"Slammer's rules applicability query (long)" Topic

Not sure why this is buzzing around inside my head but here goes.

1) I find playing literature based units like Hammer's Slammers somewhat less satisfying than just reading the books and I like my own (old) settings (residue from OD&D perhaps, or just Old School wargaming, I am not sure,) with my own factions and races. The recent write up of Sulawesi forces seems to suggest these, while not becoming a normal set, might be more adaptable than my early second hand impressions.

2) I liked that in Dirtside II taking Grav and GEV vehicles thru wooded, rough, and other suboptimal terrain could give tracked and wheeled forces backed up by mechs and infantry a strong force multiplier. Since my Colonial games often had lots of wooded patches the (relatively few because this is a colony world) GRAV vehicles constantly had to thread between stands of terrain that slowed them down or go down tails allowing ambushes to occur frequently. GEV vehicles (much more frequent colonizing nation regulars – sent there as "defense forces" – have to love bureaucracies,) found it difficult to to both cover wide areas of approach and be mutually supporting. Given that most of the colony indigenous force and the resistance/rebel/crusading fanatics forces that made up the most common NPC forces the players faced included a rather large percentage of militia/locally raised part-time/short term conscripted soldiers this often compounded combined arms tactics/operations with "green" quality infantry.

As an example, taking GEV forces through dense woods, even with Labrythine (is that a real word?) trails/narrow clearings against the main opposition for most of the other forces – a Fusion powered weapon armed Tracked force with Mechs and "Tank Hunter" infantry – turned out to make all the fancy long range weapons (High Energy Lasers, Mass Driver Cannons, Hyper Kinetic Penetrators, or even Missiles) operate at close range versus the heavy damage of Direct Fire Fusion Guns of the main war mongering fanatics of the planetary resistance forces. Finding a good balance for fighting the industrially self-sufficient resistance side for many scenarios (short of bombing them into the stone age and thus destroying the colony) was tricky.

3) I have more than enough (too any) 25 mm forces which I am converting to 15/6/3 mm forces – of which I have pretty much all I need (different sized figures for different scale conflicts) – as far as possible, so no plans to buy more SF troops for a few years except as gap fill. So these rules must be able to reflect what I have without requiring buying lots of new toys. It was cheaper/faster to build/repair resistance vehicles than to ship in/repair the fancy/costlier equipment of the forces fighting the crusading resistance.

**********************************

Key Question – So, how setting adaptable are these rules?

**********************************

Could I use them supplementally for one off games (along with my other rules such as FGUs Space Marines, THW's Star Army and related rules for more frequent gaming) to play the forces I currently own easily? Or are they heavily oriented towards Tank Heavy forces where Infantry are an after thought (like the original books IMNSHO) and the game is determined by whose armor force wins the AFV-AFV combats? Or are there other reasons why using these as a supplemental set of rules for the ones I currently use might not work?

That question might not be answerable but any discussion might be useful about possibly late 12015/early 2016 procurement.

And now I can concentrate on getting ready for work.

The Slammer combined rule book "THE CRUCIBLE" has rules for 6, 15 and 25mm … I'll let John Treadaway, the rule's author and Guru know about your query … Stand-by …

Key Question – So, how setting adaptable are these rules?

Well….that's a good question. The rules are designed to use forces only within the 'Slammerverse' (for want of a better term).

This means that there is no system for designing your own vehicles or troops built into the rules.

What there are, however, is a large selection of weapon systems – lasers, slug throwers of all sorts, power guns, plasma, shoulder launched anti tank, ATGW missiles, artillery, mortars. Check here for sheets of weapon types link

There are also different vehicle drive types – wheeled, tracked, hover, blower, grav, low flying NoE etc. There are different armours for AFVs including regular, spaced and active types and missile (and artillery) defence systems.

There are around 45 forces in the book and another 14 on the web site link

These cover an awful lot of what most people need and folks often proxy in forces or – frankly – just make up their own or rename ones already created to make something fit what they already have.

What there are not much of are vast, 8000 tonne super tanks, stompy robots and alien creatures (sure – there are some teleporting humanoid aliens bu that's largely it: it's a game for humans versus humans for the most part).

There are some non canon rules on the site, written by both myself and another gamer, that does cover non-Slammers items (super tanks and mechs) and they can be found here link

What I have done is worked with manufacturers to try and get as many ranges – concentrating in the 15mm (1/100th) scale, I would accept – built into the rules as they are released so that people can buy fun stuff they like and still use them. Hense the inclusion of Brigade, GZG, Khurasan, Antenociti and Critical Mass vehicles in the 'New Forces on the Web' pages.

Most people find it a pretty flexible system but it's not what I would call a 'lego' set: ie it doesn't entirely allow you to just imagine and build what you want.

But if there's a vehicle type from any manufacturer that couldn't be squeezed into the system using a "oh, that's the same as an Antargran Zentaur (checking the detachment lists) but with a twin plasma thingy firing backwards" I'd be surprised.

I hope that helps.

John Treadaway

With all the stats in the rules and all the available models on the market[I only do 6mm] it should be easy enough. To say this model = this vehicle from the rules. We do this sort of thing all the time.

That's what we did too. I really like the ranges for HS, but we learned that without lots of terrain for shooting and scooting, the big blowers rule. My favorite games was an ambush of blower convoy by light tanks and infantry in a town:

Photos: link

Write up here: link

Thank you, my question has been answered.

Found this: "… first time the Slammers have come second best in a game I've been involved in, although also the first time that the Komodos had been used, and they are real Blower killers…"

For now (not forever and forever but for now) I will stick with what I have.

Nice one LostPicT

I like scenery :)

@Mute Bystander: the points costs system we have in the rules works tolerably well (ie about as well as most systems!) and – with scenarios taken into account – produces games which mean that even-pointed forces – be they Slammers or not – do as well as the scenario and bad leadership (both player and dice generated) will allow. My Slammers often take a kicking. But then they are often heavily outnumbered!

Remember that the rules are 'realistic' in terms of numbers and ranges: a tank is a tank. a 4 man infantry TU is four chaps. And gun ranges are large.

At Salute 2013 we had a 36 foot table (a scale kilometer in length):

Tank guns – and indeed some smaller weapons were ale to fire then length of that table if they had an unrestricted field of fire (out with the laser pointers). Doesn't always mean they hit anything, mind you, but they could fire and hit if they were skilled (and lucky).

Now this 'realistic' approach doesn't suit all gamers, I grant you, but it does give the game quite a visceral flavor.

Certainly makes you seek out – and respect – cover as well!

John T

Realism was not a factor in my decision. It just seems to not be a set of rules that would fit in with my very old war game setting/SF world. But then I am in the GEVs would be very effected (affected? Too early) by terrain and damage schools myself. And I am an outright heretic on GRAV vehicles…

You rules look good, just not what I would use, simple as that and not a negative evaluation (never had a chance to play them so all impressions are second or third hand and open to being revised.)

Yes, no line 'em up and charge straight ahead across an open field games, unless you want a new game in 15 to 30 minutes. Cover and even concealment will still be factors in the future.

Now this 'realistic' approach doesn't suit all gamers

And that explains such things as the popularity of GW's 40K ! I do prefer a good amount of "realism" in my gaming rules. Realizing there may be some things where we have to suspend some of our beliefs somewhat.

Cover and even concealment will still be factors in the future.

Yes, after being a Grunt for over a decade in my long past youth. Cover & Concealment will still be a factor in the future. Unless you have drank the GW and think it is cool it paint you AFVs and Grunts in circus colors ! Which again falls into the GW paradigm, of " Likes bright shiny things "
Note I know the heretics will say Slammer AFVs are not painted in camo/tac colors. However, they are bare metal, and not polished to a bright sheen. In WWII the Russkies drove T-34s right out of the factories to the the front unpainted, bare metal … But I challenge anyone to fine any time any AFVs in combat were painted in bright circus GW style colors ! < rant mode terminated, we now return you to your regularly scheduled TMP thread … Thank you … >