"Dux Britanniarum - blog thoughts after first game" Topic

A review based on my first game of Dux Britanniarum

link

Precis – I liked them.

Absolutely agree with you comments, Last Hussar.
After 30 years of wargaming this ruleset is like a fresh breath of air.

Thank you for sharing The rules sound interesting

I found them very enjoyable. While I normally play more modern fair, these rules have me readimg up on the period and building armies.

Sorry, but I just don't get them.

I bought the book and the card pack at Derby as was, because I thought they might be another means of using the Saxon/Viking types I'd built up for Saga. I want a system where the characters/warband progresses and the DuxBrit campaign element seems to offer.

However it's the pack of cards I don't understand. It says that there are a basic 42 and 8 more but the pack has fifty odd cards.

I've read and re-read the rules but the cards are not well explained.

Jeremy, some of the cards (marked A,B,C) are for making up you own units. Which bits are confusing you? The cards are at home , I can look through them tonight.

I'd only been looking at the face of the cards. I had not realised that there were two backs.

Jeremy,
All the cards you need to start with are actually British Lord, British Leader One and Two. Same for the Saxons. Then include missile for both and you're set.
That's the deck that will determine who's turn it is to activate.

The other deck is the fate deck. You start with (normally) 5 cards in your hand and try to make up a good hand. These cards make your units more powerful, faster. or hamper your adversary. Some can be played by the British(dragons) others by the Saxons(boars) Unsuited cards can be played by both. Try to get rid of the unsuitable ones and let your Lord and noble 'buy) better ones.

Allow me to advise you to download the 'PLayers Notes at the TFL blogsite. They explain almost everything in very clear wording.

Great game BTW don't give up!

I was going to explain, but Willie beat me to it. I'll just echo everything he said.
Direct link to the blog entry with the player notese here:
toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=1075

How well are these rules written ? I have had issues with other TFL rules about poor writing, such as terms being used in the rules but not defined. I like a lot of the ideas behind the TFL rules but I like the rules I use to be complete and well written, and especially so if I'm paying £25.00 GBP for them.
I've been thinking of getting these but I am put of somewhat by the comments above about the cards not being well explained, and the apparent requirement for the players notes which "explain almost everything in very clear wording". I would hope the rules would do that !

Also, how far do they extend in terms of the period they can be used for ? Do the armies in the rulebook and the cards included only cover Post-Roman Brits vs Saxons ? How easily can this be extended to other armies and later Dark Ages warfare ?

Mark – there has been a marked shift in TFL rules in recent years. IABSM v2 -> v3 is a case in point. Newer rules are clearer and well produced. Rich suffers sometimes from being a one man band, so there is the odd typo.

With DB Sunjester bought them, and we didn't seem to have any problems. I don't own the rules, playe donce at a convention, once at SJ's, and I could take you through a game with just the QR sheet. I certainly didn't hear SJ express confusioin over the cards.

Can anyone else pick up the different armies question?

Well, of the thousands of copies sold only one person has seemed to fail to notice that the cards are comprised of two decks, hence the fact that one set has the word FATE in very big letters on the back, identifying it as the Fate Deck, as fully described on pages 28 to 31 of the rules, and the other is the Game Deck which determines the turn sequence, with the Dux Britanniarum logo on the back, as fully described on Page 32 of the rules, i.e. the very next page after we describe the Fate Deck. I am unsure how I could have made it much clearer.

The rules have been used by several people cover both earlier and later periods often straight out of the box. David Imrie ran a game at Salute last year with Imperial Romans fighting Caledonians north of Hadrian's Wall in around AD80 and made no changes to the rules in order to do that.

At present the rules cover the Arthurian period from AD450 to AD600 with the Britons fighting the Saxons. We are currently working on a supplement covering the Irish, the Scotti and the Picts and we have plans to cover the Viking Age as well in the future.

Rich

David Imrie ran a game at Salute last year with Imperial Romans fighting Caledonians north of Hadrian's Wall in around AD80 and made no changes to the rules in order to do that.

If I understand correctly (from hearing about this on the M&M podcast) he treated the Romans as the Britons and the Caledonians as the Saxons in terms of rules, cards, etc.
But does it have to be a shieldwall army vs a non shieldwall army ? How closely do the cards included with the game relate to the army type ?
Could they, for example, be used to fight a later saxons vs vikings game, both armies being shieldwall armies ?

Mark – Caveat, I don't own the rules so I cant check.

Be trickier, but I think it is possible if you ignore the 'suits' that mean the Fate card can only be used by a specific army.

The reason I say this is I know (?do I?) that the Briton cards have different cards to the Saxons. If both sides are, for all practical purposes, identical (eg 9th cent Vikings v Anglo-Saxons) you could ignore the boar/dragon designation. Of course the 'play deck' – whose turn next – has Britons/Saxons, so you have to decide who was who, but that is nationality neutral; it is in effect saying Side A or Side B leader next.

If you don't mind doing a bit of work, down load the Magic Set Editor, which allows you to make your own cards up, so you can get the deck mix to be what you want.

If you don't mind doing a bit of work, down load the Magic Set Editor, which allows you to make your own cards up, so you can get the deck mix to be what you want.

LINK: magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/.
FWIW I love these rules and I can see they could be adapted to a lot of different periods.
I'm considering making / modifying cards for a Trojan War variant.
Oh, and to clarify you don't need to be a Saxon to play a 'Dragon Suit' card. From the player notes:
link
"All of the Fate cards can be played by both sides, but the suit cards, those with the Dragon or Boar on them, really suit the British or Saxon way of fighting".

So correct me if I'm wrong but that's my understanding.
Cheers

Either side can play a suited Fate card – but you can only play suited cards during your own activation (the other cards can generally be played at any time).
The significance of the suits is that if you have a Carpe Diem card in your own suit, you can play more than one card of your own suit. Each card played adds a dice to the first round of combat as well as its other effects.

So the Saxons can play a dragon-suited 'Strong Arm' card to throw missiles before combat – but they can only play that single card.
If they have a boar-suited Strong Arm and a Boar-suited Carpe Diem they can play both (and any other Boar card they have).

IMHO DB is a reasonably well written (there are some issues, but not many), and very well thought out game that plays smoothly. The campaign can easily be adapted to any period that heavily favors infantry fighting over missle and mounted troopers, and focuses on an invading/raiding force vs. an established group (i.e. viking period raids, germanic incursions into rome etc). Ignoring the campaign and the rules would fit any heavily infantry skirmish in the dark ages.
If your looking for a campaign to link dark age skirmishes it is definately worth it. If your are just looking to play dark age skirmish with out linking games, there are others options that I think are just as good.