"No End in Sight. 2nd edition almost here" Topic

With a bit of luck, the updated version will be live Monday.

For those that don't follow the blog, it'll be a free update if you already own the rules. No cost, this one is on me.

If you aren't in the loop, NEIS is platoon level wargaming with a big campaign focus. Suitable for cold war and present-day conflicts, its probably one of the more "gritty" sets out there, forcing you to make hard choices as casualties and stress mounts.

Thanks Weasel!

Nice one!

So for modern gaming which is the best rule set to get from you?

NEIS is specifically post-ww2 though its aimed at the platoon level.

If you are interested in larger battles, I also do FiveCore Company Command (same scale as Crossfire basically) and Brigade Commander, both of which will receive revisions in the near future.

FiveCore is aimed a touch more at narrative campaign play, while NEIS is more gritty and mean. You have to contend with wounded troopers f.x.

What I like about Weasel is he gets an idea in his head for a single rules mod for a game when he rolls out of bed n the morning, and by the time he goes back to bed he has revised the entire rulebook and gone on to develop an unrelated supplement for a new genre.

I wish I had that kind of motivation.

Did I tell you guys about my robo-roman chariot racing rules? :D

Joking aside (and much blushing from the praise), the PDF should be up tomorrow if all goes well.

Got a bit of extra content squeezed in at the last moment, just fixing up the tables now.

I'm more interested in smaller scale such as squad level.

You can skirmish down a bit with this, but its not as good as something written specifically to be man-to-man.

FiveCore will skirmish very well, but it's not as "gritty", if that makes sense.
I'd say its about on the same level as something like Chain Reaction in that sense.

So the end is in sight for "No End in Sight" v.2 then! :-)

Well played :-)

Aaaaaand she's live. Go download your files again!

Partial change-log at the blog here:
link

link

I'm more interested in smaller scale such as squad level.

In that case try 5 men in Kursk. Last week at the club we played two squads with 2 supports each in 2 hours to a conclusion (and we were green, only on guy in the group read the rules before that game). There were a handful of casualties, and a side willingly vacated the field because they was an untenable position.

Martin – if you don't mind, can you give me a rundown of how the game was received at the club?

Here or email me at runequester@gmail.com

Would you mind talking a bit about the removal of permanent stress? I know some people have problems with bookkeeping but I rather liked it as a mechanic and am curious what you envision the effects of removing it would have on gameplay?

Gasmasked – Definitely.

The need for two types of markers was always a sticking point, so on a whim, we played a few games where we removed the mechanic.
To my great surprise, the effect on the game decision making really didn't change all that much.

I think the main factor is that permanent stress is really a delayed mechanic:
If I run up 4 stress on a squad leader in the first phase of the game, in phase two, I'd start with 1 stress under both systems.

Lets say during the second phase of the battle, I keep that squad back and they only earn 2 stress (for a total of 3).

In hte only system, they'd still have 1 left afterwards for phase 3, while in the new system, they'd be back to okay condition.

The way I see it, if you intentionally hold that leader out of the fight for an entire phase, it seems reasonable that they could be rallied back to operational condition.
Of course, that also means avoiding casualties, so it can be a severe limitation for the rest of the force.

So in short, we found that the difference in gameplay was minimal and where it did change, we kinda liked the new effect.
That being said, its obviously easy to house-rule back in :-)

That help?

I suppose the part of the reason I liked the permanent stress mechanic is that it modelled morale loss from casualties (and in particular the loss of squad leaders) in a manner that seemed relatively streamlined into a mainline mechanic (stress) but also distinguished enough that it couldn't be adressed by just taking a breather. Units being very rapidly rendered ineffective with only one or two casualties (while potentially less exciting from a purely gaming perspective) feels less likely without the distinction although as you say, it is something that can be houseruled quite easily.

Thanks for the reply by the way – it is always really illuminating to hear you talk through game design decisions and I am very excited to see the second edition of No Stars in Sight

You're always welcome. I'm always hoping that by talking about this kind of stuff, it inspires more people to give writing a go.

There's an option to tweak motivation up and down now too, which adjusts the "threshold" for casualties before incurring stress, so that's another "toggle" to play with.