Saturday, 5 August 2023

Putting rules (napoleonic) to the test.

Four rule sets.

The table was set with a view to working through the same scenario four times, each time with a different set of rules, just to highlight the main points of difference, an interesting exercise for its own sake I thought, but I was wrong, as it just seemingly echoed the negative aspects of having a richness of rule sets to choose from.

This is something that particularly invades my own wargaming space because I also play a wide variety of boardgames, each with their own rule systems and the collective effect of learning and constantly re-learning each of these systems means that often a single set are not played particularly well ….. the old saying of ‘Jack of all trades, master of none’ springs to mind.

I refer to four figure sets, but there are a dozen to choose from, sitting there noisily on the shelf - too much goodness!

Anyway, in the first game, I quickly found myself floundering on the skirmisher rules, I should know them better and then as other things cropped up I found the rules increasingly in my hands as I tried to find ‘that sentence’ that I was sure existed somewhere …… or was it in another rule set!

Anyway, it must have been a mood thing, because I just just gave up, re-set and turned to my own home brew rules, ‘Eagles at Quatre Bras’ and had an enjoyable game … or two! 

This is not to say that I view my rules as being any better than the others, in fact I would state categorically that they are certainly not. They fall more into the entertainment bracket than simulation, but it is almost certainly the intimate knowledge of the rules and the inclusion of favoured mechanics that makes them a comfortable pick-up.

What it has done in my mind is to reinforce the need to get rid of most of my figure rule sets and to continue driving down the boardgame collection to a smaller hub of games that run off ‘series’ style rulebooks.

The rest of this post is just a bit of a ramble / navel gazing about the ‘trial of four games’ and the continued development of Eagles at Quatre Bras. Please use the ‘read more’ tab if this sort of thing interests you.

The idea behind the four games was to simply highlight differences in the outcome of common areas such as Command & Control, the manoeuvrability of force and the individual resilience of various unit types on the battlefield.

The game area was to be limited as were the orders of battle, an aspect of wargaming, often by necessity, that I know interests many of the readers that follow this blog.

The table was 48 inches wide and 42 inches deep for a game using the plastic Warlord Games Epic figures, which are just under 15mm. 

The forces per side were equal in number (4 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 cavalry), but slightly different in composition and were typical of the Neil Thomas style armies. 

Everything on the French side was regular and their cavalry were cuirassier. On the Prussian side, they had a regiment of 2 musketeer and 1 fusilier battalions, supported by 1 landwehr infantry battalion - all classed regular, but their cavalry were Uhlan lancers, classed as inferior (referred to as Limited in my rules).

Three of the rulesets that I planned to use are mainstream commercial systems, the fourth being my own home brew set. I am deliberately not naming the rules concerned (except my own of course) or the set that I got hung up on, because I am taking a swipe at them and that is not what this blog is about.

The Prussian fusiliers, which were placed in the woods at the hill, had the attribute of ‘light’ and so they could deploy the entire battalion as skirmishers amongst the trees. 

The French battalions were all line units and they could throw out the flank companies to give a skirmish screen. Some napoleonic sets have different rules for these two types of skirmishing bodies (screen and battalion) and I think this is where I first became unstuck in the first game.

Anyway, after retiring to a chair to read the appropriate rule sections for a third time, I gave up. My constant companion, a pinching bad back, has flared up this week and was not helping my patience and so with not a little frustration, the game was re-set and my own rules dragged out. These of course had not been played for a while, but I quickly pushed through a rusty start.

My own rules are not particularly straight forward, I have always felt that to a new player they would have a certain level of awkwardness, but familiarity is of course everything and I could without doubt, be served equally well or even better by taking one of the commercial sets as a ‘go to’ system and abandoning all others, but there we are.

EaQB rules have changed from their first format (which I think I liked better) and have been melded with the ACW rules. These have a different heritage, but I wanted a standard core to a horse and musket set, with the differences of each mostly restricted to the Quick Reference card to ease administration. 

This means that for every change I put into Eagles at Quatre Bras, I need to go back to TF-ON, to see whether they too need the same modification. How skirmishers operate being a case in point.

They are written in an order that accords with the sequence of play, so start at the page that deals with special events and then work through the rest of the pages, covering Command & Control through to Retreat checks, which will get you to the end of the player turn.

One of the downsides in the rules that becomes apparent in play is the number of dice rolls made. This is because several aspects of the rules require a unit to make Ability Checks before they do something significant such as formation change or in response to taking casualties. I suppose these checks are in truth serving a wider range of activity that would also normally include morale checks.

The more casualties and disruption that a unit suffers, the harder these checks are to pass. There comes a tipping point in which the unit is less capable on the attack and then even on defence they become somewhat creaky, until they reach a point of leaving the battlefield.

I have looked for ways of reducing the number of dice rolls and have successfully streamlined one part of the rules in particular, but when going too far, the feel of the game becomes too generic. 

As the game progresses and units start to be subject to the rigours and strains of contact through loss and disorder, these rolls do become more important and also put an emphasis on having a fresh unit or two in reserve.

The number of dice rolls is perhaps more acutely felt in solo play. In face to face play, the ‘burden’ of dice rolling and adding up modifiers etc is a shared experience and so the issue is less noticeable.

So what of our games? The first was conducted with the Epic figures and visually the scale offers a birds eye view and is easier to separate into different areas of battle or at least gives the sense of doing that and putting the player in the boots of the overall commander. This is somewhat assisted by the rules which gives the player a personal role on the battlefield as Divisional Commander.

Something did crop up that I need to research and the observations of those in the know here would be helpful on this. Close combat is decisive, there is just one round of it and a loser will always be established and forced to fall back. 

My question concerns lancers. They do get a combat bonus on the charge for the lance, but should that bonus re-occur in later contacts i.e. by its nature, is the lance spent when first used, to be left behind in the body of a poor corpse in their undignified repose?

The rules do not allow charges on consecutive turns and there are rules for blown horses, so there would be a period of rest between charges. Some rules only allow the lance bonus in the first round of melee, but having just one round of combat doesn’t offer such opportunity. 

Perhaps if the lancers are victorious they could be considered to have retrieved their lances, but at this point I don’t know whether that is realistic or practical or even whether the battalion carried a supply of lance with them that would allow immediate re-supply or whether in truth, most lancers did not lose their lance in the first instance. Some research needed for sure.

The French push the fusiliers out of the woods

Anyway, the cuirassiers were caught out of effective formation and badly mauled. Overall though, as one might expect with equal numbers per side, with one side holding a defensive position, the assault stalled.

I was able to clear away and set up a 28mm battlefield within the same parameters as the smaller one, except Austrians replace the Prussians. These are my experimental units as I am not yet resolved as to which scale to invest painting time in, so they are unpainted and temporary glued to bases while both ultimate base size and rules are decided upon.


I have been using the summer to put the plastic 28mm multi part figures together, as I can do this outside due to me having a bit of an aversion to the glue. However the UK weather, like for the rest of the world has been bizarre, with loads of rain in July, mostly falling on my house! Yesterday I only managed to get six Austrian Grenadiers done, today, nothing will get done.

Each 28mm base is 80mm as opposed to the Epic base of 60mm, so when a unit is in line ( 2 bases ), the 28mm occupy 40mm more frontage in total than the Epic do.

Here, that seemed to matter a bit, but not as much as one might have thought. I even kept the same sized hill. The only real compromise was that to help with the fitting, the gun batteries were dropped to one model instead of my preferred two.

In this game, with the same rules, the French assault was not only thrown back, but the Austrians went onto the counter-attack. I played it out to its conclusion with the French doing a fighting retreat to get off the table. 

I used the same measurements as I had used for the 15mm game, but even though the base sizes are not hugely different, the figure sizes and mass are very different and visually it just didn’t look or feel right.

I will re-run this on a wider table and return to the 28mm measurements given in the rules, which essentially have a 50% uplift. This does have the effect of bringing the forces into contact faster.

What I did like was that there still felt to be different locations on the battlefield, the hill, the woods and the cavalry wing and that this fell from a force of just 6 units per side. 

I would like to move this to a better sense of ‘small battle’ size with say 10 - 12 elements per side, that would do me fine, I don’t want to be collecting and having to paint up 20 odd battalions per side, for either 28mm or Epic for that matter.

I do appreciate the beauty of the individual figure.

A force of 12 units could be administered as say three brigades, which fits in with the rules, which at the command level has brigade commanders and a divisional commander.

Anyway, as an exercise, it was still useful even though I didn’t compare multiple rulesets (though perhaps in a sense I did when abandoning the commercial sets). 

I was left thinking about that French assault up the small hill. In both games it was thrown back, as would be fully expected of a force without superiority attacking a defensive position that was pretty much fresh and I would expect the commercial sets to likely give a similar result, barring extreme dice rolls.

This made me wonder about just how necessary, bigger, deeper and more thorough rule systems are compared to a simpler fun system - if both come up with a similar result and the result / narrative feels right, then more power to the fun set.

The two test games raised a few points for me to consider revising, one being lancers, so there is still some way to go on these.

Other mods that cropped up were;

On forced fallback after taking casualties, should terrain penalties be ignored.

Look at cavalry pursuit.

Look at movement penalties for units that move outside front and rear arcs.

Three paragraphs contained ambiguity and needed a tidy up.

Finally, before packing away the Epic table, I put a few WWII 12mm units on the battlefield and ran some Rapid Fire exercises.

Then likewise did the same after the 28mm game with some 1/72 models.

All in, it seems I got more gaming done in a couple of hours than would likely have been the case by sticking with the first set.

Again, this is not so much about wanting to get more involved in my own set, but being more certain about choosing any one set and sticking with it.

If you have stayed with this navel gazing ramble - thanks, some of this is bound to feed into future decluttering / progress posts.

Resource Section.

My sister webspace ‘COMMANDERS’ is being re-configured to showcase various figure and boardgame systems that I am enjoying and gives a flavour of where current projects are up to. Link.


  1. Norm, this "navel-gazing" post of yours offers up a revealing inward-looking glimpse on your wargaming thoughts. I agree that it is a useful exercise to explore a wide range of rules for ideas before settling down to one or a few that meet your needs. Many hop from one to another, often with each release. Others prefer developing their own. We are free to pick and choose. With familiarity and repetition, many rules can produce viable and enjoyable games with interesting narratives. Settling into one or two rulesets allows nuance and tactics to develop and evolve. For me, this is a pleasure missed by those who hop to the 'latest and greatest'.

    Now, why mention the three other rules cast away at all in this post without singling them out? For many of your readers, it is just as important to read what doesn't work for you and why as it does to see what you like. I know, I know. You do not like writing negative commentary but I prefer openness and honesty. Fair critiques are a useful counterbalance to the hobby and much better than innuendo and fence-sitting.

    We can discuss lancers another time...

  2. Hi Jonathan, I must admit to being guilty of rule hopping and always having an eye on a new thing, though I think in part this comes from the behaviour of being a habitual buyer of boardgames, which for decades have enjoyed a high turn over of releases.

    Though I have seemed to have reached a plateau on that front and am currently entrenching the collection and buys now are ‘must haves’ rather than being speculative purchases - though there are enough of those around!

    On the figures side of things, the range of rules is such that now most tastes can be satisfied, though there does seem to be a growing fondness of gamers writing their own rules, something that for a while at least felt a little old school, but a resurgence is certainly a welcome thing.

    Just getting to the point of being REALLY familiar with some rulesets is the goal.

    As for naming rules that I have not been fully happy with, I shall remain a gamer of mystery and limit my ramblings to game / rule titles that I am actually playing, rather than those I am not. :-)

    1. Fair enough but it is our loss that you will not spill the beans. Perhaps we should discuss why we to tend toward writing our own rules sometime?

    2. Indeed, that would be a rich ground for pickings.

  3. First up your painted 28mm Austrian unit looks splendid, surely it deserves a post as does your Austrian artillery although I notice one unit has defected to the French! Your ahead of me with limbers although I have purchased French ones! The epic figures look great too. On to rules, I tend to agree about full disclosure with Jonathan but I also appreciate that there probably is enough negativity around on the Internet already! I picked up General d armee but I think I'm going to stick with Blackpowder as you can have loads of figures, which I like, works well enough and I am familiar, more or less now with it plus I play pike and shot and hail Caesar from the same stable, having said that I'm happy to play to the Strongest and for king and parliament but they're such fundamentally different rules that even I can cope whereas General d armee is a bit too similar to Blackpowder that I'm sure I'll get in a mess! Thought provoking as always!
    Best Iain

    1. Thanks Iain, the limber is one of a pair picked up from Eagle Miniatures, who were at this years Phalanx Wargame show.

      Going with Black Powder, with its Pike & Shot and Hail Caesar companions is hugely compelling as a trio of rules spanning most of the eras that we do within the hobby.

      I also have General d’ Armee (and the sister publication Pickett’s Charge for ACW), though am aware that the author is preparing a second edition that will be a streamlined version and I wonder to what degree the second edition will wander from the path set by 1st edition - enough I would imagine that 1st Edition users and fans will want to move to it.

      Good spot on the Austrian gun in French lines, splitting the two gun unit into single models helped spread the painted love! :-)

  4. A good post as always Norm and one to get the little grey cells working! After many, many years of trying different rulesets, I've realised that I really like the ones I play and have played for years, such as BKCII. I did dabble with the idea of trying 'O' Group, but thought why bother when BKCII gives me a perfectly good game in 2-3 hours and I rarely have to refer to the rulebook. This allows me to focus on 'The Game' and my tactics, it makes it very easy to create scenarios and importantly I have 'Fun'. Ditto with Honours of War and BPII.

    As Iain has mentioned above, I can easily hop across periods with ease as the core mechanics stay the same. So I just need to learn the subtle differences rather than a completely new set of rules, such as To the Strongest.

    "With familiarity and repetition, many rules can produce viable and enjoyable games with interesting narratives. Settling into one or two rulesets allows nuance and tactics to develop and evolve. For me, this is a pleasure missed by those who hop to the 'latest and greatest'."

    I completely agree with Jon's statement above and it is something that I think we should all bear in mind, as the butterfly hoves into view or the latest shiny bauble catches our eye.

    For me it is certainly a case of ' Less is More'.

  5. Hi Steve, I think I mentioned somewhere else that new rule sets are rather like computer programs, new ones might be very good, but knowing the old one intimately brings too many advantages to want to be too eager to jump ship.

    I very much agree that being able to run a game from a Quick Reference sheet, without constant reference to the rule set does free up the mind to be able to just get on with the game and enjoy it. BKCII serves you well. :-)

    I recently bought Hail Caesar, which I would really like to have a run with (1066 and Wars of the Roses) and accepting that it works well, then taking up another game from that stable (Black Powder II) for the Horse & Musket makes a lot of sense as per Iain’s comment above.

    For me, rules do not need to be a perfect fit to my gaming desires if they reduce the barrier to getting a game to the table i.e. increased playability generally comes with some compromises.

  6. An interesting read as ever. Having rulesets that keep an enjoyable pace to the tabletop game action is important to a player’s enjoyment. As mentioned in your post and comments, familiarity and enjoyable rule mechanisms which can be remembered (maybe with the help of a QRS) seem to be key factors to maintaining the game’s pace, be that a one hour or three hour wargame.

    1. Hi Peter, I know you get a lot of pleasure from doing your own adaptions, creating new mechanics and tweaking existing ones and this level of creativity hugely enhances your enjoyment at the table. I wonder whether this sort of thing falls more naturally to an Airfix, Featherstone or pre-internet generation, when it seemed a more common activity?

  7. Interesting post Norm. I agree that playing to many different rulesets makes it hard to remember them and slows down gaming. Plus the time taken at the start on deciding which ruleset would work best, are the figures based correctly and if not what adjustments are needed, etc. 😊
    Sticking with one version or series, I am concentrating on One Hour Wargames, I find makes it much easier to get a game on the table and played to completion with minimal frustration.

    1. Hi Ben, yes I think so and taking One Hour Wargames as an example, it is so stable, that it is very easy to personally modify it without breaking it.

      I also find that with the passing years, I am a tad slower in my mental agility, but enough that I can feel the difference between then and now, juggling a mass of bigger rule sets, just doesn’t do it for me any more.

    2. I certainly agree regarding the mental agility! The old WRG rules seemed to be understandable back in the 70s & 80s, now not so much πŸ˜‚

  8. Nice post Norm. It’s a process that I am familiar with (most of us are I wager). It’s the process of getting into a genre and then collecting several rule sets for that genre, and then weeding them down to the ‘go to’ set.
    What makes the set the go to set is all personal preference on a number of different factors. And the weeding out process can take a lot of time. Years even.
    I’ve done it with the ACW. I have my rules and don’t even buy anymore. Other genres are still in the process. Like the rules for my dark ages mass battles. Like the Age of Sail.
    And like JF and the others: once you got the go to set down a lot of other cool stuff opens up. I also find designing scenarios gets easier.
    I give away or sell for super cheap rules that I’ve rejected. I find that easy as I’m not really a collector of rules. πŸ˜€

  9. Hi Stew, your choice of F&F is a good place to settle for ACW. The cycle of weeding out has been with me for years, but I’m not sure how good that has been as I have re-bought some of those titles back (particularly true on the boardgame front) and there are titles that from my memory of them, I regret selling, such as GDW’s Volley & Bayonet and the Medieval rules from the Canadian Wargames Journal - though I think that memory is one of nostalgia, from when I just absolutely delighted in reading them.

    I have Hail Caesar 1st Edition and never went near them, I now have 2nd edition and am very eager to give them a spin, so who knows. Also taking Iain’s point above, I know that if I fall for Hail Caesar, I will likely significantly re-connect with Black Powder, simple because of their symbiotic relationship and of course being able to throw Pike & Shotte into the mix …. For the army I don’t have yet :-)

    1. ECW Piggy Longton, couple of pocket armies? Flutter flutter says the butterfly!
      Best Iain

    2. Iain, the butterfly has passed over Piggy Longton and seen both 1066 and ECW representations as tantalising prospects!

  10. Too many rules, too many periods, too much confusion: sounds just like most Wargamers I've known these last 50 odd years. Here in GHQ we have cut down mightily to aid my old memory... Saying that I've invested in Soldiers of Napoleon on a whim! Enjoyed reading your thoughts by the way, though I agree with Jonathan in respect of naming the rules that didn't do it for you.

    1. Hi David, I know you are a solid supporter of Black Powder for reasons of, it works and knowing it intimately, so getting the best out of it, which I think is at the hearty of what this post is about really.

      I will be interested to read your Views on Soldiers of Napoleon. I handled it twice at a recent show, the lust was strong, but I just couldn’t decide. I would be interested in 1809 and for that I would also have to buy the next supplement, so I decided to hold back … for now :-)

  11. Thank you for another great report sir!

  12. Enjoyed reading your thoughts on the different rules as ever, but I have to agree with Jonathan one really needs to know the sets involved to really appreciate them, even if they are ones we are not familiar with.

  13. Hi Phil, my sore back improves today and so I can better stand up to the rigours of the wargames table, no doubt with that, my patience for a more considered rules study will return, so I will likely get back to plan ‘A’ and do the scenario rotated across the four rule sets (and maybe a 5th), if so, that would certainly be worthy of a blog post to high differences - though ultimately the goal will be to reduce figure rule sets with the same determination that I have with boardgame systems.

  14. NOTE - I am using the iPad which has just had a software update and it seems that the problem of me having to hit the PUBLISH button on 4 attempts before the error message disappears - has returned. Hopefully this is just a blip!

  15. How could I not comment on this post? We have much in common in terms of rules purchases, Norm. For my own part, I'm curious as to how the authors organized their thoughts, and how they model the various combined arms aspects of the period, looking for that "one set" that will organize things in such a way that really grabs my imagination, plays easily, and allows me to finish a game. What Ive discovered is that most commercial rules I've played do achieve the same things maybe in somewhat different ways and with varying degrees of complexity. I guess the question is - is the destination what's most important, or is it the trip itself? The desire to understand what the authors wanted to showcase will always keep me reading and collecting Napoleonic rules, which has almost become an obsessive hobby within a hobby! When it comes to gaming, I feel a strong pressure to pick one set that I can just learn well so I can play and host games where we are not constantly looking things up.

  16. Hi Steve, good point on the same things being done but in different ways as it was exploring this sentiment that was being doing the four play tests.

    It is fascinating that coming up to 70 years of both figure and boardgame rule systems ancestry, that so much variety has fallen from a fairly basic set of core principles like how should something move, how far can it fire, what will be the effect of that fire and when will units want to leave the battlefield etc.

    As you say the destination and the journey are likely the critical elements that underpin our relationship with rules, even if we don’t always recognise it.

  17. My two cents per lancers: I believe the purpose of the pennon, aside from looking smart, was to prevent the lance from becoming too embedded in the victim. Lancers required a tight formation to be effective, otherwise sword-armed opponents had the advantage in melee.

    1. Thanks Vincent. I am tempted to just keep lancers as always being lance armed …. Except if they win a melee and go into pursuit, they might then lose their lance bonus and act as sword armed L. Cav. This in effect is how many rules deal with a second round of melee combat involving lancers

  18. Norm,
    Another good post and one I have read a couple of times. It is a pity you don’t name the rules, I think the majority of your readers would take the critique as it was meant to be. One of the biggest things in any rule set is really what the individual is looking for in the game so for example I’ve ended up with two sets of ACW rules I enjoy using ‘ Bonnie Blue Flag’ and ‘On to Richmond’ both sets give me the type of game I enjoy and, for me at least, give a feel of the period. Both sets have received ‘ tweaks’ over time but both allow that to take place.
    Likewise Blackpowder I don’t really enjoy - can’t put my finger on it but they leave me a little cold ( possibly because in a couple of games I’ve played incidents took place where I couldn’t think of a narrative to explain them) yet I quite enjoy Hail Ceaser!
    I’m still looking at the Napoleonic rules, Shadow of the Eagles and DBN are my front runners although I’m keen to try Soldiers of Napoleon. However with the latter set I’m concerned that skirmishers may rule the roost and therefore they may not work to well with the early periods. I’ve also read on a couple of other blogs some of their concerns re certain elements but I still wish to try them and see.
    I think the biggest problem is just that there are too many rule sets the vast majority of which invite some sort of investigation 😁.
    As to Lancers I generally make them a one shot weapon first round of combat within the game. From my understanding not all the troops carried the lance in battle and in a major engagement I’ve not read anything about them replenishing the lance. But whatever works for you.
    Looking forward to more of your thoughts. As to figure scale I’m definitely falling more and more into small is good. Even investing in the 12mm Victrix WWII!

  19. Hi Graham, a couple of reasons lay behind me not naming dissapointments. I only write about things I like, so most of my disappointments never see the light of day in terms of commentary. Also, I know I am fickle and what I’m not keen on this week, I may like next month and so I would hate my butterfly mood to influence others and more importantly harm sales as wargame companies are not robust enough to take a few knocks and I suspect we will lose some by 2024.

    I think Black Powder can have a bigger impact on small orders of battle / small tables as I think they were designed for big tables with ‘lots’ of brigades, so a few brigades spening time standing still here and there is less noticeable, but it can also feel a bit generic without the bolt on characteristics added on, which although they add complexity, do serve well.

    I agree that all of the rule goodness we have does invite investigation, which is why I have drawn a halt at Soldiers of Napoleon, if I don’t get them, I don’t have to throw them in the mix and I am feeling that I have enough.

    Thanks for thoughts on lancers, I am stuck between settling on them not having lance bonus in pursuit (only) and not having lance bonus again in the game. In my sort of games they could probably only strike a couple of times in a game anyway.

    I am following in your shadow re scale considerations and have some Victrix German Infantry on their lolly sticks now - also those new T-34’s with tank riders just beg to be made up.

  20. “Now, why mention the three other rules cast away at all in this post without singling them out? For many of your readers, it is just as important to read what doesn't work for you and why as it does to see what you like. I know, I know. You do not like writing negative commentary but I prefer openness and honesty. Fair critiques are a useful counterbalance to the hobby and much better than innuendo and fence-sitting.”

    This bears repeating often. As much as I liked your efforts norm, in the end it didn’t really give me anything concrete to imagine as I kept thinking to myself: Are these one of my rules or similar?

    Saying something has “too much dice rolls” without having a firm example to ascertain where your own personal tastes lay makes my ability to take much from your exercise rather pointless.

  21. Hi Mick, sorry you didn’t enjoy the post. I understand that my writing / whim will not be for everyone.

    I am a fickle gamer and am just as likely to play and like something in 6 months time that I am not keen on today, so would not put others off or harm company reputation sales in that process.

    When I enjoy playing something it gets posted here and when I don’t, it doesn’t and from that perspective and the fact that I buy all my own stuff, I am absolutely not a review site, with all the responsibility of impartiality that should go with that, but I do believe my writing to be honest.

    I just tend to take the view that ‘these are the games I like’ and that many of the gamers that follow the blog like the same sort of games.

    It was not three sets of rules that was a barrier, it was just the first that I played with and due to bad back etc, I did not have the patience or tolerance to crack on with the experimental rule comparison. I’m sure each of the rules and others will make their way to the table / blog in due course.

    The too many dice rolls was a reference to my own rules.


Thanks for taking the time to comment