Help support TMP


"Looking Over Shattered Lances" Topic


Shattered Lances

17 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Shattered Lances Rules Board


Areas of Interest

Medieval

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Battle-Market: Tannenberg 1410

The Editor tries out a boardgame - yes, a boardgame - from battle-market magazine.


Featured Profile Article


Featured Book Review


763 hits since 25 Feb 2017
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Marcus Brutus19 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.

Snowcat19 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.

:)

Whattisitgoodfor19 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

basileus6619 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

coopman20 Jan 2006 5:35 a.m. PST

Who stocks these in the US?

Marcus Brutus20 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 III20 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.

Snowcat20 Jan 2006 10:01 p.m. PST

I've heard a normal game takes 2-3 hours max.

Chevalier de la Terre21 Jan 2006 4:33 a.m. PST

I'll agree with all the above praises, SL simply rules!!!

Chthoniid29 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 III30 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.

Chthoniid30 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 III31 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 III31 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!

Chthoniid04 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 Sponsoring Member of TMP16 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

Chthoniid17 Feb 2006 12:44 a.m. PST

I think that should be OnMilitaryMatters.com

Chthonic regards

B

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.