"Johnny Reb 3 vs Across A Deadly Field" Topic

For those of you that are interested in these rules – Here is a link to an article on Dean West's thoughts about why John Hill's new game "Across A Deadly Field" is superior to "Johnny Reb 3" –

link

Have played both and find them exciting to play. Will play either one with equal glee. Think I will stick with JRIII for division and lower games and ADF for monster games. ADF also plays well at that level (Dean has an excellent Piedmont tutorial game). The First Day of Gettysburg is a very impressive game (ran by Pat LeBeau at both NASHCON and JOHNNY CON V).

I favor games in which there are so many choices for the commander that it creates a sense of chaos on the table. There is probably more chaos on the ADF field. When to react and take that shot or refuse a flank or get out of disorder. So many good choices which can lead to a fumble on the playing field.

Even if you are not JR any variation fan, try ADF.

I was a bit turned off to learn that regiments in ADF consist of 2 stands of figures. No matter how well the rules play that just has to look odd on the table.

The ADF rules support feilding regiments as 3 stands and it is very easy to extrapolate the morale effects for 4 stands/unit. Although, with a ground scale of 80-100/yards per inch, the stands should be more narrow.

P.J.

agreed. i'm not liking the idea of these goofy looking regiments…

I still like JR2 and 5 stand units.

But doing a corps vs corps battle with JR does get to be pretty long, unless all the players are experts at the rules. For division vs division engagements I think JR is ideal.

Haven't tried ADF but Hill is a great rules writer, so I'm sure it must be very good.

Given the scale I would have to play it in 6mm. I don't care for the appearance of battles populated by color guards.

when will the rules be released?

john lacour – preorders are available right now. link According to the publishers, release is scheduled for August 2014. link

Dean West posted to the JRIII Yahoo group that ADF WILL BE available at H'con

P.J.

Not sure about the basing. Why just two bases? Are all units two bases no matter the actual number of men in the unit? Basing is the reason our club abandon JR in favor of MLW.

Having all those different size bases with different numbers of figures on them just so you keep a five base front never made any sense. A basing nightmare. Different size regiments have different frontages.

In ADF, like JR, the number of figures in a unit matters.
Whether that puts you off the rules or makes you want to play them is down to individual preference.

I have played JRIII a few times and got to play in the piedmont battle at Johnny Con. There were both 2 and 3 base regiments on that field based on unit strengths, probably more were 3 base units. I ran the Union Cavalry Division and all of my units were 3 base units.

Both are good games, I want to play ADF a few more times but it seems to me that it offers you more of a divisional Commanders perspective and decisions than regiment or brigade. The regiments are there and add their flavor to the pot but the decisions seem more concerned with maneuvering Brigades than fiddling with companies.

That said like CWBuff I would gladdly play either.

I won't do specific basing/figs per stands for one set of rules – the hobby has certainly transitioned away from this practice to more universal acceptance of our collection realities.

I would play ADF, but it's peculiar basing requirements preclude me from presenting anything with the rules myself.

I wonder if there's a nod to JR's unit basing "legacy", so collections mounted for it can also be used in ADF?

For those concerned about the appearance of 2 and 3 stand units – here is what you need to be aware of. Each regiment in a brigade is 2 or 3 stands. If you have a 3 regiment brigade then you have 6 to nine stands in that brigade. That is pretty similar to F&F and On To Richmond. So long as you keep your regiments "together" – as you should – everything looks great.

So far ADF plays really well and has a good flavor to it. I'd love it if John Hill would adjust the scale a bit and turn it into a purely tactical game too.

I would play ADF, but it's peculiar basing requirements preclude me from presenting anything with the rules myself.

This is a misconception. You don't really need to have your units all with the same number of bases in either of the rules. They just use bases as a convenient way to track the remaining strength of units for morale purposes.

So, for example, if units are three bases and you see a unit with two bases, you know it's down 1/3 for morale purposes. But shooting and fighting counts the number of figures,not the number of bases.

If all your figures are mounted on bases with the same number of figures, you can just keep track of "base loss" by putting markers next to the unit or keeping a roster.

And if you need to make up a unit with a number of figures that your basing doesn't accomodate, just use another marker/casualty cap, whatever. You'll have to do that anyway at some point because units take casualites by figure, not by base.

But I agree with one of the other posters above that it's hard to u derstand why the rules author would do it this way. It's confusing and for most people impractical to keep an inventory of stands with different numbers of figures so you cna make up units with different numbers of figures just so.

You don't need stands with different number of figures. You can either use however many number of figures you have on a stand with a roster card – marking the original number of figures that stand actually has for the battle (adds a bit of fog of war, too) and then marking off casualties. Or, as I do, having stands with 4 figures each, use casualty caps on the un-needed figures. For example – a 10 figure unit – I use three 4 figure stands and either use casualty caps on two figures on the flag stand for a veteran unit or a casualty cap on 1 figure on each of the two flank stands for a non veteran unit (it means a stand will be lost sooner and this adds to some morale rolls as in JR III).

The way we did JR for years was to use 7/8" x 7/8" bases with four figures per base. We adjusted the number of bases instead of the number of figures.

So say your regiment starts with 15 figures we would round that up to 16 so that regiment starts with a full strength of four bases. When it loses its first base then it would be counted as one base down. We had an OB that would tell you what that unit started with so there would be no confusion. Worked fine for 12 years.

Then I moved to another town and ran my games that way for six years with no problems. Then all of a sudden they had an issue with it. Well I wasn't going to switch my basing, so I switch rules instead. No way I would use that crazy basing scheme in JR.

I knew guys that had magnetic strips on each individual figure and used a metal base to keep them on. But every time I would try to remove one figure the whole base would come with it. What a mess!