"sell me on regimental fire and fury" Topic

i'm a long time johnny reb player, and i'm thinking of switching over to regimental fire and fury.
i bought the abortion that is john hills(RIP)last game, across this deadly field, and i guess i was hopeing for something much better. i knew mr hill, and i really wanted to like atdf, but the game is bad.
i guess i'm tired of the overly complex chargephase.i also don't like the fact that a small regiment(say, 200 men) can't take any losses and stand. everything has to do with how many men are on a stand.
tell me what you like about the game…

What is the magic word?

I bought Across A Deadly Field recently – it's a weird one isn't it? (and I was playing SL when I was about 15). I can't get my head round the rules as yet – even the basing conventions confuse me. But there's a lot of insight into ACW combat in there, so it's worthwhile in that sense. I don't regret the purchase, but I doubt I'd use it for anything more than a sourcebook.

John,

I really like Regimental Fire and Fury and chiefly use the War of 1812 variant and have also played the AWI variant. It's not too difficult to play, and it is well supported. It can be difficult to remember everything if not played regularly. I like the F and F system in general and I think developing a regimental system simply made sense.

K

It's not complex, and like JR, the gaming mechanism has stood the test of time. I've played JR and enjoyed it, but, for me, it's a bit too complicated. And I guess I'm biased as a long time player of Fire and Fury, back to the original brigade-level game (units = bdes).

I've played a lot of Brigade F&F, it's 'grandparent'
(On To Richmond) and enjoyed both sets.

But I really like Regimental F&F – it is somewhat more
granular in firing, which I'd often thought was needed
in the older OTR rules and to a lesser extent in Brigade
F&F, especially as training/morale affected unit's fire.

Formation movement, while not as simple as in the brigade
level rules, is still not cluttered with too much detail
(wheeling, etc,) and the rules make sense to me in the
critical area of changing formation, etc.

Really like the 'give 'em the cold steel' option !
Generally, the more choices in a game, the better I
like it.

I agree about ATDF – I thought JRIII was a good set,
but ATDF was not John's best work.

Regimental Fire & Fury (RFF) is an excellent set of rules. Here are some thoughts about RFF and how it compares to ADF:

1. RFF is complete and very clearly written. You won't come off with unanswered questions after a read through. All the books (rule book and scenario books-2 at this time) are top notch productions.

2. The RFF game system is "elegant" and streamlined. There are no separate morale tests. Those are all factored into the combat/fire results and movement rolls each turn. The game plays quickly as a result.

3. I think the RFF authors got the right mix of simplification and detail for a regimental level game.

4. RFF Units are much larger (in terms of figures) than units in ADF. This looks much better (IMHO).

5. All infantry in RFF is based on the same sized base with the same number of figures (3 per base). This, in my opinion, is much less annoying than ADF which asks you to mount infantry with a varying number of figures per base to make up different sized units.

6. There is no complex charge sequence in RFF. I kind of liked the ADF charge sequence, but do agree it's a bit much when you're trying to play a large game (which is what ADF is supposed to be designed for).

7. RFF uses D10. Some people like this. It's not my favorite. I don't know the statistics of it, but I often feel like there are wild reversals of fortune when playing RFF. I always seem to have the dreaded 1-10 split when resolving close combat.

8. In RFF casualties are taken by base, not by figure. A unit's effectiveness reduces as it loses bases.

9. The ground scale in RFF looks "right" for 15mm figures. The ground scale in ADF doesn't really look right in my opinion for 15mm figures. On the other hand, that means that you're really not going to fight our entire large battles with RFF. Your scenarios will be a portion of a larger action.

Here is a link to a description of RFF that may be helpful to you. link

Everything Kenneth says. The mechanics and basing are similar enough to use both Brigade and Regimental with the same figures with some additional markers such as Ammo Wagons, "Brave Colonel" and "High Casualties". A new one is the optional "Tethered Horses" to be used with mounted rifles, but is not necessary. I play nothing else when it comes to ACW.

B

thanks boys!
and i ment no ill to john hill. as i said, i played in many of the mans jr games over the years. it just seems to me and my club mates(who were all happily looking forword to adf) that adf was not well thoughtout or well put togeather.
i honestly don't know what mr hill was tring to get across with the game…

By coincidence I just bought AADF for $19.98 USD at Half Price Books. Thanks for the tip about it being a good source book.

I'll chime in as well. I have not played a lot of RF&F, but have been on the F&F bandwagon since the original came out. At a Con I can usually have players running the game themselves by turn 3-4, and we get there in @ an hour or so.

They base mechanics are well thought out and give historically reasonable results, especially over the course of the battle

thanks boys!
and i ment no ill to john hill. as i said, i

I also meant no disrespect to Mr. Hill. I think one can express an opinion on a person's work while still respecting the person. Rules likes/dislikes are very subjective.

Best thing is a RFF game can be done inside a half to 3/4 day including set up…smaller engagements anyway.

Havn't looked at the older version since RFF came out.

Well, back in the day of when it was just brigade level and when our crew were still in our teens, we were "sold" on Fire & Fury because of the pretty pictures in the book. And, now that we're all in our mid to late 30s, I'd say that we still play the rule set because of the pretty pictures in the rulebook and campaign supplements.

RF&F is what we play. Playable, plays quick, works well for small & large scenarios. I've been working on a Napoleonic version. My favorite rules.

All depends on what seems like a big or small battle. If you want to play really large actions without having 20 players who are all familiar with the rules you might be better with something else.