"Game Data Storage: Tables, Cards, Brain, etc. :-)" Topic

Table Top miniatures game require game and unit data to be stored "somewhere". This unit data includes movement data, combat data, and special rules associated with a given army or unit.

UNIVERSAL QUICK REFERENCE SHEET (QRF)
Old school designs store the unit data on a single universal QRF. These designs include games such as the old WRG rules for everything from ancients to later periods. DBA is similar to this approach but asks the player to store all of its game values and conditional statements used for combat resolution in their heads. Peter Pig rules also tend to fit in this category.

Convenience is the upside here. You just need one trusty QRF and off you go to play. The biggest downside is lack of flexibility. You generally lose the ability to portray lots of unique unit types with special values or rules.

CORE QRF + ARMY/UNIT QRF
With the introduction of more varied troop types we saw the introduction of generic game data QRFs combined with army/unit-specific QRFs. Games in this category include WFB, 40K, Flames of War, etc. This approach is one of the two most common systems in use today.

The advantage here is that you have a common core QRF combined with lots of flexibility. This may explain its popularity. But even here there are limits to the level of unit customization before a given force's unique QRF gets overly dense. If a force includes dozens of troop and vehicle types (eg WWII Germans) but a given session only includes a few troop types you're still asking the player to hunt through all that data for the four or five troop types in play.

UNIT DATA CARDS
AT-43 was one of the first games that I can remember taking this approach. Virtually all data needed to play the game is stored on unit-specific data cards. Sometimes there's a QRF as well but increasingly there's NO QRF and just unit data cards.

Examples of QRF + Unit Data Card include "Team Yankee".

Examples of (at least nearly) pure Unit Data Card systems include Malifaux and X-Wing.

This approach offers the highest levels of customization. Each unit card becomes its own little QRF dedicated to one unit combining unit data and even full text of special rules. Additional cards can be used to modify or further customize core unit cards.

This approach is a double edged sword when it comes to convenience. Creating a "build" for a given game is as simple as sorting through your card collection and picking and choosing cards. But then the table can be quickly cluttered with dozens of cards which must be carefully organized after a game if you have any hope of conveniently playing your next game. And cards are easy to misplace or lose. It seems to work if you're just using a few unit types. Once yuu go over 5 or 6 units things get really, really messy and confusing.

YOUR FAVORITE APPROACH IN WHAT CONTEXT?
Which is your favorite approach for a given game type? For example, when playing ancients and medievals, would you be willing to endure the logistical burden of unique unit cards to achieve total customization? Or is such an approach not worth it for historical gaming? Do you enjoy sorting and organizing unit cards or do you prefer army/unit QRFs?

Combination of CORE QRF + ARMY/UNIT QRF and UNIT DATA CARDS

Like Battlefront WW-II

We have built these over the years for scenario forces (Command Decision for one)

For most of my games I use QRF plus unit cards, often on opposite sides of the same sheet. Some rules like Volley and Bayonet are easy enough that most players stop needing the QRF halfway through their first game.

Reduce the chrome and the problem solves itself.

Rules with too much on their QRFs – whether general or unit-specific, are not well-designed, IMO.
Which is something different from being popular ;-)

Doh! Can't believe I forgot about Battlefront WWII. Great example of QRF + Unit Cards.

But I don't remember there being an army-specific QRF beyond the generic QRF including reference to things like calling in arty based on nationality. What was the national QRF? It has been a few years since I played it.

Unit Cards and mechanics that don't need a QRF are my preference

I have used the data cards in the dual role as action cards to. The cards are used in the activation deck, when the card comes up the card is passed to the controlling player who them has all the info they need for the unit on the card.

It solves the players need for too many extra sheets or cards and them having to sort through their unit info when it becomes their turn.

There's another approach: unit-specific data on the unit's own stand(s), and a QRS with all the tables/charts. The Fire & Fury and Look Sarge, No Charts! families of rules are two prominent examples of this, and the technique can also work on other games that were not designed for it.

My personal feeling is that a game should be playable with a QRS on a single sheet of paper (single- or double-sided). Any further information needs to go onto the table – by looking at the miniatures, printed on the stands, using markers, etc. I dislike unit rosters (which amount to an individual data card + unit-specific damage/status info), and I see individual unit cards as an insufficient improvement on them. Shuffling through papers to find important game data creates a mess around the table edges and slows the game.

Ironically, most of my favorite naval games use rosters, and while I am not especially fond of them, it's difficult or impossible to get rid of them in most systems. To contain the exploding paper blob in these cases, I consolidate all of the rosters, the QRS, and other scenario data (background, victory conditions, etc.) into a single book for each player.

- Ix

PS: How do you get "QRF" from "Quick Reference Sheet"? I always see (and use) "QRS" or "QRC" (for "Quick Reference Chart(s)").

If a force includes dozens of troop and vehicle types (eg WWII Germans) but a given session only includes a few troop types you're still asking the player to hunt through all that data for the four or five troop types in play.

This also exasperates me. It's nice of the rules author to include all the unit data in a unified set of tables with consistent layout, but it's not so nice to hand a page (or two! or three!) of this giant table of unit characteristics to a player and let him find the mere 2-3 rows that apply to his units in the scenario. Giant tables should remain in the rulebook as a reference; players need to have a single sheet of paper containing all the information relevant to the scenario.

- Ix

QRF: Quick Reaction Force… was looking at their stuff this morning while planning a purchase.

Must have had QRF on the brain. :-)

Any further information needs to go onto the table – by looking at the miniatures, printed on the stands, using markers, etc.

Totally agree. You can color-code stands, or use casualty figures etc. to indicate all sorts of different status conditions or troop characteristics.

Well, I designed QILS to encode the stats on the dice. No charts, no tables.

Quick ReFerence

I put the unit cards for Battelfront::WW2 in one of those multi-pocket A4 card holders. They have 9 pockets, so you can store up to 18 cards in one, which is always enough.
Then you have the stats for all the units in the current game to hand at all times.

In my rules "Oh God! Anything but a six!" or for the modern period "The Shattered Century" EVERYTHING must go on the "unit tab" which is affixed to the bottom of the stand. These tabs are 1/2" by 4 inches for "Oh God! Anything but a Six! and 1/2 by 2" for "The shattered Century."

Nothing on the tab goes to waste. On the Ogabas tab on the left is a 1/2 by 1/2" square which has the flag of the state the unit is from. The next 1.5 inch has the name of the unit. The background color is green for general troops and different colors if they have some special rules. These are black for "terror troops" that is troops of unusual motivation or which have special rules attached to them, red, and yellow for other special rules. the rest of the tab has boxes, two rows, 1/4" by 1/4" inch with "M" for move, "C" for charge, "S" for "to stand" "R" for rally "F" for fire value and "D" for distance it can fire.

In The Shattered Century because of the smaller size of the stands things are squeezed a bit with the name on top and the numbers below but the flag on the left is the same.
The background color is green for unarmored units, grey for armored units, black for elites like SS or Marines, Red for political troops like NKVD or Gestap, lt blue for aircraft, tan for militia, and so forth. White background is for special units like civilians. (Players are advised as these work for the GM they should avoid them like the plague. The values are "to hit armored" to hit unarmored, move, area fire, and so forth.

NOTHING ELSE IS ALLOWED. There are no charts, tables, organization cards, data, or the other stupid folderol that only gums up a game. Note that "The Shattered Century is an "Army level" game and that little 2" by 2" stand of four guys represents a company or battalion.

All of the game relies on those six values and the color coding of the name field. My game design criteria are simple. If you have to look at the rules more than twice in a game, you've failed.

Tomorrow I am having a game in my Imagi-nations campaign in the 18th century. The Ikean (Turkish type forces) versus the Kingdom of Spam (kind of modelled on Spain.) Ther'll e over 800 figures between both sides, and we'll reach a clear victory in four to five house, after which in true 18th century style, dinner will be served.