"What do you love about TSATF?" Topic

What are the "good points" about The Sword and The Flame and its spin-offs?

1) It is a tool box. It can be used for many periods with minimal change.

2) It is not prone to doctrine. As Larry the Blessed says "If you are having fun, you are playing it right".
You can change any of the rules, and no one will strike you down.

Why didn't you crosspost to the Sword and the Flame Board?

3) The random card generated movement determination.

4) The random card generated shooting determination.

NOTHING in "real life" is simultaneous.

5) This randomness allows all players to be involved at all times.

My friend supplies the rules, terrain, and both sides miniatures (even if it 25+mm) and we all provide the camaraderie. So, despite my disinterest/grumble with the broken melee rules/generic "feel" with the the rules, I have a good time.

And you can change the "broken" (I don't think they are, but…) if you want to. Use Battles by GASLIGHT melee if you think it's too clumsy with 20 figure units.

Yes – with John on all of this, but especially the ease of adaptability.

We have so many boards, maybe he forgot about it?

I play AWI all the time.
British = British
Continentals = Egyptians
Settlers shoot as Egyptians, morale as Boers
Indians… roll the dice to see who they are.

Muskets use carbine range. The few rifles use Rifle range.

Easy peasey.

We have so many boards, maybe he forgot about it?

One of my gaming groups uses TSATF as the basis for our Space 1889 Mars/Venus games. We have tweaked it a better feel. Flexibility!

Everything.

I have run convention games using TSATF for over 20 years. The games are always full, most gamers enjoy themselves, my friends and I have come up with many entertaining scenarios. The rules lend themselves to a myriad of periods. If the scenario is structured well, where there are an appropriate amount of figures per player, and action starts immediately there is little downtime and boredom. We usually have more players than we originally asked for at cons, but we find room.

That you can not play it for 5 years and still know how to

You can pick them up easily enough

It got me into the hobby.

Ditto. Got me into miniatures. Have never looked back.

I love everything about the rules. I'll also add that it is well-written, enthusiastic without being "gushy", and hugely inspiring. How many players have been inspired by that patrol into the Chamla Valley? The painting guides and the table illustrations are also just right.

A great game in every way.

I agree with OFM, Schlesien, Daryl Haselton & Ambush Alley Jim
Just a great set of rules.

What I like best is the flexibility. TSATF is a great base for all sorts of periods.

Nothing that I've seen …

Wait – it gets some people playing, so that's a good thing I guess

Phil

Everything!

Same same. Best of show with great tabletop results.

It's fun. The tenets behind the rules can be applied to many different periods--it doesn't just have to be about colonials. I always consider TSATF and Fire and Fury to be seminal sets of rules. I'm feeling the same way about Rampant Lion.

I played it once a long time ago. It was fun. It was simple.

The fact that is was the first really playable Colonial rules set. Before that I was using an English set that was THE set for the period. TSATF was a massive jump to fun and playability. Created a lot of interest in Colonials too.

I also am a fan of the painting guides. When they came out access to painting info wasn't what it is today. I also LOVE the Battle for Chamla Valley replay. I cannot count how many times I read that. Just gets you pumped up.

I have run Khartoum and Isandlwana using the rules. I was a freak for them. Just got burned out on them. Been sliding back a little here and there into them. My preferred set is actually Field of Battle. But may still use them for Boxer Rebellion and 54mm NWF.

Thanks,

John

The ability to use larger forces than could be handled by the skirmish set I was using. You just got bogged down in too much paperwork if you aimed at the size of action we wanted to play.

I've met a lot of great fellow Colonial gamers and aficionados through TSATF. Had a lot of fun, played in a lot of great games. And learned a lot about how to play a wargame from Larry and TSATF. I don't mean just games using those rules or just Colonial-era games. Generosity. Camaraderie. Sportsmanship.

I already mentioned most of my "likes" in the sister discussion ("What do you hate about TS&TF?") but to repeat here, and to echo what many others have said above, these rules are FUN, they are flexible, and they're a great way to be introduced to this period or to miniatures gaming in general. I owe my continuing interest in Colonial gaming to TS&TF (first played in 1980) and without these rules, I likely would never have bothered. Good games, good times, good pals.

I think the people who are saying that the close combat system is broken are missing the point of the whole thing. Larry Brom wanted to create something with a cinematic, almost role playing, feel to it. He didn't want a traditional or clinical approach to it. The individual roll offs used in close combat do provide tension and drama. Like some of the observers above, I have participated in many games in which the players and observers were cheering like they had ring side seats to a major prize fight. That's s pretty rare achievement for a ruleset of any kind. Larry succeeded in achieving what he wanted to create. Of course any of it can, and has been, succesfully streamlined. You can dispense with the allocation of wounds, you can make the units smaller, etc. I recommend that anyone who wants to streamline the close combat system look at the modifications used in the Skirmish Campaigns scenario books. They work very well and they preserve that cinematic feel that Larry wanted.

Whether they're missing the point is besides the point. If they don't like it, they don't like it. I do like it but can see how it drags in a spectacle game larger than was intended by the rules.

Bug struck.

Why does a simple question

What are the "good points" about The Sword and The Flame and its spin-offs??

turn into a "I must convert/refute you" debate?

I would be glad to respond to Bwanabill, piper909, and John the OFM in PM mode on the particulars of their comments rather than spend time on the negatives here when the OP asked for positives (which I posted when I said, "… we all provide the camaraderie. So, despite my disinterest/grumble with the broken melee rules/generic "feel" with the the rules, I have a good time…")

Edit: John, where did I or anyone else mention "20 figures" prior to your comment in this thread?

i love above all the variable scale and the possibility to pass from a semi skirmish scale to a company representation with few minis

Besides the fact that we have been playing the rules since 1981 and have had mostly fun games, it's the memories of people and games from the past that are most enjoyable to me. Some of our group have gone"over the hills and far away" and the memories of these guys playing TSATF remain, There are also memories of terrible blunders committed, unbelievable melees won and lost and games won when the odds where not in your favor.