A Simple Neil Thomas Horse & Musket Game

[Whirlwind]

Please see here for an AAR of a very small WSS encounter, using Neil Thomas’ scenario and rules and Baccus 6mm figures.

[General Slade]

I really enjoyed your battle report.  A lot happened for such a small encounter and it was great the way it swung back and forth and the result remained in doubt.

I like Neil Thomas’s books and rules but I hadn’t heard of Simplicity in Practice so I have followed the link in your article and bought the PDF from Wargame Vault.  Cheers for the heads up.

[Whirlwind]

Thanks very much.

When starting out with SiP, can I recommend a quick skim over these two posts to help you out, from John’s Wargame page and my own review? They will help in terms of revising the melee, especially.

[General Slade]

Thanks.  I will take a look.

[willz]

Thanks for posting a good AAR and a fine read.

[Andrew Beasley]

Nice game – I must dig out the DVD I won years ago with the old Battlegames magazines on and have a read of the rules.

Added your blog to my Feedly list 🙂

 

[Whirlwind]

Thanks all, appreciate it.

[Sane Max]

I liked Norm’s comment on one of your reviews

“I get a sense that with NT rules, that those of us who want some simplicity in our wargaming lives, go to the rules and then feel they could do with just a LITTLE bit more complexity to meet our own take on things.”

I totally agree with that – I adore all of his sets’ simplicity but cannot help bolting on just a few little changes to make them suit me. Luckily there’s none of that ‘My Rules are Perfect and must not be Changed or the Wargames Police will come round your house and smash your toys’ preciousness you get with some rule-writers.

[Whirlwind]

Exactly so.  I do find the odd thing in the rulebooks which doesn’t satisfy me: a modifier here, a mechanism there, a required clarification or addition.  But the simplicity of the rules makes triage and repair very easy.

[Jim Webster]

Just to join in the chorus of agreement here. I agree entirely that rules are not holy writ 🙂
I confess that in my more cynical moments I have felt that a set of rules reflects the preconceptions of the writer. A really good set of rules is one where my preconceptions map most closely to the writer’s 🙂
But it’s inevitable that the rules have to be tweaked to fit exactly what I want, and a good rule set is worth tweaking for longer.

From what I’ve seen of these rules, their strength is the fact that they are solid enough to cope with the tweaking we might give them and still play well.

 

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[Sane Max]

The only issue with that is sometimes his ‘Obvious Common sense’ is not enough. It’s fair to say that anyone who has played other games will sometimes struggle with their extreme simplicity. For example, his usual response online to ‘what happens when?’ is to grumble that ‘these rules were not meant for Rules Lawyers’ but it’s hardly rule-lawyering to ask things like ‘does pivoting to full contact use up movement?’ or ‘can a unit deep enough in a wood still be seen?’ or ‘can units shoot 360? See 360?’

It’s possible to start in a unit’s front and move to charge them in the flank – I mean, there’s nothing in the A&MW rules to prevent you charging someone backwards. Only an arse would do it of course, but god knows there are arses in every hobby. A little more detail would have prevented that sort of thing even crossing one’s mind.

Luckily all my opponents share my version of obvious common sense 🙂

[willz]

I think tweaking rules are all part of our wargaming hobby, after all its all about what works for you.

[Author]

Posts