As always, let me start by saying that the game plays fine as is. This variant allows for a little flavor and gives a more nuanced feel. Specifically, it individualizes some of the personalities that were present at the battle. It does add a few more things to think about when you play, so there is always that balance.
"Flip" means flip block from fresh to spent. Limits action to once per turn. "Place" means to move block to a location without normal movement restrictions.
"It would not have done if I had not been there..."
During activation phase flip Wellington and place adjacent to a block and rally it, even if Corps is exhausted, even if unit is adjacent to an enemy. Block may still move if eligible.
"Bravest of the Brave"
Add a "Ney" HQ block to the French OB. At any time during the activation phase, flip Ney to place him adjacent to a block, that block may charge, as per the rule. Even if it has already moved (or charged!) and even if it is not ordinarily eligible to charge. If unit is backed up, both units may charge and resolve combined combat. Ney block has no other function.
Add a "Druout" HQ block to French OB. Druout activates when guard chit is drawn and may provide command to any Guard unit within range. Druout may not Alter Turn Order.
Essentially, this is a bump to Both Napoleon and Wellington. I have played several games using this variant. I find it fun and balanced. Let me know if your mileage varies!
Rationale
Wellington was very hands on and was seemingly everywhere he needed to be, especially when it came to steadying the line. This rule reflects this.
Napoleon was no longer at his best and was strangely uninvolved with the battle as it unfolded. At least, when compared with the Napoleon of the past. Although Ney was also behaving less actively than in the past, he still was taking initiative and "leading from the front." He seemed to want to die in battle at Waterloo yet he remained, miraculously, free of serious injury.
Units of the Guard were dispatched all over the battlefield to handle crises. To better reflect this, General Druout is able to extend the effective range within which the Guard Corps can operate offensively.
Monday, December 3, 2018
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Full Contact Pub Battles
This is a variant for the Field of Engagement (FoE) rules that is currently part of the PubBattles game system. They are actually the original rules for the game. Full Contact simply means that you may move out of contact with an opposing block, so that it is no longer in contact with your block, and thus unable to attack you.
Why Field of Engagement?
These rules were put in place because many felt that the original (Full Contact) rules yielded unrealistic results wherein opposing units could be left "almost adjacent" and be oblivious to the enemy in so close a proximity.
There is no right or wrong way to do it, as long as everyone agrees on the rules beforehand. Obviously, the FoE rules are the official rules and should be considered the rules being used unless otherwise agreed upon.
Well then, why Full Contact?
I prefer this variant because I don't like limiting player's options with arbitrary "you can't because" rules. It feels a little awkward to have to adjust your play based on some arbitrary rule. Again, this comes down to what "feels right" for each player's style.
It may seem that making a unit end its move 1/3 move away from the enemy if they do not intend to attack, seems reasonable. Otherwise, the player moves to attack and the enemy backs up a hair and gives his opponent raspberries! That just seems wrong.
Except, that is a linear description of the action. It is "I Move/You Move" thinking. PubBattle's Chit draw system is supposed to simulate simultaneous movement. It did this brilliantly by allowing the command that's drawn last to move with the same freedom of movement as the player who moved earlier. I prefer it played this way.
In Full Contact PubBattles, denying combat by moving just out of contact does not imply no combat occurred, far from it! What it is saying is that the commander who moved last had the tactical initiative and denied the opposing commander the decisive engagement he desired. There may have been all kinds of fighting, the attacker was just not able to come to grips with the defender (think 'skillful delaying action').
True to PBs philosophy of concentrating on command and effect, and less concern over what and why things fell out the way they did, the system allows one to imagine what might have happened.
The Full Contact variant plays more smoothly, because one is not checking distances and determining where the FoE extends. This can be difficult on a crowded map with many LOS blocking terrain features obscured underneath blocks. Again, I wish to be fair. If you prefer the FoE rules, this extra bit of trouble is worth it.
So, for me, the Full Contact rules play faster and better simulate the chaos of combat. It is a credit to the elegance of the System system, that it is robust enough to play well and balanced with or without this variant.
Feel free to comment below and let me know how you feel about this variant. There is no right or wrong, but I may be able to explain my preference if I can understand why somebody might not prefer it.
Why Field of Engagement?
These rules were put in place because many felt that the original (Full Contact) rules yielded unrealistic results wherein opposing units could be left "almost adjacent" and be oblivious to the enemy in so close a proximity.
There is no right or wrong way to do it, as long as everyone agrees on the rules beforehand. Obviously, the FoE rules are the official rules and should be considered the rules being used unless otherwise agreed upon.
Well then, why Full Contact?
I prefer this variant because I don't like limiting player's options with arbitrary "you can't because" rules. It feels a little awkward to have to adjust your play based on some arbitrary rule. Again, this comes down to what "feels right" for each player's style.
It may seem that making a unit end its move 1/3 move away from the enemy if they do not intend to attack, seems reasonable. Otherwise, the player moves to attack and the enemy backs up a hair and gives his opponent raspberries! That just seems wrong.
Except, that is a linear description of the action. It is "I Move/You Move" thinking. PubBattle's Chit draw system is supposed to simulate simultaneous movement. It did this brilliantly by allowing the command that's drawn last to move with the same freedom of movement as the player who moved earlier. I prefer it played this way.
In Full Contact PubBattles, denying combat by moving just out of contact does not imply no combat occurred, far from it! What it is saying is that the commander who moved last had the tactical initiative and denied the opposing commander the decisive engagement he desired. There may have been all kinds of fighting, the attacker was just not able to come to grips with the defender (think 'skillful delaying action').
True to PBs philosophy of concentrating on command and effect, and less concern over what and why things fell out the way they did, the system allows one to imagine what might have happened.
The Full Contact variant plays more smoothly, because one is not checking distances and determining where the FoE extends. This can be difficult on a crowded map with many LOS blocking terrain features obscured underneath blocks. Again, I wish to be fair. If you prefer the FoE rules, this extra bit of trouble is worth it.
So, for me, the Full Contact rules play faster and better simulate the chaos of combat. It is a credit to the elegance of the System system, that it is robust enough to play well and balanced with or without this variant.
Feel free to comment below and let me know how you feel about this variant. There is no right or wrong, but I may be able to explain my preference if I can understand why somebody might not prefer it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)