Enjoying En Garde?

[nicknorthstar]

Are people enjoying En Garde from Osprey?

I played my 'Siege of Maastricht 1673' scenario again tonight, with Dave from Caliver Books, and we both enjoyed it. As a set of rules for small actions in the Renaissance I think it works, especially as play is speeding up as I'm getting used to it.

[marcusluis]

where do you get the minis from?

[Pijlie]

I have enjoyed reading it so far, but I have a game planned next week.

[nicknorthstar]

I've been using the North Star 1672 range.



(thats a posed shot, not actual play)

I concede the figures are a little 'casual' for a swashbuckling game  but they look good.

[Curst Eckie]

I've tried a play test for Border Reivers and the rules worked very well. I posted a report on the Steel Bonnets yahoo group. Not sure how to get a report on here but could do so if there is interest and someone shows me how!. I've just tried foot actions, I liked the Combat Pool options and the Characterisation you can give to the figures which for me is what skirmish wargaming should be about. This weekend I'm going to try mounted actions as well and the following weekend I'm taking it down to our club for a mini campaign day. What we need is some great plastic figures!!!

[Atheling]

Osprey sent me a free copy but thus far the rules are untouched.

We were thinking of using them for the Elizabethan Invasion of Ireland but we might be sticking to Lion Rampant as we want to play medium sized games and En Garde seems more half a dozen to a dozen mini's per side.

Having said that, we haven't played the rules yet and so I'm not really in a position to qualify the above

Darrell.

[Sunjester]

Got the rules and they look good from first reading. But it is going to be a while before I get to play them (too many rules not enough time!).

[Arlequín]

We were thinking of using them for the Elizabethan Invasion of Ireland but we might be sticking to Lion Rampant as we want to play medium sized games and En Garde seems more half a dozen to a dozen mini's per side.

Yep... they are sub-Lion Rampant level, a dozen (or up to 20) or so minis a side, but damn good all the same.

Are people enjoying En Garde from Osprey?

I am and I gather a few others are too. It would be even more enjoyable with its own 'Musketeer-Alatriste' era figure range to complement the existing Brigade Games one though.

Just sayin...  

[fastolfrus]

Plus 1 for the Alatriste range.

Even more if it's a multi-part plastic set.

(Alatriste books preferred over the film, but the film version looks pretty decent)

Also need some Alatriste lists/skirmish scenarios

[nicknorthstar]

I have to admit I've not read the books, just seen the film.

My one criticism of En Garde! would be it's title. It implies sword-fighting duels. I think En Garde is a 20 figure a side game, not a 3-4 figure aside game.

So in context to Alatriste, his fights in the streets and buildings as a sell-sword would be over too quick with En Garde! But the raid on the Dutch guns at the beginning of the film, OMG! Perfect for En Garde! So perfect I'm thinking about doing the scenario next club night. I'd move it the 1670's because of my figure collection, but a French night raid to spike a Dutch battery of guns, HURRAH

[Joe Fish]

Just picked the rule today, they certainly look good. I may have to singl mount a few figures to try them out soon.   Hmm, where is my pry bar?

[Metternich]

I'm reading them.   Look fairly good, and would use them for 16'th century.  Query about armor classes.  Given the combat example in the book, where a buff coat equaled light class armor, what do readers think would be appropriate for medium and heavy?  I was thinking heavy would be 3/4 armor (tassets to the knees), or possibly complete half armor.  Medium would be just a cuirass (whether over buff coat or not), and possibly brigandines.  That leaves the question of mail shirts (medium? and if so, what to do about galloglass armor?).  Thoughts ?     

[Arlequín]

I think that more depends on the weapon being used, rather than applying blanket terms for everything.

Breastplates were typically 'pistol-proofed', with some high-end ones being 'musket-proofed'... but helmets, arm armour and thigh armour were thinner and not-proofed against firearms at all. Mail or other less substantive armours are hardly going to stop a ball and in fact might end up causing more grievous wounds by flattening it before it hits flesh.

Hand-wielded weapons would find mail and padding more resilient than just mail or padding. A buff-coat and the more solid type of high riding boot would leave less leg vulnerable than buff coat, breeches and hose. 3/4 Cuirassier armour is going to be pretty much invulnerable to most hand weapons, while medieval-era armours are less resilient but lighter to wear.

I might be inclined to take it on a case by case basis, depending on what your figures will be wearing. Some periods will be more complex than others.

[Curst Eckie]

I've used:-

Light - brigantine/jack/buff coat

Medium - Breast plate

Heavy - 3/4 armour

I don't think there is need for greater complexity, this gives enough for close combat and firearms get a +ve modifier on shooting

[Arlequín]

It's actually simplicity... a pistol (or caliver/arquebus) ball will only be defeated by a breastplate and a musket ball 'might' be defeated by one. So light armour is effectively no armour and medium armour and heavy 3/4 armour is effectively the same (the arm and leg parts are too thin). Why do you suppose they began abandoning all but breastplate and helmet from the Late 16th Century onwards and ultimately all of it by around 1700? There should be a + modifier for a musket in comparison to a pistol, but otherwise it's either breastplate or no breastplate...

Armour as light, medium and heavy, is only really relevant in melee.