With the latest release of the Gettysburg module in Worthington's Civil War Brigade Battle series, which has not yet hit UK shores, we now have version 1.4 of the series rules, which have had a significant re-write.
To date, the series consists of Antietam, Shiloh and Seven Days.
The V1.4 rules are available for download and so without Gettysburg in my hands, but having access to the new rules, the question I was asking myself was how V1.4 would impact on the previous designs.
Last week, I played Burnside Bridge solo (one of the short scenarios from the Antietam package) and then played it again the following day face-to-face. Both games were played with the existing version 1.3B rules, so with these games committed to recent memory, I thought it worth playing that scenario again, this time with V1.4 to compare.
The rules are only 8 pages long, one of their strengths in my view. When a new version comes out, the new rule paragraphs are highlighted in green. V1.4 on first inspection is covered with green highlight, so we know there has been a major rewrite.
However, the rules have been restructured and so the chopping around of existing rules and some tidying up account for some of this green highlight, but where there are ‘real’ changes, they are significant.
I think these can be broadly discussed as three new areas of ruling.
Melee - firstly, the most eye catching is the inclusion of a new sub routine in the combat phase …. Melee! It comes right after offensive fire.
What needs to be understood here is that Fire Phase is a two edged thing as the ‘other player’ gets to react first with defensive fire before you can offensively fire. So you have to survive that defensive fire and any associated morale checks before you make your own offensive fire, so there is a lot of attrition going on in this game.
Now, under V1.4 after conducting that fire, you can announce any melee that you want to make. This differs from fire because it is one unit on one unit (no ganging up), but in other regards it is using the same routine and combat chart as the Fire Phase used, including the defender getting a chance to use defensive melee, before the attack melee goes in. So again, an opportunity for attrition to both sides - only in this sub-phase, the defenders melee gets a 1 column shift to the right, which adds to the risks of the attacker.
The result is that you will not want to use this new additional phase to melee all over the place with abandon, you must measure risk of suffering further loss or rout against the potential advantage of your attack.
Some may wonder whether a game with units at the brigade level should have both fire and melee phases, I know the same questions are asked in relation to Hexasim’s Eagles of France (napoleonic) system, but I like it and in terms of narrative it does have a sense of taking important positions at point of bayonet so to speak, it is just a measure of increased determination of the attack at given chosen locations.
Panic - Now, under V1.4 when a unit retreats of routs, a panic marker is placed in the hex that the unit first vacated. Then, as the turn progresses, if a friendly unit located next to that panic marker has to take a morale check, the test is modified with a +1 (bad).
I like this idea. Close-by friends have recently run away, perhaps undermining your own will to hang around. This will bring some local nuance to the games, to the sound of both groans and cheers.
Line & Column movement - Before, units that stayed at least 4 hexes away from the enemy, could move along any road or open ground at half movement cost.
Now, units instead are either in column or in line. Those in column can use the roads at a reduced movement cost, but they cannot fire and suffer a penalty if fired upon. Those in line can fire, but cannot claim any benefit from road movement.
Gone altogether is the freedom that units had to move over open ground at beneficial movement rates, so the road net has been brought into sharper focus.
Units in column cannot move adjacent to an enemy, but can move within 2 hexes (i.e. 1 hex between them), so there will be more flexibility in delivering units to the front and in moving immediately behind the lines, say, along a lateral road.
Panic and the column formation both require new markers, which are included in the Gettysburg module. I am advised that there are additional markers included with Gettysburg that allow a gamer to add some to any of the earlier modules they might own.
As I don’t have Gettysburg yet, I will be relying upon coloured tiddlywinks for markers for now.
All three of these major rule changes feel like improvements to me. I can see their justification and think they will add additional subtly to the game without any significant or inconvenient rules overhead.
So, having just played Burnside Bridge under version 1.3b twice, in which each side won once, how will these three new rules in particular impact when retro fitted to the older module?
Situation - The Union need to attack across the river, via Burnside Bridge. On the far side of the bridge is high ground with a steep slope. This is a formidable obstacle, made more-so by it being garrisoned by Toombs, who has a high morale rating.
The Union can send forces off map to look for a ford further down stream. They will find one, cross it and appear a number of turns later, via the woods on the Confederate right flank.
How many turns that will take is randomised as units roll on a time table upon leaving the map.
Victory is basically determined by losses, plus which ever side controls the road junction to the rear of the Confederate position, gets a bonus 15 VP's.
Brief outline of play - this particular playing was unusual in that the Union made a successful early attempt to cross the bridge and take the steep slope beyond. Defended by Toombs, who has excellent morale, the mathematical chances of a first successful go at clearing the heights are very low - so the dice did all the work here!
The consequence of this was that the Confederates became fully engaged around the area of the bridge, trying to throw the Union back and did not have the capacity to also defend the area of woods to their right, where probing Union units, who had crossed the waterway further downstream, would shortly emerge from.
The combination of heavy casualties and an unfortunate high number of failed morale tests, leading to rout saw the Confederates reeling back towards the lateral road. As the Union followed up, they were able to concentrate the firepower of their big units and the Confederates just continued to take increasing numbers of casualties, finally forcing them to fully disengage.
So this was a spectacular victory for the Union, mainly due to the early taking of the defensive position at the bridge.
Version 1.4 - So how did our version 1.4 edition of the rules impact on play when retro fitted to the Burnside Bridge scenario.
Well, not as much as I might have thought really. It was that early gain by the Union that set the pace of the game, so the new rules are bringing local nuance rather than setting the direction of the game.
Firstly, the column / line formation - This wasn't used, for no other reason than the situation did not really call for any column movement. Close proximity to the fighting meant that everything was best left in line.
Also, the fixed set up has parts of each division on the road and off the road. By the time I had moved off road units onto a road and changed formation into column, there would have been no gain in this particular situation for those divisions trying to leave the map to search out that ford. This contrasts with version 1.3b, because they could have travelled over open terrain and / or roads at enhanced movement, allowing all of a division to immediately start making for the map exit without changing formation. But here the differences were so close that it hardly mattered anyway.
I'm quite pleased really because this is one area in which we could do with the games terrain chart on older modules updating to show the road rate costs. I know that Gettysburg has this on their charts, but until I get that, I would just apply a general rule of - ½ movement cost on a road in column and all other terrain except uphill negated for movement costs.
Next, the Panic counters - Again, this didn't have that much of an actual impact on my game. It is really only going to matter when a unit rolls exactly equal to their morale, that the +1 penalty will tip them over the edge into a fail and on a D10, this becomes a 10% chance.
However, psychologically it does always impact as the presence of a Panic Marker makes the tester of morale worry a little more about the possibility of failure every time the die is rolled, especially for troops with poorer morale, as they already have it tough.
I should really have counted how many times in this game it did actually matter and did change things, but I didn't.
Finally, Melee - Well, the question of whether to melee or not was ever present in each Melee Phase, but the fact of the matter was that I didn't use it very much. That's not to say others would play the same way, but it really can be a two edged sword. The defender gets to respond to each melee first, with a 1 favourable column shift and potential attack strengths are reduced because you can't gang up like you can in the Fire Phase, so it is risky, risky risky!
As a consequence, the addition of a new phase to the sequence of play does not seem to extend game time and it could be argued that when it is used, it raises the attrition rate anyway, which leads to units shattering earlier.
Above - Welsh (Union) has captured the slope, causing Toombs to rout (Toombs is off picture because the rout caused a domino effect of routing, when Garnet failed a test because of the Panic Marker) and so a Panic Marker (my yellow tiddlywink) is placed in the vacated hex. Next is the Union Melee Phase, but Welsh does not want to risk all he has gained, so he decides not to Melee.
Above - A critical moment, Drayton (Confederate) has recaptured the slope hex. Nagle and Christ (Union) are adjacent and their combined fire in their Fire Phase has failed to dislodge Drayton. It is now the Union Melee Phase, they decide this position is so important that they will melee. Only one unit can melee (one on one), So Nagle, the stronger brigade attacks. Drayton rolls for his defensive melee first and inflicts a casualty and morale check on Nagle.
Nagle fails the test and must rout back across the bridge. The first hex that he moves into is in Drayton's ZOC, so Nagle picks up another loss. A great example of the pros and cons to deciding whether to launch a melee attack.
Conclusion - I like V1.4, the entertainment value of the game is enhanced for very little rules overhead, we are still in just 8 pages of rules.
We could really do with a version of the Terrain Charts from the three older games that are compatible with V1.4 being made available for download.
If you don't plan on getting Gettysburg, then V1.4 will work fine with the older modules, you just need to make up some column / panic markers and note that units in column will move at 1/3 cost on Pike, ½ cost on a road, 1 MP on a trail and that all terrain except elevation change is negated. In any case, your existing V1.3b rules will still give a fine game - as my two games last week proved.
Resource Section.
My sister webspace ‘COMMANDERS’ showcases the various figure and boardgame systems that I am enjoying and gives a flavour of where current projects are up to. Link.




An interesting summation of the new rules Norm, and for what it is worth (having never played any boardgame of this type) I like the changes. I particularly like how the defenders go first in both firing and melee, and the tactical decisions this forces players to make...I am reminded of a line from the BBC "Soldiers" TV series of the eighties..."Bayonet fights were rare, as one side usually broke first". Our mate Mark always says, wargamers love to charge, whereas, in reality, extended exchanges of missile fire were far more common!
ReplyDeleteKeith, I thought it very strange that an attacker can initiate a ranged volley, the defender reacts to this volley by issuing its own volley but the attacker sustains damage and suffers a morale check before the attacker’s initial volley that triggered the reaction is adjudicated. I would enjoy seeing Design Notes on the logic behind that sequencing decision.
DeleteHi Keith, I know in my own rules, I use the word charge and have a charge type mechanism to describe what is essentially that last 150 yd contact where one side simply prevails over the other in a contest of wills, often without actual contact taking place. I then find myself having to explain that that is what my word ‘charge’ and term Close Combat’ means - I think we are hooked upon the sentiment of the ‘charge’ and use it as loose currency in the presentation of rules.
DeleteJohnathan, it is interesting to note in that my recent searches on BoardGameGeek forums, I found a 4 year post in which the designer reasons why he did not include a Melee Phase. Now we have one. It just shows the evolution of design and game engine are alive and well and that our minds can be changed …. Even changed back again, over the course of a design through continued exposure to the system being applied. To new battles and situations.
However, here, it is too simplistic to think ‘oh right, now we have melee’, because my own limited exposure to this suggests that it is highly nuanced compared to most games and not likely to be widely used.
As for firing first, my instinct is to believe that the design a) wants to favour the defender and b) the rule is potentially an artefact of the older rules when fire and assault was essentially being combined into the one act. Interestingly, the new melee rule is not have sufficient momentum of its own (i.e. risky to use) that it does not have enough presence to undo the original design notion that the Offensive Fire Phase was itself combining fire and assault.
Hi Norm, I wonder about the validity of the statement that the "evolution and game design are alive and well." Looks to me like the design is in post-op recovery having had a major sub-process implanted. Given this insertion, I tend to lean toward your "First firing" instinct option 'B' where this is an artifact of an earlier, pre-melee, version of the game system. Of course, I really ought to pick up a copy of one these games to confirm for myself.
DeleteHi Jonathan, I actually meant ‘evolution of design and game engine’ in a broader sense across the hobby, but didn’t articulate it properly, I was actually thinking of my own ACW and Napoleonic rules that continue to morph and to ebb and flow.
DeleteIt’s funny, I actually think each of the new rules are good, but still slightly ‘resent’ that one of my go to series games has been so heavily tweaked, illogical I know, but it leaves me wondering ‘is this it? Are we now stable or is there more to more come? In that regard it has to be remembered that the first three games work fine with V1.3b.
I always thought V1.4 was just going to be a tidy up that dealt with things like ambiguous LOS rules etc. I would stop short of saying that First Firing IS an artefact, simply because the new Melee does not appear, to me at least, to be a significant feature of the sequence of play, rather is is occasionally dipped into when needed, but on those occasions when it is used, it does cause the artefact eyebrow to be raised.
I have Gettysburg on pre-order, which I expect to be in my hands by the end of the month. I will obviously do a post around it, so I am sure this sort of thing will make an appearance in the discussion.
Norm, another compelling game overview and quick play through. How do you compare this system to the Blind Swords system that I know you’ve played? Did all of your Blind Swords games get the boot from your recent cull?
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan, I did sell of Blind Swords. i had something of a love hate relationship with it for two reasons. Firstly the first four modules each had there own rules, even though it was a series, there were enough differences that I was getting confused and frustrated between them and the rules were meaty enough to require an investment of time with each set.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I am first in the queue for chaos, but I felt that there was so much chaos in the system that it was sort of cancelling itself out. Things were happening on the battlefield that was a disconnect to myself and I felt some of the processes like the more nuanced and convoluted combat process was harder work for the solo player.
A couple of weeks ago we played A Most Fearful Sacrifice (Flying Pig) which is a spin off from Blind Swords (same designer), which is more streamlined, but I still felt the same. After the end of a long night of playing and not getting very far (plus my dislike of cards), we decided that we both like the simplicity of the Worthington game more, but then of course you are faced with the thing of that balance between sort of generic and wanting a game with a bit more flesh on it - however, for us, wanting playability in a relatively short evening, the choice was essentially made for us.
I know Worthington originally wanted 10 volumes in this series, but more lately have been talking about the potential of 20 to 25 games, I like that longevity, but hope that V1.4 now stays stable.
Thanks, Norm. Good answers that add much to decision process on picking games/series. I forget, did you ever try The Gamers CWB series?
DeleteA looong time ago. Both myself and Mike had a few games from the series and now we don’t, so there must have been a reason why we parted company with the series, I suspect as the length of our gaming session reduced, they were taking too long to play.
DeleteI did have Aspern, the start to the Napoleonic sister series, so there must have been elements that I liked.
Very nice looking game sir!
ReplyDeleteHi Michal, yes, easy on the eye as well as the mind🙂
ReplyDeleteSome good games you've been getting in of late Norm and a nice review of the changes between the versions. The Seven Days might pique my interest as a basis for a mini-campaign at some point in the future.
ReplyDeleteInteresting about the firing and melee, some of which reminds me of BBB, where the Defender fires first, often causing attacks to stall and go in with less effect as a result. As for bayonet charges, my knowledge of the ACW points to them being rather rare, as both sides seemed to fire away at each other rather than closing with cold steel.
Hi Steve, yes plenty of dice rolling at the moment :-) I am partial towards sub-systems that have what might be described as Defensive Fire, something to test attackers resolve and also to represent casualties taken on the way in.
ReplyDeleteYes, all our home brew rules have always had a defensive fire element - when I wrote some rules (mostly just an amalgamation of plagiarized bits I liked from other people's ideas!) I had the defenders do a morale test - if they passed, they fired at close range, if they failed, they fired at long range - and obviously, firing at close range had a potential to do a lot more damage to the attackers - who might then be forced to abandon the assault altogether!
DeleteI think I am drawn to defensive fire due to my early contact with Squad Leader in the late 70’s.
DeleteI like the idea of testing and if you fail, you can still do it, but at a reduced advantage. I do something similar in a set of rules which need a check before charging - if failed, the charge still goes in, but it is ‘half hearted’.
I think I've mentioned before that i actually have the first game in the series for Antietam, opened, rifled through, but never played. Just never became a priority. probably because if I have a chance to play ACW I leap at a miniature game rather than the board. I do find the OOB included in the game useful though.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that in the ACW they figured out pretty quickly that if one can fight a defensive battle, that was preferred. So any ruleset that wants to capture the ACW needs a mechanic to somehow favor the defender. As we see here, there, and any good rule set.
Hi Stew, good point on defensive benefits and the ‘feel; of ACW. When my Gettysburg comes through, I will do a post and you will go all weak at the knees :-)
ReplyDeleteI can feel it already. 😀
DeleteVery interesting review and also comments, I like the phrase " I'm usually first in line for chaos " and must try and use it somewhere but I do know what you mean and pretty much agree with you!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain caveadsum1471
Hi Iain, the gentle art of Black Powder chaos seems enough to suite us both.
ReplyDelete