"Muskets & Tomahawks rules review" Topic

A detailed review of "Muskets & Tomahawks" is now up on my blog. I talk about the various mechanics and things I found very interesting in this relatively new set of French & Indian War themed rules. I also have a segment at the end where I make a few comparisons with "This Very Ground" since both games are played on the same level and share a few ideas but play very differently.

The short version of the review is that I really like how the game plays and it may be a bit early (and I mention a few things that may be a problem) but I really think that this will be my "go to" set of rules for French & Indian War skirmish games with 20-50 miniatures per side.

link

agree with you; great set of skirmish rules.

Good review, full of usefulminformation about how the game plays.

Rick

Good review, may have to look at these although cannot say I am impressed by the cover artwork!

Thomas Mante – out of curiosity, what don't you like about the cover art? (As an aside, it's an N. C. Wyeth painting inspired by the ending of Last of the Mohicans: link ) For me, it's quite evocative.

Very good review and good comparison with TVG which I already have. I think I'd buy the rules if it weren't for the price.

Good review, Anatoli. I've played once and really enjoyed the game, but the price is a tad steep. One issue that strikes me is after you have your nominally equivalent forces picked out for both sides, if you generate an attack/defense scenario, the attackers would appear to have a very distinct disadvantage due to numbers.

@Sumo Boy,
Yes I suspect, as I mentioned in the review, that there may be force combinations that work less well and that one should avoid making matchups between a tiny elite force and a horde of militia. I think the game will work the best if both sides have a roughly equal amount of units and if possible as close as equal amount of models. The player with more units and in the end models will probably have the edge from my understanding of the rules and form our one and only game so far.

For instance having 3 units and a total of 18 soldiers will outmaneuver and outshoot an elite unit worth the same number of points but being made up of 8-10 models. Because while that 10man unit most of the time fires at a single 6 man unit it is itself getting shot up by 3 units that between them inflict enough casualties to quickly threaten to break the morale and rout the single elite unit.

So yeah, mixed forces definitely, mixed forces also equals more cards per player to be added to the activation deck. Imagine the massacre of a pure "Regular" unit that only has 2 cards each with 2 actions against an opponent of mixed Indian (4 cards 1 action each) Militia (4 cards 1 action each) and Provincial (3 cards 1/1/2 actions).

Before those two cards that your two regulars would draw the enemy would have activated his unwashed hordes multiple times. This is why I suspect the army lists are "all inclusive" and only restricted by nationality. Each nation is able to field a wide variety of units so that you can avoid these kind of situations.

You could of course field two thematically pure forces, like 1 made up of only Regulars and one made up of only Indians, that should work perfectly fine as the balance between only two unit types and the amount of faction cards in the activation deck would be proportional.

Anatoli – I'm not sure I agree with you regarding needing mixed forces due to the card activation mechanism. Yes, if you have only one unit type, then during the game the other side will be getting its cards flipped more – but their units don't actually get to activate more than your units do. If you've got all regulars, your entire force gets to go when that card comes up, and I think that can actually be pretty powerful. It's also just as likely your couple of unit cards will turn up late as early in the turn.

Thanks for the review. Makes me want to stay with TVG. I like the firing system.

I like TVG, however this review has whilst not changed my mind, made me order M&T. The Firing System is what makes me think i will stay with TVG too, though im also using about half a dozen other FIW rules, so what the heck one more wont matter :)

I'm with Thomas on not liking that art work. The British guy's uniform is a mess. I'll take a look at the review though. :-)

The cover illustration is by the legendary early 20th Century American painter N. C. Wyeth and is from "The Last of Mohicans". Generations of English speaking children grew up with his illustrations. While his work may seem melodramatic to our modern eyes, I think the choice is entirely appropriate for the rules which stress the dramatic narrative of the F&IW period.

Its not the pose, at least to me, so much as it is the uniform, if that guy is supposed to be British. He seems to be wearing white small clothes from the Revolutionary War period (the waistcoat is way too short), what appear to be pirate boots (I've seen a lot of portraits of period offices and these boots have a 17th century feel about them being so loose), and I have no idea what that is wrapped around his waist – either the belt or the sash – if that is a sash.

Art is subjective, I grant you, but from a historical perspective – this just isn't right. There are too many good uniform books out there now not to get that right.

link

link

Here is a period portrait of a British officer:

link

Historygamer, I commend your commitment to accuracy. Unfortunately, much art and illustration from the past does not live up to our current level of knowledge. When I look back at most of the artwork and films that thrilled me as a child and encouraged me to become interested in military history I realize that they are riddled with inaccuracies. That does not make me love them less, nor appreciate them less for getting me into a hobby I love.

Thanks for the links. I game the F&IW and these are great references.

I agree. If this art work is from a past time, then I understand that. If it is new, then not so much. Hey, I love the movie "Last of the Mohicans" as much as anyone. I was actully hired to be in it (but passed in the end). Great movie, bad history. Still, I can appreciate it for the art form it is. :-) And this is, after all, just a wargame rules book cover. I get that too. :-)

And just to show I put my money where my opinions are – I have given advice to films, documentaries, videos, re-enactment units, gamers, whatever. Unlike some in this hobby, I usually don't charge for my work – as I enjoy sharing and have a passion for accuracy. Perhaps an illness. :-(

For some reason I "see" a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle in the rock formation along the waterfall in the artwork. Anyone else?

Don't be too hard on yourself historygamer. I too love history and gaming and like to see both done accurately. So rest assured that you are not the only one with this dreaded desease. Now the bad news, there is no cure. Once bitten,your smitten.
take care,
Keith

I'm going to have to look at these rules, even though I only have 15mm (unpainted) figures for the period.

I have not played either rules (yet!), but have studied each thoroughly. Anatoli's review of M&T is first-rate, as is his comparison with This Very Ground. Allow me to point out some other differences between the rules.

Melee: In TVG, even though you may have better troops, whichever unit wins the Initiative Roll (on a D10, remember!), modified only by weapon type(!), gets to strike first. The side losing Initiative must remove casualties before striking back. Melee in M&T is essentially simultaneous, making it less affected by the vagaries of chance. Also, ALL melees in TVG are to the death! So if you roll badly on Inititiative, the initial disadvantage could well result in the destruction of your entire unit, even if you have a numerically or qualitatively superior unit.

Morale: In M&T, once a unit has fallen to three figures or less, it rolls a D3 instead of D6 (low numbers give worse results) on Reaction Tests (morale checks/tests). This is a subtle, and I think elegant, reflection of the staying power of different types of troops. For example, British militia form in units of 4-6 figures, while French militia is in units of 6-8, and thus have greater staying power, reflecting their better quality. Indian units have 4-6 figures, while British and French line have 8-12, reflecting the better reliability of trained troops.

I agree with Anatoli: for me, Muskets and Tomahawks will be my rules of choice (once I get all the figures painted!). I like it's cinemagraphic feel, love the rules and side plots for officers, and the scenarios are well done.

Sumo Boy: I share your concern for play-balancing attack/defend scenarios in M&T. In Protection and Defence scenarios, the defender must hold some of his force off-board for a random amount of time. I think this would work alright, but not having played them, I'm not sure. Perhaps some of those who have played those scenarios could comment.