Rules list for Pike and Shot era games

[Friends of General Haig]

I have updated my list of Pike & Shot era wargames rules on my blog here:

https://theviaregia.blogspot.com/p/17th-century-wargames-rules.html

This update introduces 12 sets of rules to the list bringing the total to 67.  There is a broad range of rules in this update, including old rules from the 60s and rules released in the last few months. There are rules for smaller skirmish games, as well as big battle games.  There are even rules that include magic and demonic creatures! I am continually surprised that the list keeps expanding at the rate it does.  Wargamers certainly seem to like rules and I look forward to seeing further sets in the future. 

If you know about a set that I haven’t included then please let me know and I will include them in the next update.

[traveller]

Wow! Impressive list. Thanks for sharing. Maybe you could include a rating as well. I guess at least some of them are rated at boardgamegeek.com 

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

I’ve tried to post a comment on the blog regarding the availability of two of the rule sets but it was not published. (I couldn’t sign in via Google and have forgotten how I previously logged in - inadvertently - as Jon Snow?, an alias I am not proud of). I’ll therefore post it here instead:

“Gott mit Uns!” can be purchased from the author, Lance Flint, on eBay.

I’ve also occasionally come across “Dutchman, Spaniard, Switzer, Swede” on eBay but don’t recall the seller. Noble Knight seems the likeliest possibility.

“Renatio et Gloriam” will be published in a print edition by Helion next year, along with a book of army lists for the 30 Years War and ECW called Europe’s Ruin, and is currently available to pre-order through Amazon and Caliver Books. (The publication date, as well as the price, is unclear at present. Amazon states 30 January, Caliver “early January”, while Helion’s website says “spring 2024”, with no price quoted.)

Andrew

Edit: I see that you have referred to the new edition by Helion but have left my comment intact due to the conflicting information that is currently available.

[Patrice]

  Great work!

“Argad“ (mix of RPG and skirmish game) has a reference sheet for the late 16th and the first half of the 17th century with which Wars of Religion and TYW games are quite often played  (I don't know if it has been used for the ECW yet).

[rumacara]

You also have "Flashing Steel" from Ganesha Games wich is similar with "En Garde" from Osprey.

[Codsticker]

Amazing really. I had know idea there were so many options.

[SJWi]

Many thanks for this. Some real gaming nostalgia. I started with Gush's WRG set back in the mid '70s using Hinchliffe Poles and later Essex Muscovites. I've now gone full circle and am thinking of the "Deluge" period of the Swedish-Polish--Russian ( plus others) wars of the 1650s-70s.  However I might drop to 6 or 10mm. Thus this is very timely as Twilight of Divine Right plus its Eastern supplements might be worth a look.     

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

I’ve just remembered Renaissance Principles of War, covering the period 1494 - 1660, according to the cover. I think there were two editions, the first being published in 2000, the second a few years later. No idea of current availability.

[nicknorthstar]

I’ve just remembered Renaissance Principles of War, covering the period 1494 - 1660, according to the cover. I think there were two editions, the first being published in 2000, the second a few years later. No idea of current availability.

Out of print now, unlikely to be reprinted.

[nicknorthstar]

Archworld.

This was a set I bought in 1982. It was written in the late '70s. It caught my eye in the Games Shop due to the fact the Human civilisation was 17th Century, very un-Warhammer/ D&D that I was used to.

I loved the setting, but hated the rules.

Check this out:
One of the reasons behind the genesis of the Archworld rules has been an attempt to respond to the needs and complaints of many wargamers who feel that most of the ancient warfare rules now available are far too complex. Too many of these game systems require an excessive amount of log keeping and the use of overly long sets of tables.

Then look at this from the rulebook!!



Board Game Geek has a good write up and pictures: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25161/archworld

I tried them out at the time and rejected the rules, but never forgot the background. Years later I put on an Archworld game using DBR and had my ECW army V an alliance of Goblins, Innuits and Mongols.

[Friends of General Haig]

@Traveller - thank you. I'd find a rating system very hard - rules are so subjective.  I think the most important things are the rules you and your gaming buddies know, and like.  Even this is a constantly shifting picture  .

@Cholmondely Percival IV - great info - will include in the next update.  Sorry it was tricky to comment on the blog.  Blogger is a bit of a pain to use. I've found it works best when using Chrome as the browser, but still not perfect.

@Patrice - thanks - will add at the next update.

@Rumacara - cheers - will add those in next time. 

@Codsticker - it's amazing, isn't it! I expected it to be a list of around a dozen when I started  . I've already had more than a dozen further suggested across the various socials in the last 24 hours  .

@SJWi - Gush were my first rules for the period as well. Glad to know you're getting back in to the period.  TODR are a very interesting set and to me seem truly innovative.  Definitely suit smaller scales (although should also work for larger).

@Nick - info and suggested set very much appreciated!  Will add at the next update.

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

Archworld.

One of the reasons behind the genesis of the Archworld rules has been an attempt to respond to the needs and complaints of many wargamers who feel that most of the ancient warfare rules now available are far too complex. Too many of these game systems require an excessive amount of log keeping and the use of overly long sets of tables.

Not to be confused with the ArcWorlde setting from Warp Miniatures, I take it. I have to wonder which “far too complex” rules the designer was reacting against and hope that he made a full recovery.

BTW, Nick, you’ve entered the wrong link to the BGG entry.

[Inkpaduta]

The only one I could think to add would be Pike, Shotte and Zombie.

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

I may be somewhat pushing the envelope of what ought to be included in a directory of rules for the period by bringing up two sets of which I know almost nothing (though I own, or did own, one of them) but they share an interesting characteristic in their titles being taken from poems by the Marquess of Montrose. One is by Neil Danskin, author of the Lion of the North set of 30 YW rules that appears to be untraceable. (It dates from the early 90’s and I have a copy somewhere). His other set is aimed specifically at Montrose’s campaigns and goes by the delightful name Then Place My Parboiled Head Upon a Stake, from the poem he wrote the night before his execution. It is listed on BGG but with no other information.

Bizarrely, I can give even less information on the other set, as I’ve forgotten the title, which seems strong grounds for disqualification. I remember only that it also had a striking - though clearly not memorable - name, which also came from a poem by Montrose. I’m reasonably sure that the author was based in Scotland but beyond that, and that it was most likely also published in the early 1990’s, I’m drawing a blank. In spite of the name, I don’t think it was focused on Montrose’s campaigns. I’ll try to do a bit of research on his poetry and something may jar my memory.

Edit: There seem to be only 13 surviving poems by Montrose and, while I am yet to read them all, I have located the one which from which the title of the mysterious ECW rules was taken. The poem, To His Mistress, or at any rate one verse of it, is in fact quite famous, having been quoted by Montgomery on the eve of D-Day, but the concluding line is the one with which we are concerned here: “To win or lose it all”. This, I am reasonably sure, is the title of the rules, though whether this is sufficient to qualify  them for inclusion in the directory is another matter.

[AWu]

@Traveller - thank you. I'd find a rating system very hard - rules are so subjective.  I think the most important things are the rules you and your gaming buddies know, and like.  Even this is a constantly shifting picture  .

I would suggest different thing. Change (or better yet make supporting list)  of grouping, or categorization to present those In print, and popular in the beginning, and those with only historical interest (or  of sentimental value) later in the list somehow

To make it more useful for someone looking at options.