Mythic and Miniature Gaming

Back in September of 2006 I wrote a couple of posts on a Yahoo forum about using Mythic Role-Playing as a means of creating scenarios and fighting miniatures battles solo. The idea was to use Mythic to create a narrative and help the player make decisions for the opposition and to represent the fog of war. Although Mythic contains a combat system, I still wanted to use my traditional miniatures rules. With that in mind I wrote up and posted two gaming sessions using Mythic and Two Hour Wargames' Black Powder Battles. Rather than linking to the original forum thread – which requires you to join that Yahoo forum, even to read posts – I have reproduced them here.

On the Wallachian Frontier, 1750's
(A Solo Skirmish using the Black Powder Battles and Mythic rules)

This skirmish occurs roughly 75 km NW of Bucharest in what would be the XVI Grenzer Regimental area (1st Wallach). The forces available are, on the Slavic (Austro-Hungarian) side: four mounted Pandurs (irregular frontier troops) and four frontier Hussars; on the Wallachian (Ottoman Turk) side: eight Boyars on foot and four mounted.

The initial idea for this scenario was to have two Pandur scouts detect a Boyar raiding party encamped. The mounted Boyars would be foraging (and thus the scouts would not know of their presence), while the foot were busy making camp. The scouts would then retreat and give the alarm. Four Pandurs would then return and make a surprise attack on the camp. Once the shooting started, it would be a race between both sides remaining mounted troops to see which side
reinforced the skirmish first.

Because I decided to use Mythic as a way of randomizing events, I decided to try and use the rules they way they were intended. As Mythic is mainly geared towards adding a cinematic storyline to solo (or GM-less) role-playing games, it breaks the story down into segments, called "scenes". So, looking at the rules and the storyline I was attempting to recreate, I can see that I jumped the gun a
little. The scenes defined are:

1. The Pandurs are patrolling the frontier where the Boyars are camped.
2. Assuming the Pandurs are successful in spotting the Boyars, they ride off to raise the alarm.
3. The Pandurs meet with other patrolling Pandurs. One continues on to the fort in order to raise the alarm while the remainder head for the Boyar camp.
4. Something compells the Pandurs to attack the Boyar camp before reinforcements arrive.
5. Once the shooting starts, both sides mounted reinforcements head towards the sound of the guns. Which one will make it first?

Good storyline, but Mythic wants to throw in some random elements here and there to throw a surprise your way every so often. So, you start by coming up with an "adventure setup", or an interesting concept. My setup is that the Pandurs are patrolling the area, looking for Turkish raiders and bandits, while the Boyars, as the raiders, are looking to loot a village. They have made a march across the frontier and are starting to encamp, with the intention of starting off the next morning, making an early raid, then force-marching back across the border.

The next step is to make a list of all of the characters who may become involved in the adventure.

Slavs
Pandur Scout Patrol 1
Pandur Scout Patrol 2
Hussars from Fort

Wallachians
Foot Boyars encamped
Mounted Boyars foraging

Next, the Chaos Factor is recorded (it starts at '5'). This may rise or fall as the various scenes are played out.

Next, the threads of the storyline are listed out:

1. The Slavs scout the frontier to detect and stop any enemy raiders or bandits.
2. The Wallachians are raiding a Slav frontier village.

Okay! Now it is time to setup the first scene.

[Scene 1]

The Slavs are approaching the Wallachian camp... Before playing the scene, however, you check to see if the scene has been modified (surprise, surprise). Roll 1D10 and if you roll the Chaos factor (5)
or less, the scene is modified.

Rolls => 8

The scene has now been determined; both sides are in the vicinity of one another, so its time to start playing by asking questions and rolling on the Fate Chart.

Do the Slavs spot the Wallachians first? I would rate this as High versus Below Average (i.e. the Slavs have a high chance because this is why they are out there -- to find and investigate suspicious
activity -- and the Wallachians have a lower chance of spotting first as they are setting up camp and thus are distracted and have fewer sentries), so the base chance is 85% for 'Yes' and 16% for an 'Exceptional Yes'.

Rolls => 13

The Slavs have spotted the Wallachians and not been spotted themselves.

Black Powder Battles uses dice to handle how the troops react to certain situations; spotting the enemy for the first time is one of those situations. Rather than automatically assuming that the scouts
will do the right thing (holding their fire, observing the enemy, then returning unseen to report), you have to check to see what they do. First, however, we need to start setting up for a potential battle.

Do the Pandurs see all eight Boyars? Here I think that the chance would be about average, as the Boyars are moving about and their might be a sentry out of sight that they don't notice, but given their previous exceptional success, I give them a 65% chance.

Rolls => 55

Whenever you roll on the Fate Chart and the number is a doubles AND the digit is equal to or lower than the current Chaos rating a Random Event occurs. First roll on the Event Focus table to see what aspect of the adventure the event is applied to.

Rolls => 31

This is a thread-related event. As we have two open threads, roll to see which (even: Slav; odd: Wallachian).

Rolls => 6

Now you roll on the Event Meaning table.

Rolls => 167: "A wise counselor"

I am interpreting this event as the Pandurs automatically passing the "In Sight" check and remaining hidden without firing.

So, the scouts note that there are eight raiders on foot and, realizing that they don't have enough force to handle these raiders (and that they need to raise the alarm, as there may be other raiding parties about), they slip away and ride off.

[End of Scene 1]

No characters or threads are added or removed from the lists, but the Chaos Factor is lowered to '4' as the scene was "controlled and calm."

The last task is to dole out Favor Points for exceptional accomplishments. Nothing here, as it was all pretty cut and dried.

[Scene 2]

The Slavs have successfully spotted the enemy, counted their numbers, then slipped away. On the way back to the fort the first Slav scout patrol meets up with a second, larger Slav scout patrol.

Check to see if the scene is modified.

Rolls => 1: yes

As the roll is in the lower half (1 or 2 versus a 3 or 4), it is an altered scene as opposed to an interrupt scene.

Altering a scene requires that you decide the most logical alteration, then ask a question and access the Fate Chart to determine if that is indeed the correct alteration. If not, keep asking the next most logical questions until the answer comes up 'yes'.

In this scene, the most logical alteration is that the scouts fail to meet up with the other scouting party.

Rolls => 89: no

Is it that the scouting party is not as large as expected?

Rolls => 82: no

Did we actually meet up with the enemy mounted Boyars?

Rolls => 33: yes

Note also that this is again doubles, and that the digit ('3') is less than the current Chaos Factor, so a random event has occurred. Looking at the Event Focus and Event Meanings tables:

Rolls => 80: neutral event
Rolls => 12: Physical and emotional violation

The first thing that springs to mind is that the scouts come upon the other scouts, who are dead from the hands of the Boyars, but this would not be a neutral event. So, who are the neutrals? The local,
non-combatant villagers are. So, the Boyars came upon some local villagers and are now in the process of terrorizing them when the Slavs burst onto the scene.

Do the Pandurs surprise the Boyars?

Rolls => 71: no

Do the Pandurs stumble onto the scene without noticing the Boyars?

Rolls => 98: exceptional no

Are all four of the Boyars present? (The previous 'exceptional no' weights the question in favor of a 'no'.)

Rolls => 3: exceptional yes

So, the Pandurs burst in on the scene of two Boyars terrorizing a woman and two children. A man is dead, on the ground. Unbeknownst to the Pandurs, there are two more Boyars out of sight, but who can see them (they are not considered "hidden"). The Pandurs have an idea that there are more, however.

Time to start a battle!

The two Boyars out of sight are dismounted and in the family's hut (their horses are outside near the door and can be seen by the Pandurs). The woman and children are in the yard, on their knees, crying. The two mounted Boyars are in front of the hut and in sight of the Pandurs. (This is all dictated by the terrain board I am using, the location of the hut, and the random roll I made to determine which direction the Pandurs came from.)

Turn 0
The Pandurs are considered to have moved into sight, thus the Boyars take the 'In Sight' checks.

Rolls => 2 and 5

As all of the Boyars are REP 4, this is 1 pass, resulting in stationary figures firing. However, the Pandurs are greater than 12" away (the range of a carbine), so they do not fire.

Turn 1
Each side rolls 1D6.

Pandurs Roll => 5: fail activation
Boyars Roll => 2: activate

Before the Boyars activate the Pandurs must continue movement (they were going the base 8").

Boyar 1 exits the hut and mounts his horse. This causes an 'In Sight' check for the Pandurs.

Rolls => 3 and 6: 1 pass, moving figures may not fire

Boyar 2 also exits the hut and mounts his horse, again causing an 'In Sight' check.

Rolls => 3 and 4: 2 passes, moving figures may fire

Both Pandurs fire at the Boyar attempting to mount his horse.

Rolls => 2 and 6: one miss and one hit; both Pandurs' carbines are unloaded (they each have a pistol, however)
Rolls => 6: target knocked down and must roll for recovery next turn

Boyar 3 decides to charge the closest Pandur, requiring a 'Wanting to Charge' check.

Rolls => 2 and 5: 1 pass; will charge

The Pandur makes a 'Being Charged' check.

Rolls => 4 and 6; prepares for melee

The Pandur draws his sabre. Rolling for melee:

Pandur Rolls => 2, 4, and 6 (cavalry receives an extra die): 2 passes
Boyar Rolls => 1, 1, and 2: 3 passes
Roll for Damage => 6: knocked off of horse
Roll again for Damage => 6: knocked to ground, roll for Recovery next Active turn

The Pandur's horse continues on without his rider (it will stop a short distance away) and the Boyar continues to ride past.

The last Boyar activates and he also charges (the remaining mounted Pandur).

Boyar Rolls => 4 and 5: 1 pass; charges
Pandur Rolls => 1 and 2: 2 passes; those that can will fire and prepare for melee

The Slav pulls his pistol...

Rolls => 5: hits
Rolls => 4: Boyar knocked off of horse
Rolls => 6: Boyar knocked to the ground, roll for Recovery next Active turn

The turn ends with two Boyars knocked to the ground, one Pandur knocked to the ground, and one Boyar and one Pandur still mounted (although both have ridden past one another and are facing opposite directions).

Intermission

It has suddenly occurred to me that I have been "cheating" to a certain extent. The goal was not to figure out how to use Mythic to create an interesting scenario, but how to use Mythic to help figure
out how the troops should react. Black Powder Battles does an excellent job of that for certain situations, but at some point you, the player, have to make a decision for both sides.

For example, when the Boyars were activated, in all cases I chose their actions, not the dice. I chose what I felt was the most logical course of action, given that they outnumbered the Pandurs. But, that
was a major assumption on my part. I knew that the Boyars outnumbered them, but did they?

It is time to integrating Mythic more into the game.

The last turn ended with two Boyars knocked to the ground, one Pandur knocked to the ground, and one Boyar and one Pandur still mounted (although both have ridden past one another and are facing opposite directions).

Turn 2
To start, we need to roll initiative. Both sides activate, but the Pandurs activate first.

So, the Boyar that charged last turn must move while inactive. He goes 4" forward and wheels his horse back around to face the Pandurs.

Now, on to using Mythic to help determine each side's actions (I am going to try and use it for playing out both sides).

The main goal of the Pandurs, at this point, is to raise the alarm. The first question is: how close is the horse of the dismounted Pandur? Is it close? Yes. Does the Pandur recover from being knocked to the ground? (This used Black Powder Battles for resolution.) Yes. The dismounted Pandur gets up and mounts his horse.

That leaves the second Pandur free to leave the scene of battle and go get help (if that makes sense). First off, is this battle occuring close to the Boyar camp (within earshot)? No. Is the battle occurring
close to the Pandur camp (unlikely)? No. Will the Pandur (who still has to act – #2) leave his companion behind? No. Will the Pandur (#2) attack the Boyar to their rear in order to clear a path to the rear? Yes.

The Pandur charges the Boyar, passing on the left. I am giving the Pandur +1D6 in melee for momentum (the Boyar had stopped and wheeled around). Both score 0 passes. The Pandur passes and continues on (but still barely on the board).

Now it is the Boyars turn to activate. First, all moving Pandurs continue on. Will Pandur #2 stop and wheel? Yes.

Is the Boyar that was attempting to mount his horse still near his
horse? No, The shot which knocked him down must have scared it off.
He is able to get up successfully, so he looks for the horse. Rolling
for the horse's direction, the horse ran left around the house. Is
the horse still in sight? No. Did the Boyar see where the horse went
while he was down? No. The Boyar's turn is over.

The next Boyar on the ground gets up and recovers (everyone's powder must have been wet, because no one is getting hurt!). As he was shot off of his horse, he also has a chance of his horse running away. Is his horse still close by? Exceptional yes. He gets up and quickly mounts his horse.

The Boyar near the hut acts. Should he charge the Pandur whose back is to him? Yes. He passes his Attempting to Charge check. As he is charging the rear of an opponent, the Pandur gets a Surprise Check, which he passes twice, so the Pandur turns to face the Boyar and takes a Being Charged Check at -1, which he passes once (so he prepares for melee). The Pandur suddenly whips around and the Boyar falls to the ground, out of the fight, with a sabre cut to the head (the Boyar had three dice in melee with the Pandur only having two and he still lost).

The final Boyar is facing the Pandur that just cut down the other Boyar. To his back is the Pandur farthest from the hut that just attacked (and missed) him. Does he retreat? Exceptional yes. The Boyar rides to the left of the hut accelerating to a fast speed (16").

[End of turn]

Hmmm. Interesting. Whoever activates first have the first opportunity to retreat. Who will it be? What will happen next?

[Recording of Game Ends]

These two posts generated a little discussion. The forum was mostly dedicated to using Mythic for role-playing, so there was some interest in using it for traditional wargames, but not much.

Q: First off, I was enjoying the story (err...log). It got me into one of those reading moods where you see the scenes playing out in your head like you were watching a TV screen.

You, the player, were the Slavs right? I take that from your almost last big paragraph. I enjoyed how you incorporated RPG aspect to get to the point of actually starting a skirmish. 

I have no experience in playing skirmish or war games with Mythic so I can not be much help. You said you chose actions for the Boyars based on the most logical. You probably could have asked Mythic a question about that logical choice to see if the Boyars actually "did the most 
logical". Also, when setting up a scene you probably should have a goal stated so you know when the scene ends (whether you meet that goal may or may not happen though). 

How much more time, using Mythic, did it take compared to just using the Black Powder Battles rules alone? Was this way more or less fun?

A: Yes, "log" is accurate. It was intended to show my thought processes and how I interpreted the rolls.

I was playing the Slavs, but sometimes it might be interesting to not "play" either side; to try and eliminate bias and simply let the narrative go where it might.

Using Mythic to get to the start of the skirmish – to set the scene – was the most surprising aspect of the game so far. As you can see, I sort of had the scenario that I was to play all set in my mind, then I decided to develop a back-story that got me to the starting point of the scenario. But instead, I decided to play out the back-story and see if Mythic could throw me a curve ball in my
nice and tidy little scenario. As it turned out, the curve ball wasn't to the scenario, but that I
ended up playing a completely different scenario.

I can already see some of the ramifications of this scene. For example:

* If the Slavs win and no Boyars are alive, the Boyars at the camp might be on alert if the others don't come back within a certain amount of time.

* If the Slavs win and some Boyars do escape, the camp will definitely be on alert when the main Slav attack comes.

* If the Slavs lose and none escape, the scenario will definitely shift towards the Boyars making a raid on a village and seeing if Slav can rescue the villagers in time.

And who knows how many other possibilities.

We'll see how much longer using Mythic takes. As I was not using Mythic with Black Powder Battles [in the first part], but rather before it, it only took as much time as any Mythic adventure. I changed that in the second part.

Of course, noting every last little detail and explaining the rationale in my head took far more time than simply playing would. I was only able to setup the game and run a single turn in two hours. One-half of that time was simply getting to the point where I had a skirmish to fight.

I should be able to fight and document a turn or so per night.

Changing from a mindset of "let's envision a scenario" to "let envision a general concept and see where Mythic takes us" was very exciting. This changes the session from a wargame to a narrative
storyline in which combat is a central part. You are changing what you are doing by wrapping a context around the battle, which has always been my goal in wargaming.

For example, the Slavs really must play more cautiously. Their goal should not so much be to wipe out the Boyards at the hut (although this would be great); they have a larger mission here: to raise the
alarm.

In a normal skirmish, the loss of the two scouts is sort of an "oh well", but losing this fight means the next one will put that side at a disadvantage.

In wargaming, this is playing a series of connected scenarios. The effects of one game affect what will be played in the next game. I have played a few and usually they connections between scenarios are tenuous at best, with the effects carried over very abstract (i.e. "you have 10% fewer points to buy your forces with this game").

Q: When you're asking these tactical questions what difficulty and acting ranks are you using? Average? I purchased Mythic, online the other day and have yet to understand how the Fate Chart works. I think I'm getting there but... It does seem to me that you can greatly influence the yes/no answer, if you want to.

Ok here goes my little test: My squad is moving along through a field toward a bombed out village. As acting squad leader I ask the question; Do I see any enemy activity near the first village house? Acting Rank is REP 5 which I equate to High. Difficulty Rank is Average. roll = 58% YES! I roll a 1d6 to see how many enemy soldiers are present, roll = 2. Is it a machinegun team? AR = Above Average; DR = High (because of the open area which would have a high 
likelihood of a MMG covering the approach). Roll = 93 exceptional NO! So with that result I am logically going to say they only have pistols and grenades. Commence combat rounds using NUTS roll for IN SIGHT. During the ensuing combat I take 1 enemy soldier Out of Fight and lose none of mine. The enemy having suffered 50% (1 of 2) casualties I ask; Does the remaining enemy soldier stay and continue the fight against my squad? AR=Low DR=Above Average; Roll = 16 NO! The enemy soldier is seen running away! End of scene 1. Does this 
sound correct?

A: The difficulty and acting ranks varied, but most are average versus the current Chaos Factor (4). In part two I shortened the write-up for this forum by taking out all of the rolls and the odds.

For example, The odds for being within earshot of the Pandur camp was very low as that would have required the Boyars to stray very far afield of their encampment. Sometimes I only ask the question just to see if I'll get a random event (doubles with numbers lower than or equal to the Chaos Factor), which can throw me a curve ball.

You can ask questions that seem pretty obvious as to the answer (high %age of success) or outrageously oddball questions (low %age of success). Some questions should simply not be asked and logic should prevail. But, especially where it is an "odds question" or you are dealing with a person's emotions or choice of actions, you should go to the Fate Chart.

Is your first question (do I see enemy activity near the first village house) an odds question or a skills question? For example, if you have already determined that there are enemy in the village and that
it is simply a matter of spotting them, then it is a skills question (although I question using the squad leader's ability as opposed to the scout/point man's ability). Also, if the enemy are "hidden" (per
THW's definition), you would not have a chance of spotting at all.

If, however, you are asking if there are enemy, that is an odds question and the squad leaders rank would not come into play. It is simply logic which dictates the odds, then the dice are used to
determine success.

Why 1D6 for the number of enemies? Why not ask a question about whether only one squad is
present in the village? See, now you have to ask further questions about where the rest of the squad/platoon/company is (after all, the odds that only two enemy are present in the whole village would be pretty low, unless they are deserters or just happen to be in the village and the village is undefended). IMO, of course. That's what makes it your story versus mine.

I like rolling in Mythic to determine the enemy's actions, especially in a morale situation.

I think you can use Mythic as little or as much as you like. The more you use it, the more unexpected the game will be. The game will still be dictated by logic (after all, you are supposed to ask the most
logical questions first), but sometimes those answers keep coming up "no" until you start asking the improbable. Also, interpreting the Random Events [which are oriented towards a fantasy role-playing theme] is a bit of a hoot.

I realize that some of this is not so useful if you are not familiar with Mythic or Black Powder Battles, but hopefully you can see the development of a narrative story for your battles and campaigns ad thus you might explore purchasing and utilizing Mythic with your favorite miniatures rules.

A BattleLore campaign already out there

I have been working on a number of Vassal projects of late and I realized that the War of the Roses module extension for BattleLore that I had been working on ¹ was itself a campaign. This campaign was presented on the BattleLore Call to Arms forum on Yahoo in the Files section, and had been created as a series of Vassal saved games (using an older, incompatible version of the BattleLore module).

The campaign itself is very much like the Memoir '44 campaign books. You run through a series of set-piece, pre-defined scenarios, which you can modify by committing a limited number of reserves. Who wins or loses a scenario determines which scenario is played next, and whether you will have additional resources available to you in your reserve.

In the War of the Roses campaign, entitled A Warwick! A Warwick!, it uses a concept similar to how (I remember) the old Avalon Hill Kingmaker board game worked. As you play battles your side gains "offices", such as the "Captain of Calais" or "Warden of the Northern Marches". Each of these offices are associated with a specialist card (from Call to Arms), that can be played once during the campaign. For example, the "Marshal of England" gets the "Mounted Knights" specialist card, while the "Treasurer of England" gets the "Forced Enrollment" specialist card. In addition, some scenarios have an affinity with certain offices, and trigger further special rules. For example, in "The Battle of Hedgeley Moor" the player with control of the "Warden of the Northern Marches" office gets an additional medium (Blue) infantry unit as a reserve.

This is the sort of thing I was thinking about for my own campaign. Put objectives on the map so that if you, say, control a specific castle, you control the office holder, which comes with a complement of troops. I like the idea of specialist cards, but simply specifying the troops works well too.

Where I think these types of campaigns don't work as well is that they don't really show as much continuity between battles as I would like. For example, getting the entire army wiped out in the first scenario usually does not have any greater affect on the scenario two than if you simply lost the battle by a single Victory Banner.

Battlefields

One of ways of determining battlefield terrain in Call to Arms (the "points" system addition for BattleLore) is to randomly select one of the maps provided with the expansions, but simply removing all of the troops and using the troop selection method indicated in Call to Arms. To that end I started working on a Vassal extension for the BattleLore module that contains all of the maps from the scenarios. I am about done with it, now that I have made the 69 saved games with all the maps defined.

The Heroes Expansion

One other element I have been considering adding to the campaign is the use of the Heroes expansion. To be honest, I have never played a single game with this expansion, despite having it for probably two years (and once having two copies of it – don't ask). The idea is that each side will have a number of hero characters to build up as the campaign progresses, and to inject them into the game narrative. For example, by a Hero ending the game in the Witch's Hut he (or she) gains an object, which has direct consequences to a battle fought in another location (e.g. you get additional troops, you find a secret passageway through the hills, you have an object a Hill Giant desires that will entice him to join you as an ally, etc.).

As this is a solo campaign, most of these elements would be to help the player side, but there may be a few cases where the player learns that the non-player side is sending a hero to a location, for unknown purposes, that should be stopped.

I can see using Mythic to develop these ideas into story lines for the campaign.

Epic Campaigns

I started wondering how many of these "epic campaigns" there might be out there; campaigns in which the focus is not on player characters, but on armies and where character interaction can have an impact. As usual I started by using Google and found a reference to the old Pendragon role-playing game. Now I had bought quite a bit of Pendragon once upon a time (and gave it all away too, when I had to do one of my games-shedding moves) and one thing I remember about it was that players essentially played generations of characters and that between each gaming adventure a year would pass. This is how the War of the Roses campaign works; as the actual campaign was spread over the course of decades, armies being renewed after each game essentially made a lot of sense.

That said, I wanted something a little more granular. But as I was reading through the new Pendragon offerings on Drive Thru RPG, I noticed that they had two new source books: the "Book of Battle" and the "Book of Armies". Book of Battle replaces the rules in Pendragon that allowed a player character to participate in larger battles (while determining abstractly the outcome of that battle). As the description for the rules indicate:

This book is about your small unit amidst the dust and blood as hundreds of knights as confused or brave or murderous as you confront their fate with weapon in hand. Battle resolution uses the existing King Arthur Pendragon rules system, allowing you to concentrate on the over two dozen tactical maneuvers at your disposal. The system allows your knight to be involved throughout the battle. And yes, you can turn the tide of battle, for better or worse!

As I looked through it, it was quite interesting, in and of itself, but it was not quite what I was looking for, but still might be of interest to some (which is why I mention it).

As for Book of Armies, its description said:

Here are the enemies for the never-ending scenario of battle. Included herein are all the Arthurian Armies, Period by Period, to use for every battle in the Great Pendragon Campaign! Also detailed are Round Table knights by Period, as well as exotic units (elephants!) and armies (faeries!). Also presented are six British Armies – natives from savage Saxons to tribal Cymri to wily Picts or Irish, and including bandits and even peasant armies – as well as Twelve Continental Armies, each with its own quirky and particular armies: condottieri, ribauds, ulfsarkers, Pecheneg horse archers and much, much more. In addition, great battles like Terrabil, Badon, the Roman War and Camlann receive special treatment.

This source book specifies the numerous armies you can fight while using the Book of Battle to fight those battles. Again, not quite what I was looking for, but the reference to "the Great Pendragon Campaign" turned out to be yet another source book. Its' description is much more promising:

Eighty years of campaign detailed year-by-year provide the background, on-going events and adventures that define structure of King Arthur’s glorious reign. The magic is in the details, and the details are in this book. Included in this book are:

* Year-by-year details from 485 to 566.
* Maps and descriptions of Logres, Cambria. Cornwall, Brittany, Cumbria, the North, Ireland and France
* Maps of the important cities of Britain, including Early and Late Camelot and London
* Over 100 Adventures
* Statistics for over 50 Faerie Creatures and Nonplayer Characters
* Expansions for the Pendragon rules

“I’ve been working on this book for over 20 years, since the first publication of King Arthur Pendragon. This is the culmination of forty years of research, pleasure and gaming. It’s a tremendous joy to bring my love of the legend all together here.” – Greg Stafford, designer of King Arthur Pendragon

This definitely sounds like the sort of linked campaign that I envisioned, incorporating some role-playing elements and armies fighting battles, so it definitely warrants more investigation. All that said, I can see it is a long-term project; The Great Pendragon Campaign is a massive 434 pages, with Book of Armies adding another 86 pages to the reading count. Nonetheless, I think it would make for an excellent source for a massive BattleLore campaign, providing the opportunity to convert Arthurian units and armies to this game system.

Just maybe …

---

¹ Excuse: I stopped working on the extension largely because the module kept changing and it would sometimes cause me to update the scenarios I had already completed. By the time the module had stabilized, I had moved on to something else. One of the problems of being affected by the Ooh Shiny! complex.

Rally Round the King Redux

First, let me start by welcoming new readers Shelldrake, Los, Robert Saint James, and Spacejacker (like your blogs and the Gut Check rules look interesting). Hope you enjoy the blog. Also thanks to JF for plugging my blog on his blog, Solo Nexus.

So, as you may have guessed, I have decided to give Rally Round the King (RRtK) another try. I'll be using Comic Life 2 for the graphics and narrative, only breaking out to text for discussion about mechanics. I've modified the blog to be about 900 pixels wide, so those with 1024 by 768 resolution should have no problems reading it without having to scroll back and forth. The comic panels should by 800 by 600 pixels, so it should display in reasonable chunks and again not requiring scrolling to see it full size.

Rather than going through the same exercise as last time for terrain and deployment, I will use the same rolls, events, and results. So the troops will still be set up using the same parameters as last game, but I can alter deployment as long as I stay within those parameters.

What I need to change is to ensure that I don't trap troops so that they have no room to maneuver. Primarily this was the Spanish Cavalry (with General) and to a lesser extent the Roman Cavalry (with General). To this end I found that 'missing rule': Expansion.

Assume that the unit in the rear is to close to the line in front of it. It can neither wheel left nor right, and a facing change of 90º is not allowed. So it appears that the unit is stuck, unless the line moves forward.

However, the expansion rule allows a unit from the rear ranks to move out to the flanks, so long as the distance does not exceed the unit's movement. So to solve the problem above, the unit first moves forward into contact with the body to its front.

The following turn, the body expands, allowing the unit to move out to the flank. Note that it can do this even if the body is in melee contact (and is the primary way to expand the battle line and attempt to overlap your opponent).

Another rule that will come into play is Facing the Enemy. This rule states that if a unit is facing an enemy unit and is within charge distance of that enemy unit, the unit's choices are to move forward or remain stationary. I asked on the Two Hour Wargames forum if "remaining stationary" meant that it could voluntarily halt (it is not one of the reasons that is listed on why a body halts) and the answer was yes. So that changes the possible responses in the movement decision tables that I was describing in a previous blog entry.

In gameplay I will play the missile rules as designed, no moving and firing. Also, like Drums and Shakos Large Battles (see my Dale's Wargames blog for the review and playtest of these excellent Napoleonic rules), I have to be meticulous about not being so generous with the movement. It irritates me that a 15º wheel penalizes a unit as much as a 45º wheel, but that is the way the rules are. Units basically move straight forward until they collide, unless they are skirmishers.

New Decision Charts

As I indicated in a previous blog entry you can use the same Reaction Test mechanism to make the tactical decisions that RRtK does not make, namely:

• Was a unit to be activated?
• Did a unit move the minimum, maximum, or some value in between?
• Did a unit maneuver (move other than straight forward)?

It occurred to me, however, as I was drawing the tables up that I was violating my most basic rule of solo gaming, which was not to alter the game rules substantially, especially where you are messing with the math. By determining whether a unit made an optimal move or a sub-optimal one based on passing its ability score on two, one, or no dice, I was in effect making a morale check to move!

It seemed novel at the time the idea sprang upon me, and to be honest I think it would make for a fun method for programming an opponent, but I think those sort of rules would also need to be applied to the player's force in some way also. Making movement morale-based is a big change and not something you would want to apply unequally. (Of course, it really depends upon what you are looking for in your games. In this case, it was not to deviate from the Rules As Written too much. I did that last time.)

For this game I decided to go back and use Mythic for the three decisions above, however I tended to state the questions much simple, like: "Do I activate A, B, and C" this turn?" If that failed then you can always assume it was just one of those three that made it a no (unless it was exceptional, then it would be two).

On with the Battle!

[1] Rather than rely on the trick to move up to a second rank and expand on the following turn (as indicated at the beginning of the blog), I decided that the General and Cavalry bodyguard would need to be on the flank of the battle line so that when it moved straight forward it would already be in position. The Light Horse on the left, being a skirmisher, could easily maneuver to wherever it needed to go.

[2] This was due to the deployment rules stating that the unit needed to be in the left section. In the initial game I had simply placed it to the left, but not in the correct 8" wide section. This creates a sizable gap ...

[3] As with the Spanish General, the Roman Consul with his bodyguard positions itself so that a simple move forward puts in on the flank of the heavy infantry, rather than requiring an expansion to come up from the rear rank.

The exchange between the skirmishers in the woods show how important support can be. The Roman Velites both fired, but inflicted no hits on the Spanish. Nonetheless, the Spanish had to take a Received Fire test. I rolled double '6' for the check. Because the unit on the right had both rear and flank support it held (with two passes), however the unit on the left only had flank support so it had two failures and routed!

This makes me wonder about the definition of "support" and how I placed my troops. I assumed that because the scutari in the second rank was only in corner-to-corner contact that it would, at best, only provide flank support. However, you cannot support from the same flank twice. (Or am I thinking of DBA?) If I had placed my figures as shown to the right, the scutari should have been able to provide rear support for both, meaning neither would have routed in this instance.

Is RRtK more nuanced (or fiddly) than I thought or am I simply filling the holes in the rules with logical extensions?

As you play with RRtK (or other THW games) more, you realize that you really need to be careful and make sure you take all the tests necessary. Charges, for example, can go very long distances as you charge, react to received fire (allowing you to advance again), which is turn can cause another test, and so on. Charges double the distance allowed are very possible.

Another nuance to these rules to be aware of is that dual-armed troops are melee troops, thus are not subject to the Mandatory Fire rule. This effectively means that dual-armed melee troops cannot fire unless dictated by a reaction test!

It is also important that you get the unit activation sequence correct. If you don't, you can get some odd results, like this next turn ...

 If you didn't catch what was wrong, then good!

[4] Even though the Spanish General passed his reaction test, mounted that do not rout their infantry opponent must retire, taking one hit as they retreat.

The skirmish in the woods shows how successfully passing several Received Fire tests can result in units being mauled in missile exchanges. In this case the Spanish kept passing its tests despite getting hit each time. It finally had to retire. All of this is out of the hands of the gamer (solo or otherwise) of course as it is built into the reaction tables.

As you can see, a little more of my love for DBA slipped in. I cannot help but think of flanking an enemy and forcing him to react to you as 'Barkering'.
At this point I was starting to be amazed how the Spanish were standing up. Melee troops can stay in melee as long as they don't fail two dice, not one, so they have some real staying power. I was beginning to question the armor class (AC) rating I have given the Republican Romans, but as I was playing the 2nd Punic War, it is right. The reason for the pause, however is because the Spanish have to roll a '5'+ to get a single hit while the Romans get a hit on a '3' through '5' and two hits on a '6'! This makes it very hard for the Spanish to win in melee (as it should).

Now that the main battle line has routed, the end is probably near. However, as an equal number of Spanish scutari and Roman hastati have routed, it might be tough to call this one.

[5] Normally a unit firing missiles can only inflict one hit per unit firing. Further, because the 'arc' of fire is so limited (straight ahead) this picture would lead you to believe that only one unit could have fired and that the two hits are a mistake. However, I did not show each step of the process to charge, fire, and melee. When the cavalry unit charged the Spanish, it was overlapped by both units; thus both were eligible to fire. When melee came around, the cavalry unit is forced to line up on one or the other, which is what the picture shows.

[6] Yup! Both rolled a '6'. Apparently those dice needed to be switched out, however, and they kept rolling double sixes ...

I decided to call it quits at this point. The good thing about solo gaming is that it is not a competition (although it may be part of a campaign), so eking out every last victory point is not necessary. The Spanish had lost two slingers, one caetrati, and four scutari. The Romans had lost one velite, two hastati, and one equites (cavalry). The Spanish can certainly feel pretty good about how well they did in open battle. Nonetheless, I think the Romans can be declared the victors.

Summary

The best aspect of RRtK is the grinding, attritional feel of the game. (I just need to work on getting that feel without markers or rosters in my other games.) Sometimes I feel like the reaction results do not have enough granularity of result; it sometimes feel like all or nothing. Maybe I am talking heretically, but what is wrong with using three dice, or more?

Game play still feels stiff and rigid, however, because of the lack of maneuverability and fire arc. Given the small width of a base, I could see where people might argue whether a unit is within the arc or not for firing. One degree off and you get no fire.

Although I did enjoy this game, I would probably take elements from these rules and use them in another game rather than the other way around. There is some good stuff however.

Other Decision Making Methods

What I would like is to use another decision-making mechanism for a replay of the last battle, rather than simply repeating the use of Mythic to make decisions. Although I have no problem using Mythic, especially for the major decisions of battle tactics and troop deployments, but it gets tedious answering four or five questions each turn just to simply verify the most probable course of action. (Although it does have the interesting side effect of introducing random events into the game.) So, I started breaking out the old stand-by books, like Charles Grant's Programmed Wargame Scenarios and Donald Featherstone's Solo Wargaming looking for ideas. One thing I have found with the 'old school' authors is that, because they wrote their own rules to use, they had no problems introducing new mechanisms that completely altered what I call 'the math of the game'. Examples would be chance cards, tactical cards, regimental cards, etc., all which would modify the core rules in some regard, such as adding +1 to melee combat or subtracting -1 from a morale check.

I thought about adding some of these types of rules, but to be honest they start to get hard to remember. (I am old and forgetful, after all.) Some ideas you might want to toy with:

• Allow a unit to be a little better or worse on this day of battle: for example, roll 1D6 and on the roll of a '1' the unit is -1 REP, while on the roll of a '6' the unit is +1 REP. This should probably only be done for a few units and not the entire force.
• Allow the unit to adjust their AC +1 or -1 using the same method above. This adjustment to AC is only used for determining casualties in missile and melee combat; movement is not affected.

Another way is to alter the actual game mechanics in small ways.

• Each time a body moves roll two differently colored D6, designating one as 'Fast' and one as 'Slow'. If the Fast die rolls higher than the Slow die, +1" of movement is added to the maximum. If the Slow die is higher, -1" of movement is subtracted from the maximum. (Remember, the minimum move is ½ the maximum.) If any portion of the move is in non-open terrain (or across a linear obstacle), you can change the meaning to something that makes movement even slower on average.

If you are really bold, you can alter the mechanics even more.

• For heavy infantry movement, each turn roll 2D6 - 1 for  the maximum number of inches the body can move. For light infantry use 2D6 + 1 and for mounted use 3D6 + 1. Terrain will slow the body down by removing the lowest rolled die.
• Set a maximum number of dice in a pool for an army. The number of represents the fatigue and 'heart' of the army; the more dice an army possesses in their pool the more heart it has and the more fatigue it can accumulate. Each time dice are rolled for any reason they are permanently removed from the army's dice pool, never to be used again (in that game). So, if an army has 100 dice in its pool, it will only roll a total of 100 dice before the army collapses in defeat.

I prefer to minimize the amount of modifications I make to the core rules, especially something that alters the math of the game, and I don't like trying to remember lots of special rules that don't apply to all of the units of the same type (or at least appear the same). There is one area where I think you can add a little interest and not throw off the game too much: re-rolls. There are times when you really want to re-roll a failed die roll at a critical point in the game. Just as the suggestion above indicates you can create a dice pool, you can create a re-roll pool. The idea is that you have a certain number of dice that can be re-rolled during the game. For example, if you have two re-rolls in your pool you can designate any die rolled to be re-rolled, discarding one die from the pool each time you use a re-roll. (You may want to place some limits, like no die can be re-rolled more than once and that the second die roll stands, even if worse ... but you may not!)

One concept that I liked from the game Memoir '44 was that there are these cards called Combat Cards which make small modifications to the combat when the player uses the card (for example, adding one die to combat or reducing the opponent's attack by one die). This alleviates the need to remember which unit has this modifier; it is assigned when the card is played. The interesting part was that theses cards were accumulated primarily by playing cards that are generally considered the worst cards. So basically, if you got dealt a bad hand of cards you could offset your luck by accumulating Combat Cards. You can use the same concept for re-rolls. Each time a player fails both dice in a reaction test and does not use a re-roll he gains a free re-roll to use later. Simple to keep track of and not very over-powering.

In the end, however, most of these methods simply add a chaos factor to the game and make it less predictable, which is interesting for the gamer. But rarely do they add to the type or number of decisions that the solo gamer has to make, nor does it help him to objectively make that decision as if an opponent had made it. So far, the only two decision making mechanisms this blog has explored are rule-based and probability-based. These two methods have several factors in common:

1. They use logic as their basis.
2. They take into account all of the current factors in play.
3. There is a degree of interpretation of the results.

Generally these are all good points to a system - one doesn't want to play again dim-witted or irrational opponents, for example - but sometimes they can lead to predictable play. What would be ideal is to find a tactical decision making method that meets the following criteria:

1. Very quick resolution.
2. Little is left to the interpretation of the player.
3. Some element of surprise is introduced.

Decisions, decisions ...

First, let's start by examining the decisions that needed to be made in the last game.

• Was a unit to be activated?
• Did a unit move the minimum, maximum, or some value in between?
• Did a unit maneuver (move other than straight forward)?

These three decisions encompassed all those made post-deployment. The rules took care of the rest (who to fire at, the effects of fire, who to charge, the effects of melee, etc.).

Was a Unit to be Activated?

This decision is one of the tougher ones in that it is a 'decision bundle', or a group of decisions, and each combination of decisions can produce a different result. For example, if you have units A, B, and C but can only activate two units in a turn, your choices are: none; only A; only B; only C; A and B; A and C; or B and C. Seven different choices. The combinations get even more complex when you have 12 units and three activations.

Did a Unit Move the Minimum, Maximum, or Some Value in Between?

How much a unit moves is largely governed by its intent. A unit of heavy infantry intending to close into melee would rarely want to move less than maximum speed. Moving less potentially puts the unit under more missile fire while it closes and  allows the enemy more time to react to the attack, bringing up supports.

A unit providing flank support, however, may want to move less than maximum movement, especially if moving faster will cause it move past the position of support (i.e. get ahead of the unit being supported). This is especially true of light infantry or cavalry, supporting the flank of heavy infantry, which move much slower.

Another reason for moving slower is to delay melee combat, allowing the unit to fire missile weapons more often. Generally speaking, however, if you are moving the minimum, you are probably trying to delay impact. This is useful even for troops without missile weapons, if your troops are heading towards an impact you are likely to lose.

Did a Unit Maneuver?

Generally speaking, this is not much of a problem for armies with lots of non-skirmishing units. Maneuvering is a good way of 'bleeding off speed', but that seems like a cheesy reason to do it. More likely you are reacting to a unit that advanced too far and got flanked. Cavalry, however, does has a modicum of maneuverability.

With skirmishers, however, this is a big decision. Generally it is easier to ask the question in terms of "where on the board (and facing which direction) do I want my skirmisher to end up at?"

Charts, charts, and more charts ...

If you don't like charts, don't play Two Hour Wargames rules. They love charts. The reaction system is essentially programming a unit's set of possible responses, assigning probabilities, and codifying it in a chart. Mythic uses charts. One thing that kept leaping out at me while reviewing the old masters (and 12 issues of Lone Warrior) is that solo gamers seem to love charts! So maybe our mechanism should be chart-based!

So, what are charts? As I said, they are a codified set of possible responses with assigned probabilities. If 'X' happens on the roll of a '1' and 'Y' happens on the roll of '2' through '6' you have defined two possible responses to whatever the chart represents, and assigned the probability of each response. As long as there are not a lot of modifiers to the die roll, charts meets the first criteria of 'very quick resolution'. Unless you have done a poor job of defining terms, charts also meet the criteria of 'little left to the interpretation of the player'. Whether or not the criteria of 'some element of surprise is introduced' is met all depends upon whether you allow for a response that is generally outside of the norm (but still possible).

Let take a concrete example. The Roman heavy infantry (Principes) were assigned to advance directly towards the enemy in the center and attempt to penetrate their line. As they have no missile weapons, and the enemy do, there is little reason for them to delay (i.e. move less than a full move each turn). So, given an enemy unit straight ahead of the unit, the range of their responses is:

• Move the maximum movement allowed straight ahead.
• Move the minimum movement allowed straight ahead.
• Move some distance between minimum and the maximum allowed straight ahead.

Note that there is no option to not move at all; halting is not a voluntary option, save if the original activation order specified a point on the board where the unit was to stop ¹. Again, if you think of moving maximum as the default choice, what would the exceptions to moving maximum be?

• When facing a missile unit and the maximum move would not take you into contact, but would take you into its missile range, you want to stop outside of missile range, if possible (i.e. it is still within your minimum move distance).
• When moving less than the maximum move (but at least the minimum move) distance would allow a friendly unit to catch up and provide support.
• To expand the formation to avoid overlaps in an upcoming melee combat.

Of course, if the unit no longer has an enemy directly ahead, the options change. But for now, let's consider this simple case. How best to represent the decision making process for which option to use? Interestingly, Rally Round the King (RRtK) provides a good one: the reaction check. Think about it. How I move in relation to the enemy is a reaction. So why not use the reaction check mechanism for making this decision. In fact, basing it on REP (with attendant pluses and minuses due to hits and support) makes sense in this context and is something we have probably already memorized. So, you might have the following for the Roman heavy infantry:

Reason	Pass 2D6	Pass 1D6	Pass 0D6
Center Battle Line Moves	If outside of missile range and overlapped, expand.	–	If overlapped, expand.
	If outside of missile range, a unit that can provide support needs to catch up to provide it, and a minimum move will allow that unit to catch up, move the maximum distance that will still allow the unit to catch up.	–	If outside of missile range, a unit that can provide support needs to catch up to provide it, and a minimum move will allow that unit to catch up, move the minimum move allowed.
	If moving the maximum distance allowed takes you into enemy missile range, but not into contact, move just outside of missile range if legal.	If moving the maximum distance allowed takes you into enemy missile range, but not into contact, move the minimum distance allowed.	–
	Move the maximum distance allowed.	Move the maximum distance allowed.	Move the minimum distance allowed.

There is really no limit to the number of tables that you can do like this; just keep them separate from the normal reaction tables so you don't end up flipping around too much.

Mind you this takes some work beforehand, but all good things typically do. This falls in line with my idea of writing out a detailed battle plan and then writing a decision-making process to go with it. I think that for the most part, however, this can be reused quite a bit. The result will likely be the Typical Army Behavior Jay referred to in his blog entry and the Enemy Behavior in Action article referred to in issue LW 166 of Lone Warrior.

One of the reasons I like this method is because it is so THW-like.

¹ Update: I posed a question to the Two Hour Wargame forum and there is another way to voluntarily halt. As I am only presenting ideas here and not complete solutions, I am choosing to ignore this other option for now.

Solo Gaming and Reaction Systems Test (5)

I decided to continue on a little more. It appears that I made two (more) mistakes, one of which were some missing pages.

Roman Turn 2

The Roman Velites were a little beat up (two hits each) in the initial skirmish, having lost in an exchange and been forced to retire. Everything else had not moved.

The basic idea was to advance with the main battle line full speed and have the two wing groups advance, echeloned slightly back. However, the Balearic slingers were in a vulnerable position, with the flank facing the Roman cavalry on the other side of the hill and already having accumulated two hits. So I decided to see if the Roman commander would launch the cavalry for a quick kill.

Given that the Velites retired and no other Roman troops advanced the previous turn, the Roman commander would have to use his three activation points to order the advance of the main battle line and wing supports, so a cavalry attack would mean something else would not activate. Further, due to the position of the Roman commander with relation to the enemy slingers, he was not really in a position to see the vulnerability, nor were the Roman cavalry (due to the intervening hill), so I rated the chance for this cavalry attack to be low. The roll was not sufficiently low enough so the same choices as last turn were presented and accepted (only without an event interrupting the battle plan).

First to advance were the Velites, who made the edge of the woods. In visibility of the enemy skirmishers, but out of missile range. Next was the main battle line. This advanced at full speed, causing the Spanish on the left flank to make a Threat check, but it was passed without a problem. (Had the Romans advanced to within 3" missile range the Spanish would have been able to fire. Note that had the Romans has sufficient movement to either move within threat range but out of skirmish fire range, that would have been an additional decision to be adjudicated. As it was, they were just in Threat range and sufficiently out of javelin range.)

Spanish Turn 2

With all of the Romans so far away, the only logical move was for the slingers and caetrai to get back in action. No exceptional rolls indicated that any other unit would be brought forward yet.

First the slingers moved back into position in front of the Roman Principes. (Still playing the move and fire rules.) The slingers let loose on the Principes, missing them by a hair, but close enough to irritate them.

The Principes rolled an Advance ½ Move result which would have put them past the slingers, so this requires an additional Want to Charge check, which they pass with ease.

The slingers pass partially and fire their slings one last time and head for home. At least they inflicted a hit first!

The Spanish caetrati move against the Roman velites and chuck their javelins, inflicting a single hit. This is enough for the Romans, who roll badly and rout off of the board.

Meanwhile, the scutari chuck their javelins at the flank of the Roman battle line and get suitable attention.

The Romans turn to flank and get an Advance ½ Move result, but fail their Want to Charge test. Here is the situation at the end of the turn.

The Spanish battle line must definitely advance next turn, assuming their reaction to the Roman advance doesn't spoil their plans.

Roman Turn 3

With one wing gone and the main battle line out-pacing their supports, it is time to throw the cavalry forward, before they get far behind. The main Roman battle line is already in motion, so it does not need to be activated; nor does the Hastati on the hill. However, the Principes that turned to flank halted when attempting to charge, so it needs to be activated, as do the two cavalry units. As the Roman commander can activate three bodies, he can activate all of the halted bodies if he wants to. So, is there any reason why he should not activate anyone? A roll of the dice indicate all are going in, however both cavalry units are to merge at the top of the hill on the (Roman) left flank. Note that this "condition" means the body will halt upon reaching its destination, so is akin to moving the reserve.

The poor hapless Romans on the right have heard stories about what happens to soldiers in the woods! They refuse to charge once again.

In the center the Roman line charges and the Spanish stand and fire. The javelin fire is murderous, inflicting one hit on each Principes unit.

The Spanish take the worst of the clash, receiving more hits than taken, but they hold. The Romans left-center, however, has taken too much and gives ground.

Meanwhile, on the Roman left flank the Hastati advance, threatening the scutari guarding the flank, but not in range of being fired upon. (The Romans had a choice here and Mythic indicated that it made no sense to expose the troops to fire.) The Spanish morale held in the Threat check, however.

On the hill, the first of the Roman cavalry units arrives, with the General still out of view of much of the battle.

Spanish Turn 3

The situation for the Spanish actually looks pretty good. Although both sides have lost two skirmishing units, the Romans have been hurt a bit by javelin fire from the Spanish scutari. It will be interesting to see how the Spanish commander acts.

Let me apologize right now for the total screw-up of this game. Thank goodness I was not reviewing and playtesting these rules! Also, I am experimenting with some new software, hence the sudden change in appearance of the graphics. I use a Macintosh, but own some graphics software for Windows which I am very comfortable with, so I tend to use them using Windows 7 under VMware. I finally decided to bite the bullet and search out some graphic software for the Macintosh to replace my beloved copy of Macromedia (yeah, it is that old!) Fireworks so I could do everything in the Macintosh environment. I used Preview to crop pictures and lower the resolution, then used Comic Life 2 to assemble it into a "comic". I think I like the effect, but I am not sure yet. I still need to tweak the page size and resolution so it is not so large. But, you tell me what you think. I think that the comic can provide the visuals and the narrative, while the surrounding text provides the dry descriptions of the solo mechanics.

Summary

I think, in hindsight, it was a mistake to allow missile units to move and fire, but only another game will tell, and to be honest, I am not so sure I am fond of these rules. I think I am just too used to DBA and how they play that it is hard to wrap my mind around how these should work.

Clearly I made mistakes in decisions.  Units move much more quickly in these rules, so you cannot afford to dawdle. The key is to put units in motion, but not too soon. You can always slow a unit down to ½ speed if they are outpacing supporting units.

The biggest problem (but I am sure is a design decision) is that units are not maneuverable. I noticed this when I was considering what to do with the Spanish General. It could not wheel left or right 90º (it was trapped by the Spanish scutari line in front) and a 90º face, lateral move, oblique move, and pivot are all not allowed by any troops. I was too bunched up on the Spanish baseline (which was also a function of the smaller board size). Very different from DBA, of course, which allows a single element to move freely. I am not sure which is more realistic.

The Romans lost because the battle line did not expand frontage after they passed through the pass between the woods and the hill. This meant that in the first round of melee it was two units facing three and in the second round, three units facing one. The Romans simply got crushed at those odds.

On a side note, Ed from Two Hour Wargames just announced a new, free addition for Rally Round the King. Here was his press release.

Dave Gray, the co-author of RRtK is working on 120 historical armies spread over four periods. The RRtK Historical Sampler (see the picture on the [THW Yahoo] group home page) should be released within the week. It has 12 historical armies and a new campaign system called the Local Campaign.

Look for it as a free PDF.

This may be just the impetus I need to give these rules another go. That and reading the rules a little closer. All in all, I would probably have to tweak these rules so much that they would not look like the originals. At that point it would only be confusing to someone who uses the Rules As Written.

Looking Forward

I need to find another mechanism to study. There are few rules out there that claim to be solo friendly. As I have been delving deeper into solo gaming I am finding more mechanisms that are solo unfriendly than the opposite. Suggestions are always welcome.

At some point I need to tackle a mainstream game and do something more than simply "play both sides to the best of my ability". That works, but not for long.

Solo Gaming and Reaction Systems Test (4)

New Readers Welcome

Welcome to new readers JF and Jacko. Hope you like the blog.

 Preliminaries

Shaun brought up some great points in the comments on the last blog entry, mainly that I was playing the rules wrong! Using the provenance of Rally Round the King (Warrior Heroes before it and Warrior Kings before that) he showed that there is no concept of moving and firing and therefore no concept of voluntary fire.

I'll be honest, that rule is bad design and now reminds me of why I set these rules aside.

1. It does not model skirmishers very well, which generally use movement as a defense mechanism.
2. It does not model mounted skirmishers at all.
3. It creates a reverse Gotcha'! with skirmishing against heavy infantry.

What the Heck is a Reverse Gotcha'!?

The first time I heard the term "Gotcha'! Gaming" was from Wally Simon in the old PW Review gaming journal. It basically describes the effect of the worst type of IGO-UGO games (which Two Hour Wargames professes to cure with their reaction system). Take a certain space fantasy miniatures game that is tremendously popular. Their rules allow side A to move up into weapons range of their opponent, fire to full effect, remove casualties from side B, all before side B can do anything. Gotcha'!

A reverse Gotcha'! comes about when you change the action allowance from move and fire to move or fire. Side B gets to yell Gotcha'! when side A moves into range. In RRtK this happens with missile troops if they cannot move and fire. They are forced to stop when within missile range (3" for skirmishers), but if they cannot fire they will get charged by the enemy. So they will have to pass a Being Charged test, which is pretty hard for a thin line of skirmishers. Even if they succeed in the test is it not possible to fire in defense (they are not Dual Armed). Essentially this means that there is no offensive missile fire unless the enemy chooses to stand there in front of you and take it and no defensive fire for skirmishers. Found a missing page!

I think I have shown the concepts that I want to with these rules, which is primarily how to use Mythic to make major decisions like deployment, battle tactics, and precedence for receiving activation (PIPs in DBx parlance).

Given that these rules are broken, I will pass on completing the game. I know that NUTS! is not broken, and I do want to do a skirmish game, so I may pick up the reaction system banner on them soon.

Solo Gaming and Reaction Systems Test (3)

Welcome to new reader 'Lone Wolf Warrior' (aka THAT Graham Empson). Hope you enjoy the blog.

With deployment out of the way it is finally time to get stuck in. As the Romans are attacking, they get to move first. Here is the troop disposition at the start. The Romans are at the top and look "blue".

The turn sequence in Rally Round the King (RRtK) is basically:

1. Indicate the body (group of units that are touching) that is rightmost and in the front.
2. If it is not active, the player may spend a point of War Rating to activate it.
3. If activated, move the body.
4. If within missile range of an enemy, it will fire.
5. If currently in melee, it will resolve that melee.
6. If any movement, charge, melee, or fire causes Reaction Tests, these tests are taken.
7. After all actions and reactions are resolved, move to the next body. Activation moves from right to left; front to back where two bodies are equally distant from the right flank.
8. When all bodies are complete, the players turn is complete and play passes to the opposing player.

So, one less decision to make (which unit to think about activating next), as it is governed by the rules.

Roman Turn 1

As the Roman NPG has a War Rating of '3' and there are five separate bodies, only three will be able to activate. As the Roman battle tactics (determined last episode) was that the wings would hold back, while the center attempted to penetrate the enemy battle line, they seem most likely to move forward. The wings are to guard against the main battle line being encircled, so they are next most likely, with the cavalry on the wide flank and in reserve the least likely to advance at this point. So I start asking questions and rolling dice.

The main battle line (Near Sure Thing), Velites (Near Sure Thing), and Hastati (Very Likely) are all selected to be activated.

 Every time a body moves it can elect to go from 50% of the slowest unit's maximum movement to its full movement. For the Romans, there is really little reason to go less than full speed, so the odds will be high. Starting with the right flank, the Velites roll first (Near Sure Thing) and get an Exceptional Yes (taken to mean that there is no cause to roll again until circumstances change), but also getting an even-causing doubles ('NPC Negative', 'Trick', 'Failure', roll indicated it was the Roman NPG that something negative happened to). I roll another die ('76') to determine how "negative" the result is (the higher the more negative) and come to a conclusion that the Romans were trying to pull a stratagem to steal a march on the Spanish (i.e. one free turn of movement) and it failed, back-firing on them. The signal was given and the Velites moved forward, but the remaining troops forfeit their activation.

Generally speaking, I don't like to 'break the rules' as they are given in a game, but I feel this result is justified. The RRtK rules say you can activate up to your War Rating, but it never states you have to use all of the points. In fact, as the battle goes on and all units are in motion, the Commanding General has little to do until he commits himself and his bodyguard to the fray.

Spanish Turn 1

Reviewing the battle plan, the left wing is to advance into the woods and secure it, then harass the Roman battle line from the flank while the slingers harass them from the front. When the Roman line is weakened, the Spanish Scutari and cavalry will counter-attack and sweep away the weakened units. The Scutari on the right are to fend off any opposition that attempts to flank the main Spanish battle line. This makes the three bodies to activate the left flank and the slingers. All others need not activate.

I ask the questions and get that the left flank will advance (Sure Thing), as will the slingers (Near Sure Thing). However, when asking whether everyone else would stand their positions (Likely), I got a No, so I followed up by asking if the Light Cavalry was to swing out to the right flank of the Scutari on the right, in order to guard against the flanking Roman Cavalry and received a Yes.

I follow these up with questions about moving maximum and receive Yes to the Light Cavalry and the left flank. The slingers in the center have two factors to consider:

1. Moving maximum puts them within charge range of the enemy battle line (6"), but not within missile range (3"), so it makes sense to move only 1/2.
2. Moving up will put them within missile range of the Velites in the woods, so they will have to stop and fire anyway.

As the Velites were within 1/2 move of the slingers, they could not stay out of their range, so there was no reason to ask a question about their move.

The Light Cavalry, being the rightmost to activate, moved to the right of the Scutari line and formed up as part of that body. (As they are skirmishers, they can move and face in any direction freely, so getting to that position is relatively easy.) At this point I consider the unit Halted and no longer active. Although you automatically halt when you reach a terrain piece designated in your orders, I have always interpreted this to also mean when you reach a designated station (such as at the end of a line).

The slingers move forward until they come within the 45º angle to fire and with only 1" of woods to pass through and then halt. Only the left unit can fire and it inflicts a hit on the leftmost Velite.

This is where the THW reaction system comes into play. The Velites have to take a Received Fire test to see how they react to being under fire. Their result was to return fire on the slingers.

The Velites return fire, inflicting a hit in turn on the leftmost slinger. The slingers now react passing once for the unit hit and passing twice for the unit on the right. The left slinger retires one move, unfortunately carrying it through the right slinger unit, which is a skirmisher, resulting in it routing (and being removed from the board). You can see it in the picture with two green dots (hit markers) at the foot of the hill.

The Caetrati and Scutari on the left flank advance into the woods, spotting the Velites – that clearly ambushed the slingers – toss their javelins and in the ensuing exchange, drive the Velites out of the woods (they retire, each with two hits).

This is not at all how I expected the game would go, at this point, but it is interesting. Results in RRtK tend to be very harsh and decisive. Just as small units don't survive well in some games, small bodies don't in RRtK because you receive a modifier to your reaction test for each supporting unit in contact with you, up to three. That effectively turns a REP 4 unit into a REP 7 unit.

Just a note about the Spanish turn. Let me say in my own defense that the bone-headed move by the slingers was largely due to my unfamiliarity with the rules. I view it as similar to when you learn in DBA that a unit recoiling into another friendly unit that is not lined up 'just so' results in the recoiler being destroyed. (By the way, that is not true in the new beta DBA3.0.)

Had I been more familiar with the rules I would have not tried to get fancy and have the slingers facing the Roman battle line while still firing at a flanking Velite; I would have faced both slingers at the Velites flank and been done with it. Not only would it have doubled the firepower, but the failed roll would not have routed the second slinger unit as the first would not have retired through it.

Ah well. It is one of those lessons you only have to learn once!

At this point I am stopping for the evening. I would like some feedback on whether it is better to get these 'episodes' in more frequent, but smaller chunks or just get it over with even if it takes a week (or more) to get it done. Let me know, either through email or a comment on the blog.