In Deo Veritas from Helion - opinions?

[Wirelizard]

Helion Publishing have recently published these rules for larger battles. They're currently out of stock, because the Current Situation has FUBAR'd publishing as it has much else, but has anyone gotten a copy?

In Deo Veritas: Fast Play Rules for Exciting Seventeenth Century Battles in Smaller Scales

I've been contemplating some small scale ECW/TYW in either 6mm or go full microscale with 2mm, and Helion does excellent reference and history books so I'm intruiged by them moving into wargaming rules too.

So, opinions on In Deo Veritas, anyone?

[fred]

I’m interested in finding out more about these rules. There is an intro video, but it didn’t do a lot for me I’m afraid.

[Wirelizard]

Here's that video, it's a short interview with the author and yeah, doesn't answer a lot of questions that weren't already answered by the blurbs on the publisher's website.



All the reviews I've found so far on various blogs have been of the "new thing, planning on messing with it, here's a very quick first impression" but no play reports or anything.

I own a couple of the "standard" big battle recent rulessets - FoG:R and Warlord's Pike & Shotte - and honestly can't engage with them at all. Tried a couple of games of FoG:R and bounced. Pikeman's Lament is great for small/medium skirmish but I am looking for an army level ruleset.

Might just have to throw some money at Helion and see what I get with In Deo Veritas...

[fred]

Our choice of rules is For King and Parliament, using 10mm figures

[OB]

There is a good review here.

https://warfareintheageofcynicsandamateurs.blogspot.com/

[fred]

A very positive review, but does reference volley and bayonet a lot.

Also the background on the blog makes it literally um-readable - thank goodness for reader mode in the browser to strip the background out.

[Atheling]

Our choice of rules is For King and Parliament, using 10mm figures

I take it that Simon wrote the grid system into the rules FK&P as in TtS?

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Heyhey. I got the rules since release and intended to swiftly do a review. So I had a solo game (the rules were released during or right before lockdown after all. I also prefer to do testgames solo so I don't have to subject poor gaming pals to the whole procedure of learning the rules. ). Problem is that throughout the game I failed to properly keep track of wing morale, which is a pretty darned important aspect of the game as I realized.

Currently setting up for another test game so I can get it properly reviewed (well, to my standards at least ).

Anyway, my initial impressions based on that first test game are as such: Swift game, works largely as intended. Didn't find anything problematic about them in terms period representation. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but it took me a while to wrap my head around how combat works. The game rolls firing and close combat into one section, but it's far from complicated. It makes use of a very basic "secret orders" mechanic per wing, which I really like. These orders are limited to "Attack", "hold" and "withdraw", so far from the complexity of similar systems such as in General de Brigade. Activation (per wing) is based on a card drawing mechanic. Also nice. One thing I noticed and which left me scratching my head a fair amount is some unclarities in certain places. The movement section could have done with one or two more paragaphs on how things are done, how enemy units are contacted and what exactly happens in that process.

I'll see that I get the game on the table this weekend and then get a proper review done (to be found on tabletopstories.net/language/en/ at some point in the future.).

By the way, as for basing, there are suggestions for base width and depth based on the ground scale (in general I think the rules are laid out pretty 'newbie friendly' to help people get into the period if they're starting out). "Brigades" (cavalry or foot) are listed as 75mm x 40mm, early tercios or double brigades (think massed arquebusiers in the early 17th century, etc) are 75mm x 75mm, smaller specialist units (dragoons, commanded shot, small bodies of men) are 40x40mm, and irregular cavalry is 75x75mm. You won't have to bother with formations in this game beyond mach column and line/'deployed for battle'. Of course my own basing is different to those sizes (infantry being 100mm wide and between 20 and 60mm deep, cavalry being 80mm wide and 40mm deep), but it doesn't make much of a difference. One thing I noticed is that command bases (positioning of these is important as there are command ranges and outside of those a unit can't do anything) are pretty big at 50mm (high command) or 40mm (wing command) in diameter. Which explains the seemingly short command ranges. My own commander bases are smaller (based on pence coins). This fact, along with the fact that my units are a fair bit wider than as per the rules, led me to make command distances a bit bigger right from the get-go.

In the back there's even a points system. In general the units are kept pretty generic (see above), so if you want to introduce Ottomans, or all the wild stuff that went on in Eastern Europe at the time the rules technically will do that too, but you may want to throw in a modifier here and there to represent certain specialities of those armies.

Overall the rules seem to work rather well. My current favourite for the period is Twilight of Divine Right, but I read of some people finding that one a bit daunting. In Deo Veritas certainly is not daunting and gives you what it says on the book cover: swift games of 17th century battles. I, like most people who play the period I'm sure, am a big fan of Helion's Century of the Soldier series of books and it's great they're branching out into wargames rules. I got my copy for free, because I contributed some miniature photos to the book, but even if I hadn't I wouldn't have hesitated ordering this one. There aren't that many rules sets being released for this period, and I think IDV is a very welcome addition for existing collections or for people wanting to get into the period.

[OB]

Interesting stuff Sigur, thank you.

My copy is on its way.

[fred]

I take it that Simon wrote the grip system into the rules FK&P as in TtS?

I’m not sure what you mean / refer to by grip in this context? But TTS and FKaP share many core concepts. In our group we had initially struggled with TtS, but after playing FKaP we went back and understood TtS and have enjoyed games of both.

Thanks for the review / initial impressions Sigur

[Atheling]

I’m not sure what you mean / refer to by grip in this context?

Sorry, a typo (above post amended); I meant to type "grid"

[anton ryzbak]

I find it a strange brew of old and new ideas, lots of modifiers to die rolls so if you like that Old School chart cranking you will be right at home. Also I found that the footprint of the units was oddly small when you look at the movement rates.  I cut out cardboard rectangles to try out the rules as I am unlikely to rebase mine again. After a couple of tries I passed on the rules.

Frankly I prefer Tercio by Liber Militium; faster, cleaner play (but watch out for some of the general's abilities, they can get wonky) and I find that it matched my understanding of the Thirty Years War rather better. Plus Liber Militium is only about twenty pages of rules, and provides basic army lists for most participants. I don't care for any of the FOG rules, and Pike and Shotte just plain misses the mark.

Tercio was impressive enough to get me to rebase all 3000+ of my 15mm figures (and I HATE rebasing minis)

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Thanks for the insights, Anton! Your name rings a bell. Have we conversed on Twitter or do you run a blog?

The point of IDV being a strange brew of old and new ideas is a very valid one I think. It seems to stick together elements which work elsewhere. Which isn't bad in my book. Me, I'm okay with modifiers, especially in a game such as this one. Of course there are alternatives (such as using different kinds of dice, etc.), but in the end there's nothing wrong with modifiers. IIRC some of the ones from the IDV book could do with some additional explanations when it comes to a few modifiers in the disorder test charts, but oh well. In the end I didn't find IDV to be particularly modifier-heavy. But then I'm coming from Twilight of Divine Right, which has a pretty darned impressively big table of modifiers. (also looks worse than it is, but I could see some people getting turned off by such stuff).

As for the movement rates - Yeah, things move a bit fast, don't they. But then the rules aim for swift game-play, and several other rules sets do that now (like Pike&Shot potentially allowing for multiple moves at a time, Baroque does that in the usual Impetus way, Twilight of Divine Right potentially allows for a unit to act for an unlimited amount of moves as long as you keep passing a roll, etc.). Just a way of getting the "moving up to the enemy" part of the game over with quicker. I love the "a unit might move really quickly, if you're lucky. Or barely at all, if you're unlucky.". One of the central problems of commanding an army, I think. IDV forgoes that of course in favor of keeping gameplay simple.

Never tried Tercio, but several people keep on mentioning it being really good. I'm not particularly interested in army lists, but if the rules work, they work, and that's the main thing. If you ever grow tired of Tercio, consider Twilight of Divine Right, Baroque, or Tilly's Very Bad Day!

[fred]

I take it that Simon wrote the grid system into the rules FK&P as in TtS?

Yes, absolutely. Works well keeps movement easy and quick. The card based activation works well too.

[Atheling]

Yes, absolutely. Works well keeps movement easy and quick. The card based activation works well too.

Thanks Feed