Trajanus | 18 Apr 2022 2:53 a.m. PST |
Just returning to RF&F after a number of years and discovered some mods in the support section of the Fire and Fury Games website, along with an altered QRS to reflect the changes these suggest. Does anyone use them or did they in the past? I'm curious to know if they saw much exposure, as some of the alterations look to make sense to me, although they were not published as an errata, as far as I know. Of course it's also depending on how many players knew these even existed, outside of visitors to the RF&F forum but eight years down the road I'm hopeful that some folks have tried them outside of their original creators. Although any feed back from them would of course be more than welcome. |
Garryowen | 18 Apr 2022 5:32 a.m. PST |
I have been using them. But I have done a QRS that combines some of the old and some of the new. With the ChiCom virus I have not done much gaming in the past two years. I last played RF&F about a year ago. I think the changes I made in the new QRS was to go back to the former fire points table. But I did that in about 2018, I think. But in general, I think the changes in 2014 were improvements. Tom |
pzivh43 | 18 Apr 2022 6:41 a.m. PST |
I use them all the time. Concur they are improvements. |
Trajanus | 18 Apr 2022 1:06 p.m. PST |
Thanks guys. My first thoughts were that for the most part I could see the suggestions as improvements. The Manoeuvre Table Changes in particular seem to make sense. One thing I will be trying out, as an addition under Command Radius. Is to add to the end of the line "Attached to first unit in a contiguous line of march". The words ",or the Regulating Unit of a Brigade". Using Regulating for the move to contact being the historic method of keeping command together and for me it has an in game equivalency of the "follow my leader" idea of "contiguous line of march". Albeit the Regiments keeping in line abreast rather than one behind the other. Garryowen: Why did you revert back to the original fire points table? Did you think the new suggestion inflicts too much damage? |
robert piepenbrink | 18 Apr 2022 2:09 p.m. PST |
Sorry. Once I realized they really weren't playable at four castings to a base, I never looked at any version again. |
Big Red | 18 Apr 2022 2:46 p.m. PST |
Robert, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. If your playing against an opponent that has them mounted 3 to a base it might take a little adjusting/fudging but certainly not unplayable. If both sides are mounted with four figures per stand there is no big problem. Just roll dice and blow things up. I use 5 or six 28mm castings on a base in two ranks and count them as two Regimental F&F bases. When the rules call for one stand to be removed I put a hit marker next to a stand. When the rules call for another stand to be removed I remove the stand with the hit marker. Not exactly kosher but works well enough in practice. |
Trajanus | 19 Apr 2022 4:30 a.m. PST |
Have to say I'm more than confused on the "weren't playable at four castings to a base" comment. I played the original Fire and Fury in 15mm on 1" square bases, then shifted to other rules to play 28mm. Which I played with 35mm square bases, using four castings, because I thought the suggested 40mm stands looked too spaced out. As a result, I was never of a mind to reuse Original F&F stands when I moved to RF&F years ago. By then having 300 plus 28mm stands, there was no way they were getting rebased to anything else! They have always been used as one base = one stand although being in two ranks of castings. Never found it a problem in any way nor the need to mark hits. Of course it helps that the guys I play with use the same bases. I have always based Skirmishers separately from formed units, even before the 2014 suggestions as to their use in the game. Swapping bases in and out as they are deployed or pulled back to the main body. |
Garryowen | 19 Apr 2022 5:30 a.m. PST |
Trajanus, my recollection was just the opposite, that the new fire points reduced the effectiveness. I cannot now recall if I used the fire tables as they originally were, or a hybrid of the two. Unfortunately, time commitments prevent me from trying to compare both right now. Tom |
Trajanus | 19 Apr 2022 5:49 a.m. PST |
Thanks Tom. Having not played for about five years I'm trying to relearn and check out the 2014 items as well, so as to try and hold on to only one train of thought at a time! 😄 |
KimRYoung | 19 Apr 2022 1:09 p.m. PST |
Trajanus, I have played a lot of RF&F with Tom and we used the original fire point modifiers with all the 2.1c changes. The revised fire point modifiers did less damage, so we used the original. I have a pdf version with those changes if your interested. Kim |
Garryowen | 20 Apr 2022 2:50 a.m. PST |
Kim posted the answer on the fire points we use. I just thought I would add why we went back to the original ones. We thought the games took long enough as it was. We were afraid that reduced fire points would just make it last longer. Also, we never thought that they were excessive in the first place. But it is all a matter of opinion and personal preference. Tom |
Trajanus | 21 Apr 2022 6:35 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the advice guys. To be honest both sides could be entirely armed with machine guns for all I remember! 😃 That said I certainly don't recall it being the Worlds fastest game either. With something played at this level I would expect a lot of casualties. The one thing I do recall around the Fire Points question that I did get into some wrangles over, which in a way supports your view of there not being an enough damage. If I'm not putting words in your mouths, was was that rule in which any disordered unit would immediately have its Points total halved until it stopped being Disordered. My view being that as a unit could drop to Disorder status in its very first round of combat, in fact its around 50-50 chance that they will (in terms of effects) then that's a real recipe for damage reduction and/or a slower game. Obviously it depends of your idea of "disorder" but the drop off of combat power by 50% with that degree of ease always felt harsh. |
robert piepenbrink | 21 Apr 2022 12:28 p.m. PST |
Big Red, it's legal to use 4 man stands. At least the rules won't stop you from using standard OTR/TWF/MLW/F&F 2x2 1" square stands. But in F&F Regimental your--I think the term was "solid line?"--has stands side by side touching and two stands deep. It's a four rank deep line, and no ACW gamer is going to do it twice. I don't know what they're saying today, but the initial version of F&F said "three to five" infantry on a stand--four lining them up with pretty much everything which didn't use Johnny Reb basing. Then F&F Regimental came out. I talked with someone involved in the project. He was greatly surprised. Evidently his local group never put more than three castings on a base, so it never occurred to him that there was anyone else. "Basing systems" ought to go on that "Bane of Wargaming" poll. There's always some genius convinced that his hot new idea is so clever the rest of the universe had best go along with him. |
Texan Phil McBride | 06 Jun 2022 2:22 p.m. PST |
After first reading the posts in this thread a couple of weeks ago, I compared the Regimental F & F original QRS sheet to the optional revised one and saw the difference in number of firing stands needed to get 'plus' dice roll modifiers. There are less stands needed in the original rules, as others wrote. So, in mid-game, playing solo, I started using the original stand number modifiers taped onto the new QRS sheet. I immediately saw the difference of more stands being removed by volley fire. I'm going to keep doing the blend. |