RFCM

Yeah I found the podcast so will give this a listen - a big back catalogue of podcasts to listen too.

Quote from: martin goddard on August 24, 2025, 05:39:47 PMSome thoughts from me about the questions Mark.


2) Even though a base is converted to a casualty, you can still 'recover' that base back from the 'dead' though the 'damned militia' communication event. So it's not always really dead.
The damned militia are new men that are joining the unit. The limit to initial unit size helps players know which unit the bases are from and prevents players perverting the rules.

7) A square only provokes opportunity shooting when it attempts an action/makes an AP roll. This affects shooting order so the ative player decides the order of units activated and generating the provoke etc.
We usually do opportunity fr the whole army at the turn start. Then do additional opportunity shots as the turn develops.

Keep on gaming

martin

Thanks for the answer.

For the 'damned Militia' I can see that being the case for the Militia, but for the other levels, especially the professionals to me it feels like the the remainders of the troops returning after handling the casualties etc. but is know this is just a mental thing. 

for the opportunity fire, I think thats an important clarification and could even be in the turn order.

Mark

A few quick clarification questions after reading through the rules once. I may have more in time.

1) Other than the pull back after melee, am I correct that unit casualty bases can not move?
2) Even though a base is converted to a casualty, you can still 'recover' that base back from the 'dead' though the 'damned militia' communication event. So it's not always really dead.
3) You can only ever get back to the starting size forces through the 'damned militia' communication event.You can't raise extra troops though this.
4) Does provoked shooting ignore shooting priority and always targets the provoking square ? i.e. either they shoot back at who shot them or at the square where an opponent activated.
5) A unit does no need to be activated to take cover. I assume not but wanted to check. So taking cover does not generate opportunity fire on it's own as it is not an action.
6) Is taking cover in effect from the start of a turn i.e. when declared/planned for that turn, or only after the player turn when nothing moves into/out of the Square?
7) A square only provokes opportunity shooting when it attempts an action/makes an AP roll. This affects shooting order so the ative player decides the order of units activated and generating the provoke etc.   

I do fancy trying these type forces but need to get playing the new version and finish painting up my forces to do that. I'm not one to come up with forces without playing the game beforehand and getting an idea of the system.

But yes I was thinking of things like the Congo, Somalia type US forces 'peace making/keeping' or even Soviet Afghan war. Theses (other than the last one) are not traditional super big investment engagements by the external big powers. Even the Soviet Afghan conflict soon got bogged down into smaller actions with decent sized (not skirmish) forces but without the full power of the Soviet armed forces able to just win.
 

OK thanks for the answer.

I understand the lack of granularity for high quality armies but allowing modeling of such allows for interesting scenario's, and maybe even using the rules for conflicts in the middle east.

Note, it looks like the Intervention forces and even the arab ones from the last version should map quite closely to how the Mercenary core list was done. With a few tweaks for flavour it should be ok to create similar forces to add such forces. Maybe a good 15mm mag article to add these might be an idea.
 

Hi,

Quick question after starting to look through the new version of the rules.

Is there a reason the previous version lists for Middle Eastern forces and the western/communist intervention forces do not have force lists? In theory they should be easy to create so just wondered...

Would these type forces not work with the new version or were they not included for other reasons (current world events etc.) ?

Thanks

The best games tell stories. One of the reasons I loveBlood bowl if that nearly always seems to 'tell a story'

That sounds awfully like my die rolling

I think the "I know it when I see it" definition kind of comes in here.

Black powder seems to have replaced horse and musket as a period term to all by us old school gamers. That period between the last use of pikes and when breach loading rifles really made firepower so much more deadly. In theory most western armies in that period are roughly equal in firepower so other items would be factors in victory other than raw technology. Many troops also were roughly the same so no issues with spears vs. pikes etc which ancients sets have to handle.

That is partly because of the so mentioned rule set - which is as much 'gamer porn' or a magazine as a rules set. It's an ok rules set. It is simple at heart and plays well. There is not that much to it really as others have mentioned. But I think it came out at the right time - the growth of plastics for the 28mm kits and other factors. The other factors was a public generally looking for simplier vs. more complex games sets.

Another example is to look at the rampant rules for example - they are as simple and have been very successful and morphed into all sorts of periods now.

I have some 15mm impaled figures and piles of stripped deadcbodies for the camp of my 'Vlad the Impaler' DBA/ADLG army. They are from Donnington miniatures and they are somewhere in the unpainted lead pile...

In that case the tech difference between the attacker and defender was very significant, and likely that was a factor in that result, but it may be the exception which proves the rule. It happened but was not at all common.



This makes this game perfect game for true asymmetrical victory conditions. The defender side will 'lose' but can can they win in the loss. A true Dunkirk style game.

Interesting.

Really in this circumstances, it's very unlikely the defender is going too 'win' and force the attack back. It may have happened but I can't think of any obvious example when troops get into a city/back area through a breach and the city/fort did not fall. i.e. the defenders pushed the attackers back through the breach. Normally when the breach is broken the game is over to to speak.

So, it seems it's more about that the defender can do to salvage the situation than really 'win'.

For the defender scenario's could be things like :
* getting specific bases (civilians/treasure) off table,
* holding up the attackers for a specific number of turns,
* defending specific locations no matter what,
* stopping the attacker running through the table space and exiting on the other side,
* getting enough of their own bases off the table,
* just causing as many casualties in the attacks (selling their lives dearly)...

I doubt having guys exit with loot is an issue for the defender really - they have more pressing issues on their mind. But the attacker may have specific objective's as well.

Having the scenario objective actually hidden from the attacker may make it more challenging. The players may both have their own and they may not be matched...That then means players have to figure out where do they focus their effort.

They look great. If you are using magnets to hold them then may I suggest using lego bricks as the flight stands. That then allows you to show the different heights visually and also allows easy identification of planes using different colours.

i.e.

What about doing a version of the Samurai rules (Battles in the age of war) using squares?

I guess this is not that popular a period/rules set.