[Ivan Sorensen]

madman wrote:

Well I had a couple questions after we played our first game of NEiS V 2.0. We played badly and botched up quite a few rules. Understandable for a very first and rushed try. So I reread the rules up to before buildings, so to the end of page 26. I couldn’t find answers to my questions so I am not as blind as I think I am. It also brought up lots more questions. I went through the NEiS threads here which clarified only a couple questions and resulted in more head scratching. What follows is my questions, answers where I found them, and associated “what the” moments they might have raised. The last bit is of me being rules anal. I used to play against the world’s biggest rules lawyer so everything had to have only one interpretation or answer and in keeping with that thinking carrying on I present the last word.

Cheers mate. Answers below.
NEIS goes back a ways so it’s not a “water proof” in the writing as I might have liked today. I’ll certainly take these into account when the time comes to update things.

Questions

1. Reaction Fire

When does this occur, only during rushes or anytime a valid target presents itself? My example is my activated unit rounds the corner of a building. Standing there are my opponent’s forces. Since I am on an activation which allows movement and firing I can shoot at him.

Can he reaction fire at me or only “normal” fire during his next activation assuming he is not exhausted?
If he is exhausted can he still reaction fire?
Are both fires simultaneous or does activation fire or reaction fire always go first?

The relevant rule here is “Moving Cautiously” at the bottom of page 15. Troops moving into sight but within cover (for example on a building corner) do NOT trigger reaction fire.

As you are getting at, reaction fire is specifically in response to a failed rush.

Troops can reaction fire as long as they are not pinned down, even if Exhausted.

Newer games of mine have a section that talks about timing, but NEIS predates that, so let me explain it here:
My games always use what I all “absolute timing” which means everything is resolved as it happens.

So lets say Trooper Jones shoots at your men, then I run across the street suffering reaction fire and those who make it want to shoot at you.
Resolve Jones first, then move and resolve reaction fires, finally the survivors shoot back.

2. Break check

Is this conducted once for each leader’s unit at the end of a turn?
Or is it conducted after each activation by any unit which took any adverse (pin, wound or kill) result?
Based on a game example in TWW it appears to be the second above which means a unit can be subject to massive break checks in a single turn. In fact they can be subject to a break check after every single activation from either side during a turn if unlucky enough to be repeatedly under fire and taking effects.

This may change in a future version since I am not 100% content with it right now, but the intention is that any time you take fire, you make a Break check.
For units in cover, pressure only builds if you took casualties or have untreated wounded, so most break checks are passed automatically.

Troops in the open are incredibly fragile, maybe a bit too much.

I’d try it as written a couple times, but if its a problem, limit it to once per phase.

3. Pin removal

Do you have to activate the leader then do pin removals or not? So if you have two pins to remove does it cost 3 points or 2? I assume 3 if one of the pins is the leader.

The leader does not have to be active himself to do pin removal.

4. Do leaders activate for free

Again based on an example from TWW it appears leaders can move for free. They only have to pay their own activation point if they wish to fire, unpin themselves (subject to the answer from above), or perform any activity from the action point cost table. If they wish to group fire they have to pay 2 activation points, one for their men and one for themselves.

Correct. We assume leaders have enough initiative to move where they are needed.

5. Reaction Fire

Since the rules as written only cover fire against rushing troops this may answer 1 above. In reaction fire all rolls are for hits not pins and since they can only fire at targets which didn’t make their rush distance check those troops are already pinned. Does this apply in any way to 1 above as in the situation stated can you only generate “hits” and all troops now in LOS (and firing) are automatically pinned as they stopped without cover.

If they rush and fail their rush roll (I say Im rushing 4 inch, but roll a 2) they are pinned automatically and we roll for hits.
If they rush in the open and succeed in the rush roll, they dont get pinned but as they have no cover, I get to roll for hits (“advancing in the open” page 16)

6. Morale, Casualties, and Stress leader casualties

What constitutes a casualty for game terms and ?
Are pinned troops casualties?
Are treated wounded casualties?
Are untreated wounded casualties?
Are dead casualties?

Casualties are wounded (regardless of treatment) and dead.

Pinned are NOT casualties.

7. Close Assaults and reaction fire

Again reaction fire raises its ugly head. A unit being assaulted is allowed reaction fire, only if it can/cannot activate? Is the reaction fire before, simultaneous or after assaulting fire?

Unless a given figure is Wounded or Pinned, they can always React.

Absolute timing applies so move up, take reaction fire, then conduct the assault.

Can you change the usage of “shock dice” to pin dice?
Can you change the usage of “kill dice” to hit dice?

I’ll certainly ponder that. The terms were chosen because I had an older game that used the same dice terms, but that may not be needed any longer.

Please use one term for one thing. It makes clarity and life so much easier.

Agreed.

You define a light automatic weapon and a SAW. How is an RPK much different from an M249? How would a bren gun rate? Is an MG 34 or 42 a crew served or SAW? When used bi pod or tripod? Belt fed vs magazine fed? Again being anal but it really becomes opinion. An MG 34/42 was treated as both a SAW and as a medium support weapon as were many post war machine guns, but in game terms how would a full size cartridge firing weapon be treated? I can see the division being X number of round magazine treat it as a light automatic and Y round magazine or belt fed as a SAW. If not used as a squad weapon but as a platoon or company level asset then it becomes a crew served weapon. Alternatively a light automatic requires one crew a SAW two but only 3 dice and a crew served two but four dice, dependent on trooper quality.

As you suggest, it really depends on personal views.
My take is that if an infantry squad is hauling it around and it’s used as part of that infantry team, its an SAW.

If it’s deployed on its own with a big pile of spare ammo, then its “crew served”.

That’s not entirely water-proof but I feel like it fits well enough.

So in a WW2 context, I wouldn’t worry about a Bren vs DP vs MG34 personally. They’re all SAW’s.

Some players feel strongly that the GPMG in the squad role should be superior option to a magazine fed weapon. If so, I might suggest +3 firepower but does not get the loader bonus.

In that view: Bren +2, MG34 in squad role +3, MG34 on tripod and with linked belts +3 (+4 with loader).

THAT BEING SAID, there’s probably a hundred arguments that could be made for why I’m wrong about that 🙂

Hope the above helps and I hope your second outing with the rules is smoother!
It’s a bit of a beast, compared to how a lot of other games work.

Best wishes
Ivan

[Ivan Sorensen]

No problem! I happened to be working on something when the email notification popped in!

[Ivan Sorensen]

Cheers friend.

I assume you mean “how can the moving soldier shoot” in that example?
If not, let me know and I’ll clarify.

As written, the combat rules say “Active figures may fire all at the same group or may direct their fire against multiple targets and may fire before or after moving.”

So lets say our soldier is behind a building and wants to rush across a 3″ wide street, to a building on the other side.

Example 1:
He can fire before he makes the rush, if he’s in sight of the bad guys.
(as he may shoot before moving)

Example 2:
He cannot move half-way, shoot, and then move the rest of the distance.
(As you must shoot before or after the move, not during)

Example 3:
If he makes the rush, he could stop at the corner of the other building and shoot from there.
(As he may shoot after moving, and if the rush was a success, he isn’t pinned).

I hope that helps?
If not, let me know and I’ll see if I can clarify it more or draw something.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Ill have to double check i didnt specifically say otherwise, but I always intended it to be possible yeah.
Representing the senior sergeant running over and kicking everyone into gear!

[Ivan Sorensen]

Thanks gang. Thomaston – You should be able to see some of the advancement system in the preview, if I remember right.
I picked the pages for preview pretty late last night so i might be wrong 🙂

[Ivan Sorensen]

Right, so HoD basically changed everything and I think in hindsight, any future work would do better to be based on that or as compatible to it as possible.

I’d be very interested in hearing what you have in mind.

[Ivan Sorensen]

The toolkit will be delayed for a while yet. I still haven’t resolved the difficulties I spoke of above and me trying to force it only resulted in sub-optimal material, unfortunately.
I’m sorry this has ended up dragging out. As I said before, in part its because I didn’t anticipate that HoD would be so well received, which led me to go back and re-evaluate everything about Squad Hammer and its core aspects.

Additionally, the RPG project I am working on has ended up being a tentacle monster of time sink, that I did not anticipate to be so extensive.

The “special project” is a fan project that is definitely tied to a galaxy far far away. I’m seeing if I might get a hold of it.

So holding pattern for now, which I apologize for.
On a more immediate note however: I have largely come to the conclusion that the Support Points mechanic should be backported into Squad Hammer Core as an official system.
What was originally intended as a fairly separate add-on has come I think to really emphasize the strengths of the system.

How do you two feel about that? If so, that’s something that can happen fairly immediately so an updated version can be made available.

[Ivan Sorensen]

I just went for a walk and looked at the trees here, which are pretty young but are easily 30 meters tall.

I think realistically any “forest” feature would always be a LOS block.

Hedgerows and any wall substantial enough to show would probably offer concealment, unless you are some distance from it.

[Ivan Sorensen]

We enjoyed playing the game for all the hardware and the fact it listed Danish troops in them!

Some of the rules were a bit funky but we soldiered on. It was certainly a small influence for when I wrote NEIS.
The cover is gloriously 80s too.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Doesn’t get much closer than the game coming down to the last die roll!

Your tables look outstanding too. Red gems for hit points lost?

[Ivan Sorensen]

Cheers.

I probably wouldn’t allow MG fire against fully enclosed vehicles as a general rule, though allowing them to try for a stun is reasonable for light vehicles.

A HMG (like the American .50 calibre) CAN fire at vehicles, but with a very modest effect (suggest that it can fire as an anti-tank weapon but with penetration 1 only)

[Ivan Sorensen]

Sorry, no, it’s not stalled but things do move around.

The delay is due to three parts:

First, I was worried that the toolkit was becoming too stiff and difficult to work with, in a way that didn’t fit the game system. So a lot had to be reworked to just be more friendly.

Second, I was kicking around whether it’d be best broken into smaller booklets or done as one large one.

Finally, I wanted ample time for HoD feedback and ideas to filter in, to evaluate which of those systems would be a good pick. F.x. Support points is something that almost everyone has been excited about.

[Ivan Sorensen]

The game in question had some bugs that needed fixing. Just stuff where testing hadn’t caught it because the guy running the game knew how it was “supposed to work”.
Basically the sort of thing that experience teaches you to notice, but it was the guys first game writing.

I’d say it was stuff that wasn’t that big a deal, the game certainly wasn’t broken and we fixed it all a couple days later, but apparently that was beyond the pale 🙂

Mind, Im not protesting that we got beaten up a bit, but the wording of “criminals” stuck in my mind as being pretty funny.

[Ivan Sorensen]

I think wargame reviews are also a bit skewed because the people who like the game are the ones who are going to review it.
Unless something is truly dire, we’ve all seen enough games that the reaction to a bad one is to shrug and move on.

Or you bought the game to check out one mechanic or even just to read. I’ve certainly done that, so I wouldn’t really feel comfortable reviewing it.

I did have a reviewer tell me that myself and the gentleman who’d written the game in question were criminals though 🙂

[Ivan Sorensen]

Yeah, the costs are too low and do need to touched up.

As you say moving from 6 to 7 is a big deal since it typically guarantees surviving one more hit.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Cheers gang.

It’ll be based on the Five Parsecs / Five Leagues structure, with a few tweaks in the game play.
But close enough that if you know one, it shouldn’t be a big shock.

The basic turn sequence etc. will be identical, combat will work as similar as possible and the campaign game will take a lot from Five Leagues.

As you probably know, Im a big fan of Borderlands and Trigun 🙂

[Ivan Sorensen]

So originally infantry AT was intended work like any other tank shooting, using the same mechanics.

At the time, I was going to have the range limited to 3″ or so, which seemed to interfere with the distances close assaults happen at, so infantry AT became an “assault” option instead, to avoid any weird situations, especially if both infantry and tanks are close to the attacker.

I am starting to wonder if it should just be changed though, especially for the 6″ range gap.
You’re not the first player to mention and wonder about it, so I think it’s something where the intention isn’t really executed well.

I am trying to get a better ref sheet done, the current one is kinda garbage. My apologies.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Sorry for the wait!

For shock actions, “Units may perform only the Shock action and cannot perform any regular action.”

That’s intended to also prohibit firing.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Apologies for a slight delay.

Infantry AT gear isn’t factored in right now, a +5 or so for Panzerfausts would seem reasonable.

The modifier for unable to fire is just a catch-all for any sort of situation that could occur in a scenario. Sorry it was confusing.

Vehicles with weak cannon can choose to just rely on the machine guns instead (and I believe that is likely to have been the historical case as well in many cases)

You are likely right that the time limits are a bit too long at the moment. I was worried about them being too short, if the players run into a rash of bad turns with limited actions, but I may have been over-cautious on that front.

[Ivan Sorensen]

I’m sorry to hear that!

Obviously any given change will have ups and downs but I’d like to try and assure you that I didn’t make any changes that I didn’t feel would improve the game.
I try to account for fan feedback but NWG has never been any sort of crowd-managed democracy 🙂

For things like streamlining, what I did was try not to remove factors but change it so instead of having multiple, consecutive rolls things could be built into an existing roll whenever possible.

To give an example instead of a separate post-battle table to determine if you suffered equipment damage, now it’s built into the injury table instead.
A lot of the “roll a 6 for something to happen” things were moved to be part of other rolls.

Consensus so far has been that the changes are an upgrade, but of course individual opinions will vary.

If you are up for it, email me at [email protected] and I have a deal for you though.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Weapon styles were hotly contested as it seems for every person who loved them, someone hated them.

I’d like to revisit the concept in the future, because I think it’s cool but I think the execution left a bit to be desired.

Buying stuff we don’t need is the gamers curse 🙂

[Ivan Sorensen]

Sure
This blog post captures a lot of it
https://fivemennormandy.blogspot.com/2019/06/five-leagues-2-is-coming.html

Give that a looksie, then if you have specific questions I’d be happy to answer those.

In total, I think there’s over 70 individual things changed somehow, ranging from fixing a skill to whole new scenario options.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Also, if a few of you want to pick this one up on the cheap (not that it wasn’t already quite cheap) You can get it for five bucks for a couple days.

https://www.wargamevault.com/browse.php?discount=91dba9c302

[Ivan Sorensen]

Glad you lot had a great time and I appreciate all the kind words.

A few observations above that I just wanted to confirm:
You can no doubt tell that Neil Thomas was a heavy inspiration. In a lot of ways “From Shako” was the result of that, merged with my own ideas about combat dice from developing FiveCore.

My observation at the time was that being a little bit more “gamey” tended to get people more involved in the game.
I figured if units can get worn down and you’re limited in your command abilities, then the game play can be a bit more dramatic and it’ll work out great.

Combat is fairly deadly at the moment. The idea of rolling to confirm kills is a great idea and one I may keep around, if we ever get to do a second edition.
It probably does need toning down slightly though the 1914 inclined gamer might enjoy them as they are!

On the questions:

1 The intention is that you make the formation change, then act as per the new formation. So you could form up and move off.
The timing of the phases means you must charge before you can change formation, so if that’s the goal you have to be in the right formation on the prior turn.

2 I’ve gone back and forth with how they’re meant to work. Your system seems as good as any.
I think splitting the town into multiple sections might actually solve most of the trouble I kept bumping into.

3 Yeah, there’s two models I hate to buy: Limbers and trucks. So I abstracted them out of the game.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Sure, and I could 100% see arguments why it should be the other way.

The rationale I applied is that a combat situation may be pretty chaotic.
So a tank is rolling through and blasting you.

Well, the obvious answer is to have an AT gun knock it out, but firing an MG at the supporting infantry could help clear the area so you can assault it (f.x.)

Ideally, it’d have to be within the same general area, but that’s hard to write a satisfactory rule for.

I hope that makes sense!

[Ivan Sorensen]

Anything involving
A: French Foreign Legion
B: Musketry

[Ivan Sorensen]

Sorry about the delay!

Still working on the tool kit, but there’s a couple small projects to do first. I didn’t want to “crowd” things too much

1 The question was asked so I will pass it on. Does offensive and defensive support fire have to be at the same target the activated unit is attacking or is attacked by. Eg my infantry squad is fired upon by an enemy squad, I have an anti tank gun eligible to give support fire. If it support fires must it’s target be the enemy squad that fired or can it fire at a different more attractive target? I know the 6″ nearest target rule, let’s say that does not apply.

They do not, though I am told that a lot of people either interpret it that way or opt to enforce that.
The intention is that they can fire at whatever seems most valuable.

2 Assaulting a half track with infantry without specialist AT weapons. This seemed to suggest a 10+ was needed, the same as against a proper tank. I thought a normal vehicle kill check minus armour value was perhaps more appropriate. What is intended?

I’d use a kill check yeah.

3 Do infantry anti tank teams have a range limit of 6″? Target has to be within assault range?

So a lot of people have told me they want infantry AT to be able to shoot normally.
As written right now, they’re strictly assault weapons.

I imagine that will change, once I get the Polish update done.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Cheers and I am glad it went well!

A replacement for Lasalle? That’s high praise 🙂

Cav – Cav one side charges with a shock action – the target cavalry have to take the charge (no countercharges) and only fight if it goes to hand to hand, so the charger in a Cav -v Cav gets the advantage of a free opportunity to hit. This is what we played,is it correct.

You got it.
I recall we kicked around countercharges or not, but in the end, the current method makes movement more rewarding so we opted for it.

Cav v infantry – smooth bore period Squares – Cav charge infantry, infantry have 0 disarray.

If charged from the front they would have a base 2 plus 2 so 4 d6 to stop a charge from the front, if the charge came from the flank or rear is it just the 2 dice?

As written, yes, though you might want to just even out the dice to 3 on all sides.

If the charge went in frontally combat as normal, if it went in to the flank or rear would the cav get the flank or rear combat bonus. My thinking is that they would still be in square even if they failed to stop the charge….. help!

Yeah, squares could need an extra line or three of explanantion. They won’t have a flank in melee.

Any plans to write a battle system pre Black Power! Sure it would be great…

Not specifically, but now that you mention it…

[Ivan Sorensen]

In theory I do, but I rarely end up doing it.
Back when we played a lot of Crossfire, I did have sets of “allied” and “axis” dice: Speckled green and speckled grey D6’s respectively.

I noticed that after a few games, people would reach for dice, realize they were grabbing the “wrong” ones and then get the right dice.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Thanks! It’s been a crazy ride for sure

[Ivan Sorensen]

Hammer is based mainly on Core but with some deviations, which is the way going forward.

I’d like to update Trench Hammer specifically and if/when that happens, October Hammer will probably get folded in, if I can find a way to make that happen smoothly.
It’s not super high priority though.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Looks absolutely gorgeous and I am glad you had a great time!

[Ivan Sorensen]

Cheers
So the question is regarding character losses?

Yes, you check as long as ANY character is present, to represent sharp shooters etc.

You could make an exception if you are shooting at a unit that can’t shoot back f.x.

[Ivan Sorensen]

Cheers.

By treasure do you mean gold or other stuff you pick up along the way?

Money is just kind of kept generically available and can be used by anyone, as needed. Figure your avatar had the foresight to give the right henchmen a few coins that day.

(of course if you play in Glorantha, consider “1 gold coin” to be “a handful of Lunar silver” 🙂 )

For other items, see the Equipment rules (circa page 38 or so)

If its a campaign item, it’s always available.

If its a backpack item, its available while in town. If you go adventuring, you have to pack it but its not carried by a specific character.

Worn items are specific to the guy carrying them.

In the case of Silver Jewelry, its a campaign item if you just want to sell it, but if you want to use it for bribes, you have to pack it.

Hope that helps! If it didn’t rephrase the question since I may have misunderstood you.

On question 2:

It was originally meant to mean “if the villager doesn’t get injured in the battle”.
i.e. rolling on the table is enough.

However, I’ve always ended up playing it as “if they roll an 8+”, so you were correct.

[Ivan Sorensen]

I am tinkering with something. Do you mind if I borrow or adapt this?

[Ivan Sorensen]

Looks pretty solid, though I’d probably make Toughness a D3+3 instead and lower Speed to D3+3 to make it a bit more lumbering.

Would be tempting to have a short list of “monster abilities” to add to it. Hmmmm

[Ivan Sorensen]

So I /think/ I found three overlaps:

Character with PARRY skill and shield style just gets a 5+ save.

A character who is injured and has both greaves and vambraces gets a 5+ save and one of the two is destroyed.

A character with talisman and helmet when checking for post-game injuries gets a 5+ save but if you make it, your helmet breaks (i.e. its always a helmet hit then)

[Ivan Sorensen]

Glad to see you again!
I was just looking at your blog yesterday and wondering if something had happened.

[Ivan Sorensen]

I tend to go for the most common grunts, but I have a big soft spot for armies that put up a good showing despite having no hope (Polish in WW2 f.x.)

When I did WW2 Germans, I did a paratrooper platoon for the elite fix and a Volksgrenadier “Sturm” platoon for the “hapless conscripts” fix.
Of course for many armies, as Martin says, you can just say they are whatever they need to be for the scenario.

Of course “elite” can also be up for debate. Some units just got lucky or never fought anyone that was a serious threat but as wargamers we love to classify 🙂

[Ivan Sorensen]

While I tinker with a diagram, this is the new explanation (with a few tweaks to reflect how it was meant to be played).
Let me know if that parses a bit better.

Concealment, Area Fire and Cover
Units are Concealed if they are on the edge of or directly behind any terrain feature.
This raises the Target Number by 2 points.
If the terrain feature is a purpose built fortification (such as a trench) or is made of stone, the unit benefits from Cover.
On any Hit roll that rolls the Target Number exactly, reduce Damage inflicted by 1 point.

Units located up to 3” into a terrain feature are Obscured.
Raise the Target Number by 2 points as above and all Damage is reduced by 1 point. Exception: Forest features do not reduce the damage from artillery fire.

Units may fire while Concealed or in Cover but not while Obscured.

[Author]

Posts