Marcus Brutus | 19 Jan 2006 3:18 p.m. PST |
I've had a chance to look over the rules Shattered Lances in the past few weeks and I've come to think that they are brilliant!! Elegant but with enough detail to make playing them interesting. And a system that is novel in many of its approaches to the period. I'm particularily attracted to the idea that they are not simply an expansion or rehash of an ancient set of rules. We're planning to have a game with them very soon and I'll report back with more specific details about the rules. |
Snowcat | 19 Jan 2006 5:51 p.m. PST |
And the author's a great guy too. Very knowledgeable and helpful; the two don't always come together. No, he's not my Dad.
or anything else. :) |
Whattisitgoodfor | 19 Jan 2006 7:36 p.m. PST |
I second the comment about Brendan being a very nice chap and knowing what he is talking about. The rules do seem to be getting traction. There is a good yahoo group too: link |
basileus66 | 19 Jan 2006 10:10 p.m. PST |
SL is one of the best rulesets I have played in the last year. I would recommended it to any Crusades -or simply Medieval- fan. Antonio |
coopman | 20 Jan 2006 5:35 a.m. PST |
Who stocks these in the US? |
Marcus Brutus | 20 Jan 2006 7:22 a.m. PST |
I noticed that the Yahoo sight has a play test version. Haven't had a chance to fully compare it with the published version but it should give you are good feel for the system. |
Napoleon III | 20 Jan 2006 8:43 p.m. PST |
I like what I've read of the rules so far. They seem to have good period "flavour". But does anyone who has played them know how long a typical battle takes with these rules? Is finishing in an evening (say 3-4 hours) a realistic goal? Or do they bog down? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. |
Snowcat | 20 Jan 2006 10:01 p.m. PST |
I've heard a normal game takes 2-3 hours max. |
Chevalier de la Terre | 21 Jan 2006 4:33 a.m. PST |
I'll agree with all the above praises, SL simply rules!!! |
Chthoniid | 29 Jan 2006 3:27 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the positive feedback guys! The playtest version (on the yahoo site) has significant diffreences with the final, published version. While the core of the rules is similar (enough to I think, track the direction the rules have taken), the final version is superior. Chthonic regards B |
Napoleon III | 30 Jan 2006 7:41 a.m. PST |
Chthoniid : I take it you are the rules author then? Any chance of guidance in how best to use "SL" for Normans/Saxons/Vikings then? From the rules and the examples, I get the impression they were once used for that area as well by yourself? Thanks. |
Chthoniid | 30 Jan 2006 1:59 p.m. PST |
@Napoleon III Chthoniid : I take it you are the rules author then? Any chance of guidance in how best to use "SL" for Normans/Saxons/Vikings then? From the rules and the examples, I get the impression they were once used for that area as well by yourself? Thanks. Yes, I am the author- I also live in NZ, which tends to account for the funny lags in responding to queries
I'm not sure what kind of guidance you're interested in, but in my experience, SL works best for these armies as 'positional games'. In effect, one army tries to shift another out of a 'position'. There are some ideas being advanced on these armies on the yahoo SL website. For something like Hastings, your Normans (light chevaliers) have a number of problems attacking the deep Saxon shieldwalls. One strategy is to attack in 'skirmish' (i.e. as 'globs'), as this limits the damage the Saxons can inflict on you. This requires you to 'evade', in the event of a successful saving throw against Saxon damage. If you can damage the Saxons a smidgeon, then they will eventually fail a saving throw, and surge off their position (still disordered and out of shieldwall). Then they will be more vulnerable to counter-attack. Chthonic ruminations B |
Napoleon III | 31 Jan 2006 11:49 a.m. PST |
I do like the little Krauts. I also have the US troops. Same quality. Need to start investing in the Russian Hordes soon. |
Napoleon III | 31 Jan 2006 4:03 p.m. PST |
OK, that is not even CLOSE to what I wrote!!!!! Where the <*#@&> did THAT come from??? It wasn't my keyboard at all
Anyway,I thanked Chthoniid for his response, and mentioned that the only other thig I guess I was looking for in terms of "guidance" was what ratings he might have used for Saxons/Normans/Vikings of the 11th-C. under "Shattered Lances". Sorry about the nonsense above! It's not even like I wrote that in response to something else, and it got mis-posted to this thread: I never wrote that at all at any time!!?? I don't know where that came from at all!!?? Thanks! |
Chthoniid | 04 Feb 2006 11:15 p.m. PST |
@ Napoleon Anyway,I thanked Chthoniid for his response, and mentioned that the only other thig I guess I was looking for in terms of "guidance" was what ratings he might have used for Saxons/Normans/Vikings of the 11th-C. under "Shattered Lances". I imagine your original post might turn up in another board, sometime in the future
At the moment Norman milites tend to be (I)nitiative 6, as audacious or elite. I'd be tempted to allow one general's unit of milites to go to I7. The spearmen tend to be I5, Med Shd., the archers as Lt or Med Archers, I5. I might allow one unit of archers to go to I6. I'd rate William with a Command Bonus of 2. The Saxons are a bit trickier, as I'm not convinced their tactics at Hastings were the norm (i.e., stiffening the small numbers of huscarls with fyrd, may not have been common). I'd rate the 'mixed huscarl/fyrd' units as I6 Hvy Shd, while plain fyrd could be I5 Med Shd- possibly with the option to downgrade dregs to brittle. Additional troops include perhaps a unit or two of lt irregulars, to reflect the javelinmen lurking about (possiblu handy at Hastings to deploy in woods to deter outflanking). Again I5 would be reasonable. An optional (small) unit of archers would be feasible. In my refights of Hatsings, things seemed to work well with Harold as a CB 1 general, while his brothers were rated as CB 0. This made it harder for Harold's brothers to pull their troops back up the hill after any precipitate advances. There was some discussion and outline of Vikings (Norse) on the yahoo-list before Xmas. Chthonic regards B |
onmilitarymatters | 16 Feb 2006 11:21 a.m. PST |
In answer to Coopman's question, and for anyone else looking, we have Shattered Lances in stock for $24 USD plus S&H
OnMilataryMatters.com 609.466.2329 militarymatters@att.net |
Chthoniid | 17 Feb 2006 12:44 a.m. PST |
|