Boardgame session 10Jun2015

I have recently started attending a wargaming club in Swindon, that meet every Wednesday evening. Due to social activities, I am finding attending the Sunday afternoon meetings of the Devizes group difficult, so that only managing 1 game a month is normal.

Unfortunately I turned up 30 minutes after the club night started, so most tables and attendees were already playing. There is a multiplayer FoW North Africa campaign in progress, so 4-5 tables were involved in this. Fortunately a couple of gamers were just about to start playing some boardgames and they were happy for me to join in. We started with ‘Ticket to Ride, Europe’, a game I am very familiar with and like a lot. The game was new to one of the players which I think influenced the style of play, so that there was no aggressive moves (building lines to interrupt routes being  developed by opponents etc.). I suffered a geographical error by confusing Budapest with Bucharest (!), which lost me points and resulted in a second place result in an otherwise close fought game.

Next we played ‘RoboRally’, a game I have always wanted to play and have considered buying. Basically this is a race of competing robots around a factory floor strewn with obstacles, conveyor belts, pits, laser beams etc. Players programme their robots movement  using randomly dealt cards which have to be secretly ordered for each turn. We played using 6 phases per turn with 7 dealt cards, but looking at BoardGame Geek, it is clear that later versions have different rules covering number of phases and damage effects. Other robots can disrupt your plans by shunting you (radically altering your planned programmed moves), and shooting you, causing damage and potentially ‘locking’ future programme cards (very annoying). You can repair yourself on certain squares, or by ‘powering down’ for a turn. Total destruction sends you back to the start (or, the last marker you successfully reached). All the programme cards have a value which determines the turn order. This is great game, very frustrating, and players who enjoy disrupting opponents will especially enjoy it! You need a sense of special awareness to plan your moves, but even without the intervention of opponents, it is still difficult to move around due to the programme options you are dealt each turn. I struggled to reach the first objective marker in the game and even died by misjudging my move and falling down a pit. We were using 4 boards, and a review by Dice Tower recommends keeping the course more compact with only 2 boards, which I think is a good suggestion. An opponent shunting you early in a turn can send you in unexpected (dangerous) directions. Getting accidently caught and hanging around in a laser beam is obviously not a pleasant experience. We playing a 3-player game which was fine, but I think this game would be better with more (4-8) players. Also the game we played was an ‘early’ edition, and apparently more recent editions have better components although I thought the early components were fine. I really enjoyed playing this game and I will seriously consider buying a copy.

Review of Lion Rampant

Review of Lion Rampant by Daniel Mersey (Osprey Publishing #8, 2014)

The rules are well written and beautifully presented, with scenarios and basic lists for a range of ‘starter’ armies. Units are a ‘standard’ size; 6 figures for mounted units, foot men-at-arms and skirmishers; other units have 12 figures.

The basic rules are simple and can be picked up very quickly, so that after a few turns the rulebook does not need to be referred to. The rules use an alternate move system. The central mechanic revolves around activation of units to perform one of three basic actions: move, shoot and assault. Each unit has an activation number for each different action and this needs to be exceeded using the score of 2D6 for success. Failure ends that players turn, so prioritisation is a vital decision step. Units vary in these activation parameters and this reflects their historic performance qualities. Shooting and Combat involves rolling 12xD6 (if the unit is above half strength, otherwise dropping to 6x D6) and hits are scored if the rolls equal or exceed the value listed for the unit type. Hits convert into ‘Kills’ depending on the armour rating of the target unit (e.g. 2 hits required to kill a poorly armoured unit, whereas 4 hits are required to kill a fully armoured knight). A unit that suffers a kill takes a Courage test by rolling 1x D6 (correction: 2D6), modified by loses, which succeeds if equal or greater than the units Courage rating. Failure results in a unit becoming ‘Battered’ or ‘Routing’ from the table! Battered units can be rallied at the start of each players turn by taking another Courage test, failure resulting in another figure from the unit skid-addling.

The basic rules are modified by special characteristics assigned to units e.g. ‘Wild Charge’ is assigned to most mounted knights who have to test to Assault if within move distance; ‘Fleet Footed’ units move through difficult terrain at full speed; ‘Ferocious Foot’ fight in difficult terrain at full effect; ‘Skirmish’ units can move and fire in a single turn etc. etc. The special characteristics force units to behave as their historic counter-parts would, and this is an area where the rules really work. Another piece of chrome is the random assignment (rolling 2D6) of a character to Leaders which can range from ‘Forgettable’ to ‘Great Leader’.

The 12 scenarios listed in the rules are another positive aspect of the publication, allowing players to vary games and not just play simple head-to-head clashes. Victory Points are awarded to the side which achieves different objectives dependent on the scenario. The Victory Point score is also modified by achieving various ‘Boasts’ made before the battle by the army commander. There are a total of 15 different boasts listed and they award between 1 and 3 Glory Points. I like to randomly assign Boasts and they remain secret from the other player. During the game Leaders may wish to challenge their opposite number to a ‘Duel’ if they are close enough. This essentially is a luck based process, and I personally only use challenges if I am losing a game and wish to throw my fate into the hands of the dice gods!

I have played a few solo games using Lion Rampart plus some opposed games both at my local wargames club and with visiting friends. All the games have used my recently painted Teutonic and Baltic Pagan forces (see recent “Off the Painting Table” posts). These opposing forces seem well matched with victory evenly distributed (so far). Both forces are rather dominated by the ‘Wild Charge’ characteristic, which results in a game where both players have little control of the situation. Essentially the Pagans try to remain in difficult terrain (woods, swamp etc) and induce the Teutonic knights to charge them. They have a combat advantage by being ‘Ferocious Foot’ and the knights are greatly disadvantaged, especially because their armour drops from 4 to 2. Conversely the Teutonic knights hope to induce the Pagan foot to rashly charge out of the difficult terrain and thereby get massacred, particularly if the knights successfully counter-charge. The game is basically ‘cat and mouse’ until one side is forced to make a rash move. The other units in both forces tend to play a supporting role, shooting the enemy when able, and when I’m the Teutonic player I use the spearmen as the ‘rock’ around which the force operates.

So finally, what do I think of Lion Rampart as a set of games rules? Overall the rules are beautifully produced, fast, fun and easy to play. They are suitable for solo games because of their unpredictable activation system. I do have a few criticisms to make:

1. When units test for ‘Wild Charge’ and fail to assault, they are then not able to activate in the main phase of the turn. They just sit there, locked down and unable to adjust. As a house rule, I would allow the unit to be activated normally.
2. The ‘Courage’ test is too random and results in too many units routing off table after only taking 1 or 2 kills, rather than becoming ‘Battered’. The flaw lies in rolling a single D6; rolling a ‘1’ (which I seem to do a lot!) generally causes the unit to rout irrespective of the basic unit quality. It is galling to see your knight units running as easily as serfs! The knights do have a better chance of passing a test, but the chance of dramatic failure is equal for both units. I don’t understand why the author did not use a 2D6 roll like that used in activation. This would have been a easy decision, compatible with the general rule structure, and give a better distribution of results. I am therefore devising a house rule using 2D6 and will adjust the Courage ratings to fit. (correction: Courage tests do actually use 2D6).
3. Due to the problem discussed above, in games I have found no units falling to half strength or below, and thereby using reduced numbers of dice. Units taking kills either rout off or become so ‘Battered’ that they can never be rallied, and never be activated to do anything! (correction: my error in reading the rules). It may be useful to reflect each casualty by reducing the Combat dice rolled by a unit; i.e. 1 dice less/casualty for 12 figure units, and 2 dice less/casualty for 6 man units. I have not yet tried this option, and it remains simply an idea.
4. Full strength, 12 figure, dedicated missile units throw 12xD6 when shooting, which is fine. But 6 figure missile units (Bidowers and mounted bows) also throw 12xD6, which seems excessive. As a house rule, I allow shooting units to throw only as many dice as figures in the unit. This corrects this anomaly, at least the one I perceive to exist, and is easy to implement.

Anyway to conclude, I really like Lion Rampant and can see them becoming a favourite, especially as a pick-up club game.

After Action Report: ACW (Longstreet; battle #5) 31 May 2015

This was the 5^th battle (mid 1863) of a 9 battle mini-campaign using Longstreet rules by Sam Mustafa (Honour Publishing). I commanded the Union force, whilst Ian commanded the Rebels. Previously in the mini-campaign I was ahead by 3 victories to 1 defeat, and in each battle the defending force had won. The composition of my Union force can be viewed in my previous blog post. I’m sorry but I forgot my camera (and mobile phone), so there are no pictures.

 We randomly selected the ‘Cornfields’ scenario and the terrain placement was fairly neutral; another area of standing crop filled the central section with intervening corn, and the flanks each had a small wood and an area of rocky ground, none of which had a major impact on our deployments or strategy. Each side had an objective maker placed centrally. The attacker (Ian’s Rebs) had to deploy first. He concentrated in the central section of the battlefield, advancing in column, sheltering behind the obscuring tall crops. I also deployed centrally, keeping 6” back from the crops with my Napoleon artillery battery placed on the Objective marker. I deployed my Light Rifle batteries on the flanks with some weak infantry units as protection. I kept some of my infantry in a second reserve line behind my centre, allowing me to easily re-deploy if Ian tried any fancy flanking moves. My strategy was to sit back and await the Rebel onslaught as they came out of the corn. I wanted to shoot the enemy down as they charged, and not to get involved in a close fight inside the corn fields. The only downside was that my artillery superiority would not help me because the corn prevented any bombardment of the Rebels as they advanced. It soon became clear that Ian was going to attack my centre and the game would hinge around whether or not I could stop it! Card management would be key.

Sure enough, the battle was effectively decided in couple of hectic turns. Ian carefully gathered his forces at the edge of the corn and then charged out. I fired everything I had at him, boosting the effect with a ‘Devastating Fire’ card (re-roll failed hits); I caused significant casualties which Ian partially mitigated using up valuable cards. On the next turn, Ian charged using the ‘Rebel Yell’ card and close combat ensued. Both my flank units (45^th Ohio and 13^th\14^th Pa) were pushed back, taking casualties, but my central eager-veteran unit (37^th Pa) and Napoleon battery (9^th Pa) held firm. I was slightly concerned at this point but I had shot a fair number of Rebels on the way in. In my next turn I again blasted the Rebs using ‘Withering Fire’ (re-roll failed kills) and again killed many. I had yet to use my reserve units (14^th & 88^th NJ) and Ian’s weakened forces again had to charge. This time I played the ‘Seen the Elephant’ card which reduced Ian’s hand of cards by 3, and then boosted my defence using the ‘Stonewall’ card. The rebel attacks were beaten off, and the number of stands he lost meant that I was declared victorious!

This was a comfortable Union win. I can take little credit because I simply stood back and took the assault. My limited action meant I could build a strong hand of cards when the charge came. I don’t think there was anything wrong with Ian’s plan; my reserves would allow me to re-deploy to meet any flank attack, and a central assault did benefit from the cover provided by the crops. The rebels charge could possibly have been better: playing a ‘Thick Smoke’ card could have reduced my shooting to only skirmish levels; maybe playing ‘Old Rivals’ could have disrupted my lines, moving one of my units out of position; also playing the card allowing units that shot to move or charge would have helped.

I did not get to use my ‘Sabotage’ advantage from the previous game because the Rebels did not need to re-shuffle! Both sides gained 4EP’s (2 each for playing, 1 each for holding an objective, plus I got 1 for the win and Ian gained 1 for charging with more than 10 bases), and I have a narrow 20–18 EP lead. I gained a promotion to 3 Eagles, whilst Ian remained on 4 Eagles. In terms of reinforcements, I gained some more Light Rifles, a 10 base Coloured unit and some veteran sharpshooters. Because I lost few bases in this game, my base count for the next game increased to 50, which is significantly more than the 44 minimum size!

My Union force available for battle number 6 will be:

Commander	Personality				Rank		EP’s
“Art” Rooney	Indian Wars Veteran (Scout: 2D6 & keep higher)				3 Eagles (2/63)		20
Unit	Type	Elan	Exp.	Strength		Notes
9th Pa Artillery	ART	-	-	2		2x Napoleon
37th Pa Infantry	INF	Eager	Veteran	6
13th\14th Pa (Prov) Inf.	INF	Season	Veteran	6		Sharpshooters (5,6 Skirm Fire), Hero
16th\45th Ohio (Prov) Inf.	INF	Caut.	Veteran	5		Sharpshooters (5,6 Skirm Fire)
26th NJ Artillery	ART	-	-	3		3x Lt Rifle
29th NJ Artillery	ART	-	-	3		3x Lt Rifle
14th NJ Infantry	INF	Season	Recruit	4
88th NJ Infantry	INF	Season	Veteran	5
7th US (Coloured) Inf.	INF	Eager	Recruit	10
12th NH Infantry	INF	Season	Veteran	6		Sharpshooters (5,6 Skirm Fire)
				50 bases

Notes: The 40^th Pa (an original unit) has been totally destroyed. The 45^th Ohio has been merged with the 16^th Ohio, but lost the Hero figure as a consequence.