From: Roberto Chiavini Subject: Three new reviews Tigers in the Mist (GMT) I approached this Ray Freeman's design with mixed feelings and after having played it a few times, I still have the same overall sensation of an interesting, but not totally satisfying project. This is a game to be praised for trying to make an unusual variation on a too simulated subject (Battle of the Bulge, probably the most simulated historical event of wargaming), going for the first time far away by the classic hexagonal grid (the game uses a camouflaged point to point system - the map is an area one, but you may move from one area to another only through roads, so it becomes a point to point one - a strange choice, probably due to graphical effects) and with a really unusual impulse system, that a part of the players may find annoying (I'm among these), while the other part absolutely fantastic (a really neat system to force players to use reserve as better as possible to win the battle, how the designer suggests in his very interesting design notes). But let's start from the beginning. The game simulates the first week of the battle for the Ardennes (16-22 December) with daily turns divided in three impulses (each unit may move and/or have combat only once per turn, in any of three impulses). Units have only a value on them: strength (that dictates even the number of dice to roll in combat). All other values (movement, attacking and defending base to hit numbers) are fixed and dependent on the type of units (armor are better than the rest, while normally defenders have better to hit numbers than the attackers, with or without situational modifiers). Artillery is abstracted: each player rolls to call artillery in a single battle (with the Americans being heavily advantaged in this sector); each player may call an artillery strike for each 3 SPs present in the battle, while the defender has always at least one such a call. Artillery strikes are resolved before any other combat, while then the defender try to hit before the attacker. Each unit may target only a single unit and, in multiple battle, you have to assign your hits equally among all the enemy units (artillery is forced to strike on the most numerous type of units in a stack, while other units must hit, if they have more than one choice, according to quality value (moving down from engineer to foot infantry). Stacking is limited to a maximum of 4 units or 10 SPs (whichever is smaller). There are also very important rules for destroying bridge (almost a fundamental necessity for the American defense), building back them, entrenchments, simply line of supply rules (out of supply units lose strength points, other than the usual penalties in movement and combat). As you can see, Freeman has chosen a very peculiar approach to the battle (for example, there are no air rules, supply is too simplistic for a real wargame, the combat system is very approximated in recreating and taking in account the different factors that decides a battle, etc.), favoring simplicity and playability over complexity and over-realism, but, IMHO, he hasn't totally succeeded in his aims. Yes, the game it's simple, the rulebook it's almost perfect, the playing aids (both on the map and on the playing cards) are probably the better that I have seen in my gaming life (after reading the short rulebook a couple of time, you may put it aside and simply play using the various references dispersed on the map), but, on the other hand, the 3 impulses system it's not exploited the best (you normally finish to use most of your units in two consecutive impulse in two different turns, as the annoying - from a player perspective, as they neatly simulates the confusion of movement over a battlefield in winter harsh conditions - movement and stacking rules severely limits the use of your reserves) and the need to sign each stack on the map with a different counter to recognize the moved ones from the others is a real pain in the back, especially in the campaign scenario and if playing solo (like me). So, Tigers in the mist is a so-so design, a game that at the start cleverly sacrifices willingly a great part of historicity for playability sake, gives the player most of what he normally wants (a fast and furious game to be playable in an evening or so), but falls short on the two yards line before the touchdown. I'm sorry Ray, but for me you have to be content with a field goal (but you may still win, also with only 3 points on the scoreboard). I rate this game 6 1/2 in a 1-10 scale.