BB27

[martin goddard]

Some changes from Chris' gaming experience.
Cavalry have just been re-imagined.  See how that goes?
Introduced the "happy meadow" if it helps the game.

[martin goddard]

Had a game of BB27 tonight.
The armies were quite small due to points spent on household and cavalry.

The scenery was quite restrictive for cavalry. They need a clear line to their target.
Rob charged put of the woods with his massed cavalry and inflicted big problems on Mike's centre ward. Two units of Mike's routed as a result.
Those cavalry id not re-appear and neither did Dennis' cavalry.
Overall cavalry worked OK. Adjustments forthcoming.

Without passive player shooting the archery casualties obviously decreased.

The low on arrows markers were difficult to remove, so that is good.

Fights seemed OK.

The attackers won by capturing more zonal points.
The victory points were OK at reflecting the win level.

Guns were devastating due to  a lucky shot. Then nothing for the rest of the game.

Scenario produced some interesting outputs.

Using new S+A templates which sorted out zone recognition well.

[Stewart 46A]

Sorry I missed it, what scenery did players choose?

[Nick]

Sounds good. Which S&A templates did you use for zones Martin, the standard 12 x 6 RFCM templates or larger ones?

[Leman (Andy)]

By the sound of it artillery performed very historically.

[martin goddard]

S+a have made some new templates.  15x8 inch to fit into the 16x9 inch zones.
I will do some photos too.

We had the compulsory rough hill and marsh. Also we had a hedge,2 low hills and a wood.
The defenders ended up with good scenery. A hill and wood on the base edge, plus a hill 1 zone in.
Only 10 foot units, because we had 4 units of cavalry and two household foot units.

The "happy meadow" was used for clarity.
Only 1 general died.

[Nick]

How full up do the zones get with figures?
Just wondering whether I can try using smaller 12 x 6 size zones for a game. My boards are marked in 6" squares and my scenery templates are the 12 x 6 ones. Would just make life easier for testing games.

[martin goddard]

Yes, each zone 12x 6 would work. this gives a table 3ft wide and 2ft deep.
4 units plus a general is the maximum.
These should fit fine into the area. Maybe 2 units in width and 2 units in depth.

Let us (RFCM) know if it works in terms of visual and physical.

[Leslie BT]

How did the cavalry get into the woods in the scenery descriptions on page 12 the cavalry are not allowed to enter this terrain type!

Played a game today, set up took half an hour to the first turn. About 2 hours for the game.
A number of queries.
1. If the cavalry are in the reserves do they then provide a dice when rolling for reinforcement arrivals?
2. Ending the game page 26 states 2 points of difference, the play sheet says 5. Are both correct.
3. Page 26 states 4 bases to control, page 50 states 4.5 bases?
4. Out of order from shooting, does it have to be placed on the that lost the causality or can it be any unit in the ward?

The game we played used the best quality army as on page 6.
The piggy chase give a 20-26 level game.
We used the rough hill, marsh, buildings, linear, gentle hill, and wood.
General's attributes worked fine we both achieved 2 successes.
We placed the scenery as now described and with guidance from the tactics section.
then the defender rolled to rearrange the scenery.
We end up with, Attacker right front WOODS, Defenders left front MARSH, Defender centre reserve BUILDINGS, Defenders centre front ROUGH HILL Defenders right front GENTLE HILL, Attackers left front LINEAR.
This layout prevent any use of cavalry. We both just added the victory points to our totals.
We both deployed all our units on table and choose to  move up our centre zones.
We still understand the move general and then move him again with his ward, so he gets two moves.
We had some shooting and yes its less damaging but still caused more casualties than the fights.
Use intense arrows most turns, had a number of low on arrows, rolled two remove either the same turn or the next turn.
We did the ward swap which worked well.
The attacker was unable to dislodge the ward on the rough hill, we had two fights and the dice were 9 each. Attacker won one and the defender stood losing one additional base saving the other 3 hits.
Second fight after the ward swap and a reserve unit in the defender centre reserve zone. Again 9 dice each defender won.
Game end defender 23, attacker 2.
We did not feel much had changed in the rules other than to dumb down any large losses that would have changed the ownership of a zone.
The units no longer have any feel for a difference between household and retinue once their has been some shooting you rarely have 3 base units. The only difference is in the saves. Everyone shoots with the same effect.
Even though we had an enjoyable game we felt at the end it was just a game with no particular period character to it.

We decided that we were doing something very different to PPHQ or we were just using the rules as written, not with Martin directing play.
Stewart how do you like the game so far?

Is anyone else play testing the rules, Sean, Simon.

[martin goddard]

Excellent report les
It is useful.
There are some changes in 27 that may have slipped past you.  the rules change rapidly I know.

1. Cavalry can start in any scenery type. Then they can charge as far forward as they wish, but not INTO stopping scenery. So they can start in a  wood, building, rough hill etc.
2. The option to stand and take another 4 casualties has now gone.  If a ward loses as a target it falls back.
3. Cavalry do not count as a reserve. Instead they use a system like the assets one in PBI. Use the points , get a 6 and they arrive. Once used the points are lost. Like assets in PBI.
4. Out of order is only inflicted on units that receive casualties.
5. Players need to keep units strong (3.5) and heap the casualties on to weaker units.

I will get 28 out soon and address all the  good points you have made Les

thanks

martin

[Sean Clark]

I have an empty house on Saturday so hope to get my playtest in during the morning. I'll report back with results. May not use cavalry for the first game.

[Colonel Kilgore]

Is anyone else play testing the rules, Sean, Simon.

Well, I've received the Peter Dennis book of WoR paper armies (I don't have any lead ones yet) and need to knock out some units to test...

It sounds as though Sean is more on the case then me though.

[Richard G]

Are these updates published here any where as I have been trying to find them to follow the discussions? Thanks.

[Nick]

Is anyone else play testing the rules, Sean, Simon.

Setting up for first playtest at the weekend.
Nick

[martin goddard]

Hello Richard
The folk chatting here are members of the playtest group. Trouble is, it does exclude people who are not part of the group (bad). Many of the discussions are about general WOTR stuff, so the rules need not be in hand (good).
I need to be careful about giving out too much copy, as 85% of forum visitors are anonymous and unknown in terms of who they are and what they are about.
At Historicon players had to sign special legal forms in order to be allowed to playtest the FOG ancient rules (that edition has since passed into obscurity).
However i am always keen to be inclusive.
If it helps, just send me an e mail to peterpig@btinternet.com. I will send you a set with pleasure!