Allan,
I've repeatedly played SG with card initiative (and FT). Giving the command
units an
interrupt, and letting overwatch/reaction fire
take place, does make for a faster game. I think the measuring and moving
takes a fair amount of the time, but the great amount of time I see burnt in
SG is player thinking. This seems to be because players don't often think
ahead and know ahead of time what their reactions to certain types of
situation will be. Plus there is a lot of "board eyeballing" to cheat lines of
sight, etc. But the card initiative thing is faster and a little more tense,
for sure.
Tomb.
PS - OO: I'm not sure I buy your comment that
the ONLY thing preventing us from making a workable Gauss rifle is a
powerpack. I suspect that shielding the weapon or the user sufficiently such
that the EM pulse required to deliver a penetrating hit isn't dangerous will
prove difficult. It's coming out even now that 20 year old cell phones give an
80% risk of brain cancer.... I think it more than likely that accelerating
ferrous needles to high velocities will require a fairly gutsy pulse, and that
probalby won't be all that healthy to have your head up against (as in using
the optics on the weapon).
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:54:26 -0400, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:
> I've repeatedly played SG with card initiative
It sounds like fun. The very first skirmish wargame I ever played had card
initiative, and it's very tense.
> I think
I find that, too. It's very frustrating as I do think ahead. I find the same
issue in FT, as well.
> >I've repeatedly played SG with card initiative
I hadn't thought of card based initiative, but it does sound like making games
more like real combat. I had been toying with a multitued of ways to add the
unexpected and randomness into games.
And besides I'd rather say something like "well I lost because several units
didn't seize the moment" compared to the usual "I rolled really crap".
Jeremey
> And besides I'd rather say something like "well I lost because several
I had an opponent accuse me of having sold my soul to the devil this weekend
after the string of 6's I rolled on a d6.
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:54:26 -0400, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:
> Giving the command units an
How did you handle leader interrupts? Could they interrupt anything at any
time, or could they only interrupt in certain circumstances?
I'm thinking that I'd let them jump in and activate before any other unit
activated, however I would not let them activate in the middle of another
unit's activation (i.e. after a unit used one action).
Do you allow interrupts during interrupts? For instance, if a card for Blue
was drawn, and Red decided to interrupt with a leader before Blue's unit could
activate, could Blue then turn around and activate a leader to interrupt Red's
leader activation?
> Giving the command units an
There is a major problem in using cards to activate units. With lets say
8 units (cards) total and
highly experienced players (1 - 2 minutes per unit) a turn could be
completed 8 to 16 minutes with average of 12 minutes. Thus your local game
would show cards to work out extremely well.
Now go to a convention with six people per side (12 units - cards) and
people with various experiences (1 to 5 minutes per unit) and a turn could
take from
12 to 60 minutes with average of 30 minutes. The problem is that for 90% of
that time most of the people are sitting around doing nothing. Nothing makes a
game die faster then doing nothing.
The record waste of time game I've been to was after waiting 30 minutes I went
out and ate lunch came back after 45 minutes and still had to wait to move.
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:30:52 -0500, Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net>
wrote:
> The problem is that for 90% of that time
I'm not sure I'd do it at a convention. First, I like to show people how the
game really works, without house rules (or a minimum of house rules, or house
rules that fix holes in a game). Second, players like to be involved in the
process of deciding who gets to activate. This gets players on both sides
involved.
Usually I give the player with the command unit the fewest units, but give him
the responsibility of choosing the unit that activates. Players don't usually
get bored, as any time a unit is fired upon that player has to roll the range
die, and dice for Confidence Tests.
> The record waste of time game I've been to was after waiting 30 minutes
> I went out and
The last WH40K game I played was at a convention. It was a huge game that was
taking 30 minutes before it was my turn, and I was co-running a unit. I
ended up losing interest, wandered the dealer's room and showing up once every
half hour just to see what was happening. It essentially killed the last
interest I had in WH40K. This was about 10 years ago, with the game using the
old Rogue Trader rules.
> The problem is that for 90% of that time most of the people
Allan said:
> Usually I give the player with the command unit the fewest units, but
When TomB ran "Change of Orders" last ECC, I was commander for the OUDF team.
I assigned all the units except for the leader individual figure to the other
players (and I ended up attaching my leader to a squad); I spent most of my
time either deciding who to activate next, or helping some of the less
experienced players go through the mechanics. Worked out well.
In a message dated 8/28/02 11:33:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gamers@ameritech.net writes:
> There is a major problem in using cards to activate units. With lets
> people with
> doing nothing.
I think this is a fact of life with the majority of con games with lots of
participants. Your choices are: A. Divide everyone into two armies and
alternate sides having a complete go ala 40K. B. if you still want to
alternate units you can appoint a leader for each side who designates when
units activate or C, use card initiative.
Let's rule out A as it does not yield the kind of game most mature gamers
enjoy (40K fans please forward your flames to /dev/null)
B can leave you not only with the boredom of long spaces between when you
activate, but the tyranny of the acting army leader telling you what to do all
the time. You get to be a glorified lead pusher. Now sometimes it is
appropriate for the leader to tell you what to do, but I have been in con
games where you are always told what to do. It sucks.
Choice C can lead to boredom between activations, but at least you usually get
to keep your freedom of choice. It also works really well in games with more
than two factions.
I think both B and C can suffer from poor con game design. Often what was a
swell game when you worked it out with one of your friends, or several of your
regular gaming buddies, doesn't work out between a larger group of strangers.
many con game designers overreach.
I have participated in con games under all three methods and have had good and
bad experiences in all methods. It all depends on how well the scenario was
designed and how compatible you are with that particular set of con goers.
My all time biggest disaster was playing a game of Star Wars macrotures at one
of the Dexcons. Dozens of beautiful ship models, some four feet long. The game
started around 10 or 11pm. By 2:30am I had made one 12" move and my next turn
was no where in site. It was card driven.
On the other hand, I played in a game of Blood and Swash at ColdWars and that
was card driven and the action was nonstop. I had a blast!
It all reverts to good con game design: select the right rules/mechanics
to allow everyone an opportunity to participate by playing the game. Sitting
for long periods of time doing nothing or putting someone in a position where
there moves are dictated for them is counter to the objective.
Martin
A card initiative variation that we've used on other games: We use a deck of
standard playing cards. Each player receives a
number of cards based on his leader's experience - one for
inexperienced, two for veteran, three for elite. Each turn, the player plays
one card. At the end of the turn he receives a replacement card. Play until
cards run out, then recycle the deck.
Cards go in descending order (k,Q,J,10...A) with suits (S,H,D,C) deciding
between the same number. All the players reveal at the same time.
Advantages - More player decision, (at least with veteran and elite
leaders) since you have a choice of cards to play.
More interaction - you know when you get to go at the beginning of the
turn - you know what units you need to observe as going before or after
you and so you can plan ahead.
Limited guarantee of going first - since you don't know for sure what
cards the opponents have you aren't guaranteed to act first (unless you have
the King of Spades). Even if the deck runs out, some people may be
holding high cards from the re-shuffle.
Allows planning ahead - an elite leader with 3 high cards pretty much
has the initiative for 3 turns, regardless of the next two draws.
Disadvantages - the order of the suits is not intuitive, players will
need to be reminded that Spades are higher than Hearts.. etc.
More card handling - a large game with 6 or more players will result in
many cards being dealt and more often re-shuffling of the deck.
Less randomness in initiative - you know when all the other players are
going during the turn.
A slower variation on this is for the players to keep their cards secret, have
a referee call down the numbers and players only activate then their card is
called.
--Binhan
> MxConnell@aol.com wrote:
Interestingly, I've been in a couple of con games that did both B and C.
The "Fire as She Bears" rules use card initiative _and_ have an admiral
on each side. When your side's card comes up, the admiral decides which
commander moves his ships. I've played it as both captain and admiral, and
didn't notice any problem with the game being slow or boring.
That could be the effect of the rest of the rules, however. FASB is not
> Disadvantages - the order of the suits is not intuitive, players will
Unless, of course, you know that card suits have precedence in reverse