For King and Parliament publishing update

[FierceKitty]

On the other hand, and respecting Leman's perfectly logical point, if mathematics applied to wargames I'd get far fewer 1 rolls in critical melees.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Purely psychosomatic. just think you roll 1 more often !

ianS

[d_Guy]

Sometimes I think you roll a one because you are thinking "I don't want to roll a one" 

In using cards and chits, as Leman points out, the odds change as the draw pool diminishes. Because the activation chits (or cards) remain visible during a turn, you can see what has been played and get a better idea about the chances of drawing certain numbers. I happen to like this aspect.

I did two blog posts (which I shamelessly offer below) on cards, chits and dice in FK&P:

On Card:
https://inredcoatragsattired.com/2017/11/25/a-dice-tower-for-cards/

And on th switch to chits:
https://inredcoatragsattired.com/2017/12/30/chittering/

[paulr]

In the test game of FK&P I watched one of the players after badly losing a series of combats with really low cards passed the deck to his playing partner and said "at least I've 'warmed' the deck up for you"

Several times during the game decisions were made based on the players feel for what cards had already been drawn. It definitely gives the game a different feel.

[Jim Ando]

Hello

I find rules where you have to divide the table into squares a monumental pain in the a**. Surely a tape measure is miles easier. I like un compilcated  rules but having to mark out squares is just impractical. My opinion only.

Jim.

[Steve J]

Having played PBI before, I wasn't a fan of grid based games. However I find these rules work really well and are incredibly quick to play. No arguing whether the unit is a few millimetres out of range anymore, or how far a zone of control extends etc. Basically the squares sort that out for you. Now this sort of game is not to everyone's taste, but each to their own.

[d_Guy]

Hi Jim,
If you use a battle cloth or mat you only have to lay out the grid once (and you really only need to mark the corner points). While that does take some time to do a careful layout, it is reusable, so pretty much a one time cost. Playing a game without the need to measure is much much faster than having to measure multiple times in a turn imho.

Some folks put temporary corners in place for each game and that would get too fiddly for my tastes.

[Jim Ando]

Sorry

Still not conviced. Dont like defacing my terrain just for one rule set. If you want a game with squares or hexes play a board game. It surely doesnt save that much time to play a game where you have to measure. Dont like to dis a set of rules but i have a set of to the strongest and they are not for me.

Jim

[d_Guy]

Really not trying to convince, just wanted to point out that not having to measure is likely a faster way to play. Grids and hexes are not everbody's cup of tea.

[Westmarcher]

Looks like chits are the way forward for the smaller scales - although helping to fit in with smaller grids, miniature cards appear to be fiddly to handle (and shuffle?). However, one observation; whilst understanding the benefits of not having to measure, etc., I recently played another rules set which I have played in 28mm scale, 15mm scale (half measurements) and 10mm scale (40% measurements). To replicate this, I would surely need 3 different grid patterns. This would certainly make me think twice. I think if you would like to have the flexibility to play these rules in more than one scale, you will have to design your grid system to suit perhaps two (possibly three max?) scales. That is not to say, of course, that these are not good war-games rules (in fact, they sound quite intriguing). It's just a factor to bear in mind when marking your table cloth.

[paulr]

One option if using two scales would be to mark the squares for the larger scale and mentally divide into quarters for the smaller scale

The test game I saw used terrain made up of one foot square carpet tiles and they mentally converted it in a six inch grid...

Also not trying to convince one way or another

Another option would be to only use the one true scale

[mollinary]

One option if using two scales would be to mark the squares for the larger scale and mentally divide into quarters for the smaller scale :-

The test game I saw used terrain made up of one foot square carpet tiles and they mentally converted it in a six inch grid...

Also not trying to convince one way or another

Another option would be to only use the one true scale

A good discussion   I am also not trying to convince, I play  games both with and without grids, but as co-author I thought I ought to step in to explain how I tackle it.   As d'Guy says, grids are not to everyone's taste, but there are a number of ways of doing them if you want to. The one grid fits two scales is one I have used, with the larger grid having the corners of squares marked, and when used with an imaginary smaller grid just using the eye to judge,.  As it happens, when I did it the figure scale remained the same (10mm of course) but the unit sizes doubled! I know Simon Miller has used this trick the other way round, having a grid marked with 150mm squares but using units that would fit 300mm.  Once the units are placed at the start of a game I found it remarkable how easy it was to adjust.   

My route to TtS and grids started with the board game Commands and Colours Ancients, which was grid based. I loved the game, and wanted the spectacle of turning it into a figure game. This I did using 6mm figures (sorry!), originally on th exams board itself, and then using more figures on  Kallistra hexes, and had a blast. .it reintroduced me to Ancients after a twenty five year gap durng the WRG 7+ Years.  I then saw Simon's TtS games at a number of shows, and finally tried it at one. I had a lot of fun, enough to buy the rules. Tried it at home and at the club using figures from 6-15mm and found it simple and quick to play but subtle and testing to master.  And it remained fun. That was when I had the light bulb moment that perhaps these rules could finally get my 10mm ECW on the table.  I should also point out it is actually unit size, rather than figure or individual base size, which is the key determinant as far as the grid goes. Still, as I said before, not for everyone.

[Leman]

In response to Jim I now have different battle mats with 10cm (4 inch), 15cm(6 inch) and 20cm(8 inch) grids, mainly because I also dislike marking out squares. I have also found the squares also come into their own when laying out terrain for scenarios where the maps often have one foot squares. 6 inch squares are great for this, but what about those scenarios that insist on 8'x6' or 7'x5' tables? this is one instance where the 20cm mat comes in. I find this works particularly well with 10mm and 6mm figures and a purpose made "12 inch" ruler, where each inch is 15mm in length. Works a treat. Currently fighting a very small FPW scenario using one from the Grant and Asquith book, where all the scenarios are 7x5. Consequently I am using my 15cm Square Bashing mat and cm instead of inches with They Died for Glory rules. Also I ignore the TDFG basing system. All my troops are on 25mm squares, and each base has the combat value of the old-style, originally denoted by the number of figures. Think I will probably start a new thread to pursue this idea.

[pierre the shy]

Evening All

A basing question for Mollinary/D Guy:

Paul and I have agreed that FK&P are worth investing in when they come out next month. Looks like we will be using 15cm squares with 12cm wide bases for foot and horse units. We normally use 6x4 or 6x5 tables and looks like we will try chits rather than cards.  

I've been trying pull together a list of what PM (and other manufacturers   ) figures I might use for a Scots W3K (Montrose and Covenant) force. Meanwhile. in between painting AWI stuff and mowing his lawn, Paul is looking at getting a south of the border force (Parliament/Royalist/New Model) so a refight of Dunbar 1650 might be on the cards at some stage (hopefully with a better result to the Scots   ).

We have both come up with lists totalling around 1200 figures   each using the following numbers per 12cm base based on earlier lists we were looking at originally for Baroque:

Pike and Musket unit 40 figures total, 24 Shot 16 Pike/command figures
Irregulars (Highland Clan) base 30 figures total
Dismounted Dragoons 20 figures total, 16 shot, 4 horse holders
Regular Cavalry 12 - 15 figures total
Artillery 1 Gun/3 - 4 crew per base

My question is would F&KP units use around the same number of figures per 12cm base or do we need to cut down our numbers a bit?

Thanks in advance for any guidance on this question.

If you are in UK/Europe stay safe and look out for the Beast from the East...looks very cold over there from what I saw on the TV news just before.

Cheers
Peter



   

[Bunny]

Although I am no mathematical expert it should be remembered that a D10 will give random numbers each turn, whereas with a pool of chits or cards the chances of a particular number coming up diminishes as it is taken from the pool and placed, ie once a 2 has been placed there are only 7 more 2s in the pool, but 8 of each of the other numbers. This gives rise to considerations about whether to chance taking another chit or not, whereas with a dice roll the chance of getting the same number is the same with each roll.

Now that is a very good point...so ideally you need 4 sets of chits numbered 1 to 10?