"Suggested rules for 28mm ECW please" Topic

I have decided to have a crack at 28mm ECW this year, although it's something I've been thinking of doing for a long time.

Anyway, I was wondering which set of rules you'd recommend for small scale semi-skirmish level battles.

I have 1644 and WECW, together with File Leader, all of whoch look interesting but I have yet to pick one that stands out.

Any other suggestions would be very helpful?

I was wondering about Black Powder, for example.

Cheers

Jim

Hi Jim,

for me 1644 is more suited to bigger battles. WECW and File Leader are very different but both more suited to the smaller actions I reckon.

I've heard that an ECW version of Black Powder has been playtested but don't know if/when it'll be released. There was talk of a Lardies' production 'In The Buffe' but likewise.

forlorne hope is my choice, odd casualty mechanic but gives the "feel" of ecw, recommended.

I use Black Powder. We have made a few changes to the rules to make it more ECW-ish.

Here is what was discussed/decided:

1. Disorder seems like a good idea after a round of combat. If you have a unit that is large with a 1:1 pike:shot ratio it will get way more attacks than a unit that is normal with a 2:1 ratio. The problem does come down to melee in the game not just being melee and if we are counting it as close range fire too then it might seem that pike armed units should actually get a PENALTY for close combat.

More thinking on this must be done.

Pikes give enemy a -1 to hit from the front. Units of infantry are allowed to be in column, line or hedgehog right now.

We are thinking about adding in different formations like muskets forward but in practice this ends up being the formation that most people use anyway. None of the games we have played have actually resulted in push of pike.

2. Cavalry units would be half the size of infantry units as per standard for the game. Infantry units being 24-28 figs for normal size would be fine. 16-20 would then be small and less than 16 tiny? I guess that would make sense as units of dismounted dragoons shouldn't really be able to mess up infantry too badly, just disrupt their advance, baring there being a lot of them. That brings up another point, dragoons, should they be classed as cavalry or infantry in terms of size? I would say infantry. So a unit of 12 dragoons would be a tiny unit, while a unit of 12 cavalry would be normal.

3. Trotters get a shot prior to charging but no bonus for charging.
Gallopers get no shot prior to charging but get the +1 to hit bonus for charging.

This will result in gallopers winning close combats more often.

After a round of close combat the losers take a break test as normal. If the defeated unit breaks the victorious unit must take a break test or pursue them off the table, being removed themselves. This, I think, should apply to both trotters and gallopers but trotters might get some bonus to the roll. The roll for the victor is penalized by the amount that he won the combat by. So if the victors caused 4 hits on the enemy and took 2 hits themselves and had 2 units in support they win the combat by four and their roll is at -4. Thinking about this you might just want to take the actual results of the combat without the support stuff for the roll. So in the case above their penalty to their roll would be -2.

This would make a lot more sense in cases where units win combat simply because of being supported. So if a unit takes 3 hits and dishes out 2 but has 2 units in support they win the combat by one. Now they would be shaken but still might pursue the enemy? They might but they shouldn't get a penalty to their roll to do so.

Peter Pig's Regiment of Foote is a very nice set and my usual, although I will certainly take a look at In the Buff whenever it does appear…. (As an aside the pre-game "marches" mechanism in Regiment Of Foote is just excellent – really adds to the tabletop game.)

I want to try Black Powder for the ECW. I think our group will also try 1644.

Thanks,

John

Might of Arms for ECW. Our DFW Irregulars version. Easy to play, learn and the game actually gets to conclusion in less than 2 hours once you learn it. Takes about two game turns to learn.

I'm in the same position, attempting to pick out rules for 25mm. I'm leaning towards RoF after reading through them and liking what they have to offer in terms of period flavor. However, I will probably base for more than one set.

I've tried them all.

Here is my review of Forlorn Hope; link

In my opinion it "feels" most like ECW. Problem is, like many "English" style rules, the rules are not very tight, there are holes and inconsistencies. Be prepared to fill in your own rules/conclusions where necessary.

Here is my review of Regiment of Foote: link

The combat in these rules is somewhat abstracted. The most unusual thing about them is the pre-game sequence which simulates the campaign leading to the battle. It's fun for the first 5 games. After that the jokes/humor gets stale and you will just want to skip right to the fight.

WECW is like Warhammer/Warhammer Ancient Battles in mechanics. If you know how the Empire detachment rules work in Warhammer Fantasy, you have an idea how the pike/shot interaction works in Warhammer ECW. But the interaction isn't very well explained and there are some holes in the mechanics. If you don't like to "fill in" missing pieces you won't like these rules.

1644 is similar to WECW in that individual figurenothing special. A very straight forward, vanilla style of rules. Pike armed troops don't count any differently in close combat than musket armed troops unless the opponent is less than 50% pike armed.

However, I will probably base for more than one set.

Therein lies some difficulty.

WECW and 1644 really need individually mounted figures.

ROF is a base oriented game (i.e. combat calculations are done by base). Forlorn Hope counts combat by individual figures in the unit (although each unit is assigned a ratio of pike/shot so having exact numbers of pike or musket armed figures is not necessary for game mechanics).

So, if you want to play them all you're probably best off mounting individually.

ROF for me and we never tire of the campaign mechanic. Must have played 50+ games and we love it. We are now starting to do it again with 28mm and don't envisage looking elsewhere for rules.

Just today there's been mention of the possibility of In the Buff being back on the TooFatLardies schedule for 2011. Nothing certain yet but there seems to be plenty of interest.

Having played an enjoyed masses of Forlorn Hope I'd say it's slow to play and favours pike heavy units.

Anyway this year may see the publication of In the Buff and I understand Warlord are publishing an ECW set based on Black Powder so perhaps 2011 may be a grand year for ECW.

If I were you I'd get painting but hold fire on basing just for now…

Hi all,

I agree that Forlorn Hope is a great set of rules for the ECW, but more focussed on battles than the company level skirmishes that boggler seems to be interested in. I like FH for the smaller big battles if you know what I mean ;-), but for a very big game, eg the Newburys, Marston Moor the chart-working through aspect gets tiresome.

I really must pick up Regiment of Foote. My figs are individually (well multiples plus change) based but I've always treated basing with, er… cavalier disregard, so reckon it'd be adaptable.

I'd be interested in "In the Buff" as well should it hit the e-store.

Bede: I was thinking of basing individually and then making movement bases/stands that adhere to RoF or even FoGR. My first thought would be each figure on a 25x25mm base.

the pike and shot version of fire and fury … its free on the fire and fury yahoo group

Oh, Bede, the advantage pikes get in 1644 rules is that they can count upto 4 ranks in melee whereas musketeers only count the first rank.

The Perfect captain's ECW rules are good for the level the OP is interested in-bags of period flavour.
I would also recommend ROF and I'll be trying Black Powder too.
I tied my self into knots wondering about basing then decided on doing my own mini diorama thing with lots of singles and letting the rules fit around that.

Thaan thanks chaps,

I hadn't thought of RoF but, now you mention it, I might just give it a go (I'm a bit of a fan of RFCM rules, especially AK47).

I'd also overlooked the Perfect Captain's ECW rules, so will have a look at those too.

Thanks again for your advice.

Cheers

Jim

We've started using FOG(R) and really like it, so much so that most of the club (Burton) seem to be buying loads of Warlord plastics including Wayne who, up 'til now, hasn't been interested in ECW

Richard

I would have to give a vote for Field of Glory Renaissance (FOGR)here.

I bought the Ancients FOG when it first came out but was put off by the 'WRG style Barkerese' of the writing and the apparent compexity of the rulebook.

However when Field of Glory Renaissance came out I was lured back in by the beautiful cover art and illustrations in the rulebook and the army lists.

This time, having spent a fair amount of dosh on the books, I was determined to actually play them and after a while struggling to pick out the relevant information it suddenly clicked and I realised that here was a very well thought out and actually very simple to play rules system.

Our group had got pretty fed up with the apparently total random nature and massive rules holes in WHECW – a set of rules that neither the author or publisher really cares about any more – and we finally had our first big pitched battle over Christmas which went very well.

You will need to allow yourself a few weeks to dig the actual system out of the rather confusing rulebook and, as the rules do cover a rather long period of history, for ECW you need to filter out a lot of stuff pertaining to the more unusual troop types and battle formations of a lot of the renaissance era.

Another plus point is that there is a really good forum on Slitherine's website and when I have posted rules questions on there I have usually had a response the same day, sometimes within an hour, from the authors themselves.

The only drawback for 28mm is the basing, but we came to a workaround for that by sort of doubling up the base sizes and the number of ranks so that we could use our troops already based for WHECW. This does mean that you do need a big table, but you do get nice big chunky battalia!

We've been playing FOG:R with troops on 40mm square bases (4 infantry, 2 cavalry), and found the rules work fine as they are.
The units do end up with a rather 'square' look when in two ranks, but the rules work.
There's no need to rebase if you already have an ECW collection based this way.
It's a nice set of rules.

WECW and 1644 really need individually mounted figures.
--------------------------------------------------------------

not really – at least in case of WHECW – as the rules themselves say, you need a few singly based figures in each unit but beyond that no problem to multiple base – or use casualty markers. My pike blocks are 16 figs (four x 40x40 bases) with one of those made up of individual figures – most units anyway will have departed long before the casualties get so high that say you are down to only one rank

I've been weaning my son and his mates off Warhammer and into ECW using a basic set of rules and they are (somewhat suprisingly) becoming quite quite keen to play ECW. It's the price they must pay for using my garage. I've posted the rules at runtus.org for anyone who may be interested. Regards.

've been weaning my son and his mates off Warhammer and into ECW using a basic set of rules and they are (somewhat suprisingly) becoming quite quite keen to play ECW. It's the price they must pay for using my garage. I've posted the rules at runtus.org for anyone who may be interested. Regards."

Just out of interest did you not try WHECW if they already do Warhammer. I know they are not to everyones taste (just as I don't like FOG or indeed FOW either much now)- probably a thing of getting old but the group I game with has enough difficulty remembering the differences between WAB, WHFB, TGW and 40K without going into another set of rules – I'm not an ECW expert but they seem OK and more importantly give a fun game (not to say that I wouldn't try some other rules if I had to but in my day job I assiduously avoid being sent on courses to learn Scots Law on top of what I already know so feel the same way about wargames rules)

Nah…Might of Arms ECW variant.

GNREP8 – Just bias – don't like things Warhammer…

I use the ECW/TYW extention for Basic Impetus.
dadiepiombo.com/bbaroq1.html

I had Forlorn Hope recommended to me by a re-enactor, and I'm VERY glad I took his advice!! They are by far the best I've used.

My grandson (now 11) has been in love with "Prince Rupert's guys" for 4 years now. He is painting a 15mm army to match my 25s. He uses Forlorn Hope with his friends and has helped run two FH games at conventions with good results.

Victory Without Quarter available for free through the LOA website link

Only 13 pages, card driven, fast play, more suited to the smaller actions, (which alot were) supported by the author on the website and fun. There are plans to expand upon them in the near future as well.

Have fun.

GNREP8 – Just bias – don't like things Warhammer…

--------------------------------------------------------------

your right of course – though its been surprisng to me how many gamers I've met who having come along to watch a game with the view that based on anything Warahmmer (incl WAB and WHECW) is not my cup of tea at all and have been converted – mainly because i think they're quite fun and many would rather play fun rules than a super realistic (whatver that would be) set that give a game that you can't finish in an evening. But i quite understand the concept of just not liking rulings – if DBA, DBM and FOG were the only allowed rules then I'd go off and learn motorcycle maintenance

I'd second Victory without quarter, very enjoyable and fast play rules