CK 27

[martin goddard]

Just some personal comments.
Obviously a bit biased


At the moment there is a lot of input going on with CK.  Good news I hope.
I am trying to keep the game pretty simple but not simpleton.

The games are coming along nicely in terms of "can I win with the army I have?'
The number of zones seems to be correct.
Still a lot of modifiers for a fight. I will be reviewing it.
Chariots and elephants introduce some complexity, but they are important facets of ancient battles I think.

It might be interesting to play a couple of historical battles and see how those play out.

Battle tactics appear to be working well.
The army sizes look and play well but I am very aware that 200 is a lot of figures, especially for new players.
I like the scenery system, but it has not been hard tested yet.
The game mat size is good because off table space is  needed for CK.  The 30" depth allows 3" edge space even on a  3 foot deep table.

Stewart has some special 10x 6 scenery pieces in the works.

martin

[Moggy]

Hi Martin,

Brief read on V27.  Bear in mind this is a reading on what is written, not what I already know and have discussed with Martin.

P27  - Definitions - Proximity - The zones that touch a zone on the corners and faces.  Think this should read "OR faces"

P7 & 37 (twice) P37 (outcome of morale roll table) says "If fall back is impaired see "impaired fall back" section.  The only other mention of the word "impaired" is in the definitions. The section is actually called "Normal fall back not possible".   Can you change either way of describing it to the same thing.

P39 – Pushing aside – "It is allowed for bigger zones to push aside minor opposition".  A zone is defined as "a discrete part of the table" or to us a rectangle on the table. They are all the same size. The wording of "bigger zones" needs to be changed. Maybe to "larger number of troops".

Nothing else leaping out at me so looking good. Will try to get a game in this weekend.

I know some may suggest this is knit-picking but I am doing this based on Martin is creating a commercial product. We have all experienced "loose language" and inconsistancies in rules elsewhere so am doing what I can to help remove these at an early stage.

A couple of points I have raised previously and you either haven't gotten round to thinking about them or doing anything about them.


P16 – Normal fall back not possible – If terrain behind a unit is unpassable does this count as an enemy unit and allow the retreating unit to choose a direction or is it "leap-frogged". In other words is it treated as friend or foe regarding falling back.

P42 – How many D6 when shooting – Close order – I feel the 6 dice should be when the unit is "at strength" and drop to the 4 dice when not.

Good work though and it seems to be getting closer with each iteration.

Derek

[Stewart 46A]

Julian the PP site has 6 forces listed under Range 3 , Ancients

Stewart

[martin goddard]

All good points Derek.
I will act upon that info.


Maybe we should play ancients at one of the Wessex meetings?  We could get two games in easily.


martin

[martin goddard]

i would like to do some ancient armies but probably not yet.
The best one to do would be a Hun army.
Just do one figure and cast off 150. Base some as cavalry and some as skirmishers.

The other ones would be Gauls, Spanish or Hoplites.  One figure x 200.

The hardest one would probably be late Roman or successor? Lots of troop types.

CK will probably be split into army  time/geographical groupings. e.g.Middle east biblical, Greek wars, Roman empire.

martin

[Moggy]

Another way to think of it Julian is to consider what sort of Army you wish to have, Melee or shooty types

Then to think do you want more cavalry or more infantry.

Also another thing is the longevity of the Army, and what else it can pose as.

My Mongol horse can easily cover a period of about 1500 years from ancient Alans to late middle ages turkomans. Some Armies are harder to disguise. A Roman Legion is what it is. Hard to make it something else.

If you considered what people wore to fight I doubt it really changed that much over a couple of hundred years apart from the rich powerful lords and their followers. Peasants in the 1100's probably fought much the same as they did in the 1500's.

Best advise look within and find what you want to field.  I doubt many would worry overly if you wanted to field Sumarians and they were fielding Normans. 

The beauty of these rules is it doesn't matter. The catagorisation of troops is so generic that a later period army will have as much chance to winning as a biblical army. I have played about the whole spectrum of games using C&K now from biblical to Norman/Saxon and their just isn't that much difference in play.

Most important thing is to enjoy what you do rather than be constricted into something you don't.

Derek

[Moggy]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/184865717082?hash=item2b0adafb5a:g:m2kAAOSwSiNgqVVc


just a shame they are not in 15mm.



Derek

[Colonel Kilgore]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/184865717082?hash=item2b0adafb5a:g:m2kAAOSwSiNgqVVc


just a shame they are not in 15mm.



Derek

Er - and that he's asking £200 for eight part-painted models...!

Simon

[Moggy]

I vaguely recall someone in our club had a load of Asterix figures he games with, It was possibly to play SAGA with but not cetrain. In that case they would have been 28mm as well. Lovely stuff though.

Derek

[Moggy]

found another link to the company that made them. Sadly out of business now though,. Wonder who bought them, if anyone.  Some wonderful figures there

http://www.miniatures-workshop.com/lostminiswiki/index.php?title=Asterix_%28Hobby_Products%29

Derek

[Brian Cameron]

A few comments on v27

P7 Impaired Fall back still in dictionary though it's been deleted. (I rather liked the term)

P17  if units retreat off the table they take their casualties with them as there's no morale testing for units off-table.
But if a unit is destroyed the casualties are left on the table.  Should this be the same as unit's which have left the table?

P26 ...units consist of three bases.  Skirmishers (foot and mounted) are another exception

P33 the last two bullets points say the same thing but using different words

P37 Another reference to 'impaired fall back'rather than 'normal fallback not possible'.

P39  I'm wondering if, from the perspective of a wider audience, whether it wouldn't be better to restate "Any zone containing 2 or fewer bases in total will be pushed aside." As "If there are two or fewer bases in zone, they will be pushed aside by a force of at least 4 bases entering that zone."  Using zone for a fixed area of the table and for a number of units could be confusing if they don't speak Piggish.

P41 Falling back not possible.  This would probably be better added to section 9 Normal fall back not possible.

P42 having said that shooters cannot shoot at assaulters p43 then lays to an instance where they can – is this an exception or a mistake?  If it's an exception it would sense to combine the two into one place.

P44  makes clear that cavalry cannot do what skirmisher cavalry can do and it's easy to see why the question would be asked.  Why not avoid the question (here and possibly elsewhere) by renaming skirmisher cavalry as 'mounted skirmishers' or 'horse skirmishers' or some such?

P44  I have to say that if I wanted to check how artillery fire that I would turn to the shooting section rather than looking under troop types.

P50 Fight outcomes worth adding a reminder after the 4th bullet point to roll saving throws?

P51 Destroying a unit by rolling 9+ - it may be my failing memory but it seems unusual to roll 2d6 and add the scores in RCFM rules.  I'd make it clearer that what the player does.

Brian