Re: RopeCon 98 Report

> With that frequency of playing I don't really memorize the rules and
given
> that e.g. DS2 lacks a cheat sheet and a good selection of pre-designed
> vehicles, well, it failed to be a hit in our group which is a pity
because
> I really, really like the game (it just has too many %T$$#"%&$#
counters
> on the table -- if I wanted "sneeze-away" cardboard counters, I'd play
a
> %$%"$#%"$# boardgame). It's just a tad too complex for the time I
have.
> 
I would have to agree.	I find FT "elegant" but DS2 is definitely not. 
Drawing chits--or much worse, drawing a different selection of chits for
different weapons and different targets--just isn't elegant.  Weapons
have
different effects on infantry vs armor, granted, but this is not the way
to
represent it.  A cheat sheet and a vehicle list would improve things,
but
not (in my opinion) enough.  Drawing chits looks like a simple way to
vary
the probabilities but in fact you need to a) keep track of the things;
b)
have a container; c) remember (or look up) what combinations are valid.
  The only other miniatures game I play with regularity is DBA/DBM. 
Each
troop type has a die roll bonus, which may vary by class of target.  For
example, Light Horse is +2 against everything;	archers are +4 vs
mounted,
+2 vs foot.  There are about ten different sets of bonuses, some of
which
are seldom used; the chart takes up a space perhaps 2"x3" and is easily
copied; for those of us who don't use a wide variety of troops (Light
Horse
& Fast Knights, yeah!), it is easily memorized.  If you lose your dice,
you
can easily replace them and it doesn't change the probabilities.