[Tim Snoddy]

Thank you so much for that detailed reply Tony.  Absolutely fascinating to see someone else’s analysis of a game that does not appeal to me.  Actually a lot of the ingredients you attribute to XR are things that make a good game for me too.

 

Command friction is a great thing to have in a game.  Did you ever play Sword and Spear (historical or fantasy), it had an amazing command system.  You drew dice from a bag like Bolt Action and units had a quality.  To activate a unit you had to allocate a dice at least as high as the quality.  But both sides units activated in order of all the dice placed.  So better quality units should go first but you could allocate them worse dice to give dice with a higher running order to another unit.  There was more skill in one round of dice allocation in that game than any other system I have played.  Unfortunately the game does have some other major flaws.

 

No faffing. Also something I very much enjoy. Grim Dark Future is an excellent example of this for sci fi, although only playable in 15mm rather than entirely suitable for. Also enjoying Hail Caesar with it’s free form movement and simple combat mechanics. Looking forward to the fantasy version coming in December.

 

Decision points. Absolutely! No point in any game without them. In GDF the order you activate units is critical. I often find myself debating whether to activate one of 3 or 4 units.

 

I did say “to hit” but I meant casualties. If a target has armour 3 and you are hitting on a 5+ the odds of getting 1,2 or 3 casualties respectively are 70%, 8% and 0.03

 

Small figure count. Nah I love my big games with the table straining under the weight of figures.

 

How nice to be able to discuss games with in depth analysis rather than a shouting match of “my game is better than yours”.

[Tim Snoddy]

I have tried, I really have but I just can’t get the Rampant games in any flavour, historical, fantasy or sci fi.  In fact it baffles me why they are so popular.  To me the XR book would suggest you can make a 24 point army out of any old figures you have lying around and roll up a scenario to have a great game.  My experience was one side vaporised the other in short order or completed the scenario victory objective without any meaningful threat from the opposing side.  There is zero guidance on how much terrain to put down when it has a huge effect on the game.  The 10 dice roll to hit mechanism seems very free form but is actually quite static.  You will probably get one hit, might get two if you are lucky and haven’t a hope in hell of getting three.  This means you probably won’t be able to get a unit down to half strength where morale tests become difficult so all the “get something off table” scenarios are  piece of cake for whoever lifts the objective first.  BUT as ever it is horses for courses and if you enjoy it that is all that matters although I would love to know why.

[Tim Snoddy]

I agree all points systems are inherently flawed.  If basic grunt infantry can’t damage a super heavy tank and they are the only two types of unit on table the relative points values are meaningless.  I was really hoping this would be scenario based.  The only reason I am looking at points is because my experience with the scenarios has not been great.  It just feels a bit of a clumsy launch.  Questions I have asked have been answered quickly but then something pops up that contradicts the information given.  The other major sci fi gaming I am playing at the moment is Grim Dark Future and it is incredibly well balanced, yet the rules are actually simpler than USEME and run to a grand total of 15 pages.

I do think it may have a very different feel with more vehicle based armies and infantry in transports taking a secondary role.  Happy to give that sort of game a try using the points in the rule book as a guide.

[Tim Snoddy]

ian pillay wrote:

Full play through has been posted on the blog…… https://alternative-armies.blogspot.com/2022/06/um016-useme-6mm-science-fiction-example.html?m=1 might help understand the rules better.

Understanding the rules is not my problem with the system.  I like the rules, they are intuitive, fast and the relationship between different unit types is good.  My problem is how do you fight a battle when the points system makes little sense?  There are numerous inconsistencies with the force lists published in this article and the unit costs given in the rules.  For example in the article a light vehicle can carry two infantry squads.  I was previously told only super heavy vehicles could do this.  There is no indication of how this is costed if it is costed at all.

Four scenarios have been published so far.  Two have no force lists so are hard to play as intended.  The fourth requires more figures than I have.  The one I did play is hopelessly imbalanced.

If you are happy to play games where you just throw down some figures and see what happens this rule set may well suit you down to the ground.  I struggle with playing a game where the outcome may have been determined before play begins by force selection.

[Tim Snoddy]

I tried a second game using the encounter scenario and forces matched in points.  Not much better I am sorry to say.  I tried making up a few units using the points values and they do not seem to make a lot of sense.  That is two equally pointed forces could have vastly different combat effectiveness.  A very basic infantry unit comes out at about half the cost of decent heavy vehicle.  I would take the vehicle every time.  Other anomalies abound.  Infantry support weapons seemed over price and I queried the cost.  The answer came back that it was a typo and they should be 1.5 points not 15 which makes them the cheapest available infantry weapon but with the longest range.  There is no reduction in the cost of grav vehicles even though they are significantly easier to destroy than regular vehicles and have less chance of hitting anything.  I am going to try one more game vehicle heavy with lots of transported infantry to see how it feels.  If not great I will be leaving this system behind.

[Tim Snoddy]

The fiddly set up is an issue.  Playing with 35 stand versus 25 or so today and really not sure I would want to take it 100 or more stands as the rules suggest.  The rules I liked.  The relationship between different unit types, movement rates, how combat worked and how different types of units interacted were all sound.  I am going to play again tomorrow with a different scenario.  There is a points system and I wonder how well throwing equal points armies at each other would work.  But then you have to wonder about how to set up objectives and terrain.  The scenario I played I presume is what would be used to introduce people to the game.  For that it failed horribly, it could well put players off the game.  With a turn limit it might work better but it is still not a great mix of units.

[Tim Snoddy]

Got a chance to try the first scenario today and to be honest I was pretty disappointed.  It is a bit fiddly to set up forces. Everything needs carefully labelled and the dice were used to mark Elan which can change in game if commanders are killed. Units activate in order of Elan. The battlefield size and movement rates seem well proportioned. Combat seemed pretty good with suitable modifiers which were intuitive and quickly memorised. Unfortunately the scenario seemed completely imbalanced. One force was attacking dug in infantry and a platoon of tanks to capture three of four objective points. The attackers had a platoon of light grav attack vehicles, a platoon of mechs and supporting infantry. The defending infantry had only short range weapons. Once the defending tanks were eliminated the attacking force could just sit with their vehicles at long range and wait until the defenders were wiped out. Even if the defending infantry charged out of their dug in positions they could still not get the enemy vehicles in range. The odds being they would then be quickly wiped out in the open. No turn limit applied and this would seem essential.

[Tim Snoddy]

I got very prompt answers when I put these questions up on the Alternative Armies Facebook page.  The intended battlefield size for the scenarios is 120cm x 90cm.  No turn limit for scenarios unless stated.  I was correct there is no positive for having commanders near units they command.  This is intentional.  Just have to see how it plays out.  There is an example of play article to be posted later this month.  I hope to try the first scenario this weekend.

[Tim Snoddy]

Many thanks for trying to answer my questions Andrew. I am probably guilty of way over analysis before play.  I hope to get the game on table this weekend.  In the mean time here are some more thoughts on the points we are discussing:

Re Elan and dice.  Realising you probably only need to note any units whose Elan has changed and the company commander perhaps to give an easy visual reference.  Eg I may know all my sides infantry start on elan 3.  I don’t think a unit can go below 1 Elan although the initiative modifier may be negative.  “Every character has an ELAN rating from 6 the highest to 1 the lowest, and this
represents their training, skills, morale and willingness/readiness for combat.”

Re cohesion.  I wasn’t thinking so much about the rules being too loose just how this works in practice.  There is no positive benefit for having command stands near their fighting comrades.  But there is considerable negative effect for losing them.  Besides losing firepower I can’t see why you would not just hide your command units.  Probably not platoon commanders but it would seem a good tactic with company and force commanders.  Also if I intend to advance with one platoon and hold an objective with another it would actually seem wiser for the advancing platoon to travel with the command stand of the other platoon.  Am I missing something?

Re Battlefield I saw the 90x90cm but the map for scenarios looks rectangular not square.  There is a distance given for how far in the attackers can deploy but how can this make any sense if the overall battlefield size is not known?

Re Consolidation phase.  Yep that sure looks messed up as if something is missing.

[Tim Snoddy]

Hi Ian, really look forward to seeing your thoughts.  I have enough tokens and enough dice to give it a whirl with the first scenario as I envisage it.  I like being able to see things at a glance how they are on table.

[Tim Snoddy]

No worries Andrew, thanks for trying.

[Tim Snoddy]

Not sure we are talking about the same thing.  The 6mm USEME rules are a completely different system to the video you have linked to. The 6mm rules have just been released in the last week or so.

[Tim Snoddy]

Thanks everyone, plenty of ideas there.

[Tim Snoddy]

Ah, yes Mike, that is the key isn’t it!  I can have several entry points for reinforcements so the defenders can choose where they need support the most.  I have an aircraft that can do strafing runs for them but I can get them to make a die roll to see whether it can be called in, getting easier as the game progresses.

[Tim Snoddy]

It is theoretically possible but the ideal is that the battlefield is 30x base width wide and 20x base width across.  So for 40mm frontage companies your battlefield is 1200mm x 800mm.  The starting gap between forces is 10x base width.  One of the most interesting things about the game is the mishap table, where forces can advance unexpectedly or arrive late behind your main battle line.  You might struggle to accommodate this.  In short I would not recommend the system with your basing and space limits.  I had figures on 100mm frontage and ended up setting them on 120mm x 60mm bases and saying they represented two companies.  You could do the same thing saying your 80mm frontage units are two companies but you are still falling short of the ideal battlefield width.

[Tim Snoddy]

Thanks everyone I think I am good.  Those riders are excellent Tony S, not totally convinced by the mounts.  The GW Serbery’s raiders are a bit fussy but I do like the idea of robotic cavalry.

[Tim Snoddy]

Yes, you guessed right for why all those fail but thanks for playing the game!  I know there are loads around in smaller scales, 15mm or 6mm which makes me think there must be somebody doing them in 28mm.

[Tim Snoddy]

Finally got to try out the idea today with some Star Wars legion figs.  Still not quite there.  Part of the problem is that once you get to significant damage 3 or 4 it is too tempting to press on for the kill.  Maybe giving troops another life so to speak would help.  Crossing open ground is nigh on impossible when two hits will probably kill a unit.  So I am going to try basic troop unit has 10 damage rather than 7.  Had a look at the maths this morning and I think the answer is this.  Not quite as neat but giving better results.  Morale test roll must equal current damage x1.5 rounding down.  Green being damage x1.5 +1, veterans -1 and elite -2.  A morale throw of 10+ being an automatic pass.  So, for example if you take 4 damage (troubling damage but still plenty of HP to go) you need a 6 to pass (72%).  At 5 damage you need a 7 so still should (58%).  Once over half at 6 damage you are only going to pass about a third of the time (27%).  And once you are likely to be KO with the next round of fire 7+ damage you are only going to pass 1 in 6 times.  It has the added bonus that removing even a single point of damage with a defend order can be really significant.

 

[Tim Snoddy]

Trying desperately not to sound like the kid in the back of the car constantly yelling “are we there yet” but any news on Squad Hammer?

[Tim Snoddy]

Thaddeus Blanchette wrote:

These look very interesting! Thank you for bringing them to my attention. What is the basing system, if you don’t mind?

The suggested basing is dependent on scale, 40mm frontage for up to 15mm figures, 60mm frontage for larger scales.  Depth is unimportant.  As long as both armies have units with the same frontage you could use any size you prefer.  The only limiting factor being you need a battlefield 20x unit width across and 30x unit width wide.  So 800mm x 1200mm for 40mm frontage.  Alas my 28mm KOW stuff on 100mm frontage don’t work without halving move rates and working with smaller armies

ian pillay wrote:

Tim, great find thank you for giving an overview of these rules. I’ve ordered a copy based on this as a Christmas present to myself. Are there any blogs or websites with more about the game?

The author has a blog here Irregular Wars.blogspot.com  There are also two pages on Facebook one for the author and one for players which he answers any questions on, just search fantastic battles.

 

[Tim Snoddy]

When I say the game is big battle what I mean is the rules reflect the size of the units involved.  So units are restricted in how they can move and things like outflanking and hitting on a flank are important.

[Tim Snoddy]

I am hoping you are currently working on Squadhammer, is that the case Ivan?

[Tim Snoddy]

I have got half a dozen or more games under my belt now and have to say this rule set is definitely growing on me.  It is light, movement is a breeze, die roll modifiers are few, but there are a lot of tactics.  When you get to activate there are often tricky questions on what to do for the best or the situation most deserving of mitigation.  All the troop types seem to have their uses and all have flaws.  On the down side there is a lot of luck, more so than most games I would play but being easy and fast to play I can live with that.  As ever you wonder if points for some units can possibly be right.  Archery can seem overwhelming when the dice go the archers way.

[Tim Snoddy]

Thanks for the update Ivan. All the work is appreciated and I do realise how difficult it can be.

[Tim Snoddy]

TonicNH wrote:

Looks like they’re both still available at Wargame Vault Squad Hammer https://www.wargamevault.com/product/222978/Squad-Hammer-Dirt-simple-gaming-for-many-settingsor-all-of-them?manufacturers_id=5701 Laserstorm: https://www.wargamevault.com/product/157157/LaserStorm-6mm-grand-warfare?manufacturers_id=5701

Ivan had mentioned that Laserstorm was getting a new points system and a unit builder for Squad Hammer.  The hammer system has been developing with each era supplement that came out.  Hammer of Democracy took things to another level with support points and how they interact with support weapons.  When Squad Hammer core came out Ivan said there was a plan to do an advanced version or options pack but it has never materialised.

[Tim Snoddy]

Sword and Spear fantasy is a fantastic game but for me has a couple of game breaking flaws.  I was a huge fan for a couple of years.  It is actually a better game than the historical rule set it came from as fantasy traits allow better differentiation between units types.  It uses a dice draw system for activation (every unit fielded contributing one die to the bag) and there is more tactics involved in one round of dice allocation than in the entirety of some fantasy rules I have played.  Units are activated from both sides in order of the lowest dice placed so better quality units tend to activate first.  So you often found yourself answering questions like should I activate this unit with the highest dice possible or a lower die to get a quicker activation  before a nearby enemy?  Dice can be stacked to give a bonus or aid defence.  What made me fall out of love with it?  The points system is iffy, the rules get a bit hazy in places.  The deal breaker for me was the game breaking mass of tat ploy.  You could field a load of low cost units never intending to fight with them and use their dice to make your other units fight much better than they normally would.  I house ruled some limits on that.  A lot to enjoy in the game.

[Tim Snoddy]

Mark Lewis wrote:

Tim Snoddy wrote:

In my opinion Oathmark is a way better rule set than Dragon Rampant. Dragon Rampant covers exactly the same size of battles as Oathmark, mass skirmish with a few hundred combatants. Dragon Rampant has a major split personality, at times it appears to want to be a skirmish game and at others a mass battle game where as Oathmark knows exactly what it wants to be and is written accordingly.

That’s funny because I think the same thing applies to Oathmark. It is described by the publisher as a mass battle game but the battle reports I’ve seen seem to be large skirmishes, there is figure removal and units seem to sometimes fight to the last man.

Yes, the advertising for Oathmark is “funny” describing it as a mass battle game, I can totally see how you would find it confusing if you have not played.  I think it is described by the publishers as mass battle to distinguish it from the numerous skirmish games involving a handful of figures on the the market but yes you are right it covers mass skirmish or as you put it large skirmishes rather than mass battles.  The difference between it and Dragon Rampant is that Oathmark knows what scale of battle it is covering and the rules are written with that in mind.  You can easily avoid single figure removal by using markers or dice to show casualties.  Fighting to the last man is possible but not probable except for units with very high stats and for those types of units would seem reasonable to me.

[Tim Snoddy]

In my opinion Oathmark is a way better rule set than Dragon Rampant.  Dragon Rampant covers exactly the same size of battles as Oathmark, mass skirmish with a few hundred combatants.  Dragon Rampant has a major split personality, at times it appears to want to be a skirmish game and at others a mass battle game where as Oathmark knows exactly what it wants to be and is written accordingly.

[Tim Snoddy]

Good point.  I have bought Oathmark but not had a chance to play before lockdown.  It is advertised as a mass battle game but is definitely a mass skirmish game.  Units only activate one at a time, combats are one unit versus one unit, multiple unit combats are not allowed.  I really don’t know if I will like it or not until I play it, quite hopeful after reading the rules.  One thing you can definitely say for it is it has a clear vision of what it wants to be.  My point about Dragon Rampant is that to me it seemed a poor mix of rules some suited to mass battle and some to a skirmish game which did not blend well.

[Tim Snoddy]

I don’t usually feel the need to criticise games, we are all looking for different things but I feel compelled to say Dragon Rampant is one of the worst games I have ever played.  Superficially it looks a lot like HOTT but it lacks all the tactical finesse.  See that unit of goblins over there with the big friendly ogre ready to bash anyone who comes near them?  Well that is actually a huge tactical mistake, as a friendly unit being near is just as bad as an enemy if you have to retreat.  Rolled a 2 on 2D6 for morale, a quarter of your army has just been lost.  It also falls between two stools not quite being a skirmish game and not quite being a mass battle game.  Only fantasy rules I have played that are worse are Of Armies and Hordes.

[Tim Snoddy]

Ivan has said on his blog that a he has someone creating a unit builder.  I sure hope it includes points values.  I hope the game mechanics are brought up to the high standard of Hammer of Democracy allowing for support points and support units.

[Tim Snoddy]

Steelonsand wrote:

I would second Gaz’s GZG suggestions above; otherwise, have you considered the Marhaf from Plasmablast Games – I think their design might be a match for the Okami: https://plasmablastgames.com/product-category/6mm-marhaf-legion/page/2/

Thank you so much yes, I think those are perfect.

[Tim Snoddy]

I have two proper games under my belt and I would definitely give the system a big thumbs up.  Skilful play definitely has more influence on who wins that what you bring to the table.  In my last game I did a demo at my local club with three participants.  They all got the gist of the rules very quickly.  It is a neat system and I can see two experienced players being able to play very large games in a reasonable timescale.  Most combatants are lost when a unit’s morale breaks and the entire unit which could be 10 infantry or 5 tanks is eliminated.  Be careful to explain the move rates, they are huge compared to some rule sets.  If anyone has facebook and is interested I have photo AAR’s up. https://www.facebook.com/podsy.mcpod/photos_albums

[Tim Snoddy]

I asked the author for the current situation re availability.  PDF and online unit builder access is to be launched march 10th for 25 dollars.  Printed rule book not available yet, price not yet fixed.  75 dollars was for Kickstarter, including dice and other bits, book on own may be less.

[Tim Snoddy]

I am not responsible for the much delayed Kickstarter or current marketing.  I have the PDF, it is 172 pages and I presume the printed book is the same.  I know models have been delivered, I think the book is still being printed.

[Tim Snoddy]

First off a big caveat.  I have only played one game, I like what I see but it usually takes me a few games to see the flaws in the system.

I prefer generic games to proprietary ones.  Since I got interested in sci fi I have changed rules four times but I kept the same model collection.  If I was playing 40K where I need exact models or Star Wars Legion where I need unit cards I would have had to buy new figures every time I changed rules.  Yes you could use anything to represent anything but it would not look right.  Polyversal lets you stat up models with a vast number of options.  So you should be able to get a model to behave in game as you imagine it would in the fictional lore.  There is an online unit builder which is a doddle.  It produces hex shaped tiles which you use in game for stat reference and to house any counters applying to the unit.  I produced my first tile in minutes.

Why am I liking it so far?

The combat system uses 3 dice from D4 through to D12.  To hit you add all three together.  One dice represents effectiveness (morale and training), the second the targeting system of the firing unit and the third the damage effect of the weapon depending on the target.  When you hit you retain the scores.  One or more dice give you the total damage value which you then reference to a damage track.  The maths behind it is fiendishly complex, but it all happens under the hood.  Players only need to be able to add 3 dice. Unless you have three high dice you are unlikely to knock out an enemy vehicle with average weapons but you have a reasonable chance of causing stress (suppression). I really like the rules on stress. You needn’t worry about that mega super unit being invulnerable. The bigger it is the easier it is to hit. Get enough hits on it and stress will soon mount up which affects how effective it is in shooting or assault and you can even force it to leave the field if you stress it enough.  This is the core of the game.  Whole units are removed if a unit gains sufficient stress.

There is a reasonably sound points system.  You can min max but if you stat stuff according to the guidance you should get a good game.  For example this vehicle only looks to have light armour, I really want to give it heavy armour as that is the most bang for buck choice but I shouldn’t.  Best guide I have seen to creating units anywhere.  I let a friend who delights in breaking indy rules systems freely create units and there was not anything that could not be countered.

There are rules around target priority which seemed strange at first but they are game devices to allow infantry and smaller vehicles a chance.  They don’t seem very “realistic” but I can absolutely see why they are there to enhance game play.  Every type of unit from the lowest infantry grunt to super heavy vehicles seem to have a role and circumstances where they can shine.

The game rewards skilful play.  You give orders at the start of a turn.  Give the wrong order to something and you are stuffed.  I have had several Sammity Sam moments already cursing myself for giving daft orders.

The command and control system is great.  You can’t change orders if out of command.

[Tim Snoddy]

Being generic is not the USP of this rule set, although I think it does it in a pretty unique way.  It does have other USP. I will reveal all when back at keyboard tonight.

[Tim Snoddy]

it is out.  First Kickstarter failed, second one succeeded. Goods are in their way to backers and pre orders.  You can use any figs.  6-15mm.  Very innovative system, liking it a lot so far

[Tim Snoddy]

There has been a reasonable amount of info come out on the blogs.  I like most of what I see.  The only bit that worries me is the alternative activation. I hope there is a mechanism for moving a battle line of multiple units at once.  The campaign stuff with the lands supporting various troop types and unit development looks intriguing.

[Tim Snoddy]

Lovely looking table and great report as ever.

[Author]

Posts