RFCM

SB will be 10 years old in 2022. Are we due for a revisit ?  Personally I think it would be a minor project to alter the clunky bits and sharpen upon some of the rules. I'm not suggesting a major re-write

Just my opinion ! :-)

Probably a good idea Simon

martin :)

I'd hate to throw the baby out with the bath water - is it possible to do just a "minor tweak" to what is a great set of rules?

Maybe Simon C and others who play it a lot could start to list out the bits that merit tweaking / clarifying / streamlining here?

Simon

I agree Simon(s)

martin :)

Excellent! Speed of progress perhaps to be determined by how many hard copies of the current rules you still have in stock, Martin?

Simon

What I think would be great for this is a Square Bashing day... Somewhere in the Midlands... At a gaming store.....maybe themed around 1914or something... Just to get a feel for the game again...you could get the people up from Weymouth and the Reading area... It would be a surefire winner! 😁

Mmm.. you may be onto something there Sean!

Simon

I'm full of good ideas!

Still can't believe these rules are now almost ten years old, published in 2012 that means all that playtesting was ten years ago!!!

I think the printed copies of SB have pretty much sold out, now only available as a PDF. The problem for  Martin is the cost of reprinting the rules, the business has to carry this cost for some time. That said I'm not sure much needs changing as in my experience these rules do give a balanced game playable in about three hours (including pre game set up), a few minor tweaks may speed thing up but we don't want to fundamentally change the current game as it is a pretty blooming good game as it is.  Must be for me to have bought and painted many armies and still contemplating more.

Chris 

Maybe some official clarifications / amendments, that can be bought as a PDF and used with the existing rules, then

Simon

QuoteThat said I'm not sure much needs changing as in my experience these rules do give a balanced game playable in about three hours (including pre game set up), a few minor tweaks may speed thing up but we don't want to fundamentally change the current game as it is a pretty blooming good game as it is.

I agree in that fundamentally its sound. The two areas I'd change are -

Pre-Battle.
I'd like pre battle , but this doesn't do it for me. its too detached from the game, and really the decision on allocating dice is pretty much a waste. I always stick to the standard set - doesn't seem to make any different.  If you want a design a defence minded army then you should have a way of influencing the attack/defense

Scoring
Its just too painful sometime to sift through all the casualties. It makes the table untidy. I'd like an 'in game' scoring mechanisms where the toys are put i the box after each turn

Line of sight & artillery needs some tightening

Assaults definitely needs some tightening

Support Squares

The list on the FAQ link is good start.

My view is would be to print the rules, but make the army lists online. I think the lists are a big thing that get people excited and you could add more chrome. Something to re-invigorate existing figure ranges to monetise the venture.

I think  agree with most of what you said Simon.


martin :)

I'm with Chris in that the game is fundamentally sound and I wouldn't wish it to change overly.

We have seen some nmuch more stragihtforward pre-game mechanics lately, but the narrative system is fun and adds some historical context. I know that Ray's system is good for getting the game going quicker - mayb e something similar as an alternative to the whole 15 days thing.

I'm not sure what the issue is with artillery, but then I haven't played in a long time. Just can't remember it being an issue. Same with supports, but I know there are people who play it far more often than me who will have a better grip on things than me.

I'd be more than happy to have a PDF to save on printing costs and filling the workshop up wih more boxes  ;) There are plenty of print on demand services available if you wish for a hard copy (which I prefer, but just thinking about upfront costs for PP!)

I like the rules as they are, not come across any problems.
the pre game is fun but can be long but i'm not in any rush,
The midlands group (you know who you are) that we have had a few battle days with have a shortened version of the pre game that works well.

another game i need to play more of.

Stewart

Square Bashing is one of my favourite sets. Not played for a little while, but don't recall any issues with the 2012 ruleset.

Nick

When i get to it i will do some work on the pre game.
Maybe  a quick start and full start?
The pre game should reflect  skill in decisions made rather than just a random pluck.

martin :)

Personally I think Square Bashing for the type of game is great as it is. WW1 version of PBI would be better effort well spent ? As WW1 was such a big battle arena , the Western front could be by passed as the main event ? But there would have to be a gap so soon after MexRev ?
Even though I am very slowly trawling thru a British force for SqB and an British Brigade for SCW, amongst my DAK and if needed Indians.
As this time of the year I try and concentrate on Scenery, as the warmer weather is better for drying out the materials used, so I do try and take advantage of it.
Miles

Square Bashing is a great game. Consideration needs to be given to the 900 point games, which we play regularly, I cannot remember when we last played a 620 point game (could be my age). I am thinking mainly of confirmation or not of what else changes, if anything. Previously I brought up assets which were not to be increased or hasty defences from two to three, again which were not to be increased, which is fine.

The replacement of two reservist units when you have 9 or more in the starting army. Should this increase to 13 or more reservists in the 900 point game?

I assume the Trench and Canal games are, in the main written for 620 point games. In the 900 point Trench game, should the defender lose 6 bases of infantry instead of 4? Should the defender damage 3 each of artillery and MGs instead of 2 each? Both these would be harsh on the defender but it did come up in conversation.

Regards, Richard