"Lingering rules queries about TS&TF" Topic

I played a game of TS&TF the other day set on the NW Frontier and even after decades of playing these rules (currently using the 20th Anniversary Ed. from 1999, plus official errata) every couple of months in one setting or another, I am continuing to encounter rules questions or problems. This is making me crabbypants! Especially when other players with TS&TF experience have different interpretations of important rules and we have to stop play to resolve these disputes or conflicts, often to no one's contentment. It's absurd that there should be so many variations of "official" TS&TF being played; when you pay for a published set of rules, you shouldn't have to become Mr. Fix-It to clean up the rules or be expected to re-design them, and there certainly shouldn't be as much uncertainty with TS&TF after all this time. (I think we are overdue, in fact, for a 35th Anniversary Edition now that incorporates all the old errata and addresses lingering problems -- if anyone from the publisher is listening.)

Here are four vital issues that came up in our last game that caused controversy that I would like to bring up for open discussion and I would be glad to receive feedback or suggestions from other players (the OFM especially knows his TS&TF so sound off, John, if you will!) If I could get "official" rulings from any of the design team or publisher, that would also be most welcome, obviously; I do not know how to contact them directly.

1) Formations. (rules: P. 20, VI:D-E) I have always allowed Pathan mixed sword/spear/firearm units to assume either Mass or Open Order formation because the rules permit up to half a Pathan tribe to be armed with firearms and the rules elsewhere specifically note that Native riflemen can be in Open Order. But the rules do not specify any required or limitations on formations for mixed-weapon Pathans. How do YOU play it?

The same might apply to The Sword in Africa official variant, for mixed-weapon Arab units (I know that those rules call for uniform unit types but this has always seemed problematic to me and I generally play those games with mixed sword and rifle units, similar to Pathans, with only spearmen in a separate unit.)

2) Unit integrity. It's weird that this should have come up as an issue, because ever since 1980 I have played these rules, and seen others play them, allowing a unit to subdivide at will during normal play. (And this sometimes happens involuntarily as well, when units are broken from Close Combat, or due to stragglers, or other reasons.) But this assumption was challenged and when I tried to find a definitive rule in the book, I could not find anything that specified if a basic unit could or could not split into smaller groups. (Note: this does NOT refer to detaching Scouts.) Have I been doing this wrong all my life??!! (Gasp!) Now, I think that units should be permitted to divide into separate groups if so desired. It seems warranted in certain circumstances, altho' it is probably not often a wise thing to do. For Native units, it almost certainly means some group(s) will not have Leaders attached and that will mean restricted movement, much of the time, loss of die roll bonuses, and smaller sub-units are going to fire less effectively and be at a disadvantage in close combat. British units don't face as much hardship since they typically have two Leaders and can break into two sections without one of them immediately facing Leaderless status. It may still be a risky maneuver, but should the player be allowed to take this approach?

I can see why a Native player might want to split off his riflemen, not caring if they couldn't reliably move further, and the Leader take the swordsman off in an attempt to turn an enemy flank while the riflemen stayed put and provided covering fire. I can see why a British player might send a section under a sergeant into a building to clear it while the lieutenant and half the platoon took up defensive positions outside. But if the rules mandate that units MUST be maintained intact, then that's how I would want to play the game. It raises the question, however, of what to do when units become split involuntarily. (Say, a unit charges, leaves behind stragglers, but fails to close with the enemy due to a poor movement roll.)

3)Diamond cards and wounded casualties. (P. 26, A:3) It is not at all clear from the rules how diamond cards are to be used. WHEN is this applicable? For only wounded figures ALREADY wounded before that Fire phase? Or even for figures wounded immediately? E.g., you take two hits, you draw two diamond cards in a row -- the first one wounds, then the next card kills that same figure just wounded?

Even worse, the rule only states that the wounded have to be "with" a unit. How is this defined? Do they have to be carried? Is just lying on the ground wounded being "with" that unit? Are wounded "with" a unit that stays in place but no longer "with the unit if it moves? What if it moves away and then moves back to a former position -- are any wounded left behind suddenly "with" the unit again when they move back? What if they only partially move back? I think this is all way too fuzzy and it isn't worth the time resolving during play.

I don't think this rule works on the tabletop. It does have the effect of reducing the number of wounded and ineffective figures, but only in certain circumstances, which are themselves vague. And it probably only helps the Imperial player by reducing his burden to carry wounded figures. Or, even worse, it encourages both Imperial and Native players to carry wounded simply to act as human shields, absorbing casualty cards (diamonds) that would otherwise hit fresh figures, and this seems too grotesque to allow.

A better rule, if one is needed, might be to allow for "light wounds" on diamond cards; a figure taking a light wound is marked with a casualty cap or put on a red poker chip or some such indicator and then must subtract 1 from all its movement, fire, and melee die rolls. This takes effect immediately. Diamonds can be used to lightly wound a fresh figure OR kill an already lightly wounded figure at either the discretion of the owning player (number cards) or the opponent (face cards)

4) Pass-Through Fire. (P. 26-27, B:4) This is, I believe, a new rule introduced in the 20th anniversary edition because I do not recall seeing this done in earlier games. However, I do not like it. I appreciate the desire to do something to provide for "realistic" opportunity fire at a momentary target, but I do not believe it works in this game. The rule is vague and requisites are too loosely undefined and it breaks the entire play sequence structure. It introduces too much hesitancy in movement and inherently favors the Imperial player, for whom weapons fire is more crucial by giving him more opportunities to fire first and outside the normal Fire Phase procedure. How do YOU handle this rule and what is your experience with it?

And I'm not even going into other things, like, do cavalrymen always count as key figures and require a face card to hit, even if there are no non-Cavalry figures in the target area? Should artillery gunners always require face cards to hit while they are serving their guns? (I have always played it so.) Why should magic weapons always strike the highest-ranking leader first? (I have always rolled off between all leaders eligible to be hit when an Ace card turns up, equal odds for all, otherwise it's just ridiculous.) Blah de blah! What a long convoluted post this became.

Since when are cavalry "key figures"? I have NEVER heard of that before.
Since the definition of "key figure" is rather flexible, we always call a face card an aimed shot, and the firing player chooses the figure hit. With all other cards the owning player picks.
IF you have a mixed group of infantry and cavalry in the beaten zon, go by that.
If you only have artillery in the beaten zone, key cards do not apply. A hit is a hit, but they are in open order.

"Light wounds"? That way lies madness. I have never played with diamond cards being in any way special.
I aid in another thread yesterday that the more callous of us only carry wounded until the Heathen player actually kills a wounded figure, then they are on their own.
BTW, I have always had a problem figuring exactly WHEN the Heathen kills wounded. Foes moving over them do it automatically? Do they have to be charged and meleed? Hmmm…

We play it so you can only split a unit into how many Leader figures are in that unit. This is a maximum of 2 units from a 20 man group if European", and a Native unit cannot be split at all.

I do not see a problem with pass through fire. He simply cannot fire in the Fire Phase, so mark him with a poker chip. And he cannot fire if he has already moved.

I'm taking a shot at these from memory, and from a new plan to use the rules again.
1. I didn't think that Natives were able to use open order at all, basically just mobs.
2. Unit integrity is definitely in the rules someplace, the sample game has the Lieutenant splitting his platoon. If a Native unit wanted to split, the half without a leader would have to roll to move every turn.
3. Honestly, we always played that any Black Card was a miss, a Diamond a wound, and a Heart a kill. Makes it much easier. Sometimes we just used missed or killed.
4. Never recall having this come up.
- Other issues, Key figures are those held to be worth more by the owning side. IE Native rifles, gunners, leaders. I guess in a mixed target area a mounted figure would be Key. That's my two cents anyway.

Key figures are those held to be worth more by the owning side.

We play it so that the shooter decides which are more valuable, and he takes them off first. "Aimed shots."
He may to kill charging spearmen, since rifles cannot shoot when charging!

I agree with John on the interpretation of key figures – the shooter chooses. It doesn't matter which ones the owning player thinks are more valuable. I have found that which ones are "key" is a fluid concept that can change from turn to turn.

The issue of mixed native units is, to my mind, simple. If they are armed with firearms, they can be in open order. If not, they remain in a mass. I don't know of any rule that all figures in a unit need to be in just one formation or single grouping of figures at a time. I find the British players naturally understand this, for example, when they have a unit in open order to skirmish, but form some of the figures in open order to protect a flank.

I play split sub-units like John, too; I start them with their own leader figure. I wouldn't object to my opponent doing otherwise, however, and suffering through the leaderless rolls. I think of that as poor tactics, not something that is forbidden by a game rule.

I do not see any advantage to induce a unit integrity rule when the rulebook specifically includes a split unit in the sample game. It makes the mechanics more complicated. (Off the subject, but it gets asked, I also do not see why gamers worry about the minimum size for a scenario when the same example clearly answers the question: one unit per side. And nothing says they can't be The Sword in Africa sized units either!)

It may be helpful to realize that sub units can get formed involuntarily by circumstances within the game. Consider a unit deployed in two groups of figures within command range of the leader. Further consider that one group gets involuntarily moved beyond command range (for example, it is meleed, loses, and retreats). I resolve the next turn by playing this as an in-game creation of two sub-units. Imposing a unit integrity rule goes beyond what is in the rule book and requires further mechanics to be resolvable.

Rick

1) Same same on native mobs. Only 1/2 can fire.
2) Units can only split with a commands figure.
3) Black card miss, Diamond wound, Heart kill.
4) Pass thru fire – never used it (but like the poker chip idea).

Key figure – shooter picks.

Vince

(Too much sinus medication, read this as 'Lingerie rules queries about TSTF). Never mind.

1) Same as any other native unit.
2) I don't recall units living long enough to worry about splitting.
3) We don't use wound cards. Key figs are shooter's choice.
4) Have never played pass thru fire.

@Streitax: I'm afraid that most of us probably don't have the legs for heels and stockings anymore …

Fast work! Let me see if I can respond to all these excellent points, and right away I want to thank everyone who pointed out the example of play (a unit is subdivided), I had completely forgotten about that, which dates from the original edition no less. Sometimes you *think* you remember how a rule works but then when you can't find it spelled out, you start to wonder if you were always wrong, or if something changed in a later revision.

So that should address the issue of unit integrity. And all separate components of a unit move at the same time (i.e. on the same drawn card) and use the same movement distance (as per Scouts). Or you could allow them to roll their own movement dice, that's within reason. Consistency is perhaps advisable.

First thing I notice is the OFM calling me out on cavalry being key figures. Not only have I always understood this to be the case, even in the earlier editions, you can see it in the 20th Ann. Ed. on p. 26, top of the right column, "Face Cards" -- gives examples of key figures, including "cavalrymen". I approve of this, it gives those smaller cavalry units more staying power in the face of so much hostile fire that might otherwise be directed at it exclusively. (This is not to mention the ambivalent rules about target priorities and target "areas".) Similarly, to prevent unwarranted sniping of artillery crews, I've always played that a key card is always required to hit a gunner who is still attached to his gun. Altho if you strictly enforce the newer rules about only being able to target the closest unit(s), this may not be as critical, since artillery might be more to the rear. I used to recall a rule about how officers could go and serve as crew in a pinch but I have not been able to find this rule in the new edition; it seems that ANY figure can now go and fill out gun crews and as long as one original member remains, the gun can still operate. Altho in that case, the original gunners become KEY Key figures, opening another can of worms about allocating casualties.

"the more callous of us only carry wounded until the Heathen player actually kills a wounded figure, then they are on their own" -- yes, this does often happen! The rules don't exactly discourage it. One might build some incentive to recover wounded into scenario victory conditions, this is the carrot I use on players.

"Light wounds" -- I've tried this before in games. It makes things take longer, but satisfies people (esp. native players) who can't stand how 3/4 of hits are Wounds that are basically Kills as far as it matters to him. I do not recommend it in all cases or for all variants. (It makes more sense in small-unit TS&TF games, I will say.) I'm also not sure it doesn't unbalance play, by letting native units stay functional longer than they otherwise might.

The concept of black cards being "misses" is novel, but I've never tried it, and given how the fire tables have been constructed, and how hard it can be to rolls hits at all late in the game with chewed up units, I don't think I want to introduce any further "saves" for figures. I can see this frustrating the firing player no end. My group wouldn't buy it, too radical a departure from the existing rules.

"When the heathen kill wounded foes" -- yes, this could stand some clarification. How about at the end of the turn, after all Morale checks are made? Each figure may kill or capture one enemy wounded figure within 1". Or you might rule this occurs when a unit activates. Either way, you end up with situations where wounded get knocked before there's any chance to rescue them, but I'm not sure how this can be prevented without other compromises.

"I do not see a problem with pass through fire. He simply cannot fire in the Fire Phase, so mark him with a poker chip. And he cannot fire if he has already moved."

It sounds so simple, but in practice, pass-through fire has always caused squabbles. Clear examples escape me now; but I'll see how it goes next game, keeping all this firmly in mind, and will report then if any new controversy arises.

"The issue of mixed native units is, to my mind, simple. If they are armed with firearms, they can be in open order. If not, they remain in a mass. I don't know of any rule that all figures in a unit need to be in just one formation at a time. I find the British players naturally understand this when they have a unit in open order to skirmish, but form some of the figures in open order to protect a flank."

I have always played that a unit (or each separate element of a divided unit) is in only one formation at a time, never in mixed order, and that is how I interpret p. 20, "Notes on Formations." If a unit is in mixed order, I see only bickering about what target class it is when being fired on, or how many movement dice it rolls, or how it would defend against a charge. This is an occasion where I arbitrarily enforce a single standard, in the interests of consistency and clarity.

"1. I didn't think that Natives were able to use open order at all, basically just mobs." -- it's on p. 20, under "Open Order Formation": "This formation can be used by all figures armed with firearms" It just doesn't address the issue of mixed units, or where that leaves solitary Zulu riflemen who are in a unit of 19 spearmen (the obvious default is Mass when only a token riflemen is in a unit, but units that are half-and-half, like Pathans, are a different matter). Below this paragraph, in "Mass Formation", it is stated that "Native spearmen and swordsmen must use this formation." But again, no mention of native riflemen or mixed-weapons units. Sigh.

"I play split sub-units like John, too; I start them with their own leader figure. I wouldn't object to my opponent doing otherwise, however, and suffering through the leaderless rolls. [evil grin] I think of that as poor tactics, not something that is forbidden by a game rule."

This is my general feeling, and how I have always played, except for not requiring a Leader to be with each division, and I didn't even think about it until it was challenged the other day. "Imposing a unit integrity rule goes beyond what is in the rule book and requires further mechanics to be resolvable." -- Yes! My thoughts precisely.

It's not that I want to slavishly follow all the written rules regardless -- it is to be noted above that I have disregarded some -- but that before I toss something out, I want to be sure I understand the author's intent. Because a good set of rules will reflect careful consideration and testing from the designer and ought to be given the benefit of doubt as much as possible, "IMHO".

Hah! Steitax (saw his post after I completed my last long response) made me check to make sure I hadn't introduced a remarkable typo in my topic header! I did have to edit it down from my original topic title, so it was entirely believable, given my lack of typing skills.

Just to show how contradictory I can be: TS&TF rules I habitually ignore --

Aces always hit highest-ranking leader (noted above).

Fire at concealment areas -- I usually don't allow this, it requires bookkeeping on hidden units and just fiddling about with stuff like this tends to blow a hidden unit's cover, even if you're just going thru the motions to try to deceive the firer. If it ain't visible on the table, it can't be hit.

I allow spears also to be thrown ONE time without making a Charge move, and I track this per unit with a d20 to mark how many eligible spears out of the total have been already thrown. (I don't track individuals, I assume spears are passed up to whoever is up front in these circumstances, to keep it simple.) I don't think it is reasonable to expect spearmen to ALWAYS hold their fire except when Charging (lets enemies waltz up to shoot 'em without fear of immediate retaliation).

Wounded natives attempting to kill enemy figures standing nearby -- no, never liked this, too "Hollywood" and Imperial players couldn't stand being vulnerable to "free swings" from the guys they already shot or smacked around in melee when they didn't get the same benefit. Similarly, Torturing Prisoners is not something I need to have in my routine games and encourages unseemly behavior on the part of a sad few, which can have a bad effect on our hobby's PR when gaming in public venues.

Determining target category -- "most" of a unit is way too vague; if half a unit is in rough terrain and half is in clear, what is "most"? How can you assign one target class to a unit like this? Even two-thirds can be dubious, if the firing unit only has a line of sight on the other third of the unit. Different target classes require different rolls to hit. So I do the logical thing -- if the target unit is formed over more than one type of terrain or protection, the firer must specify which eligible figures are firing at which target area, and rolls separately for each target class to see if he hit anyone there.

Officers with pistols who are allowed to fire two shots may only fire ONCE if they are targeting an individual enemy figure. They fire twice if they are firing at a unit.

Indian troops: older editions treated all Indian Army figures the same as Imperial British. The new rules downgrade the Indians to the Egyptian tables. This offended owners of Sikh and Gurkha troops so much that I permit these traditional "martial races" to continue to use the British tables, which is esp. important for morale purposes. These also have a unit factor of 84. I know Gurkha advocates who argue that Gurkhas ought to be exempt from terrain penalties in hills, like natives, but this to me seems unbalancing (then why not Scots Highlanders?), you don't want British super-troops discouraging the rest. Anyway, Imperial forces are using the same drill books and tactical maneuvers, so Gurkha champions, consider your troops tragically handicapped by blind higher authority.

Pathan jezails: I treat all Pathans as rifle-armed when it comes to the tables. I don't like that jezails have been given such a long range and similar rate of fire as rifles (if they were so good, why did the tribes abandon them for rifles as fast as they could?). If I must allow jezails, I'd cut their max range to 30". But mainly, I do this so there isn't a problem for players who only have one type of figure (not everyone makes jezail-armed figures), for ease of convention gaming with newbies, and so it doesn't become a play-balance issue or a Key Figure casualty issue. But maybe I'm wrong about this; not something I'd go to the mat over.

Figures in water: I allow thrown weapons and pistols to fire from water.

Leaders that join a unit they were NOT originally attached to may remain with that unit if it Routs or may elect to remain unaffected.

And not being discussed for the moment but optional or trial rules that have figured into past games: Recovery of wounded figures; rocket batteries; Lewis guns; bows; poisoned weapons; more uses for Joker cards; complete variant rules for the Jacobite Rebellions; and, of course, Zombies and Mummies!

If all players are on the same page, one of the strengths of the rules is that you can basically do whatever you want with them. However, if everyone on this thread got together for a game there would be some "you can't do that" and "that is not what the rules say" dialogue.

What the game master says is word. And if you don't like it, you can go bribe your own game master at the annual Medellin Cartel Game Master auction!

(that's what I always tell them!)

The Sword and the Flame is a MECHANISM. It is not infallible dogmatic truth. when you treat it that way, you lose.
It is NOT a tournament set of rules, with standard universal interpretations.
Heck, even Empire Nappie rules are played differently by the tow authors!
Smokey is exactly right. You interpret and play it as the GM and local custom decree. That is what makes TSATF so great. No one comes to the Rules Seminar the night before the game with a "letter from Larry".
If I had to pin down every single circumstance I would have never done AWI games with it. I make a Ruling, and the players go along with it happily.

The reason people still play TSATF is becuase we don't angst over the rules to such a degree…

As the Major General said- TSatF is complex enough for the beginning gamer, and simple enough for the experienced :)

And it can be said that in 30 years I have never seen any of these various interpretations we discussed factor in the outcome of a game. I suspect this is a major reason why we love it. The cunning and craftiness of the native player, or the focus and immunity to distraction of the British player, are the usual determinants of victory. All subject of course to the fickle nature of the dice.

It is nice to have a set of rules that is so enjoyable. I have enjoyed this dialogue since it has been conducted showing the same spirit that people use to play the game.

Returning to the discussion, I see the logic of the good piper's interpretation on unit formations. My own is that the formation rules apply to the formation, not the unit. The sample game in the rules cited earlier has a single clan of 20 Pathans split into two groups on the table in two different terrain areas, but still operating as a single unit. I actually started playing this way because the older pre-20th Anniversary rules did not specify that stragglers closed up after the melee if the charging unit won. I thought stragglers had to catch up on their own in subsequent turns, so I got used to a messy battlefield!

I think one reason I still like to play this way is that I inherently prefer to treat the game as a skirmish game, so if one or more figures can't make it into the formation, they aren't in it. This has an interesting consequence for squares. I would allow one it three sides get formed and a charge hits one of the three sides. The idea being that the British playing is trying to close the square, but not everyone has the movement dice to make it. It makes for a tense situation when the natives dice high enough to charge into the open side!

I like the suggestion about allowing a one-time throw of spears. I miss the old rules, and in truth the sample game was never edited to the newer rule that they can be thrown only as part of a melee action. FYI, the jezail range is 30". The 36" in the 20th edition is a typo that Larry caught in the 1999 errata.

And Smokey is one of the best gamemasters that money can buy. Of course, you need a bigger bribe if he knows you are a Gator fan.

Rick

I miss-spoke (miss-wrote?) on how I use the cards. Black cards cause a wound just like diamonds.

Sorry for my confusion,

Vince

Thank you Rick! :) And yes, if your a Gata or a Criminole ((r anyone but a Cane for that matter), the bribe will be a tidy sum. Think the treasure of Smaug for reference! ;)

And OFM, noted! ;)

My gaming group helped Larry develop TSATF when he was living in Jackson, Miss. They spent many a die roll trying to either get the Zulus over the wall at Rorke's Drift or trying to keep those nasty assegais from their little metal soldiers' bodies. My good friend proved that he could lose with both the Zulus and the British.

All that being said, Larry has always insisted that one can modify, add to, subtract from ,or ignore any of the rules as he or she wants. The point is to have fun, which is why the game results tend to be so "Hollywood" since that is how Larry developed the game. For some of his gaming philosophy, I refer you to the Sergeants3 web site:

sergeants3.com/first.html

And some additional "official" changes (from 2003) to the venerable rules can be found in the bottom portion of this link:

sergeants3.com/13.html

We always have a game master who decides on how the rules are to be interpreted and his decision is law. We've been known to interpret a rule completely differently from one game to another even with the same game master. Remember, as John the OFM said, it is a set of rule mechanisms with which one is supposed to be the Sergeants3 and Gunga Din fighting off the Thugees or Stanley Baker and Michael Caine defending the wall against the horde of Zulus or a Fuzzy Wuzzy "wit' his hayrick head o' hair" trying to break the British square. So, have FUN with them!

Jim

"I actually started playing this way because the older pre-20th Anniversary rules did not specify that stragglers closed up after the melee if the charging unit won. I thought stragglers had to catch up on their own in subsequent turns, so I got used to a messy battlefield!"

Yes, that used to cause a lot of unit fragments strewn over the board, trying to reform! It was kinda realistic in some ways, but frustrating in others. What the new rules fail to do when they fixed that is detail what happens to stragglers from units that failed to close due to not enough movement or the target evading I have been treating them the same as for units that can close -- they catch up to the parent unit at the end of the close combat phase (even tho' that unit does not engage in this). It's consistent, at least, and keeps little sub-units of stragglers from forming.

Thanks for the tip about the jezail range! I have this changed to 30" in my rules set but could not remember if it was my own revision or something based on an old errata sheet!

I understand why the spear rule was changed, I think. In the older rules, in games I played in, too often the Zulus would engage in protracted spear-slinging contests against the British, throwing spears all day long, and never try to charge. They'd decide it was better odds to run up within throwing distance and sit there. The new rules took care of that problem but they added its reverse -- units NOT allowed to throw spears in the face of a close enemy that refuses to engage it in melee and fires with impunity. My solution is a compromise that has worked well in my experience and requires minimal rules fiddling or bookkeeping.

Really helpful and informative discussion here -- I want to echo some of the sentiments expressed above, thanks to everyone who has sounded off and contributed! I'm printing this all for future reference and bookmarking (again, cause I seem to have lost my originals) the Sergeants 3 site. Nice to know where the errata can be found if I lose my print copy.