// Thoughts on the rules //
Before I plunge into the next battle, a fe thoughts and comments about the "on the fly" evolution of Bloodybacks! during the campaign so far.
As always, I'll emphasise that in their current form these are more of a framework for how I play my own games than any sort of finished set of tabletop rules. I'm happyo to tweak them in my own head to fit the situations I find on the table.
In the initiative command section I retain the same process for determining in each turn, when each commander will activate: a dAv roll compared to their initiative value. What I have done is reduced the number of command points this gives them for directly influencing the units under their command. The first stage gives you their Activation Level (ranging from 1/Ace to 5), with command points now being HALF of this, rounding up fractions (range 1-3, with 3 being rare) as the infuence of command points was becoming a bit too strong unless severely restricting the number of commanders in these fairly small games.
With command points in shorter supply I can simplify the command point tariff for using them. Nothing's hard and fast yet, but most things will just cost one point.
I've also been stricter and imposing a 24" command radius when isuing commands. Longer distances attract a penalty when trying to activate units. In games representing smaller numbers of men (like the clash at Essigford) this might be increased to help the "large skirmish" feel and this will probably apply to many of my AWI games.
Next is thinking about the difference between commanders attached to a unit and those keeping a wider eye/grip on events. Each should have its pros and cons, but I really want to keep things simple; not least because I'll forget or resent anything complicated in the heat of action. So, a commander attached to a unit can move with the unit (so doesn't need to spend command points to move) and will also give a +1 bonus to morale checks for the unit they are attached to BUT their command radius is halved. Simple and effective.
Movement is mostly as-is, but I have amended mandhandling artillery guns (light and field) to 1dAv per move order, without a "once per turn" cap. I do really still like the randomised cavalry move distances and it makes them suitably unpredictable. For now I'm keeping fixed move distances for infantry as it is less die rolling and in this period it feels appropriate.
Shooting: no changes
Melee: Perhaps the biggest tweaks. The general process is still the same: one hand of dice to determine impetus, which then modifies the second hand of dice that resolves the outcome. I have moved the realtive size modifier to the impetus roll and added a negative modifier for the disruption points on the attacking unit. As before these modifiers affect the number of dice rolled, rather than the target number to avoid negatives. Attackers may always roll a minimum of one die.
I had looked for some cavalry tweaks but realised they are already in the rules and I'm just forgetting them; so cold steel and battle cavalry cover this aspect. What I have done is remove these from units once they have acquired 6 or more stamina losses - they can still fight, still have the same quality, but just lose these bonuses once they've been beaten up a bit. It's another way to reward the value of fresh reserves.
Once impetus is determined I now compare this to the quality of the target unit. If impetus is higher then the target must take a morale test to see if it stands (i.e. if charging a quality 3 line unit, then an impetus of 4+ forces a test).
I have trialled a morale test for successful units in melee if the losing side pass their morale test. I'm 50/50 on keeping this, or reverting to the withdraw 3" approach. Possibly I'll keep the test for cavalry and the 3" for infantry, or keep the morale test but limit the negative outcomes. Having successful chargers rout doesn't seem quite right. One to pursue more testing with I think.
Otherwise I think the whole thing continues to work well and supports an "old school" narrative approach to games, even if the mechanisms themselves have little to do with the old-school approach.
OK, we ride to battle...
Comments
Post a Comment