What was the last ruleset you played 2017?

[d_Guy]

A good looking game in a lovely period. Thanks for posting the pics.

Incidently, as sometimes (often?)  happens, I miss threads on the forum. I had been quite taken with your 2mm efforts and completely missed the post where you had them set up to do Breitenfeld. Absolutely like the look of them, so much so here is a link (I found on forum search) to those pictures in case others missed them:

http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,15115.msg222964.html#msg222964

[Hwiccee]

A good looking game in a lovely period. Thanks for posting the pics.

Incidently, as sometimes (often?)  happens, I miss threads on the forum. I had been quite taken with your 2mm efforts and completely missed the post where you had them set up to do Breitenfeld. Absolutely like the look of them, so much so here is a link (I found on forum search) to those pictures in case others missed them:

http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,15115.msg222964.html#msg222964

Thanks for both mentions. As you might have seen the plan is to work on a TYW/ECW version of the Twilight rules after the 2nd scenario booklet is done. Just finishing that off now so hopefully more TYW/ECW action soon.

[paulr]

1) What ruleset do you use in your last game? - Baroque
2) What armies were confronted? - Covenant vs Montrose
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - towards the end of the game, yes.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - Yes
5) How many players were in the game? - two

After many years of largely passive interest in the Scots part of the larger Civil War I finally took the plunge last Christmas and, inspired by DGuy's blog, invested in a set of Baroque rules. Today I was finally able to play my first test game, a refight of the Battle of Inverlochy, on Paul R's kitchen table. I played the Covenant side while Paul ran Montrose's forces.

While the historic outcome was not seriously challenged (Montrose eventually sweeping the Covenant forces from the field), the clan Maclean did manage to see off MacColla's bodyguard before themselves being dispersed by a adverse cohesion test and the Campbell levies from Innerea broke the somewhat rash charge of Sir Thomas Ogilvie's troop of horse (the only cavalry in the scenario) as they tried to outflank the Covenant right flank.
   
Overall a very enjoyable afternoon's gaming. We both learnt a lot and were impressed enough with the rules to agree to a further game using them sometime in the near future set South of the border......hopefully Sir Arthur Hasilrigg's Regiment of Horse will show up for that one  

An interesting and enjoyable game

I am curious how experienced Baroque players feel about the Cohesion test, it appears that a single bad roll can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. MacColla's bodyguard scored 4 hits to 2 but failed the cohesion test badly...

[toxicpixie]

Dashed themselves to pieces, exhausted, and were easy prey to a controlled and measured envelopment! I think there's a bit in the writers notes for Impetus that explicitly mentions this as being a conceptual issue for some players, so you're not alone. It it's not something we've ever seen as a "problem". It's just a feature of how the rules work - the cohesion test is the important bit not the amount of shouting over a few minutes - do you keep your nerve and just face them down or do you crumble and run.

Some good games there - Twilight and Baroque both

[d_Guy]

@ Pierre - thanks for the blog mention  . Glad you came out to "the Fringe" and hopefully you'll keep experimenting with Baroque.
Incidently if Clan Maclean took out MacColla it means they quite perfidiously went over to the Campbells!    

An interesting and enjoyable game

I am curious how experienced Baroque players feel about the Cohesion test, it appears that a single bad roll can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. MacColla's bodyguard scored 4 hits to 2 but failed the cohesion test badly... :-

Pixie gave the essential answer, I think. The CT is one of several play mechanisms I like in Baroque. Conceptually it is like some naval Wargames where you can have great gunnery, score many hits, only to have them bounce of the armor belt or take out non-essential things.
Somewhere I think the rules say that it is useful to think of "hits" as just one of possibly several modifiers to the CT.

I think what makes play interesting is you are at first trying to disorganize opposing units (and keep them disorganized). Even if you score no permanent damage a hit does disorganize the target and if you disorganize an already disorganized unit you do score a permanat damage - even if that unit passed the CT. The more units you disorganize the less your opponent can do and the easier it becomes to impose your will.

So the short  answer is - I like the CT.

[paulr]

Thanks for the responses toxicpixie and d_Guy, I suspect this is one of the features that will take some "selling" to our group

[Westmarcher]

.. the cohesion test is the important bit not the amount of shouting over a few minutes - do you keep your nerve and just face them down or do you crumble and run.

Interesting feature about the rules there, Nathan. Do your games have many hoarse units in them? 

[toxicpixie]

Sometimes

Usually if the noisy table behind us is too noisy, then the CinC and commanders go hoarse

But in that case, "shouting" used as a placeholder for "that turns allotted time's worth of push and shove in the mud, with every one shouting a lot and stabbing a bit and grinding back and forth until you reach a point where one side or both or neither actually break or start to break"

The cohesion test over time will generally reflect the average results on number of hits caused in melee/shooting, but there's always a possibility of a bad roll or especially good roll coming up. Much like real life, some cling on despite the odds, others fold when they should call. Whether it be rolling masses of hits and then wounds but your opponent then saves them all in a Warhammer-esq game, or racking up the firepower to a stupidly high column in F&F then throwing snake eyes, there's a space for chance and hope. Otherwise we'd just be playing chess

[pierre the shy]

Opps......better make that Campbell of Lochnell fighting MacColla, not the Macleans I was cut and pasting Covenant and Royalist army lists and forgot to change Clan Maclean to Campbell of Lochnell    

Anyway thanks for the encouragement d_Guy and Pixie and the explanation of temporary v permanent hits etc  .

While I am here can I ask one further question as I think I got a bit confused about massed units....am I correct in thinking that a individual infantry stand (such as Highland Warband) can count as Massed (so moves as a slow unit but can have a Melee Modifier of between 1 and 3 depending on the army list?). Massed cavalry, such as Massed Reiters, on the other hand, need to have front and rear rank stands to count as Massed?

Cheers
Peter

[toxicpixie]

I'd though "Massed" just meant "Massed" - it's a single, over sized base representing a lot more blokes shoved in together whether infantry or cavalry?

I'd have to actually check, it's ages now since I played Baroque (I'd rectify that if I had time and opportunity, but I also just got a copy of L'Art de la Guerre for my birthday, and have been trying to play Twilight of the Sun King and BBB, so... ), but you could check the Impetus forums to be sure...

[d_Guy]

Again, Pixie precedes me. 

There is some discussions about Massed units at the Impetus forum - http://impetus.ativiforum.com/f9-baroque-the-rules
That forum is an excellent resource for rules interpretation (lots of very experienced players plus the designer). Zippee, who often posts here at a Pendraken, is very knowledgeable and good at logically answering questions.

My take is that a Massed unit should be represented by having (at least) a second rank with more depth to the stand. Also, because I use it to represent various levies, mobs, etc - the Melee bonus is set to (MM+1) not (MM+2 or +3). Too much I think! The original Impetus rules allowed you to create "Large" units by placing one behind the other so I think the doubled depth for Massed is the intent in Baroque.

The nature of the battles I do does not afford much opportunity to use large number of horse so no experience with I Massed horse.

Incidently, I've pretty much eliminated most of my house rules (as of last week) in favor of Baroque as written. Since I always play by scenario, I've found that with all the adjustments that can be made to values and characteristics, I can make the unique units I need.

Good luck with your upcoming game with more conventional armies!

[toxicpixie]

I much prefer the Massed rule in baroque to Large in Impetus - I was quite disappointed they kept Large in Basic Impetus 2

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

1) What ruleset do you use in your last game? - Warband
2) What armies were confronted? - High Elves vs Goblins
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - very
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - nope
5) How many players were in the game? - two

http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,15867.0.html

[Steve J]

1) What ruleset do you use in your last game? - The Pikemen's Lament
2) What armies were confronted? - Dutch vs Swedes in North America c1650
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - A bit rusty as it's been a while since I played.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - 2-3 as it was a demo game at Salute.

[sunjester]

1) What ruleset do you use in your last game? - The Men Who Would Be Kings
2) What armies were confronted? - 1920s Canadians and Americans
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Very.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - Not for me, but it was an introduction game for my opponent. It went well, we had 2 games and he had picked up the basics by about turn 3.
5) How many players were in the game? - 2

[Steve J]

1) What ruleset do you use in your last game? - BKCII
2) What armies were confronted? - Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russian vs 2nd Line Russians
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Very
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo

A while since I played these rules, but they felt really good and nice to be playing them again. The plan is to repeat the scenario, but with BKCIII rules, but probably using the BKCII stats given the current issues with the army lists.

[Leman]

1. Field of Glory 2.

2. USA v CSA

3. Very comfortable with these rules these days

4. No - been using these since published

5. Two player game.

To achieve victory one side had to control both the Union crossroads and the Confederate ridge. Knowing how the game works now, we breezed through the cards and the scenario. As the Union I was totally stymied by the fact that my artillery could not unlimber and give the Confederate some welly, but instead got pounded while in column (narrative... the newly appointed battery commander was still wet behind the ears and panicked under fire). Similarly the Union cavalry rode too close to the Confederates before dismounting - in fact they never got the chance, being shot up by Confederate troops concealed in the very woods the cavalry were supposed to occupy on foot.
Never mind though because this gave us a chance to swap sides and give it another go. As the Confederate I adopted a different plan, got a superb run of cards and was able to whittle the Union down to zero morale points. Unfortunately time was now moving on and the Union passed the army morale roll, so we called it a day.

[Ithoriel]

1) What ruleset do you use in your last game? - BKCIII
2) What armies were confronted? - KursK Era Germans vs Russians
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - No
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - BKCIII yes, BKC no.
5) How many players were in the game? - Two

Game abandoned part way through turn 4. BKC2 game arranged for next weekend.

'nuff said.
[/quote]

[Leman]

Re 2nd one above - it was Field of Battle 2!

[Steve J]

1) What ruleset do you use in your last game? - BKCIII (3)
2) What armies were confronted? - Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russian vs 2nd Line Russians
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Not bad for a first game
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - Yes
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo

Quite a quick game but one that flowed nicely and didn't cause me any real concerns in terms of the rules. Any grey areas I just used common sense combined with my experience of BKCII. When BKCII came out I remember Pete Jones had to clarify quite a few things early on, so I expect the same with this version. There are some nice ideas within these rules, which I'm very happy with. But as with BKCII, I'm sure I will tweak things to how I and my friends play. So for a first game I'm pretty impressed.

Yes there are areas that need addressing, such as parts of the Army Lists, but at the core I feel that these are a sound set of rules. Not everyone will like them, but when did all wragmers agree on a set of rules!