The rules are designed for fast-play small-unit actions for eras where firearms predominate (i.e. from the musket to the modern eras, and beyond). I've been dabbling with fast-play skirmish rules for a couple of years now so was interested to see another approach. Now that I've read through them, do I like them?
NO!
When I first learned about these rules I was taken aback by something on the cover. It says "dice-less." I found a review that pointed out that the rules use playing cards as randomizers. This was a big negative to me. I'm not a fan of using cards in mini games. It's just one more component to clutter my small table. I much prefer using dice. As such, I find it unlikely that I will use these rules as written (what else is new?). I'm not sure why I bought these rules, but then I read further.
YES!
Nevertheless, I am very glad that I did read OHSW; there are some really great ideas in it! Here are a few that struck me.
Damage
Much like Neil Thomas's One Hour Wargames, OHSW seeks to strip out any unnecessary complexity. One way that the author, John Lambshead, does this is to get rid of tracking of wounds / damage. Instead, damage is very simple and straightforward - figures that are hit are considered Downed and a laid on their side. At the end of the turn, the player checks on the fate of any Downed figures. Any figure that fails the check is a Casualty and is removed from play.
I'm sure I've seen something similar before so it may not necessarily be completely innovative. Nevertheless, none of my current rules use this damage methodology so it is new to me. And I really like the simplicity of it; so much so that I intend to experiment with it.
Scenarios
Lambshead provides a section of core rules followed by period-specific rules for 6 eras (Musket, Rifle, Interwar, World War 2, Cold War, and Pulp). Each period includes a scenario. For example, the Rifle Era chapter has a scenario where a small British detachment defends a small redoubt from a Zulu attack. Each scenario looks interesting; I'd like to give each a try.
Campaigns
The author also include a fairly lengthy chapter on campaigns where he discusses various types of campaigns.
In one section of the chapter, he provides an example of a map campaign. It centers around a WW2 German unit trying to escape a Soviet encirclement. The Germans travel among nodes on the mode while the Soviets position their limited defending forces at certain nodes. If opposing forces meet at a node then a skirmish occurs. This example provides an interesting set-up that can easily be converted to a solo campaign!
OHSW also suggests a narrative campaign, where forces are not moved on a map but the skirmishes are linked. For example, the first skirmish involves intelligence gathering, followed by an assault, then pursuit, and finally an ambush. This example is simple, straightforward, and easy to solo, while still providing varied and interesting situations.
I found the campaigns chapter very inspirational!
FINAL VERDICT
My initial reaction was very negative due to the use of cards rather than dice. However, Lambshead won me over with some interesting and useful ideas. I am tempted to get some cards (I don't even own a deck right now) and try out the rules themselves (more likely I will try to dice-ify them). I definitely want to test out the scenarios and campaigns.
Overall, I say BUY IT. Even if you don't use the dice-less system, you may find some value to OHSW.
quick thought:
ReplyDeleteWith the small table size, you don't need to have any cards on the table, they can be on the edge or on a side table - after all they are not "game markers" and do not need to be near the miniatures.
Thanks for the comment. That's true when I play on the coffee table in the living room. Sometimes I play on a 1.5 x 2' table so no room at all.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your interesting review. You clearly understand what I was trying to achieve. May I suggest D10 dice (or better d12...are there d12?j could be substituted for cards with only a small loss of variability. Best wishes john
ReplyDeleteI feel something is lost swapping cards back out for dice. For face-to-face games, just the holding of cards, the reveal-to-see-who-wins etc. all add to the tension.
DeleteThere's also a mechanic that we built a house rule for, because a deck of cards have a "memory" that dice don't.
Both players have the same distribution of random numbers; the same chance of pulling a king (1 in 13) - and once all four kings have been shown, you know there are no more to come. This is a factor you can't replicate rolling a dice: it's perfectly possible for each player to roll more than 4 x maximum scores.
It also means a little balance is added to a game - if I get a great start by pulling loads of high value cards while my opening has nothing but 3s and 4s, I know that the tide will turn - I know that I've got low values to come, and they have a stack of high value cards.
In card games like Blackjack and Poker, it's known as a "hot deck". You can gauge your probability of success based on how successful you've been to date. It's a bit like each player having a supply of "luck" which is spent every time you hit the big time.
Our house rule?
When it's your turn to start, you can voluntarily give the initiative to your opponent, in return for the opportunity to shuffle your deck (I shuffle their deck, they shuffle mine, to keep things honest!).
For me, cards are far superior to dice for gaming.
And if you're a card-game player, it adds a new element to the game, as you get a "feel for the deck".
To each his own.
DeleteInteresting that you mention getting a "feel for the deck." That can be one of the criticisms of card-based systems. Dice are more random - if you rolled a 1 last time, your odds of rolling another 1 this turn are the same.
You're welcome! Interesting that you posted; I've just been re-reading OHSW. One reason I haven't played it more is that I don't have individually based figures. I'm toying around with using my 3mm bases at a 1:1 figure scale (each figure on a strip representing 1 man). I just came up with some ideas on how to do it; I'll have to try them out soon. I would go with a D12 in the future (they do exist).
ReplyDeleteIf you go cardless you'll some mechanism to replace Jokers, which are key to the game. Also if you have no space for cards where will you roll the dice?
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the chance of pulling a Joker is 1/13, a roll of 1 on a D12 is a close approximation. I personally find that I have more room for dice than for cards. YMMV.
ReplyDeleteHow many jokers in your deck?
DeleteChance of pulling a joker should surely be 2/54 = 1/27?
Cards create random sequences, not just random numbers; they add a new layer of strategy as you re-adjust your planning based on how many high-value cards you've seen come out (if you've not had many and been losing in the early stages, you know you've a run of "good luck" coming!).
Cards are far superior to dice for me - because of this additional gaming element. Some people probably hate them for exactly the same reason!
Sorry, I confused my math, and the method I used. Upon a roll of 1 I would roll another die with a 50% chance of the turn ending. The main point is the probability of drawing a Joker can be replicated by dice.
ReplyDeleteRoll a D20. If you roll a 20, the Joker was hit. If not, roll a D12 for the card rank. This is closer to the odds of a joker coming up.
DeleteWhen a joker is drawn the turn ends and both players shuffle their decks.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to use dice, the joker can be compensated for by using a D20 and a D12.
ReplyDeleteRoll the D20. If a 20 comes up, you hit a joker (it's actually one in 27, but 1 in 20 still works.
If not, roll the D12 for the card rank.