"Why The Sword and the Flame" Topic

Hi all,
In my quest for the perfect set of Colonial rules I have a copy of The Sword and the Flame. I know they are wildly popular here on TMP and I'd just like your opinions on why. I've looked them over; they look to be fun, but I don't see anything really ground-breaking mechanically or room for many tactical decisions. They seem very simple. Is that the attraction? Am I missing something?

Please don't look at this message as an attack on them; it's not meant to be. As I said, always looking for a great set of rules. And with only a 2.5-3 hour window to play when we get together, maybe TSATF is just what the Doctor ordered.

Opinions please?

Thanks,

Dave

They just plane fun to play. A big part of the fun involves it being "a game based on how it was in the movies". Your leader are the movie stars.

As was said melee can be very exciting and comes down to the last die.

Another big draw is they are self contained and endlessly expandable.
Buy the book and you are done. No supplements to buy or new versions evey year or so.

It has been described as a tool kit. I've done my own variants for the Spanish American War, Portugal in Africa, expansions for the Sudan War, and Zulu war.

Wildly fun to play. When playing the Colonial forces and seeing how many Native units you are facing can make one very anxious. To me it has all the feel and flavor for a great Colonial game.

I've played TSATF since the first edition…love it. I love the ebb and flow of the game.

They are a true classic. Best set for large skirmishes. Variations exist for Ancient Romans through twentieth century and everything in between. Few rules can claim the influence and their impact almost half a century after they were issued.

I am a long time player of TSATF up to including now. They bring a lot of nostalgia for many of us as they were the first playable set of rules where you could fight small to large battles with. I have probably played them 30 or more times. Lots of battles!

That being said now if given the choice, I would use The Men Who Would be kings. It's a cleaner and quicker playing set. Melees do not bring the game to a crawl like TSATF. I'll play them if someone else runs the game. But in my humble opinion there are other equally good options available.

YMMV.

Thanks.

John

I haven't played it (generally busy with other games at cons), but have never seen any one not having fun playing it.

Easy to read, easy to play. At the time, an innovative way to use cards to add a fog of war to the game. They certainly jump started colonial gaming in the states They do bring a feeling of nostalgia to most people. At the time, there really wasn't anything else. TSATF got me into colonial gaming, but I don't think they are the best thing out there.

Just what the Doctor ordered!

Always enjoyed TSaTF. Great set of rules as long as you don't get too large. Playing at the Bengal Club we used to make the games too big and they took too long :/
We've been using The Men Who Would be King for the last few years and enjoy the rules. The HtH is much simpler.

Thank you all for the inputs. Have a great weekend!!

Dave

A strong second to all the above – Mad Anthony is right, you need to pick the right number of units – have used TSAFT for 30 some years, always a good game – notably those colonial battles where the local forces just keep coming! We just had a Boxer Rebellion game with six players, three or four units per player, played out very well and was done in about 3 hours

In TSATF less is more. You can even go with platoons of 10 rather than 20 and cavalry units of 6. With less figures and a few units at the side it's a great game and you do care about your units more. It gets unwieldy for monster games. That's not the sweet spot. That's why Larry Brom came up with 800 Fighting Englishmen for larger games. I also agree that for larger colonial battles TMWWBK is a good option.

In addition to the fact that it's quick, fun, easy, fun, adaptable, and fun, I will add that I like how it produces outcomes that are story, not just mechanical. You don't just remove figures, you have dead and wounded. You don't resolve a charge by just rolling for the melee with a bonus – you roll to see if they have the guts to complete the charge, you roll to see if the defenders had the guts to stand. You roll individual fights. What you end up with

I wonder what you meant by tactical decisions. You have decision similar to what a historical commander would have. What you don't have is a lot of game mechanic decisions – do I use this card now, do I spend my whatever points here or there, how do I best divide my allotted actions, etc. I sometimes enjoy those mechanics, but they are game mechanics, they are a different layer than watching the pretend battle unfold.

The randomized order of movement per unit per side has rightly been emphasized, but the game was also the first to provide variable movement distances.

How wonderfully dramatic--and realistic!--that every movement cannot be known in advance with scientific precision.

When I bought my first copy in 1979, I was at first put off by the use of cards and dice to determine movement. I had been ruined by the previous 10 years or so wargame rules of that era that thought they could/should try to provide for every contingency with detailed rules. Rules that processed all the uncertainty and excitement of action completely out of the equation.

It was not until two years later that I first actually played the game, and it was a moment of revelation, my Road to Damascus Moment, when suddenly AH SEEN DE LIGHT!

Yes, close combat can be slow, especially too with many units on the table all coming into contact at once. But the legends that have come out of some of those fights are immortal. In a refight of Tel El Kebir, Private McNards of the Black Watch single handedly clearing an entire Egyptian trench with six consecutive bayonet kills. The Man was in there Pitching Hay!

I've played plenty of other games, rules, etc, since 1970, but most of the best memories came from desperate actions with TSATF.

All thanks to the Immortal Sergeant Brom!

TVAG

For larger battles – the TSATF add on By Brigade Fire or 800 Fighting Englishmen speed up things.

Keep units reasonable per player for a great game

What everyone else has said.

The Jackson Gamers have been using TSATF since we helped Larry develop them back in the day. For history -- he started with one 20-man unit of british and three 20-man units of Zulus, fighting Rorke's Drift over and over again.

TSATF is best for a small group. The rule set gives guidance for troop ratios per side.

Here are some old battle reports and copmmentary: link

Jim

Abstraction has a realism all its own. The random movement might seem "gamey" to those used to games with set movement rates based on drill manuals. In TSaF if a player rolls low one can consider those events as "Private Hicks dropped his flask and stooping to retrieve it disrupted the unit's movement" It adds a fog of war element.

Thanks again guys!! We'll give them a go as soon as possible. And please, keep the comments coming.

Dave

I have enjoyed playing TSAFT since 1981 and agree that too big a battle with too many units slows the game down and reduces the enjoyment of the game, especially in a multiplayer environment. For the larger battles, we have been fighting the skirmish campaigns scenario book battles on the Zulu war, Sudan war, etc. with the 8 figures units and have had much success with that modification. Games seemed to flow faster and the same decision making, and tension exits, with just less figures to move around.

One thing I really likes about TSAFT besides the random order of play was also the variable (dice for movement rate) movement rates. Another game I was playing back in the early eighties was Ancient Warfare by Arnold Hendricks. It also had dice for movement rates and three movement phases. Not many games today use variable movement, so from a game designer point of view, it's a niche thing. I know some gamers that hate random movement.

Simple and fun.

Hello from New Orleans,

Gerry Webb (Castaway Arts) sent me the link to this page, and I read all the comments with a few tears and a smile. Incidentally, Gerry and his wife, Carolyn, and their cat, Bear, are recovering from the massive cyclone that hit Australia prior to the holidays, Cairns was flooded. Some areas got, wait for it, 80" of rain!!! The Webbs are doing fine, thank heavens!!!

As I read the comments here, I remembered some of Dad's comments in the book, "Zones of Control: Perspectives on Wargaming" that featured an illustrious group of wargamers, including my late father. Dad wrote an article titled: When The Drums Begin To Roll" about the evolution of The Sword and The Flame. A lot of his commentary STILL holds true today, and I'd like to post a couple here:

"…After some months, I settled on the five things I desired from a set of rules, none of which existed in the ones I knew of in the early 1970's: enjoyment, playability, drama, excitement, and historical flavor. With The Sword and The Flame, I was going to attempt to introduce new ideas and what I considered to be a very workable and creative system for miniature gaming. I decided on five basic functions: setup, movement, firing, hand-to-hand combat, and morale."

Finally this 'gem': "….And throughout all these phases of fashioning the rules framework are the endless and repetitive playtests, playtests, and more playtests. This is the key to a workable, playable set of rules, and the correct group of playtesters is essential. I was extremely fortunate to have the Jackson, Mississipp, War Game Society at my beck and call (ha!). This group was the most stubborn, opinionated, argumentative gathering of gamers the world has ever known and could tear apart any set of rules in two turns or less, but if you could hang in there with them, their revisions and suggestions were almost magic."

Now referred to as the Jackson Gamers, my family and I have known this group of guys for 44-years, and counting. My late sister, Lori, and I consider them the 'brothers' we never had. Sadly, Dad died before he could read his finished article in the book, but we have a treasured copy of the book, AND, we have the rights to The Sword and The Flame. The Sword and The Flame is 44-years old this year, what a legacy for Dad, and his legacy WILL continue thanks to the support from the wonderful wargaming community!

Christy!

So glad you were able to post on this thread, and I'm sure the genuine affection so many have for your Father's magnum opus is balm for the soul.

Please do keep us informed as your progress as you pick up the pieces as you endeavor to keep TSATF available.

If there is ANYTHING we grognards of "The Hive" can do to help with releasing the "44th Anniversary" edition, please do not hesitate to contact any of us.

Cheers!

TVAG

Looking forward to seeing the 40th or 44th Anniversary set of rules.

If there is anyway we can help – feel free to ask

This was the first miniature war game I ever played. I later played games run by Larry at Historicon many times. I actually have a Brom Cross won by my Gurkas in one of those games. I might have won it for my horrible east indian accent that I used during the whole game, rather than my military abilities. The rules were just soooo much fun to play.

It's History Plus Hollywood. Every game is assured to deliver some memorable dramatic moments, as described above.I advise keeping the game small. Two players a side, each with no more than six units is ideal.

Nick, funny you should mention, "…Plus Hollywood", another gem from Dad's article in "Zones of Control: A Perspective of Wargaming":

"….And like a movie, gaming is not to be taken too seriously. Many years ago, at a small convention, I was putting on a game with the US Cavalry vs. Apache Indians. I had painted my troops to resemble Hollywood films, with yellow kerchiefs around their necks. A very well-known author and historian (whose name I've forgotten) came over to me in the middle of the game. He was smoking a pipe and was wearing a vest, cravat and corduroy trousers. The rest of us were a bit more casual. He pulled the pipe from his mouth, and said to me, "You know, of course, the Army in the west never wore yellow kerchiefs," smiling in a rather condescending way. I stood up from rolling dice, looked at him, and said, also smiling, "Well, if it's good enough for John Wayne, it's good enough for me." He didn't know what to say, so he turned around and left." Dad was having fun gaming, that was his entire purpose with TSATF. Individuals, and fools I might add, trying to correct him did at their peril. (smile)

Yeah, as long as you don't use too many units.

link

Christy, it's great to hear the stories about your dad! These truly are some amazing rules played for well over 40 years by thousands of people who love them. They are still my favorite rules set. The comments above are great. The only thing I will add to them is that they can easily have house rules, changes, and additions without throwing it out of balance. Very few gamers use a set of rules out of the box without some form of modification.

Huzzah to the 45th Anniversary Edition!

Fun and not complicated.

One key thing that must be remembered is that these were released in 1985-86. Parameters for rules have changed since then. We were competitors and had many discussions. The first one was at GAMA show where both his TRATF rules and my Indiana's Colonels and Emirs were nominated for the HG Wells award. He deservedly won. We remained close over the years.

I had actually played in a demonstration Boxer Rebellion game at Coastcon in 1983. It was fast and fun. No player arguments I still remember that he used 36 or 24 count egg crates for the walls.

The designers at that time debated the need playability, realism, player reaction. I had focused more on simulation of realism. His method proved better. Lol.