"2 Page ruleset! Looking for constructive feedback! :)" Topic

So I've mashed together my favorite ideas from the famous 1-pager "FUBAR" and the 300 page goliath "Flames of War" and created the game I've been looking to play for a while now, and all in 2 pages! (no force orgs, weapon stats, or scenarios, of course.)

I've played only 2 small games so far, but the results have been close to what I'm looking for. The biggest issue has been trying to keep in all the concepts I deem important (including all those blasted exceptions!) in this minuscule 2 page format. I just finished doing some reformatting and managed to get almost a whole new paragraphs worth of space freed up. (turns out you can delete empty footers!)

Anyway, please take a look and share your thoughts! These are meant to be played with FoW style basing. Let me know if you have any questions.

THANKS! :D

link

At first look they seem promising. Will have to try them for a further feedback.(may be a while in that).
Anything to slim down FOW.
thank you for posting.

Fire and Move Unit may Fire and then Move.

Move and Fire Unit may Move and then Fire at
a +1 penalty To Hit

Am I right in thinking that the second option makes it harder for the activated unit to hit its enemy?

Yes, with the single exception of the table used for vehical damage, modifiers effect target numbers, not die rolls. So if needing to roll a 4+ for example, +1 is bad (5+), -1 is good (3+).

How has that worked in play?
I ask as it seems that it is the wrong way around?

For example, a unit may fire without penalty (handy) then move into cover and no longer be a target. (very handy)

The other order could mean that the unit moves from cover into the open (bad) and then fires with a penalty. (more bad)

Like I say I have not played and only glimpsed the rules but this struck me right away.

I am liking lots of other bits though.
Happy to chat via e-mail too if you like?

Michael.

Thanks Michael! I'd love to chat. I'll send you an email.

To answer your question, it's worked very well. Its analogous to "assault fire" in Advanced Squad Leader, and many other games, where you may fire after a move but only with a penalty. I'm a fan :)

Fair enough!
I have not tried it so can't comment on playability.
That I am full of cold and not at my best…

:D

Can't seem to see anything on the link…..maybe an IOS issue.

@Crimelord – it would be an iOS issue as it's a link to a Google Drive file (similar to an Android trying to look at an iCloud file).

I can mirror it on my website with @cheesesailor77's permission for folk

Some major flaws appear to me unless this is just a game in which case some comments may not be relevant.

No ground scale mentioned, I could not assess plausibility of ranges wothout it.

There is no mention I can see of wahat dice sould be thrown D6

Appears to be no rules for dead ground.

No rules for area fire, fixed line fire etc.

To me its 2 pages of an incomplete set. Sorry don't think you can do it in two pages.

For example, a unit may fire without penalty (handy) then move into cover and no longer be a target. (very handy)

Yes, but the cost of this modality is that on the previous turn, you must move out into an uncovered position and then let your opponent take a turn before you shoot. Either that or you opponent intentionally moves into a position where you can shoot him on your next turn, a move likely involving shooting at you first (hopefully drawing blood and reducing the effectiveness of your follow-up).

Either way, your opponent has the option to not let you have the shot before you take it. Unless, of course, you have greatly outmaneuvered him so he can't avoid it, in which case, you earned.

"listed in teams attributes"…………where are these found?

Fire then move…

I have seen abuses of that in the past where shooters fire from concealed positions, reveal themselves then move away so they cannot be targeted. They fall back to another position to do it all over again.

@Curufea. feel free to host and distribute. here's a v03 to host (I'm going to update the link above as well) link

@UshCha. You're absolutely right that these rules will not be for everyone. And yes, they are absolutely a game, just as Advanced Squad Leader is a game. A complicated one just a game none the less. I believe there are other people out there looking for simple rules with a certain "feel" as well, so hopefully this one will scratch the itch. That said, I absolutely appreciate your feedback, and agree with you, many of the items you listed probably simply can't be achieved in 2 pages. Right now I'm pretty hardcore about keeping it to only 2, but that may not be realistic for long. Oh, however I will make sure to specify d6 in the next draft, thanks!

@etotheipi. thank you for the explanation. Yes, this is the concept I'm going for. So far in the very few games I've played, it's worked well.

@Gaz. Like FUBAR, attribute will be available separately, and hopefully people will be encouraged to produce their own force orgs and stats that they feel best captures the units and weapons they're playing with. That said, I have an early first pass that I'm playing with and I will flesh out and pretty up. Here's what I have currently: link

@Dragon Gunner. I see how this could be abused. My theory is that overwatch and reaction fire should counteract this. I will try the tactic you've described the next time I play and see how it works.

Thanks Guys!

-B

I have seen abuses of that in the past where shooters fire from concealed positions, reveal themselves then move away so they cannot be targeted. They fall back to another position to do it all over again.

But they can be targeted before they shoot from the concealed position. And you can move away from the concealed figures before they shoot.

If you let an opponent waltz into a position where they can shoot you, then do nothing to counter it on your turn (shoot at them first, move away, etc.), you kind of deserve to have the shoot and dash done to you. How is that abuse?

You might want to look at an older game, WWII: Impact. That game simplified all the possible modes and effects with a colored order marker system. A vehicle moving fast this turn gets a red marker up front. Next turn the order is given to stop so it gets a black marker up front and the red marker moves to the back. This nicely indicates that we are still dealing with momentum so the front marker indicates what you can do and the rear one indicates what your modifiers are.

I don't remember the actual colors. There were 8 different markers like this I believe. It was an absolutely brilliant system and while it may sound complicated it satisfied by reducing a lot of guesswork, chart look up, rule exceptions and so forth.

Let us all remember the OP asked for people to share their thoughts.
People may or may not say things that others agree with but going back and forth saying others are wrong or right does not help the OP.

Lets take a breath play nice.

:D

Thanks for the link, just makes things clearer on a read thru'………

I believe the request was for constructive feedback. Certainly, sniping back and forth with "I like/don't like this/that" is not constructive. I would offer that reasonable debate exploring examples and counterexamples over whether or not a core mechanic unbalances the game is constructive feedback.

Indeed. I am just worried it could get all ugly and 'TMP'.

:D

Lol- "don't git al' TMP on my ass……"

I have just finished reading thru' the FOW rules…….I like the idea of brief rules like Fubar and derivatives….even the simple rules from Pz8 give a speedy and satisfying game……if you are a 'lawyer' type or a 'rivet counter' then short rules that don't attempt to cover every eventuality won't satisfy ……..if the rules give reasonable results- (wandering about in the open = kia) then give 'em a go…..

Just to be clear, I've appreciated each post so far, and no one seems to me to be aggressive or unfair. Thanks again for the feedback and I encourage the debate! keep it coming! :D

I'll post on this soon when I have a bit more time, catch u soon!

"If you let an opponent waltz into a position where they can shoot you"-etotheipe

If they start the game in that position on the defense there is no waltzing involved. They continuously recoil away from an attacker to new concealed positions.

"@Dragon Gunner. I see how this could be abused. My theory is that overwatch and reaction fire should counteract this. I will try the tactic you've described the next time I play and see how it works."- Cheesesailor

Set up a series of bushes rocks and gullies where the defending squad can retreat as the lead attacking element comes into view and cannot be supported by overwatch due to limited LOS. Then the point I am attempting to make will be clear.

Another option would be buildings with courtyard wall. Shoot from behind the wall then run into a building up the street out of view of the attacker.

If they start the game in that position on the defense there is no waltzing involved. They continuously recoil away from an attacker to new concealed positions.

Yes, if you create a scenario that starts where one unit is in cover and the other unit is in their line of fire, I don't think the system is being abused. The scenario is creating an ambush and that is a genuinely tough situation to be in. Of course the concealed unit would have a huge advantage.

Otherwise, the other unit has to knowingly walk into the line of fire and stop there waiting to be shot. I wouldn't say the system is being abused if you require your opponent to move into your line of fire for you in order to gain an advantage.

Even then, you still get a shot at the people in concealed positions before you can be shot at.

"If they start the game in that position on the defense there is no waltzing involved. They continuously recoil away from an attacker to new concealed positions."

What you've described sounds to me like a tactically sound use of good ground, more than an abuse of rules. Remember that enemy still get an opportunity to fire at the concealed unit as it retreats. But you're correct that the concealed defender is at a significant advantage, as I think is appropriate, IMHO. You have certainly made me aware of this concept in a way that I wasn't prior, however, and I'm going to explore this scenario more closely as I continue to test.

@cheesesailor77

Here you go- link

Direct link

"Even then, you still get a shot at the people in concealed positions before you can be shot at."-Etotheipi

Only if they spot them.

"Yes, if you create a scenario that starts where one unit is in cover and the other unit is in their line of fire"- Etotheipi

They (the attacker) don't have to "start" directly in the line of fire they could make a few moves and still get the same result as they move to contact.

"Otherwise, the other unit has to knowingly walk into the line of fire and stop there waiting to be shot"-etotheipi

Knowingly? You lost me on the point you were attempting to make. As far as movement goes what if they don't have enough movement to do anything other than be exposed as they advance / attack ?

@Cheesesailor77

I think reaction fire is the answer. Play test it and let me know how it turns out. I am a fan of FUBAR but always on the look out for a new rule set that is simple yet rewards good tactics.

Thanks Dragon, I agree that reaction fire is going to be an important factor. I'll try to create terrain placed as you've described the next opportunity I have to play, and see how it plays out.

@Curufea- Thanks! that's very helpful of you. I've yesterday created v0.4. Can I pass this along to you as well?

@Cheessailor77

When you play test it use troops of comparable value with no body armor. What I have seen is the defending / ambushing squad butcher the lead element and whatever is left in the kill zone gets to perform reaction fire if there is anything left at all. The reaction fire is probably at a disadvantage because they were moving and the attacker is in concealment / cover so therefore of minimal effect. The kicker is the ambusher gets to move away before anyone else can retaliate or even move.

OK I think I may understand the perspective a little better. Keep in mind that these rules are meant to be played at the same scale as Flames Of War, ie company level with lots of support. I like the concept, as you've described, that a dug in defender is a real pain in the ass. If I send in a platoon of infantry, they'll get sliced up, as you've predicted. Which is why instead I send in a tank platoon, or artillery barrage the snot out of them first. Or of course, lay smoke and go around them. A unit that repeatedly retreats to new concealment will at some point either be backed into a corner, or off of the objective. The intent at least is for these rules to encourage a game of combined arms and so far it seems to do a reasonal job of doing that.

Only if they spot them.

I think this is where we differ. What is spotting? Where is it in those rules? If a target it concealed, it jut gets a +1 to its cover.

Knowingly? You lost me on the point you were attempting to make. As far as movement goes what if they don't have enough movement to do anything other than be exposed as they advance / attack ?

Assume you don't start in your enemy's line of fire. You know where they are and where they could shoot you. If you move there, you are knowingly walking into their line of fire.

They (the attacker) don't have to "start" directly in the line of fire they could make a few moves and still get the same result as they move to contact.

Why would you move into someone else's line of fire and not attack them first?

I would move a heavy vehicle next to a building which men are behind.
I would move the men from behind the building to behind the vehicle.
I would move the vehicle.
The men would then shoot and move back behind the building.
rinse and repeat.

"I think this is where we differ. What is spotting? Where is it in those rules?"-etotheipi

No concealment / spotting equals poor rules. If you don't have concealment / spotting rules Cheesesailor please include them. I could only get 90% of the PDF to download so I have not read the rules.

"Assume you don't start in your enemy's line of fire. You know where they are and where they could shoot you. If you move there, you are knowingly walking into their line of fire."- etotheipi

Valid point but is not relevant to the topic.

"Why would you move into someone else's line of fire and not attack them first?"-etotheipi

Angel Barracks gets it by the way and nicely done!

Lots of ways.
Put a super good unit in the open and but an expendable unit in front of them.
The rules say infantry cant fire through infantry so the super good unit is safe.
Then move the expendable unit out of the way to reveal the good unit who fire and move behind the expendable unit again.

Or use smoke to move and hide behind and keep dropping smoke.

You have a unit that can never be targeted if you do it right.

Now…
I would not do that as it would not be fun, but as it stands the rules allow it and there are people who would.
For me, I just don't play with those sorts of people…

Angel Barracks really gets it! All wicked variants of what I was proposing and much worse.

drop me an e-mail please Gunner if you would.

:D

Angel Barracks gets it by the way and nicely done!

The only thing I get from your discussion is you think under these rules an unsupported infantry unit in the open who has to close on and take out a concealed infantry unit that has multiple easily accessible fall back positions would have a hard time of it. I completely agree. I don't see what the problem with that is, or, more specifically, why you are saying that indicates that the shoot-move modality is broken.

AB is arguing against your point (and his own) that the shoot-move ability unbalances the game. He has listed a number of viable tactics other than standing around in the open and getting shot at.

No concealment / spotting equals poor rules. If you don't have concealment / spotting rules Cheesesailor please include them.

He has concealment. It provides a protective bonus to troops.

I could only get 90% of the PDF to download so I have not read the rules

And this gets to the problem we are having communicating. You opened with feedback indicating that shoot-move was easy to abuse. My point has always been that it doesn't seem to be so in these rules. At any point (except, as you point out, a scenario that starts with one unit in the open, too far from any cover to move into it, within range of a fortified opponent – a very off and specific situation) in the game where a unit can shoot you and drop back to a fortified position, you have already had an opportunity to get out of the way or shoot them first. I think that within the context of the rules under discussion, that doesn't invalidate the shoot-move modality.

@Etotheipi

AB does not argue against his point or my own he makes a solid one. You have failed to prove how it does not unbalance the game. Those tactics may be viable in a game but nothing even close to realistic. How is playing peek aboo behind expendable troops with impunity realistic?

"He has concealment. It provides a protective bonus to troops"- Etotheipi

That's not concealment that is cover!

Dragon Gunner,

"Fire then move… I have seen abuses of that in the past where shooters fire from concealed positions, reveal themselves then move away so they cannot be targeted. They fall back to another position to do it all over again."

I understand exactly what you're saying with regards to a game mechanic maybe taking some of the fun out of it, BUT, here's my counter:

Re-read your statement. While you were Army and I was Marine, I know our anti-armor tactics were the same. Wasn't what you wrote above exactly what we were trying to do to the WarPact forces? TOWs and Dragons concealed on the military crest, fire at long range (I wasn't an AT gunner so I'm not sure, but I seem to remember something like 2500 to 3000m), fall back behind the ridge line to a new position. Keep doing that until you reached the Atlantic Ocean or they ran out of T-72s.

If I recall correctly, the big concern for the AT guys was getting popped while the missile was in flight (I know you know, but for anyone not familiar, those missiles were wire guided, not fire and forget, so the gunner had to hold it on target all the way to the missile hitting the target). We had two vehicles teams of TOWs and M-2s or Mk19s mounted on HMMWVs, with the goal of the HMG being to take the vehicle(s) under fire to keep them from lighting up the TOW gunner while the missile was in flight.

Obviously the wire-guided stuff to hit tanks doesn't apply to WWII, but conceptually we're still in the same boat. You've got tanks advancing on a defensive line. My bazooka team wants to fire and run back to his fallback position. Perhaps the solution is the real-life tactic of bounding overwatch? If the attacker has a tank on overwatch, and he has LOS to the bazooka team, they do a simple roll-off to see who shoots first:

-Bazooka team is going to fire at advancing Tank A, then fall back. Tank B is on overwatch.
1. Bazooka team wins, it gets to shoot, but before it gets to move, Tank B gets to fire. If bazooka team survives it falls back.
2. Tank B wins, it fires first. If bazooka team survives, it carries out its fire and move action.

That's how I would do it.

V/R,
Jack

That's not concealment that is cover!

You have the right to define terms however you want, but if you are discussing a specific ruleset, you should use the terms the way they are used in the ruleset.

AB does not argue against his point or my own he makes a solid one. You have failed to prove how it does not unbalance the game.

I've done nothing but explain that shoot-move is not a get out of jail free card in the published rules. The targeted force will have the opportunity to shoot at you before you execute a shoot and fall back. Your arguments have been based on putting a unit in very narrowly focused, contrived conditions.

Those tactics may be viable in a game but nothing even close to realistic. How is playing peek aboo behind expendable troops with impunity realistic?

First, there is a difference between tactics being "realistic" (which is a horrible, vague mess of its own) and them "breaking the system".

While I would not condone the tactic, using a meat shield has been used many times on the battlefield. And if we strip away assumed things that are not part of the rules (like player attitudes), sending a large number of people against a fortified objective when you know many of them will die is again, a very real tactic.

Also, it is only one tactic listed. Do you have the same objection against using smoke, vehicles, or buildings? Again, your argument is based on selecting one narrow option from many and using it as an exemplar when your criticism doesn't apply to all the examples equally.

And once more, all the rise/repeat tactics rely on your opponent standing there and doing nothing while you execute over multiple turns. They also rely on having a large number of expendable troops or consecutive locations to fall back to. I hardly think the ability to execute a highly advantageous maneuver once or twice in a battle constitutes a break in the system.

" When given a Fire order, the Unit declares an enemy
Unit as their target. Units may split their fire
amongst more than one enemy Unit."

This can be simplified down to "each team in the unit can fire at one enemy team." Forcing them to fire at a single enemy unit is confusing at best, and then when a unit consists of a 3 squads and an AT team it gets worse.

First of all, let me say that I'm thrilled that a post of mine has sparked such thoufhtfull discussion! :D thanks everyone again for your thoughts and participation!

One thing I feel the need to clear up is that the conversation has made a turn based on a misreading of the text. The rules say that "Teams may not fire through friendly Teams, though Gun and Tank Teams may fire over Infantry Teams". So neither the tactic of meat shielding super units, nor hiding fragile units behind armor are valid by the rules.

I also wanted to remind everyone that while "spotting" is certainly one approach to wargaming, its not the only one. Again, I point to ASL, the king of chrome, who does not imploy a spotting mechanism for direct fire shooting.

A team may fire through one enemy team to a different one beyond?

First, there is a difference between tactics being "realistic" (which is a horrible, vague mess of its own) and them "breaking the system".

Agreed.
I am just still not seeing why people would choose to move then fire at a penalty to hit over firing then moving at no penalty to hit and ending your turn behind cover.

Look at it like this:

Would you rather shoot at the enemy and then retreat into cover before their turn.
Or
Move into LOS of the enemy and fire, ending your turn as a visible target, having shot at a penalty to hit?

"A team may fire through one enemy team to a different one beyond?"

Absolutely. Bill won't risk accidentally shooting Tom in the back of the head, but if Hanz is standing between him and his target, he doesn't really think twice.

"I am just still not seeing why people would choose to move then fire at a penalty to hit over firing then moving at no penalty to hit and ending your turn behind cover."

They wouldn't. If given the chpoice, of course you should shoot then move to cover, its as obvious as it seems. However there are many times you don't have that option, particularly on the attack. As dragon has been pointing out. :)

Fair enough.
I was assuming that you can't fire through friendlies as they block LOS.

:D

Understandable, my hope was that by stating that teams may not fire through friendly teams, it would imply that enemy teams may be shot through, without the need for the extra sentence. Perhaps I was incorrect.

Perhaps.
I can be quite switched on at some times, and at others quite dense!

I was confused as this:

Teams may not fire through friendly Teams, though Gun and Tank Teams may fire over Infantry Teams

For my mind should have said this:

Teams may not fire through friendly Teams, though Gun and Tank Teams may fire over any Infantry Teams

Mind you having read it I am still not sure I would have sussed it out…

:S

I've tried updating the link in my first post to the latest version of the PDF but can't seem to edit the post. Is there a way to do this?

For those interested, here is a link to v0.4 of the rules. I've also included the example stats in the PDF, which yes, puts it at 3 pages technically ;) its a google drive link again. link

No significant changes but a number of small additions/tweaks mostly to fill holes and exceptions.