Game write up workers v catlemen

[martin goddard]

The workers were defending. The cattle men were attacking. Cattlemen had 3 mounted raw units. 1 small foot raw unit and 1 good sized veteran mounted unit. The workers had one small vet unit (3 bases), 2 average  foot long-shooter groups and a couple of inits of raw pistolers on foot.


We used a rail track. Matt had two defence pieces. He enhanced liabilities.
The raw cattlemen and raw workers spent a while blasting away at each other to small effect.
The workers small veteran group got cut off and destroyed by dismounted raw cattlemen long shooters.
At the other end of the table the workers average long shooters held oyt in the very rocky hill and could not be budged by the veteran cattlemen.
The workers got butchered all over the place. However the workers won because they enhanced their two liabilities which netted 20 victory points.This gave the workers a win.

The game did spread over the table...good
The game was won by good use of vp enhancements....good.
Some fights gave unexpected results...good.
The track did create a different game/scenario  in terms of focus and fights...good.
Long range shooting into cover was relatively ineffective...good.
The rules were easy to memorise...good

Need to do some work on handling liabilities....pending


good game. rules are coming along!!

[Leslie BT]

Good to see that it was a good game and starting to use some of the no so common elements like tracks and liabilities.

[Sean Clark]

Sounds like a good fun scrap. Are attackers winning their fair share do we think?

[Colonel Kilgore]

Sounds like a good fun scrap. Are attackers winning their fair share do we think?

Er - no, I think!

[martin goddard]

2 games at  club tonight. attackers won both. 
Game 1. Nice looking table with plenty of  trees and rough hills. No camps or buildings at all.
Apaches(Paul) v Plains Indians (Duncan). Apaches attacked. Lots of bloody fights. Apaches won by a medium margin.

Game 2. rail-track down the centre. Really busy table with woods, very rough hills, buildings all crammed in close.
Defenders were Posse. Attackers were plains Indians.
Defenders had 2 liabilities and two defence pieces. Defenders were doing very well until a couple of close assaults punched them off their liabilities and out of the defence squares. it all fell apart. Victory points ended ina major attacker win because the enhanced liabilities were both lost.

[Colonel Kilgore]

I take it back - well done those attackers!

Question for Martin: are people developing different tactics as attackers, or have there been rules tweaks? Or are they simply better players than me?

[Sean Clark]

Excellent news.

[martin goddard]

I thank attackers are doing better now mainly because of the victory points.
Attackers now get Vp for any defender unit jiggered at game end. Also the attackers now get 2 points per dead, as opposed to 1point given to defender kills on attacker. This produces an extra 12 vp on average for the attackers.  Until this the defender had a lot more options on their list of available victory points.

[Sean Clark]

Sounds like a good change 

[Stewart 46A]

I ran the game between Paul (apaches) v Duncan (plains Lndians).
Duncan was defender no liabilities so attacked Paul when he could. Paul was aggressive and extended the game by 3 turns (2 attacker,1 defender).
He kicked Duncan out of both defence squares ( Duncan had enhanced theses for victory points, Paul hadn't) he just wanted to fight.
Duncan had 1 vet unit of 3 bases and 2nd unit of a leader left at the end,
Paul had 3 units left, 4 base Vet unit, 4 base and 6 base average units.
They had at least 9 assaults between them.
Good game very bloody.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[martin goddard]

Good pictures Stewart. Makes the words make sense!!