"IABSM & TW&T what is the difference" Topic

These two rules sets from the same publisher seem to cover the same subject.

Anyone able to compare the two for me?

Ta

Andy

IABSM is a company level game, with platoons as the units of maneuver, TW&T is a platoon level game with squads as the units of maneuver.

Mr P is right. Typical IABSM game between two platoons and two companies a side. The basic manoeuvre element is the platoon. With TW&T a typical game is between two sections/squads and two platoons a side. The basic manoeuvre element is the section/squad.

One has a stupid name, one has a stupid and vulgar name.

:)

I have to say, as much as I like TFL games, I have avoided TW&T because of its name. The joke, if it ever was one, is long over.

However, IABSM is a fun name, imo.

Since I am not a native English speaking person, the TW&T joke went completely lost on me, and still is…

Other than the scale (IABSM=company, TW&T=platoon), there is some difference in the role of "big men" and leaders: in IABSM, only the good ones matter; in TW&T, platoon and squad performance is affected by all leaders, bad ones included.

Adik
destofante.blogspot.com

Thanks guys

PS I like the name of TW&T I thought it was funny :)

Lol – only just worked it out and had TW&T since it was released.

Nice set of rules giving the right level of detail for my 28mm Normandy stuff.

Okay, in future I'll call our rules something like PanzerUberFuhrerBlitz, like so, so many others. The fact that this would be thinly veiled trading off the back of a reprehensible political regime that has an appeal due to sexy uniforms (or maybe worse for some) would be fine? Whereas "I Ain't Been Shot Mum" isn't?

Stick to cliches and you're laughing, is that what we're saying?

I was just being a . I don't have a problem with IABSM as a name. I even sort of get it (not being from the UK).

But TW&T I don't like. Call me a prude or an old fart, but that's the sort of humor that I expect from adolescents.

Bede

Fair comment.

I would say, however, that the rules do focus on the three areas of troops, weapons and tactics. Each nation in there has its capabilities broken down into exactly that, troops, weapons and tactics.

The emphasis is on the tactics, with each nation having an extensive section looking at exactly how they operated historically. The title totally reflects the make up of the rules.

To be honest that is why I like them – historical realism at a level of detail that gives fast play without losing that feeling of what it may very well have been like.

Thankyou the Lards!

Great Rules, IMHO you can't go wrong with ether of them.

TW&T: it does what it says on the tin. Or it says what you think of the authors?

I have to say, as much as I like TFL games, I have avoided TW&T because of its name.

The full title is shown on the cover and the abbreviation is used occasionally inside. If you like IABSM, I am sure you would enjoy TW&T so don't be put off by an acronym you wouldn't ever have to use.

I didn't mean to imply anything negative about the rules themselves, and the name wouldn't put me off from playing them if it were my cup of tea. Just commenting on the name is all.

Incidentally, I'm working on a victorian colonial version.
Mahdi TW&T.

You have to be from the north of England to understand the rules.

appen

Pat

But surely it concentrates on weapons, troops and tactics…

You also have to remember that in the UK, has come to mean a stupid person as opposed to it's original meaning of female naughty bits! It's used on prime time TV in the UK with no-one raising an eyebrow.

So to the authors, who are definitely from the UK, you can see that it's quite a mild joke, nothing really objectionable at all.

IIRC it comes from a germanic word meaning slit or cut, but started to be used as stupid person after some famous literary misuse in the 19th or 20th century. I'd have to Google it to be sure, and I don't dare on my office PC!

R

That is very true. Funnily enough I have just heard from a friend of mine in the US that TW&T is probably the second most objectionable word in the US after the C-word. It just doesn't carry that weight in the UK. As Vis Bellica says, you'll hear it on prime time TV.

I suppose it's a bit like calling some one a "daft bugg*r", in the UK this no longer has any connotations of sodomy, its just saying that person is daft.

We live and learn.

Vis Bellica is right – the word 'tw@t' is not regarded as offensive in the UK.

Another meaning is to 'hit' something. If you squish a fly for example, you might say 'I ted that fly'.

Me, I love the names the Lardies give their games. They stand out from the crowd and make you smile – what's not to like…..

Yanks, I would take the 'Twat' is not offensive in the UK advice with a pinch of Salt.

I know the USA has very different attitudes toward foul Language, but I would say 'Twat' is still not a word you would use when talking to the Queen.

'And as the massed bands of the Royal Marines play the main theme from 'Jade. A Musical Farrago' Her Majesty picks up the sacred sword Curtana ready to bestow the Knighthood of the order of St Kev on Mr Obama… oh, she has dropped it, the clumsy Twat'….

Pat

Why is it you can never find an international branding consultant when you really need one?

I must admit that I have never sold any rules to HM the Queen.

Perhaps now we know why.

It's about the same as calling someone a Richard Head*. Nowhere near as bad as calling them a Cnut, but it's not right to try and claim it isn't offensive at all.

*Had to go with that, as TMP certainly deems d-head to be offensive! Damn bleeper!

On the other hand Prince Philip has been known to use words from the works of Lard on occasion.
Personally I don't give a toss, too many sensitive s around these days!

Odd.. last time I was at the Palace she had a set of Iabsm.. they were blurry and Black and White though. You don't think…. Naaah.

Pat

LOL! Pat, you is a BAD man!

I Yam what I Yam.

Pat

Surely as head of the armed forces, if the Queen wanted to play with soldiers, she'd play with soldiers, as it were.

R

Careful VB – That's where the Sainted Dianna went off the rails.

Have I Got News for you did a skit where they played an image of her reviewing the Grenadier Guards, saying 'Had you, Had you, ooooh not had YOU'

That was before she did the 'why did the Princess cross the road?' thing for real.

Pat

Just further confirmation of the fact that the English and Americans are two peoples separated by a common language!

Just wait till the Back of Beyond supplement for Mud and Blood appears then…working title Arse End of Nowhere…

I must admit that I have never sold any rules to HM the Queen.

Perhaps now we know why.

Might explain why you haven't gotten a knighthood yet either!

Sir Too of Lard?

Just further confirmation of the fact that the English and Americans are two peoples separated by a common language!

I actually feel a little better! I posted something very similar, that I was turned off by the name and I got piled on for it. I see that I am not the only one. That being said, TFL cleared things up for me, in the UK, a very mild word used on TV, in the US a highly offensive word second only to the C-word.

Now that I know that, I think I am going to order Troops, Weapons and Tactics. I have been wanting to check them out and only my with dislike of the name had stopped me.

Lardies! Check your mail!

TW&T is pretty damn fun. Get a copy, you wont regret it

Typical IABSM game between two platoons and two companies a side. The basic manoeuvre element is the platoon. With TW&T a typical game is between two sections/squads and two platoons a side. The basic manoeuvre element is the section/squad.

I've been building WW2 micro armor stuff for IABSM, but haven't actually gotten it onto the board yet. I mainly chose 6mm for the price. I'm basing my squads on 2 1" round steel washers, 1/2 squad on each. The figures are painted, they're just waiting patiently in the queue to be based.

Ok, I got the one quote from above and the other quote from a seperate IABSM discussion. I'm a little confused. One is saying that the manoeuver element is a platoon for IABSM. And the other is basing in half squads.

Maybe I don't understand what a maneouver element is. My stands are based for my microarmor as one squad per base. Does IABSM only work if you are basing as half squads?

How are TW&T figures based? Squad, half squad or lower?

In both games, I assume one tank figure=1 tank?

How the figures are based doesn't really matter so much. All of my 15mm figures are based for Advanced Squad leader, 3 figures to a base for a full squad on 1" round bases.

If I remember correctly, there are 8 eight men to a squad and 3 squads equal a platoon and then 4 platoons equal a company. (Please remember that these numbers vary depending on the country they are from etc.)

The game works by the number of figures not how they are based. So any basing system will work.

I'm getting ready to run my first game of IABSM on the 25th.

Victor

ok, so if both games work off the number of figures…then what is the difference between the games.

IABSM is Company based so you are fielding company sized elements and command structure. So in this regard you could have 75 to a 100 figures on the table for a full company.

TW&T is platoon based so a smaller game in elements and command structure.

If the game works off the number of figures…And if you are putting 3 figures to a base to represent a squad, what happens if you decide to put 4 figures, or 2 figures or 5 figures on a base.
Companies are represented by platoons, which are represented by squads, which are made up of soldiers…so what does a figure represent in this game? In most any game the base is what counts, because it represents a fighting unit. Is the figure a fighting unit?

A figure represents 1 man in IABSM and TW&T. It doesn't matter how you base them as it is the number of figures on the bases that counts. I've never been a FOW player but I use BF kit with four figures per medium base as the basis of my 15mm forces for both games. Two of those make a section (squad if you hail from over the pond)at reduced field strength and Big Men (battlefield leaders in IABSM)are based individually. Other IABSM players base 15mm figures in twos. We also play both games in 20mm using figures based indvidually.

Both games are card driven and in IABSM cards relate to platoons, support weapons, Big Men and the like. The focus is on company level actions (one or more companies). When, say, a British platoon card comes up, the owning player can move the three sections plus platoon HQ etc so the platoon is the basic manoeuvre element. The sections can take different actions (eg one section might move while two give covering fire) but basically they activate at the same time.

The focus is different in TW&T and concentrates on platoon level actions (one or more platoons)with the sections/squads as the basic manoeuvre elements.

There are other differences which reflect the differing command levels and some extra detail(for example grenades are modelled in TW&T but abstracted in IABSM, and all section/platoon leaders are modelled in TW&T whereas only Big Men appear in IABSM)but the games use basically similar mechanics.

We play IABSM more than TW&T, largely because we have table space and enough models to make varied scenarios, but they are both great designs.

thanks much !

What will the differences between TW&T and M&B WWII be?

What will the differences between TW&T and M&B WWII be?

If I were you I'd ask that question on the toofatlardies Yahoo Group.

Why? Did I break some unwritten rule buy asking it here? The thread was about TFL game compairsion was it not? If I did break some rule than I didnt mean to. Was just asking.

Why? Did I break some unwritten rule buy asking it here? The thread was about TFL game compairsion was it not? If I did break some rule than I didnt mean to. Was just asking.

Haa, cracks me up. No I don't think you broke any rules, but your question reminds me of that bit about getting cut off on the FOW forum for mentioning "old Glory". Nice spin the guy put on it….um should maybe run for office.