More new books

 Just got in three new books from Dennis Shorthouse at On Military Matters, plus a couple PDFs.

The Men Who Would Be Kings - One of Osprey's "blue" series which feature their illustrations and some innovative rules. This is actually a replacement copy - I lost my first and recently found it in my car - under an soaked umbrella I'd stuffed in there months ago, thus wrecked. I hadn't actually played it much, because the turn mechanism - passing a morale check to do anything at all - was frustrating in my test games. (There are default actions to fall back on, but if your default is "shoot" and you are out of range, well...) My regular group was also not enamored of the possibility of their units doing nothing for turns on end - but more importantly are wedded to The Sword and the Flame.

(The abbreviation - TMWWBK - also doesn't roll from the tongue as easily as TSATF!)

But I asked recently about alternative mechanisms on Facebook's Colonial Wargames group, and got some useful suggestions. One is to allow moves regardless on a failed roll, just at lesser effect - say, the unit halves its move, only half get to shoot, etc. I like this, especially as I am likely to play with easily disappointed kids.

I also like its solo mechanism, "Mr. Babbage's Instructions." Mr. Babbage (named after one of the inventors of the computer - I might rename this "Miss Lovelace's Instructions" in my own games) is not present at the club, but has left very clear instructions for his opponent. They're very straightforward, though are focused on fighting between a so-called civilized force on one side and a massive ill-equipped horde on the other, and can provide a fun game to my knowledge.

Test of Resolve - A newish game specifically on the War of the Roses, not too deep into it yet. I know almost nothing about those save what little I gleaned from reading Shakespeare and watching Blackadder. Oh, and from Peter Dennis' WotR Paperboys book which, if I ever do play this, will provide the miniatures. (My adult group has expressed enthusiasm for my Paperboys and willingness to play with them, and WotR would be atypical for our group and thus hopefully intriguing.) It's a card driven game, and would benefit from a bespoke set rather than xeroxed - or maybe I can use card sleeves. Reminds me of another thing - Dennis' WoTR and 1066 rules are both gridded, which may be easier to get by bosses at work (looks more gamelike); but the cards even without the mechanism may be useful in a Free Kriegspiel-style game. (Two interesting inclusions are a Flabbergasted card to "supercharge" the next card drawn, and a Flummoxed card that allows the inactive player to take the rest of the active player's move.) If I do ever try to run a full-fledged game, I'll probably buy the cards and one of the available scenario books to choose from - I haven't read far enough yet to see how "pickup" games work.

Glory 1861 - A wargame with significant solo and roleplaying potential. I bought it on the strength of an "author's notes" article in Wargames Illustrated. I've already spotted one repeated paragraph, but the concept seems sound. You build an ACW regiment, rolling it up in the same way as a bespoke character in Dungeons and Dragons. The field officers receive traits, as do all companies and their captains, and all of these have game effects. Might be tricky to keep track of on the battlefield! I spotted an interesting combo of dice-holder and identification slot in a demo game of Test of Resolve and am looking for them on Thingiverse - I have access to a 3D printer at work. With cats at home and kids at work, I am not enthusiastic about tracking hit points on units with easily jounced or stolen dice.

This would be so useful.

So far, I've only found the die-box, with no little Scrabble tray attached.

The illustrations are nice, except for the cover which has an "uncanny valley" effect to me. The figures used for illustration seem almost toylike, but the best thing is a handful of color illustrations by the late Bob Marriott. I was introduced to his characterful style by some of Charles S. Grant's books.

One thing that seems askance is that it is assumed regiments will fight two engagements per month. (Engagements, as in DnD, are how you gain experience.) Seems unlikely - for example, the average three-month regiment fought, at most, one engagement, then went home. There are mechanisms for reenlisting, though the reinforcement mechanic is another problem; very few regiments reinforced much at all during the ACW, their states preferring just to raise more (and thus provide more patronage to potential officers). That meant they got steadily smaller over the course of the war. But the creation phase looks quite engaging. I recently read two histories of the US Regular Infantry in the Civil War, and am considering an eight-company "new battalion." This might be considered a bit "gamey," since the regiment starts with fifty building points and spends four on each company; this would leave me with nearly twice as many points as normal to give skills and abilities to my officers and units. On the other hand, that's appropriate for Regulars, who even in the newly raised units would have a core of peacetime vets. I could in that case use the reinforcement mechanisms, as they did take new enlistments to cover casualties. But I'll have to weaken them, since from what I've read a lot of officers spent more time recruiting than they did in camp, to very little effect because volunteer regiments provided bounties!

I'll have to experiment (of course), but I wonder if this "regimental character-building" would work for the Napoleonic era as well. It also reminds me of a game by Jim Wallman I've been itching to try ever since I discovered it, Over the Hills and Far Away, which is set in the 1740s and has even more roleplaying to it. Players are colonels spending money and influence to run their own regiments, but while there are occasional "expeditions," the social life of an British officer is the focus, complete with balls, races and weddings to attend, and the temptation of pocketing the pay of more troops than you've actually enlisted. There is much jockeying for position, with a bidding mechanism that determines whether your political influence goes up or down compared to your fellows. The combat mechanism is very simple, with no more than four bases needed per regiment - but how much of your limited time and money you spent on discipline, drill and shooting practice will definitely come into play. I would love to run this for my adult group, but am not sure they would sit still for a glorified RPG session - even if it is historical.

Secrets of Wargame Design - The last two books are by Wally Simon, compilations of a wide variety of articles on rules-writing. There are around ten volumes. I ordered the first because I like tinkering with rules myself and thought I could get some ideas; I ordered the ninth because it focuses on the English Civil War and has a basic ruleset in it. Also, it was available in PDF so I could get it faster while waiting for my physical order to arrive. I'll have to see if there are more!

It was worth it; I'm glad I made the purchases. At $20 USD, $16 for the PDF, they're a touch pricey for forty pages apiece, but are A4 size and with large type. Each seems to have around thirteen assorted articles drawn mostly from an old publication called the Potomac Wargamer's Review. I was first introduced to Wally by favorable mentions of his rules mechanisms in the Paperboys books, which use an interesting "three-card" method of initiative akin to that of TSATF, and by a couple articles found in the Wargamers Digests I mentioned in my first post on this blog. His writing style is infectious, very enjoyable if a little caustic. That's probably to be expected in someone who seemingly spent his life critiquing and tinkering with rules! They are also scattered with sketchy illustrations apparently done by himself; I was reading one article at the computer the other day when the table and terrain used to illustrate a scenario caught the eye of a coworker who asked if I was going to build that. (I do a lot of crafting at work, and a lot of my projects for kids are inspired or guided by wargames books, especially Games Workshop terrain from the days when they built it from scratch.)

The first volume has articles on card movement systems and sequences of play. I can already say these will be useful, because I am planning an almost RPG-like ACW skirmish based on Picacho Pass, fought near my hometown of Tucson in 1862 between just a dozen men on each side - basically a large gunfight rather than a real battle. While there are plenty of Wild West rules that would serve, I've been struggling to work out how initiative should be handled, in part because I can't guarantee how many players I'll have when I run it for my group. It could have anywhere from four to a dozen players, meaning anywhere from two to six figures for players to handle. Wally is very much against making players wait in the UGOIGO system, and seems to like allowing them to "break" the sequence in consequence. I wonder if this is why Games Workshop is so enamored of armor saves, as they give the inactive player something to do? Another related element he clearly hates is "gotcha" rules, which bypass saves or otherwise "pin" and frustrate the inactive player, allowing him no chance to make a difference to the game. I can definitely remember that happening in my 40K games!

He has some card-driven systems, and one thing that comes up (in Test of Resolve, too) is the decisions about how many and what type of cards players should be allocated.

- In TSATF, it's one card per unit; turn over a red and the "civilized" player moves or fires a unit, on a black the native player moves or fires. It uses a standard 52-card deck.

- In Test of Resolve, the cards are specific to the game, with one that lets you move all three of your "battles" (the three main portions of your army), three that let you select just one battle to move, three that let your firing units fire or reform, etc. Each side has its own deck, they mix together, and initiative turns over when an opposing card appears.

- Wally tested a number of others, such as (in a Wild West skirmish) assigning each gunfighter a mix of shoot-n-move or blank cards, with more or less of each depending on their ability. You could go more granular than this, with very specific cards for movement, shooting and melee by specific characters, but then the players would get bored waiting for their card to turn up!

The main things I need to think about in my Picacho Pass scenario are initiative (who moves, fires and fights when) and not making players wait for their move. Luckily, there are numerous possible mechanisms suggested in these articles, and the volumes will reward careful rereading. I hope to run the game for my group around its 160th anniversary early next year, and expect to post more as I prepare it. In particular, I hope to playtest it at work, so mechanisms that don't bore or disappoint kids are a must!

Free Kriegspiel: Gaming from the seat of your pants

After my second try at a wargame with the classic "buckets-o-dice" adjudication, I'm looking for simpler ways to play - especially ones that can be easily understood by children. One such method is known as Free Kriegspiel.

I've been asked in the comments what the hell that is. It's basically loose dungeon mastering - yes, in the same style as Dungeons and Dragons. But the way the Prussians did it.

We don't usually think of the Prussians as willing to accede to the whim of a game master, but they're the ones who invented it. Standard Kriegspiel, as published first in 1824 by the von Reisswitzes (father and son), basically had pages and pages of comprehensive rules. This is Teutonic, of course, and all very realistic, but if you're not careful as you try to improve the game, you'll eventually end up with something unplayable.

We all tinker with our favorite rulesets - that's the fun of the hobby. I think all gamers have experienced the urge - and the danger - of adding complexity to their favorite rules. Classically, it came to a head with the hex-and-counter game Battle for North Africa and the Star Trek wargame Star Fleet Battles.

One takes a month for ten players to complete if they spend all their waking hours playing (God forbid a cat jumps on the table), and has an infamous rule that requires the Italians to expend more water on cooking their pasta rations.

The other has textbook-thick rules and a meme order: "Legal Officer to the Bridge!"

Kriegspiel was never quite that bad, but the rules were complex enough to get to the point where simulating a battle took longer than the actual battle. Also, games bogged down when they got to close quarters; we've all experienced a situation where three units on each side are in combat, all overlapping each other, one elite, one militia, one cavalry, all armed with different weapons, and the center of the battlefield turns into an absolute snarl. There's a reason the close-combat rules often take up more pages than the rest (and in role-playing and skirmish games, attacks of opportunity and grappling!) - there are more "edge-cases" to consider.

This was okay so long as Kriegspiel was treated as an instructional tool; by the time troops got to close quarters it was usually obvious who had won anyway, as one side would be flanked, outnumbered or otherwise clearly at a disadvantage.

So the rules worked all right, but there were dangerous signs. One was that players ended up focusing on the rules and minutiae rather than the game. Today we call this rules-lawyering, but it's also a sign that the game has lost its true purpose - education for professionals, fun for the rest of us. Professional wargames are not about winning - they are about identifying organizational issues and improving group communication. Anything that detracts from that makes the game less useful as a tool.

By the 1860s, the Prussian staff was fed up. A chap named Francois von Verdy simplified the rules. His conclusion was revolutionary: Why bother looking up tables and counting modifiers when the umpire (roleplayers would call him a game master) is experienced- and educated enough to answer the question himself? 

He does have to be educated and interested; you don't want him pronouncing results on something outside his expertise, or becoming bored. This is why the GM needs to know the rules, or at least the norms and basic organizations of the period in question. The point is that the players don't.

He can just lean over the table, suck his teeth for five seconds, and announce, "Well, the fresh Second Jager are flanking the First Uhlans, and the Uhlans have charged twice already this game so their horses are probably tired. They withdraw for ... let's say two moves."

The Uhlan player, at this point, is indignant - he's certain that Uhlans could charge three times in an hour and still be fairly effective. But it's actually not that big a deal, because a) this is only one battalion out of twenty on the field and b) this is something that would likely (not absolutely, but likely) happen in a real action. We don't need to check three tables and roll percentage dice to determine that the Jagers killed exactly thirteen Uhlans and are precisely 155 yards away; we just need to know that the Uhlans withdrew.

Here's another example, from a Warhammer 40,000 RPG:

This is just one half-page out of eight pages of critical hit tables, covering four body areas and four types of damage.

Do we really need that much?

Here's how I simplify the Dark Heresy crit tables:

Roll a D10.

1-3: Minor; bleeding, bruising, stunned etc. Take penalties to appropriate rolls at GM's option.

4-6: Serious: severe bleeding, loss of extremities, etc. Take penalties or lose a turn at GM's option.

7-8: Critical: bleeding out, loss of limbs, etc. At GM's option, roll against toughness to retain consciousness or just not die.

9: Die.

10: Die messily.

For everything else, I can make up my own effects according to the situation. I know how to describe a leg getting blown off by a bolter shell; I don't need to read it from the book. (Though granted, it is hilarious.)

I'm not tied to this, either; I can "read the room" and change things up according to the mood of the players. Maybe I feel that the poor player who just rolled an eight should be able to have a second wind, grit his teeth, and keep fighting. Or that the guy who rolled a minor injury actually got briefly knocked out because the enemy are throwing bricks at him. (This can also be catered for with appropriate bonuses or penalties to the roll.) While GMs should be consistent, they should also be ready to pick the most exciting option to keep the game going and interesting.

With this method, I can get through the same amount of gaming in an hour that most GMs get through in five.

But I haven't tried it in large-scale wargaming yet.

For some good examples of Free Kriegspiel RPGs, that could work in a pinch as the basis of one-to-one skirmish wargames, please check out this previous post. A future post will discuss my thoughts on running such games at a larger scale.

A basic, beginner's naval wargame

I wrote this ruleset a few years ago, but haven't playtested it much. It's designed for children and beginners, loosely inspired by some of the all-too-vague ones in Featherstone's Naval Wargames, and the "eraser" ships available from some "discount stores" which Man of Tin also uses. This is only lightly historical, and the categories could easily be changed up (say, torpedo boat, destroyer and cruiser for pre-WWI, or destroyer, light cruiser and cruiser for WWII games in the Mediterranean or Solomons).

I'm undecided what to do with the oversized and modern submarines - they might work as late 19th-century rams.

A fuzzy wartime photo - the Blue squadron crosses the T of the Red. A Red destroyer makes a sacrificial torpedo run. To the northeast, the fallen Colossus of Pathes is visible.

Players take turns activating a single ship at a time. 

Each ship has a full speed of 8" (12" for destroyers) and has one shot from each working turret – four for battleships, two for cruisers, one for destroyers. It need not take its full move each turn, but must move at least two inches if possible. 

A turn of 45 degrees may be made halfway or more through the move (ie, after 2" if moving 4", etc). Shots may be taken at any time during the move. 

Gun range is 36" and 6 to hit at long range, 24" and 5+ mid range, 12" and 4+ short range.  

Turret arcs:        Forward turrets may fire forward, port or starboard. 

Aft turrets may fire aft, port or starboard. 

Destroyers also carry torpedoes, which have a range of 18", one shot per turn, firing arc to port or starboard, and hit on a 4+. They always hit below the waterline, in addition to rolling for damage.

If hits are scored, dice for each. Roll twice for destroyers if hit by heavier ships. 

1 – below the waterline.  Battleships may take three hits, cruisers two, destroyers one – then they sink. 

2-3 – engine room. Speed reduced by 2”. 

4-5 - turret or torpedo-tube destroyed, choose which randomly and note on sheet. 

6 - Bridge hit. Ship out of control for next turn, continues at previous speed and may not turn or shoot.  If hit again, out of control for an extra turn. 

Ramming inflicts one point of waterline damage to each ship; ramming ship halts and may not move until rammed ship has moved past. 

If a ship moves at half speed or less into shallow water or the shore, it is aground and may not move, though it may continue to fire.  If it was moving faster when it struck, it sinks. 

At end of move, roll a die for each damaged ship.  On a 6, one damage result may be repaired (or, in the case of speed, 2" of movement may be returned). 

The Second Battle of Sawmill Village

 Having exhausted my dice in close combat, I'm repeating the game under Junior General rules. Units fight as bases and are six bases strong. As this post explains, I'm having each base stand in for two, with casualty figures to indicate odd numbers remaining. I also took fewer photos; let's try for a shorter battle report.

The rules are those in Junior General's Saratoga scenario - it has light infantry and Built-Up Area rules.

I decided to treat the first battle as the first step of a campaign, so since the French won, they start in the village and the British must come onto the field. I used different units (the originals were badly battered by the action) and also tried Charles Grant's units for his second run-through. So instead of three infantry regiments and a gun, each side had a light infantry regiment replacing one of the line regiments.

This is a good thing, since two light infantry regiments is all I've got.

The British side are the 43rd Scots, the Yorbourne Grenadiers, the 1st Loyal Highland Company and a gun, commanded by Brigadier Smith.

The Franco-Scots are the Bulkeley Regiment, Royal Ecossais, Border mercenaries and a gun, under General de Brigade Forgeron. 

The Franco-Scots hold the village with the Borderers and the gun; the regular French units will march to their assistance later, rolling a 6 on the first turn, a 5+ on the second, etc, until they both arrive.

The Brits come on in the first two turns, starting with the Highland Company.

After turn 1, the British skirmish line is halfway to the village. The French gun's line of sight is good, but out of range.

After two turns, they're even closer, but musketry range is 6", so still no firing. The Royal Ecossais come on in response to messages from the garrison, accompanied by their brigadier. As the skirmishers move at 6", the British troops follow suit and shake into line.

On the third turn, the British come into musket range, and the Highland Company's fire into the village is deadly accurate.

On the fourth, the French form into line on the left and all fire goes into the skirmishers. 17 dice and a single six to hit! The British skirmishers move to their right to give the line regiments room to charge. The battle goes poorly - despite outnumbering, having the general present, and a grenadier unit, the desperate mercenary Scots drive the British back!

On the other hand, the British gun is in position to pour fire into the village. The Scots are punished for their resistance.

Then the French line go in. Ecossais and Bulkeley, the cream of the foreigners in French service, drive the Highland Company off. 

The British gun would seem to be in trouble at this point. The Irish wheel to take it in flank ... but they fail their morale check to charge, obviously daunted by the thought of a charge of canister in the face. Instead, the gunners blast the village again, which is probably well and truly afire at this point as the skirmishers are driven out!

The British line march back into the fight, but the 43rd Highlanders take a volley from the Ecossais. The Irish pluck up courage and charge into the British gun. The luck of the Irish is with them as the gun misses! Impressively, the gunners pass morale and then hold their ground in melee.

The 43rd desperately charge the Ecossais, settling old scores with fellow Scots in the melee and their commanders urging them on. The exiles lose this one, but the Wild Geese nearby manage to eliminate the English gun.

At this point, the British have taken severe casualties, including a precious cannon. But the French have lost their skirmishers and the village. Generals Smith and Forgeron exchange haughty nods across the field. There will be another day.

A much faster and simpler game than my last try. I made enough mistakes and reversed decisions, though, that I'm even more interested in Free-Kriegspiel style now. Every game provides new ideas and seeds for the next.

Battle of Sawmill Village

Today I'm trying a cut-down Charge!, and the Charles Grant Sawmill Village scenario, from his delightful War Game Companion.

The rules. I have several sets of rules that I can't remember where on the Internet I found them; this is one, a "dining-table" variant of Charge!

Lex must be removed from the table again...

The battlefield - three hills, three "built-up areas", an orchard, and a wall.

The Brits - From left: Werrickshire, South Essendale and Royal Kempston Regiments and a gun.

The French - Saillant, Bourbon, and Navarre Regiments, plus a gun.

Turn 1. Both sides advance, limbered or in column.

Turn 2. Columns snake into the open ground, as both guns unlimber, ready to fire next turn.

Turn 3. Units shake into line, the British still cramped. Neither gun gets a shot off.

The Kempstons and Bourbons exchange fire, causing two casualties apiece but halved for the cover between them. Red sequins count casualties.

Turn 4. Further advances. The Kempstons, holding Sawmill Village, come to grip with the Bourbons as the guns of both sides fire at medium range into infantry targets.

Navarre and Werrickshires exchange volleys, the British taking the worst of it.

12. In the village, the Kempstons, outnumbered on their flank, take six casualties to the Bourbon's three and are forced to fall back half a move - ie, an inch in the built-up area. Both units will rally next turn.

Turn 5. The South Essendales (Prince of Gwyneth's Own Volunteers) move to support the Werrickshires, who stolidly march up the hill into the deadly short-range volleys of Navarre...

... whilst the Saillant wheel towards the village. Guns have no effect.

Turn 6. In a rare success for the British, canister kills six of the Saillant.

But the French are moving to bracket the village, as the Werrickshires go into a desperate charge.

My method for rolling off in one-on-one combats - toss the dice down the table, move them across from each other in order and compare.

The Werrickshires win the combat, pushing the Navarre back but not off the hill.

Turn 7. The Saillant swing the door shut on the village, despite another charge of canister in the face. A surprisingly good firing phase for the two French regiments causes four casualties to the defenders, despite their cover. In the background, the Essendales can be seen straggling up the hill behind the rallying Werrickshires.

Turn 8. A climax of bayonets!

After two bloody melees, the lines up the hill break apart for a breather. But the Kempstons, down  to sixteen men and surrounded, break, and the French now hold the village.

With all infantry rallying, the Essendales are able to get in a quite frankly unrealistic charge around the Navarre flank. Like the previous ruleset I tried, the "bucket-o-dice" CC mechanism is in play here.

The Navarre are driven off the hill.

While their opponents rally, the Werrickshires form column and head for the French gun. The gunners, having been hit by two rounds from the British gun, flee the field.

The game, I think, will end here. The French have reversed ranks and stoutly hold the village, and the battered British regiments, even with help from their intact half-battery, can't take it at this stage. Perhaps there will be a second Battle of Sawmill Village!

For the second time, rolling close combat dice kinda wore me out, and to less realistic effect in this battle. I think I will try Junior General rules next.

Medieval battle report

Tonight was fought the Battle of Green Fields, that pleasant if undeveloped land owned by the gracious Lady Lex, who had first to be removed from her comfortable realm:

The rules are a very basic Hundred Years War set, taken from Donald Featherstone's Wargames Newsletter for December 1967. It was written for use with Airfix figures - I used Paperboys from the Castle Assault volume. 

As is typical of Featherstone's brief and conversational rules-writing style, some elements must be worked out by the reader. Given the small size of the battle and units, for example, I played turns simultaneously.

The Scots. 36 pikes, 18 knights and 24 crossbows.

The English. To the right, 36 spears and 30 archers.

To the left, 18 knights.

First move. The Scottish foot and knights have moved 12", the crossbows 15" (but are not able to shoot).

While the English knights head for the center, supported by their footmen, the archers take a half-move and fire. They roll 21 on six dice, quartered, causing five casualties to the crossbows, two of which are saved.

Turn 2: The knights charge each other and meet in the center, while the English spears march to confront the Scottish schiltron - not quite there yet.

The crossbowmen draw back, firing into the English foot's flank at six-inch range, but are still in range of the English archers, who haven't moved and thus get to fire twice!

Firing - The Scots roll four dice against the English spears. They score 13, three quarters of which (9) are casualties. Despite needing 4+ to save, only one survives! Probably something to do with being flanked...

In exchange, the archers roll twelve dice, scoring 43. Even at 1/4 casualties for long range, that's over half the crossbowmen gone!

Now for the knightly combat. Knights are worth three points, and one die is rolled for every five. So on 11 dice, the Scots roll 40 hits, the English 43. Saves are on 3+; the English fail 11, the Scots 20! Which wipes them out; the King of Scots will have stern words for his metallurgists this day.

Turn 3 - a complex melee, as knights, footmen and crossbows all clash. Useful for testing differing types against each other, at least. The archers, with no target, race to join in. Oh, but the knights must roll to charge home against standing infantry, spears always stand, and the knights roll a one. They rest their horses, awaiting results.

Let's break this down into two combats, remembering to account for the English spear casualties.

- On the left, twenty spears vs. twenty-four pikes. Ten dice against twelve. Had the knights made it in, they'd have added four dice. 38 hits, 19 saves vs 43 hits and 17 saves. The English spears are gone and five Scots remain.

- On the right, twelve archers (only two bases can make contact) and eight spears versus ten crossbows and twelve pikes. 32 points for the English vs. 40 for the Scots - six dice versus eight. The English end up needing 34 saves. I split these into 21 for the spears (4+) and 13 for the archers (6+). The Scots require 17 saves (9 for the pikes and 8 for the crossbows). Four pikers and seven crossbowmen are killed, but all the English engaged are killed too.

(If I'm reading these rules right, this is a "bucketsful of dice" ruleset, at least when it comes to the armor saves!)

The final result, after bases with just one man left are removed. I think the Scots have had the worst of the argument...

Obviously, this ruleset would be easier to handle with single figures. There are also no morale rules. I've been considering a simplified variant of Charge! in which a unit that takes 2/3 casualties is out of the game, which in this case would leave the archers alone on the field.

The rules are good enough for a back of a postcard set, but I was surprised at the number of hits and saves that had to be rolled. The aforementioned Charge! rules prescribe a die roll for each base, but scoring only one hit with a successful shooting roll. Melees are one die per figure, but at least do not include saves - they do, however, require opposed rolls.