What ruleset do you use in your last game?

[toxicpixie]

Dour Puritan, that campaign idea looks good - is it in Maurice or is it of your own devising?

[Leman]

The actual campaign is in Maurice, but does require the purchase of the box of cards. However, adapting the campaign for two players is a house rule based on my opponents simple campaign, Hegemony.

[cameronian]

Why not try designing your own cards on the ARTSCOW site; the interface takes a bit of practice but the finished product is excellent, relatively inexpensive and you have the satisfaction of having your own set. I hope the links works.

http://www.artscow.com/gallery/playing-cards/austrian1866fob-u7as57cqj7e6

http://www.artscow.com/gallery/playing-cards/prussian-1866-1870-fob-w6znj4jr8ceb

http://www.artscow.com/gallery/playing-cards/french-1870-fob-g1fgjpx03444

[Nosher]

That's the question.

1) What ruleset do you use in your last game?
2) What armies were confronted?
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset?
4) and... was the first time do you use the ruleset?

1. 800+ point game of solo FoG Napoleonics today
2. 1812 French v Russians - french 'attacking'
3. Hadn't played for over a year so was a bit vague with the rules, but they gave a good game
4. Not the first but third maybe fourth time

[toxicpixie]

Cheers Dour P and Cameronian. I might have a look at them! Nearly
Bought a copy of Maurice when North Star had it cheap but went with a few
Mods to Pike & Shot/Black Powder instead!

[Ace of Spades]

1) Black Powder
2) 28mm ACW
3) Hmmmm... easy to learn but over-simplified/unrealistic to my taste...
4) First time, might be playing them more often because other players like them so much but it will never be a favourite of mine.

Cheers,
Rob

[Leman]

Pike and Shotte does allow for a lot more tweaking, but I have found with Black Powder that an additional sheet of reminders is necessary owing to the sheer size of the rulebook and the very wordy prose which is used.

[Leman]

The e-zine, ACW Gamer, carries a very large article in its latest issue on BP rules adaptations for the ACW.

[toxicpixie]

Yeah, both sets are tool boxes to be tweaked as desired. Our LoA have a subtly different flavour to WSS and are very different to 30YW which differ from Italian Wars (although that ilisually Impetus). We didn't like BP for Nappies or ACW and went back to Shako & F&F in turn for gaming those though!

[Ace of Spades]

I know that BP is a toolbox but some of the basic elements are so strange to me that tweaking everything I don't like would simply produce a whole new set of rules. Since there already are enough rules that I find satisfying I see no use in doing so. For ACW I'll stick to the old and trusted Fire & Fury system!
(To give you an example of these ,to me, weird rules: losing no stands or even effectiveness of a unit untill that unit is completely detroyed... and the reason they give in the book is: you spent so much time painting these figures it would be a pity if you had to remove them. I mean, come on...serious?!?  )

Cheers,
Rob

[toxicpixie]

We're pretty much convinced by no figure removal systems these days - feels much better, te unit keeps fighting till it breaks, or is forced to retire and recover. Encourages you to pay attention and try to rotate units out and bein in the reserves! It was more the speed and ease I manoeuvre in BP we found jarring.

That said Fire & Fury is our default ACW set

[Ace of Spades]

That's why I prefer the Fire and Fury system; a unit loses stands and at a certain point it start to be less effective also; that's the way it should be in my opinion. Certainly a unit will keep on fighting till it breaks but the more men you lose the less muskets you'll be able to bring to bear, not to mention the mounting fatigue that combat brings and the way in which it affects your effectiveness. I think the overall effects on units are therefore much better represented in the F&F system as in BP. But then again; it's all about preferences. I can see the appeal of BP to a lot of gamers; it just doesn't appeal to me...

Cheers,
Rob

[Leman]

My ACW default for my 15mm armies is RF&F, but my default for Italian Wars is Impetus , where a unit (other than pike) is a single base. The base gradually loses cohesion until it disappears from the table. Two quite different systems which give very satisfying results.

[toxicpixie]

When you start to rack up the disorders and casualties in P&S you start to get very wary about committing to action - we've foun it replicates that very well. And as things get painful, they start to get more and more painful and... It replicates the loss of effectiveness due to casualties very well (we've found). You can keep fighting but to get stretched an stretched and stretched until you break.

That said we play F&F in preference to BP for ACW as it doesn't feel right  

Edit: we usually play Impetus for Italian Wars as well - really rate them as rules!

[Leman]

Well I don't know what's going on but I've just won my second game of the week. This time I was a Saxon warlord, attempting to put down roots in a new land, when a bunch of dastardly Britons turned up to try and push me and my kin out. Their warlord, Arthur Ucipius, objects to us having been invited over to do all the hard graft here and then, when I try and become part of the community with my kith and kin wants to kick us all out. Enough to say, he was given short shrift.

So, it was Dux Bellorum, an excellent development of Glutter of Ravens, in which an early Romano-British army, complete with noble cavalry, fought an early Saxon warrior army, with three noble warbands. Although the Saxons were surrounded on all sides they fought like demons (and used an awful lot of leadership points in defence) to whittle the Britons down until they cleared off. Dux Bellorum produce a very enjoyable and quite tense game, which is also a doddle to learn. Recommended. sorry folks but I must remember to take my camera down the club.