Battle Science?

[Curufea]

Has anyone tried this ruleset? I've not found a review anywhere.
http://www.brigadegames.com/Battle-Science-Game-Rules_p_3632.html

I posted on TMP a few days ago, no one there seems to have tried them.

[Conquistador]

Has anyone tried this ruleset? I've not found a review anywhere.
http://www.brigadegames.com/Battle-Science-Game-Rules_p_3632.html

I posted on TMP a few days ago, no one there seems to have tried them.

How long have these rules been out?

1) Not all rules reviews are posted on-line, some are found in printed sources.

2) There are lots of reasons why someone might not post a review.  Time, low confidence about putting oneself in the limelight and open to criticism, still playing or reading the rules with an opinion still being formed, are some examples.

Personally, I have never done a rules review (IIRC) online or in a magazine. 

If I did, I suspect I would do one on rules I love (DS2, SG2, the most current THW rules,)  or rules I have issues [almost always horrible mechanics in all or in part of the rules] with (TSATF and all the GW based games I have observed in play (one one or two actually played) for example) would be candidates for reviews.  If I all I have to say is, "meh," then it is not worth the time to write and post a review.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Mason]

..................stuff......................
Gracias,

Glenn

 

I take that as a 'No' then, Glenn.

[Conquistador]

 

I take that as a 'No' then, Glenn.

"How long have these rules been out?"   

This is important, well in my evaluation it seems to be important.   

Reputable (IMO) reviews require time to buy, receive, read, try out (hopefully multiple times in a group) the rules.   Reviews based on a single skimming of the rules by one person would be much less objective than a group evaluating the rules after multiple games.    And some people have been kind (honest? candid?) enough to state in their review something akin to  "... well I never actually played the rules..."  or "... I didn't actually read all the pages but..." then give a hate it/love it review.   

And I might try a set of rules and abandon it for my own peculiarities about game mechanics dislikes but consider it a game that is playable... but not care enough to write up a review.   

Does not posting a review indicate abhorrence, indifference, or having too much satisfaction in the rules to take time writing a review?   

Actually I would like to see a review of the rules myself but not enough to spend the money for a pig in a poke and write one.   

Gracias,

Glenn

[Malamute]

Guys,

Can we get back to answering Curufea's original question about whether anyone has tried this set of rules. 

Many thanks

 

[Mason]

Yes Sir!

Sorry, Sir.

Just making enquiries......no offence intended.

[Curufea]

I've been spending a lot on VSF and steampunk recently and was hoping for some experienced advice on these rules so I don't have to buy them to find out what they're like.  I do already own rules I would rather not have spent money on, so I wish to circumvent that happening again.


Nevermind - decided to buy it anyway.  I'll let you know if it's any good.

[Curufea]

Just arrived in the post – so far looks quite professional (unlike Hive and Flame). Seems to have similar layouts as GW rules.

It seems to cater more towards Girl Genius kinds of games.

Aspects are used in a similar manner to IHMN, but the game caters for larger sized groups (looks like Games Workshop sized battles that fall somewhere between skirmish and army size).

Models have recommended base sizes, have a 90 degree arc of fire to the front for single figures, and up to 180 for extended fire arcs for group elements (units).

Stats are Move, Fight, F Pow (Fight Attack Power), Dur (Durabilith), Size and BV (Build Value)

Standard move of 6" for humans

The rules for mad scientist leaders in the game seem heavily inspired by Girl Genius. The Sparks here are called Maestros and are themed according their branch of Secret Science.

Leader types (including the mad scientists) have a Sphere of Influence used for command. Some types of action require a model (or group) to be "within command" – within that radius – in order to perform the action.

The turn order for shooting and fighting (melee) is considered simultaneous. There is a roll for initiative which determines the order of movement to be slowest to fastest or fastest to slowest of the various subcategories of "who goes when". It's a bit unclear on the "my turn, your turn" order – how many models/groups you move a time.

Shooting takes into account lanes of fire. D6 is rolled per figure able to shoot – mutliple dice for rate of fire and bonuses. Fighting is similar – so looks like a bucket-of-dice game

Damage requires a "to wound" roll – similar to Games Workshop Toughness and less abstract/more crunchy than IHMN's Pluck.

Morale rules are included, and rules on how to build a faction

After that – the next half of the book details the kinds of forces in the game, based on type and which themed branch of Secret Science they belong to (e.g. Mechanicians or Ressurectionists).

Last few pages include a scenario generator, a list of aspects used in the game, and a 2 page summary of the tables and charts as a play aid.

I have to say – I like that the illustration they use for large base sizes is a dinosaur

Also – the "branch tokens" to represent the themed areas of mad science a faction belongs to (or at least it's maestros) look like they'll be something to be added to their miniature range.

The branches are: Arcanes, Dominators, Engineers, Formulaics, Mechanicians, Resurrectionists, Subjugators and Vivisectors.