Kealios | 23 Feb 2013 9:14 p.m. PST |
I wrote a bit on my blog about my desires and likes in the existing 6mm sci-fi realm right now. I posted this on TacCom also. Not sure why I'm posting it here, though I suppose I am hoping to spark some conversation on it. It might get me nothing but heaps of derision, but so be it. My essay is here: link |
John Leahy | 23 Feb 2013 10:44 p.m. PST |
Interesting read. I agree with some of your thoughts. Especially about EA. It really is an excellent set of rules. I wish it did have a DIY system. One thing were I disagree with you is about FWC/Warmaster activation. I am generally a big fan of chaos in my rules. I am completely convinced based on 40+ years of reading various military accounts of warfare that units/men/etc. simply will NOT always perform as you wish. Why did one Regiment not act at all in a battle when it could have changed the outcome? You read about this in 100's of books. Players rarely make those kind of mistakes with their godlike view of the table. So, rules should allow for small chances for things like this to occur. Even alternating actions is just a mini IGOUGO, IMHO. I am a fan of the Warmaster, Field of Battle, Black Powder type activation system. I believe that they better reflect (to the degree any rules set can) friction in combat. Now, onwards to rule sets. I am also in the search for a larger scale set as you. I own EA, Iron Cow, Prophecy of War, Strike Legion Planetary OPS, Panzer 8's rule set, Ogre Miniature rules, Battletech Quickstrike, Wardogs and Sol Prime. Each bring something interesting to the table. My main points of interest are to be able to put a LOT of toys on the table. Iron Cow with the 2103 supplement, Prophecy of War and Quickstrike all can do that. I am sorting through them now. I also will take another look at Sol Prime. Thanks, John |
earthad | 23 Feb 2013 11:17 p.m. PST |
interesting reading and i agree on most points. Would recommend hammer slammers as i feel it works perfectly in 6mm (shame more people don't play in 6mm). My favourite followed by dirtside, iron cow. does lack options though. i would like some more armies stats
. |
Calico Bill | 23 Feb 2013 11:28 p.m. PST |
I pretty much agree with you Kealios. My"solution" was just to stick with Epic Armageddon. I've yet to find its equal. While like you, I'd love to have an "army builder" or even points system, for EA I can understand why this is almost impossible. A tank with the same guns & armor will be different points due to activation levels and chance of going first. And of course, blast markers is a concept I wish all games had! While I usually agree with John L, I also can't stand IGO-UGO. I have played all the systems he's mentioned, and all do have something unique, but at the end of the day I find EA covers most army types. So here I'll stay. |
Kealios | 24 Feb 2013 12:35 a.m. PST |
You know what most of my friends have objected to in EA? How "fast" the units move, and that Turn 3 and 4 can turn into a land-grab race. To me, thats what I love about it. I have a son who turns 6 in a week, and I've been teaching him chess. I always ask him, "What am I threatening with that move?" and "What can you capture on your turn?" Sometimes he starts pointing and guessing, but like I tell him, "There are no secrets in chess. Don't guess. Look and tell me the answer." He usually gets it right
and even in Epic, you and I both can see the objectives on the table, know what we each need to win, and you can plan your defense accordingly. I know that chaos reigns on the battlefield, and regarding rulesets, "To each their own!" I just cannot stand the Warmaster Command system
but maybe I just need to get over it
and back to Epic :) Thanks for reading! |
John Leahy | 24 Feb 2013 1:01 a.m. PST |
I don't think the Warmaster system is the end all for Activations. I think if I have to choose a set that allows me to do exactly as I please when I want to and the only variable is how I roll vs my opponent. I find that to be a dice rolling contest. There are various ways to reflect friction/chaos. Cards, Crossfire style, activation/numbers and more. I am no fan of IGOUGO. I am a fan of Epic A. Best set they have released for their 6mm game. I simply cannot drum up any interest locally for the rules. It's DOA here. That leaves me with the other options I mentioned. Thanks, John |
Angel Barracks | 24 Feb 2013 3:05 a.m. PST |
I wanted to move my units as I saw fit, and have them fail to accomplish their shooting, or armor saves, or Morale Checks, but not just to do something! Epic had Activation Rolls, but if you failed the roll, the unit could still do something, just maybe not exactly what you wanted, or maybe it would just suffer a penalty as well as the blast marker. And more importantly, failing an activation roll didn't end your turn. This goes back to my dislike of IGOUGO, but I just don't fancy games that don't allow me to marshal my forces how I want I thought like that too for a long while. Then I started solo games and the certainty made it almost impossible to play. Having units that fail to do the desired thing at the desired time (which imo is more realistic than infalliable units) makes a game good for solo play.
I think if I have to choose a set that allows me to do exactly as I please when I want to and the only variable is how I roll vs my opponent. I find that to be a dice rolling contest. I agree, having to come up with soloutions to problems and being able to take advantage of faltering enemy troops is more about playing general than just seeing who can roll the highest. It requires a different approach, which may or may not be what you want, but for me is more fun. Don't get me wrong, back in the day I had an almost unbeaten IG army. It was excellent fun and some legendary games were had. I never played many games but the last tally was around 30 wins and 4 losses for me. I think though that in all fairness it was because I had the mosty money and bought the deadliest toys. NOT down to any great skill on the day.
I think I had this:
(card buildings with plastic roofs?)
and this:
With the cool polystyrene buildings.
Those were good days. I would like to see my old army again but I don't think I would want to play a game though. I much prefer 6mm sci-fi at skirmish level these days. |
freewargamesrules | 24 Feb 2013 3:40 a.m. PST |
I didn't take to EA, I much preferred the original Space Marine game which we found was the best of the "Epic" scale rules by GW. If you can't find your ultimate rules then the answer is to write your own or take what you like from each ruleset and bolt then together. What you will find its what you like in a game is often different to what your friends like in a game. Look at all the arguments on TMP about which is the best ruleset. This best ruleset doesn't exist. I enjoy what I enjoy and if none else likes what I do I don't care. I and my opponent enjoy it. Its about playing a game and enjoying it. That's it. Good luck with your quest. |
laager50 | 24 Feb 2013 5:50 a.m. PST |
Hi read your blog. Sorry to say i don't understand your lack of interest in FWC. If you think that your units should do everything you want when you want, then you don't understand war. No general would ever know if a unit would do as he wanted or do something different. Maybe the officer missunderstood his orders (charge of the light brigade) or the order never got to him. You are left with playing a game of highest dice wins and I can't see the point of that. The thing with the stat lines is as you say nit picking, just write out you own list, which you would have to do if writing up your own army. Mick |
John Leahy | 24 Feb 2013 7:00 a.m. PST |
Space Marine was fun. We played the heck out of it and ran massive battles. We fielded every possible army at various times. There were a lot of us playing. It was the rules heyday. Things went on like this till they brought out Epic. That killed the game locally. Our problem with Space Marine/Titan legions was that there were so many little extra army specific rules that turns would easily take an hour or more. I enjoy my memories. But Epic Armageddon is much faster playing and simply a cleaner set IMHO. I am also a fan of the blast markers. Thanks, John |
Steve W | 24 Feb 2013 10:57 a.m. PST |
I like the EA rules, but sold most of my Epic stuff years ago, how hard would it be to stat up lists to go with other manufacturers?
Or has it already been done? |
Big Ian | 24 Feb 2013 11:22 a.m. PST |
I like your ramblings, a jumbled thought much the same way as I have been thinking recently. I have just dug out my copy of EA as I found lots of my old epic stuff in a shoe box and thought way not. Spacemarine was my first ever wargames rule set which I got for my 10 birthday. (Many many years ago now) I have recently been trying to get hold of old, out of print rules, and managed to get Hellfire, awesome set of rules. I have also been lucky to get a copy of Crossfire, although not Scifi by any means such an elegant set of rules which can easily be adapted. Which many of the none IGUO systems have a take on. After all that EA are a great set of rules and the blast marker concept is a good idea, again taken from Crossfire, but it plays well. Just need some kind of stat unit maker formula. |
Kealios | 24 Feb 2013 11:28 a.m. PST |
@Freewargamesrules, you have hit the nail on the head, in all regards. No one ever agrees on what they want from a set of rules, and this discussion actually came about because of a new ruleset being contemplated/slowly being worked on. To the responses that I dont know how war works, well, it is true, I have never been in war nor in the military, but I come from a long line of military officers and have read and studied as much as most of us hobbyists. I DO understand a lot about war
but this is the part of the debate where "realism vs playability" comes in. Maybe I _do_ like dicefests. Thats an interesting point of perspective for me to contemplate. I get how having a solo game is improved by unpredictability, and this is why the Two Hour Wargames products are so popular. It isnt what I am looking for, but maybe I'll just try to stop being so obstinate and give FWC another shot :) |
John Leahy | 24 Feb 2013 2:10 p.m. PST |
Kealios, I understand some of your concerns about FWC. I am not a fan of units not having an anti- vehicle firepower as well as a anti-infantry one. That makes no sense to me. I also am not sure I like the every stand fires at one stand to kill it. I do like the activation system. But just these two things make it much lower on my desire to play regularly list. Thanks, John |
Steve W | 24 Feb 2013 2:12 p.m. PST |
With FWC you can always make up house rules as people do for BKC and CWC
such as units always get at least one action per turn if they fail and they are -1 for everything that turn and aren't allowed to try for a 2nd action |
Kealios | 24 Feb 2013 9:18 p.m. PST |
Steve W, if you have no GW models but want to use other manufacturers, just buy what you want and proxy for the list you are using. There are a few Epic lists out there for other manufacturer's stuff, but most of the time things are just proxied. |
Rothgar | 25 Feb 2013 8:15 a.m. PST |
Is there any chance of getting to see those original Epic rules? |
javelin98 | 25 Feb 2013 9:37 a.m. PST |
I have a long-dormant project tucked away somewhere on my hard drive where I began adapting the Starmada ruleset for 6mm sci-fi ground combat (called, oh-so-originally, "Starmada: Ground Assault"). I like the Starmada system for starship combat and I can't but think that it could be quite successful on the ground, too. |
Kealios | 25 Feb 2013 8:31 p.m. PST |
Hey Javelin
assuming its your Shapeway store Ive been drooling over the past few days, man, I'd love to see something along those lines :) |
Samulus | 26 Feb 2013 3:47 p.m. PST |
FWC has flaws – as other have mentioned, just change it to suit, its not that hard. Give units one activation a turn minimum with some negative modifiers and write some simple damage allocation rules. |
stenicplus | 27 Feb 2013 6:51 a.m. PST |
Can't read the essay as blogs are blocked at work, I will do later so some of what I say may already have been acknowledged in the essay, apologies if I'm going over acknowledged ground. But picking up on FWC command activation system
It must be remembered that stands can always act on initiative if the enemy are in initiative range. This, subject to army lists, may make it harder to 'order' them in the command phase but they can perform an action when under potential threat. Another consideration is the commander to units ratio. I suspect most players actually underestimate the number of commanders required and trust that fewer commanders will manage and prefer to stock up on troops. This is fine for small compact elite armies but not so good otherwise. Remember also troops can be ordered by another commander if the first order they were given fails. An order that does not get through is not an order, so provided a stand has not already had an order then commanders can keep attempting to order said stand. Granted it gets riskier but it's an option. Recon is also a valuable tool to increase the nearest commander's chances of success. 'Nearest' is an important safety tip, often recon are not in the right place to report the the commander you'd planned. This means you have to consider movement of both commander and recon when it's their respective turn. And finally commanders can be upgraded to increase their CV by 1 for double their cost. An option not to be sniffed at when you have cheap commnaders and cheap troops such as Orcs In Space. Often a better option than extra recon when you have expensive recon. |
Kealios | 27 Feb 2013 8:37 a.m. PST |
All good points. I actually was reading FWC again last night, and hope to force myself to get a game of it in the next week or so, to give it another honest try. I thought, if my memory serves, that failing an order ends your turn? |
Angel Barracks | 27 Feb 2013 8:52 a.m. PST |
A gamer with no game is a most sad thing. I hope that whatever you end up doing you have a game, and that it is a good game. Michael.
|
stenicplus | 27 Feb 2013 10:11 a.m. PST |
@ Kealios
I thought, if my memory serves, that failing an order ends your turn? Yes but only if it is the CO's order, or in other words your top commander. HQs, FAOs and FACs just fail and you move on to the next of choice commander. Most players quickly learn to do the CO last |
(Jake Collins of NZ 2) | 27 Feb 2013 12:26 p.m. PST |
I agree with stenicplus on the importance of getting the right HQ to unit ratio. You should have one HQ for every 6-8 units in my experience. Then use your CO as a last resort super-HQ to have another go at getting orders through to units that failed to receive any at the very end of the turn. Also, remember that your CV re-sets if you switch to a new group of units with an HQ that hasn't failed. You just can't include any units you've already ordered. |
Andy Skinner | 27 Feb 2013 8:50 p.m. PST |
I'm one of the few who really liked Epic 40K. It had a good level of abstraction for me. FWC has a bit too much (all kinds of fire are the same, I think, just different amounts of it), and didn't seem to be any bigger in terms of models. But I did tweak Epic 40K a lot. The Titan Project was something the old epic mailing list was working on, to give a few more choices there. And I didn't care that much for detachment building. The groups didn't make that much sense sometimes. Can Epic A come to the same size of game? My impression (haven't played sense playtesting) was that it had too much detail in the wrong place for me. Too many kinds of land speeders, but Titans can only fire at one target, for example. Maybe I should try again. I've threatened many times to write my own with 6" hexes, trying to make things like moving fast. But the hard part of game rules is the game part. When my son and I tried it out, it seemed pretty repetitive. Some games have more interest, tension, and excitement than others. I should be willing to give up lots of the little ideas I have for a game that's really _fun_. andy |
Mithmee | 28 Feb 2013 2:19 p.m. PST |
"And of course, blast markers is a concept I wish all games had!" I am not one who likes the Blast Marker concept. I also hate IGOUGO and while I have played alot of Space Marine Epic I did not like the "First Fire" aspect of it. Since because taking certain armies Eldar against Imperial Guard you were lucky if the IG player didn't win the game by turn two. As for EA the 8-12 units on the table is not "EPIC" for me. I want to see lots of figures on the table top and not this.
That is not Epic. So I am in the process of rebasing my Epic stuff so that I will be similiar to this.
Each base is a company and they would have a number of hits before they are destroyed. I also do not like using d6's and want to use d20's since that range of of results is far greater. Also will use percent dice (two different colored d10's) for morale testing. Also only a very few units would ever get a save since at this scale they should not be any saves. Oh and for activation I like using a Card system. This way you will never know what is coming up next and it could be that unit you really wanted to move before it got stuck in close combat might have been a tad slow. |
Kealios | 28 Feb 2013 5:27 p.m. PST |
Oh, to have a forum that allowed me to jump to the next unread post :( @Andy: I dont feel Epic over-complicates ANYTHING, personally. Yes, there are a ton of Land Speeder variants, but those differ from army list to list, and a lot of it is flavor. As to the Titan only firing at "one target", it is true
but all formations (of which the Titan is a formation of itself) fire at other formations
and if you have Anti-Tank and Anti-Infantry weapons in the same formation (or Titan), then picking a target that lets you roll all those dice is part of the decision process! @Mithmee, I find it humorous that you choose an undersized army to make your point. That Space Marine army is 7 formations, and that is also an expensive army to play. Every game has their "small groups of elite troops", "average sized armies", and "masses of inferior troops", and E:A is no different. Flipping through the Battle Reports section of TacCom at link will give you a variety of reports with all sized battles. Of course, the caveat in ANY game system is, play as big as you want! The 3k points average in E:A is only a suggestion, and it scales nicely up to at least 5k. In fairness, Ive been rereading FWC and am preparing a game soon with a friend. Im actually looking forward to it, but like Strike Legion, it seems like it handles slightly smaller games than what I consider E:A able to do. Regardless, I feel some life in me
:) |
Mithmee | 28 Feb 2013 10:56 p.m. PST |
Well it is kinda of hard to find good set of pictures since GW kill off EPIC nearly 15 years ago. But I use to get together with several gaming buddies and we would put 25000-30000 points per side back under the original Epic game. Very big battles. I also learned to take piloting skills for my Eldar Titans since the quickest way to kill them was to put a barrage onto them. Had a game where I had four and the guy next to me also had four. By the end of the first turn his were all destroyed and I had one that had a cracked reactor. Piloting skills were worth the cost. EPIC should be just that. I.E. big battles with lots of units. |
Kealios | 28 Feb 2013 11:56 p.m. PST |
link is 50k points (25k-ish per side?) link has 20k per side PDF link is in German, but it shows 13k vs 10k. All in all, you get what you put into it. E:A can clearly handle large scale battles. The 3k or 4k-per side games are just simple 2-3 hours per game
|
The Real Chris | 01 Mar 2013 6:05 a.m. PST |
For me the real killer rule from Epic and one I love above all others is the blast marker rule. By far my favourite morale system. It achieves so many things. First it make it possible for weight of fire to have an effect. I have fond memories of breaking formations approaching my lines through concentrated machine gun fire. It riles many people that their tanks can get driven off by infantry weapons, but this is abstract, they will have a few laws in the mix, not enough to be dangerous but enough to worry those famously shy tankers who can get worried by unarmed infantry being among them! And of course I shouldn't say break. It as in fact to become combat ineffective and it builds to a point where the unit is no longer much use. I think a lot of players have problems getting their head round the broken units still being under the players control, typically try to explain to them that what they think of routing is happening on a smaller scale, a section by section basis, and when a formation does that the Epic simulated way is them being removed from the games they aren't coming back in the timeframe of the battle. Note a house rule I've often used from 1st edition is when certain infantry units (ones in a scenario that either needed help or where the enemy was being encouraaged to press the attack) rally they can for every two blast markers that would have been removed permanently put in the box one 'dead' unit and put another dead unit back onto the field. So for example I roll a 5, +1 for leader, have 4 dead units and 4 blast markers for the company. I can take those 4 units, discard 2 from the game and return the other two to the table and also remove 2 blast markers. Trying to represent disrupted squads reforming and getting back in the fight. And of course the game has many tweaks to the system to show different army and racial abilities. I also love the way it affected firing, while the effects on movement and assault were different, firing was the real loss to a formation, again something some players had problem with as I think they had problems moving from a 40k bloke with a gun idea to the Epic scale where it was really crew served equivalents that did most of the firing. It was the assaults that those small arms were represented. Anyway I could go on. Sadly I had to drop out of stuff due to work restrictions and when I looked everything back up I found GW had come down hard on the community that was supporting it, especially those who were making 6mm models and that has left such a bad taste in my mouth I find it hard to re-engage. |
Andy Skinner | 01 Mar 2013 7:18 a.m. PST |
@Kealios While I've heard those thoughts, it it more of a subjective thing to me. Specific varieties for miniatures I can't tell apart while standing don't say "flavor" to me, but "stuff I have to remember". And the issue of Titans is also subjective. Just not a limitation I wanted to have. One thing I felt (again subjective), and why I was looking at hex rules, was that there was a lot of measuring and worrying about placing specific miniatures. I found I was measuring move distances, considering firing distances, watching spacing compared to barrage templates, looking at which figures had LoS from behind what terrain objects, thinking about what was closer to the enemy, etc. It felt too picky for tiny figures. I care about most of those issues, but want to care at a less detailed level. :) andy |
The Real Chris | 01 Mar 2013 9:18 a.m. PST |
Andy – Yes, there are two schools of thought for Epic, one that wants a land speeder with a heavy bolter rather than a multi melta in the Space Shark list as opposed to the MM in the Salamander list. And so on. Others want a land speeder is a land speeder is a land speeder. One explanation is there are two space marine games. The first detailed what weapon the sergeant in a squad carried. The second that replaced it had far less detail using special rules to differentiate. (And more focus on war engines that could target multiple things, had special rules etc.) Then of course the Epic 40k version had completely abstracted rules dealing with formation level effect. That change combined with the basing change killed it. The latest version is an attempt to find middle ground, so some complexity in stat lines, some special rules, some attempt to deal with things at a detachment level. I concur on the measuring but that happens with any game that allows pre-measuring and uses template weapons. You count hex's as well, it just doesn't take as long! Mithmee – yes epic is a battalion rather than regimental game. It comes down to their being a practical limit of bases you can handle in a skirmish layout in an evening (I reckon it tends to peak at around a hundred). Other games do get round this by indeed what you are doing having multiple units to a base (baccus's range is designed to do so) and before I left the UK I had started to base my orcs with a 'crowd' on a base rather than the regimented 5. But as has been pointed out you did pick an elite army – they could well be facing 500 men spread across 100 bases. And indeed could beat them without having to kill them all. So that formation of 3 light transports and 6 units of marines is the same points as 20 stands of poorly equipped siege infantry. I think Epic is the only game that has allowed me to see elite troops beat horde armies in a way that doesn't seem unfair to the horde (its no good sir, our flashlights do nothing etc). Saying that I would be interested in a half way house between individual models and larger stands, approached from a skirmish perspective. So my guard squad would have its chimera transport and 3 bases of 4 man fire teams, one with the heavy weapon, one with the special weapon and one command stand with the sergeant and differences between them, played at a company level. Would be a nice compact version of the big 28mm company level games that I could play until my eyesight failed me. With a lot of land speeder variants :) I guess I do have a problem with the system in that as unit stats are written it can be hard to balance things in a way that makes sense within the game universe. So we would all love to degrade say Imperial guard firepower a bit and use numbers to make up for it, but the modifiers on a d6 based system have stark effects. It is hard to make small changes compared to a d10/12/100 based set up. And numbers have other effects in assaults that can be hard to deal with. So not perfect, but overll the most fun I have had with small tanks over 2-3 hours in an evening. Just very hard to take to different settings, especially if changing the ratio of stands involved. |
Mithmee | 01 Mar 2013 1:53 p.m. PST |
Kealios, I saw that 50000 points and quite frankly either side would have barely made 5000-6000 points back in the old days of Epic. Chris, You are right you want a set of rules that can get you an out come in 2-4 hours and not have that be only one turn. That is why I like what Din of Battle has done with his basing (that is the 2nd picture that I posted). Each base is a company and at that level you really don't care about the weapons that the company has unless they are an Assault Company or a Heavy Weapons company. So that cuts down on the number of charts. Also with this scale there are no saves except for special units or a few ultra-elite units. Cuts down on the die rolling. Din uses a three hit per base while I favor 10 hits per company base. I also like the d20 approach: Example with you had an Imperial Guard unit shooting they would need a 15 or greater to hit or a 30% chance which is realistic. For Space Marines they would need a 12 or greater of around a 45% chance. Also each unit would have a number of dice per unit when rolling to hit and this would be determine by the number of hits remaining in the unit. Take the Imperial Guard unit noted above and at a full 10 hits they would get four dice or one dice for every three hits which are round up. So if they take one hit they would have three dice. For melee it would be one dice for every two hits remaining. Melee is far more brutal than getting shot at. |
Andy Skinner | 01 Mar 2013 2:38 p.m. PST |
The time it takes to move and measure a lot of units is another of the 4" or 6" hex motivations. Rather than one or a small number of units per figure, a whole detachment might fit. I kept telling myself that I'd just pick 'em up and put 'em down. While it did simplify that, hexes add other artifacts. Maybe I'll try again. If my terrain were already 4" hex (I've got Geo-Hex), I'd persevere. I really should try EA again. There is an active group in New England, who send a lot of email. Really, that is more important than how I feel about rule details. :) I am having fun listening about different rules I've been interested in. andy |
Kealios | 01 Mar 2013 7:44 p.m. PST |
If I can be persuaded to try FWC after making some of the comments I did about it in my blog, others can (and should) be persuaded to give other rulesets a try as well. Andy, you NAILED it: having an active community trumps personal likes and dislikes if you like the people and have no other alternatives. However, we can keep dreaming that the "next best thing" is just around the corner (and maybe it is
the guys with Polyversal keep hinting that sneak peaks are just a bit away
)! |
The Real Chris | 01 Mar 2013 8:08 p.m. PST |
Din uses a three hit per base while I favour 10 hits per company base. >>>>>>>>>>>. In general I dislike wound counters as fiddly. Ogre I remember had you removing infantry figures from the base. Though of course it is far more work to have removable models! I generally would only go to platoon bases – any bigger and you start to wonder why the recon company has the same ground coverage as all the others. It also doesn't let you show differing company sizes well. Also for such games I tend to only want three states – alive, suppressed, dead. Record keeping 10 hits on them? Using d20's gives you a chance to do the attack/defence value mechanic which covers quality, morale cohesion, heavy armour etc Melee is far more brutal than getting shot at. >>>>>>>>>>> I do really like the relatively few casualties caused in Epic assaults, its the losing and running that does for you
. |
Bunny Coleman | 03 Mar 2013 9:21 a.m. PST |
Great thread! I used to love Epic and remember having some very large battles, alas that is all in the past and most of my Epic has gone
..and I have quite a lot! I am looking for a good set of 6mm Sci Fi rules, I have FWC and Iron Cow but I like big games at Battalion Battlegroup level but still with a 1 to 1 ratio and one that deals with combined arms air ops, Hope people keep adding to this threat. Thanks Bunny |
Rothgar | 04 Mar 2013 7:48 a.m. PST |
Have you looked at Baccus' Command Horizon rules yet? They are free. They may offer more of what you are looking for. They may need a bit of tweaking, but I had plenty of fun playing. I had everything based up in companies, but I'm re-basing for rules like Epic/FWC or my own rules. I'll make sabots if I ever need company bases again. |
Tim White | 03 May 2013 3:34 p.m. PST |
@Kealios Have you given FWC another shot? I'm contemplating getting into 6mm and seriously considering FWC. -Tim |
Kealios | 03 May 2013 10:06 p.m. PST |
I havent. I had a friend come down from out of town to play, and we got sidetracked by trying to come up with our own rules :P Then I got sidetracked by Mayhem and the wonderfulness of 10mm fantasy. THEN I got sidetracked by going back to my own ruleset
and then thinking that since Strike Legion has such a robust build-your-own system, that maybe I should just monkey with the rules to speed things up. And then my head exploded. So I just played more Mechwarrior Online. My gaming life sucks :P (but I am still eager to try FWC
one day
) |
Tim White | 04 May 2013 2:39 p.m. PST |
Lol, so many games, so little time
I'd say go for it with writing your own rules. I've started writing two different sets of rules. Never really finished them to the stage that we were ready to rock with them (doing balanced point values for "design your own units" is a bit tough) – but it made me figure out exactly what I was looking for in a game, and let me discover two games that met my needs (for 28mm and space battles that is – not 6mm). I played EpicA a bit – but I too want to do design my own units – mostly for a space campaign where we also do ground invasions – so important to have something that can keep it generic and let us do whatever vs. random 40k universe army/navy. EpicA with a unit/army designer would be awesome. Anyway, might pick up the PDF of FWC just to see what its about. I have an old version of Blitzkrieg commander, but I'm thinking there are some major differences. -Tim |