|
|
Post by kealios on Feb 1, 2012 10:38:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Feb 1, 2012 11:57:37 GMT -5
I'm glad you enjoyed  |
|
|
|
Post by inrepose on Feb 2, 2012 9:19:02 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing again!
|
|
|
|
Post by kealios on Feb 2, 2012 17:59:45 GMT -5
Ive had some discussions with my friends after the game. My opponent was exhausted the evening we played (work really took it out of him), and so maybe that was why he was less than impressed with the game, but I'll admit, I had a blast.
I do want to let you know how we are going to play a few things, simply because Tomorrow's War sold us on doing things this way:
Movement: For infantry, we're going to move the leader the correct distance and then fudge his squadmates a bit
Firing Range: We're going to measure from the squad leader to the target's leader (which is the AT-43 way of doing things, if I remember correctly). Failing that, we can measure center of unit-to-center of unit. It will make, "Well I have 4 guys in short range and 2 in long range, plus one SAW that is in range and one that is in long range, so lesse....I'll need...." kind of situations.
I think my friend also wants to push for card avtivation. Sounds cool!
|
|
|
|
Post by foxfirepro on Feb 2, 2012 19:37:24 GMT -5
I really like your idea about using the, "measuring ranges from firing squad leader to target squad leader" abstraction in Gruntz. I totally agree about how it rids the game experience of needless range related fiddly-ness.
Card activation may also help me with my AT-43 withdrawal.
Oh, I used to really enjoy AT-43! I miss that game so much. :*(
One of my reasons for picking up Gruntz was a desire to find another set of rules for fielding my Red Blok - though I am still lurking about the boards seeing how other people handle their experiments with Gruntz in 28mm.
I also thought 28mm Gruntz would be a great way to get my huge collection of HGUC 1/144 Gundam models onto a miniature playing field (as assault mechs, perhaps).
Oh whoops, and I meant to say "Great AAR". I'd really like to see what you do with an AAR with some more board space, more units, and a scenario, too. But wish lists aside I really enjoy image-heavy AARs and have a great respect for those who can come up with the discipline and attention to actually photo while playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by inrepose on Feb 3, 2012 8:29:18 GMT -5
I like that point about ranges. I wanted the detail in the game for smaller skirmishes, but it totally nails the fuss over measuring for each Grunt in the unit. For the detail level Gruntz was originally aimed for it could lead to some issues if you had 1 Grunt leader popping his head around a large terrain item and then let the rest of the squad fire at what he can see.
I think you would need to be friendly fair players in these instances and perhaps suggest that line of sight has to be all figures in the squad but range is only from the leader. That might work.
|
|
|
|
Post by pancake on Feb 3, 2012 13:15:23 GMT -5
nice one, glad you liked it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kikashi on Feb 3, 2012 21:24:34 GMT -5
This only really makes sense with group mounted troops, surely.
This is a skirmish game with deliberately individually based figures. So having each figure move individually and potentially have different hit probabilities, is not only NOT a bad thing but a positively good thing.
Without it you can't detach figures, you can't have half the models use an action to go prone whilst the other half, use the same action to fire over their heads, etc
|
|
|
|
Post by inrepose on Feb 4, 2012 6:09:26 GMT -5
That is true although the group based variant rules could perhaps operate with the single aiming option.
|
|
|
|
Post by kealios on Feb 5, 2012 1:53:00 GMT -5
First of all, you are mistaking the option I presented with that of other games, maybe. This isnt a skirmish game. Skirmish games have 10 models on the board. This is a Platoon-level game at the minimum, and certainly no more than a company. That changes things. That being said, just because you measure from the center of the unit or the leader does NOT mean that every trooper is in LOS! Use common sense here. If my leader is at a corner and has LOS to your leader (or deepest squad member in LOS, whatever), but none of his squad members have LOS, then: A) Only the Leader is firing this turn!, and B) Only the Leader will be a casualty from return fire, assuming nothing changes the LOS example in question. Sure, losing the leader means nothing, because you can just replace him with any model, but do that enough times and all you'll have is a Leader with no squad  If you dont like the more generic approach, no problem. We just think it was ace when it came to TW, and think it'll make Gruntz flow that much more. @firefoxpro, thanks man. You should see some of the Epic: Armageddon BatReps I did. I love pics and telling a convincing story, but I need to hire a scribe for my battles - scribbling notes sure does slow the game play down |
|
|
|
Post by gypsycomet on Feb 5, 2012 19:41:08 GMT -5
A similar result can be had by measuring for the guy in front and the guy in back, then placing the rest of the squad "between" them. Any big flanking maneuvers would need to be measured as well (not that standard coherency lets you get very far), but for a simple bit of "on the bounce" it isn't a bad speed up.
|
|
