"Optional rules in TSATF games?" Topic

In your TSATF games do you use any of these optional rules?

1) The Victoria Cross modifier in Close Combat – or do you even award VC's? Some of my fondest memories are of magnificent hand-to-hands where the VC holder wins by using his +3.

2) Limiting and/or transferring your ammo – Dad wasn't a big fan of this option but we did use it on an occasion or two. I can't remember seeing it in any club or convention games.

3) Torturing prisoners – this was Christy's contribution and we used it frequently with Zulu and Pathans. I think she got the idea from "Liver of a Bengal Lancer" and the pulling out of the prisoners' fingernails…..

We may play a NWF game for Memorial Day, in addition to The Sword in Africa, and were looking at these rules in preparation.

That last one has no place in a game.

We've never tried the first two and I wouldn't even consider the third one.

And we stopped using it as well. Just asking a question about the rules as written, guys.

1 – No
2 – yes limiting ammo and/or water – occasionally with additional supplies nearby that take time to get or can be targeted
3 – Has no place in gaming

I am against the use of Bio, Nukes and Gas in games too.

We don't like games where the indiscriminate rounding up of civilians to be shot is an means either.

Games like the TSATF should reflect ideals. The targets of our aggression should at least have a chance to fight back. Otherwise it isn't cricket, and worse it possibly becomes propaganda of the worse sort. A lot of 13 year olds play TSATF.

About the only place this has is RPG games for the villains,

As written --

1) I would certainly give out these awards if the circumstances ever came to pass -- but so far, not one game I can remember has ever produced this result. I can recall one time when the possibility DID arise, but the die roll was uncooperative and the poor mini got gypped.

2) Not as exactly written, but I've used variants on limited ammunition rules on occasions. Since it's a bit of a headache for the Imperial player, I use this sparingly, and as a balance to a scenario where the Natives might also have a matching disadvantage.

3) Nah, haven't bothered with this since the very earliest days. There usually hasn't been anything worth discovering in a typical game. If I think intelligence gathering from prisoners is going to be an integral part of a special scenario, I use home-brewed rules to govern it.

Games like the TSATF should reflect ideals.

Oh, come on. It already celebrates British Imperialism! What could be worse than that? And you flinch at torturing prisoners?
Let get real here. TSATF is based on, and should be played as a MOVIE. I have never labored under the misapprehension that what I am playing reflects reality.
In the movies, evil Bad Guys tortured, err harshly interrogated stalwart Tommies.
If you don't like that, don't play it. As Lori suggests. She was wondering who did.

Whenever possible I play with wounded troopers needing to be protected, lest Wily Johnnie Pathan slit his gizzard, noisily, lowering British morale significantly. Moral of the rule? Guard your wounded.

Nowadays, most of the TSATF games I run are very slightly modified to play American Revolution. We pretend it's a more civilized period to game. Aren't the Rebels really fighting for rights of proper Englishmen? Maybe.
So, when I play Flames of Liberty, I mostly just remove wounded figures. They're just casualties.
However, when I put on King's Mountain in the future, I will definitely include the need to protect wounded. Patriots vs Loyalists could get very nasty. There was only one Brit on the field, the Loyalist commander Ferguson. There were plenty of atrocities by the winning Patriots after tha battle. So, that rule would be very appropriate here.
Considering the poor morale militia have to begin with (Did you ever try to get Boers to charge, or to stand?), the cascading collapse of morale will be fun to watch.
I have done this with my several recreations of the Wyoming Massacre. "I know you're my neighbor Nathan, but….."

RPGs were mentioned above. How about "Toon", where casualties do nothing but "fall down"?

By the way, I only remember one game where a heroic officer qualified for the VC.
He failed by one. Nonetheless, Lt Ian Hamilton was awarded the DSO by acclamation and was mentioned in dispatches. I marked his base. I've got to remember that next time we set out to chastise the Bunerwals.

I tend to empathize with the Zulus and Pathans, as far as the history is concerned. White mans burden is ..but I can enjoy the game as much as I do when I play Russians against SS units. Heck I even enjoy the game blood eagle…but I don't want see those acts in the game. Ymmv.

1) No, but I know others who did.

2) Generally not

3) No

1) I've been playing TSATF since the mid 1980s, if my memory hasn't totally gone bad on me. I have never seen a figure qualify for the Victoria Cross rule in all that time. If Iit happened, we would certainly play it!

2) I've had to play with limited ammunition in convention games. I will be putting on one of Sgt. Guinness' scenarios later today for the local group the calls for it.

3) This is how secret game conditions get disclosed to the opposing side.

Rick

1. I once rolled for the VC and as usual rolled a 1! Have had the fortune to witness a figure winning it and on one other occasion playing in a game where one of the Brits proudly wore his painted VC. Boy, oh boy could he fight in melee.

But to put this in perspective, that is only three games out of countless hours playing TSATF.

Sam

I tend to empathize with the Zulus and Pathans, as far as the history is concerned. White mans burden is Bleeped text

So exterminating and/or enslaving your neighbors and stealing their goods and land is ok if you're black or brown, but not if you're white?

So exterminating and/or enslaving your neighbors and stealing their goods and land is ok if you're black or brown, but not if you're white?

I don't think TS&TF covers those conflicts.

1) tried to use this rule..but it never happened in my games to have a vrvvor to award with a Victoria Cross or similar medal
2) very important additional rule that should be a compulsory one in my opinion..logistic (so ammo reserve) is one of the key factor in colonial warfare for Europeans and also for natives..always read that fighters like arabs, zulus , pathans , abbyssinians had little access to ammo and always looked for them
3) very interesting rule in such kind of wargame..and normally to avoid fall in the hands of savages is one of the ain reasons the European soldiers fought to the last cartridge or , as did some Italian soldiers in Abyssinia, commited suicide…but in TSATF game mechanism is a useless rule because the supposed arrival of reinforcments or other "secret" things from the Europe side is very limited and does'nt influence the game..with the simple and excellent rule that all European units are visible on the table from the start of the game and, on the other hand, the natives ones could be concealed..any need of obtaining intelligence trough "torture" is unecessary

I've never awarded or been awarded the VC but have seen Larry and others award them for exemplary action! I think it's a great idea and adds a cool dimension.

I use the limited ammo rule for many of my scenarios. It's an interesting option to use for your scenarios especially if you replay A scenario your friends and group already know.

We've used the torture rules only a couple of times in the past 30+ years and mostly as a moral detriment or to gain Intel for a certain scenario.
Remember it's just a game and there are no lead widows, no one really gets hurt, and being politically correct isn't always necessary in a game between close friends.

Roll dice and have fun!
JB

Of course St Guinness! "Politically correct" today is the worst form of repression of freedom, honesty and truth..including in culture and art..and wargame is both culture and education