chase and fly's attempt at a wargame
- Thread starter flykiller
- Start date
Snapshot discusion
Some other points besides morale, damage and Action points
Turn Sequence: I believe it need to be a bit smoother and take some skills into consideration
Movement actions: Needs a few more types to be considered
Combat actions: Needs at least one more (IMO)
Line of Sight: Needs diagrams and examples to make it clearer for the average non-miniature gamer
Zero-G Combat: Needs to include jet/manevuer devices
Need to have heavy Gravity rules
Anyone have problems with the Combat resolution text?
Endurance: Does anyone want to modify endurance effect on combat?
Points brought up by others to discuss
Morale:
What causes a character duck, fight to the last drop of blood, run away or charge?
What skills or experience (background) give positive mods to the determination?
What other things give negative mods to the determination?
Damage:
Is the basic CT version (also used in SnapShot) enough?
Do you want to determine other damage effects like AHL (Azhanti High Lightning)?
Do you want to include special damage effects like fire, acid, electrical or laser burns?
Action Points:
Does SnapShot need a detail list of potential action point cost?
Are any of the current action point cost to high? to low?
How does skills effect Action point cost?
How does special damage effects like stun, broken limbs, severe bleeding or massive burns effect action point cost?
And related to Action Point cost
How long is a combat turn? When everyone is done? When no more action points are available to any character? A set amount of time?
If I have missed any please let me know.
I would like to see some discussion (asking you not telling you) on the above points.
If you have anyother game that you would like to reference for your making your point, please do. Just reference it, do not promote it.
Dave Chase
Some other points besides morale, damage and Action points
Turn Sequence: I believe it need to be a bit smoother and take some skills into consideration
Movement actions: Needs a few more types to be considered
Combat actions: Needs at least one more (IMO)
Line of Sight: Needs diagrams and examples to make it clearer for the average non-miniature gamer
Zero-G Combat: Needs to include jet/manevuer devices
Need to have heavy Gravity rules
Anyone have problems with the Combat resolution text?
Endurance: Does anyone want to modify endurance effect on combat?
Points brought up by others to discuss
Morale:
What causes a character duck, fight to the last drop of blood, run away or charge?
What skills or experience (background) give positive mods to the determination?
What other things give negative mods to the determination?
Damage:
Is the basic CT version (also used in SnapShot) enough?
Do you want to determine other damage effects like AHL (Azhanti High Lightning)?
Do you want to include special damage effects like fire, acid, electrical or laser burns?
Action Points:
Does SnapShot need a detail list of potential action point cost?
Are any of the current action point cost to high? to low?
How does skills effect Action point cost?
How does special damage effects like stun, broken limbs, severe bleeding or massive burns effect action point cost?
And related to Action Point cost
How long is a combat turn? When everyone is done? When no more action points are available to any character? A set amount of time?
If I have missed any please let me know.
I would like to see some discussion (asking you not telling you) on the above points.
If you have anyother game that you would like to reference for your making your point, please do. Just reference it, do not promote it.
Dave Chase
Length of Combat turn
The one annoying part to Movement actions that I had with SnapShot was
The lenght of time it took for a sliding door to open and the Action Point (AP) waiting.
Basically, (Rule quote from SnapShot)
Open a Sliding Door: An individual may open a sliding door by expending 1 AP while in a square adjacent to the door, and then by waiting for 3 additional APs. Those APs may be expended to perform some other action, but the door will not open until after the waiting period has passed.
My problem with this:
Are sliding doors like those partion doors in the TV show Lost in Space or are they like the Sliding doors in Star Trek (other than no button had to be pushed)?
If like the partion doors then additional AP should be expended to open the door. If like the Star Trek doors which take less than a second to move 6 ft (or 4mph) why are you waiting 3 APs.
Lets say that you have 2 characters, one has 6 AP (min possible) and the other has 20 AP.
Both are standing by a sliding door and have to wait for the sliding door for 3 AP which means that the slow one is so slow that they can barely walk thru the opened door (2 AP left) and the other can walk thru and close the door on the slow one.
By the rules of movement actions and turn sequence in SnapShot this could very well happen.
What I would like to see is a set combat turn length OR change the Movement actions to something like this for opening sliding doors:
Partion Sliding door takes 3 APs to open per 3m (6ft) of door.
Button operated Sliding doors takes 2 APs to open (one to push the button, one for the pause in stride)
Auto opening Sliding door takes no additional APs to move through as the shipboard system opens and closes the door based on position of the individual.
Another reason that I would like a set length of combat turn is for timing issues, like a grenade or bomb going off, because no matter how fast you are some things just take a set amount of time, and because it would be eaiser to cross check against outside ongoings say like ship to ship combat or such.
Basiclly I feel the same with Iris Valve.
Opening a Hatch I feel is fine.
(And cycling an Air Lock from AHL is fine except for the length of time issue like sliding doors.)
Dave Chase
The one annoying part to Movement actions that I had with SnapShot was
The lenght of time it took for a sliding door to open and the Action Point (AP) waiting.
Basically, (Rule quote from SnapShot)
Open a Sliding Door: An individual may open a sliding door by expending 1 AP while in a square adjacent to the door, and then by waiting for 3 additional APs. Those APs may be expended to perform some other action, but the door will not open until after the waiting period has passed.
My problem with this:
Are sliding doors like those partion doors in the TV show Lost in Space or are they like the Sliding doors in Star Trek (other than no button had to be pushed)?
If like the partion doors then additional AP should be expended to open the door. If like the Star Trek doors which take less than a second to move 6 ft (or 4mph) why are you waiting 3 APs.
Lets say that you have 2 characters, one has 6 AP (min possible) and the other has 20 AP.
Both are standing by a sliding door and have to wait for the sliding door for 3 AP which means that the slow one is so slow that they can barely walk thru the opened door (2 AP left) and the other can walk thru and close the door on the slow one.
By the rules of movement actions and turn sequence in SnapShot this could very well happen.
What I would like to see is a set combat turn length OR change the Movement actions to something like this for opening sliding doors:
Partion Sliding door takes 3 APs to open per 3m (6ft) of door.
Button operated Sliding doors takes 2 APs to open (one to push the button, one for the pause in stride)
Auto opening Sliding door takes no additional APs to move through as the shipboard system opens and closes the door based on position of the individual.
Another reason that I would like a set length of combat turn is for timing issues, like a grenade or bomb going off, because no matter how fast you are some things just take a set amount of time, and because it would be eaiser to cross check against outside ongoings say like ship to ship combat or such.
Basiclly I feel the same with Iris Valve.
Opening a Hatch I feel is fine.
(And cycling an Air Lock from AHL is fine except for the length of time issue like sliding doors.)
Dave Chase
Additional actions for SnapShot
Movement actions that I would like to see added
Kneeling
Crawling
Climbing
Jumping
Operating/interfacing with equipment
Sprinting (as a faster speed than running)
Combat actions that I would like to see added
Surpressive fire (continous fire of weapon over space of time at a set point or distance)
Taunt
Spotting/observation (different that shooting because you are spending time looking for details)
Morale building (opposite of Taunt)
Set explosives/placement of equipment (like setting up claymores or such during combat)
Dave Chase
Movement actions that I would like to see added
Kneeling
Crawling
Climbing
Jumping
Operating/interfacing with equipment
Sprinting (as a faster speed than running)
Combat actions that I would like to see added
Surpressive fire (continous fire of weapon over space of time at a set point or distance)
Taunt
Spotting/observation (different that shooting because you are spending time looking for details)
Morale building (opposite of Taunt)
Set explosives/placement of equipment (like setting up claymores or such during combat)
Dave Chase
Legions of Steel is one of my all time favorite games. If you could marry the richness and diversity of traveller with the simplicity (and yet tactical complexity) of Legions of Steel, you'd have a real winner.
One of the reasons that Legions played so fast and smooth
Was that the figures were set in value and made to be balanced in play.
When dealing with a role play type figures (stats) the balance of play is not always present.
But some of the concepts of fast, smooth play could be achieve in a conversion of RPG to miniatures IF the players (controllers of the figures) keep in mind the objects of the miniature game and not that the figure is their character. (hard for most to do and not required to be done to have fun.
Question
Since flykiller was wanting to improve upon SnapShot and I am very agreeable to that is anyone else interested in such. I have limited my miniatures thoughts to SnapShot at this time as to include all that are interested.
But I don't want to be just posting to a topic for posting sake.
So, is anyone really interesting in working/improving SnapShot the game?
Or would anyone one want to have a miniature rules thread discussion instead?
I am open to either, or neither. If no one is interested that is OK too. Thats what sharing is all about.
Dave Chase
Was that the figures were set in value and made to be balanced in play.
When dealing with a role play type figures (stats) the balance of play is not always present.
But some of the concepts of fast, smooth play could be achieve in a conversion of RPG to miniatures IF the players (controllers of the figures) keep in mind the objects of the miniature game and not that the figure is their character. (hard for most to do and not required to be done to have fun.
Question
Since flykiller was wanting to improve upon SnapShot and I am very agreeable to that is anyone else interested in such. I have limited my miniatures thoughts to SnapShot at this time as to include all that are interested.
But I don't want to be just posting to a topic for posting sake.
So, is anyone really interesting in working/improving SnapShot the game?
Or would anyone one want to have a miniature rules thread discussion instead?
I am open to either, or neither. If no one is interested that is OK too. Thats what sharing is all about.
Dave Chase
To be honest, for the moment I'm happy with Snapshot, and I'm moving toward Battlefield Evolution to replace Striker. Depending on how "Special Ops" turns out, maybe I'll use that for Snapshot, too. So the anser for me, personally, is "no", I don't want to work/improve Snapshot, but I'm always interested in seeing what others are up to, and I certainly don't consider Snapshot a "perfect game".
"It is not in the best interests of an adventure game, however, to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte. The location of a hit or wound, the sort of damage done, sprains, breaks, and dislocations are not the stuff of heroic fantasy." -- DM Guide p 61
I'm totally out of sync with you guys, but here's my random thoughts anyway....
I am currently looking at Twilight 2000. Still. Honestly I'm scared to death of Striker. Where's my #$^&#$&* vehicle designs and scenarios?!
GURPS's second by second hyper-detailed combat is overwhelming.
T2k is clearly influenced by AD&D-- it just feels like a bigger/cooler fixed-up AD&D to me... BUT... you get all of those vehicles for free... and the setting eliminates air power mostly.... The charts and tables really set you up. (Compare to GURPS Hi-Tech-- I have it all, but no clue what to do with it....)
I'm still liking the hesitation and coolness under fire and "shock" and knock-down rules-- after playing a lot of Car Wars I want rules that make people behave like real people instead up statistical analyzers.... A chess-like tactics-fest like Ogre still has its place, though....
But vehicles and indirect fire... can they be implemented without giving me a headache? T2K has all the stats lined out already.... It looks like GDW was targeting folks besides the die-hard grognards with that one....
The 5 second combat rounds just seem about right. The char gen rules for a specific mileau is nice as well....
I like what SgtHulka said about "All the characteristics are important" in snapshot... plus the variety derived from them.... Snapshot's simplicity and accessibility is also nice. I'm surprised it can compete with Striker and AHL like that.... Heh heh.
I'm totally out of sync with you guys, but here's my random thoughts anyway....
I am currently looking at Twilight 2000. Still. Honestly I'm scared to death of Striker. Where's my #$^&#$&* vehicle designs and scenarios?!
GURPS's second by second hyper-detailed combat is overwhelming.
T2k is clearly influenced by AD&D-- it just feels like a bigger/cooler fixed-up AD&D to me... BUT... you get all of those vehicles for free... and the setting eliminates air power mostly.... The charts and tables really set you up. (Compare to GURPS Hi-Tech-- I have it all, but no clue what to do with it....)
I'm still liking the hesitation and coolness under fire and "shock" and knock-down rules-- after playing a lot of Car Wars I want rules that make people behave like real people instead up statistical analyzers.... A chess-like tactics-fest like Ogre still has its place, though....
But vehicles and indirect fire... can they be implemented without giving me a headache? T2K has all the stats lined out already.... It looks like GDW was targeting folks besides the die-hard grognards with that one....
The 5 second combat rounds just seem about right. The char gen rules for a specific mileau is nice as well....
I like what SgtHulka said about "All the characteristics are important" in snapshot... plus the variety derived from them.... Snapshot's simplicity and accessibility is also nice. I'm surprised it can compete with Striker and AHL like that.... Heh heh.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Dave, (duh, I quickreplied instead of quoting) as I said upthread, I'm currently working on an improved version of Snapshot/AHL for my own purposes, I will continue to do so regardless, but if anyone wants to swap ideas, that's great. 
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Ok, following a PM exchange with Dave Chase, it seems we're both up for a not-for-commercial-use ideas swap on this thread for improving Snapshot/AHL.
If Flykiller is still in on this and/or anyone else wants to contribute some ideas, the more, the merrier.
I'm not sure yet if Dave and I have exactly the same goal, but I can't see us (especially manyfold us) agreeing on a definitive 'Snapshot 2', more likely we'll be pooling some useful optional houserules that can be added to your game on a 'use or ignore' basis.
I'm away from my Traveller materials until 2009 so my input will be sketchy until then.
My aim is for a game that is compatible with both LBB1 and Striker wounding systems and has a better method of incorporating Brawling, martial arts and non-lethal weapons (perhaps by way of an optional rule subset).
If Flykiller is still in on this and/or anyone else wants to contribute some ideas, the more, the merrier.
I'm not sure yet if Dave and I have exactly the same goal, but I can't see us (especially manyfold us) agreeing on a definitive 'Snapshot 2', more likely we'll be pooling some useful optional houserules that can be added to your game on a 'use or ignore' basis.
I'm away from my Traveller materials until 2009 so my input will be sketchy until then.
My aim is for a game that is compatible with both LBB1 and Striker wounding systems and has a better method of incorporating Brawling, martial arts and non-lethal weapons (perhaps by way of an optional rule subset).
Last edited:
It's alive (cheering in the back ground)
(While in the front of the picture, Mad Travellers run around waving their hands like their team won the universe title.) (OK, maybe only one Mad Traveller, me) :rofl:
Second and third Icosahedron and please come and join us flykiller.
Please note that I edited the (post) legal brief title IP rights in this thead. This is because what this thread is about is not a new game creation so much as modifing to your pleasure the game SnapShot (AHL and LLB1 combat) in general to make play a bit easier.
Thanks,
Dave Chase
(While in the front of the picture, Mad Travellers run around waving their hands like their team won the universe title.) (OK, maybe only one Mad Traveller, me) :rofl:
Second and third Icosahedron and please come and join us flykiller.
Please note that I edited the (post) legal brief title IP rights in this thead. This is because what this thread is about is not a new game creation so much as modifing to your pleasure the game SnapShot (AHL and LLB1 combat) in general to make play a bit easier.
Thanks,
Dave Chase
Action Points
Just popping my head in with some information that may or may not be useful.
As you know, Legions of Steel didn't use action points -- all figures received both a move action and a fire action.
However, when Global Games translated Legions of Steel to World War II for their Stalingrad game, they started using Action Points, and the default number for every figure was "3" (NCO's or "super" figures received 4 or 5, green recruits received 2). A "Fire" action required 2 Action Points (+0 to hit), a "Snap Fire" action required 1 Action Point (-1 to hit), and a "Aimed Fire" action required all 3 points (+1 to hit).
You can see how that translates to the same modifiers they had in Legions of Steel...walking was 0 (spend 1 action point to walk and 2 to fire), running was -1 (spend 2 action points to run and 1 to snap fire), and standing still was +1 (spend all 3 action points to aimed fire).
Stalingrad kept the "covering" mechanic from Legions of Steel in that any figure that had action points remaining at the end of their turn were automatically "covering" and a counter was placed next to them. However, the "covering" counter was different from the Legoins of Steel counter -- instead of 0, -1, -2, it says 1, 2, 3, marking how many action points the figure had left. The type of covering fire that the figure used was based on its remaining action points...Aimed Fire for 3, Fire for 2, Snap Fire for 0. The interesting difference between this and Legions of Steel is that Legions of Steel added an additional -1 to hit for Covering Fire, and the Stalingrad rules with action points did not, making Covering Fire slightly more powerful.
Instead of each Action Point translating to a single Move Point, like it does in Snapshot, Stalingrad gave a figure 5 movement points for every Action Point spent. It then had a list of move costs that were roughly equivelant to the Legions of Steel move costs. 1 move point for every inch forward, 2 move points for every inch sideways or backwards, 5 move points to open or close a door, 15 move points to break open a locked door. Interestingly, there was no distinction between "running" and "walking" like there was in Legions of Steel.
So why am I bothering to bring all this up? Two reasons. First, in my own experience, it's a little bit of a pita to keep track of all the action points in Snapshot. You really need to put together a play aid sheet for each game that lists the figures and their action points in order from highest to lowest, and a way to mark them all off as you activate them. This is because they can have so many action points, and this is the reason (I think) so many people hate action points. It occurred to me that the Stalingrad version of Action Points...limiting figures to between 3 and 5...might go a long way to solving that problem. Though, admittedly, the whole "1 Action Point equals 5 Movement Points" might be too confusing. But again, as you know, I like the fact that Endurance is an important characteristic in Snapshot (adding to your action points), so I'd like to preserve Action Points even though in general I don't like them. Maybe this is a way to do it.
The other reason I'm bringing it up is that the real strength of Legions of Steel, in my opinion, was the "covering" mechanic. The fact that *every single* figure was automatically covering at the end of its turn so long as it didn't fire made getting around the flank of your opponent really important, creating fluid and dynamic games, and it broke up the "you go I go" turn sequence. Snapshot already has a "covering fire" mechanic but it's a bit cumbersome and it's not "automatic".
I haven't actually played Stalingrad, so I can't vouch for how successful it is compared to Legions of Steel. I'm not sure that Snap Firing three times wouldn't just always be better than a single Aimed Fire, for example (if you remember Legions of Steel only allowed you to fire once). But, at the very least, I thought I'd write this down as food for thought.
Just popping my head in with some information that may or may not be useful.
As you know, Legions of Steel didn't use action points -- all figures received both a move action and a fire action.
However, when Global Games translated Legions of Steel to World War II for their Stalingrad game, they started using Action Points, and the default number for every figure was "3" (NCO's or "super" figures received 4 or 5, green recruits received 2). A "Fire" action required 2 Action Points (+0 to hit), a "Snap Fire" action required 1 Action Point (-1 to hit), and a "Aimed Fire" action required all 3 points (+1 to hit).
You can see how that translates to the same modifiers they had in Legions of Steel...walking was 0 (spend 1 action point to walk and 2 to fire), running was -1 (spend 2 action points to run and 1 to snap fire), and standing still was +1 (spend all 3 action points to aimed fire).
Stalingrad kept the "covering" mechanic from Legions of Steel in that any figure that had action points remaining at the end of their turn were automatically "covering" and a counter was placed next to them. However, the "covering" counter was different from the Legoins of Steel counter -- instead of 0, -1, -2, it says 1, 2, 3, marking how many action points the figure had left. The type of covering fire that the figure used was based on its remaining action points...Aimed Fire for 3, Fire for 2, Snap Fire for 0. The interesting difference between this and Legions of Steel is that Legions of Steel added an additional -1 to hit for Covering Fire, and the Stalingrad rules with action points did not, making Covering Fire slightly more powerful.
Instead of each Action Point translating to a single Move Point, like it does in Snapshot, Stalingrad gave a figure 5 movement points for every Action Point spent. It then had a list of move costs that were roughly equivelant to the Legions of Steel move costs. 1 move point for every inch forward, 2 move points for every inch sideways or backwards, 5 move points to open or close a door, 15 move points to break open a locked door. Interestingly, there was no distinction between "running" and "walking" like there was in Legions of Steel.
So why am I bothering to bring all this up? Two reasons. First, in my own experience, it's a little bit of a pita to keep track of all the action points in Snapshot. You really need to put together a play aid sheet for each game that lists the figures and their action points in order from highest to lowest, and a way to mark them all off as you activate them. This is because they can have so many action points, and this is the reason (I think) so many people hate action points. It occurred to me that the Stalingrad version of Action Points...limiting figures to between 3 and 5...might go a long way to solving that problem. Though, admittedly, the whole "1 Action Point equals 5 Movement Points" might be too confusing. But again, as you know, I like the fact that Endurance is an important characteristic in Snapshot (adding to your action points), so I'd like to preserve Action Points even though in general I don't like them. Maybe this is a way to do it.
The other reason I'm bringing it up is that the real strength of Legions of Steel, in my opinion, was the "covering" mechanic. The fact that *every single* figure was automatically covering at the end of its turn so long as it didn't fire made getting around the flank of your opponent really important, creating fluid and dynamic games, and it broke up the "you go I go" turn sequence. Snapshot already has a "covering fire" mechanic but it's a bit cumbersome and it's not "automatic".
I haven't actually played Stalingrad, so I can't vouch for how successful it is compared to Legions of Steel. I'm not sure that Snap Firing three times wouldn't just always be better than a single Aimed Fire, for example (if you remember Legions of Steel only allowed you to fire once). But, at the very least, I thought I'd write this down as food for thought.
Thanks, Sgt.
In case anyone is wondering, I am taking abit more of the supportive role versuses the active role in this. I seemed to scare a few people with my legalize on IP and my over excitement to create a new game. Sorry.
I am letting Iso and anyone else be the initiators here and me helping or responding.
I like action points, I also don't mind if some figures have more actions than others as long as that is not the game breaker. Ie, just because you have more action points means you will always win.
As to covering fire based only taking place once versus several times.
I feel that it gives a feel of reaction to situations where during movement you (the figure) has more planning time to do actions.
Maybe, a specail characteristic that a figure could have would be cover fire specialist. That would allow the figure to fire more than once as a cover fire option only if they did not fire nor move.
On a different note: I also like LoS suppersion rules. Ammo was spent, a line of fire was there and the suppersion point recieved full benifit while the line of fire received modifiers to be hit.
Dave Chase
Maybe recon skill? Or some other skill might be more appropriate?
Yeah, suppression in LoS was awesome, I didn't include it above b/c I don't think it changed in Stalingrad.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I'm back, but I haven't had time to prep my Trav materials yet.
I haven't seen Legions or Stalingrad, so references to those games are over my head, but I know ACQ increased the number of Action Points dramatically and this was one of the factors that persuaded me not to adopt it. It seemed over-complex.
I haven't playtested my idea of changing the standard 6AP to a variable 4-8AP depending on stats, so I have no idea if it will unbalance the game.
I haven't seen Legions or Stalingrad, so references to those games are over my head, but I know ACQ increased the number of Action Points dramatically and this was one of the factors that persuaded me not to adopt it. It seemed over-complex.
I haven't playtested my idea of changing the standard 6AP to a variable 4-8AP depending on stats, so I have no idea if it will unbalance the game.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Ok, I just opened my notes. My contributions use AHL as a base rather than snapshot, but I'll put out a couple of ideas at a time and see how they go:
1. I've included a rule to accommodate hexes as well as squares. Basically you face one side of the poygon and your turning costs are the same, but if using hexes you must alternate between 60 and 120 degree turns (starting with either). That way, the costs for 180 and 360 degree turns also remain the same.
2. Inactive characters are counted toward the stacking limits within a square/hex. I figure that even corpses present a navigation hazard.
Comments/alternatives?
1. I've included a rule to accommodate hexes as well as squares. Basically you face one side of the poygon and your turning costs are the same, but if using hexes you must alternate between 60 and 120 degree turns (starting with either). That way, the costs for 180 and 360 degree turns also remain the same.
2. Inactive characters are counted toward the stacking limits within a square/hex. I figure that even corpses present a navigation hazard.
Comments/alternatives?
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
An AHL aimed shot is 6AP and a snap shot is 3AP, so the 4 guy would need two phases to aim, (IIRC there are already rules for 'long actions'; aiming would simply be a long action for this guy - he's not very dextrous (what do you expect for Dex 3-) and has to steady himself very carefully, so he's more likely to use snapshots - adds to the role-play.) All three could get off a snap shot, the 6 and 8 guys could get two off, and the 8 guy (Dex B+) could dive for cover after he's fired.
The idea was designed to create semi-cinematic advantages for certain characters, but I think it would need a playtest to determine if it's overkill.
In the standard game, turning one face of a square (90) takes 1AP. So turning 2 faces (180) takes 2AP.
My idea was to ensure that whether you're using squares or hexes, you still take 2AP to turn 180, rather than 3.
So, to turn 60 or 120 costs 1AP, to turn 180 costs 2AP, and because you can't use two consecutive 120 turns, turning 240 costs 3AP.
Thus, in both the square and the hex game, Joe Average (6AP) could abort his current action (1AP), turn to an enemy behind him (2AP) and fire a snapshot (3AP).
If you stick with 1AP per polygon face, the two games are not equivalent, the guy can stop and spin round but he can't fire.
Last edited:
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I guess I should have looked a AHL before I posted my first Question
Your 4 to 8 AP will not be to bad for the 4 guy depending on how you to the next issue of who goes first. Random, sequence static, sequence reverse et.
Good point, turn sequencing is on my to-do list, no doubt we'll discuss it. I like the idea of an initiative-based sequence.
Likewise I'm very rusty on Snapshot. The first I saw of the two games was when I bought the CD, and when I checked them out I saw that Snapshot followed LBB1 combat while AHL seemed to be a modification/update that followed Striker. I'd already houseruled my combat around Striker cos I never really liked LBB1 combat, so I just adopted AHL as my base and Snapshot was relegated to donating a couple of rules the modifiers had dropped.
Speaking of which, one of the rules I'm thinking of resurrecting is the 'expletive', simply for its amusement value. How do you guys use that? (assuming there's more than the two of us still here). What advantage is conferred by using up an AP to swear? Or was it intended as a 'swear box' for players? - 'Jim used the f-word so his character loses 1AP this phase.'
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
yeah, using it as a taunt could be a way to go - I'd thought of using it as a morale booster for the character's own morale, but yes, it could be used to modify another character's morale instead/as well.
I'm anxious not to get rules bloat though, with subsets of if/then. I want to completely specify the expletive rule in a couple of sentences.
I'm anxious not to get rules bloat though, with subsets of if/then. I want to completely specify the expletive rule in a couple of sentences.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Hmm, no, I don't think a variable point expletive is a good idea - it becomes too powerful, like a free Leader-3, or you spend a few seconds calling your enemies names and they all run away...
Just a single AP for a single point of morale for a single phase is the direction I'm going. Occasionally it'll make a difference, mostly it'll be character chrome.
I really need to spend some time thinkiing about AHL apart from the few seconds a day when I'm corresponding with you.
And it looks like it might be just you and me.
Just a single AP for a single point of morale for a single phase is the direction I'm going. Occasionally it'll make a difference, mostly it'll be character chrome.
I really need to spend some time thinkiing about AHL apart from the few seconds a day when I'm corresponding with you.
And it looks like it might be just you and me.
