"Die Fighting 2: Playtest and review" Topic

Barry and I played out a game with Die Fighting 2 recently:

Set up for the Battle of Santo Miguel
link

Battle report for Santo Miguel and rules commentary
link

My earlier preliminary Review of DF2 (read/view through only)
link

Hope you find them useful. Bottom line is I like them well enough to plan on running a game with them at HAVOC and Historicon ion 2015.

Peter

I really must try these -I bought the original version but still haven't played a game -I even bought 200 dice!!!!
Just such an interesting mechanism.

Yes, you should try them… especially if you have the 200 red dice, LOL! I think you'll find the second edition has greatly refined the original concepts into a much better and more focused game.

Peter,
Interesting, I'll need to con one of my friends into giving it a wirl!!

John

Thanks very much for the description, Peter – how do you feel this compares with classic Piquet?

While it addresses some of the same core themes that have always been of interest to Bob (limited resources, focus of energy on the critical areas of the battle, less certainty of movement and combat results, and even a mini sequence/phase deck), from a game mechanics standpoint it is radically different.

No Polyhedral dice. No Morale Points. No impetus. A very limited "phase deck" – 8 cards, usually the same for both sides, discard two to leave just six cards per turn. DF2 has a BIG, BIG emphasis on command quality and special characteristics (each General is rated as one of the following: Inept, Timid, Foolhardy, Headstrong, Fabian, Average, Very Dependable, or Superior, and has from 2 to 5 of the critical "Command Dice" per turn).

It has a very different, pseudo-toy soldier feel to it, and set up is much faster than traditional Piquet. Even the phase deck can be ignored and a set sequence of play used (or use the 6 core cards and shuffle them so that both sides will have all six cards every turn). Thus, those people who hated Piquet MIGHT still dislike DF2, but also might actually like it a lot (and vice versa!). DF2 is well set up for multiplayer and pick up type games.

There are still MUCH more decisions to be made than in a typical wargame (this IS a Bob Jones design, after all). You MUST focus your efforts where they matter most, and use your commanders effectively in order to maximize your chances of winning.

Yeah wot he said :-)

Gonsalvo,
Very good AAR and rules review.
Very interesting/innovative game mechanics
Like FOB, I do not understand the fascination of the "hold of firing for reload" for tactical/grand tactical level of play! To me it seems to be in affect at the skirmish level where every volley is in play VS the higher time scale of the 10-20 min turns of tactical or grand tactical.

MG

MG,

A good question and one that some players will have a hard time getting their heads around.

While it is easiest to *think* of the mechanic as literally "reloading" the weapons, it's not really correct conceptually. Every rules set has some limitation on how often you will assess the effect of firing, and in all but skirmish scale rules where a turn is a minute or less, each time a unit "fires" it is really assessing the effect of either sustained low level shooting (skirmishers), or multiple volleys (formed troops) or shots by a battery (artillery). This is really what the "Reload/Remove Fire Marker" mechanic is doing in Piquet, FoB, or DF. Because the turn sequence has been "chopped up" and randomized via the cards, the "reload" mechanic is necessary to regulate the amount of times that the effect of firing (from the last time) is assessed. On average, it will be one opportunity to assess fire per each opportunity to move in all three games. Of course, in all three games it may not actually come out equal in any given turn, and the spacing is unlikely to be even. An actual battle of course doesn't take place in turns, it is an artificial construct needed to make the game manageable. Nor does fire take place smoothly over time. One advantage of the "relaod" mechanic (and the cost in Resource Dice in DF2) in that low probability shots are often eschewed by savy players, the risk of being caught "unloaded", and/or the cost in Resource Dice (or impetus in classic Piquet) not being deemed worthwhile. This of course is again in keeping with an actual battle, where good troops usually didn't usually shoot just because they *could*, but rather held their fire (especially intense, rapid fire) for the better shots or more urgent situations.

DF2 in particular can certainly be played in a set sequence like a traditional wargame, and/or without any discards if that works better for the player(s).We won't report you to the phase deck police! :-)

On the Repiquerules yahoo! Site I answered a similar concern on this issue as follows:

"BTW, this has been a conceptual problem from some very literal minded gamers ever since PK, this removal of fire markers action is not literally reloading, but, as in almost all other games, this is a fire phase where the effect of what is ongoing fire in reality is assessed for that turn.

The difference with DFII is that that "phase" is defined by the gamer when he chooses to fire and not by a rigid "fire phase". He cannot fire again until the 4R card when he is again able to define, by his measure of need, not by the rules, when to fire. This insures holding fire until it is most effective and not firing away at will because it is a game defined fire phase, and results in reasonably historical unit behavior in fire exchanges."

I should also note this allows units to fire at moments that are logical to them, and not all fire at the same time( fire phase)as in most games. It is a different mechanic that, I think is more flexible, but strikes some as odd from unfamiliarity. The end result and purpose is not much different than the typical Fire Phase found in most rules with a rigid sequence of play.

In a sense, Piquet, FOB, and DFII all share a common vocabulary, that is slightly different than many traditional designs, but is easily learned and logically consistent.