"Our first try at Dux Bellorum" Topic

In preparation for our game at Salute Tom and I had our first game of Dux Bellorum yesterday evening.

Overall, impression, I think I need another couple of games to get to like it. There is a report with more images and the orders of battle on the Scrivsland blog link

I am glad to see someone else couldn't find the support rules easily.. I have had a couple of solo games and still havnt made up my mind yet

We've played a couple of times and I also have resevations about them. I'm planning on writing a full review when I have time but some of my concerns are :
- the indecisiveness of combat (by applying LPs you can make it very difficult to inflict hits on some units)
- the way skirmishers work
- the fact that warriors can do nothing except charge any unit in front
- a two to one combat advantage being pretty meaningless

I found skirmishers tricky to understand at first. I now think of them as second-class troops, or levy, rather than skirmishers. They skulk around the flanks until the big boys are fighting, then heave in if they can. In fact, I think I'm right in saying that they can shoot into a melee provided they can see a full base edge clearly.

I'm less happy with support/multiple unit combats, especially when you get round a target's flank. I think I'd be inclined to reduce a unit's attacks by one for each additional unit it is facing, and by another one of contacted to flank or rear. That way judicious use of leadership points can mean that the outnumbered unit can defend itself, but it's offensive value would be reduced.

Very nice looking figures by the way. Even if you're not sold on the rules at least your game looked good !

In fact, I think I'm right in saying that they can shoot into a melee provided they can see a full base edge clearly.

Yes, this actually seems to be the best use for them.

Back to good old "Strandhogg" then?

Here are some house rules I've been thinking about. You may want to give them a try, as they address some of your concerns.
1) Non-skirmisher supporting units add 2 dice, rather than 1.
2) LPs allocated to combat add 2 combat dice each, rather than 1. (currently once units are engaged, the only sensible use of LPs is cancelling hits – this rule makes it a more even choice between cancelling hits and adding combat dice).
3) An LP can be used to cancel the uncontrolled charge of a warrior unit. The unit can then move normally on passing a bravery test (so can then do something other than charge a unit in front, like turn to face a flank threat).
4) Reverse the movement order, so it becomes Warriors, then Mounted, then Skirmishers. This allows skirmishers to move into a position where they can shoot at the start of the following turn. By giving the skirmishers an LP they can then evade when charged. With the current movement order, skirmishers cannot evade a charge, but other units such as Shieldwall (Heavy foot) can, which is very counter- intuitive.

Thanks for all your comments, it looks like we were playing support and skirmishers correctly then.

Very interesting thread. A friend and I are trying these out on Friday so disappointed with the issues (but grateful they were highlighted in advance).

The general impression I get is that they are a bit too simplified with some holes as well.

Worth pursuing?

Definitely worth pursuing. The skirmisher issue was the one I had most problems with, and I'm happy with it now that I realise that these are not your typical 'ancient' skirmishers but more like the chaps that plunder the bodies at the end of the fight.

Definitely worth pursuing. The skirmisher issue was the one I had most problems with, and I'm happy with it now that I realise that these are not your typical 'ancient' skirmishers but more like the chaps that plunder the bodies at the end of the fight.

Quite correct!

I'm not sure why everyone is getting so hung up on how skirmishers play anyway. They are just not that big of a part of this sort of warfare. They are throw away troops to be honest.

I'm not sure why everyone is getting so hung up on how skirmishers play anyway. They are just not that big of a part of this sort of warfare. They are throw away troops to be honest.

I think that is largely true, and it is well explained by the author on the boargamesgeek page (which effectively acts as the forum for these rules). However, the armies include Late Roman, with their horse archers and mounted javelinmen, who I would say would be "proper" skirmishers.
Also, the rules do allow for evades (mentioned under using LPs to interrupt the opponents move). However, it then seems strange that, due to moving first in the turn sequence, skirmishers are the only troops that cannot do this.
The house rule I suggested above (reverse the movement order so that skirmishers move last) would not overpower skirmishers, but would actually allow them to evade from and shoot at enemy foot.

The general impression I get is that they are a bit too simplified with some holes as well.

I wouldn't say that. Because it's a relatively narrow period, the rules can be quite simple, but still give the right period flavour. I wouldn't say there are holes, either – the rules are well written IMO and quite playable – it's just there are a few things that don't feel quite right to me.
Worth pursuing ? – yes, I think so, but I will hopefully (if my opponent agrees) be trying some or all of the house rules I suggested above.

The house rule I suggested above (reverse the movement order so that skirmishers move last) would not overpower skirmishers, but would actually allow them to evade from and shoot at enemy foot.

I will suggest that maybe it is possible that folks have the wrong mind set. Skirmisher's roll in any era is to slow down the enemy and harass them. It is not necessary to move into shooting range. it is only necessary to keep them in front of the enemy.

Here is what I mean. On your turn, you setup outside the enemy movement range with your skirmishers. The enemy advances. He advances and you get to shoot. The enemy could also advance to just outside of your range. This of course is slowing his advance which is exactly what you want to do!

The point. Skirmishers are not assault weapons. They are harassment weapons. Let the enemy come to you!

He advances and you get to shoot.

Facing warriors, you get to shoot once if bow armed, then you get charged and killed, as you cannot evade. If javelin armed you cannot shoot at all because you have to move within charge range (in order to be within shooting range), then you get charged and killed.

A mate has just pointed out that Skirmishers do not count toward either 50% or 75% break points and at 1 point per unit you can afford to use & lose them to slow the enemy down or fustrate his plans.

They may not count towards break point but every unit you lose costs you an all important LP…

Yes, the loss of LPs is all-important in the real fight. They are useful, and cheap; just don't try to use then as… skirmishers.

Save the skirmishers until the main units are engaged then charge them in to create fresh attacks or stand-off and pelt the melee with missile fire. If you leave untrained boys in the path of professional fighters they get cheesed, just as they should.

Skirmishers are probably more helpful to a Shieldwall army as they hit harder on a flank charge than an engaged Shieldwall in frontal contact. (Shieldwall getting 3d6 and the skirmishers getting 4d6 [1+1+2]) .

The rules do have some different concepts. Formulate plans as if you were a dark age warlord not based on what works in other rules. Do check out Dan's comments at boardgamegeek .

…and see our games at Salute!

Cheers
Steve