What comments are there on the current rule set, what needs clarifications? None listed but i'am sure there must be some.
Who's playing the rules at the moment?
What problems are the players having.
Are there any supplementary rules?
Not played them for ages. Enjoyed them for a while, but lost interest a bit. I seem to recall I found the close combat unsatisfactory.
Maybe the next RFCM set for a reboot?
Nick
Martin re did the rules in 2012, the close combat was one of the things that was revised.
I do like these rules and have a variety of forces.
Not played PITS but are the 2012 amendments readily available?
John it was released as a new edition
The amended PITS rules seems to have passed me by.
Were these just a few rule tweaks or a major change?
Nick
Hope this casts some light upon the discussion
There are two editions of PITS.
The first edition was brought out in 2005???
The second edition was brought out in 2012.
There are no amendments etc. :)
I think we should assume that all comments concern second edition unless clearly stated otherwise.
Chaps, it is PITS (Patrols In The Sudan), not PITTS. What could the extra T be for? Terrible,Traumatic,Torrid,Tonsular? ::)
PITTS must be that well known game of eighteenth century politics. Available in two editions. The Elder and The Younger.
I have the first edition PITS rules.
What is different about the second edition?
Nick
John, you are sharp ! ;)
The main difference is that the move distance is far bigger.
Patrols in the Sudan 1885, (PITS), second edition, published in 2012.
Yes, I was only interested in the SECOND EDITION as this included all the changes from the first edition.
So what do we have then apart from the corrections and comments below??
I like these rules and have played a few games.
There are a number of places that are open to interpretation, these were what I was looking for, and how the players had resolved them.
Stewart, Martin could you play a couple of games please to check on the flow of the game?
For those of you who have not played the game please play a game or two and put your comments here, pleaase.
It was updated to a second edition in preparation for the 2012 Historicon in Pennsylvania.
Players at Historicon caught on to the moving scenery quite quickly.
9 games were played at that show. That was three days solid.
The game is designed so that the natives are not stupid targets. Instead a player can get as much satisfaction from being the natives as from the Brits.
Stewart , myself and others played a lot of games in a very short time in order to complete the play testing.
The cover was done by Tim the printer.
I will ask Stewart if he fancies a game soon. Then we can feed back. My memory is not good enough!
A few comments based on my current reading. Just to avoid any confusion, I'm reading the 2012 "Gordon's alive!" version.
Page 14. Gunboats: There's a bit of confusion over 'crew'. The mention of the 'Gunboat crew' and an 'invisible crew'. I think the former refers to the crew listed in the table (10) and the latter to the 'deck crew' who may be represented 'for aesthetic effect'. In effect the latter don't exist and a comment to the effect that a player 'may choose to represent the deck crew for aesthetic effect but they play no part in the game' would be easier and clearer.
Page 14. Gunboats: "A gunboat should be considered as being split into front half and rear half, with the boundary line passing through the gunboat centre from left to right.:
Page 15. "Deployment of Gunboat crew unit. The gunboat is considered as three parts. Front (bow), middle and rear (stern).
The latter is far more detailed and I'm assuming that the reference on page 14 is erroneous.
Page 17. "Scouts count as if on foot no matter whether a mounted or foot model is used."
Page 45. Scouting scenery. Table: "Scouting unit is mounted."
Which doesn't accord with the page 17 statement. I'm guessing the formr is correct.
Page 19. The templates. ...very best type of template would be an irregular shape cut from table...
Seems a bit drastic, particularly if using the dining table ;)
Page 41. AP for activity "Attempt to un-jam whole unit... The comment says "Each AP allows a roll of the D6. This is not really useful unless there are two or more jams present."
I'm puzzled as a success would un-jam the whole unit, implying it would remove all the jam markers on the unit. And surely the use is that there's only a 1 in 3 chance of success and you may need to try several times?
Page 45. Scouting results table: Useful to add a statement to the "scenery is scouted" results 'Place a Scouted marker on the scenery template.'
Page 49 Opportunity shooting "It can be used at each and every potential target during a turn."
Page 58. Photo at bottom right: "the British are not allowed opportunity shooting at a second at a second unit that attacks..."
I'm guessing, due to the emphasis, that the text is correct?
Page 50. Opportunity shooting when charged. "The exception is that ambushed units may not carry out opportunity fire."
Page 51. Shooting table ""1D6 Opportunity shooting at dervish unit that has appeared this turn (surprised)
Page 59, first para: "The target unit is not allowed any opportunity shooting. They have been snuck up on!"
The lack of any definition of 'surprised' or 'snuck up on' makes this problematical. The only place I can see that units can be ambushed is on/adjacent to a scenery template. The other references need clarification.
Page 50 and elsewhere: "2 or more 1's means jammed."
1's is no more the plural of 1 than figure's is the plural of figure. Also occurs as "4,5,6's". I'm a pedant about apostrophes! There's a number of other grammatical errors (...then its casualty are removed too.) that I've not covered but I'd be happy to point out. :-)
Page 51 Shooting. The table really needs "Target dice (cumulative) in BIG and BOLD – it's easy to skip past it and be confused by what follows.
Page 52. "Although casualty markers are removed from play whenever a morale test is taken(,) they do have a lasting potential effect upon them."
Obviously the unit is now smaller, I don't see how the removed markers do so; please elucidate.
Page 53. The photo at the top of the page.
This is a bit confusing as it's not illustrating a point just made but is referring to a concept which isn't introduced until page 60. I'd suggest a different photo focusing on the placement of wounded and casualty markers.
Page 56. Fighting formations. Given that all bases will end up fighting, why do units have to reform with a frontage of 4 bases? The only reason I can see is the placement of wounds but it all seems the long way round to a results.
Conceptually, I find the base v base combat resolution to be long-winded but that's been my opinion of combat resolution generally in RFCM since I first played the excellent Square Bashing.
Page 61. Breaking off from a fight. In the table the reference "Roll D6" should be "Roll D6 per base" – going by the text above and the playsheet.
I hope that's helpful and really quite a small number of points for quite a long set of rules.
Brian
A very interesting and fun game. The biggest change I found was that artillery fire was smoother.
The 'There and back' scenarios are incredibly tough to win. I've never managed it. My force is usually pretty beaten up just travelling one way. Any ideas on how to get Back once you're There?
Wormhole?
A saucy reply ;D.
A saucy wormhole might be the answer but can't find it in the rules :D
Having thoroughly enjoyed our two games today at the weekender, I have remembered why a lovely game Pits is.
Regarding a couple o rules points, in particularly Camel Corps dismounting, I did wonder what the original rules had to say. I'll check tomorrow.