Help support TMP


"KINGS: first game....& an issue" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board



405 hits since 4 Apr 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP04 Apr 2017 3:34 p.m. PST

I finally amassed enough figures for a Mahdist Revolt game which we fought out last night.

Our first game was promising. Compared to other "first games" with new rule sets, it really went quite smoothly.
I see the rules as a template on which we will impose our ideas & I think some of the Tweaks we've already given them are but a start: with more compromising & negotiating to happen before they coalesce into something really good.
I feel very positive about them.

The game itself was quite brief: 3 hours, if that, for a medium sized game (32 point Field Forces). I was the only one who'd read the rules so I think this is pretty good.
The result was a Hicks Pasha/Valentine Baker-style massacre of the Anglo-Egyptians who failed to maintain cohesion. So, quite historical! The camelry, over which much angst has been levied, proved very useful. The Mahdist camel units trying to sneak around flanks in order to dismount & charge from the rear, whilst the Anglo-Egyptian camel corps units would continually move forward, dismount & provide cover for the next infantry advance.

But a question. I don't like the lack of unit facing. I don't really want to introduce nit picking "wheels at half movement" etc but I don't like the idea of a line of British infantry, for example, advancing by the flank & then turning 90 degrees to face an enemy with apparent ease.

Any thoughts?

Rhingyll Supporting Member of TMP04 Apr 2017 5:02 p.m. PST

Maybe you could take the movement then in the same turn take another action test to see if you can change facing. I think though the basic rules are for small groupings of men that would just turn as they were ending their move rather than a whole company or regiment having to coordinate the turn.

doug redshirt04 Apr 2017 8:06 p.m. PST

That is actually a fairly easy maneuver for a trained unit to pull off. I mean, Left or Right face turn, March and then another left or right turn and you are in line. even I could pull this off back in my basic training days. Takes no time to turn, and only the distance covered would take time.

sjwalker38 Supporting Member of TMP04 Apr 2017 11:05 p.m. PST

In games where we're treating a unit of 12 regulars as a company rather than a group of individuals, we still allow any change of formation or facing as part of the Move action, if only because any greater complication goes against the spirit of the rules. Bear in mind that the single action per turn (Move OR Fire) means the unit can end up facing the wrong way.

But we do limit the arc of fire for regular infantry to the 180' front arc, or straight ahead if in Close Order.

And units Attacked in flank or rear fight at half strength in addition to any other modifiers. But my usual opponents are not the types to nit-pick over the definition of a flank attack!

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP04 Apr 2017 11:14 p.m. PST

Thank you for the replies.

I guess I'm treating a 12 man British or Egyptian unit as a company with a directional facing. I *think* I'll simply allow straight movement forward with up to two wheels during it. And a small movement penalty for 'about face' (180 degree turn).

This keeps it simple.

And units Attacked in flank or rear fight at half strength in addition to any other modifiers.

I've already stolen this, Simon. It worked well last night.

Matt Black05 Apr 2017 4:45 a.m. PST

Athough not for TMWWBK the author did write 'flank rear attack' rules for the orginal Lion Rampant rules

May be of interest:
link

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.