Called in with Dice Demon Steve & Sgt Steiner to watch a play-through of the much talked about 'I Ain't Been Shot Mum' rules.
Both have been testing these rules over a period of weeks.
- Some nice concepts for 'blinds' that promote hidden movement/dummies/fog of war and a card driven turn sequence that promotes friction (perhaps leading to situations re. reactive fire that do seem alien when compared to other rulesets) - though the nature of such systems seem to have left a lot of questions as to intent of the rules and mechanisms.
- Despite that, there seems to be a core game with some nice features.
- I imagine that some dedicated house ruling will expunge much of the doubt...
At the very least, sit back and look at some great examples of superb15mm forces belonging to both.
Soviet armour moves off one of the early blinds.
...as reinforcements (or dummies) move through the wheatfield in the hope of triggering a defensive response.
Sniper!
Armour gets slowed by some German defensive maneuvering.
A lot of action on the Soviet left - some discussion over the mechanics - where the card deck can be added to as units come off their blinds - though this therefore can reduce the effectiveness of units remaining in blinds in terms of being able to respond to enemy activity, as they are waiting for activation from a single card in the deck. Some confusion in the rules in terms of keeping things intuitive perhaps - though we are used to defensive postured units being able to 'reactive fire' with impunity in most sets of course.
Soviet HE is a little devastating.
German AT fire is being handicapped by spotting/HE team ups, which seemed a little unrealistic, though occurs by virtue of the card deck mechanisms, and the relative restrictions of the blinds system.
Forward Comrades ! ...or something...
Mounting pressure on left and centre.
German MGs on the flank.
Soviet HE blows buildings to hell (though granted, someone *ahem* has to be able to roll 3 sixes on a 3D6 for this to happen )
Time to take out the MGs.
The Panthers had been hiding on a blind - and needed to start making a difference.
Ranges are quite close (12" = 80yds) so it's a close in game, where knowing when to shift into the battle off a blind seems to be key - though the guys still have a lot of questions and I imagine that house-ruling is the order of the day here.
(*J.A.F.O. of course stands for Just Another F**king Observor ...Huh? you guys never watched 'Blue Thunder'? ;) )
There a lot to like in the rules but they lack some clarity of some basic concepts. But they do generate a nice game and as you say a bit unlike other WW2 sets with regards to initiative (ie through cards) runs or lack thereof. I suppose the balance is seen in that in one turn I got no cards and Stephen loads but next turn the reverse was true.
ReplyDeleteYes. Probably just not used to the mechanisms.
DeleteI started reading the Piquet Blitzkrieg supplement when I got home though... :)
Still reading Test of Battle but PK Blitzkrieg next in queue :-)
ReplyDeleteRealising now that the largest level battle in PK Blitzkrieg has four single (say 1.5") stands as a battalion (say 6" frontage). Compare this with 3-4 company stands taking up 9-12" in FoB WWII, and it actually means that slightly larger battles can be fought (1"=160 yds at this scale cf 100yds with FoB).
DeleteIn fact, the battles in 'Great Battles of WWII' rules/scenario books are same scale.
Crete or the fictional Malta, as well as Market Garden scenarios, looking very tempting.
If you apply the ground scale strictly then yes. But FOB is a faster playing/slicker set for big games.
DeleteYes true - and as you've proven with the Totalise/Tractable game - still works with 1 stand = 1 company.
DeleteTried to like IABSM! I really did! The way the rules are written there were so many things I was missing and so whatever game I was playing probably bared little resemblance to the actual thing. Chain of Command is written a little better but I love the scale of IABSM.
ReplyDeleteYes Steve. That seems to be the conclusion. It seems like a homebrew set or toolbox but you'd think by a 3rd edition, with multiple playtests it would have ironed out a lot of issues.
DeleteI know what you mean about the scale, as it's almost Squad Leader - though with bigger tokens for 'squads'.
Something without the hassle like 'Tigers at Minsk' is very appealing as it's Norm's local set, but without much of the fundamental questions that we have here.
I suppose the nature of Blinds and Card Draws creates its own problems, but that's the sort of thing that should be well explained in a 3rd ed ruleset.
I could never finish reading the rulebook in the past, so watching the gameplay was invaluable for me here.
I like the look of the game. I am not familiar with IABMS. Is it a similar scale to a Battlefront?
ReplyDeleteIt's 1 model = 1 tank, 1 figure = 1man (I think), so a really close in skirmish set where 12"=80yds.
DeleteThe key to the system are blinds and card draws for lots of action, but if there are so many questions on rules and gameplay, it doesn't help the action. I think when the 20 questions/concerns become house ruled - that's it sorted, but youg et the same concerns with Black Powder and players shouldn't have to be asking fundamental questions of a supposedly polished and slick set of rules. In some cases the rule as written and example quoted, don't gel.
I can understand it if writing a set of your own, but issues like this make other sets shine, when they deserve less accolades for innovation.
All looks like good fun.
ReplyDeleteJAFO - ha, ha
Yes Jack, all good.
DeleteJAFO is a tried and tested acronym that I have used in work ad nauseum...and I still haven't found anyone that remembers Blue Thunder ;)
A Police helicopter crewed by Jan Micheal Vincent and Roy Schnider whose facial skin looked like a living Mummy if I recall correctly. Loved the theme tune
DeleteAha...JM Vincent was Airwolf. It was a better tune though.
DeleteI do like blinds as a mechanic for specific scenarios (ambushes for example) but they do need to be used with care imo, and maybe a choice of blinds OR card draws otherwise it could all get a bit to reliant on luck. when used well they can both add loads to a game but im not sure about every single time you play. great looking game mind, i quite like the skirmishy scale.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. That was my thought - as soon as you put both systems in, it's a bit of a 'mechanic too far'. I appreciate that this is explained away via 'friction', but there has to be a sensible degree of friction, otherwise, it becomes monopoly.
Delete