"Square Bashing Second Edition Questions" Topic

Today I played my first game of SB 2nd Ed. We didn't reach a conclusion as time ran out and my mate had to leave plus we were puzzled by the rules. If there is anyone who has played it and can answer, we'd be most appreciative.

We both found it very counter-intuitive, the main problem was the removal of 1/2 bases being replaced by casualty markers. It got very confusing for morale purposes knowing if a casualty marker was indicating a morale roll was needed or the casualty was indicating that the base was at half strength. We got around the problem by putting a marker on a half base, but this just added to the amount of markers that were now on the table.

We felt that a game of this level (Battalion being the smallest unit) such detail of damage was not necessary, similarly with Guns and MGs getting 'Damaged' markers, thereby giving them two 'lives'.

The final point was the placement of morale tests in the sequence of play. It comes at the start of the player's turn rather than at the end so effects are applied before anything happens, besides Higher Command orders. But the problem with this was, as it was a hang over from the previous turn if your opponent has a negative effect, like retreating, you couldn't exploit the success. You'd have to wait a full turn until they fell back in your opponents turn.

I'm not sure if we were playing it wrong and am missing something, has anyone else come across these problems?

I've played SW 2nd edition, not first. Yes, the turn sequence is different and takes getting used to. We use one kind of marker for damage (yellow chits) and numeric counters for how many hits there are on a square. The latter determine if a morale test is required. Once the test is taken, the numeric marker comes off but the damage markers remain. We found this confusing at first. Note that damaged MGs and artillery roll less dice.

As for the sequence of the morale test, you could see it as representing the difficulty of coordinating stuff during the Great War. Or you could decide you don't like the rules, like one of our crew has.

We record 'damage' on the units themselves, although you could always use 8 base battalions, removing one base per half hit:)

The losses for morale purposes I mark at the front of the square when they are suffered and for every failure, the markers move to the back of the square so it is fairly obvious how many dice are rolled for morale and how many failures the square has suffered. Dead bodies make good markers for this.

The half hits thing is because with the new combat system loss rates have skyrocketed compared to the first edition, so having half hits gives units twice the resiliance.

The sequence of morale tests and results is deliberate and can mean e.g. units failing to occupy a vacant square. It was just the same in the first edition and produces a rather pleasing ebb and flow thing to my mind.

It is one of those game systems which gets faster with practice, which is why, like vtsao's pal, some of my regular group don't like it much as we play something different every week.

Thanks vtsaogames, I did notice that damaged unit fire with less effect, but I do think it's an unnecessary addition to the game, given the level that it is aimed at.

we kind of arrived at a similar conclusion with two types of markers for damage and morale. And we also reached a similar conclusion for the morale and it's place in the turn, that it was to represent the level of battlefield communication at the time.

I am not going to give up on them, it just felt as though we were wading through treacle at times…

Thanks Martin, I was actually wondering if you'd played the game as well!

We did reach some similar conclusions with the eight man bases and why units only lose half a base.

There were large parts of the game I really liked, the new Higher Command stuff for instance, so I will probably give it a few more runs.

although you could always use 8 base battalions, removing one base per half hit

This unfortunately also halves your armies in one stroke.

I wasn't being entirely serious, although SB armies are quite small compared to e.g. GWSH

It is fairly easy to put a damage marker on the base, something we do a lot in other games. For command and colours we've stopped removing bases altogether and just pile on damage markers.

GWSH? Yeah, I thought that an eight base battalion would be a bit cumbersome…

I do use damage markers in Rapid Fire, so it's not a million miles away from what I already do. I think the confusion came from removing a base to replace it with a casualty marker but then adding another casualty marker to indicate that a full base had been removed. It just seemed dumb and then we arrived at the conclusion of differentiating the two; ie separate morale and damage markers.

It's a new system, and I can see why the morale is where it is in the sequence, so I think the problem was us rather than the rules! If my opponent is still up for it, I will give it another try…

As I said, it is a game system which rewards a bit of practice, you do get faster the more the more you play it.

GWSH – Great War Spearhead, for which I have multiple Corps at one base = 1 company. So doing the much smaller SB armies isn't a problem.

If I've only got four artillery batteries (rather than twelve regiments!), then it is nice to get a second chance via incremental damage if one gets hit:)

yeah, I see what you mean.

another thing that did strike me was the firing rules, they seem to be pushed out rather than in the First Ed where there was a separate artillery firing round before assaults went in. Now all shooting is in your opponents turn and seems rather desultory anyway (roll a 6 to hit rather than the assault of 5,6). Does this mean that field artillery is less useful in the game as it barely adds much to an assault? I don't have ed 1 with me so I can't remember how good artillery was at firing, but I seem to recall it has dropped down a bit. Plus the whole shooting in your opponents turn seems to make it harder to soften up a target for the assault.

Sorry for all the questions, I just like to have some form of logic to why things happen in a game!

Can anybody with more experience say how much faster the second edition games would get with practice? My days of being prepared to fritter away entire weekends on gaming are long gone. We slogged away for something like two and a half hours, and I expect to see a game through to the end in that time. There were things about the new edition that I liked but overall I felt the game was going nowhere. I'm willing to try it out again a few more times, but I instinctively feel that the second edition will result in drawn-out games no matter how familiar we become with the rules.

My crew has gotten to where games take about 3 – 4 hours to resolve, after 4 or 5 games.

This is kind of moot since one of our stalwarts has developed a severe allergy to the rules. I'm waiting for Bash the Kaiser in the mail…