Black Ops trial game

[stefanov]

Hello,

yesterday night we played our first Black Ops game. We found it quite interesting and we will play it again.
The scenario chosen was a stealth mission, assassination over the Terminal map. The target started from the landed helicopter and and to travel across the table to exit on opposite corner.
You may see few pictures here:

https://stefanov.no-ip.org/wiki/pages/R2W6m1/Black_Ops.html

We had quite some fun, even if we were a bit bogged down with the guards rule. In this case guards, as stated in the scenario description, had to move together with the target of the operation.

We did not know how to use the Guards table and the Noise and alarms in this case. We had to place everything on table and play using the standard encounter rules.
Also the blinds rule does not seem to apply in this case, since blinds don't move and our guards had to move in fact.

Maybe somebody having already played, or the author maybe, may help ? In any case thumbs up for these new rules!!!

cheers Stefano

[Furt]

That link gave me an untrusted site warning mate. 

[stefanov]

Ops!!!
Well, you may trust this site. This server being my own  ,
it is sitting under my television and it is well cared for intruders,
I have good guards always in alert that would easily defeat
even helicopter-inserted enemy special forces  .
I don't pay rents for becoming a trusted site, preferring to buy
lead in 28mm size, or less  .
Cheers Stefano

[commissarmoody]

Chill his site is cool. 

[horridperson]

Thanks for posting your AAR stefanov.  My copy of Black Ops just arrived so I haven't given it a proper read through yet.  I was really impressed by what I read but it looks like I'm going to have to make up some game specific terrain for many of the scenarios (No airport terminals in Frostgrave but it could be of use in This is Not a Test ).

Did you play the Chechnyans intending to play them as fanatics or did you want to play test the fanatic force?  I thought they might be conscripts with a vet component.

[stefanov]

Dear Horrid,
well I just thought that special forces against conscripts would be a bad affair for the conscripts. I like to play this genre of games with a bit of un-historical handling of my forces...
Please drop us a message when you will have gone through the rules, or maybe a game. I am curious to know what fellow gamers think about these rules.
cheers Stefanov

[Brummie Thug]

Looks good my copy is due Wednesday so will be have a read through and see what the score is then.

[horridperson]

I've looked through them a bit more and I'm impressed.  The profile mechanics are concise and seem to lend themselves to fluid play in determining the success and consequence of actions.  I'm still not terribly familiar with the sentry AIs and concealment rules but from the skim they seem intelligent.  It's nice that they mention a, "law of common sense" after the AI behaviors because sometimes you end up playing with, "that guy".  Another thing I liked was that in their examples of vehicles they drew a line at light armoured vehicles.  Black Ops pinpointed a really interesting niche with their rule set and keeping those parameters makes it a stronger set.   

I also like that they encourage campaign/narrative actions built around intel.  As I look at building game narratives I have been happy with companies who are suggesting plot point style systems rather than classic tree flow chart systems.  It's entirely possible to build narratives on a sequence of games that have no in game connection but I appreciate the accommodation and see it as a springboard for building ideas.

I think that most forces coming up against Special Forces units are going to have a hard go of it.  Given what the list represents it comes with the territory.  I didn't think the conscripts were that bad.  With vets in their numbers improving their backbone I think they might present a challenge to a numerically disadvantaged elite force.  The special forces teams are, "the best of the best" but don't have the support options a more conventional force organization might allow.

I thought that Black Ops compared favorably to Frostgrave.  The genres are completely different but both games presented with clean rules and a minimalist background (story).  I like it and hope that it catches on and they consider presenting some "flavored" expansions.  A, "Not Bond" and some silly volcano dweller who wants to laser his name on the monn with the help of some nefarious henchmen would be welcome.

[CarlLeyland]

Do you think we will see Black Ops books released in a similar way to IHMN? personally I would like to see a "standard" wargame version, I have read the rules and think that they might be OK for this, what is your opinion?

[horridperson]

*Take my opinion with a grain of salt as I haven't played yet *

@CarlLeyland

I don't know if I'd care to see the rules up scaled for larger, more orthodox engagements.  The charm of Black Ops to me was it covered a niche in the war game world that hadn't been given a treatment of it's own.  If it were to lose the intimacy or focus of it's action think it's identity would suffer.  The foremost example I consider is the value of a single soldier.  Any time a game goes big there is a choice to make the turn more ponderous by treating every model individually or dilute their importance by moving models as sections/platoons/units.  In either case I think it would damage a system designed to flow nicely as it is. 

[CarlLeyland]

Good point about the game becoming ponderous but maybe it could still be useful as a modern skirmish set. I live in hope of more expansions still!

[horridperson]

I agree.  Really clean rule set and hope they consider building upon it.  The beauty of the rules is their economy.  I hope they build it like Frostgrave.