"To The Banners Rules question" Topic

I have recently purchased the rules To The Banners by Stephen Dane and they seem very innovative especially regarding the initiative system with 2 d6. I have a feeling I will recommend them. Don't seem overly complex, quick to learn yet sophisticated and hard to master.

I had a question in the Army lists as it gives the unit's size but doesn't elaborate and then in parenthesis (number). I'm not sure if this is element stands or number of figures or what. Has anyone played this system and if so can you help me figure this one out. Rules are clearly written more or less but this one thing has me stumped.

Your spot on Wealdmaster one of the most original systems out and although I have not really played them I think are a shining gem for us Solo players, having done some paper and pen set ups I believe the numbers in () is the actual unit size. I got hold of Stephen a while back (he does the Father Tilly rules too) and he said the rules were robust enough for changes to base size/figures on bases etc. I like the solo playability due to the dice swing system and the uncertainty of what you get from your army and generals too. Very underrated and fairly elegant plus a great period to play.
Cheers good luck and let me know how you get on (I spose I need to get some Spanish Armada troops out and actually get playing eh! :)

Thanks, we are planning a 30yw battle this Saturday and I've read the rules and they seem very elegant and original, also seem to have that additional pre battle maneuver, stratagem phase. I really love the possibilities to campaign with these as you can outfit units from battle to battle with special equipment, etc. I'll make another post after our first run through.

As to these rules, I've seen almost nothing on the web about them. As to solo gaming, several books out there that are very good I suspect. Just google it.

A lot cheaper here
link

I enjoyed gaming yesterday with TO THE BANNERS and wanted to write down my thoughts on the system we tried.

A bit of background is that I've looked off and on for a Renaissance set of rules for some time that I liked and wasn't too complex yet gave the period feel which is quite hard to accomplish in this epoch due to combined arms, slow ponderous action, etc. I enjoyed Neil Thomas Pike and Shot but have a few gripes that have to do with powerful artillery and the feel of a syndrome I like to call "horse and musket creep" in which rule sets that feel horse and muskety i.e. everyone gets to move predictably all the time and commanders have total control and action is fast paced and decisive tend to migrate into other periods. This is a slight problem with NT Pike and Shot.

I am going to divide these comments into a few areas for the purposes of organized critique.

Fun: I had a fun experience in spite of the time spent looking up issues in the rule booklet and felt a sense of suspense and theme throughout the game. The pre battle events are also quite nice and offer possibilities for a lot of strategy to be employed.

Mechanics: I think the rules are not well written and need more examples but really think the possibility exists for fixing a few items that appear broken. Units cannot charge unless they roll the exact initiative number rolled that turn by the umpire matching the same color dice which basically never happens. This needs amending and this could easily be done. Also, I need clarity or our own policy on what constitutes "own number" and connected to this what is meant by rolling the same as the current initiative number even if that number is outside your own range. I need to find out a way to get more casualties in combat and reduce the number of turns that a melee can last. I enjoy and think it necessary for pike and shot games to have multiple turn melee's but don't need a 20 turn experience.

Command and Control: This was what attracted me to this system as it gives that slow and ponderous feel which reads like accounts of renaissance battles. The general set up his army based on strategic, geographic, logistical considerations and then unleashed it. Once unleashed, there was little he could do.

Period feel: Accuracy to the period is arguable always but I will echo my comments again and say it seemed to recreate the pike and shot feel. A criticism is that shot units attached to pike ought to be able to shoot by element or base. As it stands, they cannot shoot. This is easily amendable in rules.

Historical Result: We did get a result that seemed plausible but after too many hours of play and I can't see these rules as written working for more than two players with a smallish game.

Pre-Game: After the first run through hind sight is sort of twenty twenty, there are many things that I would have done different in the pre-game and this would influence the development I think of the game. For example, pre deploying cavalry could then offer opportunities to charge disordered enemy units and if the chance of more casualties existed, they could be forced to check morale with disorder and route in first turns of game thus causing further morale checks. It seems possible to allocate points to various units in a way which gives more punch to various sections of the battlefield based on initiative or less punch then spend a lot of pregame points on scouting, deploying, stratagems, etc.