"A Crowning Mercy Rules: Review" Topic

Overview

"A Crowning Mercy" (ACM) is a set of wargames rules for "refighting battles from the English Civil Wars, 1642-1651". It is written by David Bickley and cost 13.50 GBP. The book is paper back with color photos and graphics, 47 pages, written in what I'll call a "gentlemanly" style. It reminds me of the writing in the Black Powder series of rules written by Rick Priestly (Warlord Games). There is a Table of Contents. The rules are written in numbered paragraph form for ease of reference.

There are also very brief rules for Sieges, a discussion of campaigns (but no rules for a campaign), a page discussing available miniature lines, and rules for Special Characters like Surgeones, Ministers, and Master Gunners.

The rules are written with 25mm/28mm figures in mind. There is no stated figure scale. D6 are used.

There is no stated ground scale.

The author does answer questions posed him via email. You can find his email on his blog.

Units and their Characteristics

Units consist primarily of Regiments of Foote, Regiments of Horse, Dragoons, and Artillery (single guns). There are also provisions for Forlorn Hope, Petardiers, and "Dumb Dyott" (snipers) and "Rabble".

The rules also say that each army needs to have a Baggage Train to be present on the battlefield, but they don't say why, and Baggage Trains are not referred to later in any of the rules and don't play any role in the game.

Figures are mounted on bases 80mm wide by 50mm deep. The number of figures on the base is not important since each base of Foote or Horse has a strength (the rules call it an "Attrition Rating") of 6, meaning it can take 6 kills before it is "Spent" (i.e. eliminated, no longer effective). The author uses 8 infantry figures on a base and 2-3 horse figures on a base.

A Regiment of Foote is composed of at least 3 bases, 1 Pike base and 2 Shotte bases, but can be larger. The rules don't put an upper limit on the size of Regiments of Foote.

The rules say that units of Commanded Shotte are allowed. (This is stated in the section discussing formations instead of in the section discussing unit composition).

Regiments of Horse are composed of between 2 and 4 Troops of Horse. Here the rules are inconsistent. At one point they say a Troop of Horse is made up of a single base, while at another they say a Troop of Horse is represented by 2 or 3 bases of 2 or 3 figures each. (My guess is that the former is correct).

An Artillery "unit" is one gun. There are 3 types: light, field, and siege, plus mortars.

A unit is always in one of three morale states: Firm, Frayed or Fleeing, and these can change during the course of the game. Each unit has a Fighting Effectiveness (FE) rating ( a number between 5 and 9). The FE rating is used in FE checks to determine whether a unit changes status. (Roll 2 D6 and if the result is lower than the FE rating the units passes the check). So, a Firm unit that fails the FE check becomes Frayed. A Fleeing unit that passes the FE check becomes Frayed.

Also, each time a unit fails and FE check it's FE rating is reduced by 1 (4 is the minimum). If the unit passes an FE check it's rating goes up by 1 (but never to its original FE rating-it will always be down at least one after going down one). A unit that has become Fleeing can never get back to Firm. The best it can do is get back to Frayed.

The rules do not provide "army lists" or any guide to overall composition of forces. (e.g. ratio of Foote to Horse, number of artillery pieces). The only stated limitation is that an army can have only four bases of Forlorn Hope.

Unit Formations

Regiments of Foote can be in March Order, Battle Order, or Hedgehog. March order is a column of bases, one base wide, three or more deep. Battle Order is a line, with the Pike base(s) in the center and the Shotte bases on the flanks. Alternatively, in Battle Order the Shotte bases can be situated in front of the Pike base(s).

In Hedgehog the Pike base(s) go to the front and the Shotte bases are placed behind at 90 degrees to the Pike's front. This is interesting as the Hedgehog (whether you believe it was used during the wars or not) was intended to provide all around protection from cavalry from the Pikemen, but in the game this formation would still be vulnerable on the flanks. (The rules don't say there's any special benefit from this formation). It's possible the author has a different conception of how the formation worked and what its benefits were.

Regiments of Horse can be in March Order or Battle Order, and these are the same formation as Regiments of Foote. When in Battle Order they can be arranged either in a single line of bases, or if a full Regiment of 4 Troops (which I think is 4 bases) they can be 2 bases wide by 2 bases deep.

Turn Sequence

The turn sequence is IGO/UGO. First you determine which side has the Initiative and thus can choose to go first or second. Next the side "holding the Initiative" (I actually think it means the side that's acting, not the side that won the Initiative roll-off and thus chose whether to go first or second) issues orders to its units. Next, the acting side rallies Fleeing units. Then the acting side resolves actions (move, fire, fight) with its units. Finally, the army holding the initiative resolves "Fighting Effectiveness" checks—similar to morale tests. The action then switches to the other side which resolves the same phases.

Units move first, then fire, then fight any melees.

Command & Control

Units are supposed to be given a General Order. The General Orders are "Stand Fast!" (hold position), "Form Up!" (change formation), "Advance, March!" (move, charge), "For God and the Cause!" (follow an attached General in a charge), and "Rally on the Colours" (rally or try to recover Fighting Effectiveness).
This General Order is supposed to limit the types of actions the unit can perform. However, the allowed actions correspond exactly with the allowed General Orders, so the system seems redundant. For example, if a unit is given the "Stand Fast!" General Order it appears that it can only perform the "Stand Fast"! unit action. What is the point of the General Orders? Why not simply say that each turn a unit needs an order from a General telling it what to do from the allowed actions? I may be missing something here, but it isn't clear to me from the rules.

The General Orders are issued by a General. Each army has a commander (Lord General) and may have sub-commanders (Lt. Generals). The commander can order any unit. The sub-commander can only order units under his jurisdiction. A general as to be within a certain distance of a unit to issue an order.

The order won't be obeyed unless the issuing commander passes an FE test. (The commanders have their own FE ratings).

Once an order is given to a unit it continues to operate under that order until a new one is given.

The rules don't state any limitation on the number of units a general can order per turn or whether there are any consequences when a general tries to issue an order but fails.

The rules also don't say whether more than one general (e.g. both the commander and a sub-commander) can try to give an order to the same unit in the same turn-i.e. where one fails, can another try? The author told me in an email that this is allowed.

Movement

Movement distances are provided for the various unit types in their various formations. It takes an entire turn to change from one formation to another.

Any terrain that isn't simply flat and open is characterized as Difficult Terrain. Units moving into/through Difficult Terrain have a reduction in their movement distance.

The author states that the armies involved in the wars were not professional and thus were nowhere nearly equal to professional armies in terms of maneuver and drill. But that being said , the rules do not say how units are to change direction (Do they wheel? Turn about the middle? Is there any extra movement cost or reduction for these maneuvers), do not say whether units can move obliquely or laterally, and do not say whether a unit can interpenetrate a friendly unit (the rules do say a Fleeing unit can move through friends without effect on either ).

Charging units get a bonus added to their normal move distance. Charging units do not get the bonus if they charge through Difficult Terrain. The rules don't say whether there are any restrictions to charge movement. (i.e. can a charging unit make any turns during the course of its charge? If yes, are there any restrictions to that?).

Shooting

Shooting is done by base. Each base firing rolls a number of dice. The number depends on what's shooting (e.g. pistols, muskets, artillery) and the range to the target (there are 3 range bands- short, effective, long). Generally, a base can fire at a target up to 45 degrees off its corners.
Regiments of Foote with a 1:1 ratio of Pike bases to Shotte bases roll fewer dice then those with a higher proportion of Shotte to Pike.

Apparently units can be unloaded and cannot fire in this state. I say apparently because it's referred to only obliquely in the rules section talking about Actions a unit can perform (a unit with the Stand Fast! order can fire/reload, reload /fire).
You roll the dice to hit, and then roll the hits for kills. The chances of success on both sets of rolls are affected by the range. There is an option to use Saving Rolls for kills scored.

Charging and Reactions to Charging

Hand to Hand combat occurs when one unit charges another.
The target of the charge may be able to react by either firing or by countercharging, (evade isn't listed as an option) depending on the order it's operating under, its current morale state, and what type of unit is charging it. For example, a unit operating under the Stand Fast! order can shoot or countercharge a charging enemy. A unit operating under the "Advance, March!" order can only countercharge (if otherwise permitted); it can't shoot at the charger. There are multiple combinations of this.

Unfortunately, the way these are spelled out is a bit confusing. There's a list of unit's response to events, but included in this list are some limitations that relate to charging units, not units that are reacting to a charge. Also, some of the reactions allowed are listed in other places in the book (e.g. the rules state that a unit of Foote with the Stand Fast! order can countercharge in an entirely different section of the rules).

Interestingly, a unit of Foote with the Stand Fast! order charged from less than half the charger's charge distance chooses to either Fire at the charger or Fight in the ensuing melee-not both. So if their fire doesn't stop the charge, the Foote will sit there and take it apparently without fighting back.

The rules don't say whether the charge target fires at a charger at short, effective or long range. In an email the author told me this fire takes place at effective range.

Hand to Hand Combat

Once contact is made there can be up to three rounds of combat. In the first round only bases in contact with the enemy fight. In the second round, the first two ranks of a unit fight. In the third round all bases of the unit fight. If by the end of the third round neither unit has fled, the combatants fall back a random distance depending on whether they're Foote or Horse.
The rules don't say what to do when a charging unit contacts the target at an angle so that for example only a corner of the charger is touching the target or if the units are offset, so that only one base is touching the target.

The rules don't say how bases "pile in" after the initial contact. So while all bases in a unit can fight in the third phase of combat, the rules don't tell you how they get into contact with the enemy.

And they need to be in contact with the enemy because that is how you determine how many dice they throw in combat. The number of dice thrown is determined on a base by base basis. You compare the base type with the type it's fighting on a table which lists the number of dice to throw. For example, Foote with Musket throw 3 dice when fighting another base of Foote with Musket, but only 2 dice when fighting a base of Foote with Pike.

The rules don't say what to do when, for example, a base is in contact with more then one type of enemy base. For example, a base of Shotte rolls 2 dice against a base of Pike and 3 against a base of Pike. How many dice does it throw when it's in contact with one of each? And how many dice does it have to allocate to each? The rules leave working these issues out up to the players. I asked the author this question in an email and he confirmed it was his intent that the players decide this for themselves.

The number of dice can also be modified by circumstances. For example, a charging unit gets an extra dice. I think this is one extra dice for the entire unit rather than an extra dice for each base. The rules don't say how this extra dice for the unit gets allocated to the target (i.e. which base takes a hit/kill caused by the extra dice). It looks like each base fighting gets an extra dice for fighting a Frayed enemy unit or fighting against a unit's rear or flank.

Speaking of flanks, it appears that a base is considered fighting on the flank if it's touching the flank of the base it's fighting. There is no requirement that the charging base have started behind the enemy's flank in order to get the bonus. This bonus applies only in the first round of combat and it's only 1 dice, so it actually isn't as devastating as you might think to be charged in the flank or rear.

In any case, once you determine the number of dice to throw (and I guess allocate them if one base is in contact with more than one enemy base) the dice are thrown and each 4-6 hits. Throw the hits and each 4-6 is a kill.

The winner of the Combat round is apparently (the rules don't actually say) the unit that causes the most kills. The loser has to take an FE test. If they fail that they fall back 2". If a unit loses the combat round very badly it will become Frayed. If it loses the round really badly it will Flee.

Casualties

As noted above, each base can sustain 6 kills before it's "Spent."

With casualties from Fire, for a Regiment of Foote, the first Spent base is a base of Shotte. After the next 6 kills, the unit can only count half the second base's firing dice when shooting. Apparently the Pike base is eliminated last, and for a 3 base unit, that would eliminate the unit. So it doesn't appear that a pike base can be eliminated by Fire combat. The rules don't say how this all works for a Regiment of Foote of more than 3 bases.

The rules don't actually say how casualties in Hand-to-Hand combat are applied. The author told me in an email that unlike casualties for firing, casualties in Hand-to-Hand combat are done base by base.

So , in effect, shooting casualties are all applied to one base whereas casualties in Hand-to-Hand are spread out.

Morale

As explained at the beginning, each unit has an FE rating which can go down and up in the course of a game along with its morale status by failing FE tests and passing FE tests to rally.
Units take an FE test in a number of circumstances, some of which have been referred to already.

Winning the Game

When a sub-commander's command has had two of its units Flee the General takes an FE test and if he fails the his entire command Flees. ( Since a unit can recover from Fleeing, it's not clear whether this means the test is taken when two units have Fled, regardless of whether they're both still Fleeing, or whether the test is required only when there are two or more units Fleeing simultaneously.)

The overall commander takes a similar test when one of the subcommander's commands has Fled

Observations

1. There is a lot to keep track of. You have to track each unit's morale state, its FE rate as it falls and rises during the game, and you have to keep track of kills per base. (since kills in hand to hand aren't just piled on all on one base). You'll also need markers to denote Shotte bases that aren't loaded and thus can't fire. So that's either a roster on paper or a lot of markers on the table.

2. There are a fair number of details that need to be filled in by the players. This doesn't bother some, but those who prefer rules that are ready to play "out of the box" , so-to-speak, will likely be disappointed.

3. There is nothing particularly new or innovative here. But the rules should provide a relatively quick playing game.

Thanks for a very thorough review.
I shall not purchase these rules as they seem to be rather expensive for what they are, given the amount of 'filling in' of details that remains to be done by players.
There are plenty of free rules on the internet for this period that I can experiment with instead!

@ arthur1815: Try "Victory without Quarter" for an example of solid free rules.

Clarence Harrison's "Victory Without Quarter" rules link is here:

quindia.com/studioart12.htm

Note that there is at least one other rule set called "Victory Without Quarter" although I don't recall who wrote it.

VWQ is simple and fun . . . and the price is right too (even though they aren't quite what I want).

-- Jeff

I have VWQ already, thank you, gentlemen.
They are, indeed, a good set of free rules – far better, IMHO, than many for which one has to pay. In the wargame world, the adage 'pay peanuts and get monkeys' doesn't always apply, as witness the rules published by The Perfect Captain, for example.

Quite the detailed review. Thanks for the time!

Did the rules deliver flavor? Or did they feel like "here I am playing a wargame"?

Also, did they have good ECW feel, or did it seem like it woudl work for any pike / shot war from 1500 to 1700?

Ken,

Yes, thank you, sir. A very well-written review. (I intended to have posted that earlier -- but I hadn't done so).

I will not be purchasing these rules . . . not for their omissions but because of some of the mechanisms and the record-keeping.

Instead I've decided to write my own . . . not for commercial release but to suit my own table top preferences. And your review did help to nudge me in that direction . . . so I thank you for that also.

-- Jeff

I have been reading, with some interest and amusement, the many and various posts this reviewer has made regarding this particular rule-set and feel it would only be fair to point out a few caveats when reading it.

Ken Portner appears to be on some sort of a personal crusade against this set of rules and possibly it's author .

Mr.Portner had already made various disparaging remarks concerning ACM – even though as it transpired when grudgingly admitted that:
1) He did not own a copy.
2) Had not read them.
3) In fact had not even seen them.

With this in mind I think even the most open minded and charitable of us will suspect this review as hardly being an unbiased and impartial one.

Having been outed Mr. Portner then seems to have taken the trouble to then acquire a copy of ACM, with what seems to like the sole intention of rubbishing them at every opportunity, presumably to confirm his previous rantings, and now has produced this so called review.

Some may also question his intentions, honesty & motives. The reader should be aware that although posting lots of questions on TMP Mr. Portner very much left the impression that author Mr.Bickley had not answered them. A fact completely untrue, he had directly but not on TMP. Mr Portner I am reliably informed had entered into a lengthy correspondence with the author. Although at no point did he reveal his intention to write a critique of ACM presumably in the hope that "he might catch the author out".

I think it would also be pertinent at this point to also advise the reader of his review that Mr.Portner although having apparently gone through them with a fine tooth-comb very clearly has not played them, I have, otherwise he simply would not have made certain comments, observations & critique.

Some of the comments are just ridiculous and as another TMPer put it "nitpicking".

eg; "written with 25/28mm figures in mind. There is no stated figure scale"
I don't think I need comment further.

"There is a lot to keep track of. You have to track each unit's morale state, its FE rate as it falls and rises during the game, and you have to keep track of kills per base. (since kills in hand to hand aren't just piled on all on one base). You'll also need markers to denote Shotte bases that aren't loaded and thus can't fire. So that's either a roster on paper or a lot of markers on the table."

Staggering! You mean like you have to in most games. Again I don't need to comment further

At this point I think it is only fair to advise anyone bothering to read this that I know the author, Mr.Bickley, in a wargaming capacity, have gamed with him and others in his company.
I can honestly say I've always enjoyed these games – they've been fun. We have used all sorts of other peoples rules as well including VWQ and enjoyed them.

BTW the rather good VWQ is an interesting example to bring up – because they are rules which are not the finished product – they are a work in progress – that's probably why they are free.

I have corresponded with the most amiable Mr. Harrison who informed me he hoped at some later date to finalise them & possibly co-produce them into a fine glossy product, the legendary Barry Hilton was mentioned.

Grandreviewroad – the reviewer can't answer that because he's never actually played them. Even though I am sure he'd still have a negative opinion to air.

I & My fellow gamers have come to the conclusion that if you think you're playing ECW or ACW or Napoleonics & if you play with that attitude, with another or group of like-minded people, then you'll probably enjoy most rules – after almost 40 years of gaming I still haven't the perfect set ;-)

That aside I would say ACM is really for ECW where the armies were mostly "semi-professional" with little or no training (new model army and veterans excepted) so there arern't the complex maneuvers, etc. that you might expect say in the 30YW.

Gloria Smud's comment:

'eg; "written with 25/28mm figures in mind. There is no stated figure scale"
I don't think I need comment further.'

I believe misunderstands Mr Portner's point, which is that there is no man:figure ratio stated in the rules, rather than the size of figures to be used. This is not necessarily a criticism, as many rules today use base sizes, rather than the number of figures thereon, as an indicator of the size/strength of the unit.

I note he does not complain when Mr Portner says that there is no stated ground-scale.

Similiarly, Mr Portner's point about record-keeping simply informs those of us who have not yet seen the rules what factors players need to record. Again, there are other rules which do not require so much record-keeping.

VWQ may be a work in progress, but we can still enjoy playing with the rules, thanks to Mr Harrison making them available. Is Gloria Smud suggesting that the fact that Mr Harrison may intend to publish them for sale at some future date invalidates my point about the merits of many free rules? If so, I would respectfully refer him to the numerous free rules published by The Perfect Captain.

Many free rules may be works in progress, insofar as their authors are at liberty to revise them any time they care to do so – as witness Bob Cordery's Portable Wargame Rules &c.
So what? Equally, many commercially published rules appear with amendments in later editions…WRG Ancients, for example!

You know what arthur by your own admission you neither own, have read or even looked at a copy of ACM. So I cannot even understand why you are interested in this thread. You state you had no intention of buying a copy as your only interest is in free stuff.

So really when it comes down to it you don't know what you are writing about.

Why the interest here other than possibly being a friend of Mr. Portner or his sock-puppet.

I really cannot be bothered to reply to any more of your truculent and uninformed inane drivel.

My guess is that if you put yourself in a room on your own you'd argue with yourself.

I'm sure you could find more constructive things to do – maybe take the caravan off and repair someones gutters or a driveway or two.

Gloria Smud – or whatever your name is – I think the tone of your reply is extremely rude, when I have, as I think even you must admit, never resorted to discourtesy or personal remarks in this, or the parallel threads.

You seem to be saying that, because I have not read the rules, I have no right to be interested in a review of them by someone who has – a very strange position, which would suggest that you disagree with the publication of reviews per se. Nor, it appears, should I dare to suggest that some of the points you make in riposte to Mr Portner's review are not really valid criticisms.

I have read about the ECW, played wargames of it using a variety of rules – admittedly not including ACM, which is why I wished to learn more about it, hence my following these threads.

Contrary to your assertion, I neither know Mr Portner other than from these threads, nor am I his 'sock-puppet' – whatever that might be.

I have not commented directly on ACM, but upon your ripostes to Mr Portner's review, and to my comments thereon.

I might have been interested in purchasing these rules, but the issues raised by Mr Portner and your replies have made me unwilling to touch them with the proverbial barge-pole. If you are, as you claim, Mr Bickley's friend, you have done neither him, nor his rules, any favours by your intemperate comments here. If anyone disagrees with you about these rules, or the review, you simply resort to abuse.

And I'm sure the readers of this thread will be very impressed by your resort to personal abuse and the prejudice against certain people revealed in your final remark…

Seriously what abuse. Unless owning a caravan is code for something else. I merely thought a bit of DIY might calm you down & it's always nice to help other people.

Some people are just so sensitive.

I believe I am still on good terms with Mr. Bickley and my other wargaming friends so no worries there.

I notice you have avoided comment on Mr. Portners motivation for picking on this particular ruleset to nitpick over. And you've been posting negative comments about these rules on the other treads way before this so called review.

I must say that if I was going to slag-off, sorry, review someones rules I'd first buy a set, then I read through them a few times, certainly have a few games to actually try them out.

Then I might know what I was talking about.

Then again I wouldn't entertain the idea of publicly rubbishing other peoples work. If I was a fellow rule-writer I'd consider it very unprofessional.

If I didn't like them I'd give them away , sell them or they might end up in the vast piles of defunct rules.

Readers are probably not at all interested to know that that's the sort of person I am.

Would you care to continue this conversation Man to Man?

I cannot comment on Mr Portner's motivation – for all I know he may have asked similar questions about other rules in the past – as I do not know him personally. I merely said that, IMHO, the questions he posed seemed not unreasonable ones to ask. You may disagree; that is your right. But I fail to see why you have to be so discourteous in saying so.

I then posted that, in the light of the issues Mr Portner raised, I did not feel the rules were good value for money – again, my opinion; you clearly feel they are – and that there are some good free ECW rules on the web, which even you admit to be true in your comment on VWQ.

Nowhere have I 'slagged-off' or 'rubbished' Mr Bickley's rules; indeed, to start with, I tended to favour the 'fill in any gaps as you see fit by using common sense approach' towards them. However, the tone of your responses, and those of Luke Warm, has tended to drive me into Mr Portner's camp…

What you appear to be saying is that no one who has not purchased a set of rules should read reviews of them, or comment on those reviews; that anyone who buys a set of rules and has questions about them should not raise those questions in a public forum such as this, and not write reviews that criticise them, but simply sell, give or throw them away. Does this set of principles apply to all wargame rules? If so, you must be in a permanent paroxysm of rage resulting from others' failure to adhere to them, here, on other fora and in the pages of magazines….

Or does this only apply to rules written by Mr Bickley?

You do not regard describing my earlier post as 'truculent, uninformed inane drivel' as abusive? And as for your final remark about caravans and repairing driveways &c. – we both know exactly what you were implying, and so will most English readers of this thread!

If we were having a civilised 'conversation' I would be willing to continue it, but I see no point in enduring your rudeness any longer.

Shakes head in despair for the moral state of mankind.

Whoever Gloria Smud is, I think we can deduce two things:

Still, he does reveal one thing –

@ Gloria Smud

Having been outed Mr. Portner then seems to have taken the trouble to then acquire a copy of ACM, with what seems to like the sole intention of rubbishing them at every opportunity, presumably to confirm his previous rantings, and now has produced this so called review.

Outed? I've used my real name for every post. I don't hide behind a a screen name the way you do.

The reader should be aware that although posting lots of questions on TMP Mr. Portner very much left the impression that author Mr.Bickley had not answered them

That's a flat out lie. The review expressly states at several points that the author answered questions posed in an email and shares the answers provided.Are you deliberately ignoring this or did you not pay attention to what I wrote?

Mr Portner I am reliably informed had entered into a lengthy correspondence with the author. Although at no point did he reveal his intention to write a critique of ACM presumably in the hope that "he might catch the author out".

Yes, I sent the questions I posed on other threads about the rules in emails to the author. And as noted above I shared some of the answers I received in the review. The author's read the review and hasn't said I misstated the answers he gave.

As for "catching him out", would the author have given me different answers to the questions if he'd known I was going to write a review? It makes no sense. But it's obvious you're not trying to make a reasoned point so much as you're trying to divert attention from the rules and their omissions and instead focus on me.

Some of the comments are just ridiculous and as another TMPer put it "nitpicking"
eg; "written with 25/28mm figures in mind. There is no stated figure scale"
I don't think I need comment further.

Really? That's your substantive criticism of the review? As someone else pointed out, the statement indicates that the rules don't state how many men each figure represents. You're the only one who see s not to have understood this. This is just further proof that you have no substantive response and so you attack the person.

As for "nitpicking" , each person can judge for himself whether the omissions from the rules are insignificant because i went through the rules "with a fine toothed comb" and accurately reported what's in there and what isn't. You you haven't pointed to one thing that I wrote about the rules that is factually incorrect. That's because everything I wrote about the rules in the review is accurate.

. "There is a lot to keep track of. You have to track each unit's morale state, its FE rate as it falls and rises during the game, and you have to keep track of kills per base. (since kills in hand to hand aren't just piled on all on one base). You'll also need markers to denote Shotte bases that aren't loaded and thus can't fire. So that's either a roster on paper or a lot of markers on the table."

Staggering! You mean like you have to in most games. Again I don't need to comment further

What is so harsh or unfair about that observation? Again, since I listed the things that need to be kept track of the reader can decide for himself whether its a lot. Your hysterical reaction to this mild observation says more about your obvious bias in favor of the author and the rules then it does about my supposed bias against them.

As for not having played the rules before, I never said I had, nor did I say the rules didn't play well. The review says what's in the uses, how the mechanisms are described in the rules, and what's left out of the rules. That's far more useful information then " I played them and they were fun",

I'm sure Gloria Smud will be along any time now to explain how I'm out to get Mr Bickley or why I'm dishonest and shouldn't be listened to, while continuing to ignore avoid saying anything about the rules themselves other than that he enjoyed them. Given the limited capacity revealed by his other comments that's about all one can reasonably expect from him.

And if his style of rant is good enough for you, that's fine. Go buy the rules.

Welcome back Ken!!!

I thought your review was fine, not at all written in a negative slant. Thanks for the excellent review and kudos to your rather restrained counterpoint to the remarks posted about you.

Still whining on …..and on …..and on ….and on …..

Simple facts Portner:
1: You moaned on about a set of rules you had not read or even seen.
2: Having been "outed" you then purchased of set of these rules.
So if they were so bad before you had even seen them, why, why, why, why, why, why buy a copy.
One might wonder if TMPers would be too far off the mark thinking that it was with the specific intent of rubbishing them further. To confirm your previous assertions.
3: Some people tried to answer the original poster – you were never interested in answering his posts. Only in hijacking the post for your own self promotion.
4: As others have pointed out although you stated the author would answer Q's on his blog you :
a) very specifically did not mention that You had contacted the author directly.
b) That he had answered Your Q's.
In fact You very carefully let the casual reader of this review think that the author was either too aloof or rude to bother.

All of which may lead some to question whether this review is an open, honest and impartial as you would like TMPers to believe.

Have You really not got something more constructive to do.

Go on here's Your BIg chance write Your own set of ECW rules – I'll even read them & play them and if I like them I post that I do & if I don't I'll put them on ebay.

1: You moaned on about a set of rules you had not read or even seen.

You again? Well I'll again correct your lies.

The OP said that the rules didn't define what constitutes a flank attack. I said that I wondered how someone can publish a set of rules lacking that basic point (even Black Powder, which defines itself as a "tool kit" includes it) and condemned rules that lack basics like that as unprofessional.

Having been "outed" you then purchased of set of these rules.

Outed? I'd never said I had the rules when I made my comment. I'm not irrational, so I understand a person can make an observation based on information provided by others. The OP's questions revealed some of the things apparently missing from the rules and that's what my comment was based on.

So if they were so bad before you had even seen them, why, why, why, why, why, why buy a copy.

I purchased the rules because I've always been looking for a set of ECW rules I like (that's what lead me to read the OP post in the first place), I buy lots of rules, and I hoped the OP was wrong about some of the things missing.

One might wonder if TMPers would be too far off the mark thinking that it was with the specific intent of rubbishing them further. To confirm your previous assertions.

The review I wrote does not "rubbish" the rules. Unless you think the comment " There's a lot to keep track of" is rubbishing.

I'll make the same invitation I made to your buddy Gloria Smud; point out what's inaccurate I the review. I expect I'll get the same response; personal attacks on me, but nothing about the rules.

Or better yet, write your own review to rebut my rubbishing. You won't do that either because its easier to lie about me.

Some people tried to answer the original poster – you were never interested in answering his posts. Only in hijacking the post for your own self promotion.

Actually,the answers provided to the OP were in essence; you must be dumb. Just use common sense to fill the holes.

I couldn't answer the questions because I didn't have the rules. Even though I now do have the rules, I still can't answer the questions because they're not answered in the rules. I could only give my supposition.

As for self-promotion, what do you suppose I'm promoting myself for?

a) very specifically did not mention that You had contacted the author directly.
b) That he had answered Your Q's.
In fact You very carefully let the casual reader of this review think that the author was either too aloof or rude to bother.

This is another flat out lie.

The review specifically says "the author told me in an email" in a number of places where I shared answers the author gave me in emails. Intelligent people would understand that this means I exchanged emails with the author.

Since , as you acknowledge, the review notes that the author answers questions via email a casual reader would have to have a very paranoid bent to draw from the review that the author was too aloof or rude to bother answering questions.

All of which may lead some to question whether this review is an open, honest and impartial as you would like TMPers to believe.

No, I think it's just you. Again, if you want to convince people the review is not fair and honest you'd do better to point out where it's wrong then attacking the author.

But I'll bet you won't do that.

Have You really not got something more constructive to do.

Of course, one could say the same about you. At least I have the excuse of defending myself from your libelous statements.

Go on here's Your BIg chance write Your own set of ECW rules – I'll even read them & play them and if I like them I post that I do & if I don't I'll put them on ebay.

I bought the rules Mr. Bickley wrote because so that I dont have to write my own.

It seems you're saying that unless I can write a better set of rules than Mr. Bickley I have no standing to criticize. If I held myself out as a rules writer maybe you'd have a point. But I don't.

Or maybe you think that only rules writers can write rules reviews. Tell that to all of the film reviewers who have never directed a film.

Finally, I'll say that Mr. Bickley seems to be a very nice gentleman and is polite in emails, (which makes me surprised he has friends like you.)

But that has nothing to do with his rules.

Still whining ….on …….& on …..on & ……& on …….& on …..on & ……& on …….& on …..on & ……& on …….& on …..on & ……& on …….& on ….. & on ……& on …….& on …..on & ……& on.

Personally I would have had no problem with anyone reviewing someones rules – had they just written a review having purchased or been given a set.

However this is not what YOU have done – which is why I openly question your motives & honesty concerning this issue.

It is entirely pointless responding to the points raised in your so-called review as You were & have never been interested in anyone else's opinions or solutions as indicated by your posts elsewhere. Your only objective appears to have been conducting a personal crusade v's ACM.

The facts still remain:

1: You moaned on about a set of rules you had not read or even seen.

2: Having been "outed" you then purchased of set of these rules.
So if they were so bad before you had even seen them, why, why, why, why, why, why buy a copy?

"I bought the rules Mr. Bickley wrote because so that I dont have to write my own."

Aha! So you purchaesed a set of rules that you had already described as unprofessional.

They were SO awful you had to buy a copy to confirm your earlier commments.
Hardly the basis of a rational & unbiased rules review.

3: You did not answer the original posters more than reasonable Q's. Some people tried to answer the original poster – you were never interested in answering his posts because you couldn't not having a copy of ACM.

When other posters, including myself tried to answer the Q's and steer him in the right directions for having an enjoyable game You attacked us – belittling our responses.

It appears in that Your little world advising people that if in doubt to use "common sense" is treating them as dumb – quite revealing – because I would have thought it gave them the credit for having some.

4: As others have pointed out although you stated the author would answer Q's on his blog you :
a) Very specifically did not mention that You had contacted the author directly in an underhanded manner worthy of a sleezy newspaper journalist. You hadn't the common courtesy to mention that you were thinking of writing a review – a review of a set of rules you had already described as unprofessional.

As for being polite – I can be as civil as the next person but
as someone once said to me " You don't tolerate fools lightly do you?"

@Luke

4: As others have pointed out although you stated the author would answer Q's on his blog you :
a) Very specifically did not mention that You had contacted the author directly in an underhanded manner worthy of a sleezy newspaper journalist. You hadn't the common courtesy to mention that you were thinking of writing a review – a review of a set of rules you had already described as unprofessional.

I guess you're saying that Mr. Bickley would have given me different, better answers to my rules questions if I'd told him I was writing a review?

Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

It is entirely pointless responding to the points raised in your so-called review as You were & have never been interested in anyone else's opinions or solutions as indicated by your posts elsewhere. Your only objective appears to have been conducting a personal crusade v's ACM.

Exactly as I predicted. You can't because the review is entirely accurate. Could you be any more transparent? Why don't you defend the rules by rebutting the review instead of attacking me personally?

Last thing. Why don't you have the courage to use your real name when making personal attacks? You'd expect a Gentlemen to have enough honor and courage to do that.

One thing I like about the ECW boards is that we rarely get this kind of thing going on.

I find the attacks on the reviewer unpleasant to read. To me it doesn't read as if there is any such negative purpose. Not every set of rules will appeal to every player.

BTW if you want my real name go look on my profile.

Sorry Elenderil – the reason I've made these posts is because Mr. Portner is an extremely crafty individual.

To the casual reader who might come across this review it does indeed seem very reasonable – some of it is – however if you read the other threads started by him well before this one and start with the original post not by him but hijacked by him. It contained some reasonable Q's.

Read them You will see why I have a problem with Mr. Portner's impartiality.

He was already slagging ACM off without ever having seen then. He then purchased a copy supposedly because he was interested in them. Why would you want buy something you've already stated is unprofessional?
Why would you buy a set of rules that you have already rubbished?

His answer – to do a "Review" of them – now if you don't find that a little strange well…..

Is Mr. Portner a regular reviewer of rules – has he reviewed
other sets of ECW rules – or in fact any other rules.

I cannot answer for Mr. Bickley – we have discussed this by email – but if I were an open, honest, impartial person contacting a rule writer then I would perhaps have the courtesy to mention it. Of course had I already slagged off the authors work then I may not have received a particularly welcome response.

Finally Mr. Portner I could rip your so called review to pieces & show it up for what it is. For one you have clearly never played ACM otherwise you would realise just how some of your comments simply show your ignorance.

BTW If you ever pop over to the UK & visit a show let organisers know – WMSS is a good one as I know Mr. Bickley attends that one & I'm sure to be there – I'll very happily come & have a little chat with you face to face.

Finally Mr. Portner I could rip your so called review to pieces & show it up for what it is. For one you have clearly never played ACM otherwise you would realise just how some of your comments simply show your ignorance.

All talk, no action. If you'd just taken the time spent defaming me writing your own review you'd have "ripped my review to shreds" already.

The fact that you continue to ignore substance in favor of attacking me ( under an assumed name) demonstrates to anyone viewing this objectively that you've got nothing.

Why don't you put up or shut up already?

Is Mr. Portner a regular reviewer of rules – has he reviewed
other sets of ECW rules – or in fact any other rules.

As a matter of fact I have.

I reviewed Forlorn Hope here link

And also Regiment of Foote here.

link

How's that Mr Luke Warm?

Excuse me, but at the end of the review, under player comments, it says the reviewer hasn't play the rules.

Now, I don't wish to step on people toes, but surely one has to have played the rules to be able to review them properly. That is the same as reviewing a car and saying that the drive is awful when one hasn't actually driven it.

The Young Guard, in Miniature Wargames with Battlegames rules reviews clearly state whether they are based upon reading the rules alone, playing them once or playing them several times. IMHO, as long as a reviewer makes clear whether he has played the rules or not, I'm happy to read his comments and form my own conclusions as to their usefulness.

A review based upon extensive playing is obviously going to be more informative, but one does not have to have actually played a set of rules to discover whether, for example, they have a clear ground scale or man:figure ratio, or whether formations occupy the appropriate area on the table top. And simple, basic information about a set of rules – which often does not appear in sellers' listings – can be helpful in enabling readers to decide whether to investigate the rules further.

Reading a set of rules may also throw up issues that require clarification before one can play, which was surely one of the points Mr Portner raised: that, for example, exactly what constituted a unit's 'flank' was not clearly defined, as it is in many other sets of rules.

This is, perhaps, the origin of the conflict between Mr Portner and Luke Warm and Gloria Smud: both the latter say that, if only Mr Portner had played the rules, many of his questions would be answered – they, of course, have been fortunate to have played with Mr Bickley, the author, who could explain any ambiguities; one of Mr Portner's points was that the rules were not written with sufficient clarity for a purchaser to be certain he was playing them correctly without seeking advice from the author or other players.

With hindsight, Mr Portner was, perhaps, rather too quick to IMPLY that ACM was 'unprofessional' by making a general statement to that effect about rules that do not define basic terms in a thread devoted to that particular set of rules before he had seen them.

But he did then purchase a set and wrote a description of them that no one other than Luke Warm or Gloria Smud found offensive. Since then, he has – understandably – felt obliged to respond to their posts impugning his motives and abusing him, and any useful discussion of the rules themselves has ceased, which is a great pity.

Fair enough old chap and I totally take your points on board.

I'll put my hands up and admit that I make snap judgement on rules that I've not played but haven't liked the look of (flames of war being a case in point).

However, and I appericate this is my own opinion, that a review carried out by someone who has not play the game (even if they own it) is worth less than that of someone who has. For example, I could review Naval thunder because I own it yet haven't played but would fully except my review was inferior to those who had. Where as I have play GQIII many times so I could give a good account.

Personally I have found this whole Crowning Mercy thing highly irritating as it was a set of rules that I would of liked to have explored, but I now feel rather deflated by it all.

And in the spirit of sportsman ship and fair play;

Regards

Chris

Chris, I concur with you that a review written by someone who has played a set of rules is more informative and useful than one by someone who has not, with the proviso that the playing results in more than "I liked/enjoyed them" or the opposite.

I, too, have made snap judgements on rules – increasingly based on length and price as I get older. I don't think that is unreasonable; I look on wargames as rather like novels or films, if they don't appeal, no need to feel guilty about abandoning them.

If either of us possessed these rules, we could probably have had a good, entertaining and civilised discussion, but – like you – I have been put off them by the vituperation that has ensued….

A pleasure to converse with you!
Regards,
Arthur

"If either of us possessed these rules, we could probably have had a good, entertaining and civilised discussion, but – like you – I have been put off them by the vituperation that has ensued…."

And that should be the true essence of gaming!

Likewise old chap!
Regards
Chris

What I don't understand is where you're all getting the idea that the review I I wrote is some sort of scathing indictment of ACM.

I'd say 90% of the review is factual: "the rules say this; they don't say that; this isn't mentioned; the author told me this about them.

I offer 2 opinions at the end; 1. There's a lot to keep track of; 2. There's nothing new or innovative, but they should give a quick game.

The only other observation I make is that there's a lot left unstated that requires the reader to fill in. This is a combination of fact ( that there are items left unexplained that the reader needs to supply) and opinion ( that there are a lot of things that need filling)

But since I comprehensively summarized the rules each person can read for himself what's there and what's not and make a decision

Would it really have added much more for me to have played the rules and them said I liked them or didn't ? That purely subjective. I provided objective information so you can get your own sense.

I'm always puzzled at the belief that only someone who's played the rules can accurately review them.

I think personally, and again this is just my opinion, that it would make a difference if a reviewer played the game. This is not to undermine one's perception but I feel that to truly understand a set of rules you have to experience it.

For instance, DBA is in my view, one of the worst written rule sets in the world. If I was to review purely on reading it then I imagine it would be a scathing one. However having played it, it is actually a good little game for lots of various reasons.

As a result, I truly believe that a review carried out by someone who had played the game holds more validity than a review that hasn't.

Of course I could well be an exception to this rule so there you go.

Kind regards

Chris

As a result, I truly believe that a review carried out by someone who had played the game holds more validity than a review that hasn't.

Perhaps it depends on what you mean by a review.

Take DBA as an expample. If I had only read it and not played it, I could still relate that armies are 12 elements, that each element is in effect a unit, I could describe the sequence of play, tell you how the command pips work, how combat works, etc. That is a "review" (and what I did for ACM) and doesn't require one to have played.

I agree that if a reviewer is going to offer an opinion on how the rules play, how they "feel", and the like he must play them.

But I also think description of "feel" is the least useful part.

Telling you I liked a set of rules or that they "felt" right is like me telling you I like vanilla ice cream better than chocolate. It's intensely subjective.

In sum , while I understand I your thought, I suggest that you're ignoring useful information that could help you make your own mind up about whether to purchase a set of rules if you discount any review where the reviewer hasn't played the game.

You make an extremely valid point.

I suppose what I mean is that a review my someone who played the game gives that little more. I personally value people feelings about games, whilst I admit it is subjective, because it is interesting to see how people interrupt the rules.

I think that also by playing the rules, it sometimes helps to clarify things that may not be so clear from just reading the book.

On a final note, I wouldn't discount any review as any review is useful and helpful. I just rank them in terms of usefulness.

Regards

Chris

You see I raised a couple of discussion points on another thread but the fan club were so busy foaming at the mouth about poor Ken that it all got trampled under foot. :)

You see I raised a couple of discussion points but the fan club were so busy foaming at the mouth about poor Ken that it all got trampled under foot. :)

Let's just remind ourselves of "poor Ken's" first posting in response to a TMPer Q's about the ACM rules.

Perhaps we should also remind ourselves that this was before "poor ken" had even seen a set of ACM never mind read them. So he couldn't answer the Q's but that didn't stop him.

I quote :
"I always wonder how people can publish rules, and take money for them, without addressing fundamental issues.
It's not right."

Mashrewba – I'm not a member of any particular fan club – You could try contacting Mr. Bickley via his blog and I'm sure he'll answer your Q's just like he did mine.

I think that I may possibly have done "Poor Ken" an injustice – there wasn't a dark motive behind this – judging by those other reviews he doesn't appear have may good words to say about anyone's rules.
I think it's just good old-fashioned attention seeking.
It's so very easy to be critical when you done absolutely nothing yourself. Unfortunately the internet is a haven for these people.

Can we not agree to disagree from this subject and move on?

Regards

Chris

New Rule: No Rules Reviews without having at least read them through once. Playing a game or two and reading the rules would be better, but we have to impose minimum standards!

I quote :
"I always wonder how people can publish rules, and take money for them, without addressing fundamental issues.
It's not right."

Yes, I said that and that's my opinion.

But what you keep leaving out are the things the OP said were missing from the rules.

I didn't just make that statement as a non-sequitur.

The "discussion" then revolved around whether the omissions were not omissions but " common sense" which didn't need to be stated.

think that I may possibly have done "Poor Ken" an injustice – there wasn't a dark motive behind this – judging by those other reviews he doesn't appear have may good words to say about anyone's rules.

That's ridiculous.

You must think that any not entirely positive comment is trashing the rules.

I'd still like to see your review of ACM. Trashing me doesn't tell anyone why the rules are better than I think they are.

Trashing me doesn't tell anyone why the rules are better than I think they are.

True, but it does suggest that you are perhaps quite hard to please. Are there any rules that you have reviewed that you actually like and play?

Now, Major – how can you possibly say that because Gloria Smud is trashing Ken Portner, this suggests that Ken Portner is quite hard to please? Or do you mean something else entirely?

Master of the understatement as ever Major ;-)

Ken – It seems to have completely escaped your notice in your rush to enlighten the world with your opinions that the original posters didn't ask for them – did he?

But that wasn't going to stop you expressing Yours about something at that point You had neither seen, or read. never mind played.

He was simply asking for advice & clarification – presumably from someone who had read or even better played.

I quote the original poster:

"I have just bought the ECW rules "A Crowning Mercy" by David Bickley and have several questions before I try a game. Can anyone answer these?

Units have several bases, for example foot have two shot and one pike bases. When in battle order do the stands have to remain in contact along the sides of the base? The reason for asking is if one unit hits another at an angle contacting with the right hand base can the other two bases slide forward to establish contact, or does the unit halt with just the one base in contact, as melee is calculated per base not per unit?

Foot can form in a hedgehogge formation but the rules do not mention the benefits. If contacted in melee do individual stands fight or do you count the whole unit? Can the musket stands fire while in hedgehogge?

What constitutes a flank attack as it is not defined in the rules.

The rules imply that it takes half a turn to reload muskets (on page 18) but then makes no further reference to this. For example casualty counters are talked about but not a way of marking unloaded units.

Thanks."

A perfectly reasonable set of Q's.

BUT

Your response was the second post:
I quote :
"I always wonder how people can publish rules, and take money for them, without addressing fundamental issues.
It's not right."

Did you notice that – he specifically asked

"Can anyone answer these?"

Not can anyone give me an opinion of the state of these rules!

Did You in any way answer the poster = No.
Was it at all helpful = No.
Were Your comments useful or constructive = No.

So when you kept on & were challenged on your obvious in depth knowledge of how poor ACM is – it transpired that.
1) You hadn't actually seen them.
2) You certainly hadn't read them.

But was that going to stop you Ken – Oh No!

You went ahead a bought a copy of something that You'd already decided were rubbish & as others have commented "nitpicked" Your way through them.

I'll ask again why oh why would anyone then want to buy a set of rules that they'd already decided were not up to their requirements.

Perhaps I could make a constructive suggestion:

As ACM were so bad why not perhaps send them another more open minded/interested party perhaps
arthur1815 – they may or may not like them – if they don't then pass them on to someone else.

@ Luke Warm,

You're right. I didn't answer the OP's question and I couldn't because I didn't have the rules.

Yes, I made a judgment about the rules based on what the OP said was not explained in them. (My comment was also general. ACM is not the first set of rules that I've purchased that leaves critical things out).

So I apologize for "hijacking" the OP's thread. But as you pointed out several times, he can get his answer from Mr. Bickley via email and maybe he already has.

What you're not acknowledging is that the discussion then turned to whether it was acceptable to leave these things out because they were "common sense" which is your position. My position is the opposite. This is a general argument about what should be in a set of rules.

You went ahead a bought a copy of something that You'd already decided were rubbish .

No, I hadn't decided they were "rubbish." In fact, it occurred to me that maybe the OP was wrong about what was missing from the rules. So yes, I bought a copy of ACM to see for myself.

& as others have commented "nitpicked" Your way through them

Only you and the fan club have concluded that what I wrote is nit picking.

And in any case, others who read the review I wrote can decide whether the things I've identified are "nits" or something more important.

You keep accusing me of bias, calling me names, impugning my honesty, and dismissing my review, all WITHOUT EVER STATING WHAT IT IS ABOUT THE REVIEW THAT'S WRONG/INACCURATE.

Maybe you'll take a moment off from calling me names to actually 1) point out specifically what's wrong with my review or 2) write your own review as a counterbalance to mine.

Actually, it now occurs to me to ask. Do you have ACM? Have you read it? Have you played it? Why didn't you answer the OP's question?

True, but it does suggest that you are perhaps quite hard to please. Are there any rules that you have reviewed that you actually like and play?

Well, if you read my review of both Forlorn Hope and Regiment of Foote you'd know that I had positive things to say about both sets of rules. I've played both, Regiment of Foote far more than Forlorn Hope, and thought they were fine.

I don't have a problem with any set of rules because they don't provide the "feel" I like, because they're too slow, too fast, what have you and I wouldn't say they're no good for those reasons. They just don't appeal to me.

I do have a problem with a set of rules that is internally inconsistent or leaves things out that should be in there.

The author can't do anything about the former circumstance. Some people like your vision of things or your interpretation of history, or certain types of mechanics, some don't.

But an author can certainly do something about the latter by careful proof reading and play testing.

My problem with ACM is not Mr. Bickley's vision or the type of game he wanted to write, or "the historical accuracy". My problem is with the execution.

it seems pretty clear that the criticism is of the rules and what is not included in them, rather than how they play out.

In this case, playtesting is not necessary. If the rule isn't there, it isn't there and one has to make it up.

The car analogy is good but not accurate. One doesn't need to actually drive the car to critique the fact that it is without a steering wheel / AMFM radio / spare tire, for example.

At this point, it seems ya'll should just surrender the field to Mr. Portner and move on. Or as my pappy would say, "Declare a victory and leave".

"I have Locked the accounts of daghan and banks o yarrow, as they are the same person, and sock puppeting is not allowed on TMP."

Bless!

When I told my wife that I was following a row on TMP about wargame rules she said that I really needed to get a life -how cruel!

I agree with gloria VWQ.