Home Forums Nordic Weasel Games Historical Some NSIE questions

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #99516
    Avatar photoTony S

    As this is my first post, let me just say that I absolutely love the whole Nordic Weasel philosophy of gaming.   I’ve got most of the NW stable of rules now, but as my groaning shelves of rules can attest to, the Nordic Weasel have remained mostly unplayed as well.  Too many rules; not enough time!  I did manage to convince another member of the club to play a Scum of the Earth Napoleonic campaign, and we really enjoyed it.  I dragooned a couple of other members into a couple of ACW Scum of the Earth games as well, and they also quite enjoyed them.  We all found the rules quite intuitive, and loved the random movement aspect, especially with the hesitation rule.  (I find myself sometimes agreeing with Rich Clarke of TooFatLardies when he states he won’t play any games that don’t have random movement values).

    But enough fanboy buttering up!

    So, I’ve arranged a No End in Sight game next week.  It’s just going to be a simple infantry only action, to get the game down pat.  We’re really looking forward to it, but having carefully read through the rules, and having gone over some of the clarifications and whatnot on the internet, I’ve got some questions.  I do apologize in advance if the questions are answered in the rules, but I missed them, or misinterpreted the wording.

    1. How do additional casualties work for fireteams, if fireteams are the lowest level of unit rather than squads?  Each casualty over one for trained in a fireteam means an additional stress marker on the fireteam leader, but wouldn’t that mean armies with fireteams can therefore absorb twice as many casualties before stressing the leader out?  Or do players give a fireteam leader additional stress right at the first dead?  Given that some armies had fireteams, and others facing them did not, I’m thinking the latter?
    2. So, unlike No Hope In Sight, if troops try to rush into assault – ie reach a point six inches away from the enemy – and succeed the movement roll, there is NO reaction or defensive fire until AFTER the attacker shoots?  So, attacking troops fire before the defenders?   Forgive me, but that seems a trifle odd.  NHiS seems more logical  (ignoring the pistols rules, which wouldn’t really apply to most modern NEiS warfare anyway) in that defenders fire, then attackers fire then defenders in cover fire yet again.  Attackers charging stationary unpinned troops should be in trouble, especially if a SAW is being assaulted.  Am I missing something? It seems like assaults favour the attacker.
    3. I’m really confused with the “move out” rule.  If I spend two APs on a soldier, and he ends in cover, I am guaranteed of moving 6″ and not suffering any reaction fire?  Why wouldn’t I do that all the time instead of risking being pinned in the open, and possibly hit?  In the example on page 9, the M113 is a little over 3″ away.  Two soldiers try, one makes it and one doesn’t.  But if I select one and announce “move out” for 2 AP, he could make it there without any danger at all?  I’m aware that it will take twice as many APs, but I think being perfectly safe is well worth a slower advance.  Or am I understanding moving out incorrectly?
    4.  Actually, the rules section underneath “Move Out” on page 17 is also puzzling.  Why would I ever want to switch leaders?
    5.  Well, this isn’t a question on No End, but rather a problem with No Hope.  I don’t think Ivan updated the jargon glossary on page 3 to match a later rules change from No End.  Under “panic” it states a panicked figure is removed from the game.  However, in the rules of No Hope, a figure that panics runs away a bit, but isn’t removed unlike No End.
    6. In this very forum, Ivan went through a little sequence of play, to explain NEiS a bit better, but it left me more confused than ever.  He mentions “group moves” costing one AP for multiple figures.  I can’t find any mention of that in the current version of the rules.  (I’ve got the V3 PDF).  Has that rule been dropped, or more probably have I missed it?  He also moves the figures 4″, instead of 3″.  Also a change?

    Sorry for all the bother.  As I said, this game looks really promising, especially with the all the lovely new BattleFront Team Yankee stuff appearing.  I don’t like FoW or TY, but I’ll happily use their figures!



    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    Cheers and glad you liked Scum of the Earth. We had a ton of fun writing it 🙂

    Before answering questions, I think you may have a prior version of the rules.
    Make sure to download the most recent copy from the Wargame Vault as we made some pretty substantial changes (and improvements).

    The up to date version has the brown’ish cover art with the soldiers trudging towards the hills.
    It was a free upgrade, so if you visit the Wargame Vault and check your library, you should have it available to download.

    As to your questions:

    1: Fireteam casualties.

    I actually play it as written. The reasoning is that I view armies capable of fire team tactics as being a cut above their counterparts, and hence able to operate each team as an independent entity.
    There are some conflicts and armies where that isn’t really the case, something like your solution works fine.

    2: Assaults.

    The assaulters still have to roll for their move and suffer reaction fire normally as part of that. They do get the advantage that if they make it within 3″ of the target, they are “fired up” and dont get pinned.

    As the attackers get to fire after finishing their move, this does favor the attacker, but this is only at the “point of hurt”.
    To be able to launch the assault, you’ve already had to work your way forward under enemy fire and braving the defenders machine guns (and arrive with enough guys to make it count).

    My impression from my reading is that if the defenders can’t prevent the attackers from getting that close, odds are they will be driven back or over-run, which the current system carries out fairly well.

    I know there’s some rough points in that its technically possible to assault over 6″ of open ground and get into combat, which doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t come up enough to warrant a permanent rules change, I feel, but one option is that if the attacking section is in the open, they have to endure a regular round of fire from the assault target before they get to attack.
    Hope that helps!

    3: I am pretty certain “Move Out” was dropped as a rule from the current version.
    The intention was to allow things like runners behind the lines, but it had some issues.

    4: Not sure which rule this refers to, but may also be changed in the current version.

    5: Yeah, No Hope is a few “cycles” behind the curve. I still mean to update it but its a bit low on the priority.

    6: Those are updates in the current version. Base move is 4″ now (since people protested the 3″ move mightily) and there are some new options to make larger squads easier to handle.

    I hope that helps a bit. If not, shout at me!

    Avatar photoTony S

    As ever, not only do you respond incredibly quickly, but also you take the time to respond in depth.  So thanks for that!

    Luckily in my original post I apologized in advance.  I knew I had the second edition, because I did check Wargames Vault, and downloaded the updated version to replace my earlier first edition printout.  However, any guesses on which version I oh-so-cleverly printed out a couple of days ago, read and made notes on to ask you questions?  Yes indeed, in a fit of abject stupidity, I did print out the first edition.  So looks like I now have two copies of an old ruleset.

    Well, at least I did praise “Scum of the Earth”, a great little ruleset, so my original post wasn’t a complete waste of time!


    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    If it has the green’ish cover art, then it’s the original. There were some tweaks and updates to that version over its lifespan. It sounds like what you had printed was the last one.

    If its any consolation, some people prefer the original morale system over the current one, so you can mix and match now 🙂

    If you run into trouble still, give me a shout and I’ll see if I can sort you out.

    Avatar photoTony S

    I think your response time was under a minute.  That’s just plain insanity!

    I have the right version now, and just skimmed the morale rules and compared the old and new.  I haven’t played either, but doesn’t seem too much of a change, but I’m liking the newer rules better.  A couple more modifiers, but they seem to make sense.  PBI tend to get nervous near armour!  As you implied earlier, the assault rules seem quite different.

    Thanks again, and I’m looking forward to the weekend to try them out.



    Avatar photoIvan Sorensen

    I happened to be at the computer when you posted 🙂

    Let me know how you get on!

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.