I was asked on a forum how I felt Tomorrow's War was compared with Star Army: 5150.
I put a bit of thought into the reply and I think it's worthy of it's own blog entry here.
So without further ado.....
Hmmmm.
Anything I say has to take into account that I haven't played a huge number of games of either (a handful versus one). That being said....
*long thinking pause*
I- personally- prefer FoF/ TW (Force on Force/ Tomorrow's War) in terms of the tactical aspect of the game.
Things I find FoF superior to SA:5150:
1. Squad shooting mechanics are easy (everything adds up to 'firepower' die) and the Troop quality die type (D6 ranging to D12) gives a great feel for superior troops really getting a handle over their crappy enemies.
I found SA:5150 to be somewhat cumbersome in this regard- especially when it came to things like Light Support Weapons and Grenadiers who are organic to the fire team (I can forgive dedicated weapon teams such as anti-tank guided missiles or mortars etc). In SA:5150, support weapons seem to very much dedicated 'assets' rather than in-built squad members- which is supported by game mechanics of these weapons having different ranges, damages and effects. It's not a show stopper by any means! It just makes it a bit clunkier when rolling for 'hits' and then rolling for 'wounds' when one squad faces off with another. FoF/TW handles this much more elegantly.
2. The "Reaction Roll"- where you roll off against your opponent as to who gets their shots off first- is intuitive and also adds a dimension of the unknown to a firefight. I find this really refreshing after watching years of WH40K.
SA:5150 has the "in sight" test which is taken by the Unit (initiative or non initiative) which is stationary and sees an enemy move into view. Now I'll say here that my interpretation of the rules may not entirely be correct here! So if someone knows otherwise feel free to tell me! That being said- in my game of SA:5150, I found the passive unit (waiting for units to walk into it's field of view) usually shot first. In fact in my game- which btw I admit is n=1 - ALL "In sight" tests resulted in the passive unit opening up on the moving unit first. It irked me a little bit and I found myself tempted to do "Reaction Roll Offs" instead.
3. Gameplay with FoF/TW is generally pretty smooth at the platoon level precisely because models are treated as 'squads' rather than individuals.
SA:5150 seems to me to be based on individual models who happen to be in squads. For example- a "Star" in a squad behaves differently to his squad in terms of receiving fire and reacting to it. There are INDIVIDUAL rolls to things like "In Sight", "Man Down" and others. This is fine in squad on squad combat- but I found it getting a bit tedious even with my little skirmish.
As an aside, I suspect this is the case because Two Hour Wargames (the makers of SA:5150) derived their ruleset from All Things Zombie- a solo-play small band of survivors take on hordes of randomly generated and behaving zombies. The ruleset works REALLY WELL for ATZ. I mean REALLY WELL. If you've got a tonne of zombies and maybe 2 survivor models, give it a go, it's super fun!
4. Endless (seemingly!) Tables making it complicated!!!!
Ok, both of them are guilty of that! FoF/ TW has been criticised for being overly complex. Confidence is not Morale is not Supply is not Stress is not Troop Quality! Suppression isn't the same thing as Pinned, but if you actually pin them whilst they're suppressed something else happens. I actually agree! Complex! I've taken to ignoring some of the more esoteric aspects of FoF/ TW as I slowly wrap my head around it. However, once familiarisation starts setting in they actually make a bit of (common) sense.
In SA:5150- all this palaver is represented by lots of tables. Tables for reactions, tables for shooting "To Hit", tables for close combat modifiers, tables for actual melee, tables for PEF resolutions, tables for enemy movement and reactions. It was seemingly endless. It took me about 30 minutes (and consulting about 4 tables) before I could get my first campaign game into play (needing to roll for intel, aerial recon, weather, mission type, method of insertion etc).
I think once I get used to the tables, things'll get faster- but for now- constantly needing to refer to tables for results is a bit of a drag (especially when you have to do it for individual models in a unit!). I really thing familiarisation with the process and the tables will speed things up considerably, but for now... painful.
I hope that hasn't turned people off SA:5150 because there are some things that it does really well compared to FoF/ TW.
1. A great campaign style of mission settings!
SA:5150 makes getting a mission pretty straight forward (once you've sorted out the campaign stuff). You see how successful your last mission was, roll some D6 and you might be laughing or crying depending on what mission you get and how much help you get given.
2. PEFs
Potential Enemy Force counters that can range from Nothing- Just Nerves into a dug in enemy section with assets. I really enjoy the random aspect of them- they move around, resolve into anything and then once resolved- behave reasonably randomly (and mostly sensibly too!). Suddenly stumbling onto a large enemy presence with a patrolling fire team equals a very bad day for them and interesting/ varied tactical situations.
3. 'Cinematic Play'
SA:5150 is supposed to make the 'Star' the centrepiece of the game. The 'Star' has a fistful of helpful characteristics that really makes him carry the day. A bit too WH40K for me at times but I acknowledge that this is integral to the game and I'll be honest, I've enjoyed having a bit of "re-roll" power when my fire teams leap into combat (ha!).
4.Solo Play
THW make the best Solo play rules from my (admittedly) limited experience in non-GW game playing. It explains why there are so many bloody tables- because your enemy shouldn't have it's moves played by you. Well... maybe I take that back- the enemy could have it's moves made by you, but it wouldn't be the same experience because you know what they're trying to achieve and how do it. And I also suck at being objective during a game when I'm supposed to be one side.
So..... what's the too long, didn't read summary?
TW/FoF- realistic tactical play that is reasonably intuitive. However, needs another opponent to really make the best out of its ruleset.
SA:5150- a good beer and pretzels style game. Less 'tactical' and more clumsy. However, superb solo play section- probably the best solo play ruleset.
Overall: If you play on your own, I'd suggest SA:5150. TW/FoF falls on its bum doing this (and it's not designed for it). If you're lucky enough to have a regular gaming group i.e. an opponent- TW/ FoF is better for 'realistic' play.
No comments:
Post a Comment