
"A question for folks who play Two Fat Lardies rules" Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Rules Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset Rating:
Featured Showcase Article Can a WWII blockgame find happiness as a miniatures campaign system?
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
Featured Movie Review
|
captaincold69 | 15 Jan 2025 10:41 a.m. PST |
If you had too choose between O'Group or IABSM, which would you choose? Which, in your opinion, gives a better feel of combat? Personally, I'm torn. I've played more IABSM,but I find the rules for O'Group to be more clear and organized. Combat seems slightly more detailed in IABSM, but O'Group allows for more toys on the table. Love to hear people's thoughts |
batesmotel34 | 15 Jan 2025 12:25 p.m. PST |
I have played IABSM, but haven't played O Group. Unless either one is so badly written as to be unplayable, I would probably decide based on whether I preferred the company/battalion level of IABSM or the higher level O Group represents. As I recall, O Group is pretty flexible for basing, so you can probably play both sets with figures based for IABSM. My preference would probably be 6mm for both. Chris |
TacticalPainter01 | 15 Jan 2025 1:45 p.m. PST |
IABSM is company level and O Group is battalion, so there is a key difference there as in O Group you are operating three companies and assets rather than one. As much as I like the card activation in Sharp Practice, I'm less sold on it for IABSM. O Group uses an order system which is simple but very effective. While it gives players a greater degree of control it still incorporates friction and limited choices. I particularly like the use of combat patrols, these are like Chain of Command jump-off-points but more dynamic. So O Group retains that Lardy ethos of friction and fog of war, but it does it with mechanics that do a good job of reflecting battalion level actions and command issues. I wouldn't say either was ‘better', just different. |
wpilon | 15 Jan 2025 10:05 p.m. PST |
I've played and enjoyed both but I find O-Group just a bit easier and more enjoyable because it seems better written and it plays smoother. Both are excellent though. |
Guthroth | 16 Jan 2025 3:23 p.m. PST |
They are meant for different levels of combat but IMO O Group is the superior. |
advocate | 17 Jan 2025 10:12 a.m. PST |
As well as the difference is scale of game, IABSM is card activated, while OG gives each side a limited number of orders which can be allocated. On the whole I prefer the latter activation method. |
Joe Legan | 19 Jan 2025 7:18 a.m. PST |
Good opinions voiced already. You stated you want more toys on the table. O group, being at battalion rather than company level will give you that. O group gives you the feeling of moving companies. IABSM is more character driven due to big men and is at the company level. This you can have Lt Smothers or Sgt Jacks. O group won't give you that. O group will give you 2nd company is a mess; need to send in some reserves to bolster that flank. Depends on what your focus is. Both are good games That help? Joe |
|