"They Couldn't Hit An Elephant! " Topic

How popular is They Couldn't Hit An Elephant! (TCHAE) rule set compared to the other main ones, RFF, JR3 ?

And/ or the different rgtal rules and their pros and cons?

No where near as popular as the other main rule sets , but those that play TCHAE , like me , really enjoy it :)

Who cares how popular they are? If you like 'em, play 'em!

Good thread because I was just about to research the same thing so I hope that the OP doesn't mind if I jump in with a couple of questions of my own about these rules- In particular, I'd like to know:

1. How abstract are the rules as compared to other rule sets?
2. What size is a typical unit base and is this geared more towards the tactical, grand tactical or possibly the semi-operational level?

In my experience, not at all. I don't know anyone who has them, nor have I ever seen a game run with them at any convention I have been to.

Two scales, one where basic unit is a regiment and one where it is a brigade.

I have the rules. I enjoyed a few trial games and like them. However, the rules use the TFL card-driven activation system and the group I play with doesn't like it. As always, to each his own. The pdf version is inexpensive, so give them a try.

gary Krokover
Tactical games, much in the same aim as rff etc.
A bit more abstract/ quicker as in LFS3 , combat is close combat and or fire all in one die roll.
Orders and pips, no stuff like " as long as no one is seriously hit, they will do exactly what I want.".
The card sytems if fine for few players. i think there are many ways already explained as in IABSM threads or others how to circumvent this if needed.

So it seems this was not a success for 2FL. ??

IDK how popular, but I do know that I've played
in TCHAE games which were expertly prepared and
run by a GM in our group.

Really good games and I enjoyed them. Of course, I
enjoy almost any ACW rule set which is competently
GM'd.

So it seems this was not a success for 2FL. ??

Depends what you mean by "success"?

Gary – I find them about the same as JR3 for abstraction level, totally different systems of course but around the same level of abstraction. Differentiation for unit skill and determination as well as for different types of firearms or cannon.

I don't think I have ever seen them being played but I fully intend to try them someday (had them since they came out)

They are the set I enjoy the most – like many TFL games they don't seem to have much traction in the US.

It may not be immediately obvious when first playing, but they have at their heart the morale system. Generals for each brigade get command pips (DAve). These can be used to give movement orders, concentrate fire, or rally troops. Its quite easy to lose a morale level, but its also easy to regain it – at least at first.

You'll be there wondering how you will ever break the opponent, he forever rallys off any drops in morale. However as the battle goes on it becomes easier and easier to lose a morale level after being shot at, and you find your self using more and more command to rally, leaving less to get the units moving. You WILL need reserves.

Ground scale is 1" = 25 yards, and a 1 inch square base is 100 men. The rules are written for 4 men to the base – so casualties are given in figures removed. DON'T WORRY. You can use anything close in base size (Rich states this) and if you have something else per base just use 'Strength Points' – We use 10mm on 30mm bases.

We also tend to use 2 SP and 1 Base as the Mod triggers, rather than 10% and 25% – it actually makes little difference unless you have really big (7 base +) units. Its easier to do (especially during the second beer!) – You don't have to remember the initial size.

One thing – we found the firing rules a little odd in the way it applies the roll. You roll 1d6 per 2 bases/guns (or part there of). This score is then split between all the targets. Each kind of target has a Hit number. If you exceed that you do a casualty. Double it, 2 hits, and so on. However, we were finding if you grouped units together in certain ways they became bullet proof. This was easily solved – you apply all the FP against the easiest unit to kill – if its high enough you do 1 hit. If you have enough left over you apply them to the next easiest, and so on. If you have enough you start again at the 1st unit.

Example Targets with Hit Values of Unit A=5 B=6 and unit C=7
Roll of 25(!) (High but possible – picked for this example)
Hit 1 is on A.
25-5 = 20 That is enough to do a hit on B
20-6 = 14. That is enough to do a hit on C
This leaves 15-7 = 7. No targets left so start again at A

7 is enough to do a hit on A, so it gets a second hit. The remaining 2 isn't enough to do any more hits.

No unit can have a 2nd hit until all eligible units have had 1.

If 2 units have same target number then closest units get hit first.

Haven't played ACW in years but TCHAE are my rules of choice.

Of all the rules Wally doesn't play, Elephant are the ones he prefers…. Not sure how that's an endorsement.

:-)

Last Hussar :
We just target a single unit when firing small arms , unless some bases don't have the target in arc or range etc. then we split fire logically.
It's easier that way rather than splitting fire all the time.

As much as I want to like TFL's games, I can't get myself to like their random-ish movement, and card driven mechanics.

I like the rules and have played them several times, but for some reason I can't explain they just seem to be missing something. I should say though, that I played a LOT of Johnny Reb II in the '80s and '90s, and the only reason that TCHAE suffers is in comparison. They are a good set of rules, and if I ever revisit ACW (still have all the figures, even rebased for TCHAE) they will be my go-to set.
BWW