Home Forums General Game Design The Men Who Would Be Kings

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #56277

    Anyone have an opinion on this Colonial rule set?

     

     

    donald

    #56370

    Anybody?

    ….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?

     

    donald

    #56376
    Just Jack
    Participant

    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.

    V/R,
    Jack

    #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.

     

     

    donald

     

    Our last game: Battle of Nzenzane:

    [/url]

    [/url]

    [/url]

     

     

     

     

     

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
    • This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by Deleted User.
    #56396
    Altius
    Participant

    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 gasoline

    #56440
    TwoGunBob
    Participant

    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

    http://stevesfieldworks.blogspot.com

     

    I usually throw down 54mm All the King’s Men with him and Dragon Rampant when I have time.

     

    #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.

     

    donald

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
    #57022
    shelldrake
    Participant

    Our last game: Battle of Nzenzane:   

    What a fantastic looking game and scenery!

    #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.

     

    donald

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
    #57064
    Darkest Star Games
    Participant

    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..."

    #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.

     

    Overall Impression:

    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:

    1. Scenario-driven. Not just about slaughtering your enemies. Also allows natives to have tactical possibilities unlike TSATF.
    2. 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.
    3. No unit facing except for crewed weapons & Regular infantry in Close Order
    4. 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.

     

    Positives:

    1. Each unit requires a figure who is clearly the Leader. This figure’s attributes modify the unit’s actions. Could be very “gamey”.
    2. Units can have their default abilities enhanced or degraded ( eg Line infantry can be “Sharpshooters” or “Poorly armed” etc)
    3. Differentiation between Mounted infantry & true cavalry
    4. A card system is suggested for multi-player games (eg TSATF cards?)
    5. 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.

     

     

    Negatives:

    1. You need markers (Leaderless units, Pinned units, Close order, Gone to Ground)
    2. 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.

    1. 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?
    2. 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

    donald

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by Deleted User.
    #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

    House Rules

     

    1. 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.
    2. Skirmish units. For every 3 infantry units, Tribal groups can field a Skirmish group.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Camels will receive no penalty for movement on Difficult ground but will only move 7 inches per turn.
    7. Mounted Infantry. MI may mount/dismount & move as one Action. They fire as per Modern Rifle when dismounted & Carbine when mounted.

     

     

    Comments welcome.

     

    donald

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.