"A question for folks who play Two Fat Lardies rules" Topic

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

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

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.

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.

They are meant for different levels of combat but IMO O Group is the superior.

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.