Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Colonial Adventures => Topic started by: Gibby on September 05, 2019, 07:13:34 PM
-
Today I've been chatting to a mate of mine about TMWWBK. We've played it a fair number of times over the last few years, although not very recently for reasons that will become apparent. It's something we occasionally bring up in our random chats about wargames but I thought I'd pick the brains of fellow LAFers.
For full disclosure, we've used it to play games set in the Zulu War and also the 1st Boer War, which perhaps has had more of an influence on our experiences.
We've found that, in our games, consistently the rules just don't seem to work. I mean no offence by that, because we're convinced we must be missing something or doing something wrong given the huge amount of praise this gets. I am also a fan of Dan Mersey's other games, so am on board with his rules philosophy. We cannot believe TMWWBK would be so highly regarded if the games went like most (all) of ours have.
You see, even allowing for any ruleset being able to result in those skewed games where the dice just don't go your way, we've found that every game results in a massacre for one side simply because of the Pinning mechanic. If a unit gets Pinned, when its turn comes about it must roll to Rally. If it fails it stays pinned (and if I recall gains more pins?) but if it succeeds it loses its Pinned status but is then unable to act that turn.
What then seems to happen almost EVERY time is that the opponent's turn will come around and usually end up Pinning that unit(s) again. Of course, this could be unlucky dice rolls on the part of the player whose unit keeps getting Pinned because it's not guaranteed to happen, but it seems to happen every time we've played. The first player to Pin the most enemy units will then spend the game just mopping up the enemy force without that player being able to react, even if they manage to Rally their units because doing so means they still get to do nothing. It's also the same experience my mate has had playing with others.
What are we missing? This game is so highly regarded and praised, and frequently recommended when people seek out Colonial skirmish rules. We did hear from one club putting on a game that the points values in the book are a bit off, particularly for the Boers (who usually end up with 2-3 units compared with the British's 4-5 which is pretty much guaranteed Pinned-into-inaction all game for the Boers).
We've tried games with a fair amount of cover, but I confess that particularly in the Zulu war games, we have had mostly undulating fields with various patches of long grass as opposed to large LoS-blocking elements like buildings and such.
Fans of TMWWBK, in what way are we being idiots? We're pretty skilled at it so completely open to having our idiocy pointed out to us. Also open to the possibility that it's all just bad dice rolls, which may coincide with the possibility that this game just isn't for us. We just really want to love it like most others do!
-
I don’t know if you are doing anything wrong or not. All I can say is that we haven’t seen this. Native forces tend to have enough extra units that they have a good chance of engaging the Europeans.
We haven’t tried any battles were both sides have good firepower - eg Boer War.
-
Not having played the game, I can't shed any light on the phenomenon you describe, though it sounds most frustrating. I suggest the best thing to do would be to go direct to the source:
http://merseybooks.blogspot.com
There's a forum with a dedicated page for each of Mr Mersey's games, and if you can't find an answer from one of the members, I'm sure the author himself will come to your assistance.
-
Thanks guys. Andrew, I agree to a point, and will pursue that if this thread yields no advice from fellow LAFers, but I know that there are many fans of TMWWBK here, and what is a forum if not a friendly community where we can discuss things such as this, and plunder for hints and tips and such? :)
-
Indeed. I certainly did not intend to denigrate the knowledge or helpfulness of members of this august forum, but merely wondered if you were aware of the rules author's own site, which might be expected to facilitate the most authoritative response, in the event that others were either lacking or contradictory. (I used to frequent it but have not done so in some time, and had to check that it was still in being, which I am pleased to see it is).
-
I didn't take your post in that way, don't worry. I appreciate your recommendation. I had actually forgot there was a forum specifically for Dan Mersey's line of games.
-
We tried the rules a couple of times and got the same result.
Plus, one side managed to run everywhere, which comes with no penalty except not being able to shoot that go. Also there was an issue with units being able to shoot 360 degrees.
All told, we couldn't see what all the fuss was with these rules and consigned them to the book shelf quite quickly...
-
The rules have worked out for me so far after a handful of games, but I'm doing the Sudan (Egyptians vs Mahdists). There have been situations where units kept getting pinned and then blasted apart (mainly Tribal Infantry), but I've put that down to various things: not sending in enough units at the same time, picking the wrong approach routes, advancing when I should lurk or waiting for the ansar riflemen/cannon to weaken the Egyptian line instead of yelling "Death or Glory!" Table size also plays into it, as TMWWBK doesn't have a suggested table size (whereas Rebels and Patriots scenarios are all set up for a 4' x 4' board). An extra 2' of space (I have a 6x4) makes a difference - while modern rifles still only have a range of 24", crossing the extra distance if playing lengthwise gives extra time for troops to form close order, move into good positions, etc. and while tribal infantry can move as a free action, the same isn't true for irregulars, crewed weapons or units trying to move At The Double (I use the author's suggestion "Quick fix here is that no unit may use this action on two consecutive turns, except for Tribal Infantry, or Cavalry using it to Attack.").
If it doesn't seem like it's tactics, scenarios, etc that are spoiling things, but just the pinning/rally rules, I'd suggest tinkering with them. One option would be to allow a unit to rally and then test (possibly at the same minus it had for the rally) to perform either a limited list of actions (such as move but not attack or to go to ground if that's something the unit is allowed) or just to act as normal. Or give each player a limited number of chips/cards to represent luck/motivation/morale/whatever - rally a unit, give up one token and the unit may act as normal (take free action or test for other actions).
But, otherwise - there are a number of rules sets I've seen over the years that other people enjoyed, and that I could never get into for whatever reason. Those get shelved - but I make a note of scenarios or anything of interest that can be stolen for use in other games :D
I think I'd seen comments somewhere about alternate ways of doing Boers - probably on the Dux Rampant forum - but can't recall any details.
-
We had the same experience with Zulu War games. The Zulus all get pinned and then have a miserable game trying to unpin.
I have to say, having tried Lion Rampant, Pikeman's Lament and TMWWBK, that the mechanisms in these rules don't really work for us.
We've had several games of Lion Rampant where one side failed *every single* activation roll and never got to do anything at all, while their opponents passed everything.
A bit of chaos is fine, but we've had too many one sided games with these rules.
-
I should also say we've tried a lot of rules for Zulu wars, including some home brew ones, Principles of War, Command & Colors, TMWWBK, Horns of the Bull, Battle for Empire, Victorian Steel and Death in the Dark Continent. Of those, DitDC worked best for us. Victorian Steel has some nice ideas but is rather vaguely written; more like a club set which works well if the authors are there. Horns of the Bull is fun but feels like the players have few decisions. Battles for Empire is a good set but you need a lot of figures; really designed for 15mm of smaller, I fell.
-
You're absolutely right. The side with the most units usually succeeds in pinning down and mopping up the other side.
Actually there's a very simple solution to this.
When fighting 'natives' - who usually outnumber 'European' regulars by quite a few units leave everything as it is.
However if both armies are somewhat evenly matched - especially in firepower- change the pinning or rather the Rally rule as follow.
Pinned units must rally but if they succeed they can activate as normal except that they have a -1 to their firepower a -1 inch movement and obviously no 'at the double'.
If they don't succeed in the Rally test they get another pin marker.
This works well for Indian Mutiny and could probably do well for Boer Wars as well
-
The group with whom I play is currently debating the merits of TMWWBK. There are certain aspects of the game engine we like but some of us aren’t entirely happy with the pinning mechanic. We’ve adjusted leadership levels and discipline but we’re still not convinced. There also seems to be some fundamental disagreement on the use of certain free actions and then activation rolls for other things. There have been too many games in which multiple players fail turn-after-turn to pass activation tests. Although it can be explained away by many things like fog-of-war it can make for a dreary game experience.
-
The group with whom I play is currently debating the merits of TMWWBK. There are certain aspects of the game engine we like but some of us aren’t entirely happy with the pinning mechanic. We’ve adjusted leadership levels and discipline but we’re still not convinced. There also seems to be some fundamental disagreement on the use of certain free actions and then activation rolls for other things. There have been too many games in which multiple players fail turn-after-turn to pass activation tests. Although it can be explained away by many things like fog-of-war it can make for a dreary game experience.
I was a play tester on these rules so may be able to help out ref free actions: Each unit may take one action per turn. This is EITHER their free action (which they do not need to test for so they can always do it) OR one of the the other actions for which they must pass an activation test, e.g. my British regular infantry have 'fire' as a free action. Thus, in my turn, if I want them to fire, they just do so automatically with no test for it. If, however, I want them to move instead, I have to test for that, because it isn't their free action. That's it. It really is as simple as that. The key is to remember that each unit may only do ONE thing per game turn. Where people get confused is that they think of 'free action' as something units can do as well as something else, which is where they go wrong. Just remember, each unit may do only one thing per turn and you'll be fine. :D
Ref the main issue on this thread - pinning: I mainly play 50-60pts per side multi-player games mainly set on the NW Frontier and have never had an issue with it. We get approx 50-50 wins for both sides in our scenarios. The Pathans obviously have more men and more units (a mix of tribal and irregulars), but this is neither a good nor bad thing. We've had no issues in our Sudan games either. We haven't played a game with purely tribal vs purely regular though, which I suspect is what the Zulu War games comprise. We've also not altered any pinning or discipline or leadership rules. What we have done is tweak unit abilities to make them more NW Frontier specific, e.g. Pathan irregular infantry (their riflemen) get to move over rough terrain with no penalty; most of these rifle units are 'poor shots' to represent low rate of fire, but are 'snipers' so kill British leaders on any double, not just double 1, etc...
In our games, the British try to pin the natives to reduce their ability to function, but there are more native units so the Brits have to choose targets carefully. The natives obviously try to negate British firepower by pinning them, but as our games are set in the 1890s, we give at least half the natives inferior weaponry to the Brits, so they have to get well into British rifle range to do so. We also find that the scenario is king - design scenarios where each force has a key task to do - e.g. we usually make the objective for the British troops one that has to get them moving so they cannot just sit still and shoot.
I may be biased being a play tester, but this is one of my favourite sets of rules. I've literally never had a bad game with them - not even in play testing stages... However, I do prefer more 'cinematic' games, rather than those that try to be more of a 'simulation', so that might be why I like them so much at the expense of more 'realistic' rule sets.
-
You're absolutely right. The side with the most units usually succeeds in pinning down and mopping up the other side.
Actually there's a very simple solution to this.
When fighting 'natives' - who usually outnumber 'European' regulars by quite a few units leave everything as it is.
However if both armies are somewhat evenly matched - especially in firepower- change the pinning or rather the Rally rule as follow.
Pinned units must rally but if they succeed they can activate as normal except that they have a -1 to their firepower a -1 inch movement and obviously no 'at the double'.
If they don't succeed in the Rally test they get another pin marker.
This works well for Indian Mutiny and could probably do well for Boer Wars as well
That is pretty close to what our group started doing - we had it as -1 firepower and no movement, but pretty similar.
-
I was a play tester on these rules so may be able to help out ref free actions: Each unit may take one action per turn. This is EITHER their free action (which they do not need to test for so they can always do it) OR one of the the other actions for which they must pass an activation test, e.g. my British regular infantry have 'fire' as a free action. Thus, in my turn, if I want them to fire, they just do so automatically with no test for it. If, however, I want them to move instead, I have to test for that, because it isn't their free action. That's it. It really is as simple as that.
This is how we play it. Sorry if my previous post wasn’t clear. We’ve had situations in which players repeatedly fail to activate their units to perform actions that aren’t free and after a few games of this they’re ready to go back to playing rules in which they have a little more control over what their units do. It comes down to how much control a player likes to have. Some folks in our group really enjoy not knowing from turn to turn what they can cajole their troops to do. It drives others batty. :)
-
This is how we play it. Sorry if my previous post wasn’t clear. We’ve had situations in which players repeatedly fail to activate their units to perform actions that aren’t free and after a few games of this they’re ready to go back to playing rules in which they have a little more control over what their units do. It comes down to how much control a player likes to have. Some folks in our group really enjoy not knowing from turn to turn what they can cajole their troops to do. It drives others batty. :)
This can be a problem (at least for some players) with lots of games with activation rolls (Warmaster, Black Powder, etc, etc). With most of these games its important that a player has enough commands / activations that if 1 or 2 fail on a turn they still have units to activate. Most activations in TMWWBKs are fairly likely, and along with the Free actions, you do get most stuff to do something most turns. But the dice can be against you! But if you only have a couple of units to command you can easily find them doing nothing much a turn.
At least in TMWWBK an order failure doesn't end the turn, like in some of the Rampant series rules - this really annoyed me, and felt too random.
We also found that the officer traits and the scenarios generally made a big difference to the fun of the game.
-
In smaller games I would expect my guys to do what I want them to do - the ease of personal command and all that. In bigger games I would accept more uncertainty and the annoyance of the odd unit going off script, but games where an excess of randomised orders means you can literally spend the afternoon sitting back and watching someone else play the game against your numb-nut dummies because of poor luck on the dice … that would put me off that game I a big way. If it's not fun, it's not fun.
-
I've no qualms particularly with a lack of control of units, but the way it's done is important I suppose and really down to preference. I'm a huge fan of the Too Fat Lardies rules, in which friction is a very vital component. I think based on the replies in this thread we can consign TMWWBK into the "not really for us" folder and move on to something different. Thanks for the replies, all!
-
It comes down to how much control a player likes to have. Some folks in our group really enjoy not knowing from turn to turn what they can cajole their troops to do. It drives others batty. :)
This.
Yes, it is a matter of preference, but it also demands something else form the player: reacting and making the best of a bad situation. And you still have the option to use the 'free' action.