some specialist weapons.

[Cubs]

Get converting!

I suppose it depends how 'board gamey' or 'roleplay' you want to get with it, perhaps having players collect equipment cards along the way without having to represent it all on the gaming piece. But for me, especially in a skirmish game, what the model has, the player has.

[Conquistador]

Agree with Cubs.  This is not the 1970s where you had extremely limited choices. 

Also a Scientist like Reapers VSF Mad Scientist figure's device in hand could fire with the same effect as a handgun (weird science but science) in game terms.

[Elbows]

I have to agree, with such a low model count...the game will lean toward more granularity, not less (unless you're using board game-esque mechanics, etc.).  Just depends entirely on the game.  If the challenge of playing the Scientist is that he has no shooting attack, cool.  However if the game (like many) winds down to small skirmishes/fights every game then the scientist will become useless.

[warrenpeace]

Very different ways to go here. I really enjoyed playing the old 1982 Gunslinger from the Avalon Hill Game Company. Very granular with respect to weapon types, even to differences between Colt .44 and a Colt .45 pistols.  It matters which hand the weapon is in, and whether or not one arm are or the other is wounded. Gritty game.

But I'm having a very good time now playing Pulp Alley, which is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Shooting ability is quite abstract, and not weapon dependent. But you can still give characters with shotguns, sub-machine guns, flamethrowers, and scoped rifles special abilities to reflect their weapons.

[jet]

I think your comments (as well as comments from guys in my gaming group) are leaning me back towards individual weapons and gear. Items collected (there will be an equipment profile card for each item) will be ticked on the roster and during the game, the player simply has to assign the equipment cards to each explorer. If an explorer goes down that game, gear he was carrying is gone.

Likely items will include:
- Handgun
- Shotgun
- Rifle
- Submachine Gun
- Knife
- Machete/Cutlass/Sword
- Binoculars
- Camera
- First Aid Kit

Each item will have an encumbrance value (say 1, 2, or 3) and anything above a threshold will be deducted from movement. i.e. An explorer may carry a total items totalling up to 3 ENC without being slowed down. Each ENC point beyond 3 deducts 1 inch from movement. So, if the Pilot carries a Rifle (ENC:2) and a Machete (ENC:2) he deducts 1" from his movement.

Thanks guys - just thinking out loud 

[d phipps]

Sounds cool, Jet! I hope we get to see more.

I'd definitely encourage you to go with whatever feels right to you. 


HAVE FUN

[warlord frod]

I suppose it depends on the rules being used. If your playing rules that have a lot of specific weapon details and rules that make them truly different in play having the figures with the exact weapon makes sense. If on the other hand there are few differences who cares. I also assume we are talking skirmish level games here with only a handful of figures.

I was always annoyed by the rule in Warhammer 40k tournaments that said your figures had to have the weapon you said they were carrying or you could not claim to have it and play the figure as if it did. That was good for miniature sales among the fanatics but for the average guy (Such as myself) who did not want to constantly buy figs to up my fire factor just so I could compete, it was irritating. I think most of the time we simply look at a stat sheet say what we are using and roll the dice. Most of us never look to see what the figure is carrying.

The other reason I don't like the individual weapon approach is because it complicates the game and usually means it will take longer to play. I remember some of the rules we played back in the 80's where every shot was a chore - Measure distance, elevation, weapon type, ammunition type, is the target moving or not, what is its Armour class. are we aiming for rear, the side or the front, is it angled so that the shot has a chance of being deflected etc etc. UGGG! (I kid you not I played some WW II games that got that insane) I just don't have that much time today and I found that such games were more a chore then fun.

So I guess I prefer generalized simple rules and I don't care what weapon the figure is carrying or even if it is carrying one at all.