"Fryntal ~ 6mm Sci/FF rules" Topic

Hi folks, rules are tha biacth. Always something to annoy you.
And we like to be annoyed, right? o.O

So here's an attempt to get the old pump going.
Main focus is fast flowing playability.

Yes, there's heaps not there. But rules aren't bigger than this, until you start adding bizarre things like people get to get out of their APC etc.

My question to you gents(?!) is… What's not and what is?

PDF link

?: What kind of dice does the game use?
?: Are there two kinds of suppression markers: small and big, representing 1 point of suppression: small, and 5 points of suppression: big?
?: Is Initiative rolled for each unit, each formation, or each player?
?: How many models/figures are in a formation?
?: "If a unit has more SM than units" seems like an illogical loop.
?: Do units/models that are unsuccessful in activating get to act in the end phase? And in what order?
?: Does cover modify saves?
?: How does close combat work?
?: I don't understand this at all: "Intercept; if a formation can't get a shot at a target more than at a specific part of it's movement, then it may intercept
that movement and fire when it can."

Spell and grammar check would aid understandability. If English is your second language, then I suggest you avoid attempting terms like "biacth."

"What's not and what is?"

What's not and what is what?

Is this a French game?

"Is this a French game?"

Well the "rules" (such as they are) in the PDF link the OP provided are apparently in English. Well the words are English … Although having tried to read and understand them, I find them slightly more obtuse than the words of Phil Barker!

If the OP would be kind enough to answer Acharnement's questions(or even my subsequent one) we might have some idea of where he is trying to go …

Incidentally, I have absolutely no idea what a "biacth" is!!

The Biacth is a large and flatulent herbivore found mainly on the southern continent of Fnargg, the inner moon of Anthrax IV.
Biacth are herd animals, dim-witted and slow but delicious when casseroled with fresh snargle-fruit.

Thanks for that explanation, Jon!

Roight, that was a typo.

Never mind.

*pulled*

And "roight" above was a pun.

That was quick…
I thought the feedback was reasonable;
Was feedbacknot what you wanted?

Erik M, drop me an e-mail through my 6mm website if you want.

angelbarracks.co.uk

Michael.

I believe he mis-spelled "bee-atch" (the phonetic spelling).

Not sure how it is listed in the dictionary, or if it has made it in yet.

I believe the accepted spelling is "beyotch"
link

I see.

Would never have guessed the "yo", but it does make sense now.

Let me put it this way, if a typo of a non-standard expression is what catch your attention then I believe there's not much use of eventual feed-back from you.

Thanks Jon, always wondered. ;)

Acharnement, thanks for the input, it was helpful.

"Is this a French game?"

If so, I surrender !

Oh, I dunno. I'd be interested, Erik.

Ok, I got a fair bit miffed there. Sorry.

So, back up with a few corrections of the more glaring typo's etc.

PDF link

Erik:
?: Turn sequence: If the players alternate formation activation and one player finishes alternating all his formations, then does the player with remaining unactivated formations get to act with all those formations?
?: What does "open order counter" mean?

?: I don't understand how "roight" is a pun. Perhaps you mean a palindrome?

I am all in favor of simple systems but the framework must be solid. I look forward to your responses.

How to handle "excess" activations is still to be decided. Leave it at "continue activating" till all are done for now.

Strike "open".

It was a pun towards biatch.

"It was a pun towards biatch."

Then I don't think you understand what a pun is:
"A pun, or paronomasia, is a form of word play that deliberately exploits ambiguity between similar-sounding words for humorous or rhetorical effect."

An example:
Did you hear about the guy who got hit in the head with a can of soda? He was lucky it was a soft drink.

"Acharnement, thanks for the input, it was helpful."

If his comments were helpful, how about answering his questions?

Erik;

I think the Idea of a one page rules is very good,
and has some solid precedent;
link
I'll take a look & comment when I have some time-

Also;
in addition to Angelbarracks offer to host,
you should post to the 6mm SF_yahoo group
link
Yes; it's a yahoo_group, but directly relevant-

Erik,

Take care of your initial posts; your real question was lost in the deserved critical mayhem that followed. You too will be mocking others when we have you properly broken in. This group is a bit hard sometimes on grammar, spelling, etc., but if it doesn't kill you it will make you stronger.

Question about this passage: "shots are taken in groups, saves are taken in groups, casualties are taken at the owner's discretion…"

Does each figure have to draw line of sight to the enemy it is targeting? If any one member of the firing group can see any one member of the target group, does the whole group get to fire?

I'm still looking at the rules. I like the idea of one-page rules when possible.

Jim

Hi Eric,

I think you have some solid concepts here. One thing about alternating formations is that if you fight a battle where there are uneven formations per side (I have 5 and you have 3 for example) one side gets 2 free moves so to speak. This sometimes results in the smaller side being hammered hard. One way to fix this is to have assigned initiative dice. 1 per formation. You move/shoot with formations in initiative order. You may assign individual dice any way you want.

I don't like the -1 for shooting first before any moves. I do like the +1 for waiting until the very end.

The language is a bit tough to understand. I will read through it again and see if there is anything I am missing.

John

A few more questions:

?: When are the movement bonuses and penalties (+/-d6") rolled for? After committing to a move, or before?

?: The distance a unit can be from a command unit is 4", but if there is no command unit, the maximum distance between units is 6"…so you can spread your troops out more if there is no command unit?

?: If a unit is found to be more than 6" away from the nearest friendly unit perhaps because other units have been destroyed, then must that unit spend its next activation moving within 6" of the nearest unit?

?: If units are outside command radius (my term) or outside formation coherency, is there any penalty for this, or are they free to act as normal?

?: If the command/middlemost unit is out of LOS, is the range between the shooting and the target unit measured, or is the range still measured between command/middlemost units? – or are opposing units, which could be within an inch of each other, out of range because their command/middlemost units are out of range?

?: With the firing range examples given (8"), and command radius (4")/unit coherency (6") rules, there could be cases where opposing formations actually have units intermingling but still be out of range because the command/middlemost units are out of range. How would you resolve this?

?: Does a "unit" mean a group of models, like 3 vehicles, or a platoon of foot soldiers? Or does it mean single vehicles or single soldiers?

?: The terms "any" and "all" in the firing and moving modifiers section seem to imply that units can make part of their movement and or fire then move or fire, then complete the remaining part of their move or fire. Is this intentional or must units (formations) complete all their firing or movement before going on to move or fire?

?: Is the "move before any fire" bonus of d6" the same for foot and vehicle units? I wonder that a Private with a move of 4" could get a bonus of more than its normal movement by choosing this option.

?: The 4 situations of move and fire modifiers seem to in fact be 2 situation, (move-fire or fire-move). Perhaps these could be written together to be more clear.

?: What does the "cannon" note for MBT's signify?

?: I am guessing the APC note of "transport" mean it can carry other units- (foot troops?) so does this mean 2 soldiers, or 2 units? Or bases like in Epic 40K/Armageddon?

?: Where are the rules for transporting units? Such as when units can mount/dismount, movement penalties and/or bonuses?

?: What happens to units mounted in transports if the transports are destroyed?

Well, I guess that was more than a "few" questions. I hope these questions will help to clarify your rules.
Sorry if any of these areas fall into the realm of "bizarre things. Looking forward to your responses.
BTW- What is a 'fryntal?'

So…
So far I'm looking at the system itself. I'm not really concerned with how dice are rolled and how stats look.
So take numbers etc with a pinch o' salt.

Questions and concernes from above handled here: PDF link

Thanks for the input so far.

acarhj->

1 per formation. You move/shoot with formations in initiative order. You may assign individual dice any way you want.

Thats is an interesting mechanic I've not seen before;
what systems (if any) use it?

Erik: What -is-a 'fryntal'?
I assume its Swedish? It doesn't seem to translate..?
"Full Fryntal" could be Punny,
if 'Fryntal' is an actual word and not a proper or created name-

{Edit}
I see its answered in the PDF->

It's from the Swedish word "fryntlig" which is approx "jovial"
and how I want a game to be played.

So: " Full Fryntal " is a Punny, if arcane, english malopropism
(from 'full frontal' referring to cinema nudity & cliche Swedish reputation…)

Thats is an interesting mechanic I've not seen before;
what systems (if any) use it?

It actually comes from Arcane Warfare Excel (Jerboa Wargames). It is probably one of the best uses of an initiative system I have ever seen. And yet, so simple.

Erik did some good work on these rules …

Thanks L4. :D

"One way to fix this is to have assigned initiative dice. 1 per formation. You move/shoot with formations in initiative order. You may assign individual dice any way you want."

I was actually toying with a numbered orders system, where you decided in what order your orders where to be done, and that way partly remove the "popcorn effect" of many (smaller) activations swamping larger (but fewer) formations.

"One way to fix this is to have assigned initiative dice. 1 per formation. You move/shoot with formations in initiative order. You may assign individual dice any way you want."

I dont quite get this. The dice determine initiative for a specific formation. So far so good. But then what is the assignment of the dice for?

I was actually toying with a numbered orders system, where you decided in what order your orders where to be done, and that way partly remove the "popcorn effect" of many (smaller) activations swamping larger (but fewer) formations.

This sounds an interesting mechanic, but shouldnt the smaller activations have an advantage against less flexible larger formations. The smaller formations might be disadvantaged when absorbing losses/subject to suppression markers?

The first part I have no idea about. It wasn't from me.

Regarding many small having an advantage over few large I'd say the opposite.
The fewer orders you have to issue, the better you can get them to actually work.

If we look at current Epic as an example it gets really backwards. Those with high propability to get their orders through also have most activation (eg space marine and eldar) While those that (nominally) have few activations have trouble getting even them through (eg imperial guard and orks).
But I don't like comparing like that, as I'm biased.
And there's still more activations as such, just not un-opposed.

Any more thoughts?
Are the ideas viable?

"One way to fix this is to have assigned initiative dice. 1 per formation. You move/shoot with formations in initiative order. You may assign individual dice any way you want."

In answer to my own question, on further consideration, it would seem the dice arent tied to a formation but allocated to them after the roll. My misunderstanding. Sounds like a good idea.

Yes probably, but that was somewhere else… ;)

Fryntal, thoughts on Fryntal?