DVG's Tiger Leader

[Barthheart]

Have you been able to get anything better than a dismal result out of the Poland campaign? 

[BanzaiCat]

I haven't gotten too deeply into it...done a few minor skirmishes but not right into a full campaign. Been too busy with work these last few weeks and with other reviews and AARs. I should be able to get into it later this week though. From the things I've read, enemy infantry is a bitch.

In all honesty, after reading this:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1401557/dvg-tiger-leader-rules-updates-updated-7142015

...I'm kind of hesitating to dive directly in until I see this updated rules PDF. I'd hate to write a review and beat it up over failings when they're taking steps to fix it.

------------------------------

Something else interesting: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1400938/some-official-errata-richard-martin

1) Enemy infantry can not move and attack in the same turn
2) Enemy Infantry can only attack armor at a range of zero - "0"
3) Panzer IV Short Gun tanks get + 1 Attack vs Infantry, Artillery, Buildings and Vehicles due to the greater explosive power of the ammunition used and -1 to Attack vs Armor due to the lower armor piercing ability of the ammo.

And here's more:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1383188/tiger-leader-beta-expansion-updated-rules-and-opti

Since it looks like they're working on putting this all into one PDF, it looks like they're fixing the things you guys have been saying are broken.

[Barthheart]

Yeah... maybe... but I've been arguing that they need to just clear up the rules as is before they start changing anything. I want to know how to play with the original design intent.
If they are so eager to "improve for free" the current rules then I just bought a beta test kit for $90 CDN!!! 

I'm not sure which way to go for your review. Right now I'm ticked off and would write a pretty scathingly bad review then re-write it when the "new" rules came out.

>:(

[BanzaiCat]

It seems that this was rushed out without significant playtesting. That could totally not be the case, of course; in that case it just means poor writing and rules management. If I didn't do reviews of their products I'd offer my writing services to DVG to help them straighten this out. Not that I'm a master, but I've had plenty of game manual writing experience! So stuff like this cuts pretty close to home. And if they were open to that, AND I did do that, I couldn't ever review their product again.

Which is exactly why I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and hesitating to review it until I get that updated rules. Don't worry - the tumultuous ride of this game will be in my review. But if they fix what's broken, that's important to mention as well, and to show how well it fixes it.

I'm definitely going to play it some more with the rules as is so I can get where this is coming from. The rules book doesn't seem that bad, but DVG rules have sometimes been slightly off from a design perspective. Perhaps I am FAR too anal when it comes to this (besides game manuals I have a degree in tech writing and have done it for more than a decade) because I will blast bad writing and structure in a manual. I look for much more structure and, honestly, 'hand holding' when it comes to this kind of thing, because newbies need to get right in and vets need to find rules quickly.

Stay tuned, but feel free to continue venting here. I'd like to compare my eventual experiences with what you guys are feeling about this game.

[Barthheart]

I don't think the rules are written badly. It's just the execution of the rules don't make much sense in the game play.

But I'm not playing any more until the "new" rules come out then I'll give it a try. But there's no way in hell I'm paying for an expansion that corrects all this... 

[TacticalWargames]

I'm looking forward to the advanced game expansion.

[Barthheart]

I'm looking forward to a game that I can play..... :P

[Cyrano]

I feel like a character in a pulp Sci-Fi novel that thought he had gone mad only to discover that, yep, the world was tilted and that mightily.

1) Enemy infantry can not move and attack in the same turn
2) Enemy Infantry can only attack armor at a range of zero - "0"
3) Panzer IV Short Gun tanks get + 1 Attack vs Infantry, Artillery, Buildings and Vehicles due to the greater explosive power of the ammunition used and -1 to Attack vs Armor due to the lower armor piercing ability of the ammo.

Particularly 1 and 2...seriously?  Wow...OK...I feel much better about my tactical ability and much worse about the QA over at DVG.  I'm sure they'll update the .pdf and all that, but nothing with something so fundamental amiss should have been let out the door...especially given the size and cost of this production.

Well, back to the shelf while we await the fix...

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[BanzaiCat]

I finally put my finger on something about the rules that has somewhat bothered me, and that's that they follow the Sequence of Play when describing units, counters, and so forth.

Probably not that big a deal and maybe I'm too anal, but I've been thinking a methodical approach to manual writing would be better - in other words, showing each component and briefly describing what they do in the game, and then going into the game's Sequence of Play and describing how they actually affect gameplay. It's somewhat jarring to see something for the first time in the Sequence of Play instead of initially as an introduction.

Perhaps it is just me, though. Any thoughts or is this me being too analytical?

[Cyrano]

I don't know as I've ever discussed this hereabouts, but my first job with the City was as a bill drafter.  This is an art as well as a science and it is, tragically, being lost in government and elsewhere.  Everything from the nuances of language, precise use of diction, and, assuredly, an understanding of process bears on it.  I told Vance at Origins that the rules for LnL's tactical series is as opaque as Being and Nothingness.  "Boots on the Ground" simply wasn't edited...or edited well.  Phil Barker, well, you all know.  "Warfighter" is one of my favorite games of late but, as I observed in my earlier remarks about it, there were far too many vital rules buried inside other rules.

I am at a loss to understand why companies abandoned the modular rule-writing process used in so many golden era AH games.    It clearly came from technical writing and borrowed much from good bill drafting.

This is all the more acutely so in the world of wargames and their profusion of details.

Bottom line:  you ain't crazy...not in my world anyway...

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[BanzaiCat]

Thanks, Jim. I think my career as a technical writer and somewhat as a game manual writer came from those old AH manuals where everything was so crisply and matter-of-factly laid out, so there was very little room for interpretation or question. Not that questions or errata did not come up in those days - but things just seemed a lot cleaner.

[Barthheart]

I actually prefer rules written in Sequence of Play order. I agree that units and map need to be fully described first.

[Jack Nastyface]

This is really disappointing to read.  I have been seriously considering buying either Tiger Leader or Warfighter, but clarity of rules is an essential part of my buying decision.

[Barthheart]

Don't buy Tiger Leader.... At least not yet.

Cyrano raved so much about Warfighter that I went and ordered the whole shebang (for which I owe him a punch in the face)... So it's probably very good. Can't wait to get my copy.

[bayonetbrant]

Let's be pedantically correct:

You did not order a Warfighter game.  I know b/c I never shipped you one ;)

You ordered a copy of "Warfighter: The Special Forces Card Game" - a completely different game that came out 10 years later....