Gaming at Pendraken Miniatures - 20/04/2024

[Roy]

Yes; I would be interested in your views on the rules.  Everyone I know (about five individuals, including an ACW specialist) have said that the rules are unplayable as written and need major adjustments to make them usable.  Units are said to boomerang backwards & forwards and inflicting casualties is very difficult.  Everyone agrees it is an interesting and nice system!  So, how was it for you?

I don't see any issue with the rules, as written. But, I've not played any other rules specifically written for ACW. Also, I'm not a fan of regimental command level rules, or those that go into the basics of manoeuvres or firing drills, so apart from a couple of games of Black Powder 1st edition (which is a love-it-or-loathe-it set of rules) I've not played many sets of historical rules for land warfare aimed at the lower-level command structure.

I know in this game [Chancellorsville] one of the 'Confederate' players expressed their opinion that the rules were broken or not correct (I can't remember what was said, now). But I don't know why they think that, or what their suggestions were/are for fixing what they see as an issue. But another of the Confederate players found no problem with the rules and was enjoying himself. Possibly it all comes down to if you like these rules, or the type of game (Corps level relatively quick-play) as to whether you have a positive or negative opinion on them. I really don't know what else to say, as I'm not the best reviewer or person to offer feedback.

Each turn represents an hour of the battle, and brigades can move forward towards the enemy line only to be forced to recoil backwards due to enemy fire pushing them back, then, at the end of the turn, a corps commander or the army commander could do some micromanaging to move the unit back towards the enemy. I guess this could be seen as boomeranging.

Brigade bases represent anywhere from 800 to 1,500 men (depending on the scenario) 12 to 20+ artillery guns in multiple batteries (depending on the scenario) and the command level that the rules are designed for, they don't concern themselves with regimental manoeuvres or detailed instances of combat or losses of men or guns, as the focus is on 'high-command' of the army as a whole and whether brigades are combat-functionable or not. Losses are measured in levels of Fatigue; gain x5 Fatigue and the brigade becomes 'Broken' due to the various reasons why such a large body of formed troops could in a pitched battle; there's also the possibility that a brigade could suddenly become 'Broken' due to over-whelming enemy pressure during a combat or an instance of shooting; But, the player has to work to break an enemy unit by shooting or combat, be it through good generalship or good luck or a combination of the two. It isn't as quick and easy to destroy an enemy as in other rules, I'll agree with, but it is possible.

The two games that I've played in, there's been no instances where the game has stopped due to a circumstance arising that the rules don't cover. There will be instances in future games, no doubt, and the rules book does offer suggestions for what to do should such occur, and there is an update with errata for the rules/scenarios on the official website that gamers have encountered and contacted the rule's creator to inform them on.

I like the rules. I don't like other sets of rules, which I know lots of people really like. Probably its a case of being like Marmite - you either love it or you can't bear it.

[fred.]

 We played a couple of games of AoF a few years ago (pre-covid, so a fair few years ago!) They are definitely a high level ruleset and that does drive the style of game play. 

I recall that the defending confederate player got the hang of the game clock and focused his effort on that - the union player was short of command quality so rather ignored the game clock. In retrospect this is a very abstract method of game play - but it also feels quite appropriate for the scale of game. 

We didn't go back to them - but probably because the ACW players wanted something lower level, but still able to get piles of figures on the table (good luck!). I don't think we've played ACW since. 

AoF was a much better game than BP for ACW - with BP one side ran up to the other, both sides exchanged fire for hours (of playing time) not much happened. 

[Deedles]

The comment around rules being broken was around being able to kill brigades quick enough for the scenario objectives . My take was that it was poor choice of how to attack, ie artillery not at canister or better plus enfilade which is +6 on d6 - makes it a 50% chance of total kill . Not getting on the flank of units , or into their retreat arc . Lots of individual infantry combats too and fro builds up the fatigue levels and unless you plan to retreat these away from the enemy 10" plus they will break over a few turns  .  The ability to Rally broken units back at the Corp HQ I.e roll a 6 on d6 , with general modifiers of +1 for Corp , +1 for army (so 50/50) makes it feel hard work to kill stuff sometimes - but if you have set up the defence properly that's the reward .

However as with any rule set more familiarity /experience helps . Being probably the most experienced AOf player in our group - I'm pretty confident of being able to use the command game element to cause my opponent problems . I.e turn clock control , end phase movements etc .


It's a different level of game with the command part being the real part of it. If you want to put things in line / pull triggers / charge etc - it's not the rule set to play .

I have played various ACW regimental set that seem to never get to a result . AOF has let us play large battles to a played out result  each time ( a few time last roll of the last turn ) - though TBF if  I was Rebs at Chancellorsville  I wouldn't have thrown in the towel so early - being on the opposite side it was just starting to get challenging - but thems the breaks and the physiological game is part 9f the fun!