 piper909  | 29 Oct 2025 8:59 p.m. PST |
I was thinking how too many TS&TF games in my long experience were decided not by tactics or strategy or playing the odds long-game, but by sudden good/bad rolls of a single d6 on the Close to Combat chart. Thunderbolts from the blue. A player can maneuver skillfully for hours, finally get his forces in position, make a decisive attack on the enemy -- and then crap out on "6's" rolled at the worst possible time. Opportunity wasted. It can sour many players on the game entirely. I get that this is a rule feature since the dawn of the game. But does it, well, get in the way of an enjoyable experience? What if -- a unit that has a Leader attached need not roll a Close to Combat check? (Leaderless units would still have this requirement, and Stand and Fight rolls would still be made). Would this one simple change affect play balance? (Possibly.) Would this nullify the benefit of not having too many games end with a whimper when those concerted attacks all fail to close to a decisive melee action because the attackers got cold feet and failed die rolls that the odds favored? From a dramatic point of view -- and TS&TF rules are designed for drama -- it is a big let-down to see these charges fail. And not just the native units are affected by this -- I've seen European units equally embarrassed by failing to close when everything was in their favor to do so, and these bad die rolls change the outcome of the game. People say, "We could have just made a handful of die rolls three or four hours ago and saved all this time.") I don't like to see players disgruntled in this way. I'm tempted to try this modification in my next TS&TF game and see how it plays out; altho' it would take years of games to check the over-all play-balance of this change. Feedback, anyone? I'd love to read comments or opinions either way. |
 John the OFM | 30 Oct 2025 12:13 a.m. PST |
Do you mean the CinC, or a simple unit leader? How about +1 if CinC attached.
I don't think that Bashi Bazouks or NNC should get an automatic pass, though. In Flames of War 3.0, a Commissar could get a reroll by killing a stand of his own unit. But if he rolled a 6, they turn on him instead. What a Bashi thing to do! |
 Extra Crispy  | 30 Oct 2025 6:06 a.m. PST |
There are loads of games where one or two bad die rolls can end it. Players feel cheated like they lost to the system. The "Rampant" series of rules, DBA, or Commands and Colors are examples. In my group we often house rule these. So a failed activation does not end your turn, or use an average die for pips. Especially with rules as Hollywood as TSATF I'm all in favor these kinds of changes. After all, this makes leaders even more important. If Captain Snedly catches a random musket ball, whelp, better hope you roll well to charge! |
| robert piepenbrink | 30 Oct 2025 7:40 a.m. PST |
I think if you make a leader more important for close to combat, you should also raise his chance of getting killed while inspiring his men. |
| piper909 | 30 Oct 2025 8:08 a.m. PST |
I'm not taking this lightly -- it is a change that mostly favors the natives, since they are usually the ones with an advantage of numbers and disadvantage in firepower and are eager to close to hand-to-hand combat. And the Imperial forces breath sighs of relief when maybe one of a bunch of charging units fails to close. But still, it's a critical die roll and frustrates players maybe to no good. I have been in too many games where NO native unit managed to complete a charge, to the annoyance of those commanders. That skews the game too much. "I can't shoot for beans and now I can't even get into melee? Dumb rules!" I don't like to inflict that on folks who I'm trying to encourage to give historical miniatures a chance. I can definitely see using this house rule for a convention game, where it is extra important to see that all players have a chance to have fun and not leave in a bitter mood because the dice conspired against them. (This is a common enough experience anyway.) To clarify -- a unit with an attached Leader would not have to pass a Close to Combat check. But leaderless units would still have to pass this check; but I think I'd use the "with a Leader" column so the penalty is not as harsh. Or maybe reduce this by one, so imperial units could still fail. Any Leader counts, unit leaders or subcommanders or the CO. All units would still have to pass Stand and Fight checks. |
 Jlundberg | 30 Oct 2025 8:37 a.m. PST |
I played in a game where we (Ethiopians) did not complete a single charge. Our sum damage for the game was a lightly wounded Askari |
| 79thPA | 30 Oct 2025 9:18 a.m. PST |
Those kind of results are not unhistorical,but I understand the desire to keep (new) players engaged, especially at a con. I am sure that Larry would tell you that they are your rules, so do what you want. There are a number of ways to handle this. Everyone closes. 1 unit of the players choice closes, and the rest roll to close. 1 random unit closes, and the rest roll to close. Every unit closes unless it roll a 6. Etc., etc. |
| John the OFM | 30 Oct 2025 9:23 a.m. PST |
When we're not playing straight TSATF, we play 800 Fighting Englishmen.
There are usually at least 6 players.
I've found that the most a "brigadier" should handle is 5 units. And sometimes I set him up with only 2. (That makes him a lot more conscious of casualties. 🙄)
I can see a "brigade" commander joining in a charge, and giving him a +1. Even the CinC, but no more than a +1. It also puts him at risk. If he's actually charging, perhaps add a red Diamond Ace to his risk, instead of just the Ace of Hearts. When I'm the Zulu commander, I start out with all my "chest" units in a line. As the vicissitudes of the movement die rolls add up, I find that my "reserve" loin units sort themselves out naturally. 😄 |
| piper909 | 30 Oct 2025 4:04 p.m. PST |
I have never played the 800 Fighting Englishmen rules altho' I do have them. I'm likely missing out big-time! I have played in massive games of the standard TS&TF rules -- and that can be a problem if the game bogs down. Two GMs helps -- can keep things moving along, each GM at one end of the table. When I have a large enough scenario set up, I inevitably try to see that the traditional Zulu battle formation is followed! It's only proper. I even put the senior regiments in the center places. The rules don't distinguish among them, but I like to see it done correctly as feasible, for the look of the thing. |
| John the OFM | 30 Oct 2025 7:43 p.m. PST |
When you realize that 6 or 8 guys each having 4 or 5 "units" in their "brigade"….
It's time to dust off 800FE. You'll miss the micro-nuances of TSATF, but are you gonna take all day and night? Funny thing. Back in the 80s, I played in a TSATF tournament. I could take one 20 man unit of British or *2* units of Zulus. I took Zulus! It was odd to see Brits trying to shoot at each other (it was a tournament!) but being a wily savage, I waited. And won. I think? Hey it was early 80s!
Those small battles didn't last. I blame Ral Partha for selling 10 figure packs at a very reasonable price. In no time, megalomaniac gamers spent their allowance on huge Colonial battles. Yeah. Raise my hand. 🙄
Thus, Larry OHBP came up with 800FE. |
| Umpapa | 31 Oct 2025 3:24 a.m. PST |
Maybe give to every side bag of chits numbered 1 to 6, and let them draw a chit from their bag instead of rolling dice. Thus it would be impossible to draw only 6. |
| John the OFM | 31 Oct 2025 8:54 a.m. PST |
Why spoil a simple game by adding doodads and frippery? 🤷 |
| TimePortal | 31 Oct 2025 4:45 p.m. PST |
Many rules used to have a leader influence range. The higher the leader or ability to see the field, the wider the influence range. A leader involved in a skirmish cannot influence others . |
| piper909 | 31 Oct 2025 8:43 p.m. PST |
Good observation, OFM. I was happy to participate in that old Ral Partha "$4 for 10 Colonials minis" era. That's the only way I was able to afford enough Zulus to build really big armies (too big for any one game, but isn't that a feature, not a bug?). Our "Zulu Apocalypse" standard TS&TF games in the past have featured as many as 16 Zulu units and 5 or so British, a truly massed battle that would certainly benefit from a revised rules set as you describe. |
| John the OFM | 01 Nov 2025 5:11 a.m. PST |
(too big for any one game, but isn't that a feature, not a bug?) How many of us only have EXACTLY enough figures to fight a battle, and not a single one more? Way back in the previous century, I had a 10 year "marital hiatus" from wargaming. After that folly ended, I came back stronger than ever! The Interwebs had all kind of amazing things like discussion groups. I joined one for DBM. One frequent participant had, I believe, a Kievan Russ army. She had ONE extra 15mm Psiloi base over and above her needs, and offered to sell it. To me that was …. Strange. 🤷 |
| John the OFM | 01 Nov 2025 5:20 a.m. PST |
Back to the original point.
If rolling a 6 at the crucial point spoils the game for you, you need a new hobby.
The point is not to win every game at all costs. "Hey! Remember back when my carefully planned advance got blasted by Jim's Boers, and I couldn't close? Good times!"
Memories!
I remember being in a club at the FLGS where the President for Life didn't consider my multi player TSATF games "serious" games, because we didn't track winners and losers. He also charged dues for no apparent reason. |
weighs the pros and cons of using a power drill on the minis workbench.