Peter Dennis's ECW rules

 I've ordered several of Wofun's small "starter" collections. The English Civil War one, based on Peter Dennis's first Helion "Paperboys" book, is almost exactly the right size to play his two-page "Rules for Absolute Beginners." It's just missing two cavalry regiments, though I was given an extra sheet of New Army infantry; one of the nice things about Wofun is they sometimes toss in extra freebies.

The redcoats are of course the Parliamentarian New Model Army, while the yellow and blue regiments represent the Royalists.

Royalists left.

Royalists right.

 

Parliamentarian left.

Parliamentarian right.

In this introductory scenario, units start 60cm (24") apart. Moves are 16cm (6") for infantry and 32cm (12") for cavalry, while gun range is 72cm (27"), musketry 32cm (12") and close range for both 16cm (6"). Not having cm on my rulers, I'm using inches, and also reducing all distances by a third - partly because of the narrow width of my table, and partly because I went for the 18mm figures rather than the 28s.

Turn phases, in order, are Firing, Fighting and Fear Tests. Which side goes first is random each turn, and the Royalists fire first here. The only units in range are guns - both as shooters and as targets. Hits (both firing and CC) are usually 6 on a D6, often requiring a second roll of 4+ to "confirm." I score a hit on one New Army gun, who will have to take a Fear Test. Return fire misses.

During the first move, the Royalists head straight forward as fast as they can, while the New Army keeps in steady line and their left-hand cavalry charges the Cavaliers. I had to backstep because I'd forgotten to reduce the moves by a third (4" for infantry, 8" for cavalry). The Parliamentarian general took the wound off his gun - he has two abilities, the other being allowing the unit he's with to reroll all dice. The one combat (between two horse regiments on the right) is a draw.

During Turn 2, firing is inconclusive; the infantry shuffle to within 6" of each other (recall that movement and short-range fire are only 4"). The larger cavalry action on the Royalist left, however, has some serious fighting. 

One Royalist regiment is driven back, while the other draws but both units there fail their Fear Tests and are disordered. For a Fear test, a D6 is rolled, minus however many hits the unit has taken that turn. On a one or two, the unit is disordered and only receives 1 die in future combats (rather than one per base); on a zero or less, it breaks.

In Turn 3, firing starts to cause a few casualties, but it is in CC where we see how ongoing combats get worse for the losing side. The more hits you take, the more shots your opponent gets at you next turn and the more likely you are to disorder or break. I might have to risk the generals here to either turn things around, or ensure victory.

In this example, the Roundheads will get six dice in CC
and the Cavaliers only one.

In the Fear phase, a Roundhead infantry regiment finally broke, rolling a 1 after taking a single casualty. The Roundhead horse, however, rolling at -5, got a six and stayed in the game! 

In the next turn, both sides lost combats, and the Roundhead cavalry finally broke - not by failing a check but by taking six casualties which would force a failed check.

Scrums, scrums in the deep.

A Cavalier infantry regiment was eliminated, despite its commander's reroll. There is no rule for what happens to the general in this case, so I rolled as when the unit takes casualties. He survived, and will have to move next turn.

A Roundhead gun was eliminated by fire; the other has no line of sight due to combats. The Roundhead right is free to move and starts sweeping around to flank the Cavaliers.

Surrounded Roundheads are slowly beaten down,
as a Royalist unit led by its general defeats
another Roundhead regiment. But the
Roundheads are in position to take a gun.

After a couple more combats, both sides are down to four of their initial seven regiments. All shooting and fighting is inconclusive, except for the two flank horse regiments who have been going at it all game. They tie, but cause casualties, and both fail their Fear Tests (you only avoid taking one if you win). Mutual kill, and tie game.

Though a) the Roundheads were flanking the Cavaliers, and b) as I was putting the figures away I realized I had mistaken a Cavalier regiment for a Roundhead one:

Royalists left, Parliamentarians right.

Oops. I guess a unit turned traitor at some point during the game.

A good and fun set of basic rules, and attractively presented by Peter too! 

His illustrations (distinctly different from his usual realistic work on historical books) remind me very much of one of my favorite illustrators, Peter Spier. I would use this at work, if I could think of an excuse to run English Civil War in an American educational context. "This is what the colonists were fleeing," perhaps?

I've noticed that this, Test of Resolve and Field of Honor all have similarities to Donald Featherstone's later rules, in which casualties aren't removed from the board but each regiment effectively has a given number of hit points. Losses can effect the unit's abilities, but bases or figures are not removed from the table until the unit entire is destroyed. Black Powder has similar mechanisms too. This is a useful design since units can be presented on multi-bases and the game as a whole looks better, instead of having a unit ground down to a handful of men who, in reality, would not hang around to fight.

I enjoy shorter, simpler rules like this, and have become used to multibases now. They make it easier to line up units and thus create the "spectacle" of a tabletop battlefield that attracts players. I've been reading more of Paddy Griffith, who eventually "went off" miniatures on the grounds that they detract from the historical lessons that gaming can provide. I disagree, because I think there are still lessons to be learned from even a simple and "fun" game like this. Players can recognize the two sides, the basic unit types, and their abilities. From my perspective playing with beginners, that's as educational as it gets - games can teach facts perhaps better than they can teach skills. (Full disclosure: I got that from this essay by game designer Dr. Richard Bartle, and I'll probably return to it at some point.) Games don't have to be accurate and complex to be fun and teachable. I'll happily play this one again.