"Question about squares" Topic

We are playing TSATF for the first time in about 25 years, and so we are relearning the rules. We are also using the newer edition of the rules. So, my question is how do you handle squares in close combat? The rules state that once the attacking troops are arranged, the defender can pull figures in to support as long as they are 3" from the original pair. So, does that mean that you would pull figures from the unengaged sides and rear of the square and pile them in? If you do this I assume the defender would form back into square formation if it wins and fights the next combat in square again. So for example, first unit charges square, defender wins and reforms square, second attacker charges square, etc.

Your assumptions are how we play it.
Take that for what it's worth!

Thanks John. That helps a lot. I know that the author left the rules vague intentionally and encourages people to use house rules and to interpret things their own way. I'm glad to see that I'm not that far off from what others are doing.

Do you still give the square melee bonus or only close order? I've alway required the other faces of the square to remain in place and only troops not part of the square to join the melee.

We allow any troops within 3" to join in but use only the close order bonus. The ability to pull figures from other sides plus the reserve can be quite a benefit. We allow the square to reform on the original lines after combat if that is possible. If there are not enough men left to fill the gaps then they must reform using movement during the next turn.

"I know that the author left the rules vague intentionally and encourages people to use house rules and to interpret things their own way."

But you know this is one of the things that bothers me the most about TS&TF. No, not bothers -- aggravates. After 30-plus years of playting these rules, and after several editions/revisions and even with the latest errata that I know of, I am STILL encountering oddball situations that the rules do not address or discovering vague, unclear rules that stop play in its tracks while players argue over the right interpretation or resolution. (See my separate new posting with my latest TS&TF rules queries.)

I don't want to have to make up my own rules or "fix" vague rules that are published professionally for money! That's the designer's job! And there's nothing worse for a game than to have it break down because players are used to different versions of what should be one game and disagree on rules changes or modifications.

"I've always required the other faces of the square to remain in place and only troops not part of the square to join the melee." -- this is how I would handle this, because it doesn't open up any fresh cans of worms. But on the whole, I do not like this rule that allows unengaged figures to suddenly join in a square's melee. Squares are hard enough for enemies to attack with any hope of success, what with all the modifiers, and giving the square reinforcements seems a bit much.

"We allow the square to reform on the original lines after combat if that is possible. If there are not enough men left to fill the gaps then they must reform using movement during the next turn." -- Ditto.

One ruling we go by is that the unit in question must have been a square at the start of the turn. No "charging into square"! You can form a square of course, but you do not count as one until next turn.

the game only "breaks down" because the players are not playing in the proper spirit!

I regard the pulling of the figures from the unengaged sides into the melee as an artifact of the rules that help the players visualize the hand-to-hand mechanics. The square never unforms, just like the attackers do not really charge in multiple single figure wide columns. The winner merely puts the surviving figures back into their original formation or mass when the melee is over.

FWIW, we play that if a unit moves first in a turn, and moves into a square, then it is in a square for subsequent charges during the turn.

As is often said in this forum, however, each group is free to play it differently within the spirit of the rules. I have always found that TSATF players have little issue with playing different interpretations at conventions from what they play at home. I believe that the true spirit of the rules is to have fun!

Rick

When we played our game, we actually did it the way piper909 suggests. But after the battle I wanted to reread the rules on squares. At that point it looked like the author intended it to be like John the OFM plays it. That brings up some other points. piper909 says that they only allow troops not part of the square to participate. But where do they fit? A 20 figure square doesn't have much room inside for much other than a mounted officer and a gun crew. Do you allow multiple units to form a square? I know the rules say you can place guns on a square face, but what about other infantry units. For example, could you have 4 20 figures units forming the four faces of a big square? If units are formed up like this, are they moved on a single movement card, or would you need 4 separate cards to move this square? Also, if you have a multi-unit square like this, could each side of the square be 10 figures wide by two deep, giving it more staying power in close combat? Thanks for the input, this is an interesting discussion.

Scott

Yow!

I am admittedly fuzzy on the weird variants squares might take, since I have not GM'ed a game that featured a square in a few years, oddly enough.

But from what I remember -- I didn't have any superfluous figures to contend with, I only saw squares formed from distinct, individual infantry units, no guns wrapped around, no extra troops contained inside. I never saw a multi-unit square attempted because, as alluded to above, it would have required each individual unit participating to move into the square BEFORE it could be attacked by a nearby Native unit that could hit the "Big Square" before it was fully formed on all sides -- hence I've not seen it tried by an Imperial player. Multiple, separate squares formed by individual units, yes, but nothing more ponderous. If several units DID manage to combine into a single "super square", I would still require it to only move a unit's worth at a time (i.e., a card must be drawn for each unit composing the super-square) -- which would make it hard to move at all without breaking the square temporarily, which would provide an opportunity for a native to attack and catch part of the massed formation NOT in "square", as I would rule it. This seems realistic and fair.

Yes, I agree, the whole thing with squares seems pretty messy to me. We decided that in the case of a square that had a gun in one face, that they would move on a single card, but would shoot separately. I would prefer to not deal with multiple units in a square. I was just trying to figure out what the author wanted us to do. Squares should be cumbersome, but I didn't want them to grind the game to a halt.

Here's a thought. Say a number of natives attack a square, maybe enough to fight an entire face of said square. If some win, do they next fight guys from the opposite side of the square, and would that be a rear attack bonus?

Say 10 natives reach one side of the square, and defeat the entire side. What next?

Never actually had a square situation in a game. Weird, but never have.

Maybe it's a messy rules mechanic because as far as we know, anytime the Brits had time to form square, (except for a few minutes at Abu Klea, or Tamai, I think?) the natives were destroyed.

Breaking squares was just not done a whole lot, even on European battlefields.

Read once where a Lt at Shiloh formed his company into square when he feared a cavalry attack. A Major contermanded just in time, before the rebels could align their artillery and smash them to bits. Just reminded me of that story.

You resolve it one attack at a time.
ALL the figures within 3" defend, and at the +2 for being in square.
After they beat off the Heathen, they reform the square and fight the second attack.
Rinse, repeat.

First off, like Rick said, the spirit of these rules is to have fun! I've played many different adaptions and house rules all over the country at various cons and people's houses and have enjoyed them all. As long as a house rule or adaption is made public at the beginning of the game there should be no issues. Here is how we do it, which as I read the base rules, the official eratta and official rules changes our way seems to basically be in concert with them. But, we all see and interpret things differently. That is why Larry had even stated that the GM's word is law during a game even if it is contrary to the printed rules.

A square can be made up of one or more units in the heat of a battle or start the game in square depending on the scenario. There were large battles in the Sudan where several units made up the square with guns on the corners and baggage, pack animals, etc inside the square. A square made up of multiple units should move on one card at 2D6 but should should fire as different units on different cards. This type of square could reinforce a side with support troops within the square which are within the 2" distance of a melee. If one unit in a multiple unit square looses melee or fails its morale it must move 4D6 away from the enemy. The square is now broken but the other units may still be in good order and may attempt to close the square in the next turn or fight in the current formation.

A single unit square will fight as a whole square with the +2 bonus. If it wins melee the survivors reform in square if enough remain. If it looses melee the square is broken and the unit moves away at 4D6.

I've played games where my 20 man square kept getting dwindled down until the wounded outnumbered the effective personell and the square formation had to be abandoned for a close order or open order formation. I've also lost a melee when in square as I was charged by multiple units in the same turn. I won the first two melee's reforming into square after each until I lost the third and ran with the remainder of the troops and was forced to leave wounded behind with the subsequent morale results.

Cheers,
JB

Damn, jeff, where were your teamates while your square was being attacked by every enemy unit on the table? LOL!

Smokey, most likely having a beer or a Flashman moment, lol.
JB

"I know that the author left the rules vague intentionally and encourages people to use house rules and to interpret things their own way."

But you know this is one of the things that bothers me the most about TS&TF. No, not bothers -- aggravates. After 30-plus years of playting these rules, SNIP

piper909,

Sorry that TSATF's flexible style aggravates you. We were going to try to address your aggravation but upon seeing your photo at your member profile, it was very difficult to not laugh; you have bananas coming out of your ears and Groucho Marx's nose/moustache/glasses on….

As someone once said, "Life is too important to be taken seriously."

But SgtGuinness, Smokey and John/OFM have pretty much answered the original poster's question.

Lori and Larry Brom

Thanks to everyone for your help. We are going to have a game this weekend, and I assume the squares will get another workout! And thank you to the Broms for a fun set of rules. It has reminded both of us of how much we really like playing colonials. My friend is frantically building up his Sudan forces and I am painting Zulus. We eventually intend to run some convention games at a small local con and think this is an ideal set of rules for what we want to do.

Scott.