Rogue Stars is
another of the Osprey Wargame Series.
This one is written by Andrea Sfiligoi who also wrote A Fistful of Kung Fu and Of Gods and Mortals. In addition, he works with Ganesha Games and
wrote the popular Song of Blades and
Heroes rules and their derivatives. That
means he has an established track record of game design. I had certain pre-conceived notions of what I
was going to find once I cracked the cover of this book based on what I knew of
his design philosophy, but I heard some initial rumors that made me think that
the design of Rogue Stars would
diverge significantly from Mr. Sfiligoi’s previous works. He has a strong design ethos to his
games.
I know many people were looking forward to this game as a
generic Sci-fi skirmish set so they could bring the models they owned to the
table. Some of the pre-release models
from Northstar miniatures were very promising, harkening back to and older, nostalgic
time of Oldhammer wargaming. They
created a god deal of buzz and fueled further speculation on the rule set
ahead.
Unlike some of the other Osprey games, Rogue Stars does not start with and design criteria or notes. However, the initial “The Basic” section
gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect.
Those are that the game is played on a 3x3 board between groups of 4 to
6 models each. Each model is supposed to
be a “character” with their own personality and story behind them. The models can be any scale with some slight
modification, but they are designed with 28mm in mind. The game uses 3 d20 per player and it is
helpful to have some tokens for stress, pins, and wounds. Online the author recommends that each character
have a sheet on a sideboard and the tokens actually go on the record sheet and
not the table.
There is only a brief 2 paragraphs introduction to the
setting and it is pretty generic. At
the edges of a crumbling galactic government, your models are trying to make a
living, meet interesting people, not get killed, and keep in flying. The setting is a lawless and dangerous
place.
So, with all this build up and excitement for this game, how
does it play?
Things I like
The game wisely keeps the same Initiative/turn sequence that
A Fistful of Kung Fu and Of Gods and Mortals uses but replaces
it with d20 instead of d6. The attacker
in a mission gets to choose who to activate first. You choose 1 to 3 d20 and roll to activate
looking for a Target Number. For every
success, the player can take an action.
However, for every dice you fail your opponent can react. Reactions take place before the active player’s
activation. As a reaction, your opponent
can try to steal the initiative or complete an action. This is a very dynamic system that keeps all
players engaged in the game at all times and making decisions.
I adore the Mission, Complication, and Location generator in
this game as well. It delivers a variety
of scenarios allowing for re-playability that I have not seen in other
games. On their own, each is a
relatively simple Sci-fi trope, but it is in the combinations where system
really shines. No two games need be the
same.
The system has a way to cover a wide range of characters and
model types provided they are roughly man-sized that cover all of the major
Sci-fi elements you can think of. They
do not have rules for vehicles except as obstacles or objectives. This is an infantry skirmish game between
characters, not grunts. Each model is an
individual rogue or hero.
Things I Do Not Like
If you have read my reviews of the sister games, you know
this is the part where I rant about special rules should not replace stat
lines.
Rogue Stars has no stat line. Instead, they have a list of unique special
rules for each character. Ugghhh. I am not smart enough to keep track of all
that stuff. Let’s take Movement as a
Stat vs. Special Rules as an example. In
Rogue Stars a character can walk, run
or sprint. All of which have different
distances involved. However, these can
be impacted by traits such as Flight and Jump Packs (and probably others that I
do not recall) that each have a paragraph of rules. Instead, it would be much simpler to have a M
stat of 2/4/6 and a ignore terrain rules.
The stats are far more intuitive than all the special rules mechanics as
no one needs to told what a stat called Movement means and the 2/4/6 tells you
how far a unit can move with a sentence instead of a couple paragraphs.
The system gets into a lot of “If This/Than That” rules
mechanics. In fact, they are littered
all over the game. An example is
something like the Quantum Leap (I wonder if this is a reference to the old TV
show?) rules where the actions are a list of actions with a few sentences and
then suddenly, we have about three paragraphs about the Quantum Leap rules. They cover things like Blind Jumps, Critical
Failure, Critical Success, etc. Then,
back to the basic actions. A combination
of lay-out and “If This/Then That” rules adds unneeded complexity to the rules
sets. In fact, the whole ruleset feels
needlessly complex in an effort to create an artificial sense of “Depth”.
I really dislike games that give a character “stress” or “fatigue” or whatever
penalties just for doing simple things like daring to activate and walk. I get that the idea is that the more you do
the harder it gets to do other stuff but just put a limit on actions and be
done with this. Instead, you will get
one or two “good models” doing all the work while the other models stand around
and cheerlead from the baseline. Yuck.
Modifiers galore!
This game has a ton of modifiers to apply. These come from stress, pins, wounds, traits,
rules, and other bits. I can actually
feel the crunch weighing me down as I read the rules. This is based largely on the d20
mechanics. I feel that d20 mechanics are
far too swingy, and this nibbling around the edges doesn’t really off-set this
core problem. Sure, you want to show
someone is better at one thing than another?
Okay, but with a d20 a +1 doesn’t mean much of anything. It is false granularity. Again, if you used actually stat lines, you
could avoid some of this Modifier Galore nonsense by building better skilled
characters into it, instead of littering your rules with special rules.
Some will argue that to get to the “character” elements that
the game is striving for and customization you need to have this level of granularity
and complexity. I would argue that they
are wrong. For example, in Dragon Rampant
you can completely customize each unit and that game has very simple resolution
mechanics. I am sure there is a market
for this type of game and this level of crunch. I would argue that the lack of stat lines
actually makes the game less complex and more granular in an intuitive way than
the special rules “if This/Than That” boutique we are presented in Rogue Stars.
Meh and Other
Uncertainties
Experience Point or XP is the currency of the game. You use this to buy gear, traits, etc. They are also earned in game by KOing other
models and completing objectives. XP
also appears to be the “points” system for balancing.
Models that get killed are dead, it is better to retreat
them off the board when they get battered.
Losing a character in a campaign game can be a campaign limiting
decision.
The game has a lot of environmental special rules. These
help each game be a unique experience. On
the downside, it is more special rules to recall during play.
The layout of the book is not that great in my opinion. There is not a clear flow on how an attack
works because it is interrupted by all sorts of special rules for weapons,
armor, doing this or that, etc. The
lay-out is confusing and not clean. The art is character artwork that probably
led into the mini lines, and I like them, but I do not need to see full page
shots of them. The mini pictures are
good with a decent variety of models represented.
Final Thoughts
I was hoping this game would do for Sci-fi skirmish what Dragon Rampant did for Fantasy
gaming. It does not. In fact, I am questioning if I will even play
this game. Stating up a couple of 4-6
model warbands looks like a chore to me.
The example character’s based on the North Star miniature line makes no
sense to me and just looks like a jumble of words when I look at it. I honestly do not know if I will play this
game.
I was hoping to play this game using INQ28 instead of the
normal Inquisitor rules. However, I do not feel like these are a vast
improvement. I know my review seems a
bit harsh, but I am sure this game will scratch the right itch for many
gamers. In theory, this game is designed
to deliver what I like in gaming which is a narrative, character driven, 1:1
skirmish game for campaigning. However,
after reading the mechanics this is simply not the style of game I want to
play. I am disappointed, but I will still probably end up playing it a few times with my fellow local gamers.
I think that the book is worth picking up for the mission generation; but I agree with your dislike of the character creation system.
ReplyDeleteHey Euan! (This is "AF" from BoLS, by the way!). Did you ever manage to play Rogue Stars? If so, did you find the actual game too fiddly and complex? The mission generator seems very cool indeed.
DeletePS: bookmarking your blog ;)
I had roughly the same reaction after a first quick flip through. Potentially an excellent sandbox game with unlimited replayability but it gets bogged down by what I would call the "Infinity syndrome" : special rules galore, modifiers galore, D20 granularity. It's like if Andrea Sfiligoi, which is usually a smart game designer (SOBH is an awesome simple game) had decided to import the "depth" and D20 system of Infinity in is own system, thus bogging it down instead of offering a true generic Infinity-like alternative that would be lighter than Corvus Belli's system.
ReplyDeleteWELCOME, Yslaire!
ReplyDeleteNow you have the wheels in my head starting to turn! RAMPANT STARS is my attempt for squad based Sci-fi. I used it for single figure activity in the Rumble in the Jungle scenario. However, I am starting to question if there is something interesting I can bring to Sci-fi single-mini skirmish?