IABSM

[Baker Boy]

Millinery.   I am not sure.  I will re-read the rules later.  From what I recall you have some choices about deploying and stuff. 

[Luddite]

Well, i'd reserve judgement old chap.  My view is definitely a 'vocal minority'.   

Hope you enjoy the rules Baker Boy.

Personally i'm enjoying Bolt Action for tactical scale at the moment.  Sure its 40k WWII but it seems to work pretty well.

[Shecky]

Just a couple of points about IABSM:

1. Yes, some players can get frustrated with the end of turn "tea break" card. An umpire can counter this by either not using a tea break card, only putting it in the deck when shooting has started or using two tea breaks and ending the turn after the second is drawn. I have used all three options. If playing with people new to IABSM I tend to go with the two tea breaks inserted once the shooting starts.

2. Players need to remember all options available to them and not just have one plan. In other words be thinking about what may happen in a turn and how you will respond. For example, if platoon A is activated before the enemy platoon B then I will lay down fire with squad 1, pin the enemy with my MMG and assault with squad 2. But if the big man is activated first the I will call in artillery. If the enemy is activated first then I will use my activation to remove shock and maneuver with platoon C when the are activated.

3. Don't be afraid to come out of blinds. Once units are put on the table their cards go in the deck. If you still have blinds on the table the odds of them moving becomes reduced as more unit cards make up the deck. Don't think you're going to pull a ruse on the enemy with your dummy blind. I've only seen a ruse work once. Chances are your opponent knows its a dummy any way. Keeping real units under blinds once the fighting starts can reduce your options for action and increases the chance of a run on cards for your opponent.

4. Remember that units on blind can reveal themselves at the end of the turn and fire on targets within 9". This can be a real shock to an enemy who wanders in too closely and has used all their action points.

5. Call in artillery early and often. It will take a while to arrive so the sooner you call it in the better.

6. Don't be afraid to wait for an attack to happen. Too often I've seen a player launch an attack just because a unit is activated. It's ok to wait until you've softened the enemy before attacking. And think about reserving actions for firing later or at the end of a turn.

7. For the first couple of games with new players try playing without blinds and tea breaks. This will let everyone get used to the system.

8. Finally, for now, as an umpire, come up with what constitutes great, ok and poor shots. This is more to help you understand and be consistent in grading the firing than it is to help the players.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

In my experience its all but impossible, and relies almost entirely on the luck of the card draw.

I'll give you one of several examples.

We played a scenario with a dug in German platoon under assault by a British Company.
The British plan involved a basic frontal pin with two flanking manoeuvres.

After six turns of card cycles, the German has butchered everything in sight while the British had barely moved off their start line...all due to the German cards coming out and the British cards not.  The Brits were forced cobble something together from their limited 'tea break' options.

Friction?  Maybe.
Realistic?  Possibly.
Fun?  Not in any way.

And the plan was pretty much impossible to act on because of the cards.

We've encountered similar problems in other games, even with the judicious use of the 'Big Men'.

That said, other people love the rules so there must be something in them.

I can think of a number of reasons why this could go pear shaped if done in daylight without adequate supporting fires and smoke.  Also if the flanking was tried without covered avenues of approach I can understand why there were problems. 

It is of course true that the cards can really foul up your day and the approach is not for everyone - thre's no right way to play with toy solders after all. 

Regards

Edward

[moocifer]

Got to agree in particular with POINTS 1 & 2 by Shecky as aids for unfamiliar players clinging to "their inflexible one track ways".   

[Baker Boy]

Sorry, I may be missing something here.  What are these inflexible one track ways?

[Luddite]

Sorry, I may be missing something here.  What are these inflexible one track ways?

*Awaits clarification with interest*



OK, so we've been playing Bolt Action a lot lately, and loving it. 

It's basically the core 40k mechanics retooled for WWII and works surprisingly well with mechanics and frictions that are very intuitive and tactically deep.  Given its parentage i've been genuinely surprised at these rules.

However, it bolts on a random activation system that is superficially similar to IABSM.  Unlike IABSM though, it works.  I'm still trying to figure out how and why, for me BA works and IABSM doesn't, but i think its because there are no 'teabreaks'. 

In BA every unit will act, its just that you're unsure of the order.  This, like all random activation, gives that requirement to decide what to do at each point - but you know that by the end of the turn, your plans will be able to develop and you won't be shafted by an unexpected turn end.
I guess therefore that removing the teabreak from IABSM may get round the basic problem we've encountered, all too often, of one side sitting about while the other gets all the cards, and then pulling the teabreak to stop the chance of reacting.

Might be worth considering for your run through Baker Boy, if you encounter the same dissatisfaction i did (which hopefully you won't and IABSM will bring you a great deal of fun and enjoyment).

Of course that raises for me, a additional irritation...house rules.  If i'm shelling out £20-30 for a set of rules, i do not want to have to house-rule things. 
I also don't really like the 'shoulder shrug' from game rules, where the intended effect of the rule as written is unclear and leaves you to have to interpret things for yourself. 
IABSM seems to enshrine this.  What, for example, is a 'good shot'?  Almost every other set of rules is able to establish something so basic, yet IABSM just sort of says 'make it up'  .   
Fair enough, but i can do that without shelling out cash to be told i can...

I'm really looking forward to reading your experience of IABSM Baker Boy.  Hopefully you'll love them and be able to tell me why i'm wrong not to! 

[rexhurley]

For example i'm currently just getting into Maurice, which i think is an example of how to do card activation well.  In fact its an example of how to do an awful lot of rules mechanics very well indeed!   

holy sh*t I have seen everything now Luddite actually liking something friggin hell what next hell freezing over 

[rexhurley]

Luddite.  Thanks for the warning!  That sounds like no fun at all.

From my limited reading through of the rules I am trying to imagine how such a result could happen.  It seems very extreme!  I need to get my figures sorted out before I can get a game to test these out.   

It cant in v3 pretty much everything gets a chance to go, besides war is a bitch and hey the brits got shot up pretty good advancing in extended line in the same old way in Normandy so why not on the tabletop 

[rexhurley]

hey Luddite re Bolt Action superfically like IABSM hmm i have to wonder the use random activation using dice liek cards, they use big men ideas which looks to me as a direct plagarising copy of TFL ideas that have been around for years hmmm not overly inventive by our GW friends is it but hey each to their own after all I support FOW too....  

Oh and before you reply to that last i remember seeing a post from you admitting you use them for your med game a bit of hyprocisy to stab them then use em buddy 

[Luddite]

holy sh*t I have seen everything now Luddite actually liking something friggin hell what next hell freezing over  

There's an awful lot i like and i say so profusely.  Check out my pro-rants for things like F&F, DBx, Legends of the Old West, Crossfire, Spearhead, some of the excellent painting and modelling on here, etc.

I'll also make my views clear with things i don't like.

This is a forum after all and like all forums it requires people to express their views!    That way 'debate' lies...

they use big men ideas which looks to me as a direct plagarising copy of TFL ideas that have been around for years

TFL didn't come up with the idea of 'heroes' (what they call 'big men'   ).  Indeed, GW in the early days were producing 'Chainmail' style games with heroes leading small bands of warriors, etc. ,and they were inspired by earlier uses etc. etc.

after all I support FOW too....  

Oh and before you reply to that last i remember seeing a post from you admitting you use them for your med game a bit of hyprocisy to stab them then use em buddy

No need for the personal attack old boy.  

And if you read my rants properly you'll find that yes we used FoW quite a bit when it was first released.  VERY pretty rulebooks after all, and we'll try anything new that looks worth a go.  We even played a game or two lately, with the latest version of the rules, to see if they'd improved.  After a game in which a couple of British Universal Carriers appeared to combine the capabilities of Star Trek teleporters and a tactical nuclear missile we pretty much gave it up as 'no improvement there then'...

Unless its immediately dreadful or unworkable, we'll stick with it for a good few games.  Heck we even spent a few sessions trying to play Mr Lincoln's War!  

In fact several of our groups still play FoW.  We however abandoned it as a bad job after a good few sessions using them and becoming increasingly dismayed at the ridiculous results it produced.  FoW is undoubtedly a popular game in the same vein as 40k.  But it ain't a wargame and as i've said, its one of the worst WWII rulesets i've come across.

My views of IABSM are also from quite a bit of experience playing them, from first ed. to the latest edition.  They should work and we're always on the lookout for a decent tactical scale set of rules for our WWII games, which is why we've given them a fair go.  And again at our club, the TFL rules are very popular.  I've just had too many games with them where i've been pushing bits of cardboard about rather than pretty figures, or games where i've spent the evening sat about waiting for cards to be drawn while my opponent rampages all over the battlefield.  

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

As we've said before different people like different things and so they should. What works for me (IABSM) doesn't for Luddite.  While that's a shame I'd far prefer he play a set of rules he likes.   

As I understand it (read but not played) Bolt Action basically randomises when a side will get an action, whereas IABSM will also randomise which unit gets to act (as well as other effects, bonuses etc).  I think I am right in saying that quite a bit of IABSM is rooted in Kriegspeil concepts, hence the decision making over types of shot etc and common use of umpires.

Regards

Edward

[rexhurley]

Well said Luddite, nice replies, and believe it or not I actually agree re FOW and their current direction which is why I have moved on to .... well trying to the lazy side of me keeps trying to justify not learning another set

Re Blinds is there any thoughts if the game works well without them or is that core?  Sorry I ask as I have indulged brought them but have yet to play (where I live is like a desert for gamers) plus I'm trying to be good and (a) finish my Maurice project and (b) not revert to what is known...

oh and go the mighty AB's time for the hapless pongo's   

[Shecky]

You can certainly play the game without blinds. In fact, I would suggest new players not use them so they can focus on the other game mechanics.

In Luddite's tag line he quotes:
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

That's the idea I have when running IABSM. I think they work best with an umpire/game master. I'll surreptitiously change the order of the deck to prevent a run by one side, keep the turn from ending too soon, bring on reinforcements, get a player involved, etc.

We started playing IABSM with very simple forces - all infantry with few support weapons. As we became more familiar with the rules we began adding elements - off board artillery, snipers, support weapons, tanks, etc. We played without the tea break card, then added one, then two... And as we became more experienced the way players use blinds has become more interesting. Some players prefer to come off blinds as soon as possible, others lead with their the dummy blinds, and one guy even launched a flank attack with the dummy blinds which forced the other player to shift forces to deal with the supposed threat.

So long story short, use the rules as you see fit and add elements as you become more experienced.