RFCM

To be fair, 240 figures is still quite small by the standard of many of the old DBM games I used to play. 400 was not that unusual.
Having said that, I applaud the principle of keeping things smaller from the point of view of start-up costs for new players, and I appreciate that not everyone can manage large armies (especially if they game in many periods).  And a 'lite' option is even better, so you can cover all tastes and circumstances.

Hmmm... it's an odd consequence of the game mechanic. I haven't entirely got my head around the fact that if you are only two wide, you can only lose 2 bases, while a unit 4 wide could lose all 4.

I must admit I've only tried this with the other option - barricading the inner ends of the lanes, so the defenders were in a line, but I forced the attackers to go up the lane two wide. The attackers  usually came off worst, even when Household - I did roll some pretty poor dice!  In the end, the Lancastrian defenders won, despite Warwick moving through into the street (when he got there, he had a couple of bad motivation rolls, so his troops stood around in indecision, not able to charge anyone!)

I don't know how this would impact the new gridded BB, but for those of us still fighting 'old style' BB...

If a unit has part of its front edge in terrain (say building areas) and part in the open, and can contact enemy while in that situation, reading the rules suggests it is a valid fight, and the unit does NOT need to test for disorder, as it has not exited the terrain.

This is a real problem for the St. Alban's scenario (which is a battle that fascinates me).
If defenders barricade part-way down the lanes and form up two wide down the lanes to defend the barricades (and to have clear shooting forward for all archer bases), they will suffer the -6 penalty in the fight for 2 files, but attackers who in reality would be funnelled up the lanes can attack in a line, straddling the lane, and not suffer the penalty.
If defenders barricade the main street end of the lanes, they can form line in the street while defending the barricades with 2 bases and having a base front each side, but none of the archers will be able to shoot, as more than 1 base front is obscured by terrain.

I think St. Alban's requires a scenario rule - maybe defining the buildings as TOWN: more dense than normal buildings areas, and only crossable in column (or something like that - I haven't tested such a rule yet).  That would allow Warwick's historical manoeuvre through the 'backs', but force him to then change formation and facing in the street to fight along the street afterwards.  It would also prevent any troops contacting the flank of double-file defenders in the lanes, as the column could not charge through the houses into them (columns cannot start a fight).

Any thoughts?

I can't believe I missed it until now - I am usually a very thorough reader of rules!

OK. So just a means of reflecting they are more vulnerable through not having turned to face (so still maybe 4 bases at risk), but counterbalanced to some degree by the fact that they can still use front rank (normally fighters) saving throws, rather than those of the exposed flank bases (normally one fighter, one archer).

Fair enough - as a deliberate game mechanic, I will accept that works.  Thanks for the replies.

The rules on page 51 are perfectly clear what happens if the currently fighting unit is replaced by a fresh unit moving in from behind - the original unit pulls back to just behind the replacing unit.
However, if the enemy is attacked by a fresh unit from the flank, what happens to the original unit? It has to break contact, as the game stipulates one unit per side in the fight. So how far?  A minimal distance, just to show they are not involved? Or a standard morale result 'fall back'? (Which could be far more than the simpler example, so I doubt that is the intent).

But what is the rationale for that, if only the flank is now engaged?

Apologies if this has been raised before, but I have not seen it.

I am a bit perturbed about flank attacks. 
The rules on p49 say all casualties [hits?] are placed on the front rank bases... Saves are carried out for each base once all of the hits are distributed.

This suggests that if a typical 8-base unit is attacked frontally, it could take 4 casualties (if all 4 bases fail saving throws), but if attacked in the flank and it turns to face, it will only ever suffer 2 casualties, as all the hits are distributed on the 2 now front rank figures before saving throws. (Incidentally, if it does NOT turn to face, does it still stand to take 4, although 3 'front rank' bases are not in contact?  So you might still hit 3 fighters and a captain rather than any second-rank bows?)

This rather emasculates a flank attack, so I tend to distribute one hit per front rank base, then do saving throws for all those; if a base remains standing, give it another hit and attempt save and so on, but if all front rank bases are casualties before the hits are all used up, they are distributed on the newly-exposed rank.  Not what the rules say on a strict reading, but it seems a better reflection of the flank attack to me.  The flank attack is already reduced in effectiveness by being treated as a replacement of any existing frontal attack rather than an addition, allowing a possible turn to face.

I would be interested to read counter-arguments. 

I used to play Kingmaker quite a bit back in the 1970's (oh, dear, really?).  It was very popular in our group at the time but I fear it is rather 'of its day'.  Little cardboard counters are old hat in board-gaming circles these days.  I just loved the heraldry, though.

We used to find it went on quite long, but had some lovely touches. Even my wife knows full well that 'Scots Raid' means 'Warden of the Northern Marches to Berwick!'

I recently tried to run a Kingmaker-based 6-player campaign, where I asked everyone to submit their moves for the turn simultaneously, then drew event cards. It was a bit chaotic, but did generate some interesting games, if players managed to find each other's forces. Overall, though, the game seemed to lack any strategic rationale other than forming the largest field army you can and trying to jump on the others.  Given the two main factions in the wars, it did tend towards 'team play', with forces ultimately being controlled by two players if I remember those old games correctly.

I still have a soft spot for it, though. tatty old box now, but I can't bring myself to part with it.

Hi, guys

I've been over on the Hammerin' Iron pages, so haven't looked in here recently.
I am intrigued to see the work towards a new gridded BB system.  I will watch this with interest.

I also endorse Philip Haigh's book, although I note that for First St. Alban's (which I am solo playing at the moment) he mentions defending 'the town gates', not the usually-quoted street barricades. (Has anyone found any suitable medieval-looking barricades?).

Regarding cavalry, have you considered allowing cavalry to be replaced (for the whole game) by dismounted figures as a small fighters-only foot unit, if the terrain is unsuitable?  It would mean buying a few more figures, of course, but I'm sure Martin wouldn't mind that!
(Just re-reading the rules, I notice that dismounting during the game is already allowed, but I am suggesting this as part of deployment.)

Probably, but for what version of the rules, that it includes Morale and land forces?  That's why I was concerned originally whether there was a version more recent than the 2011 one.

Thanks for the confirmation. Once I spotted it, it seemed pretty certain, but I had to ask! 

Wow! That much movement.
OK, thanks.

Sorry, Martin - still no idea where I got that QRS from, but here it is in case it rings any bells.

Just looked at BGG - there are no files there, so not sure where I got it from. Will see what I can find at home tonight if not luck sooner.