Re: SG:AC discussions (was: Official - More re GZG news update - NEW RELEASES!)

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

At my club we play a number of games with random activation orders,
driven by decks of cards which also have random events in - these are a
mix of commercial rules and home-brew ones. I'm definitely a fan of
this, it creates a real fog of war effect with army commanders having to
react to the sequence of events rather than being able to stick to a
rigid plan.

Some of the games also have an 'end-of-turn' card in - this means that
not all units are guaranteed to be activated every turn (and turns can
be very short if that one comes up early).

---- Robert N Bryett wrote ----

>> That is similar in some ways to the classic "Seastrike" random
objective method.
>
>I have the original "yellow folder" edition of "Seastrike" (bought in
my final year at high-school), and played a lot of games, so I stole the
game's basic structure for my old "Belt Wars" hard-SF Full Thrust
universe. I think there is a lot to be said for hidden asymmetrical
objectives. For one thing, it makes it difficult to minimax up a
"perfect" army/fleet.
>
>As for referring to <game> as "basically Warhammer/W40K", we should
remember that 1) people are lazy and stupid, and 2) at a certain level
of abstraction *all* table-top wargames are basically Warhammer/W40K. On
the other hand, there is nothing wrong with introducing a new
game/ruleset to people who are already familiar with Warhammer/W40K by
comparing and contrasting the new with the already-familiar.
>
>I have not played Bolt Action at all. Having looked at a rules summary,
I think the idea of randomising the order in which units can activate is
not without merit, but I'll have to think about it further.
>