"The Sword and the Haggis" Topic

I have had some success playing vanilla The Sword and the Flame, with very few modifications, for AWI and FIW games. Adjusting ranges and adding bows were just about the only changes I made to give fun, believeable games.

What I will probably change:

20-24 figure units will be either battalions or cclans.
British muskets have 18" range.

Highland muskets will get 15" range. Any pistol armed figures will be assumed to be musket armed also. (Pistols are just decoration.)
OR, pistol armed Highland figures get a 6" range.
British Officers will not get aimed pistol shots, but will be a regular figure for firing purposes.
Charging Highland clans may count pistol armed figures as "javelins", also.

I would like to do the same for the Jacobite stuff. I have a bunch of 25/28mm Highlanders sitting in various boxes in various stages of completion. Ditto Government redcoats.
What has held me up mostly was trying to figure out a game to use with them.
Then, I had the inspiration to try TSATF. Again, vanilla. NO "official" published variants, like The Sword in the Forest.

Early war British will use Egyptian tables (or worse). Late war will use British tables.

What modifications to other tables would one suggest?

My "clans" will have front ranks of pistols and muskets. I am thinking that all British fire will concentrate first on "closest" figures, and eliminate the use of "key" cardsm "aces" excepted.

I am also thinking that any time a clan unit fires its weapons, it must take a major morale test to NOT charge the next turn.

With a leader, a clan will close on a 5 on a D6. Maybe even a 6 on a D6.

Stragglers as usual.

Does anyone hae other thoughts? Which tables should I use for Highlanders, or "other" units?

I do NOT intend to use other rules or variants. Suggesting that I use the musket modifications for Wooden Ships and Iron Men, or some fancy pants new glossy rules set will be ignored.
However, if I should happen to accidentally get a copy of a fancy new set, who makes 2" square magnetic stands?

Sounds like fun! Thanks for the thought!

+1 for the name.

Thinking about Stevenson's novel Kidnapped and Peter Young's classic complaint about the possibility of being overrun by a bunch of "hairy Highlanders," I'd give the lads with various hacky sort of weapons a +1, or at least a "Win ties" when charging in Close or Mass.

Also, make some provision for a few dismounted leaders, like Stevenson's Alan Breck Stewart, to have a +2 in close combat, like a mounted leader. Sorry, but I do like the novel.

I'm kind of divided as to what tables to use. Maybe Zulus for "Charge Completion" and "Stand and Fight."

I've looked at Warlord Games' Highlanders and considered buying them, though I wasn't sure what I'd do with them. Let us know how your project goes and what rule changes you incorporate.

Grelber

Here's to a rule set that's been to more places in history than Forrest Gump.

I have been struggling to create a dedicated set of rules for pitched battles in the Jacobite rebellions but the idea of transposing TS&TF to this period had NEVER occurred to me until I read this post. Despite the fact I've played classic TS&TF, and some later variants, since 1980. I nominate John the OFM for a special medal, the Order of Merit for Stating the Bleeding Obvious to the Rabble (the medal to feature a pair of eyes being forcibly opened).

This is brilliant.

Let's see. I would definitely make some period modifications, I think the basic rules are too nimble for the 18th century. But things that the OFM wishes to discard, I would retain, such as the key cards for casualties. I don't like the idea of clan musketeers always being dinked first, I'm sure a lot of eager swordsmen were Jock-eying (ahem) for position in the front rank as well. I see the Jacobite units as analogous to the Pathans. Give them half muskets and half other weapons and let the Key cards sort out the casualties.

The organization of units I would make more flexible, to allow for some of the understrength redcoat regulars and the numerous small Jacobite battalions (as well as big ones). Perhaps a range of Small, Medium, and Large unit sizes, corresponding to six, 12, and 16 figures each?

I would distinguish between troop types: Regulars (British and French line), Irregulars (Lowland levies), and Clan (Highland clansmen), each with different formations allowed and varying combat/morale modifiers.

I like the idea of the uncontrolled Charge (for Clan units only) if a morale roll is not made (which one? Critical, I think). Does this take place immediately, i.e., during this Fire phase? Or is it noted for the next movement phase? (I think the latter would work better.)

I would make the Clans close to combat on 1-5 with leader, 1-4 if no leader. Some of the clans at Culloden failed to close (the MacDonalds on the left wing, notably), so I don't think this should be a given for them, but something comparable to the Zulus.

Jacobites should perhaps get a negative mod to stand versus cavalry.

Clan units should get a nice bonus in melee when charging, and swordsmen should also receive a plus (as Native Swords).

Jacobite artillery should not fire as effectively as Government/British artillery, and if you wanted to complicate things, you could add the presence (or lack thereof) of French gunners in Jacobite gun crews to grant further mods.

You could work up a subjective Army or Division Commander rating list and assign different mods to the various major captains, based on their historical performances. Bonnie Prince Charlie, for example, might give extra morale pluses but in combat he'd be a wash. Lord George Murray would be the reverse. Sir John Cope would be a negative influence. And so on.

For large battles rather than the small battles and skirmishes TS&TF is best at, I would perhaps divide the sides into multiple-unit brigade commands and allow a movement/fire card drawn to apply to an entire brigade rather than just one unit. Any scenario with over 8 (10?) units on a side would be set up as a brigade-scale game.

I would dispense with hidden movement except for special scenarios.

I think I would also drop stragglers, since there are likely to be smaller units anyway.

Permit cavalry armed with pistols to also shoot them as per "spears" when entering close combat (as defender or attacker).

That's my immediate thoughts, anyway. I am mad keen to write up some of this and test this concept ASAP. I already have plenty of figures, would just need some rules framework and then set to and see what works and what doesn't. But this is a very exciting breakthrough. No more head-scratching and playtesting of new concepts when these rules might be made to work just as well. Thanks, OFM!

PS: Nice title! I am also partial to "The Claymore & the Flame" in a more solemn light.

John,

I'm sure Larry and Lori will be pleased with your efforts and with the name!

Jim

I think OFM is right. The people with the muskets would be the clan's Tacksmen. These were the Chief's relatives and other important retainers, the rest would be "humblies" armed with Lochaber axes and other pole weapons. I am not sure that considering many of the clansmen were there under duress how much pushing forward would have be done. For the record I had ancestors on both sides in that war

"The Sword in the Heather" -- my current fave title.

New thoughts:

Artillery will need to distinguish between direct fire (field guns) and indirect fire (coehorn mortars, howitzers) categories.

The basic forces probably need to be quasi-generic but still allow for historical orders of battle.

I see this being a bit larger-scale than the usual TS&TF setting; more like small battles than large skirmishes. The basic unit I plan to use is the battalion, with modifications to combat results accordingly. But one could just as well use companies and retain more of the existing rules.

Key figures to include British grenadiers, who get a plus on their combat rolls. Two grenadiers permitted per 16-figure battalion.

Other troop types not previously noted should include Loyalist Militia (including Town and Clan). Cavalry continues to use phased movement and all non-Heavy cavalry can dismount and fight as infantry (but not necessarily effectively).

I am contemplating a new combat results system; casualties taken from gunfire are Kills on any red card and Shaken on any black card, no wounded. Shaken figures count as casualties for morale purposes and are unable to move or fire until rallied. A black face card (Key figure) can be used to inflict a Kill result on a previously Shaken figure (firer's option). Each Shaken figure rolls during the unit's movement phase to check on rallying. The idea behind this is to ditch Wounded results at this battalion scale as unwieldy; instead, have units degraded through losses and lessened effectiveness but still do so without bookkeeping. Just mark a Shaken figure with a casualty cap or anything suitable.

I'd provide a one-time bonus for each unit's first fire of the game (no matter how many or few figures elect to fire), so that first volley needs to be carefully considered for maximum effect.

I wonder if occasional simultaneous fire could be built into the fire sequence in some form? Jokers?

I no longer think it is necessary to distinguish clan swordsmen from other types. All Jacobites within a unit should melee equally effectively. I would either say that all Jacobites can be armed however the players wish, but treat Jacobites (excepting French regulars) universally as less effective shooters, or permit half to two-thirds of a Jacobite Irregular or Clan unit to be armed with a firearm (i.e. "WYSIWYG") and make these Key figures for casualty determination.

Each unit to have two Leader figures: a Colonel, and Colors (a standard bearer).

Musicians treated as non-firing figures.

I'm still working out what Basic Forces should consist of; tentatively, a composite Jacobite basic Force, or Brigade, might consist of 3 Clan (Highland) infantry units, 2 Irregular (Lowland) infantry units, a cavalry unit, and an artillery battery (optional; an infantry unit can be substituted for the artillery). Another option might be a French regular unit (Irish Piquets or Royal Ecossais). Or, Jacobite brigades might be organized according to either Highland or Lowland status, with corresponding limitations. The Government Basic Force will be much more straightforward: 4 Regular infantry units, a Regular cavalry unit, an artillery battery. Options might include adding Loyalist militia or foreign mercenaries (Hessians, Dutch) or a unit of Guards.

I have never followed the "basic force" guidelines. My battles have usually been ad hoc affairs, or scenarios.

Forces will be built around what I have finished and ready to go.

I have always treated "key figures" as aimed shots, and they wound whoever the shooter wants to hit.
I do not see the muskets of this period being able to select beyond shooting into the brown. That is why I would knock out the closest front rank figures first.

I have never believed in simultaneous anything. Someone always has the initiative, and someone is always reacting. Change it if you wish, I don't think that I will, though.

I am not looking to complicate it in any way. I just want an excuse to go blind painting more tartan and finishing the wee men.

You play "The Sword in the Heather", and I will play "The Sword and the Haggis".

You can only play The Sword and the Haggis if you have Drambuie present

Alba gu brath

Colin

"The Haggis and the Heather" Two great whiskies for the price of one!

Wish I knew how to frame the OFM's post in nice text boxes, but the best I can do to provide clarity is to put the original remarks above in quotes here:

"I have never followed the "basic force" guidelines. My battles have usually been ad hoc affairs, or scenarios.

Forces will be built around what I have finished and ready to go. grin"

I feel somewhat the same way. "Basic Forces" in TS&TF seems a way to define the size of the game and provide play balance between the forces, not reflect any specific historical order of battle. I will try to provide one for the Jacobite wars as an aid to players and a guideline to giving both players a shot at winning. A starting point, not a dogma.

I am also working within the parameters of what I have already built and painted and how I have organized my forces (which is essentially historical on a 1:30 ratio of figures to men), just want to make this fit within a TS&TF scheme.

"I have always treated "key figures" as aimed shots, and they wound whoever the shooter wants to hit.
I do not see the muskets of this period being able to select beyond shooting into the brown. That is why I would knock out the closest front rank figures first."

I think I will retain the current key figure system. It's simple and relatively logical and doesn't reward rules lawyers who try to hedge their troops' vulnerabilities by arranging formations in silly ways to lessen the risks of certain placements, which leads to niggling over who can see and who can't, who can shoot and who can't, who is impervious to gunfire and who isn't. You use aces to regulate leader hits, don't you? No matter where the Leader might be located? (Otherwise, why not place the Leaders all in the rear and claim they can't be hit?) One thing I have always done with TS&TF is roll to randomly select which Leader is hit by an ace from any Leaders within the target area -- I've never liked the "magic bullet" rule that always strikes the highest-ranking Leader.

So what will you do about other Key figures -- artillerists, cavalry? If I am a greedy player and can get away with it, I'm going to say my shots hit the cannon crews first, unless the Key cards forbid me.

"I have never believed in simultaneous anything. Someone always has the initiative, and someone is always reacting. Change it if you wish, I don't think that I will, though."

There you go. I know others who can't stand IGO-UGO games, but it's very difficult to make simultaneous game mechanics work without using referees, orders, and complications. Gunfire and melee is different. I can see allowing simultaneous fire in some circumstances. It eliminates some of the luck factor that already drives some people nuts about TS&TF. Why shouldn't some exchanges of gunfire occur more or less at the same time? Soldiers act independently as well as react. I will try using the Jokers for this, so it still won't occur often.

"I am not looking to complicate it in any way. I just want an excuse to go blind painting more tartan and finishing the wee men."

Good for you! I want to hear how your games work out. I am torn between a desire to simply play this period and get these colorful guys out on the tabletop ASAP, but also to craft something that will satisfy my desire to refight an historical scenario. I think TS&TF will work for either. The simplest way would be to use generic units of various troop types as TS&TF is currently structured. (E.g., what "The Sword in Gaul" does.) And that should work just fine. I may try this first myself, just to test things and see what a Basic Force balance might be, and then tart it up some from there.

"You play "The Sword in the Heather", and I will play "The Sword and the Haggis". grin"

Yes, sadly, I can't steal your title now, so have to invent my own. Lacks panache. Och, weel.

Piper;
You can steal John's title. Beleive me, he won't notice.

He's Oirish anyway.

But now, John, look out, I'm painting Irish Piquets already…

Eric

"The White Rose and the Flame" isn't bad, either.

I've got my Irish Piquets all ready to go. Plus extras to reflect everyone slipping through the Royal Navy blockade. My French foreign units will fight as Regulars, comparable to British line. Good stiffening for the mostly Irregular Jacobite army.

I've often used informally as a title for my various Jacobite rules experiments a line from the BBC "Culloden" docu-film:

"Run, You Cowardly Italian!"

Mean and perhaps inaccurate, but funny as hell.

(Possible rejoinder: "Get Stuffed, You Fat German Lairdie!")

I think I will retain the current key figure system. It's simple and relatively logical and doesn't reward rules lawyers who try to hedge their troops' vulnerabilities by arranging formations in silly ways to lessen the risks of certain placements, which leads to niggling over who can see and who can't, who can shoot and who can't, who is impervious to gunfire and who isn't. You use aces to regulate leader hits, don't you? No matter where the Leader might be located? (Otherwise, why not place the Leaders all in the rear and claim they can't be hit?) One thing I have always done with TS&TF is roll to randomly select which Leader is hit by an ace from any Leaders within the target area -- I've never liked the "magic bullet" rule that always strikes the highest-ranking Leader.
/q>
And that is what is so great about TSATF. It's a toolbox. I have always been annoyed by people who post questions on TMP about the Right Way™ to play it, like it's a TOURNAMENT GAME (!)
If you want to randomize the leader hit, go right ahead.
If you want to interpret "key figure" any way you wish, fine too.

My only quibble is your attempt to limit what "that sort of player" can do. Ridicule and abuse is the best way. That, and not playing with him. GM thunderbolts?