"What about TMWWBK do like more about then TSATF Rules ?" Topic

I have used TSATF rules for years and have recently used TMWWBK for a small test game and was curious to get the groups reactions to the two rule sets ?

I think both are great and if you don't like a certain aspect of the rules (in both cases) you can make adjustments to suit your style of play. TMWWBK games move along a little faster than TSATF and the units are smaller and seem to be more brittle especially in melee. There are no wounded in TMWWBK.

Don't know. Never played the other one.

I've been using TSATF for about 20 years, really like it, though it can be a bit unwieldy in very large games, especially when the melees start. Picked up a copy of TMWWBK for that reason.

Have now run four fairly big TMWWBK Northwest Frontier games of 21 units total (AARs still being compiled) and achieved closure on each of them in about 3 1/2 hours. So from that standpoint, I think TMWWBK holds up pretty well.

My main concerns:

1. One of the hallmarks of TSATF is rolling for charge completions and stands, and then seeing if how many charging figures survive defensive fire to participate in the ensuing melee. TMWWBK has no defensive fire, which takes some getting used to, though the ability to pin approaching units with ranged fire seems to compensate for that.

2. As Rhingyll noted, TMWWBK units are more brittle, especially if if you take a lot of casualties in one turn. Some units, especially those with Leadership Value of 7, tended to get pinned pretty quick and then rout.

In TSATF units are a lot more tenacious, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness (once had sole surviving Berber horseman charge in and defeat a 10-man unit of dismounted French cavalry), which to me is part of its charm.

3. Since TMWWBK requires activations for non-free actions (e.g. cavalry can attack for free, but has to activate to move), we occasionally had units that did little to nothing for a good part of the game. Can be a little frustrating at times, especially if you have a lot of Leadership 7 units. In TSATF, it's easier to do what you have to do, and then let God sort out the dead.

TMWWBK's main appeal is its simplicity. Everything's D6. Only one type of morale rally instead of three. No tables. And the rulebook is much better organized. Plus leadership values and leadership traits add a lot personality to game.

That said, TSATF still holds up just fine. Though a bit more involved, the system really captures the suspense and, for lack of a better word, romance of the period.

I think both rule sets are great. To paraphrase, "Sometimes we feel like nuts, sometimes we don't." We have four different Colonial-era rule sets from which we choose: TSATF; TMWWBK; A Good Dusting; Sand and Blood (unpublished).
The couple games I've played using TMWWBK seem to have moved along a little quicker than games of similar size and scope using TSATF but YMMV. For me, not having to keep track of casualties in TMWWBK is a significant advantage over TSATF. Also, the former's melee system is quicker. That's not to say better. Both have their advantages. It's fun to roll against an opponent for each figure in TSATF, the tension ebbing and flowing with each roll. At the same time, I enjoy the simpler melee mechanic in TMWWBK. Different strokes for different folks.
Like others have said, TSATF has successfully stood the test of time. It's also inspired a couple generations of Colonial gamers. I think TMWWBK will stand the test of time, too. I hope it's author, Daniel Mersey will return and expand on it. Some gunboat rules would be really nice.

Have enjoyed some TSATF games in the past, other than the long-winded melee system.
Also enjoyed the one TMWWBK game I organised last year, despite getting stuffed playing the Mahdists against 3 Anglo-Egyptian players. We seem to be in a bit of a hiatus game-wise or I'd put on some more with TMWWBK.

I've played TS&TF since the first edition, from 1980 on. It's always been my go-to Colonial rules, but there ARE some things about it that bug me or are frustrating, or difficult to adjudicate consistently, and it isn't always popular with everyone; I'm willing to give this new set a spin, since some locals are getting involved with TMWWBK (terribly awkward name for a rules set) and I don't want to be left out or sidelined if these become the favored rules set.

I *am* concerned to read about unit activation rules that can leave some units/figures standing around doing nothing -- that's a pet peeve of mine with some other rules systems, when a series of unlucky or flukey die rolls can leave your command frozen and you with nothing to do except watch for long periods of time.

As I noted on my other post, TSATF is OK, but it never really got me excited. I've always been happy enough to play it, but I have not really missed playing, either.

TMWWBK is different and I think plays faster. Yes, there are some differences. Are the strengths or weaknesses? Time will tell.

Kevin (piper909) does point up the possibility that your units may do nothing. One mitigating factor is that every type of unit has something that they do for free, with the exception of crewed weapons. So that is mitigated to some degree.

The oddest thing is lack of defensive fire, but the rule mechanics address that in a different way and it seemed to work.

Again, as many have mentioned, the close combat is lightening fast in TMWWBK compared to TSATF. In a I understand the tension as everyone would stop to watch the battles play out, but in multiplayer games, that can really slow it down.

Also, my other big gripe in multi-player TSATF games was decision paralysis when time for a side to select a unit to move. Each turn of a card was a discussion of which unit should move next. And that is piled on top of just moving one unit at a time in a game with six or more players! Just too slow.

Both good systems. As a cheapskate, it's always bothered me that unit composition called for by TSATF wasn't always something I could find in 1/72, and I think I can get around this in TMWWBK, so there are test games on the agenda this summer--quite possibly using the excellent Sergeants Three scenarios.

But there is a reason TSATF is a classic.

I favor rules where it is very rare that a unit or command is frozen in place for more than one turn, max (barring some special scenario modification). Simply for the sake of the game. I have played games where my command would fail to activate for turn after turn after turn, and my figures would just sit in place, unable to move or fire or respond to what was going on around them, to ludicrous extremes. TS&TF avoids this, thankfully, so that's a plus.

When I run multi-player TS&TF, I try to make one player the CO for each side and that's the guy I look to in making a decision as to what unit is going to move/shoot, and I don't allow for a lot of dilly-dallying. That helps speed things up to some degree, at the cost of being insufferably dictatorial and nagging. But if TMWWBK can avoid this, all the better!

Sidebar: I've looked at Muskets & Tomahawks as a set of 18th century skirmish rules and look forward to trying these -- and there's a variant for the Darkest Africa/Colonial period ("Rifles and Spears") that also might be worth a fling sometime.

Muskets & Tomahawks is very good, and don't overlook 'Sharp Practice' for 7YW either. I believe a colonial variant of that is in the works, too.

I appreciate all the insight and opinions on this topic. As we all know there are no perfect rules out there. Now that some of you have had the opportunity to have played both of these rules ,it gives all a better idea of the pros and cons of either. As time goes on and TMWWBK gets more play and or some variants or second editions become available it may be nice to re-visit this topic . Thanks again for you time .