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

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:06:04AM -0400, Damond Walker wrote:
>I played CoC once -- and it was a tremendous bore.  Granted it was a
prior
>version of the game but at the time it seemed like we spent the entire
game
>just pushing units back and forth e.g. on my turn I shot unit Z and
they
>fell back and on their turn unit Z advanced, shot my unit and I feel
>back...ad infinitum ad nauseum.  Maybe it's better now?

I have a couple of blogged reports at
http://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2014/01/Chain_of_Command__Game_2.html
and
http://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2014/05/Chain_of_Command__The_Battle_o
f_Grange_Farm.html
which you may find interesting. That certainly doesn't describe the
game as I've experienced it.

The thing I like about it is that shock level is a fluid and per-unit
thing, and a battle generally ends when one side runs out of
determination rather than running out of men.

>I think the better question is what kind of community do you want to
build
>up around the system?	For all their evils the point based games tend
to
>invite tournaments.  Earlier I mentioned that the core rules shouldn't
be
>intimately tied to the background but there is nothing saying you
cannot
>have "The complete guide to NAC" style "army" books.

The existence of Serious Tournament Play seems to put off at least as
many people as it encourages. This is especially true in a historical
setting, where someone's custom army may be vastly more game-capable
than a genuine historical force.

>I will point to the local success of Bolt Action which I cannot
>explain based on the rules alone.

Really? I thought "the rules are basically Warhammer" was the
principal reason for its success: a simple system that people know.

R