--- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com, "andrea sfiligoi"
<andreasfiligoi@...> wrote:
>
> Rick,
> zombie stats are in. Guns are in. What more do you need? Grenades?
> Bear in mind that SB could be slow if you are playing with hordes of
zombies
> (I added a zombie leader figure so one can make group activations...
zombies
> are real slow but deadly in hand to hand if they gang up on your
models)
> Andrea

---

Grenades, light machineguns, anti-tank weapons, flamethrowers, etc.
are always good to have on hand during a zombie outbreak. :)

Al | http://www.rivetsandsteam.com

I'd be interested if you could do a modern zombie game with the rules.
I have a ton of zombies that I've used with another system.

Rick Petersen

andrea sfiligoi wrote:
>
> generic, you can use them for any of the three major eras as the main
> differences will be the quality of firearms and the look of the
> characters. It's SBH in horror version (but some rules change) Let's
> say classic Victorian horror works as it is written.
> Andrea
>
>
>
>
> On 8/20/07, *damused* <dusser@... <mailto:dusser@...>> wrote:
>
>     --- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com
>     <mailto:songofblades%40yahoogroups.com>, "andrea sfiligoi"
>     <andreasfiligoi@...> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi all,
>     > do you feel like tackling on some creatures of the night?
>     > The first, never-playtested before, rough draft of FEAR and FAITH (my
>     > SBH-based horror skirmish rules) is almost completed and looking for
>     > playtesters.
>
>     I'd be interested. What era or aspect of Horror is the focus? Is it
>     fantasyish, modern, victorian...?
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Check my fine art here:  www.yessy.com/umbra <http://www.yessy.com/umbra>
>

I saw the ad on TMP for these rules and decided to risk $4 based on the
reviews.  Glad I did.  This is a fun fast game I can play with my
seldom used rpg models.  I have a couple of questions after my first
game with the wife.  I looked through all the posts here, reading
through the ones with subjects that may answer my questions, but no
luck. Forgive me if I'm covering old ground.

Concerning the matter of whether a shooter is engaged in hand to hand
or a shooters target for that matter.  Does it take only base to base
contact with an enemy or having actually fought a round of hand to hand?

The answer to the above question impacts the next question.  The need
to be adjacent to terrain and the archer hiding in it order to shoot
him leaves me a little perplexed since that is effectively in base to
base.  I use flocked templates with based trees sitting on them to
represent woods, so a model at the inside edge of the template and one
on the outside edge would be touching.  This is where the need for a
clear definition of engaged comes in.  Also, could you just hand to
hand the archer in the woods if you had the appropriate weaponry?
Also, what would you say the archer's field of vision is?  The narrow
bit of the base touching the edge or just use the edge of the wood he's
looking out of?

Thanks for any help claifying.  I'm going to try SBH on my hardcore
40k/WHFB group and I don't want any stumbling blocks getting in the way
of a potentially new group game.

--- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com, "crasterimage"
<shawnriordan@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that battlefield psychology adds a lot to a wargame.  I had
> heard that a game called Crossfire had an interesting way of
handling
> this, but I don't know what it was.  I have no experiance with the
game.


I'll have to dig out Crossfire again the paw through it, but if I
remember right it does not have a rigid turn sequence.  Instead a
side continues making actions until they fail at an attempt, then
activation chages to the other side.  This would simulate the
momentum that can build when thigs are going right and the difficulty
of re-establishing said momentum after a stumbling block.  I don't
know that such a mechanic simulates battlefield psychology, but it's
kinda in the neighborhood.

Another game with an interesting variable activation is Voyages
Extraordinaire by Wessex games.  The players alternate activating a
character from their force.  Each character in the game has an
activation number they have to roll in order to perform an action.
However, you don't have to use your entire force before you nominate
a character to take a second action.  Instead, the character's
activation number gets 1 harder for each successive activation he
attempts to perform.  If he fails an activation roll he can make no
action, but the penalties are removed as he "rests" a turn.  The
penalties are also removed if another character is activated
(breaking the sequence).  It makes for some sticky situations when a
player makes may successive activation attempts on particular
character who is in the thick of it, but risks failure at that
crucial point.

--- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com, "crasterimage" <shawnriordan@...>
wrote:
  Wow... What I am hearing (in chorus) underneath all your posts is:
"If you have a problem with the game, then go away.  We don't want
your kind here."

(SNIP)



Sorry if that is what you are hearing - it isn't what I said.  I
explained why suggestions might or might not be added, and gave the
author credit for asking for and working in comments that fit his
overall concept.  I also said:

"Recommendation (worth exactly what it costs, perhaps) is to make the
suggestion, listen to all of the discussion points, and if the author
does not agree with your point or approach, it doesn't mean you or he
is wrong, just different. Write your own "House Rules" to add the
detail you are looking for and use them to your hearts content even if
not in the official version."

To me, that doesn't sound like I am belittling you or your comments.

Further, the author in his reply stated (parts snipped for brevity,
but his comments unedited):


"a) you bought and play SBH. Cool, it's your game now. You have
absolutely all rights to change it if it doesn't fit you, and come up
with any house rule you want;

c)anything that can be added as a Special rule is certainly cool if it
works along the lines of the existing rules;

d) the yahoo group is the perfect place to post variants, new troops,
new advances, requests and so on. Just put a PDF file in the group,
state that you are the author and that it's an UNOFFICIAL game variant.

e) do not take it personally if I ignore your rule suggestion or don't
like it. All rules are good, but my not be good for this game.

In a nutshell, post any variants on the group, I'll be happy to see
them. If something fits with the rest (the Heavy Armor rule was
suggested on this board and I slapped myself in the forehead for not
thinking of it myself!) they'll end up in the next book."

Also sounds like he is welcoming inputs from you and everyone else,
providing a forum to discuss them, agreeing that he doesn't think of
everything and uses comments that fit his design, and provides a place
for us all to post variants / house rules that we find work better for us.

I appreciate your response in greater detail, and recommend that
course of action to everyone who finds themselves in a similar
situation.  I know there are times, even in person where I KNOW I'm
making myself clear, and the other person just isn't getting it.  It
becomes so much harder doing so by typing.  I also did not take a
stand one way or the other on the pluses or minuses of your suggested
change, but tried to explain why the author might not accept it.

Don't need a response, & not looking for a horn-locking contest.  But
please, don't put words into my or others mouths that are not there,
and where there is plain indication as a matter of record that we
didn't say or imply what you are inferring when you stated:
("If you have a problem with the game, then go away.  We don't want
your kind here.")

I know I want your kind here, you took the time to express your idea
in a well thought out manner, even if the author chooses to not fold
it in.  I also am a firm believer in house rules for things that make
no friggin' sense, especially when there could be a logical construct
that accomplishes the same thing.  In D&D there were rules that said
"Mages can't use swords" and "Thieves can't use shields", and the
rationale was "play-balance" and it was not open to discussion.  As
the Geico caveman says... "What?".  It would have been more pallitable
if it were explained that the metal of the swords interfered with the
flow of magical energy, or the mindset needed for spellcraft was so
different from that used in physical combat that a sword could be used
but at significant penalty (imagine perhaps someone who is a skilled
swimmer, who is now for the first time ever, put on ice skates and
told to do laps - the balance is different, the moves are different
the considerations are different.  Or, similarly, consider someone who
posts minis on the "Cool Mini or Not" webpage compared to a house
painter).

I may try and like your suggestions.  As a solo player, I have the
luxury of cobbling together bits of this and pieces of that from a
variety of games to give me what I want in a game.

So, in (finally, the wind bag is out of air...) closing, please keep
the ideas coming, please don't take it personal if folks disagree, and
please don't make it personal.


Cheers,

John

I guess it is a little late in the game to be making suggestions that
involve core game mechanics...

If I had made the suggestion long ago, when the game was a beta in
play testing, then perhaps it would have been worth experimenting with.

As far as the "coin flip battle" low end of the complexity scale, I
meant as in "resolving an entire battle via a single coin flip" type
of game mechanic.  One that is so low in detail that the players would
quickly lose interest in playing the game.  There wouldn't be enough
tactical options to be intellectually challenging and not enough
simulation to feel like you were actually representing anything the
players could visualize or otherwise relate to.

It is funny that you mention computers.  The main reason I was
studying up on different rule sets is:  I am working on a free,
computer game engine.  The first game to use it would be a revamped
version of Space Hulk.  (something that is only legal as long as it
used a different rule set than the original game, according to GW's
instructions on how to deal with fan-based stuff based on their
intellectual property)  To that end, I have been playing around with
different game mechanics to see what would make a good fit and who
would be interested.  That lead me here.


--- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com, "John Acar" <jacar@...> wrote:
>
> Nobody is telling you to "go away".
>
> Part of why a good game works is because the person designing the game
> builds a core mechanic, tests it out and then adds all the extra bits to
> make it all interesting.  Clearly, this is what Andrea has been doing.
>
> If you make suggestions to add this power or that power, you get less
> resistance.  You are not changing the core mechanics but you are adding
> interest.
>
> If you are adding attributes, you ARE changing the core mechanics and
> essentially making a different game.  This is where you draw resistance
> from.  No game designer would change the core mechanics of his game mid
> stream.  That's not to say that there is no value in what you are
> suggesting.  In fact, it is an interesting idea to add an offensive and
> defensive value.  However, it changes the core mechanics and there lies
> the rub.
>
> As for a coin flip being too simple, you would have to admit that
> computers these days are pretty darned complicated internally.  They are
> powered by a series of coin flips...ie 1s and 0s.  People, far too often
> underestimate the power of on and off.
>
> On a flip of a coin, you need heads to kill one of my figures.  Pretty
> boring.  So we add a save.  I get to save vs your hits.  For every
heads I
> flip, I save against one of your hits.  A little better.  Maybe I have
> weaker armor or you have a magic weapon so I have to flip twice and get
> two heads.  In warhammer ancient battles, the majority of troops hit
on a
> 4+ on a D6 and damage on a 4+ on a D6. You could replace the D6s with
> coins and get the same outcome.
>
> Cheers!
>
> John
>
> > Wow... What I am hearing (in chorus) underneath all your posts is: "If
> > you have a problem with the game, then go away.  We don't want your
> > kind here."
> >
> > This assumes several things, most notably that you all believe that I
> > think poorly of the game.
> >
> > I am not sure what I said to give any of you that impression.  It is
> > far from the truth.  For the last couple days, I have been eating,
> > drinking and breathing Song of Blades and Heroes.  I have found it to
> > be a very refreshing ruleset.
> >
> > While doing so, many thoughts and ideas have passed through my mind
> > and I came here to, hopefully, have an intelligent discussion about
> > them.   Having read the heavy armor discussion, I believed this would
> > be possible here.
> >
> > The only reason I have made 2 replies to Andrea, rather than just
> > giving in and taking "no" at face value and making 0 replies, is this:
> >   I wasn't sure I had communicated myself clearly.
> >
> > His replies have included two things that have made me think this:
> >
> > - The suggestion would add no value.
> >
> > - The suggestion would slow the game down.
> >
> > So, I felt the need to cover the ground again, in more detail.
> > Thinking that some aspect of what I was proposing, wasn't coming
across.
> >
> >
> > For those of you who thought I wanted to turn SBH into RolePlayer, let
> > me back up and explain my thinking.
> >
> > To use the apt analogy given by John, consider the "game design
> > complexity scale"  where on one extreme end, you have "Coin-flip
> > Battles" (A flip of a coin decides the outcome of a battle)  and on
> > the other extreme end you have a rule system like RolePlayer.  (A
> > highly detailed rule system that amazingly well thought out.  However,
> > it is so complicated that it takes a long time to learn and a long
> > time to play.   Considered by many to be TOO complicated to be
> > comfortable, despite how well thought out it is.)
> >
> > Now, there is value to be had from both ends of the scale.
> >
> > The coin-flip end of the scale represents the values of simplicity.
> > These are:
> >
> > - Easy for new players to learn.
> > - Quick set-up.
> > - Little or no book-keeping chores.
> > - Fast play keeps the game moving along, rather than bogging down
> > while game-lawyers check to make sure that they are not missing some
> > obscure rule or forgotten modifer.
> >
> > The RolePlayer end of the scale represents the values of complexity.
> > These are:
> >
> > - Provides many tactical options for players to take into
> > consideration while playing.
> > - Provides depth to storytelling aspects of the game.  (In RolePlayer,
> > they actually had "arrow pierces an eye" as a possible outcome of
> > firing an arrow at someone.  Along with the consequences that injury
> > would have on the target.  Written into the ruleset itself. This sort
> > of thing adds flavor.)
> >
> > Now, keep in mind that I think most people would be unhappy with
> > either end of the scale.   We all want something in the middle that
> > draws as much value from both ends as possible.
> >
> > Which is what originally caught my eye about SBH.   Using only 2 stats
> > and a couple special abilities, Andrea has managed to squeeze the most
> > tactical value out of the smallest amount of game-mechanic-complexity.
> >
> > I truly cannot think of another game that gets as much bang for the
> > buck.   A phrase which now has more than one meaning, since you can
> > also consider how little he is asking for in the price of the game.
> >
> > The goal behind my suggestion was not to turn SBH into RolePlayer.
> > My goal was to point out what I believed to be a few more drops of
> > tactical value that could be squeezed.  At a negligible cost in
> > complexity.
> >
> > I don't mind taking "no" as an answer.  I just wanted to make sure I
> > had explained my idea fully and correctly.
> >
> >
> > --- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com, "andrea sfiligoi"
> > <andreasfiligoi@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with John. SBH is not part of the simulationist school. I
have
> >> played a lot of games like that, including wargames and RPGs.You
start
> >> simple and then people start to ask for hit location, damage on
shields,
> >> edges of weapon wearing out, and other amenities. Why not a score for
> >> strength? Why not differentiate Quality in two stats, differentiating
> >> between training and morale? No, let's make them three. Surely a will
> >> attribute to resist spells would be useful.... after all, who says
> > that a
> >> soldier with good morale will be able to resist a transfix spell
> > with the
> >> same ease?
> >>
> >> My point is,  what is important for one player to simulate may not be
> >> important for another, and if you simulate all you end up with a
combat
> >> system like GURPS or Rolemaster -- nice for their time but frankly
> > requiring
> >> too much effort today when people have less and less time to play.
> > So SBH
> >> was designed to be as simple and clean as possible. It's a game you
> > can play
> >> on lunch break.  It's the reason for its success, I think.
> >>
> >> Everything boils down to the fact that a model attacks or not, if it
> > moves
> >> or not, or if it wins the fight or not. Everything else is
details.. at
> >> least in SBH.
> >> Andrea
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/13/07, John Acar <jacar@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >   Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Just want to chime in here...meant to put things into perspective
> > and not
> >> > to start an argument.
> >> >
> >> > "accurate simulation"
> >> >
> >> > Accruacy is a relative term since it is a Fantasy game. As for the
> >> > simulation part, well, its a game and clearly was meant to be just
> > that.
> >> > The game is simplified greatly in the name of fast play. If are
> > looking
> >> > for much greater detail, this is probably not the game for you.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers!
> >> >
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > I read the heavy armor rule. It has pretty much the same
effect as a
> >> > > one point modifier on the combat stat. Which illustrates my
point:
> >> > > The combat stat represents too many factors all rolled up
into one.
> >> > >
> >> > > The combat stat represents the following:
> >> > > - How damaging the weapon is.
> >> > > - How many attacks the weapon can make.
> >> > > - How much skill and experiance the wielder has with the weapon.
> >> > > - Magical bonuses from the weapon.
> >> > > - How good the weapon is at parrying or deflecting attacks.
> >> > > - How well the character can dodge attacks.
> >> > > - How well the character's armor can prevent attacks from
> > causing harm.
> >> > > (plus all the situational modifiers, such as)
> >> > > - Advantage of having the higher ground.
> >> > > - How many different attackers does the target have to deal with.
> >> > > - etc...
> >> > >
> >> > > You asked what is gained? The answer is: better granularity of
> >> > > stats. Which leads to a more accurate simulation.
> >> > >
> >> > > For example, you could have two characters with the same combat
> > stat: 5.
> >> > > In one case, the character is a barbarian with a large weapon
that
> >> > > does a lot of damage. This massive damage accounts for his high
> >> > > combat stat of 5.
> >> > > In the other case, the character is a duelist with a rapier
in one
> >> > > hand and a dagger in the other. His ability to make mulitple,
fast
> >> > > attacks and good dodging ability account for his combat stat
of 5.
> >> > >
> >> > > These characters should be played differently. However, they will
> >> > > play the same since they both have the same combat stat: 5. The
> >> > > tactics used and the actions simulated in the game should be
> > based on
> >> > > the character's strengths and weaknesses. These are not being
> >> > > simulated currently.
> >> > >
> >> > > In the proposed idea, the barbarian would have an offense of 5
> >> > > (because of his large, deadly axe) and a defense of 2
(because he is
> >> > > half naked and not very nimble). While the duelist would have 2
> >> > > attacks (because we can, now) with offense of 3 and a defense
of 4
> >> > > (due to his dodging / parrying skill).
> >> > >
> >> > > With those values, the characters would play differently than
each
> >> > > other. The tactics available to the player would increase.
Also, as
> >> > > I pointed out in my last email, there would be a whole new set of
> >> > > possibilites for special rules and skills. Give the barbarian a
> >> > > "berserker" skill which could give him 1 offense bonus and 1
defense
> >> > > penalty for the next few rounds. Give the duelist the "On Guard"
> >> > > ability I described in my last email.
> >> > >
> >> > > I understand that you wish to focus in making it a "fast
game" and
> >> > > sometimes simulation details have to be reduced in order to
achieve
> >> > speed.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, I don't think this idea would slow the game down too
much.
> >> > > The same number of dice rolls are being made.
> >> > > The amount of data on the character sheet wouldn't increase too
> > much.
> >> > > Instead of having 2 stats: "quality and combat",
> >> > > you would have 3 stats: "quality, combat-offense and
> > combat-defense".
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com
> > <songofblades%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >> > "andrea sfiligoi"
> >> > > <andreasfiligoi@> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Armor is simulated (models with heavy armor tie a combat
when they
> >> > > lose by
> >> > >> one -- see the new Heavy armor rule on this board and in the new
> >> > > supplement
> >> > >> Song of Gold and Darkness, out on Sept. 5th)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Combat will be just a little more detailed in the Ancients
version
> >> > > where we
> >> > >> have less things to be taken care of and we can use the game's
> >> > > granularity
> >> > >> to represent differences in armor, shield etc.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dividing attack and defense is less intuitive and it is
slowing the
> >> > game
> >> > >> down. What is gained? not much from the perspective of a
fast play
> >> > game.
> >> > >> Anyway, as an optional house rules, you could rule that
every model
> >> > > could be
> >> > >> differentiated by one or two points, what he loses in attack he
> > adds in
> >> > >> defense and so on. But beware, doubling becomes a rare thing
> > indeed.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I know sometimes it is not your advantage to initiate combat.
> > If you
> >> > > ever
> >> > >> practiced fencing or martial arts or boxing, you will know
how very
> >> > true
> >> > >> this is UNLESS you are of much superior skill. I think SBH
> > models this
> >> > >> adequately.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Rolling enough activations, you can move in contact AND do a
> >> > > concentrated
> >> > >> attack when it's your turn. But it takes the guts to roll three
> > dice
> >> > :-)
> >> > >> This gamble is really what SBH combat is all about
> >> > >> Andrea
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 8/13/07, crasterimage <shawnriordan@> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > It is true that simultaneous close combat keeps both player's
> >> > > attention.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > However, some awkward stuff can result.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > For example: It is to your advantage to not be the one who
> > moves in
> >> > >> > and begins the close combat. To do so, you must spend at
least 1
> >> > >> > action point moving. A player who waits may spend all his
action
> >> > >> > points on a concentrated close combat round, when it is
his turn.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Also, certain concepts such as multiple attacks and armor are
> >> > >> > impossible to simulate.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Here is a thought: What if the combat stat was divided
into two
> >> > >> > separate stats: "combat offense" and "combat defense".
Then, when
> >> > >> > performing close combat, you use the appropriate stat based
> > on what
> >> > >> > you are doing. If you are spending an action point to perform
> > close
> >> > >> > combat, you use the offense stat. If the other player is
> > performing
> >> > >> > the action upon you, you use the defense stat. In either
> > case, the
> >> > >> > attacker could not be killed, but perhaps they could be
> > pushed back.
> >> > >> > Or fall.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > This would allow you to simulate multiple attacks, armor and
> > other
> >> > >> > concepts.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > It would also open up opportunities for further special
> > abilities.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Such as "Rush" which could give the ability: "gain +1
modifier to
> >> > >> > combat offense, when the attack action follows a move action".
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Or "On Guard" which could give the ability: "At the
expense of 1
> >> > >> > action point, a player may enter a defensive stance which
> > will give
> >> > >> > him a +1 modifier to his combat defense, should anyone
attempt to
> >> > >> > attack him before the next turn."
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Stuff like that.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > --- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com
> > <songofblades%40yahoogroups.com><songofblades%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >> > >> > "andrea sfiligoi"
> >> > >> > <andreasfiligoi@> wrote:
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Because it's more decisive. Unless players tie rolls,
something
> >> > > happens
> >> > >> > > every turn, and makes the non-acting player less of a
sitting
> >> > > duck. It
> >> > >> > > alleviates the common warhammer problem of yawning while the
> >> > >> > opponent chops
> >> > >> > > away your troops... even if your model just recoils, you
> > have to
> >> > > decide
> >> > >> > > where you want him to recoil, and in my opinion wargaming
> > is all
> >> > > about
> >> > >> > > decisions like this.
> >> > >> > > Andrea
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > On 8/13/07, crasterimage <shawnriordan@> wrote:
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Andrea, you have a very interesting rule system here. The
> >> > > Initiative
> >> > >> > > > and Action Points system is very refreshing.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > I have a question, if you don't mind me asking.
> >> > >> > > > Why have you chosen to have close combat be resolved
in both
> >> > >> > > > directions?
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > By that, I mean: why have both combatants be in danger of
> > death
> >> > or
> >> > >> > > > defeat, without regard for who initiated the combat?
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > --
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Check my fine art here: www.yessy.com/umbra
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Check my fine art here: www.yessy.com/umbra
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Check my fine art here:  www.yessy.com/umbra
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Wow... What I am hearing (in chorus) underneath all your posts is: "If
you have a problem with the game, then go away.  We don't want your
kind here."

This assumes several things, most notably that you all believe that I
think poorly of the game.

I am not sure what I said to give any of you that impression.  It is
far from the truth.  For the last couple days, I have been eating,
drinking and breathing Song of Blades and Heroes.  I have found it to
be a very refreshing ruleset.

While doing so, many thoughts and ideas have passed through my mind
and I came here to, hopefully, have an intelligent discussion about
them.   Having read the heavy armor discussion, I believed this would
be possible here.

The only reason I have made 2 replies to Andrea, rather than just
giving in and taking "no" at face value and making 0 replies, is this:
   I wasn't sure I had communicated myself clearly.

His replies have included two things that have made me think this:

- The suggestion would add no value.

- The suggestion would slow the game down.

So, I felt the need to cover the ground again, in more detail.
Thinking that some aspect of what I was proposing, wasn't coming across.


For those of you who thought I wanted to turn SBH into RolePlayer, let
me back up and explain my thinking.

To use the apt analogy given by John, consider the "game design
complexity scale"  where on one extreme end, you have "Coin-flip
Battles" (A flip of a coin decides the outcome of a battle)  and on
the other extreme end you have a rule system like RolePlayer.  (A
highly detailed rule system that amazingly well thought out.  However,
it is so complicated that it takes a long time to learn and a long
time to play.   Considered by many to be TOO complicated to be
comfortable, despite how well thought out it is.)

Now, there is value to be had from both ends of the scale.

The coin-flip end of the scale represents the values of simplicity.
These are:

- Easy for new players to learn.
- Quick set-up.
- Little or no book-keeping chores.
- Fast play keeps the game moving along, rather than bogging down
while game-lawyers check to make sure that they are not missing some
obscure rule or forgotten modifer.

The RolePlayer end of the scale represents the values of complexity.
These are:

- Provides many tactical options for players to take into
consideration while playing.
- Provides depth to storytelling aspects of the game.  (In RolePlayer,
they actually had "arrow pierces an eye" as a possible outcome of
firing an arrow at someone.  Along with the consequences that injury
would have on the target.  Written into the ruleset itself. This sort
of thing adds flavor.)

Now, keep in mind that I think most people would be unhappy with
either end of the scale.   We all want something in the middle that
draws as much value from both ends as possible.

Which is what originally caught my eye about SBH.   Using only 2 stats
and a couple special abilities, Andrea has managed to squeeze the most
tactical value out of the smallest amount of game-mechanic-complexity.

I truly cannot think of another game that gets as much bang for the
buck.   A phrase which now has more than one meaning, since you can
also consider how little he is asking for in the price of the game.

The goal behind my suggestion was not to turn SBH into RolePlayer.
My goal was to point out what I believed to be a few more drops of
tactical value that could be squeezed.  At a negligible cost in
complexity.

I don't mind taking "no" as an answer.  I just wanted to make sure I
had explained my idea fully and correctly.


--- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com, "andrea sfiligoi"
<andreasfiligoi@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with John. SBH is not part of the simulationist school. I have
> played a lot of games like that, including wargames and RPGs.You start
> simple and then people start to ask for hit location, damage on shields,
> edges of weapon wearing out, and other amenities. Why not a score for
> strength? Why not differentiate Quality in two stats, differentiating
> between training and morale? No, let's make them three. Surely a will
> attribute to resist spells would be useful.... after all, who says
that a
> soldier with good morale will be able to resist a transfix spell
with the
> same ease?
>
> My point is,  what is important for one player to simulate may not be
> important for another, and if you simulate all you end up with a combat
> system like GURPS or Rolemaster -- nice for their time but frankly
requiring
> too much effort today when people have less and less time to play.
So SBH
> was designed to be as simple and clean as possible. It's a game you
can play
> on lunch break.  It's the reason for its success, I think.
>
> Everything boils down to the fact that a model attacks or not, if it
moves
> or not, or if it wins the fight or not. Everything else is details.. at
> least in SBH.
> Andrea
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/13/07, John Acar <jacar@...> wrote:
> >
> >   Hi,
> >
> > Just want to chime in here...meant to put things into perspective
and not
> > to start an argument.
> >
> > "accurate simulation"
> >
> > Accruacy is a relative term since it is a Fantasy game. As for the
> > simulation part, well, its a game and clearly was meant to be just
that.
> > The game is simplified greatly in the name of fast play. If are
looking
> > for much greater detail, this is probably not the game for you.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > > I read the heavy armor rule. It has pretty much the same effect as a
> > > one point modifier on the combat stat. Which illustrates my point:
> > > The combat stat represents too many factors all rolled up into one.
> > >
> > > The combat stat represents the following:
> > > - How damaging the weapon is.
> > > - How many attacks the weapon can make.
> > > - How much skill and experiance the wielder has with the weapon.
> > > - Magical bonuses from the weapon.
> > > - How good the weapon is at parrying or deflecting attacks.
> > > - How well the character can dodge attacks.
> > > - How well the character's armor can prevent attacks from
causing harm.
> > > (plus all the situational modifiers, such as)
> > > - Advantage of having the higher ground.
> > > - How many different attackers does the target have to deal with.
> > > - etc...
> > >
> > > You asked what is gained? The answer is: better granularity of
> > > stats. Which leads to a more accurate simulation.
> > >
> > > For example, you could have two characters with the same combat
stat: 5.
> > > In one case, the character is a barbarian with a large weapon that
> > > does a lot of damage. This massive damage accounts for his high
> > > combat stat of 5.
> > > In the other case, the character is a duelist with a rapier in one
> > > hand and a dagger in the other. His ability to make mulitple, fast
> > > attacks and good dodging ability account for his combat stat of 5.
> > >
> > > These characters should be played differently. However, they will
> > > play the same since they both have the same combat stat: 5. The
> > > tactics used and the actions simulated in the game should be
based on
> > > the character's strengths and weaknesses. These are not being
> > > simulated currently.
> > >
> > > In the proposed idea, the barbarian would have an offense of 5
> > > (because of his large, deadly axe) and a defense of 2 (because he is
> > > half naked and not very nimble). While the duelist would have 2
> > > attacks (because we can, now) with offense of 3 and a defense of 4
> > > (due to his dodging / parrying skill).
> > >
> > > With those values, the characters would play differently than each
> > > other. The tactics available to the player would increase. Also, as
> > > I pointed out in my last email, there would be a whole new set of
> > > possibilites for special rules and skills. Give the barbarian a
> > > "berserker" skill which could give him 1 offense bonus and 1 defense
> > > penalty for the next few rounds. Give the duelist the "On Guard"
> > > ability I described in my last email.
> > >
> > > I understand that you wish to focus in making it a "fast game" and
> > > sometimes simulation details have to be reduced in order to achieve
> > speed.
> > >
> > > However, I don't think this idea would slow the game down too much.
> > > The same number of dice rolls are being made.
> > > The amount of data on the character sheet wouldn't increase too
much.
> > > Instead of having 2 stats: "quality and combat",
> > > you would have 3 stats: "quality, combat-offense and
combat-defense".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com
<songofblades%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "andrea sfiligoi"
> > > <andreasfiligoi@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Armor is simulated (models with heavy armor tie a combat when they
> > > lose by
> > >> one -- see the new Heavy armor rule on this board and in the new
> > > supplement
> > >> Song of Gold and Darkness, out on Sept. 5th)
> > >>
> > >> Combat will be just a little more detailed in the Ancients version
> > > where we
> > >> have less things to be taken care of and we can use the game's
> > > granularity
> > >> to represent differences in armor, shield etc.
> > >>
> > >> Dividing attack and defense is less intuitive and it is slowing the
> > game
> > >> down. What is gained? not much from the perspective of a fast play
> > game.
> > >> Anyway, as an optional house rules, you could rule that every model
> > > could be
> > >> differentiated by one or two points, what he loses in attack he
adds in
> > >> defense and so on. But beware, doubling becomes a rare thing
indeed.
> > >>
> > >> I know sometimes it is not your advantage to initiate combat.
If you
> > > ever
> > >> practiced fencing or martial arts or boxing, you will know how very
> > true
> > >> this is UNLESS you are of much superior skill. I think SBH
models this
> > >> adequately.
> > >>
> > >> Rolling enough activations, you can move in contact AND do a
> > > concentrated
> > >> attack when it's your turn. But it takes the guts to roll three
dice
> > :-)
> > >> This gamble is really what SBH combat is all about
> > >> Andrea
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 8/13/07, crasterimage <shawnriordan@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > It is true that simultaneous close combat keeps both player's
> > > attention.
> > >> >
> > >> > However, some awkward stuff can result.
> > >> >
> > >> > For example: It is to your advantage to not be the one who
moves in
> > >> > and begins the close combat. To do so, you must spend at least 1
> > >> > action point moving. A player who waits may spend all his action
> > >> > points on a concentrated close combat round, when it is his turn.
> > >> >
> > >> > Also, certain concepts such as multiple attacks and armor are
> > >> > impossible to simulate.
> > >> >
> > >> > Here is a thought: What if the combat stat was divided into two
> > >> > separate stats: "combat offense" and "combat defense". Then, when
> > >> > performing close combat, you use the appropriate stat based
on what
> > >> > you are doing. If you are spending an action point to perform
close
> > >> > combat, you use the offense stat. If the other player is
performing
> > >> > the action upon you, you use the defense stat. In either
case, the
> > >> > attacker could not be killed, but perhaps they could be
pushed back.
> > >> > Or fall.
> > >> >
> > >> > This would allow you to simulate multiple attacks, armor and
other
> > >> > concepts.
> > >> >
> > >> > It would also open up opportunities for further special
abilities.
> > >> >
> > >> > Such as "Rush" which could give the ability: "gain +1 modifier to
> > >> > combat offense, when the attack action follows a move action".
> > >> >
> > >> > Or "On Guard" which could give the ability: "At the expense of 1
> > >> > action point, a player may enter a defensive stance which
will give
> > >> > him a +1 modifier to his combat defense, should anyone attempt to
> > >> > attack him before the next turn."
> > >> >
> > >> > Stuff like that.
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com
<songofblades%40yahoogroups.com><songofblades%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > >> > "andrea sfiligoi"
> > >> > <andreasfiligoi@> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Because it's more decisive. Unless players tie rolls, something
> > > happens
> > >> > > every turn, and makes the non-acting player less of a sitting
> > > duck. It
> > >> > > alleviates the common warhammer problem of yawning while the
> > >> > opponent chops
> > >> > > away your troops... even if your model just recoils, you
have to
> > > decide
> > >> > > where you want him to recoil, and in my opinion wargaming
is all
> > > about
> > >> > > decisions like this.
> > >> > > Andrea
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 8/13/07, crasterimage <shawnriordan@> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Andrea, you have a very interesting rule system here. The
> > > Initiative
> > >> > > > and Action Points system is very refreshing.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I have a question, if you don't mind me asking.
> > >> > > > Why have you chosen to have close combat be resolved in both
> > >> > > > directions?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > By that, I mean: why have both combatants be in danger of
death
> > or
> > >> > > > defeat, without regard for who initiated the combat?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Check my fine art here: www.yessy.com/umbra
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Check my fine art here: www.yessy.com/umbra
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Check my fine art here:  www.yessy.com/umbra
>

> I read the heavy armor rule.   It has pretty much the same effect as a
> one point modifier on the combat stat.
I don't agree. It makes you more difficult to double (kill) without
making you more likely to double your opponent. Try it in some games
and you'll see.


> The combat stat represents the following:
> - How damaging the weapon is.
> - How many attacks the weapon can make.
> - How much skill and experiance the wielder has with the weapon.

> - Magical bonuses from the weapon.
No, magical weapons have their own special rules.


> - How good the weapon is at parrying or deflecting attacks.
> - How well the character can dodge attacks.
> - How well the character's armor can prevent attacks from causing harm.
No, the Heavy Armor rule accounts for that


> (plus all the situational modifiers, such as)
> - Advantage of having the higher ground.
No, the position of the model on the tabletop accounts for that, and
it gives a +1 to combat.


> - How many different attackers does the target have to deal with.
No, the number of models adjacent to the model account for that.


> a more accurate simulation.
>
> For example, you could have two characters with the same combat stat: 5.
> In one case, the character is a barbarian with a large weapon that
> does a lot of damage.   This massive damage accounts for his high
> combat stat of 5.
> In the other case, the character is a duelist with a rapier in one
> hand and a dagger in the other.  His ability to make mulitple, fast
> attacks and good dodging ability account for his combat stat of 5.


Barbarian:
Q4+ C3 Tough, Savage

or Assassin instead of Savage


Duellist
Q2+ C2 Acrobat, Free Disengage, Combat Master

Try these two, you'll see how different they play!




>
> These characters should be played differently.  However, they will
> play the same since they both have the same combat stat: 5.
I wouldn't give them both C5, C5 is a big fat mean angry dragon.



The
> tactics used and the actions simulated in the game should be based on
> the character's strengths and weaknesses.  These are not being
> simulated currently.
That's what special rules are for.

s and skills.   Give the barbarian a
> "berserker" skill which could give him 1 offense bonus and 1 defense
> penalty for the next few rounds.  Give the duelist the "On Guard"
> ability I described in my last email.
>
> I understand that you wish to focus in making it a "fast game" and
> sometimes simulation details have t

>
> With those values, the characters would play differently than each
> other.  The tactics available to the player would increase.  Also, as
> I pointed out in my last email, there would be a whole new set of
> possibilites for special ruleo be reduced in order to achieve speed.
>
> However, I don't think this idea would slow the game down too much.
> The same number of dice rolls are being made.
> The amount of data on the character sheet wouldn't increase too much.
> Instead of having 2 stats: "quality and combat",
> you would have 3 stats: "quality, combat-offense and combat-defense".
>
>
>
> --- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com, "andrea sfiligoi"
> <andreasfiligoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Armor is simulated (models with heavy armor tie a combat when they
> lose by
> > one -- see the new Heavy armor rule on this board and in the new
> supplement
> > Song of Gold and Darkness, out on Sept. 5th)
> >
> > Combat will be just a little more detailed in the Ancients version
> where we
> > have less things to be taken care of and we can use the game's
> granularity
> > to represent differences in armor, shield etc.
> >
> > Dividing attack and defense is less intuitive and it is slowing
the game
> > down. What is gained? not much from the perspective of a fast play
game.
> > Anyway, as an optional house rules, you could rule that every model
> could be
> > differentiated by one or two points, what he loses in attack he
adds in
> > defense and so on. But beware, doubling becomes a rare thing indeed.
> >
> > I know sometimes it is not your advantage to initiate combat. If you
> ever
> > practiced fencing or martial arts or boxing, you will know how
very true
> > this is UNLESS you are of much superior skill. I think SBH models this
> > adequately.
> >
> > Rolling enough activations, you can move in contact AND do a
> concentrated
> > attack when it's your turn. But it takes the guts to roll three
dice :-)
> > This gamble is really what SBH combat is all about
> > Andrea
> >
> >
> > On 8/13/07, crasterimage <shawnriordan@> wrote:
> > >
> > >   It is true that simultaneous close combat keeps both player's
> attention.
> > >
> > > However, some awkward stuff can result.
> > >
> > > For example: It is to your advantage to not be the one who moves in
> > > and begins the close combat. To do so, you must spend at least 1
> > > action point moving. A player who waits may spend all his action
> > > points on a concentrated close combat round, when it is his turn.
> > >
> > > Also, certain concepts such as multiple attacks and armor are
> > > impossible to simulate.
> > >
> > > Here is a thought: What if the combat stat was divided into two
> > > separate stats: "combat offense" and "combat defense". Then, when
> > > performing close combat, you use the appropriate stat based on what
> > > you are doing. If you are spending an action point to perform close
> > > combat, you use the offense stat. If the other player is performing
> > > the action upon you, you use the defense stat. In either case, the
> > > attacker could not be killed, but perhaps they could be pushed back.
> > > Or fall.
> > >
> > > This would allow you to simulate multiple attacks, armor and other
> > > concepts.
> > >
> > > It would also open up opportunities for further special abilities.
> > >
> > > Such as "Rush" which could give the ability: "gain +1 modifier to
> > > combat offense, when the attack action follows a move action".
> > >
> > > Or "On Guard" which could give the ability: "At the expense of 1
> > > action point, a player may enter a defensive stance which will give
> > > him a +1 modifier to his combat defense, should anyone attempt to
> > > attack him before the next turn."
> > >
> > > Stuff like that.
> > >
> > > --- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com
<songofblades%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "andrea sfiligoi"
> > > <andreasfiligoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Because it's more decisive. Unless players tie rolls, something
> happens
> > > > every turn, and makes the non-acting player less of a sitting
> duck. It
> > > > alleviates the common warhammer problem of yawning while the
> > > opponent chops
> > > > away your troops... even if your model just recoils, you have to
> decide
> > > > where you want him to recoil, and in my opinion wargaming is all
> about
> > > > decisions like this.
> > > > Andrea
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/13/07, crasterimage <shawnriordan@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrea, you have a very interesting rule system here. The
> Initiative
> > > > > and Action Points system is very refreshing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a question, if you don't mind me asking.
> > > > > Why have you chosen to have close combat be resolved in both
> > > > > directions?
> > > > >
> > > > > By that, I mean: why have both combatants be in danger of
death or
> > > > > defeat, without regard for who initiated the combat?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Check my fine art here: www.yessy.com/umbra
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Check my fine art here:  www.yessy.com/umbra
> >
>

Folks,

It is certainly your call as to how detailed you want things to be vs.
how generalized and quick moving.  The question revolves around what
you are looking for in a game.  By way of example, I intentionally
will use  different sets of rules to illustrate my point.

At the simplest (in any period historical or fantasy), you could have
a nation going to war against its neighbor.  Assuming comparable
armies, comparable leadership, comparable everything, the event will
boil down to a coin toss.  If you are looking for a geopolitical game
tracking the results of nation vs. nation, this may well suffice.  In
Warrior Kings, there are consequences for fighting in the first place,
for winning or losing.

At the most granular, you could be looking at a one on one matchup of
a fighter vs. another.  If not similarly equipped (Fewer chances to
hit, but significant damage if hit connects, lower defense, vs more
chances to hit, relatively insignificant damage by comparison, higher
defense due to mobility) who will win?  Some will say the heavy
hitter, as it is more likely he will land a blow and take out his
opponent before he dies the death of several smaller cuts while others
will argue that the more agile guy can stay away and wear the heavy
hitter down, and eventually win.  Who is right?  You both are.  In
many cases, matchups in the gladiatorial arenas of Rome were based on
such mismatches.  Take a Mirimallo (medium, short sword and shield) vs
a Retarius (light, trident and net), or a Secutor (heavy armor, large
shield and long sword vs. velite (light, possibly no armor, 3 javelins
and a dagger).  The sport was watching the two unequal sides match up
against the strengths and weaknesses of the other.  Sometimes one,
sometimes the other would win.  If the Retarius could be counted upon
to snare and skewer his opponent most of the time, where would the
suspense be?  If the Velite could always wear down the Secutor, or the
Secutor always plod forward and smash the lighter opponent, what's the
point?
If the purpose is to game out the series of blows and counter blows,
more granularity can give you that at the expense of speed and
bookkeeping.  If the purpose is to determine who won, far less
granularity is needed or desired.
One current Old West set of rules has detailed differences tracked
whether you are armed with a .44 Army Colt, .45 Peacemaker, or .44
Schofield.  Another steps gunfights through in 1/10 of a second.  The
games I prefer take into account differences in a generalized form
(e.g. there is a difference between a heavy (.40 - .45) handgun, and a
light (.22 - .38)handgun, but to worry about the other shades of
differentiation for the sake of "realism" is a difference without a
distinction.

So, what does that mean to us here?  The author has a set of rules
where he is modeling what he is looking for in a game.  He is taking
suggestions (when was the last time a major game producer did that?
How of you remember Gary Gygax - D&D author - proclaiming that his
rules were the only ones allowed and house rules could not be
considered as they would upset his carefully designed and balanced
game?) some of which have been / will be incorporated into what he
does.  Others, though not incorrect, don't mesh with his view of the
game constructs.

Recommendation (worth exactly what it costs, perhaps) is to make the
suggestion, listen to all of the discussion points, and if the author
does not agree with your point or approach, it doesn't mean you or he
is wrong, just different.  Write your own "House Rules" to add the
detail you are looking for and use them to your hearts content even if
not in the official version.

If you want to make sure all of the factors are considered in the
mis-matched combat, please don't forget how well they are rested, how
well they are trained, the terrain they are on, the weather outside,
whether they are in formation or fighting individually, whether they
have equal motivation for fighting, how well they are led, what the
chicken entrails predicted when the clerics looked for omens during
the sacrifice, how well or poorly their leader pumped them up before
the fight, what the condition of their weapons and armor are, are they
both essentially meeting in combat or is one clearly the attacker and
the other the defender.  How old each of them are, and on, and on, and
on... all of which can make a difference in how the fight is resolved
but at what point do you draw the line?  I suspect in the long run,
much of this will balance itself out, and in the end, many of the
differences (+1 for this, +2 for that -4 for the other etc.) won't do
all that much for most situations.

Hope this is clear, whether yo uagree or not - feel free to ask ?s if
you have them.

Cheers,

John

That is OK - I have uploaded a excel spread sheet to calculate model
points...If I have time I will put it in open office as well.

Someone who is better at spreadsheets may be able to create a
"prettier" work sheet. :-)

One thing about the game is that each player controls a squad of warriors.
You have each player on one side take their turn one at a time.  If a
given player gets the coveted 2+ failures, he may not move the rest of HIS
models that turn.  The next player goes on the same side until all of the
players either have activated their models or have rolled 2+ failures.  At
that point, the other side goes using the same procedure.

Example.  Side 1 has player a b c, Side 2 has player y and z.

Side 1 goes first.  The players on side one decide that layer a will take
the first move.  He nominates a model and decides to roll 3 dice.  He gets
1 success and only gets 1 action and must pass for the rest of his models.
  They now decide player c goes.  He moves a couple of his models but ends
up getting two failures and passes to B who manages to move all of his
models and finally play passes to Side 2.

Make sense?  Have not tried it myself but it should  work ok.  The random
way Andrea mentions should probably work better because it keeps players
guessing as to what the order of play will be turn to turn.




> Al,
> 1) No. I thought I had written this somewhere in the rules :-) a model
> with
> Leader can be part of a group action but cannot use that action to give
> more
> orders.
>
> 2)in a free-for-all, we randomize priority and have players sitting
> clockwise from the high roller to the low roller. Roll only once at the
> beginning of play. The activation system and the turn over rule make sure
> that the turn gets hectic.
> We try to make sides roughly equal, basically this problem arises only
> when
> there are 3 players.
> Another idea is to have the third player act as a GM and run/design a
> scenario with surprises, wandering monsters etc.
> Andrea
>
>
>
>
> On 8/10/07, secretofblue <broadsword@...> wrote:
>>
>>   Afternoon, list!
>>
>> 1) "Leader A" Group Activates 2 to 5 models in his warband. If one of
>> those is another Leader (musician, standard bearer, another model with
>> Leader Special Rule) could that model then try to group activate
>> another 2 to 5 models in the warband that "Leader A" did not?
>>
>> 2) How does one handle more than 2 sides in a battle? Playing games at
>> the club often means several players not neatly divided on to 2 sides.
>> Read: "every player for themselves." I was thinking of using card
>> activation: still random as everyone gets a card that's put into a
>> deck and shuffled, then dealt from the top. Makes sense?
>>
>> Al | http://www.rivetsandsteam.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Check my fine art here:  www.yessy.com/umbra
>

I've created a review of SBH on my humble blog here:

http://www.tabletop-terrain.com/archives/2007/08/08/808/

I think you've created an interesting system that straddles the
boardgame/tabletop wargame worlds quite nicely. I have to say though I
think you may have short changed yourself since I'm sure you could
quite happily sell the PDF for at least three times the $4us asking
price! The quality and length of the SBH rules is on par with other
self-published systems like .45 Pulp Adventure and their PDF downloads
generally sell for around $10-$12us.

I'm looking forward to seeing the system grow with the expansions (I
mean who doesn't like dungeon crawling).

Stuart Nicholson
www.tabletop-terrain.com

I ran my first games of SBH at my local game club meeting today.  I
set up two battlefields with Lizardmen vs. Woodelves and Humans vs.
Maruading monsters.  The players switched armies after the first
game and played again to get the feel of a different army.  Each
faction, except the Humans, won a game, a point the players made
about how balanced the game is.  Incidentally, the Humans should
have won their first game, but the troll was just too tough for them.

Here are some highlights of the games.

Troll in the sunlight- One of the games was nearly half over before
the troll managed to activate for the first time.

Troll on drugs-  In the other game, the troll managed to gain all 3
activations just in time to kill the human wizard and a heavy
infantry in the same turn.

Drunken hirelings- The human heavy infantry were loath to activate
and move away from the village tavern.

I lived!?!-  The wizards apprentice survived a round of hand to hand
combat with an ogre.

Skirmishing 101-  The elf's centaur skirmisher rode up, shot, but
didn't quite manage the run away part of skirmishing.

Giant Mushroom man-  The lizardmen had a giant mushroom man that
wrecked havoc with the elves. (regular mushroom man with the big
special ability).


Everyone really liked the game, even the guy who lost both of his
battles.  Great fun!

300 points - Barbarians vs Halflings. "Quest for the Magic Item"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10692738@N06/sets/72157601079487848

600 points - Orcs & Easterlings vs Men of Gondor and Elves. "Ambush"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10692738@N06/sets/72157601079622042

--- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com, "andrea sfiligoi" <andreasfiligoi@...> wrote:
>
> by the way Al, I would appreciate a link or a review or whatever mention of
> SBH on your site when you have time :-)
> Andrea

---


Links have been added, under the Feasting Ravens portion of the site.

http://home.dejazzd.com/broadsword/Feasting_Ravens/FR_Links_Page01.html

A review will have to wait until a few games get played at the club. I'll be using the Human list as a guide for Vikings.

And how about "Chant of Talons and Chaos" for another possible supplement title? ;)

Al | http://www.rivetsandsteam.com

check it out:

http://billtest.fuse.net/SBH/sbh_print.php?warband_a=;Balrog:106:4:4:Flying,%20H\
uge,%20Tailslap,%20Tough,%20;Cave%20Troll:66:5:4:Big,%20Tough,%20&warband_b=;Mor\
ia%20Goblin%20Archer:29:4:2:Shooter-Medium,%20;Moria%20Goblin%20Archer:29:4:2:Sh\
ooter-Medium,;Moria%20Goblin%20Warrior:25:4:2:;Moria%20Goblin%20Warrior:25:4:2:;\
Goblin%20Light%20Infantry:20:4:1:

What do you think of my Balrog?

Hey all,
  I'm working on a web app to help me build my warband rosters. This is
very alpha software so expect glitches, but it essentially works.

  The app lets you build a unit and calculates the cost for you. It
lets you add (or remove) the units to (or from) your warband and
provides a print-friendly view which looks something like the roster
from the back of the book.

Please let me know what you think.

To access the app browse to http://billtest.fuse.net/SBH/

I never stated it, so I need to make this clear for my legal protection:

ANY RULE, IDEA OR CONCEPT PUBLISHED ON THIS YAHOO GROUP OR SUGGESTED
TO ME BY EMAIL MAY END UP IN A FUTURE BOOK AND IT BECOMES PART OF THE
SONG OF BLADES AND HEROES COPYRIGHT. THE IDEA MAY BE REWORKED,
REWRITTEN OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY THAT I FEEL NECESSARY. THIS MEANS THAT
IF YOU WRITE SOMETHING HERE YOU ARE GIVING IT TO ME AND I CAN USE IT
IN THE SONG OF BLADES AND HEROES BOOKS WITH NO FEAR OF RECOURSE FROM
THE ORIGINAL POSTER.


I'll try to give credit and place the name of the poster in the
frontispiece of the book, although I'm human and i might overlook it.
I hope you don't find this legal stuff boring or arrogant, it's just
that I don't have money to spend for lawsuits over a game rule :-)
Thanks
Andrea

--- In songofblades@yahoogroups.com, "andrea sfiligoi"
<andreasfiligoi@...> wrote:
>
> I'll be doing another magic using class which can temporarily give a
special
> rule to another model, but it's hard to balance it. I also want to
avoid
> game effects that last for a certain number of turns and such as SBH
is
> effectively turnless and without book keeping.

That's what I was trying to figure out myself.  Perhaps requiring the
Mage to spend an action "maintaining" the effect would be an easy
enough fix.  So if I put TOUGH on another model I have to use one
action each turn to maintain that ability. If an action is not spent,
or no successful actions take place, then the ability is lost.

Of course that leads to people who will activate the mage first one
turn and put the ability on another figure and on the next turn
activating the mage after the figure has acted, effectively getting two
turns of ability without having to maintain it.  That could be fixed by
making Mages who maintain a spell have to act first on a player turn,
but that might be too rigid for SBH's fluid play.

Hi guys,
as you know by now I was surprised by the enthusiastic response over
the rules and the buzz they are generating over the internet. I'm
asking you to post the press release about SBH in any forum where
people may be interested, post review on sites if you have time, or
just go to www.lulu.songofblades and vote for SBH (basically you can
say if you liked it or not even if you didn't buy the rules through lulu).

So please spread the news -- here's the text if you want to copy and
paste it:




Recruit your fantasy warriors and fight!

Song of Blades and Heroes is a fast-play, skirmish-level fantasy
miniature system for two or more players. The rules are simple, fast,
and above all, fun.

EASY:
     simple and easy-to-understand rules that you learn in just one game;
EASY MEASURING:
     no counting inches or centimeters. SBH uses three measuring sticks
to measure all distances and ranges;
FAST:
     A game lasts 30-45 minutes. Play a mini campaign in a single evening;
INEXPENSIVE:
     5-10 models per player are needed;
CONVENIENT:
     the game needs little space - a 60x60cm play area is enough. Bring
all your armies in a shoe box!
MULTI-SCALE:
     play with any single-based fantasy miniature, in any scale;
HEX-FRIENDLY:
     play on hexgrids if you prefer;
NO WEIRD DICE:
     SBH uses standard six-sided dice only;
READY TO PLAY:
     stats for 180+ monsters and heroes are included, and you can
create your own!
NO BOOK-KEEPING:
     SBH is an action-point system that requires no book-keeping and
always keeps players on their toes;
HIGH SOLO PLAYABILITY:
     the SBH mechanics work well in solo play;
CAMPAIGN:
     with campaign rules, your warband grows more powerful after every
battle;

Six basic scenarios included.

SBH is the first of a line of games designed to be quick, inexpensive
and requiring very little space.

Skirmish packs of 15mm fantasy miniatures are available from
Splintered Light Miniatures. Every skirmish pack (Kobolds, Bugbears,
Skeletons, Lion-Men, etc.) has enough models to build a large warband.

Written and ilustrated by Andrea Sfiligoi.

To purchase the e-book, please send $4.00 USD PayPal payment to
andreasfiligoi@... (you'll be emailed the PDF and the cover
files, make sure you have around 4 megabytes of free space in your
mailbox).

To purchase the printed book, please visit: lulu.com/songofblades.


THANKS FOR HELPING!
Andrea

Hi all,
just a quick note. I was a t Warcon in Cittą di Castello today. It's a
small fantasy event which consists of 15+ tables and a two days WHFB
tournament. I set up a SBH playtest table. The game got a lot of
attention -- I played 4 games, winning all of them (!) and of course
the Splintered Light miniatures got a lot of attention too. A guy was
so happy with the free kobold shaman he got that he went to a painting
table, painted it and returned to my table a few minutes later to show
how fast a painter he was.

Tomorrow I'm going again. It's gonna be another 2 hours drive but it's
worth it. People have fun playing SBH and have confirmed that they
intend to buy skirmish packs and the rules. They generally expressed
how refreshing the game is compared to Warhammer stuff, and how
inexpensive 15mm minis are compared to GW prices ;-)

I took a few pic with my new camera but they look even worse than the
old ones :-(  I didn't have time to check the manual yet. I'll see if
I can do something better tomorrow.
A.

--

Check my fine art here:  www.yessy.com/umbra

Greetings.  My dad wrote this up based on our games this weekend.

> We played three games, first and third between David and John, the
second a solo by John.  We used three different warbands: leonines,
woodlands' bears and hobbits, and ogres and goblins.  Every game had
a different "feel" and I think had we had time to do a dozen games
that would still have been true. There a LOT of potential in these
rules for repeated play without becoming repetitive.
>
> First game was woodlands against the goblins, with the bears and
hobbits trying to cross a bridge and get past the goblins.  The bear
lord pretty much won the game by himself, killing a weak goblin
spectacularly and causing most of the ogres and goblins to run.  The
ogres came back and were slaughtered by the bear lord.  We ended
that game of the opinion that the bear lord was under valued at 95
points.
>
> RULES QUESTION from that game: when slow creatures roll to run
away and get two failures, do they run double, or just a single move?
>
> Second game John set up a solo ambush by leonines of the ogres and
goblins. Leonines moved first, and by the end of their turn the bad
guys had lost the two ogres, a hyena savage, and their shaman, with
the rest of the warband in flight. Part of it was good rolls, to be
sure, but the tactic of missile fire or magic to immobilize or knock
down an opponent combined with an assault to finish off the
vulnerable ones was very effective.
>
> Third game was woodlands against the leonines.  The bear lord we
thought was invincible in the first game got ganged on and taken
down, as his two bear warriors rolled triple failures and ran away
when a hobbit got splattered near them. The leonine warrior was
nearly as good as the bear lord, and with help from his numerous
supporters he took down the bear lord -- though there was ONE turn
when a hobbit had knocked down the lion warrior and the bear lord
could have reversed the outcome, perhaps, if he'd killed the lion
instead of rolling double failure.
>
> RULES QUESTION: If a Tough fighter is "killed spectacularly" does
that still only turn into one more wound?
>
> Another RULES QUESTION:  If a magic user get several actions, can
he move closer with the first and then cast a spell with a second or
third action point? Does he then roll again to see how powerful the
spell is?  Or is a magic user only able to attempt a spell at the
start of his turn, INSTEAD of moving?
>
> We did not use any Leaders, and we will from now on.  At 3 points
we assume Leaders are deliberately costed cheaper than their real
(very high) value.  Seems to me a warband would want to have two
leaders, minimum.
>
> These are fine rules that produce a fast, tense, and exciting game.

David and John McBride