- 24/01/2017 at 08:46 #56277
Anyone have an opinion on this Colonial rule set?
donald24/01/2017 at 23:35 #56370
….normally, I’m about 3-4 years behind the trend but, gasp, I must be in the lead with this set.
….why does it feel so lonely?
donald25/01/2017 at 00:17 #56376Just JackParticipant
Just picked it up myself. I’ve read through it a couple times but haven’t had the opportunity to play (still got a lot of painting ahead of me before it can happen).
I like what I see: it’s light, focused on Brit (Western?) leadership, straightforward mechanics, nothing seems like it wouldn’t work. Someday I’ll play it.
Jack25/01/2017 at 01:20 #56383
I’ve read/watched online reviews. My copy should arrive next week-ish.
I plan to have a solo game (AZW) ASAP. And then (drum roll), present it to my gaming buddies as a replacement for The Flame & The Sword rules we currently use.
I’ll be glad, Jack, To hear any views of the rules you may have.
Our last game: Battle of Nzenzane:25/01/2017 at 06:08 #56396AltiusParticipant
I bought a copy of the rules last week but haven’t had an opportunity to play yet. I don’t see anything radically different about them but I am a fan of Dan Mersey’s other rule books and own several, so I do have high hopes for these rules as well.
Where there is fire, we will carry gasoline25/01/2017 at 17:24 #56440TwoGunBobParticipant
One of our locals has picked it up and chopped through it solo. His report was more encouraging than other reviews I’ve read which seemed to mention ‘Warhammery mechanics’
Ah heck, shameless linking to his blog
I usually throw down 54mm All the King’s Men with him and Dragon Rampant when I have time.01/02/2017 at 04:29 #57020
The rule book arrived & I had a quick gallop through it before a closer read (as is my wont).
First impressions are good. I should add, my little group & I tend to have our “serious” periods -ones were one or more of us likes rules with plenty of “chrome”- and our “pure fun” periods. Sure they may not be entirely historically accurate (whatever that means) but even with the first category I’m aware of the second word in our hobby’s title. War-GAMING. TMWWBK looks like it would be fun to play.
We’re caught up with Ancients at the moment but I’ll probably host a sample game of TMWWBKs before mid-year.
I look forward to any links, comments et al you may wish to put forward.
01/02/2017 at 07:46 #57022shelldrakeParticipant
- This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
Our last game: Battle of Nzenzane:
What a fantastic looking game and scenery!01/02/2017 at 11:36 #57042
Well, thanks. Amazing what you can do with 1/72 plastics & a leavening of metal figures.
I’d have to say, our figures, some years later, are better & we’ve improved on the terrain. 2018 will probably be another Year of the Zulu.
Which is why I’m looking at a new rules set.
01/02/2017 at 15:56 #57064Darkest Star GamesParticipant
- This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
I’m with Shelldrake, that is an amazing looking setup! If I saw that at a convention I’d jump right in even though I am not interested in the period. I am always drawn to games that are well presented as it generally shows that the people are passionate about their subject and (as has been my experience) very likely to put on a good game that has serious flavor.
(…which reminds me that I need to get back to doing terrain as soon as I am done with this round of painting…)
"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."04/02/2017 at 02:34 #57259
The slim rule book arrived & I’ve read them. I’ve made some notes in a “review” that’s mainly for me but you may want to comment.
The rules are simple & flexible. The author invites you to modify or add anything you don’t like. I’ve already thought about tweaks & modifications (see below).
I think they’d be quick to learn but have that tactical challenge that pays any finesse you can bring to the game (not unlike SAGA).
Points of Interest:
- Scenario-driven. Not just about slaughtering your enemies. Also allows natives to have tactical possibilities unlike TSATF.
- 1 figure = I man. Hence: large skirmish game. Default unit sizes can be easily adjusted to fit my current AZW units. I feel the minimum size game (24 points) is way too small & could easily be doubled & still be manageable, time wise.
- No unit facing except for crewed weapons & Regular infantry in Close Order
- Each unit dices to do 1 action per turn from a finite pool (10, though all not open to all types). Some units additionally get a free action & units can react (eg if attacked, defend themselves). I *wonder* if I could add native “Skirmish” units to the main game? That is, half-sized units that could move & shoot in the same turn? Help get the “irregular” feel to native warfare.
- Each unit requires a figure who is clearly the Leader. This figure’s attributes modify the unit’s actions. Could be very “gamey”.
- Units can have their default abilities enhanced or degraded ( eg Line infantry can be “Sharpshooters” or “Poorly armed” etc)
- Differentiation between Mounted infantry & true cavalry
- A card system is suggested for multi-player games (eg TSATF cards?)
- Not just a good solo system (“Playing against Mr Babbage”) but examples where the players can be in a team versing the auto-pilot Zulus.
- You need markers (Leaderless units, Pinned units, Close order, Gone to Ground)
- Each unit needs a written unit profile with 10 pieces of information (most just a number).
This also means every unit needs a name (1<sup>st</sup> platoon Company A 1/24<sup>th</sup> Foot or Unmarried Zulus: White shields with red dots etc) on a label for quick ID.
The upshot is preparation before a game: you could not just turn up with a bunch of units.
- No dismount/mount for Mounted infantry or even need for two sets of figures for the one unit. Given the trouble I’ve gone to have such units, a tweak is needed. Could mount/dismount be added or subsumed in Move action? Could dismounted short range for carbines be lengthened to rifle range to make such an action worthwhile?
- Some possibly dubious concepts eg “pinned units” can be shot through or targeted. They don’t seem to be lying down but how can they not limit line of sight? And 180 degree field of fire: for a line of infantry? Hmmmm.
I’ll knock together a few solo games & try things out before I bring it to my pals
donald21/02/2017 at 08:27 #58306
I still haven’t had a game as such but I’ve moved a few figures, rolled some dice & thought long & hard.
Presumptuous, maybe, but I want to modify the rules thusly:
The Men Who Would Be Kings
- Unit size. Tribal infantry should be in units of 20 figures. This will raise the total Field Force points total by 1 for 3 such units.
- Skirmish units. For every 3 infantry units, Tribal groups can field a Skirmish group.
- These units will be 5 figures strong and in addition to the usual applicable rules, can opt to move & fire in the same turn. They can move, fire & fight 360 degrees. However, movement will be at half the normal distance & firing at one dice per two figures (rounding up). Skirmish groups will have no designated Leader & must roll 8+ for an Action test.
- Officers firing. Regular infantry officers are deemed to be carrying a revolver. They are eligible to fire only within short range but will then get double the dice allocation.
- Higher Command. An agreed upon number of higher commanders (Induna, Emirs, Majors) will have additional powers. If attached to a unit, failed dice rolls for Action can be re-rolled once. However, if the unit experiences any casualties during the time they are attached, they will also become casualties on a ‘6’. Additionally, they will be eligible to replace an officer casualty in a unit to provide Leadership.
- Camels will receive no penalty for movement on Difficult ground but will only move 7 inches per turn.
- Mounted Infantry. MI may mount/dismount & move as one Action. They fire as per Modern Rifle when dismounted & Carbine when mounted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.