Lead Adventure Forum

Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Captain Blood on September 27, 2020, 01:32:00 PM

Title: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Captain Blood on September 27, 2020, 01:32:00 PM: Having tried out an inaugural game of 'NMTBH' at Eric the Shed’s on Tuesday, I decided to play a solo game yesterday, just to see if I’d understood / remembered everything. (I hadn’t!)

The rules are blissfully short and the core mechanics (moving, shooting, melee, morale check) feel very familiar from various other rule sets, and pleasingly simple.
But considering they’re only a few pages long, the rules also contain a fair few tricky and nuanced points which can be difficult (for me anyway) to grasp. Like the relationship between how many orders a leader has, what he can do with them, and how those translate into actions for himself and / or the units in his ward - particularly where a unit may be composed of more than one unit, which in turn can do different things!

There are also several nitsy-bitsy little rules that you only get to remember by playing repeatedly – like when you can makes re-roll and for which dice results in which circumstances; how many ranks or part-ranks can fight in a particular situation; various pluses for this or minuses for that; when you do and don’t test morale, and so on. There’s actually a surprising amount of this sort of detail, making quite a mound of difficult bits and pieces to remember to start with. I’m sure they’ll stick after a few games though.

I thought a small game (72 points per side, plus leaders, split into just two wards) would be a good test of how much I’d taken on board.
That gives about 60 figures per side – basically four fighting units (which yields four ‘army morale tokens’ to each side), plus a couple of skirmish units each.
I deliberately picked different types of units to see how they fared.

120 figures is about a third of my WOTR collection - I’ve been collecting, kitbashing, and painting it since Michael Perry’s first box of brilliant WOTR plastics hit the scene over 10 years ago. (If you've got a spare few hours, you can view the entire project thread here: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=40936.0 lol)
Unfortunately, most of the collection isn’t neatly organised into twelves of anything.
For various home-brew rules, I’d built and organised my factions (representing local lordlings from my home area, plus a couple of historical WOTR bigwigs) into mixed retinues (each roughly 20 – 25 strong) of bills, bows, men at arms, and cavalry. So difficult to form neat, uniform liveried units of twelve bills or bows out of that. So I’ve had to mix up some different liveries from different lords to form units for this (which is probably historically what happened TBH).

Clearly I’m going to have to make up and paint yet more :D

Here’s the bat-rep – along with the questions that cropped up as I went through the game.
If you know the answers, please do reply below!
(I will also ask on the NMTBH Fb page, and I know FAQs are imminent, which might answer some of these. Or it may be that I just missed info that’s already there!)

The battlefield is fairly open – no hills, a couple of ponds and spinneys, but with fields, hedges and buildings.
Now thanks to ‘disarray’ every time you cross a hedge or stream, I appreciate these rules are really designed for a fairly open field battle (well, skirmish). Personally though, I don’t find that very visually (or tactically) interesting as a wargame. Nor do I think it’s particularly true to many WOTR encounters, where there is much historical record of bloody fighting amongst hedgerows, ditches, sunken lanes, streams, bridges and so on. That sort of setting seems to me to be one defining aspect of this particular conflict in the bucolic English countryside. A WOTR game fought on a fairly featureless grassy steppe, just doesn’t seem right to me, especially when we know England was very much more densely wooded and forested 500 years ago.
But I digress… :)

Here’s the table looking along the Lancastrian line (to the left)

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920115904-483961600.jpeg)

On the right of the Lancastrian line, a ‘block’ of retinue bills and bows (two conjoined companies) under Sir Gilbert Foyle of Crowhurst. That block comprises the Right Ward.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920115904-48395408.jpeg)

Now looking from the left of the Lancastrian line, the Main Ward under Sir Roger de Brassey of Tandridge consists of: A company of retinue archers; a field piece; Sir Rog and his faithful mastiff; a skirmishing band of Milanese handgunners; and a company of men-at-arms in full harness.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920115904-48394789.jpeg)

(Point to note – although the skirmish and artillery units are part of the ward and can be ordered by the leader of that ward, they also operate independently on their own initiative when their activation card is turned, so they’re effectively separate. So you don’t need to worry about keeping them within the command radius of their notional leader (a mistake I made in both this game and the first one I played!)

Over to the Yorkist line…

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920115904-48393487.jpeg)

On the Yorkist right flank, the Right Ward under Sir Robert Tenchley of Staffhurst, consists of a unit of retinue bills, plus a block of retinue bills and bows (two companies).

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920114204-48391462.jpeg)

The Yorkist Main Ward (on their left) led by Richard of Gloucester, has a company of mounted knights, and then the semi-detached skirmishers: a band of Flemish crossbowmen, and a field piece.
(It’s the main ward because although it’s much smaller numerically, Duke Richard is very much more important than mere Sir Robert Tenchley!)

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920114204-483902377.jpeg)

Point to note: I’ve seen several NMTBH army lists where people are costing artillery and crew at six points. But the rules say that the gun itself is six points and the artillerymen are one point apiece - which would make the cost of a field piece nine points not six. (And nine is what it says on the QRS on the back of the rules).
Worth remembering, because guns are not particularly effective, can blow up fairly easily, but are more costly than skirmishers. They do have a 30" range of course, as opposed to 12", and hits from guns can't be saved...

The game commences with two rounds of the manoeuvre phase, where the two forces move forward, unit by unit, one side at a time, and shape up towards each other.
This phase is ended when the Lancastrian gun opens up, although to no effect. The game then switches to card-driven activation of units…

The Yorkist Right Ward have used their manoeuvre phase to advance over the hedges into the fields in front of them, picking up ‘disarray’ tokens for their trouble.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920114204-48389166.jpeg)

Meanwhile, on the Lancastrian left, the Milanese handguns have scampered through the wood, skirted the pond, and can start firing over the hedge at the unit of Yorkist bills in the hayfield in front of them.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920114204-483881024.jpeg)

The men-at-arms, under Sir Roger de Brassey, advance around the right hand side of the wood.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113816-4838738.jpeg)

Sir Gilbert Foyle’s Lancastrian Right Ward (the block of bills and bows) has advanced to the hedge in front of them - and there they intend to stay, as Gloucester’s mounted knights thunder into view, around the wood over to the right of Foyle’s position, beyond the pond. His archers loose off a flight of arrows at long range but to no effect.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113815-48386176.jpeg)

The Yorkist’s Flemish crossbowmen meanwhile, from their starting position behind the beehives, make a beeline towards de Brassey’s advancing men-at-arms, whilst the Yorkist gun fires ineffectually at Foyle’s Lancastrian ward.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113815-48385836.jpeg)

Next turn.

Sir Gilbert Foyle’s archers now loose two arrow barrages at Gloucester’s rapidly closing knights, but still at long range succeed in killing just one from 24 attempts (several hits, but all saved bar one – Knights saving on a 3,4,5,6 against archery, are jolly hard to kill! )

The Knights now barrel into Foyle’s ward.
The archers dice to see how they react, and evade backwards, trading places with the billmen behind them. A melee now ensues across the hedge.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113815-48384279.jpeg)

Question: Interestingly – if I’ve got it right – the hedge makes no difference? The attacking knights have yet to cross the hedge, so are not disarrayed.
But nor do the defenders count it as an obstacle (the rules say stakes and walls are an obstacle, and have the effect of pushing up the defenders’ armour quality one notch for saving throws. But ‘trees’ aren’t. So presumably hedges aren’t either? Seems wrong to me that one, but there you go… )

Anyway, the melee goes predictably badly for the Lancastrians - seven dead billmen, versus three dead knights.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113431-483791160.jpeg)

The bill and bow unit duly fails its morale test, is daunted, falls back, and – in accordance with rules, if I’ve read them right – splits into its two constituent parts, both daunted.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112924-483771445.jpeg)

The rules don’t say (unless I’ve missed it) what happens to the attached leader in this situation.
Question: Can a leader choose either unit to remain attached to when the block splits?
(I’ve assumed so, and Sir Gilbert has remained attached to his intact company of archers, rather than his heavily depleted billmen).

Similarly, when the mounted knights follow up to continue the melee (as they are obliged to do), I have assumed they remain in contact with the billmen they were facing, rather than the archers who have now split off? (That’s another question!)

In any event, the Lancastrians surrender their first army morale token to the Yorkists.

Meanwhile, the company of Yorkist bills in the hayfield rushes towards the Milanese handguns (who have inflicted a casualty on them). The wily Italians evade – as they have to do, I think I’m right in saying?

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113815-483831878.jpeg)

Question: Skirmishers don’t have to roll for it, they just automatically leg it if attacked?
But they are disarrayed by evading? (The ‘skirmishers are exempt’ rule on ‘movement penalties’, P.14, suggests not; the rule on evading, P.18, suggests they are disarrayed however). Which is right?

As one of his orders, Sir Robert Tenchley has attached himself to his block bow-and-bill unit and rallied them to remove their disarray.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113431-48382279.jpeg)

The Flemish crossbowmen have advanced again and are peppering de Brassey’s men-at-arms with crossbow bolts, causing a couple of casualties. The reduction in armour class for fully armoured men against handguns and crossbows is quite telling.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113431-483811521.jpeg)

Tenchley’s Yorkist archers also get in on the act, and take down another Lancastrian man-at-arms.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113431-483802154.jpeg)

Meanwhile, de Brassey’s company of Lancastrian retinue archers are left marooned out on his left flank, well out of range of his 6” command radius.
Just bad generalship really - but the terrain and his initial deployment kind of forced the split in his force.

It’s the end of the turn however, and since they’ve done nothing, the idle archers do at least get to shoot off one volley or arrows towards the hayfield which is just in range, removing another Yorkist billman. So all is not completely lost.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920113431-48378359.jpeg)

Next turn.

Tenchley’s bowmen carry on shooting de Brassey’s advancing men at arms – who are also now disarrayed by climbing over / through the hedge.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112923-483761881.jpeg)

The bonus card comes up, which means Gloucester’s melee against Foyle’s daunted, depleted billmen resumes.
The knights were disarrayed by crossing the hedge as they followed up (Question: Is this right? Seems odd? They’re not disarrayed by fighting a bloody melee, but they are disarrayed by following their reeling and retreating enemy over / through a hedgerow?)
Nevertheless, it’s still a one-sided contest. One more knight is killed, but two more billmen. The bills break and rout (that’s a second army morale token to the Yorkists), and Gloucester and his knights pursue them, as they have to, right off the table, Towton-like, in a mad pursuit.
I took the view that they would not be able to return (Question: Could they? Should they?)

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112923-483752449.jpeg)

Ironically this leaves Sir Gilbert Foyle and his archer company completely intact. And he uses his own action to rally off their daunted marker.
They have emerged remarkably (unrealistically?) unscathed from the whole encounter.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112923-48374716.jpeg)

Back in the centre, the rascally Italians (still disarrayed I presume?) have turned back, and begun firing at the Yorkist bills again, starting to knock off more figures.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112923-483731583.jpeg)

Whilst the combined effect of archery and crossbows remorselessly whittles down de Brassey’s men at arms to under half strength. By the time they reach the enemy, there won’t be any left!

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112648-48372834.jpeg)

Nonetheless, before they have to take an end-of-turn morale test for falling below half strength, de Brassey’s leader card comes up, and in pile the heavy mob!
The bowmen dice to react, fail to evade, loose off a shot, but fail to inflict any casualties. Yikes! :o

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112648-48371977.jpeg)

Actually the melee results are fairly even. Three more men-at-arms killed and four archers.
The bill-and-bow unit passes its morale test with flying colours though, so does not retreat. The melee is effectively a draw and continues.

Now we come to the one bit that bothers me.
By coincidence, the next card turned up is Tenchley’s. But he cannot continue the melee his unit is already engaged in, because the melee only continues when another bonus card is drawn.
Question: is that right? Doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Instead, Tenchley now orders his billmen forward to swap places with the archers at the front. Again, seems a bit ‘gamey’, but also seems logically what would happen, if they're unable to just carry on fighting until the bonus card comes up?
Question: Is it legit, mid-melee, to switch melee troops forward from the rear ranks, to replace missile armed troops in the front ranks?

In any event, the bonus card comes up next, so the melee resumes, and the switch of the bills forward does the trick. Twelve bills against two men-at-arms, and each side with a leader contributing two free hits, finishes off the men-at-arms.
That’s the third of the Lancastrians’ army morale tokens handed over to the Yorkists.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112647-483691461.jpeg)

Sir Gilbert Foyle starts to lead his archer company over to support the ill-fated de Brassey, but too late. And the Flemish crossbows move to block him anyway...

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112648-483702322.jpeg)

I called it at that point.

The Yorkist knights have disappeared in a wild pursuit, but everything else is fairly intact on their side.

The Lancastrians though, have lost their armoured punch altogether, with both their bills and men at arms destroyed.
They do have two intact archer companies left - albeit one with only three shots remaining in their quivers. But there's realistically little way back for them to take four army morale tokens off the Yorkists.

The disconsolate Roger de Brassey, leaves the field, followed by his faithful mutt.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-270920112647-4836739.jpeg)

Overall, the rules work well and certainly give a nice flavour of the period.
The way it plays feels a little disjointed to me in places – the hiatus in the melees and so on. But that’s probably just my inexperience with the rules.

The bonus cards and special event cards didn’t really play much of a role in this. There were a couple of re-roll perks, and the special event card for ‘truce’ was drawn, but there was no opportunity to play it.

One of the only things I would say by way of constructive criticism, is that the terminology could perhaps be more consistent and I’m sure will be tightened up in the next edition. ‘Orders’, ‘order activations’, ‘command actions’, and similar terms seem to be used interchangeably. (Or the specific different meanings of these different terms are simply eluding me).
Similarly, in some places the rules refer to ‘casualties’, but in other places ‘kills’. I think these are one and the same thing, but I’m not 100% sure. (At one point I was thinking ‘casualities’ was being used to mean ‘hits’).

One last question. I'm confused about the rallying rule. At one point it says that only by a leader attaching himself to a unit can a daunted or disarrayed marker be 'rallied off'. But then in the 'end of turn' sequence rules, it seems to suggest that units who haven't done anything that turn can automatically rally off a disarray marker. Without a leader joining them?
Answers on a postcard please :)

So – what else did I get right and what did I get wrong about the rules? There were certainly one or two things I forgot to include... (like re-rolling sixes in morale checks on daunted / disarrayed units... )

Comments and corrections welcome. Thank you.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Bloggard on September 27, 2020, 01:59:54 PM: well, can't comment re: the rules.

but, blimey, Capt. Blood, your stuff looks so 'ecking GOOD
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Eric the Shed on September 27, 2020, 02:03:06 PM: Hi Richard

We house ruled that hedges count as barricades so do give armour saves - and like you I also think there should be more hedges on the field.

Fantastic looking game - will let Andy answer rest of the points.

If you fancy another game soon shout - happy to come to you

Giles
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Storm Wolf on September 27, 2020, 02:33:45 PM: Quote from: Bloggard on September 27, 2020, 01:59:54 PM
well, can't comment re: the rules.

but, blimey, Capt. Blood, your stuff looks so 'ecking GOOD

What he said, and I don`t even do historical really, lovely :-*

Excellent

Glen

I've got a serious case of table envy!!!!
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Ray Rivers on September 27, 2020, 02:51:46 PM: Quote from: Eric the Shed on September 27, 2020, 02:03:06 PM
We house ruled that hedges count as barricades so do give armour saves - and like you I also think there should be more hedges on the field.

In the old days there was always a distinction between "hard cover" and "soft cover." In this case of the Knights vs the Men-at-Arms, each side would receive a modification for having soft cover and thus probably a tad less "casualties."

Another question that rose in my mind from your AAR is that when the Knights were forced to follow-up and continue the melee, wouldn't they have had to jump over the hedges and thus been disordered? I haven't read the rules, but if true, might have prevented the cavalry from racing off the table.

And just a thought about stuff I see more regularly now in new rules... is more ambiguous terms which actually IMO, cause more confusion than if you used tried and true terms such as "kills." There is no doubt what "kills" means, but I see more and more terms concerning stuff like morale and such which stray from conventional terminology. I think that is an error on the part of rules writers.

Overall, the rules be damned... once again, a beautiful table. EPIC! :-*
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Norm on September 27, 2020, 02:56:53 PM: A beautiful game, table and figures - thanks for posting so many pics.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Cubs on September 27, 2020, 03:23:10 PM: Yeah, the hedge combat don't seem right, does it?

Q. Can a cavalry unit cross a hedge in normal movement? If not, surely it cannot do so in any other situation either.

Q. Is there no rule regarding defending from cover? It seems that the unit defending the hedge should get some sort of defence bonus.

Q. When a unit routs off the table, the attacking unit MUST follow it off as well with no chance to remain in the battle? That seems like a terrible way to reward losing a combat by effectively taking out a stronger unit!
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Captain Blood on September 27, 2020, 03:32:21 PM: These are indeed the questions, Cubs lol

Quote from: Norm on September 27, 2020, 02:56:53 PM
A beautiful game, table and figures - thanks for posting so many pics.

Thanks Norm. I’ve read your game reports, so as someone with a bit more experience in playing the rules, please do let me know if you’ve got a view on any of the questions that came up here :)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Ray Rivers on September 27, 2020, 03:40:39 PM: Quote from: Cubs on September 27, 2020, 03:23:10 PM
Q. Can a cavalry unit cross a hedge in normal movement? If not, surely it cannot do so in any other situation either.

Yes, it is called "hedge jumping," funny enough. ;)

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M3dVOjlal0JtsckEvSou0QHaE7%26pid%3DApi&f=1)

Having said that, it requires the horse to advance towards the obstacle at the trot or canter and as one grows near the rider sits up and forward in the saddle and relaxes the reins. I believe this is called given the horse "the head" which means it then approaches the obstacle at the canter or gallop and leaps over on its own. The unit will become disordered during the jump as some horses will refuse and some riders will lose their equilibrium.

Folks jumping over hedges (41 secs):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHbdfhlnZac
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Cubs on September 27, 2020, 03:49:28 PM: Quote from: Ray Rivers on September 27, 2020, 03:40:39 PM
Yes, it is called "hedge jumping," funny enough. ;)

I was about to come back with "But that's a steeplechase horse specially trained to do it, does it follow that a warhorse carrying an armoured knight can do the same?" ... but then the obvious reply would be that if an archer can fire over a hedge and people can fight across it, it's not going to be more than 4ft high anyway ... so yeah, I guess.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Ray Rivers on September 27, 2020, 04:05:07 PM: I'm pretty darn sure warhorses were trained to jump over hedges in jolly old England.

The question would be how high is the hedge and how fresh is the horse. Even in the best scenario, there would be mixed results and thus... disordering.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: AndyC on September 27, 2020, 04:09:24 PM: A good looking and eventful game. Lots of excellent and perceptive questions too. Some will be answered in the forthcoming FAQs, but in the meantime, here's my two penn'orth.

1. Yes, a gun costs 6 points and its crew costs 3, so 9 in total (p8). You have to make your own judgement on the cost benefit analysis. New technology is often expensive and unreliable. But the odds of blowing up (rolling three 1s in a hand of six) is only about 6/100 according to Professor Google.

2. I would not have allowed knights to fight infantry on the other side of a hedge - how would they get at them? We're not talking suburban privets here. The best way to defend an obstacle is not to line it - rather it's best to stand back from it and let the enemy fall into disarray by crossing it - then counter attack before they can sort themselves out (tactical tip - don't try an attack across an obstacle against an enemy who has not yet drawn their Leader card).
The only obstacles I mention as giving extra protection to the defender in a melee are walls and buildings (p19 col2) as the two sides could still get at each other in hand to hand in those situations.
I will have to say something about hedges to clear this up. How common were they in late 15th century England anyway? This is pre-enclosures after all. They had "Great Hedges" as Parish (and other) boundaries (there was one at Blore Heath) so I suppose that means there must have been "lesser hedges" as well. I would say that you can't fight through a hedge and you can only cross it by getting a disarray token and stopping on the other side. It gives no cover from shooting. May Billmen could claim a "Special Action" (p13, col2) and chop their way through (they are using converted hedging tools, after all!).

3. Pursuers should follow up the enemy they were in contact with - their blood is up, they are getting their own back on the people they have been fighting. And yes, they would be disarrayed crossing that hedge, but pursuers are always disarrayed anyway (p22 col2).
If they break a unit and their 12 ins pursuit move takes off the table they don't come back, but you don't lose an army morale token for this. I need to add words to this effect. I don't know of any case around this period where pursuers ever returned to the fighting. Disappearing off into the distance is something English cavalry and enraged Celts would continue to do for centuries to come...
4. A daunted unit takes any attached Leader with it when it retreats (p22 col2). I f the unit is broken, the Leader (except for a Hero, who escapes with a free move - "with a sudden leap our hero was free") routs with it.
If a block is daunted an attached leader should go with the unit he is touching or the front unit if he added his extra hits to it in Melee.
5. When skirmishers evade they should always get disarrayed like other evaders. I will change the wording on movement penalties to make this clear. Disarrayed skirmishers will need to be rallied by a Leader, as they don't get the free action at the end of the turn if unactivated during the turn. He may well have better things to do so until then they will shoot at half effect. This is just another way of making skimishers just a supplementary nuisance in the game. They always evade because Melees are not in their job description - Kern are the only skirmishers who can attack.
6. "A unit cannot be daunted and then rallied in the same turn" (p23).
7. "A Leader must join a unit to Rally off (remove) disarray tokens" (p23). Here I need to add "as a Rally Action during a turn" (thus allowing the removal of one Disarray token as a free action at the end of the turn for an unactivated unit).
8. Swapping over a block's units while one of them is involved in an ongoing melee definitely is gamey. I need to explicitly disallow it.
9. Kills,hits and casualties. Orders,Command actions etc. Yes, good point. I do need to tighten up the wording.
Quite a bit there. Phew!
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Captain Blood on September 27, 2020, 04:30:49 PM: Excellent Andy. Thanks for the speedy responses, most of which make sense - although I’m not entirely convinced on the ‘no fighting across hedges’ point. But maybe that’s just because I like hedges ;)
Hedged-in enclosures (including dry stone wall ‘hedges’) and boundary ditches and bunds have been manmade features of the English landscape since prehistoric times, so if it was me, I’d make the rules for attacking across any low (viz. waist / chest high) linear obstacle the same. But they’re your rules - you da boss!

Some of the other things I should have worked out for myself. Sorry about that :)

Looking forward to the FAQs, and my next game.

Cheers.

Richard
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: AndyC on September 27, 2020, 04:52:59 PM: OK how about if I lump “field boundaries
such as dry-stone walls and
low hedges” in together if a defender
chooses to line them?( so no re-rolls
when attacking and the
defender goes up one armour class)
That way we could still have a “great
hedge” as a major obstacle. I’m thinking
something along the lines of a Normandy
Bocage....
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Captain Blood on September 27, 2020, 05:04:00 PM: I like that :)

I totally get your point by the way (I watched your video!) about the right way to defend an obstacle is to stand back from it, let the onrushing foeman make an arse of himself scrabbling to get over it, then get stuck in while he’s scrambling back to his feet.
On the other hand, that would take a considerable amount of discipline, courage and training on the part of the average uneducated spear carrier.
If I were a soldier with a pointy stick or length of sharpened metal in my mitt, I would be hugging close to that wall (or whatever) for the protection it provides to part of my body, whilst trying to stop the other bugger getting over it to get at me. It gives me an advantage, and him a disadvantage - so I’m hiding behind that wall and trying to stab the swine as he tries to clamber across it swinging at me.

Anyway, enough of my amateur theories of armed combat, of which I have no experience whatsoever lol
That sounds like a good suggestion, thank you Andy.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: OSHIROmodels on September 27, 2020, 05:14:11 PM: Brill 8)

Slightly off topic and heretical suggestion but it sounds like these rules could be used in a fantasy setting such as Game of Thrones?
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Black Burt on September 27, 2020, 05:19:53 PM: Great looking table and write up, it answered a few of my questions as well.
I hope to have a solo game in the near future myself, to familiarize myself with the rules.
Nice looking buildings are they bought or home made?
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: AndyC on September 27, 2020, 05:24:07 PM: OSHIRO Models - Whatever you choose to get up to in the privacy of your own home...
I know of at least one Billhooker who is already thinking along those lines.
And if you do it for Middle Earth you need to call it "Never Mind the Balrogs"!
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: OSHIROmodels on September 27, 2020, 05:26:31 PM: Thanks Andy, LotR is another good suggestion. Just need to think about zombies, mammoths/oliphants, orcs and magic lol
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Arcane Steve on September 27, 2020, 05:40:32 PM: Hi Captain, I thought that the battle report was excellent and it certainly engaged my attention! The terrain looks lovely and I can see why you would want to use it all. A couple of rules observations from me. First of all, Knights ( on horseback, as opposed to men at arms) save on a 4,5,6, from shooting not a 3,4,5,6. The second option is for melees.
Like Andy, I would not have allowed your charging knights to have come into contact with the billmen without penalty, if at all. The knights seem to have charged around the pond, re aligned themselves and then are attacking over a hedge. Charges must be straight ahead - they should have gone though the pond! I suppose that they could reach the billmen by sticking their lances through the hedge but claiming a charge bonus, after all that fancy manoeuvring is generous to say the least. To my mind, if the knights didn't cross the hedge then they weren't in combat so the Billmen would have just stood and made rude gestures....
The continuing melee is interesting. Again, I wouldn't let the bowmen swap places with the Billmen. The block is locked in melee and is unable to do anything until the melee is resolved. In effect the Billmen are already involved as their first rank would have contributed to the combat in the first round. Once melee has started it continues with all units locked until resolved. Mr Tenchley would have been rather too busy to reorganise his units. The fact that his card came up is unfortunate. Once he was committed to combat he is out of the game as far as command and control goes until the combat is resolved. After all you are getting his command value in the melee.
As with many of our test games, there is a big debate about what might have happened in real life and how the game mechanics work. I my mind you play the game and fit the result to what may have happened rather than the other way around. That said, not everyone will agree - Andy may have a different view! I hope that helps
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Captain Blood on September 27, 2020, 06:01:02 PM: Thanks Steve, that is helpful. Useful corrections and insights :)

It is a lot to remember when you first start out, even with such a short set of rules. I’m sure I got much more wrong than that. But it’s an enjoyable game, and you don’t want to spend it with your nose buried in the rule book the whole time.
One just has to remember as many of the key points as one can, rely on a QRS that helpfully reminds you of all those easy-to-overlook little wrinkles and snags in the rules, and hope that you gradually take it all on by osmosis as you play more games!
It’s always the way... (Gosh, you should have seen me when WRG 5th edition came out lol)

Quote from: Black Burt on September 27, 2020, 05:19:53 PM
Great looking table and write up, it answered a few of my questions as well.
I hope to have a solo game in the near future myself, to familiarize myself with the rules.
Nice looking buildings are they bought or home made?

Thank you. The buildings are scratchbuilt by none other than my good chum, James, he of Oshiromodelterrain, presently wittering on about fantasy subjects in this very thread lol

Edit: Except the church, I should have said, which is another scratchbuild, but by Silent Invader.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: LCpl McDoom on September 27, 2020, 06:33:18 PM: Amazing work, very impressive - and the write-up and questions must have taken a fair amount of time to compile too, so many thanks for doing that as well.

And hedgerows within wargaming, one of my pet favourite subjects - probably down to working on them when I was a teenager (first job after leaving 6th form) with an old hand, the old 'gaffer' who knew so much about them.

For this period and for the Tudor and ECW periods too, I tend to take the 'Great Hedgerow' perspective. Mainly as it was seen as an economic asset, to supply the local communities with fuel (firewood), more so in fact than defining field boundaries. It's why in the really old records of many Parishes, the great hedgerows are mentioned in quite a bit of detail, as to maintain them with 'brushing', 'pollarding' and planting of new tree saplings was to ensure the parishioners had readily available fuel all year round, and for years to come. It's only with the Enclosures acts later in the 1700's onwards that you get walling and little hedging of single plant species begin to grow across the land.

Two potentially interesting sources of historical/research info are here:
https://www4.uwsp.edu/english/rsirabia/notes/212/enclosureActs.pdf
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/950.pdf

And finally, somewhere I have some photos showing the re-enactment of Okey's Dragoons fighting at Sulby Hedges, staged at Kelmarsh Hall, which is the best picture I've ever seen demonstrating the scale of dragoon-on-foot and mounted rider against a proper 'Great Hedgerow'. I must see if I can retrieve that.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Arcane Steve on September 27, 2020, 07:27:18 PM: Hi again, Captain! You are right about remembering everything. There's a couple of videos due from WI showing a test game between Andy and myself. We managed to make at least two mistakes with the rules and in the heat of battle, I forgot to play my bonus card, which might of saved my unit from destruction. I also tried to play the black powder rules for a flank attack - Andy soon put me right there! No doubt, Dan will edit the videos to show the 'correct plays' but it just goes to show that even a small set of rules are difficult to grasp completely. I wonder just how some players cope with the more complicated sets out there.
BTW, I must confess to being influenced by your work on the WOTR. My heavy cavalry have 'stolen' some of your colour scheme and ideas. Your brush work is simply amazing!
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: AndyC on September 27, 2020, 07:47:14 PM: L/Cpl Mc Doom. Very interesting indeed. I think my initial
instincts about hedges in WOTR England were on the right track.
But Billhooks is a game not a simulation
and I have to walk a fine line when it
comes to telling wargamers what they can
and cannot do on the privacy of their own
Tabletops. So, I am minded to allow “field boundaries”
(low walls/hedges) as obstacles and which give extra
Protection in Melee (while suggesting
they were relatively rare at the time) but also to
introduce the idea of “Great Hedges”
and to treat them as long, narrow woods
which block line of sight and cannot be shot through.
A bit of a fudge maybe but I don’t want to
discourage people from playing my game.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: LCpl McDoom on September 27, 2020, 08:16:53 PM: Absolutely agree MrC - I only added my 'topiary' element to provide a smidge of historical insight into the mix. My own wargaming hedges are nearly all classic suburban weekend-pruning specials ;)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: OB on September 28, 2020, 12:52:53 AM: A very enjoyable and informative thread, thanks all.

I'm looking forward to my first game of Billhooks as I paint the troops.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: levied troop on September 28, 2020, 08:01:51 AM: Excellent looking game as always (I like a crowded battlefield) and a fascinating discussion on hedges. I’m not sure that too many wargamers are also ramblers but trust me, trying to cross most hedges will cause some personal disarray!
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Furt on September 28, 2020, 08:42:36 AM: Cracking table Richard! :-* Almost enough to turn one to painting medievals.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Ragnar on September 28, 2020, 10:47:52 AM: Fantastic looking game.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Plynkes on September 28, 2020, 12:01:07 PM: Co-ol! All that crashing through hedgerows, it's like a Graham Turner painting come to life.

I shall make no comment on the rules questions, lest I inadvertently reveal that I have no idea what 'm talking about. :)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Captain Blood on September 28, 2020, 12:18:13 PM: Thanks chaps :)

Quote from: Plynkes on September 28, 2020, 12:01:07 PM
Co-ol! All that crashing through hedgerows, it's like a Graham Turner painting come to life.

I shall make no comment on the rules questions, lest I inadvertently reveal that I have no idea what 'm talking about. :)

lol cheers Dylan. (Not knowing what I’m talking about has never stopped me ;))

Yes, I was going to cite Graham Turner’s fabulous painting of Tewkesbury (again!) in the hedge debate ;)

Maybe not a hedgerow as such, but (to me anyway) characteristic of what I think of as Wars of the Roses battles, incongruously fought out amongst the familiar, bosky, and generally overgrown English countryside. Sunken lanes and hedged and ditched tracks and field boundaries, where Edward and Somerset tangled in the fateful turning point of Tewkesbury...

(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/26/577_15_11_16_2_29_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Atheling on September 28, 2020, 12:33:56 PM: Quote from: Captain Blood on September 28, 2020, 12:18:13 PM
Sunken lanes and hedged and ditched tracks and field boundaries, where Edward and Somerset tangled in the fateful turning point of Tewkesbury...

This is more like what I imagine a Medieval hedge would look like. Think archers behind the hedge at the Battle of Poitiers....... much more substantial than than what we would call a hedgerow nowadays.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Captain Blood on September 28, 2020, 01:30:39 PM: Quote from: Atheling on September 28, 2020, 12:33:56 PM
This is more like what I imagine a Medieval hedge would look like. Think archers behind the hedge at the Battle of Poitiers....... much more substantial than than what we would call a hedgerow nowadays.

Indeed Darrell. It's a lovely depiction.
We should bear in mind though, that everything on the wargames tabletop - however artistic or otherwise - is purely representational. Not a fully realised, faithfully accurate scale reproduction of the real thing :)
(Particularly when we have only a sketchy idea from fleeting, 500-year old documentary references, what the real thing actually was!)

I'd guess that back then, just as now, medieval England would have had boundaries and enclosures of all different heights, widths, depths, materials and densities, for all different purposes. I doubt there was only one type of giant 'tree hedge' and that was it.

Now enough with the hedge talk already FFS! lol

(I'd better do another test game, sans hedges, ASAP, so we can talk about Andy's excellent WOTR rule set rather than pontificating on the exact look of the English countryside five centuries ago ;))
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Atheling on September 28, 2020, 03:09:01 PM: Quote from: Captain Blood on September 28, 2020, 01:30:39 PM

Now enough with the hedge talk already FFS! lol

Fair comment lol
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Cubs on September 28, 2020, 03:36:41 PM: Quote from: Captain Blood on September 28, 2020, 01:30:39 PM

Now enough with the hedge talk already FFS! lol

We could keep it going as a privet conversation.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Roo on September 28, 2020, 04:41:33 PM: lol
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Harry Faversham on September 28, 2020, 10:16:20 PM: I'm hedging mi' bets on this one!

::)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Codsticker on September 29, 2020, 06:16:45 AM: Ba-dum-tish!

:D
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: levied troop on September 29, 2020, 08:24:13 AM: Never mind the bocage.

oh, is that my coat?
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: LCpl McDoom on October 01, 2020, 01:18:59 AM: Captain Blood, my sincere apologies if my historic topiary fascination was a distraction on your thread. You've provided some excellent material on all of this, which is some of the best wargame work I've seen lately. Inspirational stuff sir :)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Captain Blood on October 01, 2020, 09:48:39 AM: No need to apologise at all :) It’s a perfectly interesting and relevant discussion. (I just didn’t want the whole thread to become about hedges lol)

Hoping to play another (hedgeless) game of NMTBH over the next couple of days. This time on some of my sculpted, integral terrain boards...

Pics and report to follow in due course.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Cubs on October 01, 2020, 10:21:10 AM: Quote from: Captain Blood on October 01, 2020, 09:48:39 AM
No need to apologise at all :)

So you're just going to shrub it off?

Last one, promise.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: OSHIROmodels on October 01, 2020, 10:31:54 AM: I do hope everyone has gotten their coats and turned the lights out?

lol
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: archiduque on October 01, 2020, 02:59:24 PM: Excellent Richard!! :-*
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Captain Blood on October 08, 2020, 09:43:20 PM: Thanks Rafa :)

Quote from: Arcane Steve on September 27, 2020, 07:27:18 PM
Hi again, Captain! You are right about remembering everything. There's a couple of videos due from WI showing a test game between Andy and myself. We managed to make at least two mistakes with the rules and in the heat of battle, I forgot to play my bonus card, which might of saved my unit from destruction. I also tried to play the black powder rules for a flank attack - Andy soon put me right there! No doubt, Dan will edit the videos to show the 'correct plays' but it just goes to show that even a small set of rules are difficult to grasp completely. I wonder just how some players cope with the more complicated sets out there.
BTW, I must confess to being influenced by your work on the WOTR. My heavy cavalry have 'stolen' some of your colour scheme and ideas. Your brush work is simply amazing!

Thanks Steve. Sorry, I missed this before in the excitement of the hedge debate ;)
Feel free to steal away, I pinch other people’s ideas all the time :)

Yes, I watched one of your videos today, so I know what you mean. I liked the bit where Andy said ‘and they re-roll any ones’ - and then promptly forgot to reroll the ones he then immediately rolled lol
Glad it’s not just me ;)

Just finished playing my second (much larger) solo test game. Hopefully I’ll get a full report uploaded tomorrow. Far fewer questions this time, so I must be learning!
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2
Post by: Captain Blood on October 09, 2020, 01:05:46 PM: And here you go... a blow-by-blow account of my second (solo) test game of NMTBH (with no hedges) – basically training myself to learn the rules (still a work in progress). Sorry it's so long, but sharing all the gritty details might help other players get a better handle on the rules than I’ve managed so far, because I do keep missing things! lol

I played this game on some of my terrain boards with integral scenery. These boards were designed for large scale skirmishes with 30 – 40 figures a side, moving as individuals or in small groups. Not so much for a game with 200 figures moving in formed units!
There are a few compromises as a result, because with textured terrain, inbuilt hills, slopes, and scrubby areas, it’s simply not possible to keep figures in neatly ranked-up units. So although they’ll always fight according to the rules (in two ranks of six, for instance), they may appear to be rather more mob-like than that on the tabletop (which I don’t think looks bad, by the way ;))

It’s also only a 5’ x 4’ table - which is probably a bit small for 100 or so figures per side.

Anyway… Each side has pretty much the same strength:

1 x mounted knights
1 x prickers and scurrers (light horse)
1 x foot men at arms
2 x bows
2 x bills
1 x artillery piece
1 x skirmishers

One of the Lancastrian bill companies was switched for a Scots mercenary pike company.
Each side holds seven army morale tokens.
Each side has a C-in-C plus two subordinate leaders. All leaders are rank two - no heroes, no dolts. At least not to start with…

In terms of points, this is some way short of the ‘at least 50% bills and bows’ stipulation, although in terms of figures on the table, it just about passes muster. Close enough for my purposes anyway.

Here’s the table after the first round of manoeuvre phase moves – York on the left, Lancaster on the right.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020112420-48688809.jpeg)

There are two bridges plus two fords over the stream.
There’s no scenario other than ‘mash the other side into oblivion’ :D

By accident rather than design, the fact that the Lancastrians started behind the stream, obliging them to move forward in order to do anything much at all, whereas the Yorkists had a nicely convenient set of linear obstacles (walls, fences, a pond) to hunker behind, this resulted in the Lancastrians becoming the de facto attackers and the Yorkists, the defenders. (Although I suppose it could have worked the other way round).

And viewed from the other end of the field…

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020112420-48687517.jpeg)

The line-ups are as follows…

Starting on the right of the Yorkist line: Lord Hastings’ ward – a unit of scrofulous scurrers, a block of Stafford bills and De Brassey/Osney bows, plus an organ gun positioned on the rise behind them.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020112419-486861704.jpeg)

The Yorkist centre: the Duke of Clarence (C-in-C) with his men-at-arms and a skirmish screen of Milanese crossbowmen.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020112419-486852350.jpeg)

The Yorkist left wing. Richard of Gloucester with his mounted knights, plus a block of bill and bows.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020112419-486841313.jpeg)

A view along the Yorkist line from their left…

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111625-48683636.jpeg)

Over to the Lancastrians.

On their left wing: Sir Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, C-in-C (historically, as it happens, a loyal Yorkist, but what the heck) with a unit of mounted knights and unit of light horse. Supported by an artillery piece that has somehow been manhandled up onto a commanding bluff over the stream…

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111625-486821261.jpeg)

In the Lancastrian centre: Sir Robert Tenchley (what a turncoat – he was a Yorkist in the last game!) with a block of bows and men-at-arms.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111625-48681952.jpeg)

On the Lancastrian right wing: Sir Andrew Trollope’s ward – a block of Howard bills and bows, plus a unit of Scots mercenary pikemen and Scots mercenary handguns…

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111625-486801086.jpeg)

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111625-48679324.jpeg)

Second round of the manoeuvre phase…

On the Lancastrian left, Sir Thomas Howard leads his knights splashing across the ford (I took an executive decision that as far as this battlefield goes, fording the stream wouldn’t disarray horsemen on steeds up to their knees, but would disarray infantrymen up to their waists).

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111153-48678437.jpeg)

Tenchley’s command are already across their footbridge, his longbows deploying on the flank of a gorse-clad slope.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111153-48677456.jpeg)

Trollope’s bills and bows also ford the stream, taking a disarray marker, while his Scots pikemen cross their footbridge and his handguns probe forwards…

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111153-48676223.jpeg)

In response, the Yorkist line steps purposefully forward up to the mark…

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111153-486752281.jpeg)

The manoeuvring is suddenly interrupted by the Yorkist artillery opening up on Sir Thomas Howard’s distant Lancastrian mounted knights – boom! Inflicting two immediate casualties. First blood to York!

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020111152-486741428.jpeg)

Over we go to the card-driven activation for the main battle phase…

Unbelievably, the very first card turned is Lord Hastings on the Yorkist right.
He could have ordered his gun to fire again straightaway, but I thought that seemed wrong, even though the rules allow it. Instead Hastings sends his prickers and scurrers racing forward to attack the depleted Lancastrian knights – risky, but who dares wins, Rodney!
Howard naturally counter-charges, and clash!

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110604-486731267.jpeg)

The result is predictably brutal. Three dead knights - but five dead prickers. They immediately break, yielding two Yorkist army morale tokens straight up to the Lancastrians.
Luckily the rest of Hastings’ ward survive their morale checks as they watch their cavalry flee past them.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110604-486722266.jpeg)

I now made a booboo here ::)
Howard’s few remaining knights should have pursued, but I forgot about that in all the excitement.
Instead, Hastings ordered his bowmen to loose, and managed to slay two more of the Lancastrian knights, leaving only one remaining, plus the C-in-C himself.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110603-486711996.jpeg)

Next up comes Sir Andrew Trollope’s card, and he brings the rest of his bills across the stream, and orders his Scots pikemen forward.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110603-486702441.jpeg)

Then goes Sir Robert Tenchley. More forward movement from his block of men-at-arms and bows, and then one volley of longbow shooting at the Milanese crossbowmen, who lose a figure.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110603-4866969.jpeg)

Yorkist skirmishers and artillery next – the Yorkist gun fires again, this time on the Lancastrian scurrers in the distance, and knocks one off.
The Yorkists’ Milanese crossbowmen manage to reciprocate by shooting one of Tenchleys longbowmen in the gorse. Nasty.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110258-48668999.jpeg)

The Lancastrians’ Scots skirmishers now move up and fire - very successfully, knocking off three of the Yorkist longbowmen opposite them.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110257-486672198.jpeg)

The Lancastrian gun then fires, and manages to knock off another of the Milanese crossbowmen.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110257-486652001.jpeg)

Sir Thomas Howard’s go - he promptly abandons his last surviving knight, and races back to join his light horsemen at the ford.

That just leaves Gloucester’s Ward stymied by the last card. His longbowmen shoot though, getting a free shot since it’s the end of the turn and they haven’t done anything – and they miss.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110257-486661106.jpeg)

The sole surviving Howard knight won a melee in this turn, so bizarrely, doesn’t have to check his morale, even though he’s some way under half strength!

Part two follows shortly...
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
Post by: Captain Blood on October 09, 2020, 01:06:30 PM: Turn two…

The Lancastrian artillery and skirmishers card turns up first. The Lancastrian gun fires, and rolling three ones, promptly blows up!
The Scots handguns fire, but all miss. An inauspicious start to the turn for the Lancastrians!

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020110257-486641225.jpeg)

Next up, Tenchley’s ward in the Lancastrian centre. They shoot another volley of arrows at the Milanese crossbows, killing three more (despite the Italians’ saving throw being improved one armour class by the cover of the stone wall)

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105658-486631908.jpeg)

As luck would have it, the next card out is Clarence’s. Having just seen his Italian skirmish screen decimated, Clarence throws his men-at-arms forward over the wall, eager to get down to business. They take a disarray marker, but Clarence uses his second command action to rally this off (I think I’m right in saying that unlike ‘daunted’, ‘disarray’ can be incurred and rallied off in the same turn?)

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105658-486621138.jpeg)

Clarence then uses a perk bonus card (picked up by the Yorkists in a turn of the bonus card during the first turn), to give his men-at-arms an extra activation – they charge! Luckily, with Tenchley attached, the Lancastrian archers have the option to evade – which they do, hastily swapping places with their own men-at-arms behind them.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105658-486611005.jpeg)

The two bodies of men-at-arms now lay to with a vengeance, and this is largely on the roll of the dice, although with the advantage of attacking, the Yorkists get to re-roll any ones.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105657-486602205.jpeg)

The Yorkists lose three men-at-arms, whilst the unfortunate Lancastrians lose four. Tenchley’s block is pushed back towards the bridge, becomes daunted, and splits in two - yielding two army morale tokens up to the Yorkists.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105657-48659527.jpeg)

It’s Trollope up next for the Lancastrians. Seeing this ghastly setback unfolding, he leaves his Scots pikes and handguns to hold the Lancastrian right flank, and orders his block of bows and bills across the wall onto the heath, picking up another disarray token (he rallied off the previous one – again, I think I’m right in saying that the block as a whole is disarrayed, not the two individual units? So only one disarray marker incurred and rallied off?)

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105341-486581443.jpeg)

Next it’s Sir Thomas Howard’s turn on the Lancastrian left. Rashly, he now leads his light horse in a rapid and risky outflanking manoeuvre, right past the flank of Lord Hastings’ Yorkist bills and bows, heading for the Yorkist gun which started all the trouble!

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105341-486571735.jpeg)

And finally, for the second turn in a row, it’s Gloucester’s ward on the Yorkist left which fails to turn its card and activate. Harsh.
However, once again, his under-employed longbowmen get to shoot under the ‘end of turn’ rules - and even though there are only nine of them, they manage this time to take off three of the pesky Scots handgunners (who miraculously then pass their morale test).

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105340-486561918.jpeg)

More unfortunately for the Lancastrians though, that sole surviving Howard knight and standard bearer (remember him?), long since abandoned by his liege lord, IS now obliged to take an end-of-turn morale test, being very significantly under half-strength. He fails the test and immediately routs - yielding a further two Lancastrian army morale tokens up to the Yorkists.
The Lancastrians are already down to just three remaining army morale tokens! :o

Turn three…

First card and Gloucester finally gets to move. He orders his longbowmen to loose with their first action - and they manage to destroy the remaining Scots handguns with a single devastating flight of arrows. The block of bows and bills then moves forward around the pond, ready to face down the waiting Scots pike.
With his second order token, Gloucester leads his cavalry off up the lane to where the real action is.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105340-48655325.jpeg)

Next up comes the bonus card, and the Yorkists pick up another perk.
Which is handy, because next up it’s Clarence, who blithely ignores Trollope’s body of bills and bows over to their left, and uses both actions of his men-at-arms to follow up with another attack on Tenchley’s daunted Lancastrian men-at-arms.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020105340-48654698.jpeg)

Another vicious melee ensues…

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104854-486531517.jpeg)

Once again, the Lancastrians come off worse (largely because they’re now only defending with one rank because they’re daunted, whereas the Yorkists are fighting with both ranks and rerolling their ones as the attackers… ) Result – two more dead Yorkists, but four dead Lancastrians.
Once again though, the Lancastrian men-at-arms miraculously hang on in their morale test, becoming double-daunted (which isn’t actually a thing) and falling back again over the footbridge, through their archers, but still unbroken.
The archers, still eleven men strong although also daunted, have to take another morale test as their battered big dogs fall back through their midst. They pass. (Although as I understand it, this pass doesn’t remove their daunted status?)

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104854-486521055.jpeg)

They don’t have long to worry about it anyway, because using that second perk, Clarence orders his men-at-arms forward yet again, to slam into the Lancastrian archers. The archers, their leader no longer attached, have to roll to react – and they decide to stand and fire. Yikes!

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104853-486511677.jpeg)

They succeed in taking down one Yorkist man-at-arms, which is no mean feat shooting daunted with their front rank only, but they then get walloped.
It’s a predictable bloodbath – no casualties on the Yorkist men-at-arms, but five slain Lancastrian longbowmen.
They break, coughing up another army morale token, pushing their way off-table through their own men-at-arms. The men-at-arms take no notice, and don’t have to test their own morale again, because longbowmen are mere riff-raff.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104853-486501229.jpeg)

And in a clean sweep of initiative for York, Lord Hastings now gets his turn as well.
He wheels his block of bills and bows in the cabbage patch 45 degrees, and with their second action, his longbows loose at Thomas Howard’s passing plump of mounted spears - to devastating effect, killing four of those rash horsemen.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104853-486491646.jpeg)

Unfazed by this setback, Howard now leads his surviving prickers to attack the Yorkist gun on its hillock.
The rules say cavalry can’t charge uphill, which I take to mean they can still urge their horses up a slope (it’s not a very big slope) and into contact, but they don’t count the attacking bonus of re-rolling 1s.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104528-486482305.jpeg)

In any event, the hardy artillerymen manage to kill one horseman, for two losses of their own. The sole survivor abandons his gun and flees - hotly pursued by the reckless Lancastrian C-in-C, who promptly leaves the field never to return. (A departure which at least saved his prickers from yielding up another army morale token or two).

It’s now Sir Andrew Trollope’s turn. But just as he is about the plunge towards the fray, the Yorkists play another bonus card on him - this time a forfeit they have been holding onto since turn one (yes, the Yorkists got ALL the luck with the bonus cards in this game, the Lancastrians only ever winning the dummy card). So his block can only take one action. His disheartened longbows launch a desultory long range volley at Gloucester’s knights – and don’t hit a thing.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104528-486471571.jpeg)

That’s the end of turn three, and in the end of turn wash-up actions, Tenchley’s Lancastrian men-at-arms (down to only four figures), immediately have to test their morale again – and this time they do break. Sir Robert Tenchley has the good grace to scurry off with them, and a sixth Lancastrian army morale token is passed across to the Yorkists.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104528-486461340.jpeg)

And that is effectively that.

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104528-48645671.jpeg)

The Lancastrians still do have one army morale token left to give - but they only have Trollope’s ward surviving, the other two wards having completely disintegrated.
His Scots pike have done absolutely nothing, and are now out of his command range anyway.
His skirmishers have been destroyed.
He only has his block of bills and bows left. Whereas the Yorkists have two largely intact blocks of bills and bows, plus their knights, plus Clarence’s bloodied half-unit of men-at-arms.
It’s mission impossible for Trollope, and he cedes the field.

Interesting that largely through the turn of cards, there was hardly any action at the Gloucester/Trollope end of the battlefield. It all happened in the centre and at the other end.
The Yorkists indisputably had the better luck, with both the bonus cards and the dice, but the Lancastrian C-in-C, Sir Thomas Howard, did make a couple of stupid decisions, so probably got his just desserts.

Once again, it’s an interesting and intriguing set of rules. But there is a LOT to remember. I have made the attached extra QRS to help remind me of the things I keep forgetting!

(https://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/48/577-091020104528-486301312.jpeg)

Only one special event card came up - once again it was the 'truce' card, which seems of slightly limited use given that melees seem to rarely be drawn, and I'm not quite sure where the advantage would be in playing it anyway. But it's a nice piece of period flavour :)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: Atheling on October 09, 2020, 01:48:28 PM: Mighty fine looking game 8)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: AndyC on October 09, 2020, 01:53:12 PM: Another great battle report. I really like the
Aide-memoire sheet.
Only one point - you have to use any bonus cards (apart from
Special event)
In the turn you draw them - else put them back in the
Deck at the end of the turn (page 11 col2)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: Captain Blood on October 09, 2020, 02:22:07 PM: Got it! Thanks Andy :)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: Eric the Shed on October 09, 2020, 02:52:22 PM: Richard - your pictures are simply stunning and they put the rest of us mortals to shame. Gorgeous.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: Happy Wanderer on October 09, 2020, 02:58:17 PM: A glorious looking game Captain! Top notch ;)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: Bugsda on October 09, 2020, 03:04:02 PM: Marvelous photos :-*
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: OSHIROmodels on October 09, 2020, 03:34:42 PM: Splendiforus :D
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: Malamute on October 09, 2020, 03:58:50 PM: How many photos?

Marvellous stuff though, eye candy of the finest quality.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: Ray Rivers on October 09, 2020, 04:00:05 PM: Fantastic battle report! :-*

What a lovely table... ;D
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: Cubs on October 09, 2020, 04:15:15 PM: That's half a Wargames Illustrated issue right there!

Wonderful write-up again and, it's a small thing, but I do like that you consistently remind us who is who and what side they're on (Yorkist/Lancastrian). The detailed photos and captions of each army at the start is much appreciated too. I love the Perry write-ups on their FB page, but after a quick intro at the start, they then just call each unit by the commander's name and I forget who is on who's side!

But bat-reps like this do remind me why I don't like 'random activation' style rules. They may accurately reflect the historical confusion of commanding armies, but if I was trying to play a game, and my beloved units just sat there twiddling their thumbs, or like your Lancastrian scurriers, I managed to boldly manoeuvre a fast unit into a threatening position, only for the opposition to randomly acquire a bonus activation that meant they could react supernaturally fast, it would frustrate me beyond the boundaries of a fun challenge.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: HappyChappy439 on October 09, 2020, 04:27:23 PM: Great report! And that's a really impressive table too, I'm definitely jealous lol
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: Norm on October 09, 2020, 04:39:34 PM: Thank you for the ton of work that went into presenting that - your table is an absolute delight.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Captain Blood on October 10, 2020, 09:41:49 AM: Thanks lads :)

Card activation for units seems to be present in most of the rulesets I’ve played over the last few years. I guess it’s emerged as the antidote to the predictability of IGOUGO. It works well in this set of rules, and the random cards add a little period flavour and uncertainty, which on balance, I think is good. Their effect is minimal overall within the game, although it’s true, it can be crucial. The ‘friction’ element here is minimal compared to some currently popular rulesets - it’s only the last card each turn which misses out, and that’s not necessarily even one of the commanders’ cards.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4) Loooong report, pic heavy!
Post by: OSHIROmodels on October 10, 2020, 10:02:13 AM: Quote from: Malamute on October 09, 2020, 03:58:50 PM
How many photos?

More than when he plays with others lol
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Bloggard on October 10, 2020, 10:05:56 AM: and I guess you are using natural light, which works incredibly well. Many of the photos look better than 'studio' set-ups.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Silent Invader on October 10, 2020, 10:31:05 AM: That was an enjoyable read - thanks for taking the time. 8)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Mad Doc Morris on October 10, 2020, 11:10:51 AM: Wonderful presentation, Richard. Again. :-*
I do envy you for that magnificent table. Or rather the space not only to deploy but to store that beast with all its paraphernalia. Luverly.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Plynkes on October 11, 2020, 10:38:31 AM: Yeah!

(Got nothing to say, so just take this as a 'like', a big one at that.)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Hammers on October 11, 2020, 10:59:10 AM: Gosh...! I need to pop some popcorn bring out the reading glasses an peruse this in full.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: NurgleHH on October 11, 2020, 10:17:10 PM: Quote from: Captain Blood on October 10, 2020, 09:41:49 AM
Thanks lads :)

Card activation for units seems to be present in most of the rulesets I’ve played over the last few years. I guess it’s emerged as the antidote to the predictability of IGOUGO. It works well in this set of rules, and the random cards add a little period flavour and uncertainty, which on balance, I think is good. Their effect is minimal overall within the game, although it’s true, it can be crucial. The ‘friction’ element here is minimal compared to some currently popular rulesets - it’s only the last card each turn which misses out, and that’s not necessarily even one of the commanders’ cards.
Do you think it is possible to use it also for 100years-/Baron-Wars and maybe Italians-wars? I think ECW is to far away from the original war of the roses.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Furt on October 11, 2020, 10:37:42 PM: Great report and what a table Richard! Quite a Herculean effort with all those images and the detailed write-up - splendid!
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Captain Blood on October 11, 2020, 11:03:36 PM: Quote from: Furt on October 11, 2020, 10:37:42 PM
Great report and what a table Richard! Quite a Herculean effort with all those images and the detailed write-up - splendid!

Thanks Frank :)

Quote from: NurgleHH on October 11, 2020, 10:17:10 PM
Do you think it is possible to use it also for 100years-/Baron-Wars and maybe Italians-wars? I think ECW is to far away from the original war of the roses.

It's an interesting one, Dirk. The author has clearly gone to a deal of trouble to create and hone a set of rules that are not only playable and enjoyable, but which specifically reflect the distinctive nature of that series of bloody civil wars in England and Wales, that went on for 40-odd years in the second half of the C15th. During the course of which a couple of generations of the ruling elite managed to wipe significant numbers of themselves out. Not to mention many thousands of ordinary foot soldiers in their employ. And what the poor chap gets asked the whole time, is whether the rules are adaptable to other periods lol

On one level, they're just a set of wargames rules with mechanisms that could be adapted to other periods. Minor adjustments for the Hundred Years War and the Italian Wars would be pretty straightforward, and I believe those are already planned. Beyond that, personally I feel people should find rules that suit the period they want to play. The flavour of NMTBH is very distinctively Wars of the Roses. The rules are set up to represent the troop types, unit organisation (mixed blocks of bills and bows, for instance), the sort of events that typically took place (battlefield treachery!), and a semblance of the tactics of that particular conflict / period of history.

I guess, rather like the various Dan Mersey rulebooks, once you've hit upon a set of mechanics that work, there's nothing to stop it being endlessly repackaged for different eras and settings, just by changing a few of the troop types, terminology, special rules and fluff. But I suppose it depends to what extent the essence and character of the rules, and how they play, is linked to the period for which they were originally designed. Or whether they're sufficiently generic to be adaptable to anything and everything. My sense is that NMTBH perhaps won't travel well too far from their intended setting :)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Atheling on October 12, 2020, 07:46:56 AM: Quote from: NurgleHH on October 11, 2020, 10:17:10 PM
Do you think it is possible to use it also for 100years-/Baron-Wars and maybe Italians-wars? I think ECW is to far away from the original war of the roses.

I believe there are concrete plans to do just that Nurgle. HYW is likely, ECW would be very much pushing things though lol
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Captain Blood on October 12, 2020, 09:14:25 AM: Quote from: Bloggard on October 10, 2020, 10:05:56 AM
I guess you are using natural light, which works incredibly well. Many of the photos look better than 'studio' set-ups.

Sorry Bloggard, I missed this :)

Thank you. Yes, just natural daylight through the large Velux windows in the roof of my loft wargames room.
Truthfully, when the sun shines it's often too bright, and when it doesn't, it's often too dark! I have to do a bit of adjustment to the images for exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, etc, just to get them looking tonally consistent and clear.
I try not to shoot pics under the ceiling downlighters in the room. Even though they have quite a white light to the eye, in photos of games and figures, they just make everything look yellow. It's almost impossible to fully fix this afterwards.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: AndyC on October 12, 2020, 09:37:07 PM: Billhooks elsewhere.....? Well it all depends on Command and Control really. WOTR is pretty anarchic, with a bunch of independently minded commanders who are barely subordinate to their notional army leader at the best of times. So the card-driven turn sequence is appropriate. But it should also work in areas of similar technology and loose command structures. Hence the decision to go for western Europe 100YW to Italian Wars in the proposed book. Not sure about anything further afield geographically or historically though. Other people are welcome to try but it's not for me. Maybe, just maybe, I might be persuaded to push it as far as Momoyama Japan, if only because I have the same sort of doubts about "Test of Honour" as I had about "Saga" and "Lion Rampant" and would like to play with my 28mm plastic Samurai again. But what really interests me about writing wargames rules is zooming in on the key differences about warfare in a specific period and setting. It's all a long-term reaction to the universal WRG Ancients of my distant youth...
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Captain Blood on October 12, 2020, 09:46:32 PM: Quote from: AndyC on October 12, 2020, 09:37:07 PM
It's all a long-term reaction to the universal WRG Ancients of my distant youth...

lol

It’s quite understandable Andy. How well I remember the school wargames club, circa 1979, pitting my Minifigs Wars of the Roses army against someone else’s Minifigs Early Achaemenid Persians under WRG 5th...

Innocent days ;)
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: syrinx0 on October 13, 2020, 12:51:38 AM: Another fantastic dazzling table of WOTR. Thanks for the pictures and write up.

Quote from: Captain Blood on October 12, 2020, 09:46:32 PM
How well I remember the school wargames club, circa 1979, pitting my Minifigs Wars of the Roses army against someone else’s Minifigs Early Achaemenid Persians under WRG 5th...

If only my school had a wargames club back then... Luckily I eventually met some people who played Chainmail & Tractics.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Bloggard on October 13, 2020, 04:22:14 PM: Quote from: Captain Blood on October 12, 2020, 09:14:25 AM
Sorry Bloggard, I missed this :)

Thank you. Yes, just natural daylight through the large Velux windows in the roof of my loft wargames room.
Truthfully, when the sun shines it's often too bright, and when it doesn't, it's often too dark! I have to do a bit of adjustment to the images for exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, etc, just to get them looking tonally consistent and clear.
I try not to shoot pics under the ceiling downlighters in the room. Even though they have quite a white light to the eye, in photos of games and figures, they just make everything look yellow. It's almost impossible to fully fix this afterwards.

got the impression you had velux windows which must make all the difference when everything works out / you can make adjustments as necessary.
'cos the pics look great, and the best of them have a convincing sense of natural light (i.e. in terms of subtle shadows etc) which studio set-ups never quite seem to manage.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: NurgleHH on October 13, 2020, 05:06:43 PM: Quote from: AndyC on October 12, 2020, 09:37:07 PM
It's all a long-term reaction to the universal WRG Ancients of my distant youth...
I think you had a more lucky youth than me and my friends - we were tortured with Warhammer and his million forms of pain (WAB, W40K 1st, WECW...).So the "close" periods like late HYW and italian wars could make sense, right????
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Atheling on October 13, 2020, 05:53:43 PM: Quote from: NurgleHH on October 13, 2020, 05:06:43 PM
I think you had a more lucky youth than me and my friends - we were tortured with Warhammer and his million forms of pain (WAB, W40K 1st, WECW...).So the "close" periods like late HYW and italian wars could make sense, right????

WRG Ancients..... [shudder!] o_o :o >:(
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Eric the Shed on October 13, 2020, 06:03:02 PM: I cut my medieval teeth on a ruleset called 'Lance' I think.
Title: Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
Post by: Atheling on October 13, 2020, 07:16:06 PM: Quote from: Eric the Shed on October 13, 2020, 06:03:02 PM
I cut my medieval teeth on a ruleset called 'Lance' I think.

It was Revenge for me. A pretty good game but a lot of book keeping by todays standards.