"IABSM Introduction Video" Topic

Here is a test video for I Ain't een Shot Mum for you to have a ganer at… and LEAVE FEEDBACK! :)

THis will be a brief intro to the game, followed by Battle Reports on YouTube.

IABSM INtroduction Video

Thanks

Hi monger, thanks for posting the video. The music volume was a bit low, but the choice of tunes was great! I learned something about IABSM. No mention of the often stated need to agree on the level of damage (or something like that) for combat results though?

Often stated, but utterly untrue. The rules are absolutely specific and prescriptive on such things.

I can state quite clearly that there is absolutely no requirement for debate, discussion or agreement on levels of damage, spotting, firing, target acquisition or anything else. Just roll the dice and there is the result.

Rich

Where there is some room for debate is how "good" a shot is, although there are suggestions the choice of poor/good/excellent shots is not stated as hard and fast as other rules sets. The normal is to say
target in
open = excellent
light cover = OK
hard cover = poor

The rules even state that but… how to handle firing at a moving target in the open (or in light cover, etc) is not explicitly stated (or I forgot). In play, with a group of a gamers looking for a fun game rather then competition, it all works out fine. If you have a win at all costs / bend the rules till they break type player then things will go south very quickly. (I avoid such people at all costs)

Forgot to mention, any questions on playing any Lardie game can be posted on the TFL mailing list and will most likely have a useful answer within ten minutes of posting the question. If not from Rich then from experienced players of the game – someone ALWAYS appears to be online there 24/7.

"The rules even state that but… how to handle firing at a moving target in the open (or in light cover, etc) is not explicitly stated (or I forgot). "

Uhm, yes it does, moving taget in the open is a great target. Moving target in light covet is a Ok target. Nice and easy.

In play, with a group of a gamers looking for a fun game rather then competition, it all works out fine. If you have a win at all costs / bend the rules till they break type player then things will go south very quickly.

I must disagree.
I have found IABSM V3 to be a very robust set of rules.
Cheers

I enjoyed the video. Well done! You may want to spell check everything though.

Thanks,

John

I'll agree with the one poster:

IABSM doesn't cut it for anything but very very very friendly games. For one thing, there's no clear cut definition of terrain effects. You have to agree on the values for the effect of terrain on shooting.

We had some veteran gamers playtesting it, including lawyers, chemists, et al. It reminded me of Dungeons and Dragons – you need a Game Master or "host" to set up the game, make all the decisions, guess as to playability and fairness of a scenario, etc.

One of its great failings is that there's no point system that gives you an idea of the relative value of cards and units in the opinion of the game designers.

"Maurice" did this, and is a card-driven game, yet the fat lardies don't seem to be able to clearly present ways to play their own game.

Strange.

That being said, I like the rules and wish the designers had finished designing them so they'd be friendly for the consumer.

Oh, Grandviewroad your just a IABSM hater.

I've been playing IABSM for years with many different players and have NEVER had a problem with determining the effects of terrain. But then again I only game with people who are adult, no matter their age. We just take a minute before the game starts to go over the different terrain and decide what kind of cover it represents. Oh and I can match you Lawyers & chemists with my own lawyers, state prosecutors, chemical engineer and senior IT manager for a well known internet co. as if that mattered.

The guys at TFL purposely don't have a point system because they don't believe that they work especially for 20th cen. games and I'd say that the near constant debate on the FoW forum about how this unit is over/under pointed goes a very long way towards proving that view.

There are a heck of a lot of gamers out there that would disagree with you on the Lardies ability to present their game. As a matter of fact I find that the game is so intuitive that when running games with new players after a couple of run throughs of the card deck I can pretty much walk away and let the new player continue on their own only occasionally having to answer a question of two.

Hmmm, maybe I'll challenge the Editor to do something about the IABSM haters.

I try to avoid playing games with lawyers,…
Period.

There are a heck of a lot of gamers out there that would disagree with you on the Lardies ability to present their game. As a matter of fact I find that the game is so intuitive that when running games with new players after a couple of run throughs of the card deck I can pretty much walk away and let the new player continue on their own only occasionally having to answer a question of two.

I agree completely.

I played IABSM for years and I was lucky enough not to run into the kind of problems Grandviewroad speaks of but as mentioned already I would imagine it does depend largely on the individuals playing. I was always lucky to be playing with friendly mature honest types that while certainly competitive they were more inclined to achieving success through tactical prowess rather than rules maneuvering and manipulation…

Great game to be sure but I have to admit not been totally crazy about the fire damage charts but thats just personal preference and so I couldn't really knock the game design for that…I'm especially working forward to the Chain of Command offering from TFL's…

One of its great failings is that there's no point system that gives you an idea of the relative value of cards and units in the opinion of the game designers.

Grandviewroad – if you own any of the TFL rules you're probably familiar with the slogan "playing the period, not the rules". The IABSM supplements provide a decent overview of actual TO&Es at section (squad)and platoon level for major combatants and also suggestions of what typical field strength would be. This appeals to players who prefer to construct and play plausible WW2 scenarios (playing the period) rather than artificially "balanced" games (playing the rules).

Each to their own, and fine if the approach is not for you. However, it is hardly a "great failing" (or indeed one of them, as you apparently have others in mind) but rather a question of design philosophy. And if you like the rules but want the comfort of a points system, you could use one from a different rule set.

> Uhm, yes it does, moving taget in the open is a great target. Moving target in light covet is a Ok target. Nice and easy.

Stationary in the exact same situation, exactly the same… You can go to cover and be on OK shot in the open, when that takes effect has been discussed quite a bit on the mailing list. In a tournament atmosphere that kind of inexactitude would drive players nuts.

NOTE – I am not saying there is anything wrong with the rules, just that it is a different mindset from a tournament, win at all costs type of ruleset.

As for needing a ref, our group always has a ref, but one is not really needed most of the time.

We weren't having a competitive game.

We are gamer pals, we got together to play a set of rules that all interested us, and the gamer experience level was very high – about 100 years of gaming in the group, including gaming that went back to HG Wells, Grant and Featherstone.

Our conclusion is that it won't work unless there's a host gamer who sets it up ahead of time. You can't just show up and play it. This is the exact complaint we had with several other sets of WWII rules (some popular, some not).

And since there's no way to judge the relative value of one tank, gun or infantry platoon over another b/c the game designers give you no way to do it, it's very difficult to balance sides in even an historical re-enactment scenario.

If we somehow overlooked these in the rule sets and card decks that we own for the game, please point this out and I will reconvene the group and explain to them what we missed. Also, please explain how many Shermans you feel it takes to balance out two Panthers in a game, or how many British infantry platoons one would need to be equal to an SS PanzerGrenadier platoon. We didn't see any way to do this except by guesswork.

Meanwhile, back to the OP, I think an instructional video is a good idea for people especially if they are new to the hhobby. While it may be possible to run newbies through a game that has been set up already and that you guide them through the first couple of turns, I doubt they'll have the same success if you gave them an empty table, a bunch of miniatures and the rules.

@ jdginaz

Thanks for the post. Glad to know who else needs a stifle around here!

Well, I guess that some games just need a lot more hand holding then others. I world think that with over a hundred years of game experience being able to "balance" a game would be pretty easy. I know gamers with less than 10 gaming that can "balance" games with no problem.

I'm beginning to wonder about your claims since there is a whole section on setting up pickup games pgs 85 through 92. Seems like it would be pretty hard to miss eight pages.

"Also, please explain how many Shermans you feel it takes to balance out two Panthers in a game"

Depends on a wide range of factors that can't be evaluated in a onetime judgment of the technical rating of the abilities of the AFV. What is the terrain like? Is it open with long & wide lanes of fire or is it more close with only short range shots likely and that would allow the Shermans to out maneuver the Panthers? Who is the attacker? Do the victory conditions require the Sherman to advance quickly or can they take their time and use the available cover better with some on overwatch while the others advance. Those are some of the kinds of thing that can effect the "value" of a particular tank or unit and that can be figured into a points system because they continually change from game to game.

I will say if you're just looking for a set of tournament rules then IABSM is defiantly not for you group as they are about playing the period and recreating WWII combat than about tournaments.

Oh well I see you've taken the easy stifle way out. It seems like you were more interested in a drive by attack instead of actually engaging in a discussion. Kind of like what you were complaining about in regards to the "FoW Haters".

Video doesn't work for me on iPhone/ipad. Something about not opened up for mobile browsing. Feedback would be open up to mobile browsing. I do more of it on the ipad than the computer nowadays. Looking forward to seeing it soon.

Grandviewroad – jdginaz made some helpful comments in his latest post which you might like to see. If you decide not to unstifle him, he pointed out that the "balance" you are seeking is a product of the tactical situation, terrain and scenario objectives. How can a points rating reflect those factors?

I have assumed that you have some knowledge of WW2 and, like all wargamers I know, have read around the period you are interested in. If you start with, say, an Allied attack on defended German positions in Normandy, give the Germans what seems like a reasonable force to achieve the scenario objective. The best approach to determining the size of the attacking force is to think in terms of what higher level command would have been likely to allocate to the task of taking the position and the probable field strength of actual units in your chosen time frame. That is the process a battalion CO would go through anyway, which is part of "playing the period".

Alternatively, with a collective 100 years of wargame experience to fall back on, you must have come across the 3:1 rule of thumb for attacker numerical superiority. So, a dug in German PzGren platoon might be opposed by an Allied company. If the Germans have additional MG42s, maybe fire support from battalion mortars is available for the Allies.

If you include two Panthers, you have a weak under-strength platoon. Another rule of thumb might help here and you could give the Allies 5x the number of Shermans or Cromwells (perhaps two US platoons or 3 British troops less a couple of combat losses).

Really it isn't hard for anyone with a knowledge of the period to put together a scenario on those lines. If all else fails, you could always buy one of the supplements TFL produces which include playtested historical and hypothetical scenarios in pdf format. Guessing you are interested in US rather than British, you might like to check out "Where the Hell have you been boys", "Anzio: From Wildcat to Whale", "All American", "Sicilian Weekend" and "Blenneville or Bust".

link

IABSM isn't for "rivet counters", "competition gamers", or folks that need point lists instead historical knowledge to war game.

Neither way is right or wrong in an objective sense, since what one wants out of a war game varies from person to person.

I am not really a fan of points for historical games. Although I do realize that it is easier for those folks unfamiliar with a period to get some understanding of the relative merits of the forces involved by having them.
So, I was surprised when the gent above mentioned that his group had gaming experience back to Featherstone and Grant (100 years worth) but couldn't balance forces for a game. The two seem to be at odds, IMHO.

Featherstone has scenario books which have WWII scenarios in them. Why not try them if you have no idea for force balance. And yes, the TFL have loads of scenario books along with several other Companies (I know I own a load of them) that provide good scenarios for games. There really is a lot of info out there. Heck, you can join the Wargames Digest yahoo group and find a LOAD of Battle Stations scenarios from Gene McCoy's magazine in the files section for free.
link

There really is no problem finding solid scenarios to game out there without using points.

Hth,

John

It's particularly easy to find good scenarios for IABSM for almost any theatre and stage of the war, the Lardies sell excellent PDF scenario books (not sure how many in total, but I have about 10, I think, and each has up to 20 scenarios)

And there's a 20% off sale at the moment at TFL:

link

Interestingly, TFL use a terrain generation system in Dux B. Does that mean that terrain only needs to be defined in melee-based periods? Terrain isn't important in periods when firepower is most important? Or is it just correct to say that IABSM suffers from a failure to provide both clear terrain definitions as well as a terrain generator?

Hmmmm….

Hopefully, they've learned something from their trip to the dark ages, maybe the terrain aspects will be cleared up in v.4

Ye gods give it up. IABSM pg32 gives the effect of terrain on shooting. There's a whole section, Spotting, that deals with spotting the enemy governed in the main by the terrain they're in.
I could go on explaining the various effects of terrain but as it doesn't look like you have actually read the rules I suppose I'm wasting my time. You seem to have looked at the contents page and not seen a section called Terrain so assumed TFL had ignored it.

It's just interesting that some of the TFL rules are complete, ready to use, and others aren't.

Got Dux B, and it's got everything you need.

Yet IABSM is still more of a Gamemaster's kit, without means for two new players or strangers to meet, terrain a board, point armies, and meet on equal terms for a fair fight where both sides have an equal chance of winning.

Yes, tim, a terrain generator of some sort is essential if the armies have different reactions to terrain. OR would you like to take your medieval knights into heavily wooded hills to attack my Welsh? How to decide what's "fair" and gives equal chances of victory for both sides is a core demand of any "complete" game.

But if you are providing something more of a "gamemasters kit of tools" where you dump all the responsibility for a fair game on him, then I guess it doesn't matter.

Bottom line, it explains why some games explode on the scene and become the norm, while others remain marginalized. It's a game design concept. Would you play Monopoly if the board was just described in general terms but you were expected to make it yourself? Maybe, but it wouldn't be one of the biggest selling games in human history.

Here endeth the lesson…

A lot of tosh on this thread. The great thing about IABSM is that its driven by command and all the problems commanders face, not some sort of mechanical fire and movement system driven by an attempt to quantify everything as if gun calibre and troop ratings are all that win battles rather than good intelligence and reconnaissance, the commander's skill and fickleness of men and nature.

The blind systems, cards, variable length turns are all really interesting innovations that makes games both unpredictable and realistic. I am loving the Chain of Command videos and think the command dice idea takes the system one step further, by creating a command capacity to end turns, rather than relying on the fall of cards.In fact am creating a Russian partisan platoon and a German security platoon to use them when they arrive.

Of course there will always be room for lots of rulesets, and no one set should ever be universal, but IABSM is a brilliant, easily learned fast-play system, which really makes you think like a commander, and suffer the consequences if you don't!

Case in point – a newbie posted in the TFL yahoo group the other day asking a couple of questions, one of which – of course – was had they interpreted the terrain modifiers correctly.

He got 7 replies, 6 of which had a different answer on the terrain question.

That might be fine for very casual gamers or very experienced gamers, I doubt that a newbie would find the situation acceptable for a $75 USD set of rules (with the cards, markers, and hard copy).

It's OK for me, however, and we'll be trying them again in a few weeks with some experienced gamers. Make an interesting contrast to our second playtest of Battlegroup Kursk.

How does £25.00 GBP convert to $75 USD?

Grandviewroad. I really am not sure what you are on about if I am honest. At one point you seem top be suggesting that the rules should provide instructions on how to set up your terrain. You seem to want that to be as clearly defined as a Monopoly board. Surely the great thing about a wargame is that we do not play on the same board every time? We get different terrain each time and that is what adds to the challenge. If you are saying that the rules should prescribe how you lay out your terrain I, frankly, think that is something of an unfair criticism. And daft to be honest.

Dux Britanniarum has a terrain generation system as part of the campaign mechanism which is a core part of the rules. IABSM does not have a similar campaign system, so it doesn't have a terrain generation system. That doesn't mean that Dux is complete and IABSM is not. It means that they are different sets of rules doing different things.

Does Rapid Fire have a terrain generation system or a fixed terrain system like a Monopoly board? Or Flames of War, or PBI2, or any other set of WWII rules you care to mention? I honestly cannot see your point.

You then appear to swerve away from terrain generation being the big issue to saying that how to treat a target in various terrain is not defined within the rules. The rules state quite clearly and unequivocally that you do the following:

Target is in the open = a great shot
Target is in light cover = Okay shot
Target is in hard cover = poor shot

That really isn't difficult.

However, as the rules have their roots in kriegsspiel the system is designed to be flexible enough for you to amend that if you wish. For example, you may have a situation where you are firing at me past a blazing tank. Now, I might be in the open but we might agree that visibility is impeded so you will roll counting it as an okay shot rather than a great one. But surely that is no different to any other set of rules where, due to specific circumstances you decide to make an adjustment as you play, with both players agreeing to that?

All we do is provide additional guidelines for that to assist you in your decision making.

But if you don't want that then just stick to plain vanilla as shown above.

As to $75 USD I really cannot see that. £20.00 GBP for the rules.

I really am wondering what your agenda is, if I am honest.

"…a fair fight…a fair game…"

Perhaps this is the rub?…that 'fairness' is an essential element of gaming? I always thought that the only essential element in a game was 'fun'?…the burden for which lies upon the players to ensure, imo.

hmm…a possible analogy comes to mind:

A game is like a meal. If I sign up to play at a Con it's like going to a restaurant – assuming I order something I like, the GM/chef plays a majority role in contributing to the success of the venture by preparing the ingredients for me.

If, however, I buy a set of rules it's like buying a cookbook/recipe – whatever the detail level of the instructions, it's up to me to 'cook' the ingredients to produce a satisfying (ie: fun) game/meal…which includes adding in (or leaving out) a flavor/spice that I find essential to suit personal taste. If I don't like the taste, I've only myself to blame, don't I?

dunno…

Bummer / looks like the video was taken down. I'm new to the set and would like some videos.

Edit – just saw that he put up another version –
youtu.be/FKZqdcDVmco

Interesting, and somewhat helpful, but not nearly as good as the Chain of Command introductory videos, which show examples of the rules in use. Also, the first 2 1/2 minutes and the last 1 1/2 are wastes of time, adding up to almost a third of the length of the entire video.