You have the option in BKC of leaving the hits on, so infantry etc 'die' quickly if not carefully handled. This helps when playing at the same level as IABSM, which I believe is where one stand equals one section rather than a platoon. As I understand, the blinds are very similar to the hidden deployment as per CWC, and so can be used in BKC.

In the end each to his own. I've looked at IABSM, which looks good, but given the limited gaming time at present, I'll stick with BKC.

Greetings

I play both IABSM and BKC.  They're really different things.  BKC can be played as one stand = 1 platoon or one stand = 1 squad while IABSM is 1 figure = 1 man.

IABSM is definitely different and - as Luddite's post makes clear - isn't for everyone.   I am personally a fan of it.  I think (hope) Luddite's been unlucky with his experience and/or the approach just isn't for him. 

I've generally managed to get period tactics to work with my games of IABSM, albeit it's not easy to get right.  It's critical to deploy your key command personnel (Big Men) in the right place to maximise what you can do with them if you want to improve the chance of getting your troops to carry out the plan.  When things have gone wrong for me it's usually either because I've not done this and/or I've been tactically inept - in the last big game I played it was not using smoke from the platoon 2" mortars to cover movement and failing to use the supporting 3" mortars in time or to best effect (resulting in giving the opposing Italians entirely too good a target).   

The other thing to note is that users of IABSM - and indeed other TFL rules - are encouraged to treat them as a starting point and somewhat of a toolbox to get the game that best reflects their take on tactics in the relevant period or makes the game run better for them.  This, together with the Kriegspiel approach, is what I think Luddite alludes to in terms of 'making things up'.    One of the first times I played my opponent and I looked at a piece of terrain and agreed what precise effect we thought it had in that particular situation as cover - we applied guidelines and principles to fit the situation.

Page 69 of IABSM 3 says:
"I Ain’t Been Shot Mum is designed to be a tool box of rules that allows the gamer to play his games in the way that best suits him. As a result we encourage people to add their own
ideas to the game system. Indeed, the card system is perfect for adding all sorts of extras, be they for all your games or just specific scenarios."

Incidentally wouldn't worry about silly name syndrome as it's easily ignored and indeed few such instances remain in the current version.   

Regards

Edward

Chaps at my club love the whole TFL thing and play everything from Sharpe Practice to Bag The Hun.

We really tried to like these rules, and played IABSM 1st Ed., a bit of Through the Mud and the Blood too.  Ditched it as a bad job.  

We came back to the current version of IABSM for a good few games too, and to be fair the latest version is an improvement, but its still just terrible.  

Or rather 'not my thing'.  Creaking, patchy rules and game play that doesn't live up the the 'play the period not the rules' hype.

Um...as i've covered above, in my opinion, other opinions are available, etc.  



It's all good though, after all there are lots of other options out there ( http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5803.0.html ) and if we all agreed there wouldn't be war.  Where would The Hobby be then!??!

1st edition was very patchy

3rd edition is complete.  Ok there is the odd 'hold on, what does he mean' moment, but that is a product of being very much a 1 or 2 man band who didn't catch it in tests. The biggest weakness in my opinion is the armour rules, but then it is an infantry game.

The thing about Sunjester and mine games is that we have started really getting the hang on what to do tactics wise- how to win.  And we find what we are doing is using WW2 tactics.  What we found in our latest games is that close assaults have to be formed properly - you cant just charge forward willy-nilly as you can in many games of many periods.  I watched him waste a turn forming a platoon to storm a bunker that turned out to be empty. (I don't mean the 2nd turn because I didn't tell him it was empty, slightly gamey by me!)  BUT he couldn't afford not to do it by the book - if I had any one in there he would have died horribly had he not done it right.

FIBUA is a particular pain in the arse - you really do have to take time -Prep, suppress, close assault, repeat.

Personally I think BKC is pitched too low - it could have been a really good 1 stand = 1 company game, which is a gap in the market.

Quote from: Last Hussar on 24 August 2012, 11:50:37 PM
Personally I think BKC is pitched too low - it could have been a really good 1 stand = 1 company game, which is a gap in the market.

An old disagreement of LH and I, so I'll publicly admit to my heresy.

They are not really a platoon or company, they are a stand of painted little metal men.

If you want to imagine them to represent a company, whilst my warped imagination sees them as a platoon, in the same game, that does not interfere with the rules at all!

See mechanics aren't important to SJ, he just wants to push tanks around, which is why he plays BKC.

Greetings

So long as you use 10mm Pandraken tanks ... ? 

I had a packet of Western Desert British drop through the letterbox yesterday.   They will serve both in BKC and IABSM I suspect. 

Regards

Edward

I've just started playing IABSM after many many games of BKC. I've found that in the couple of games I've played thus far I've really really enjoyed the differences of the game. I'll still play both as we've almost always played BKC with a base = platoon scale which is not directly competitive to IABSM.

I've not found any of the silly name stuff annoying, and its not like it's part of the rules anyway, they're usually little explanations/demos. I have to admit I'm a bit leery of rules which are "toolkits" or ones which advertise that they're easily house ruled as that usually has meant that they're incomplete or lacking in definition. IABSM hasn't yet crossed that line for me, what I am seeing is that they've left the door open and signposted the way if you want to add more to adjust to your own ideas or taste.

I can see why the card based and variable turn length mechanisms can jar, I have had a number of turns where the run of cards didn't go my way. However, the tea break does give those units not yet activated chance to fire if there are close range targets, similar to the initiative phase in BKC. Also, it means that you have to plan properly in defense for sure. Being on blinds is far more useful than you seem to give credit for Luddite, it gives you an extra action, allows movement of multiple units together and more.

Played a British Civil War game this afternoon (well yesterday now!)  My motorbike platoon of two sections roared up the road, got to exactly where I wanted them, and jumped off the bikes (they had satchel charges, and so were the A/T platoon!) and then...

didn't move for three turns, by which time the Fascist armoured cars had turned up and machine gunned them, pinning them down.

Now those who deride card driven movement point would say men don't do this.  Look at it this way

16 blokes had jumped off bikes, needed to get them out the way (they might want them later!), and then ran to the nearest cover - a building between them and the panzer I. They froxe because they were trying to get the courage up to run up to a tin box armed with machine guns, and lob a bag at it!  The non movement was actually about 2 minutes within the battle, which includes getting the bikes sorted out and forming up, then looking around trying to work out exactly how to get near the tanks, checking the house out etc.

I am not sure if It is bad form to resurrect old threads but I have just found this one having been reading IABSM since Saturday.  I am not sure which edition I have, I presume the third one, but the rules seem quite clear to me.  In fact I was expecting something far less professional in presentation based on some comments I had read on this forum.  The rules read well, they are clearly written by people who know their historical onions, and nicely presented.  If nothing else it has been a very interesting read with some different ideas.

Of course, the Devil is in the detail, and I was wondering about the ability to make a plan and to stick to it during the game?  I see that is an issue raised here and wondered what experiences people had had? 

Greetings

Sticking to a plan is difficult - because of friction - but usually can be done provided that you commit enough Big Men to keep things moving where you need to.

Of course trying to ram your plan home against opposition you weren't planning for can be a bad idea.   However, I've also seen a number of games lost by the player(s) taking fright and changing their plans, leading to confusion, dispersion of force, reinforcement of failure and penny-packeting (and a number of these occasions have been me!).   

Regards

Edward

Okay, thanks Edward.  It seems to me that the leaders are critical to getting your plan implemented.  Which seems perfectly reasonable. 

I like the idea that external factors can mess up your day, you then have to react to that as best you can.  That rings true of my reading of first hand accounts of WWII. 

I am getting quite excited at the prospect of rolling out a game.  Another read through first though.

Thanks.

Quote from: Baker Boy on 20 November 2012, 11:15:08 AM
Of course, the Devil is in the detail, and I was wondering about the ability to make a plan and to stick to it during the game?  I see that is an issue raised here and wondered what experiences people had had? 

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.

Never played these,  but have played other TFL rules.  I am a bit puzzled.  I thought the basic principle on which these rules worked involved the cards being  used to decide the order in which units were activated, not whether they were activated at all.  In TCHAE for the ACW we have always played it that when the coffee card comes out, those units which have yet to activate are activated, within certain limits. To quote from TCHAE about the coffee card,  "This signifies the end of the turn. Troops that are within close artillery or small arms range may now fire (simultaneously) if their commander's card has not been turned, or if the commander has reserved fire.  Aggressive troops not on blinds, who have attack orders and are within 8" of the enemy, will now continue their move with no change of formation.  Combat will be fought if they contact the enemy.". Is there nothing similar in IABSM?

Mollinary

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.