Help support TMP

"Historicity of "The Bloody Barons"" Topic

10 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 Medieval Discussion Message Board

Back to the War of the Roses Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

Oddzial Osmy's 15mm Teutonic Spearmen

PhilGreg Painters in Sri Lanka paints our Teutonic spearmen.

Featured Workbench Article

Homemade Palm Trees

Dervel Fezian returns from Mexico with a new vision for making palm trees from scratch.

Featured Profile Article

Editor Julia's 2015 Christmas Project

Editor Julia would like your support for a special project.

1,025 hits since 26 Jun 2020
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Eumelus Supporting Member of TMP26 Jun 2020 3:43 a.m. PST

I have read the recent AARs of the new version of Peter Pig's "The Bloody Barons", as well as the various TMP threads. It sounds like the rules set creates extremely enjoyable _games_. But how does it measure up in recreating historical battles? Are there guides or sample scenarios to assist in translating historical OOBs, objectives, etc into "The Bloody Barons" engine? I'm much more interested in historical refights than in hypothetical "pick-up" battles, particularly as the description of the army creation system and the terrain generator do not look likely, to me, to replicate historical models. But I'd love to be wrong – as I said, the rules do look like fun.

martin goddard Sponsoring Member of TMP26 Jun 2020 4:38 a.m. PST


All 17 major battles of the wars are included. Forces, commanders battle maps and victory criteria, all there.
Let me know if i can be of more help.


Personal logo Stosstruppen Supporting Member of TMP26 Jun 2020 5:23 a.m. PST

Does this use a 6" grid?

Bede1900226 Jun 2020 7:18 a.m. PST

The question I always have about WOTR rules is whether separation of units into groups all equipped the same way ( e.g. a unit of bill men, a unit of archers, a unit of knights/men at arms) reflects reality.

Is the new version of the rules any different in that respect?

Eumelus Supporting Member of TMP26 Jun 2020 8:26 a.m. PST

"All 17 major battles of the wars are included. Forces, commanders battle maps and victory criteria, all there."

That's great to hear, and will probably get me purchasing the rules this weekend. May I humbly suggest that you make a bigger deal of this feature on your website?

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP26 Jun 2020 9:09 a.m. PST

How do the new rules compare to the older set, in order to help us decide which we might prefer?

HappyHiker26 Jun 2020 11:52 a.m. PST

I recently bought the old rules rather than the new ones, just because the web site promoted the scenarios on the old set and didn't mention them on the new. I fancied the die for treachery rules and the like too which it does show on both. Wasn't bothered about the actual rules. The new rules are explained on the website, I just didn't fancy the whole to the strongest grid thing. What's wrong with a ruler ? Has anyone independently reviewed the new rules?

Trebian Sponsoring Member of TMP27 Jun 2020 9:50 a.m. PST

How "historical" a set of rules is can largely be in the eye of the beholder, and depends upon the books you read. For example, some people (including me) think that archery was mainly practised in this period over ranges less than 100 metres, and quite possibly not more than 50 and was carefully aimed (except when trying to be a nuisance). Others think that thousands of arrows were shot into the air like some sort of area coverage weapon. No rule set is going to do both, as its a fundamental thing when thinking about tactics. So, a rule set to one person might be completely historical but to another it could be completely inaccurate. My board game of Northampton 1460, for example, doesn't have archery in it at all (most people don't even notice…). Our sources are weak in some areas and possibly entirely theoretical in others. As an ex re-enactor there is much to be learned from this sort of [practice, but alas only so far as no one is actually trying to kill anyone. Consequently re-enactment tactics are a good guide to doing re-enactments but not necessarily a good guide to medieval (or later) combat.

And as for how big the armies were and how they formed up…

martin goddard Sponsoring Member of TMP28 Jun 2020 1:57 a.m. PST

Thanks for the interest.
This thread is running in parallel to the "announcement" thread. Thus, do look there too in order to see if there is stuff I forget to put here.

Here are some answers intended to be helpful (?)
More questions welcomed.

1. No part of the new rules is anything like the first set. The exception being the base sizes. This is because i like that base size for many good reasons and also so as not to outdate the armies for players of the first set. the two editions are 15 years apart. Most PP rules are not "small step evolution to get a new edition out" but rather "whole new concept". This is why the average time between editions is 10 years. No one else does that.

2.Units in BB are groups /units of fighting men. There is no subdivision into who has a bow, bill etc. The exception being some specialist spear units etc.

3. Although the 6" grid is mainstay of many PP rule sets going back to the last millenium (!) every new set "bends" to the period being done. Each new set introduces a whole bag of new mechanims and re-uses some previous ones. Bloody barons uses the excellent idea of zones. i.e Consider the battlefield as 16 zones. a 4x4 array. This makes the zones big enough to be very clearly identifiable. A table is therefore 4 zones dee and 4 zones wide. This can be imagined without any need whatsoever for players to mark the table.
This allows a bunch of units near the players edge to be in a zone. When the general orders his ward forwards they just move up to half way across the table. I feel that is so much more realistic than measuring. If no opposition is met I can order the ward to advance into the enemy table half. Simple. Because a zone fights a zone it is very clear which units and commanders are involved.
Overall this should make the player act more like a general . e.g "advance the left wing" rather than "move unit A that far but make sure it is in command range of the general. Move unit B so that it is directly behind unit A but not within range of being affected by a push back of unit A. Move unit C so that it can shoot at the enemy unit on the flank of their elite unit but once again not within charge range of their foot unit C". that is not a hyperbolic exaggeration of what happens normally on the games table (I have 50+ years experience of table top gaming)?

I am sure there will be reviews of these rules.
At £9.00 GBP maybe the battle information is still worth having even if you dislike the rules?
Barry usually does a review of our rules, comparing them to his own rules. He will then describe how excellent his rules are in comparison.



nsolomon9928 Jun 2020 5:46 p.m. PST

Just printed out my PDF copy and will be sitting down to read thoroughly. At first skim, as the pages were coming off the printer, looks very different to the previous edition. Very comprehensive, clever ideas around cavalry, very authentic. All the 17 battle scenarios covering the whole history of the period. Lots of good period anecdotes included. They look fabulous, well done Martin.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.