Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: BB65  (Read 1017 times)

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4040
    • View Profile
BB65
« on: October 11, 2019, 04:16:35 PM »
Hope it has got to you.
If  you dd not get it please contact me (martin).

The rules are almost finished.
I have started to simplify some small details.
Is 11 point big enough to see clearly?  The book is getting very big.

It will not go out once the pictures are in it. Probably after  number 70?

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4233
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2019, 04:47:58 PM »
Martin,

Received with thanks. The font size looks fine to me.

Simon

Nick

  • Supporter 2020
  • Wild Boar
  • *
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2019, 04:57:08 PM »
It came through fine. Thanks.

Nick

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2113
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: BB65
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2019, 09:59:34 PM »
Received in Shropshire with thanks.

Leman

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2019, 10:33:09 AM »
Received it. Change in page numbering and greatly expanded section on generals. Defences now clarified.

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4040
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2019, 12:37:43 PM »
What is new in BB.
I believe the rules are about done (?).

The next stage will be examples.  Then the photo stage.  Then the publishing stage.  Then the video on you tube stage.

Cavalry  counter is now fixed at 11.
Unreliable general 2D6 roll changed by 1.
25mm base sizes added.
Battle tinkered with.
Point size reduced to 11 from 12 . Is this too small??


Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4233
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2019, 02:45:15 PM »
A couple of nice games yesterday at PP HQ.

The House of York faced off twice against the Lancastrians, who were aided and abetted by a mercenary Sea Dog as tactical advisor.

Lancaster fielded the same force in both battles:
  • 1 household foot
  • 9 retinue foot
  • 2 levy foot
  • 1 heavy gun
  • 2 light guns
  • 3 x 3 handgunners

The Yorkist force broadly differed (I think!) in having:
  • no heavy gun
  • fewer handgunners
  • 2 household foot (?)
  • 2 household horse
  • 7 retinue
  • 1 retinue horse

For scenery, we had:
  • 2 rough hills
  • 1 gentle hill (which was rough in the first game)
  • some hedgerows
  • a marsh
  • a town
  • a stream

The first game saw the (defending) Lancastrian centre standing up well to their Yorkist opponents. Three Yorkist generals died, one of whom was a (clearly short-lived) king. Three (!?) Yorkist cavalry charges went in (with 3 units each) but were bloodily repulsed, to general surprise. The Yorkists managed a breakthrough on their right flank, but this was insufficient to offset their bodycount. A (surprising) Great Win for the House of Lancaster.

The second game was a general advance by Lancaster (as Attackers) that rolled back the Yorkists along the line. Three Yorkist generals had lucky escapes, but at least 2 died. The Lancastrians got off lightly from a cavalry charge against 2 isolated units of retinue (their household colleagues having been forced to remain off the field of battle due to some pre-game shenanigans) by making a tactical retreat off-table, and were able to come back on again near their original strength. There weren't many Lancastrians left on the field as night drew in.

I believe that some photos should be appearing soon on the PP website, but to whet appetites here is the set-up at the start of the second game, with each army having pushed forward one Ward:




Thank you to Martin for his hospitality and loan of some lovely figures, and to both him and Stewart for their support and patience.

Leman

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1756
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2019, 02:57:03 PM »
All good to see. Looking forward to running a game soonish, but had to postpone tomorrow’s owing to a number of factors which may take a little while to sort out. In the meantime I shall continue to assimilate the rules into my head. One factor is decorating the room where I now have my table, which will probably take me a few weeks as there is a lot of preparation needed and it is a fairly large room, having previously been two rooms. Another factor is that to get on with this I will not be attending the club.

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4233
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2019, 08:34:32 AM »
I'm working through the detail of BB65 (dated 11th October - I assume that the number 62 on the document itself is to befuddle any attempts at industrial espionage...), and will send a mark-up to Martin when I'm done. Meanwhile, I'll try to post any less-insignificant comments here. So far:
  • Scale (page 2): it seems a little strange to be quoting both yards and metres - it confused me!
  • We could usefully define "Quality": "A measure of the skill, morale, stamina and equipment level of foot and cavalry units. Generals, hand-gunner and artillery are not assigned a quality"
  • And also "Unit": "A group of (initially) four bases of either foot or cavalry. Generals, hand-gunner and artillery are not units"
  • And probably refer to Generals' Attributes as "abilities", instead of qualities, to avoid confusion
  • Page 7: we refer to "left /right centre" in the diagram, but "centre left / right" in the text
  • Game setup: reference is made to Deployment Zone: I don't think this is defined anywhere, and I found it confusing
  • Compulsory troops: probably useful to emphasise that these are free and don't count towards the army points total

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4233
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2019, 02:30:23 PM »
A query: what is the rationale for the "low on arrows" marker when units are "Hiding in the Scenery"?

Is it because it would be harder to weave those arrow carts between the trees etc?

If so, why does the "low on arrows" marker remain when the Ward emerges into the open?

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4040
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2019, 03:43:11 PM »
Good question.
Firstly it is a punishment (in game terms)
It is based upon  the thought  that the archers will not be in the right places if you disrupt the formation by bunching up in trees, bushes etc.
Hiding should be bad news for organisation of combat and resources. Players should rarely use it.
In fact it might even disappear from the rules? (thoughts)

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4233
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2019, 04:25:20 PM »
Thanks Martin.

In the interests of simplifying where appropriate, and given that this rule is / should be little used - did this really happen much (ooh - lots of pointy things - I must go and hide behind a tree!...)?, it seems like a good candidate for deletion.


John Watson

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2019, 04:59:47 PM »
My take on this is that if threatened by nasty pointy sticks the archers would hide behind their own men at arms and billman. Then they would wait for the opportunity to take a sharp knife to the enemy to help out the billman in dispatching the enemy. Where there were reports of troops using woods in battle (Towton and Tewkesbury spring to mind) this was for the purposes of ambushing and not self preservation. Perhaps some sort of ambush mechanism is required in a similar vane to FOG (I'll wash my mouth out with soap and water).

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4233
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2019, 08:40:46 AM »
A couple more points as I work my way through this latest iteration:
  • On page 44, it is stated that Generals cannot join a cavalry charge if attached to a foot unit. Page 27 explicitly states the opposite (and I believe this is how we played it last weekend).
  • Swapping Wards: presumably any slowing scenery is ignored when swapping Wards? If this is indeed the case, we should perhaps say so, for the avoidance of doubt?

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4040
    • View Profile
Re: BB65
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2019, 08:48:35 AM »
Good points Simon. Thanks.

Will get it done.