My thoughts on Blood and Valor

[anton ryzbak]

I picked up these rules the other day and we played a couple of games. To my mind they are fast and fun as a game but suffer some serious flaws when it comes to representing combat during the Great War   https://antonswargame.blogspot.com/2020/11/rules-review-blood-and-valor.html

[Easy E]

A solid review....

[fred]

Good review. Sounds a bit lacking as a rule set then

[anton ryzbak]

Fred,
The mechanics are fine (if rather simplistic) but I don't think that the writers have a functioning grasp of small-unit tactics and organization. I do like the Command points bidding as it adds an extra dimension of interaction between the players. I would suggest that you borrow a set and play it a couple of times before you spend money on this.

[FlyXwire]

It sounds like it fills the tournament-style (points build), and low-figure count skirmish gaming segment fine (however, for the massive, blood-letting assaults of WWI?).

So could be an issue with the game-level segment, and/or with the combat that's attempting to being modeled.

(this never seems to discourage design-reach though)

[anton ryzbak]

FlyXwire, My biggest complaint is the obvious lack of research. If they want me to spring forty bucks for a set of skirmish rules for the Great War I should be able to expect that the writers spent twenty minutes checking Google and Wikipedia to get the unit organization right, maybe even glance through one or two of the Osprey books covering the subject.

These certainly fill the segment of a points-based system to fight fixed scenarios using figures that are modeled on soldiers from the Great War, but they miss the boat in reflecting the command challenges and operational facts of the conflict. Like I said; it is a fast, fun GAME but it doesn't look like the war that it claims to represent any more than chess reflects warfare in the late Middle Ages.

[FlyXwire]

These certainly fill the segment of a points-based system to fight fixed scenarios using figures that are modeled on soldiers from the Great War......

AR, the above format seems to follow a typical template.....but can you have heroes in Blood and Valor too? 

Seriously though, the irony is we often end up modifying or designing our own (for better or for worse they say).

(I wish I had a dollar every time someone described new rules as a good tool box set)   

[anton ryzbak]

FlyXWire,  Yes, there are heroes. Slightly higher Initiative rating, wider command span and much higher points cost. Plus superpowers that make it look like they were copied straight out of the old Flames of War heroes section.

I wouldn't call this a tool set, it looks like it was designed from the ground up as a competitive tournament game that uses WW1 figures, not a serious effort to reflect any historical reality.

Given the information that the rules are d10 based, with a hit/save/morale sequence and fixed movement distances almost any experienced gamer would produce something equal or better. The Command bidding system is the only part that is different from most other rules.

[FlyXwire]

FlyXWire,  Yes, there are heroes. Slightly higher Initiative rating, wider command span and much higher points cost. Plus superpowers that make it look like they were copied straight out of the old Flames of War heroes section.

I once had a conversation with a rules designer on TMP about these things - points, heroes, etc. - he said players expected them in their rulesets.  I remained polite, but still know to this day - that none of my particular circle of historical wargaming friends need these.

Like you, maybe instead we could expect sections dealing with historical unit organization?

I vaguely recall from my days with the WRG WW2 rules, a line in those that stated it expected players to have some knowledge of the period's history and military organizations, in order to make up scenarios and use the rules.

How quaint.  Today, just build your "army" of 30 figures and have at it.

[Easy E]

I once had a conversation with a rules designer on TMP about these things - points, heroes, etc. - he said players expected them in their rulesets.  I remained polite, but still know to this day - that none of my particular circle of historical wargaming friends need these.

Yeah, they are right.  Most wargamers enter the hobby through the GW system before eventually breaking off into other genres.  The "hero" is a staple of GW rule set.  Look at how many game systems follow this model, especially for smaller scale, squad-vs-squad or Model-vs-Model game systems.  Plus the "hero" gives you something to paint a bit different and model a bit "extra".  In addition, much of history is written with the "Great Man of History" lens.  This also leads gamers to want some sort of "Great Man of History" in their historical rules sets as well.  You can see the "hero" in so many "historical" rulesets.



I look forward to the eventual day when we get Bolt Action: Great War and then to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth!  After all, the "hero" idea is anti-thetical to the whole theme of the Great War!     

[Pan Marek]

Easy E-

Perhaps the "hero" in a WWI skirmish set is the one who manages to not get 90% of his troops killed?

[Easy E]

Easy E-

Perhaps the "hero" in a WWI skirmish set is the one who manages to not get 90% of his troops killed?

Checks notes on history of World War One......

"That seems to check out."

[SteveBurt]

If you want historical WW1 small unit tactics, then ‘Through the Mud and the Blood’ from TooFatLardies is very good; even has tactical training scenarios available.