These notes were developed from a series of correspondence between Tom Pope and myself. They
originally related to the Slammer Word.Doc down-loadable from the Introduction page. It's largely
due to Tom's prompting and encouragement that I put Slammer on my Web Site.
Many of the points raised have been dealt with in subsequent updates of Slammer on-line.
Tom's comments are listed in italics my replies are in plain text. Editorial comments
are in [square brackets]. Comments in bold are quoted from slamword.doc.
Tom Pope wrote:
OK, here goes...
At first reading, I like the game. The mechanics seem reasonable (and quick) and it was an easy read. I'll sort my comments into the sections of the rules.
"Where teams are grouped together, each team should remain within one full move of another team in the same group."
This rule was phrased poorly and I may have put too much emphasis on it.
Group cohesion is not mandatory, but is recommended. This was intended to help define teams and groups on the table top and for leadership purposes, also to help maintain group cohesion.
Group cohesion is more important at Platoon level or higher. For Section level games i.e.
individual figures; it should not be mandatory. There are built-in advantages to keeping
elements together, and penalties for separating units.
It is likely that groups will be split up during the game. I intended that if or when a group
does become separated, it should attempt to reform it's original elements.
It would be legitimate for a group to form up in extended line with a full move between each team.
Similarly, I'd like to see rules concerning detaching individuals or pairs for certain special circumstances. For instance, a squad (6 people) detached the demolition expert to blow up a comm. tower while the rest of the squad provides cover and a distraction. While in many cases, this reorganisation can be done before the battle starts, there will be times where that needs to be done "on the fly"
Group and team organisation is generally done before the game. Under troop quality, it suggests
that higher quality troops be organised in smaller teams.
e.g. A special forces section (10-12 figures) might have 3-4 teams of 2-4 figures each.
A militia squad of the same size would have 2-3 teams of 4-6 figures.
This would make it easier for better quality units to detach elements from the group. I intended
this to represent the higher level of individual initiative and trust in better quality units.
This makes sense, but should probably be better explained in the rules.
[I have put this in the troop quality sector as an example and expanded the explanation.]
You can detach figures from a team, but the split team will suffer the separation penalty until it reforms. The detached demolition expert will want to get back to the unit and the covering troops aren't going anywhere without their buddy.
That makes sense as well, as long as the penalties aren't too high (you don't want to have the expert freeze as soon as he leaves his buddies).
The penalty for detaching a team from a group might be less severe than for splitting a team. i.e. Separation from group; -1 activation modifier. Splitting a team; -2 act.mod.
Good idea.
Possibly have no penalty, but splitting means that the main unit just
sits in place. It can defend and fire back, but will not move or close
assault until the detached element returns. Of course it should be able
to provide covering fire...
Currently I use a -2 activation modifier for splitting a team. This will reduce their activation level but should not be too severe unless they are already in a bad state.
That seems reasonable. Gives the detached element a good chance of completing their task (blowing up the bridge, etc.) and gives the rest of the team a good chance of supporting fire.
Now, when an element is detached, do they roll separately for activation from the rest of the team, or does the team as a whole still roll, and each gets to act at that level?
I would roll separately for each until they re-form the team.
Ha, Ha! One of the problems with ST (the film), is it is so centred around the hero that everyone else becomes Camera Fodder.
I regard Elite as much more due to attitude than to ability. I treat Elite as the intention to be
the best. Elite may be applied to troops of differing quality, for example;
Recruits to an Elite unit might be Green Elite. "Rico's Roughnecks" at the end of STtF would be
Elite Trained Camera Fodder :o)
You may even want to rename it from Elite to something else, though I don't know what.
I think that was my major hang-up, since I was used to seeing the same
names for quality ratings (untrained, green, regular, veteran, elite).
...no good ideas on what exactly to call it though...
Troop Quality is related directly to a units capability and competence. It is fairly easy to state whether one unit is a better shot than another. Troop Motivation is much harder to define, the motivation section is more of a guideline to the way a unit behaves and their personal goals. The motivation rules are fairly loose and require an element of role-playing to make the best of them.
The activation table is the heart of the system and one of my favourite bits. It governs turn sequencing, movement, combat and morale all in the one mechanism.
It's good. It is what will "sell" the system...
I especially like the different levels of fire. Can you roll more than once "double Move" activation?
I am unsure whether or not to allow succeeding double moves. As it stands, a high motivation or lucky unit could roll more than one double move, as such it is open to abuse. It would depend on the style of the game and the scenario. It could be a good simulation of Hollywood heroics, It might be a heroic attribute. i.e. Heroes can roll succeeding double moves, "Regular" troops cannot. Generally I would suggest that in a "serious" game only one double move be allowed to a unit in each round.
This sounds like a good idea.
[ I have put this in the move options as an optional rule. ]
In no case should a unit make more than one attack in each round.
Ahhh, this should be explained, as it is not clear. That balances the double move activation nicely (though you MIGHT allow more than one close combat per round)
[ This is now stated in the turn sequence and move options along with a couple of other clarifications. ] I assume entries in the "other" column apply to that activation level and all those above it, correct?
Yes, correct.
You should call the separation modifier separation anxiety. :-)
:o) See my comments on Organisation and detaching elements.
Makes sense, and removes one modifier (or at least clarifies it). So each group has a leader,
and the entire group (all teams) will be affected if the leader is killed or leaves...
OK, that makes sense.
There are already in-built penalties if the leader becomes a casualty, a leader should effect all the teams in their group. (unless in combat, Teams in a group activate at the level of their leader.) So all the elements in the group would take a casualty modifier if the leader becomes a casualty.
OK, that makes sense as well. If the platoon leader buys the farm, it makes sense for the recon team to feel it as well...
However, if Cap'n Church just wanders off to kiss or thump this episodes alien guest star, then the group dithers around until he returns. e.g. down 1 level for leaderless elements.
Good... Good.... Are there any romance rules in the Hollywood section? :-)
Not yet....
Who is Cap'n Church, by the way?
I think there needs to be some clarification in the rules regarding teams, groups and leaders, but I'm not sure exactly WHAT needs to be clarified...
[ Slammer needs a section on Leaders in the Organisation page. When I first wrote Slammer, Leaders were just an example of character figures. As the game developed, Leaders have become much more important. To some extent a Leader defines their group. ]
I borrowed a cop-out for terrain effects from Jim Webster's Hellfire rules. Basically it suggested that the variety of weird terrain possible to a Sci-Fi scenario is so broad that a rule set couldn't cover it all.. and anyway that's the scenario designers job. :o)
Hmmm, not a bad cop out, as cop outs go, but still a cop out... :-)
Then when we playtested Slammer, all the games so far have been in built up areas or Space-Hulk corridors. Terrain just got overlooked or a ruling was made up on the spot.
That makes significantly more sense.
On the other hand we had to open a lot of doors. Alex added the comments on opening doors (from experience I suspect).
It's a really great chart, just out of place...
I'd put together a chart with a row for each type of terrain you can think of, and 3-4 columns for different units (unarmored, power armor, aliens, etc.).
Here is a starter:
Terrain unarmored light armor heavy armor power armor
Clear 1" 1" 1" 1" Light Woods 1" 1" 2" 1" Heavy Woods 2" 2" 3" 2" Swamp 2" 3" 3" 4"
Where 3" means expend 3" per inch of actual movement through that terrain. That's an example, and probably not accurate numbers but you get the idea. I'd classify aliens as unarmored, monsters as heavily armored, vehicles in their own column or with power armor.
I agree Slammmer needs more consideration given to terrain effects. Your suggestion looks like a reasonable mechanism, and adaptable to differing conditions.
It's probably worth writing one of these days. Since I haven't played yet, I don't know how to balance it. But... If I do happen to get in a few games at some point, and you haven't done it yourself, I'll write up a chart.
Prone, Encumbered movement and Running all make sense. I do like the "team rushing a door" rule a lot, by the way.
That's one of Alex's.
Entering a vehicle looks good, though I could probably jump onto a vehicle moving up to 1/2 (at least) my movement speed, with a chance to miss and crack my head, of course.
That's reasonable and I would probably allow it in a game.
Notable rules that are missing:
- How long does it take to perform non-movement actions (reloading, disarming traps, recovering casualties etc.)?
Most non-combat actions would take one round without doing anything else. It could do with some suggested times (in rounds) for specific actions, these would give a guide to unspecified actions.
That would be a very useful chart to include. Though I have to disagree at least about reloading. Unless you are using some very funky weapons, I would think you could reload in less time.
Generally there aren't any rules for unloaded weapons. As written most weapons have unlimited ammo (just like Hollywood :o) Reasons:
1] A round is plenty long enough for troops to slip another magazine in. Heavy weapons have someone loading as part of the team.
2] It was over looked!
OK, I understand now. You should make sure to clarify that in the rules as well. Though the first time I played I would probably become apparent as there aren't any ammunition capacities listed for the small arms.
The "other" option Reload Heavy Weapons was intended for Missile Launchers and one-shot LAWs etc. I assumed it takes a certain amount of time and 'coolness' under fire to load correctly.
That makes perfect sense.
A house rule we sometimes use is if you roll a 2 "snake-eyes" to hit (i.e. 2 ones), You are out of ammo and have to reload before that figure can fire again.
Hmmm, interesting, but it could bog things down in a larger game. I'd leave it in as an optional rule for games with a dozen or less individuals per side.
Though I'm not sure how long a round lasts...
I have not specified a period of time for rounds, but I work around ten seconds of furious action within a much longer period of ducking for cover or trying to work out what the other guy is doing.
- How is facing determined, and how is it changed?
Generally a figure can see or fire into it's front 180-degree arc. A figure could react to enemy activity to it's flank or rear. Facing is determined when the figures are moved in their active turn.
OK, that makes sense, but there needs to be some kind of ruling for facing for a unit. Otherwise, I'd put most of the guys facing "forward" but one each facing right left and back, to negate the effects of flank and rear attacks.
I would allow this and even encourage it. It's called all round defence.
Maybe all the figures have to be facing the same direction within about 45 degrees.
The figures facing in the right direction could react immediately i.e. opportunity fire, the others would need to turn to face in their move option, or next round. If the active i.e. moving unit came under opportunity fire the moving figures could turn to face, in reaction to the fire, and could opportunity or return fire if they have not already fired.
OK, but now you need a specific "formula" to define the facing of a unit or if it is in all-around defence. It can be general, but I think there needs to be a specific rule to refer to.
This is one of those 'loose' areas in the rules. It should be fairly obvious which way a figure is facing, or if it is unclear the base could be marked to indicate the forward arc. I would take the facing arc of a unit (team or group) as the direction it is travelling in. Alternately, it could be the direction the group Leader's figure is facing.
Autofire is interesting as well.
Can different figures in a unit fire at different targets in the same turn?
Different Teams in a group can fire at different targets. Figures in a team firing depends on their activation level and combat option. Direct or Opportunity fire allows each member of a team to fire (at different targets), Return or Panic fire allows one To-Hit roll for the whole team. Make one roll to-hit using the best firer in the team.
I notice there are no modifiers based on the weapon for normal firing. I would change this. An M-16 or whatever you guys use over there (FN-FAL? or something else?) is quite a bit more accurate than, say your average handgun, and quite a bit less accurate than a sniper rifle.
I have taken the basic assumption that the firer is much more important than the weapon used. Most of the firer and target modifiers are related to the firer or targets actions.
Close and extreme range fire are handled well, I think. I see you have weapon modifiers there, but they may not be the same as for average range.
I have tried to cover weapon accuracy with effective range. i.e. At what range does the weapons average chance of hitting a man-sized target falloff significantly.
I'll have to look again at the table. That is not a bad way of doing it, provided that pistol fire drops off really fast.
Most handguns have an "effective" range of 8" (40m / 40 yards). They are handier in close combat.
OK, that's fine. I agree that there is little difference between main battle rifles. Though I would add a small section on snipers and other specialised fire units.
Alex, suggested this as well. I assume that a sniper has a good level of ability, possibly Elite, sets up in a prepared position, braces their weapon and maximises their opportunity for the best shot. Like so much of Slammer it comes down to the troops attitude and actions.
Wow! Tons of modifiers for firing. That's not necessarily bad, but it looks a bit cumbersome. But I can't see any offhand that can be removed or added together.
The Fire modifiers are one of the sections that have had the most tuning and twiddling. I have
pruned out quite a lot and added a few others. Now I assume the most likely situation (trained,
opportunity fire, against a moving, man-sized target) and include modifiers for other situations.
In practise most of the modifiers are not relevant to all situations and the players soon pick
up the ones that are.
My only comment is "it looks scary." That might put a few people off until they realise that it is relatively simple in the end...
I have reduced it a lot from the earlier editions, there are one or two mods I could delete e.g. firer prone. But we are playing at a fairly detailed level.
I'd leave it for now. When I get a chance to play a few games, I'll have a better feel for it.
Braced weapons must spend one round bracing? That sounds like a long time just to prop your rifle against a tree and a short time to set up a tripod on your HMG. Maybe rounds aren't as long as I thought they were.
This is a compromise for playability. I have not specified a period of time for rounds, but I work around ten seconds of furious action within a much longer period of ducking for cover or trying to work out what the other guy is doing. Bracing covers a firer's deliberate action of preparation or aiming for the best shot.
OK, That works.
Heavy weapons have to be braced to have any chance of hitting a target. Other weapons benefit from bracing at the cost of a round without firing. Once braced they keep the advantage until moved.
And that works reasonably well too. Though certain heavy weapons (like ones carried by more than one person) may have longer set-up times.
Many hands make light work? :o)
A well trained and experienced team can get their act together remarkably quickly under
pressure.
OK, I'll buy that.
No particular comments on the weapons table. It looks good, quite a variety of stuff there. Ooooo! I like the idea of the Piranha Gun (well, I just like the name. Can I borrow it for my SF campaign?
'Course you can.
I intended the defensive fire to be included in the Close Assault resolution. i.e. The defenders
action in close assault includes close range fire before the attackers close to contact.
Close Assault is a high (late) activation action, so defenders may have already fired or had
their own activation turn before the attackers active turn. This is not unreasonable, and leaves the attacker with the choice of close assaulting or not.
Some players with a unit likely to be assaulted will hold their fire until the attackers have charged to within 4 inches, to gain the close range bonus before firing and will then fight out the close assault against surviving attackers. If the defender opportunity fires and fights in Close Assault, they get two attacks at close range.
Attackers attempting a Close Assault should try to reduce the defenders activation level to the point where they can not opportunity fire. This is tough on Aliens or units without ranged weapons, they are likely to take heavy casualties in the first 'wave'. This may be realistic, but it is still hard on the bugs.
Back to Tom;
All the modifiers look good.
I'm not sure I like the 2:1 roll = break. It looks like you are penalising the player for rolling well. What is the justification behind this? I guess the only thing I can see is that it represents such an overwhelming show of force that the combat never happens. Is this the reason?
Yes,
Or, I just noticed this... When they "break" is that permanent? If so, that makes more sense to me, though it would tend to litter the battlefield with guys running away...
Close Combat is decisive. It takes a fairly high activation unit to instigate close assault. If the attackers advantage is so much better then the defenders are not likely to stay around to meet them.
OK, I understand that. But once the unit has broken and is fleeing screaming, how do they recover, or is that just built into their activation roll (the rules are no longer in front of me, so I can't look it up).
A broken unit has reduced activation level. There are no specific rules for rallying routing troops, but they can improve their activation level by improving their situation. If things get worse they keep on running.
You might want to add an optional rule allowing heroes or leaders to give a unit a "good talking to" possibly getting them back on track.
A Leader can attach themselves to a broken unit, it would then be activated at the Leaders level and gain the bonus for having a leader with the unit. This ought to help the broken unit, but it is still in trouble.
The deviation effects are reasonable, though I would include a small change that the shot went left or right as well (perhaps roll 1d6: 1-2=front, 3=left, 4=right, 5-6=back) and then 1d6 for the distance.
At the ranges Slammer takes place, most firing is direct and deviation is generally along the line of fire. For indirect weapons like mortars it would be more appropriate to use deviation to either side. Your suggestion is reasonable and easier to use than the current rules.
Everything else makes sense, though I'd like to see specific rules for Camera Fodder. :-)
I had been thinking of including a rule section titled "Special Effects". Camera Fodder was
taken from that, it is not entirely serious. :o)
The Camera Fodder section is intended as a guideline for the spirit of a Hollywood style game.
It should not be mandatory, as it is open to abuse but..
...but it's fun! I actually think that a few specific scenarios with CF
units and Heroes would be a really cool addition.
(1) When a CF unit is fired on, instead of rolling for effect of fire; any figures hit perform a dramatic death and must play dead until the Hero or enemy moves out of sight. The figures playing dead may be used again later in the game.
I like it. Kind of like the Stormtroopers in SW, wearing the most advanced body armor known to man, that is unfortunately a superconductor of heat (i.e. blaster fire). In fact, I am of the opinion that the armor actually MAGNIFIES the effect of a hit. It's a perfect plan, no need for those expensive medical bays on your ships. :-)
The perfect example. Makes sense to me. :o)
(2) If a CF unit is accompanying a hero, then if the hero is fired on a CF figure takes the hit instead.
Of course!
[ Both CF optional rules are now in the Hollywood section. ]
1) It was easy to read, and I feel that I could start playing a game today, even though it is far from complete.
2) I love the whole activation chart. it adds a very interesting dimension to the game and encompasses many things (including morale).
Low Points:
1) It seems like you can't make up your mind whether to be a simple game that flows fast and easy, or be a detailed (though complicated simulation). Some thing I would consider very important are kind of glossed over, and some thing I would consider unimportant have huge tables.
Though I am generally a fan of the KISS (Keep if Simple Stupid) principle, I don't mind a game with lots of detailed rules, as long as all the rules are detailed. The half-half sort of bothers me.
A lot of it is based round the figures I have available and the bug-hunt scenarios we have play tested so far. There is certainly a lot more that could be added or expanded upon. I prefer simple rule mechanisms that work well. Slammer has borrowed elements from all sorts of different places.
Now to find somebody to play it with me.
I'll write another report when (if?) I can find a playtest partner.
Keep writing, this would make excellent web page material (I'll link from my page when you put it up).
Take care
Tom
Thanks, You have given me quite a bit to think about and spurred on the creative forces!
Chris