Eén van de blogs die ik volg is Deltavector, een blogger die onder meer veel publiceert over spelmechanismen. Een denker. Ik hou van denkers.

Recent publiceerde hij twee aan te raden blogs (blog 1, blog 2) over het IGOUGO systeem. Je kunt als tegenspeler te laat of niet reageren op de zetten van de speler die aan de beurt is bij IGOUGO, zoals bekend. Ook sommige varianten die er op het beurtelings spelen zijn bedacht hebben beperkingen, vindt hij. Hij laat zien welke acties een speler in een Black Powder spel allemaal kan (zonder BP te noemen trouwens).

Okay, I’m now getting to the “train of thought” that has been boarding at the station for awhile now. I’m going to call it “Actions per Activation” or “Actions per Turn.”
In alternate move (or heck in most game systems), when you “activate” a unit or mini, you can do several things. In most rules, you can do things like

• Move + Shoot or Shoot + Move = 2 actions
• Move + Melee = 2 actions)
• Charge (Move+ Move+Melee) = 3 actions
• Run (Move + Move) = 2 actions
• Shoot + Shoot = 2 actions 

You get the idea. Each time you activate a unit (i.e. a unit has it’s “turn”) it gets to do 2 or 3 things. It might move twice up to 12″, or move 6″ and then shoot, or charge 12″ then melee attack. Basically, when a unit is activated it can do quite a lot of stuff or move quite far. 

The “standard” game I illustrated shows a unit has 2-3 actions per activation. What that means is the single unit which is activated can do a considerable amount with his 2-3 actions before the opponent can activate a unit which also gets to do a lot of stuff. Again, the unit does so much stuff the opponents cannot react to. Yes, it’s better than IGOUGO, Yes, it’s just a single unit – but it seems unlikely anyone would let an enemy sprint 12″ towards them without some response. 

In zijn tweede blog suggereert hij spelmechanismen die beter werken:

I suggest a more interesting way is to enable armies to activate several units in a row. Instead of dutifully taking turns with an opponent to activate a unit each (in alternate movement), sometimes a you can “follow on” by activating another of your units, without handing the turn back to your opponent. However this should not be predictable. Even better, your opponent should be able to interrupt and seize the momentum back. As you can see, with a game with variable momentum we blur the lines between reaction mechanics and vanilla activation.

Als voorbeelden noemt hij Warmaster, Song of Blades en Crossfire. Warmaster bemoeilijkte de vervolgbeurt via een Command Roll steeds met +1. Bij Songs of Blades

(…) a player rolls 1-3 dice to see how many actions his unit can take. If he rolls 2 failures his turn abruptly ends and it is his opponents’ turn. The momentum shift is very abrupt “hey buddy, your turn is over!” but player can remove the risk by rolling only 1 dice (so removing the chance of a double failure) but be guaranteed of being able to follow on and continue their turn. It also adds a pleasing element of risk vs reward. I’m not sure it counts as momentum because your turn is completely over. For me, momentum is more the shift of initiative within a turn.

Crossfire (WW2 platoon/coy) along with its complete lack of measurements, had a distinct momentum system. Units had unlimited movement and unlimited actions. However opponents could react freely. So whilst a unit could technically move the length of the table in its activation, it would be VERY unlikely. If a unit lost an engagement or was suppressed, the turn shifted to its opponent.
(Crossfire is a very interesting and innovative game for its time – I recommend it to rulebook connoisseurs)

Ik moet zeggen dat momentum ook in de BP-regels is ingebakken, door middel van commandanten met verschillende command values en de ‘blunder’ regels waardoor een beurt onverwacht kan eindigen. Desondanks blijven een paar verfijningen gewenst, zie een eerdere blog van mij.

Enfin. Lees Deltavector. Voor wie geïnteresseerd is in het spelletje, in plaats van alleen in de regels.