WotR: Supply Run (AAR of skirmish play test)

[jambo1]

Great looking game, nice figures and I love the whole board size, really interesting.

[affun]

I think I've said so before, but just to be sure I'll echo it here again. Your rules do look quite interesting and adaptable: Quite the thing I enjoy. Have been and will continue to follow the development with interest.

The game looks splendid. Have always been a sucker for small, confined, boards. And the forces are great too.

[Silent Invader]

Thanks all, comments greatly appreciated.  

2x2 did make for a very exciting game, which is more surprising when you consider that it was played solo. I have included an AI system in the 'optional' section of the rules (which will become very useful when another option, The Undead, is played in another genre) but I didn't use it as the confined space and narrow objectives limited the tactical choices. That said, the Yorkists might well have been able to use their billmen to block the bridge if they hadn't waded across the river, which then might well have won it for them (shame it didn't occur to me at the time.......!).

The rules use elements from my previous rules. They have some features in common with Sharpe Practise 1, Donnybrook, Muskets & Tomahawks, Ultra Simple Skirmish Rules and a few others that I own or have played. The biggest change for me was to switch from an action point system to different dice for different types of characters and units: a lot less looking up required making for a faster game (similar to Donnybrook). Activation is by draw of a playing card with Aces  allowing the player to select any character or unit. If a character has subordinates, then they can be activated out of turn if they are within command radius. Thus it can be beneficial to pass on a unit card to await the Ace or the leader's card, so that multiple units can be activated at once (though there is the risk that the opponent does the same but is luckier with the draw). When a card is drawn it's character or unit is first tested for stickiness which is significantly more likely to be a fail for units that are leaderless (it is a simple threshold test of a modified 4, which is obviously much more likely with a D20 Hero than a D4 Folk). A fail means that the character or unit (and any subordinate characters or units nominated in this turn to activate with it, cannot actually activate in this turn). I first used this feature in my Tommy And Fritz rules at BLAM and it encourages players to make fuller use of command and control. The only markers on the table are for black powder reload and for units who are shaken and other than knowing which card represents who and what dice they use, no book keeping is required.

Bit of a brain dump but that's a flavour of the rules, which in short is: the best bits from my previous rules but with action points replaced by different dice.  

[affun]

I can certainly get behind what sounds like a 'generic' (in a positive way) modified Donnybrook or Sharpe Practice. I've always liked card-activation mechanics and the rest of your thoughts look solid.
Hopefully a compiled version to go along with ABS (Which I'll have a read of later) will manifest at some point in the near future 
We're just about to start up a couple of retinues for the late 100 years war/free form GoT-ish fantasy locally, so I might even be able to get them on the table.

Cheers!

[Silent Invader]

 

I should add, ABS has a more complex melee system, using a lot of dice. The move to different sized dice for each type of fighter has simplified and speeded considerably.

[affun]

I should add, ABS has a more complex melee system, using a lot of dice. The move to different sized dice for each type of fighter has simplified and speeded considerably.

I've done a quick read through of the ABS, and am definitely going to give it a try. I think I can see what you mean by the simpler resolution mechanics. Sounds interesting.
Either way, looking forward to trying it out. Though we do need to muster some retinues first.

I'll try and make a post when we get to it.

[commissarmoody]

I am going to have to give the rules a gander.

[Silent Invader]

ABS was written to give a distinctive WotR flavour, thus lots of modifiers etc for different troop types, weapons and equipment etc. SAG is simple and generic, and loses some of the WotR focus in exchange for speed of play. If I was just a WotR gamer then I'd settle on a WotR-specific rule set. But I'm not (see project list above!) and I've come to realise that trying really hard to make the rules pin-point specific to the project actually hinders gaming, as I end up 'playing' the project rather than playing more games. Terrain serves a similar limiting function (or time-soak and attention-sponge), thus my similar move to generic terrain (see project list above!). The SAG rules don't force me to play in a WotR-manner but they do encourage me to play my wider research into the WotR. The flavour of the game is, to some extent, therefore a product of informed mind rather than a function of typed minutiae, which suits my solid preference for a narrative (by which I mean immersive, story-telling) game ..... hard-core competitive rules player, I am not  .

[Dalauppror]

Exellent looking game! Really like your terrain 

[commissarmoody]

Will you be posting the SAG Rules up too?

[DonVoss]

Wow...what a fantastic looking little game...I like it a lot....

Cheers,
Don

[Silent Invader]

Thanks D and D  

Will you be posting the SAG Rules up too?

TBH I don't know. The issue for me is reviews and sometimes debates OUTSIDE OF LAF that critique the rules as if they have the resources of GW behind them and I've been paid a king's ransom for them, rather than the free download which they were/are. With Scavange Skirmish Survive I found it quite dispiriting that negative judgement was made about me as an individual as well as the rules being diminished for them not being what the review wanted them to be. It sucked the fun out of it for me. I welcome fair criticism but some people get a power-kick from belittling the efforts of others. So I doubt that I'll put the rules up on my website etc but in due course (ie after more testing) I'll probably be agreeable to emailing a PDF to LAFers with a genuine and solid interest. Not just yet though, as a few more tests are required.

No offence intended to anyone here at LAF, it's a wider audience that has previously troubled me.  

[jon_1066]

Thanks D and D  

TBH I don't know. The issue for me is reviews and sometimes debates OUTSIDE OF LAF that critique the rules as if they have the resources of GW behind them and I've been paid a king's ransom for them, rather than the free download which they were/are. With Scavange Skirmish Survive I found it quite dispiriting that negative judgement was made about me as an individual as well as the rules being diminished for them not being what the review wanted them to be. It sucked the fun out of it for me. I welcome fair criticism but some people get a power-kick from belittling the efforts of others. So I doubt that I'll put the rules up on my website etc but in due course (ie after more testing) I'll probably be agreeable to emailing a PDF to LAFers with a genuine and solid interest. Not just yet though, as a few more tests are required.

No offence intended to anyone here at LAF, it's a wider audience that has previously troubled me.  

There are always a few like the old Harry Enfield character

"You don't want to do it like that, you want to do it like this!"

They put nothing of note forward themselves but can tell you a multitude of ways how you are wrong and how they would have done it better if they had done it (which they didn't)

Don't let the small minority bring you down.

[Silent Invader]

Ah, yes, the Harry Enfield character 

Thanks for the encouragement Jon. I suppose I'm a bit less thick-skinned about my hobby than I am the rest of my life, what with it being intended to provide fun and relaxation.

[affun]

I certainly hope that the rules will be available in some form. Consider that a statement of interest, if you will.
But, afterall, the decision is yours to make: It's a hobby, and being stressed out and drained about it is not the way to go.

I've spent most of today thinkering with the basis of ABS to make something I think is more suited to our local tastes, and hopefully also the earlier medieval period we'll be playing (thinking mid-HYW with a good dosis of 'pulp'. I think I need to do some research, though). Will say, though, that I definitely recognize the thoughts put into the base rules, and may just end up sticking with them if my own efforts prove futile. Definitely would if I had a couple hundred bills and bows lying about, but those guys need to be painted first 

Very inspiring stuff, both this thread and your site.