Help support TMP

""Gettysburg Soldiers" rules, anyone try them?" Topic

35 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the ACW Product Reviews Message Board

Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest

American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Top-Rated Ruleset

Fire & Fury

Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Showcase Article

Project Completion: 1:72 Scale ACW Union Army

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian feels it's important to celebrate progress in one's personal hobby life.

4,702 hits since 1 Jul 2010
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

TMP logo


Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Captain Crunch01 Jul 2010 11:54 p.m. PST

I am wondering if anyone has tried the new Gettysburg Soldiers rules and would like to share comments/criticisms. I keep getting tempted by them but I already have a few sets of ACW rules and I don't want the little lady to hit me with a rolling pin for adding another. Unless it is worth it of course.

Personal logo pavelft Supporting Member of TMP02 Jul 2010 1:34 a.m. PST

It's worth it. I helped play test it, and had a great time playing it at Cold Wars this past year. It's fast, easy to learn, and fun. It gives a good tactical feel, and the layout is really set up to facilitate the gaming experience. It's inexpensive as a rules set, so I say go for it. I, personally, think it's great for quick pick up games, or convention gaming.

lindrp02 Jul 2010 4:21 a.m. PST

I played them at Origins. It's a good game. My only criticism would be artillery is too powerful, but you can always modify that yourself.

Who asked this joker02 Jul 2010 5:59 a.m. PST

Captain Crunch,

It really depends on what you like for ACW. The game is aimed at being an intro game. There is enough there to keep it interesting. I think it would make a really good club or convention rules set being so simple. Combat is resolved completely by chart. All morale results are part of the combat mechanics so there are no fiddly rules for morale checks and so forth.

I think they are worth it. I bought 2 at the discount rate and gave one away as a birthday present to a friend.


79thPA Supporting Member of TMP02 Jul 2010 6:05 a.m. PST

I also helped play test it. Unless they changed things, at the troop scale they are playing, each arty casting should actually represent a two gun section instead of a battery. Other than artillery being almost useless in any capacity, it was a decent game.

Who asked this joker02 Jul 2010 6:20 a.m. PST

each arty casting should actually represent a two gun section

Rules as written: they are a battery of 4-6 guns. I am playing with a 2 model battery. Remove 1 model if the battery is damaged and 2 models if the battery is destroyed. That is both to satisfy a scale concern of mine and to make the damage a function of removing a stand. It is a house rule of course.


79thPA Supporting Member of TMP02 Jul 2010 8:09 a.m. PST

^^^It is a shortcoming that is easily overcome, but I felt the need to point it out, as others may feel the same. I would do just what you are doing.

Who asked this joker02 Jul 2010 11:32 a.m. PST

It is a shortcoming that is easily overcome

Absolutely true. this is certainly not a game that requires great amounts of house rules to have fun with it. It works well out of the box.

Dart2302 Jul 2010 1:47 p.m. PST

Who sells it?

Personal logo pavelft Supporting Member of TMP02 Jul 2010 2:03 p.m. PST


Gettysburg Soldiers is the company


Captain Crunch02 Jul 2010 2:22 p.m. PST

Go to and you'll find it. They don't seem to have a shopping cart so maybe you'll have to contact them to purchase. I find it interesting that one reviewer thinks artillery is too powerful while another thinks it is practically useless. I'll make a final decision on whether to purchase after I finish the ACW naval project I am working on.


Forager02 Jul 2010 3:18 p.m. PST

I played a version of it in a demo game last fall and didn't care for them. However, that was several months before they were published and the rules may have changed since then.

The artillery was indeed very powerful. In the game I played, two of the three batteries on my side were eliminated by long range counter battery fire in the first turn or two and the third didn't last much longer. Maybe it was just the dice, which as I recall were fairly awesome by the opposing side.

But main problem I had with the game were the initiative rules. The winner of the initiative roll (basic 2d6 plus a few mods) had a huge advantage. They got to chose whether to move or fire first and the opposing side got the remaining choice. So, if side A chose to fire first, side B would move first. Problem was that the winner always chose to fire first. This forced their opponent to move first. So the winner had the advantage of seeing their opponents' move and reacting to it and then getting to fire first! Pretty grim for the loser of a highly luck dependant initiative roll. In my game, our side only won inititaive one time (and that was early – before forces were closely engaged) so the result was your basic massacre.

There were some other problems I had with them at the time (such as some questionable modifiers) but these were the main ones for me. Hopefully, the issues I had with the rules were resolved prior to their being published.

Who asked this joker02 Jul 2010 8:46 p.m. PST

initiative rules

There are now 2 initiative rolls. One for movement and one for firing. Melee is simultanious.

Artillery only score a hit on an artillery piece on an 11 or 12 with 2D6. A roll of 13 wipes the battery out in one shot. However, you can get an effect by rolling only a 5. Horses killed reduce limber movement. Crew reduced remove crew but the guns can be recrewed by infantry. Limber destroyed removes all horses in one shot. Rifled artillery hit with a +1 and smooth bore hit with a +2 at close range. So, it would be pretty hard to wipe a battery out in one turn but it is possible.

The game is supposed to be bloody and quick.

Chisom103 Jul 2010 6:41 a.m. PST

I played it at Origins this year. The system is a great game for large multiplayer games, Esp games you want to run at Cons. The rules are quick and easy to read.

Granted the rules are do not go into alot of detail of troop types, experiance, what kind of rifle the mena are carrying,ect. If you like that fine level of detail you will find these rules lacking a bit there. Not to say you cant add that yourself.

The book is put together very well. Pages are a thick cardstock and the whole thing is spiral bound. All the combat modifiers are on 2 pages so that you can lay the book flat on the table and have evey thing you need in front of you. It is a small book to. I would say 8" X 4" so it does not take up much room on the table. I read after the demo at Origins and took about 10 mins to get thought it all.

There is not a standard basing for this game. As long as both forces are based the same you are fine.

I would recommend these rule for any ACW player

Chisom103 Jul 2010 6:52 a.m. PST

artillery fire vs troops is that overpowering either

If you roll a 11-12 on 2d6 you will kill 2 stands and forse them to retreat. A 13 or more will kill 2 and rout them. Routing does not mean out of the game totally.

The game we played in artillery was able to to bad things to Inf because we concentrated your fire into 1 regiment at a time. We have 3 or 4 batteries firing and would kill half the regiment or so.

The number of stands kill when you fire is base on the number of stand shooting as well as the die roll. You dont need to wipe a regiment out to make is far less effective. Thats what we did with our cannons.

counter battery fire seemed far less effective to me tacticly so I did not try it much. The easiest rool to get (a 7 or 8) reduces the crew so it is easier to kill the crew off than destroy the gun. That said the cannon can be recrewed by other troops.

Jay Arnold03 Jul 2010 4:39 p.m. PST

I've subscribed to their forum and will ask the next question there, too. In the meantime, why no love for the wee 6mm dudes? I notice the website says 10, 15 and 25 mm figures may be used. Not that it matters, I'll use what ever I care to.

Are "units" made of multiple stands? I note also that they say basing doesn't matter. Are hits resolved by removing stands or are hit markers placed on the table (casualty caps, anyone?).

If I take the plunge into ACW it will probably be with these rules and with 6mm figures.


WarpSpeed03 Jul 2010 10:32 p.m. PST

I am very interested ,a question plagues me ,do units move/charge further than rifled musket firing range ?To me this unhinges jr3,why prep /def fire if its all charge melee and morale? The jr3 system would reflect the smoothbore era much better (20-60 metres )for muskets but rifled enfields produce volley casualties out to 800 metres. Perhaps battalion volley was above the training standard though.

navarr06 Jul 2010 7:33 a.m. PST

I played it at Origins as well. I thought it was great. These are a great set of rules for people to play with friends who want a quick, simple ACW game or run at a convention where the players are new and you can teach them these rules very quickly. I find only hardcore fans want the more detailed rule set and the more detailed can put off someone who wants a quick, fun game.

I did not find the artillery at all overpowering in the game I played.

I like the initiative system. I do not like the player 1 moves and then shoots then player 2 moves/shoots systems. I usually modify all gams I play way from those systems.

The game is fast play, a lot of action, easy to learn, great little rule book that reads quickly and is easy to understand.

One other thing I found helpful was in the combat modifiers it lists the rule that pertains to it for quick reference so you can check the rule quickly instead of flipping through the book trying to find it.


TKindred Supporting Member of TMP06 Jul 2010 8:22 a.m. PST

WarpSpeed says:

,,,but rifled enfields produce volley casualties out to 800 metres. Perhaps battalion volley was above the training standard though.

Very few, if any casualties are produced beyond the 300 yard barrier, except by trained sharpshooters. Even then, it requires, in almost all cases, the use of optics.

A little while back there was an extensive discussion in this section regarding effective ranges of muskets, rifles, rifle-muskets and rifled-muskets.

The 300 yard barrier is a natural barrier caused by the limits of human eyesight coupled with iron sights on the weapons. There is also the terrain-limiting factor. Very few battlefields are flat. All have rolling ground, hills, woodlines, etc which break up the line of sight and provide cover, if not protection for the troops.

Virtually all fire combat for small arms takes place within that 300 yard space, and that is born out from contemporary accounts and AAR's from this period.


WarpSpeed06 Jul 2010 7:08 p.m. PST

Respectfully received.I am fully aware of cover and terrain effects but the engineered potential of these weapons when used by tightly massed(shoulder to shoulder) allows a battalion volley ,independendent of aiming which produces sizeable casualties .The turks were very successful against massed defending armenians well into ww1 using long ranged volleyfire.

TKindred Supporting Member of TMP06 Jul 2010 8:09 p.m. PST

Indeed, the French tried the same effect upon the Prussians during the FPW, using battalion volleys fired so as to impact on what would normally be the "beaten zone".

In our period, however, there is simply no evidence to show that this occurred. granted, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, but with so many thousands of things written about the war, it would seem logical to find it.

Still… always fun to speculate. grin

Captain Crunch06 Jul 2010 10:27 p.m. PST

Navarr has named several things that make the rules sound interesting to me. As for Jay Arnold, I have often considered going to 6mm myself. The only problem is that most who game in 6mm use 15mm sized bases, they just put more men to a base. While I am a member of a gaming club with several large tables available, at home my gaming space is limited to 4' X 4'. Putting more but smaller troops on the same sized bases wouldn't help me. I think Baccus come 4 men to a strip 20mm wide so I could cut down on frontage to a degree by going with 20mm wide bases as opposed to 1". Convert movement and firing distances to centimeters. Hmmmmm…. Maybe you are onto something. Anyone reading this game in 6mm?

navarr08 Jul 2010 7:01 a.m. PST

I don't game in 6mm but I think it would look fantastic to see a table of 6mm ACW.

I see no reason this rule set could not be adapted to 6mm.


stormchaser19 Sep 2010 7:52 p.m. PST

Played this rule set this weekend at Advance the Colors. Game was run by the Gettysburg Soldiers group. Very nice game and table. Nice to have them explain the rules and why the mechanics work the way they do. Not to speak for them, but the rules are obviously designed for playability.

I understand that sometimes that can be a "negative" descriptor, but the game flowed well. I like the regimental level aspect and actually prefer the rolling for initiative for movement and firing phases.

Rules are supported by a Forum that can be found at

Ultimately the game served its purpose….time to paint ACW.

Personal logo KimRYoung Supporting Member of TMP20 Sep 2010 9:58 a.m. PST

Played the game at Advance the Colors. Kind of a Johnny Reb light. Has good flow and with the rules authors running the event all went well. Some issues are not well defined in the written rules, and I agree the artillery seems out of scale, both in representation and effect compared to the infantry. Fun game if you like simplicity and very large infantry regiments. Could be fleshed out a bit for a more historical representation. Depends on your tastes.


flipper09 Oct 2010 5:48 a.m. PST


Well I just ordered 2 copies for delivery to the UK the author responded very quickly to my enquiry and for $30 USD including shiping I am more than happy to support the developer.
I wish other rules publishers were inclined to producing more reasonably priced products there are some good rule sets out there that are out of reach due to their expensive price points.

moosehead704 Mar 2011 2:12 p.m. PST

Anyone still playing these rules…looking for a simple game..

Has the artillery issue been resolved?

Larry Gettysburg Soldiers Supporting Member of TMP05 Mar 2011 2:04 p.m. PST

Here's a similar thread: TMP link

Fellow gamers from HMGS-Great Lakes are planning to run games at Drums convention in May and ATC in Sept. as they begin a series of 150th Anniversary gaming events.

We (Gettysburg Soldiers) will be at Origins, but haven't decided on Historicon yet.


Darkoath07 Apr 2011 8:18 a.m. PST

What is the figure scale? Are the rules based around brigades or regiments?

Larry Gettysburg Soldiers Supporting Member of TMP08 Apr 2011 7:36 a.m. PST

Darkoath, here are details: link

FAQs on the Forum:

Darkoath08 Apr 2011 8:19 a.m. PST

Thanks Larry!=)

Bottom Dollar08 Apr 2011 1:41 p.m. PST

Nice reviews.

freddy32612 Apr 2011 2:05 a.m. PST


I ran a game last night using Gettysburg Soldiers. I usually play Black Powder and found that GS handles small regiment/small brigade sizes quite well.

Everyone seemed to enjoy the game and we managed to play to a conclusion in 2 and a half hours, which is faster than some 'other' ACW rules sets that I know!!

Larry Gettysburg Soldiers Supporting Member of TMP08 Apr 2021 3:20 p.m. PST

Our 2nd edition of "Gettysburg Soldiers" ACW Rules have arrived from the printers and are now available.


The Supplement booklet for AWI and Alamo versions should arrive within 10 days.

Old Contemptible11 Apr 2021 8:55 p.m. PST

Got halfway down on this thread and realized it is from 2011.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.