Warhammer 40K, by Games Workshop has been my main source of actual sci-fi wargaming. Hard core grognards snicker derisively at this, calling it a 'kid's game' and mocking it's simple rules, over-the-top characters, and high costs for models and rulebooks. Even 40K affectionados recognize that the game's rules have been changed over the years to: 1) appeal to a younger audience, and 2) sell more models. Despite all of this, few question why they play, except that there is simply no other ruleset that has had the market penetration of 40K.
Behold, a challenger: Stargrunt II. Written in 1996 by John Tuffley for Ground Zero Games. This futuristic ruleset lays out a system for combat and army development completely different from GW, emphasizing small unit actions over the (sometimes) ridiculous forces available to the 40K player. For a 14-year-old, this may seem to take some of the fun out of the game, but for someone like me who is more into the tactics of a game rather that how to squeeze in one more uber-element, this is the sort of game I have been looking for. It is also refreshing to see the author encourage you to use any figs you like, rather than having to buy all of the Official GZG Miniatures and Vehicles and Templates and Markers and Terrain, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Now, the problems:
The rules must have had some success, as they are still around. They just decided over the last few years to simply give the game away rather than publish it again. I am not crying over a free game, but not everyone likes to print their own rulebooks. In fact, some would even see this as proof of the game's failure and avoid it at all costs.
There are no point values. John Tuffley blasts point values as "horribly artificial," and basically, he's right. The flip of this is: you and your opponent need to agree on what fair opposing forces would be. Usually this is dictated by a scenario which is designed beforehand. Will it be 2 completely equal troops, or 2 different sized and armed forces, with victory conditions that each can reasonably attain? Only the Gamemaster knows. Yes, sometimes you may need a 3rd party as a neutral gamemaster to design scenarios, surpise players with booby traps, decide ambiguities, or any combination of the three. While I enjoy the variety of different options available here, this will throw off the structured 40K player, wanting to know how many orks he can get on the field.
Unit Leadership is a HUGE part of this game. In 40K, you might be asked to test to see if the enormous slobbering monster or ravening hordes of Tyranids are freaking out your troops every now and then. In SGII, you check for those sorts of things much more often. Just like in the real military, orders go back and forth, and good leaders are need to control elements as small as a squad. If that leader is somewhat... green... units may spend a lot of time hunkered down trying to get the radio to work rather than assaulting the enemy position. Being shot at? 40K troops grit their teeth and charge into certain death. Stargrunt troops... may decide that the hole they are sitting in is a better option than running across an open battlefield. Fortunately, this goes for both sides, so it is a burden both players will bear.
What can be done to mitigate some of these variances so that you can win over new players to a SGII game? The easiest way to choose troops that have the least number of special rolls and checks that must be performed. Start with small units of Regular or better troops, with no crazy weapon teams. This eliminates many of the initial panic rolls, gives you a better chance to hit something you are shooting at, and gets you used to the mechanics of ranged or close combat. Both sides should have the EXACT same forces. Leadership Values should all be 1 (the best) and troops should have no fatigue (fresh.) Mission Motivation should be medium or high. Things you SHOULDN'T field: vehicles, off-board artillery, power armor, snipers, drones, etc. Just basic troops and leaders.
Scenario 1 (from the book) is good, but to simplify it even further, I wouldn't even deal with hidden units. Just take turns putting units on the table and then slug it out. Fight to the death or or until you feel you understand the die shifts and confidence/panic tests. At the very least, put a token in the center of the table that represents an objective. After 12 turns, whoever has the most troops "controlling" the objective wins (reinforcements arrive.)
If you want to promote this game, prepare to provide all of the figures for demo games. each side could have as few as 16 (4 squads of 4, one being the HQ squad) or as much as 30 (8,8,8, and 6 for the HQ) but I wouldn't field more than that. We're learning rules, not taking over the galaxy. Many companies make great human infantry sci-fi models, but GW's Imperial Guard are a beautiful range of detailed plastic figures. GZG also makes a large range of figs, which aren't horrible sculpts and are reasonably priced. They are metal and therefore difficult to modify, but they have a reasonable number of poses and weapon options. They also are sculpted to conform to the suggested background setting known loosely as the "Tuffleyverse." You are under no circumstances forced to play in their world, it is just a suggestion.
Take my suggestions, run with them and report back. I want to make sure I am not alone here in seeing the value in this great game. After I am more confident in my grasp of the rules I will be doing some battle reports and start to develop my own universe and "tree campaign" of scenarios for all to use.
No comments:
Post a Comment