Saturday, 4 July 2026

Battle of Ferrybridge, parts I, II and II




For Wars of the Roses actions, I am presently getting to know the Test of Resolve rule set. The previous post gives a detailed look at these rules (link below).


As a result Andy Johnson’s book (historical novel) Bloody Meadow, concerning the Battle of Towton 1461 has jumped the reading queue. The opening pages of the book gives a vivid account of the contact between the Yorkist and Lancastrian armies the day before Towton.


While Towton is a very big battle, the actions the previous day were a series of ongoing small scale clashes concerning Ferrybridge, that are very kind to the size of the smaller collection.


The first scenario book from the Test of Resolve camp, presents the Ferrybridge battle as three separate but closely related actions and in their order of occurrence, lists them as Parts I - III as follows;


Part I - Warwick attacks. Edward IV (Yorkist) has sent Warwick ahead to seize the bridge crossing at the River Aire. It has been partly destroyed and Neville (Lancastrian) defends the far side.


If Warwick’s attack succeeds (Lancastrians disperse), then he recovers half of his lost Battle Morale and all of the surviving company losses - Part II will be played. If he loses, then that is the end of that, the Yorkist attempt to gain the positional advantage has failed  and the Ferrybridge action ends.


Part II - Warwick defends the bridge. Warwick holds the ground taken in Part I, with the surviving troops from that game. Clifford (Lancastrian) enters the table to counter-attack. Warwick’s forces are encamped and need to become ‘alerted’ to action. There is an event card in the play deck that allows that. If Warwick is chased back over to the other side of the bridge, then the Lancastrians win and Part III will be played, otherwise we have a Yorkist victory now and the Ferrybridge action ends.


Part III - Fauconberg's counter-attack. Clifford begins with the forces that survived Part II. The Yorkists attack with a fresh force under Fauconberg. These are mounted troops and are trying to cut Clifford off from retiring and re-uniting with the main Lancastrian army. Part III ends in victory for the winning side (the enemy force is dispersed), unless Clifford gets off the table to join the main army, in which case the Ferrybridge action is considered a draw.


It is fascinating turning to these scenarios having just read the account and they do seem to cover the incident very nicely. 


Of course I will hope that all three actions actually happen (that will need the Yorkists to win Part I and the Lancastrians to win Part II) so that I get to experience the full ongoing action as described in the book. Clifford is certain that he has put enough distance between himself and his pursuers and is confident that he will reach friendly lines shortly, perhaps in the next hour.


However, rather than re-assault across the bridge, the Yorkists found a ford three miles upstream and their mounted force crossed it and actually got ahead of Clifford, setting an ambush - Clifford walked into it … there was a massacre and Clifford was killed. It is this moment that Part III is simulating.


The Ferrybridge action brought the Yorkist army to within proximity of the main Lancastrian army and the following day, Palm Sunday, the Battle of Towton would be fought. 


Anyway, we shall put Part I down on the table and see where that gets us!





The Ferrybridge games are played on a 4x4 and this is our terrain that will stay the same over all 3 games. Only the bridge, the river and the road feature in the scenario graphic, the rest I have added to pretty the table and it will be ignored for play purposes. The river can only be crossed by bridge.





Above - Neville  (Lancastrians) is defending behind the bridge with just one retinue (superior) and two longbow companies. The force has 5 Morale points.


Warwick (Yorkists) is on the attack. His force (Battle) has 4 x Retinue (1 is superior) and 1 longbow company. 2 of the retinue are on the table and another 2 are immediately behind, ready to enter the table. The force has 11 Morale Points.


The bridge is classed as damaged, so units moving over the bridge not only have to halt on entering the bridge, but also at the halfway point.


As I look at this, to my mind Warwick’s force is going to easily steamroller over the bridge and Neville will be lucky to get away!


Narrative;

Almost straight away, the Lancastrians have to make a Missile Supply check. Both units fail, so they have run out of arrows and must move directly to safety behind the bill armed retinue! Ouch! We might assume here that maybe they loosed their arrows too early in ineffective shooting - who knows!





Above - Warwick’s four retinues line up along the road, the superior unit in the lead and move up to the bridge. Their archers shoot from the river bank to support the assault. The Lancastrian billmen move slightly forward to fully block the bridge exit.


Oh My! I didn’t expect that. In its assault, Warwick’s lead company takes terrible losses and routs!


The second Yorkist bill company is pushed forwards …. And they rout too!


The Yorkist archers plug away, but their shooting is not effective.





The third Yorkist bill company, will some trepidation, opens a new assault, but they are soundly beaten on the bridge and also rout. Warwick’s Battle Morale has gone below zero. They test resolve and fail, his battle is dispersed and a very surprised Neville holds the field as victor! 


Conclusion, well, that is the end of that, a decisive Lancastrian victory and so Parts II & III will not get played (not this time at least :-) ).


Even though a small action, that gave a very enjoyable game. These small games are a great way to help get the rules under your belt.


So what went wrong (for the Yorkists)? With the Lancastrian archers going out of arrows it all looked a bit grim for them but …… on the first assault (opposed melee die rolls), the Lancastrians rolled 12 and the Yorkists rolled 1 - it doesn’t get better / worse than that.


In the subsequent attacks, we had the surviving superior Lancastrian retinue being assaulted by ordinary rank and file and overall, it was the Yorkists that took a few hits and that feeds into subsequent melee rounds.


The Yorkist archers stayed around for the entire battle, but couldn’t hit the preverbal barn door. They needed to roll 9+ on a D12 and never did!


I’m sure if I re-ran this, the Yorkists would come off better more times than not, but it is great that this system turned my original prediction on its head. Regardless of what the dice and out of missiles stuff was doing with the bow, I am happy to view that as simply on the day, the bowmen did not get a chance to make much of a contribution to the outcome of the battle.


The Yorkist suffered two very bad die roll differences in the melees, but the rest were mostly closer calls, though tending to just favour the defenders, it the end the drip - drip - drip of Yorkist casualties kept on seeing their melee retinues tipping over into rout.


The interesting thing is, I am in the middle of reading Bloody Meadow by Andy Johnson, a  historical fictional account that covers both Ferrybridge and the Towton battles and his use of very descriptive language, together with giving some of the common soldiers and their leaders voices, makes the hack & slash, exhaustion, archers running to the rear as the billmen approached, leaders galvanising their troops for just one more attack and fighting being done at the company level, very vivid and I noted that in this game, I was reading the fighting in that same context. The system does help convey that narrative.


Anyway, another exposure to Test of Resolve and I am increasingly enjoying it. It is nice to see the Wars of the Roses boys back out on the table again.


I will be discussing the re-basing of my archers over the next few days on my Commanders site (link below).


Resource Section.


Link to the previous post that describes the Test of Resolve system;


https://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2026/06/first-contact-test-of-resolve-rules.html


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.


https://commanders.simdif.com/dear_diary.html

32 comments:

  1. A good run out of the rule set Norm, very playable with the size of table and units on show, looked good, shame it never set up the other two scenarios but that's wargaming and as you say always a chance to replay it and see if a different outcome transpires.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Donnie, it gave me an enjoyable Saturday afternoon run out. I really would have liked to move through all three scenarios, but I will come back to it soon (today :-) ) and have another go. I think a reversal of fortune is the likely outcome, but it is great that the system delivered that uncertainty.

      Delete
  2. First of Norm, this post hasn't yet appeared on my reading list, so I only knew about it via your Commander's site:(.

    But aside from that, a lovely little action and as mentioned, the sort of size that makes it easy to get to grips with the rules. Nice to have the action as 3 linked ones, with each outcome affecting the next etc.

    I think in rules such as HC, this sort of opposed crossing would be very attritional and, dare I say it, rather boring. But this was not the case here, with the action developing a life of its own, which is great to see.

    I glanced through the book last night and so far have been very happy with what I've seen:). Now I just need to find some time to give the rules a run out...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Steve, the Blogger thing remains disappointing and as you experienced with one of your posts, I am not convinced that even when the post gets pulled through ... that it does for everyone.

    As you say ...... besides that :-) Once the demo game is played from the rule book, this makes a great second game. It really helps embed the rules without too much distraction that a bigger game might cause.

    This game did make me think about how other rulebooks would feel in this situation and the main thing that stuck out for me was how the control of the archers and their certainty of impact was removed from the player, turning this action on its head as it happened.

    H.C. 2nd edition trends towards bill AND bow units, so the single unit has both elements and I feel this is a little generic, ToR gives a bit more colour in that regard, yet still has the bow bound to the melee core, by way of retreating to behind the bill and then supporting the bill from the rear. It gives a good storyboard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still no show on the Reading List front as of Midday today, 5th July:(.

      The archers bit is what struck me most, as I know from my perspective, I would wait until they had done their stuff, hopefully forcing the enemy away from the bridge, to allow the foot to advance etc. Predictable? Maybe, but I know some gamers like that, but I actually enjoy the friction that these rules seem to bring to the table (famous last words).

      Delete
    2. Just a heads up that this post has finally appeared in my Reading List, saying it was posted 20 hours ago. As is often the case at present, it appeared between already 'published' posts as it were.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Steve, as you say, it gets 'published' between posts that already exist and I suspect will often get missed because of that as most of us are unlikely look back that far over already read posts!

      Re the archers, in this instance the defenders have 2:1 advantage in archers, so it would be interesting to see how that would play out in a 'typical' set. Of relavence here is that if the Yorkists won, they would go into the next scenario with only the surviving units, so plenty of interest there.

      Delete
  4. I am reading these reports with great interest. I have the rules and scenario books and am trying very hard to be enthusiastic about them. I agree that they are very good for solo play and give an interesting narrative. But, having played 4 or 5 games I wonder if there is not enough decision making for the player apart from how far to move or move sideways. Perhaps this is due to the way I play or perhaps doesn't matter. I look forward to future reports.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jim, thanks for stopping by. You are ahead of me in games played so will have a better feel of the rules than I do. In this game, I felt 'as Warwick' that I wanted / needed to push all of the melee troops over the bridge, with the archers supporting that from the near bank and as a plan, I was able to execute that, so I felt initial decisions at least stayed with the player, though granted this is a very small and limited situation compared to the big battle.

      If we throw in a 'what if' and say that another force suddenly appears on the Yorkist flank, as the Yorkist player could we respond as we might like. My own feeling is that yes we could, but depended on the order of the cards, what would be taken out of your hands would be which side responded fastest to the moment and I could see that going either way and I quite like that.

      Once I get to 5 games, including some bigger battles, I will let you know :-)

      Delete
  5. Well! That was a quick turn of events and an abrupt end to your planned three game series.
    Like Steve, I came across this post from Commanders. Has yet to hit my blogroll. I have the same situation with my Game #2 Domyoji BatRep. Published at 0600 04 July, it still had not shown up 24 hours later. I tried republishing this morning to see if that will trigger the process. As you, say very disappointing. If no one can see posts and I am only humoring myself, I am on the verge of taking the blog private.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jon, yes, compared to the service that we have enjoyed for years, it is disappointing to say the least.

      I know you have previously mentioned taking the blog private. What does that entail and would it in any case deal with the delayed publication of posts .... or is it the case that a 'captive' audience would be less likely to miss a post?

      Delete
    2. Norm, since I have not actually "attempted" to go private, who knows how it will work exactly! My limited understanding is that readers whose emails are included within the framework can access the blog using their Google ID. From that listing, I would send out a brief post notification email to all stating that a new post has been published. Now, I am not sure how many would actually sign up for such a method or even trouble themselves with visiting the blog at all! With these delays, I seem to be writing these posts for myself and AI LLM building/querying. In an earlier response to Steve, he said that he would not be interested and he is a loyal and vocal follower.

      Delete
    3. Hi Jon, I am hopeful that this is a glitch that will get the attention of the software teams .... though they don't seem in any particular hurry!

      It doesn't feel broken enough just yet for me to be looking for alternatives, but it is on notice!. I am pretty sure that at the moment I am totally falling off some radars and that does dampen down enthusiasm to invest so much time at the front end!

      Delete
  6. Great work Norm and some great ideas for splitting the first days battle, kind of a shame about parts II and III though

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Matt, I'm sure that I will get to parts II / III after a couple more goes. Yes, I am heavily taken by the action being broken down into 3 acts and the losses of one passing into the body of the next.

      I think the principle could also be used in many games to show a pursuit. Too often, perhaps our games end even before the battle properly concludes and we end up discussing how we think it would go and who the winner might be, or we stop at the point of winning and either way, I doubt we ever get to game the pursuit for its own ends. doing that every now and then might some some very interactive and fun games.

      Delete
  7. Pity about parts 2 and 3 but a fun entertaining game, Im looking at doing first st Albans as a spearpoint game in the autumn, just because the club is planning on doing a spearpoint campaign so I thought a run out with existing figures would be worthwhile, Im not a big fan of HCs combined bill and archer units for much the same reason as you and I also think it makes them feel less medieval?
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Iain, staying with the spirit of the scenario and just playing part I makes me even more keen to come back and have another go. I have the 1st Albans scenario for this system, plus the one in the HC Wars of the Roses supplement, plus the boardgames version in Blood & Roses (GMT) and it looks very different from the typical confrontation, which is fun and also it is a fairly small affair, so perhaps a bit easier to reach the table. So if you need any OoB information or a note on things covered by special rules, please drop me a line via the 'contact' page on the Commanders site.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That was interesting and I'm always keen on a battle on a small table. Whenever I think of Ferrybridge I think ofthe huge power station there!

    As an aside, this post turned up this morning, but in a semi sensible place in the feed list. Some post from other people turned up further back, before ones I'd already seen.it is all very annoying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Martin, there seems neither rhyme nor reason why posts are getting delayed (and lost), knowing might help mitigate it. we can only hope it gets fixed soon.

      Yes, the small battlefield is a welcome place and those games pretty much always punch above their weight in terms of enjoyment.

      Delete
  10. Well, I wasn't expecting that either - Norm du Maurier!

    Very readable post as always Norm. Thanks for sharing. I really do need to get some WotR figures....

    Cheers,
    Aaron

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Aaron ...... yes you do :-) Does the Lost battles system stretch as far forwards as late medieval?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Norm, no, Lost Battles doesn't stretch quite that far, though I expect an enterprising person could always create a mod!

      Delete
  12. These smaller engagements are quite often very enjoyable to play. Even when they take unexpected turns and you try and understand why. With bigger battles other things will often distract you from reviewing interesting situations. I am looking forward to seeing how your games with these rules progress.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Peter, I am going to get back to this, while my Ferrybridge / Towton reading is fresh in my mind. I really like the way that Ferrybridge is broken down into 3 sub games.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thoroughly enjoyed your report and analysis. Sounds like the opposed dice allow for some startling results. Sounds very exciting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Richard, the opposed die rolls certainly remove all certainty, whether solo or face to face and I think that does add in to exciting play.

      Delete
  15. Blogger making me comment late Norm. Honest it is 😁
    Great game and very interesting set of scenarios. In a way it is good that it didn't turn out as expected as that will give the remaining scenarios a bit more uncertainty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ben, exactly so. I was really keen to see all three games play out back to back and I suppose I could forced that result, but throwing yourself at the mercy of the scenario brings its own level of satisfaction .... and who knows, maybe next time!

      Delete
  16. An unexpected result Norm - and probably all the better for it (although now we miss out of the two subsequent scenarios.....)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Keith, I actually wrote the opening of the blog piece before starting to play, so in a way, as written, the opening anticipates a three game challenge and so I suppose when the game stopped dead after the first game, it might have surprised the reader in the same way that it surprised me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Having played a lot of ToR including almost every one of the scenarios while were playtesting it (remotely and trans Atlantic). ALL of the scenarios are winnable buy either side. My guess is that it took about an hour to play out this small scenario, so you could easily have reset the troops and had another go at it. The games virtually always end in 2 hours or less, which is another plus. Being the WotR, almost every scenario has some kind of twist to it! In truth, Battlefield decision making was pretty limited in this era! Finally, even the largest of scenarios don't need a huge collection.

    I'm doing Wakefield with ToR twice at Historicon next week.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Peter, thanks for dropping by. I have Ferrybridge back on the table :-) and have got past the first phase and into the second sub-scenario. The more that I am digging into this, the more nuance I am picking up.

    Enjoy Historicon, I look forward to some Wakefield shots on your blog.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for visiting.