ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Magua I have to say that in my opinion you're wrong.
What is with you guys? How is having an opinion about something "wrong?" That's the way I stated it, as an opinion, and that's the way it looks to me, and apparently to some others here too. [&:]
These rules are a challenge imho because as a reviewer at the Wargamer rightly pointed out, each paragraph basically contains something of relevance that relates to something else earlier or later on.
What's interesting is that I haven't found the rules to be that much of a challenge. If I really wanted to edit them, I might see ways they could be streamlined or made more clear, but for the most part, with the very few exceptions discussed in this forum, I think they do a good job.
However, if you've done the exercize I'm doing right now, basically taking each rule and placing it in its right category, there's some beauty and elegance in what Mark has written and the way he's done it all inclusively.
well, if you had read some of my other posts, you would see that I agree with your estimation, that the rules are elegant, and very playable too. I don't need to be convinced of this. I'm already a champion of it.
Eg: see this section I've put together so far covering the placement of ops complete markers:
OPS COMPLETE MARKERS
May fire at FULL FP at hex it spotted in that impulse.
May add leadership to fire at hex leader spotted that impulse.
May op fire ½ FP FRD, 0 FP units at –1FP.
May op fire with SW ½ FP FRD or +2 to hit.
May op fire vehicle/helicopter MG ½ FP FRD.
May op fire vehicle/helicopter ordnance +2 to hit.
May not fire otherwise.
May not use leadership otherwise.
May not spot.
May not move.
May not snipe.
May not place smoke.
Helicopter moves but doesn’t fire.
Places/attempts smoke.
Attempts to spot (helicopter n/a).
Fails pre-close assault morale check if didn’t move to current hex.
Leader, advisor, scout spots place mortar FFE marker.
Leader, advisor, scout fails to sight OBA spotting round.
Leader, advisor, scout places OBA FFE marker or aborts mission.
Helicopter moves/changes flying mode/disembarks passenger.
You can see how these markers cover a gamut of situations strewn throughout the entire rulebook. BUT when compiled in 1 place - it's easy. Helo's sit side by side snipers very comfortably.
First of all, Helos may sit nicely with you, but they don't for me. I don't own FH, and I doubt I will purchase it. Nothing personal to Mark. I just don't like Viet Nam war games. So, and I hope you or somebody can understand this, I find any reference to FH, in the rules and components for BoH to be a waste of space, and time. I completely understand that to you, and to others, who intend to purchase every game in this series, shmooshing everything together into one big book is desirable. But for those of us who will be picking and choosing, as well as those who are brand new to the series, all that extra info makes getting at the heart of the particular title we have purchased that much more difficult. And I believe this could actually discourage newcommers.
That aside, I am really impressed with your analysis of the use of the "Ops Complete" counters. I would welcome a section in the rules dedicated to a more thorough explanation of these babies. Personally, I love tables. I would put this in a table. In fact, I think I will. Dya want a copy?
Mark again, imo, has done the right thing in giving owners of all his games 1 complete rules package. His challenge will arise when he wishes to include ATGM's, thermal imaging, cluster munitions etc. That is why I hope his next titles after Nam cover WW2 for a long while.
I got it. It's been gnawing at me all along, and what you say here made the light go on. I think if you look from the POV of FH and to the present, the total rules package makes more sense (to me), as most of what has gone before is relevant to modern conflict. We run into a problem when we start including rules for modern weapon systems and situations in a game of WWII. We end up getting a whole lot of stuff we don't really need.
My .02 but doing this personal quick reference work is giving me a superb perception,
Adam.
There's a bit of ASL trashing in this forum. I agree with it. I think that ASL is a good example of what not to do with a good game system. But really, what was the problem with ASL? The way I saw it, it simply got so big and complicated, the dang rule book was crushed under its own weight. You couldn't play a simple game, because all the rules that were ever published for it were included into this massive document, and they built onto one another in a way that made it difficult to ferret-out what you really wanted and needed. Now, I certainly don't think LnL is that. However, when I see talk of creating a single, all inclussive LnL rule book, I start to get hives. Isn't this exactly the course that sunk ASL for so many of us? NOW, someone, please tell me I'm wrong, and explain why, and I swear, I will shut-up about it. I promise.
Anyway, I am going to create a table of OPS "can and cannot dos" based on your list. I'd like you to look at it (Mark too if he's willing). Woudja?
