Rebel and Patriots - Second Impressions - not convinced

[@KenOfthewest]

Have introduced these rules at the local club and we played two games in an afternoon. That is pretty fast with 4 players and all learning the rules as we played. We felt they are quite a fun, fast and easy to learn set of rules! Several of the players and spectators were impressed, as they have since ordered the rules and are building forces. As you say, no set of rules suits everyone, but for us they are a welcome break from the larger, more serious games.

[@BootsontheTable]

Yeah they are quick to pick up for sure. For me to simple - but that’s just my personal opinion, others at my club enjoy them too

[@chrisgibson5267]

We initially made additions to the Pikemans Lament and added the ability of officers to brigade units. 'The Regulars are coming !' Our games seem to have mirrored at least a few of the engagements. Our Crown forces invariably attacked and pushed the Rebels off of the field with volleys and the bayonet; but they usually paid a heavy price for the field and the Rebels have plenty more of those. Unsupported attacks against multiple units floundered. We now have R & P,; and it has had the same effect as the other Dan Mersey rules in that figures have seen the light of day after years on languishing in their boxes. Thumbs up.

[@BootsontheTable]

cool good to hear you are enjoying them.... I will stick to Sharpe's Practice and BP2 I think ;)

[@Vlad65WFPReviews]

Sadly, I agree with your closing comments. I could live with the simplicity but the shooting is too deadly as you say - I've played it a few times and find "the math isn't right" in terms of casualties, especially if you are the attacker (although some may argue being hunkered down behind cover SHOULD give you a big advantage). Wondering if the new edition of M and T might be the magic formula but otherwise the quest for a simple yet satisfying game continues.

[@BootsontheTable]

A number of guys down our club enjoy it but even they have a number of houserules which shows there are a number of weaknesses in my view. Muskets and Tomahawks and Sharp Practice are in my view far stronger rulesets, but then they are more complicated than R&P

[@MrElliptific]

thanks for the review, it actually makes me want to try the period with this set of rule. I suppose the firepower is for game design.

[@BootsontheTable]

yes a lot of the guys at the club enjoy these rules, but I don't much - I'd rather do Sharp Practice or Muskets & Tomahawks myself

[@alwoodsmodellingmayhem]

Thanks for sharing you opinion on these rules. I picked them up over the weekend and for me I am hoping you are right, easy to learn and enjoyable reasonably quick games. Thanks, Al

[@BootsontheTable]

you're welcome Al - they divide opinion at our club - some love them as they are simple - some arent so keen because they are so simple!

[@captainnolan5062]

After thinking about your comments a bit, and the fact that you like Black Powder, it may come down to two different predilections for games in general. The very thing (I suspect) that you may like about Black Powder is the reason I don't like it. I am not a fan of the blitzkrieg movement rules, where when you roll a 'good' enough command roll, you can move three times the distance of a single move. However, it does aid the advance of the troops, speeds up the game, and the aggressive player is rewarded (which was, according to the designer) one of the objectives of the game design. Since you describe yourself as an aggressive player, it would make sense that you like games that reward your preferred play style. I have the R&P rules, but have not played them yet. I am a player who likes the player on the offense to have to take some punishment while he is advancing to contact, so these may suit me better than they suit you. (Note: the picture on the cover shows AWI troops hunkered down behind a fence). Also, it may be a case of your trying to advance against an enemy at 1:1 odds. Attacking at 1:1 odds is not a good tactic in ANY period. Waterloo would be a good example of what happens to the attacker in those circumstances. This comes from rules trying to balance a game (like with equal points). For an attack to succeed, the general rule of thumb is that you would like to have 3:1 odds. Perhaps you might like the rules better for playing scenario games, rather than balanced points engagements. Giving the attacker, say twice or three times as many points s the defender. Why don't you try such a scenario game and report back on the results. It will still be bloody for the attacker, but you should be able to make some headway against the defenders. You will be able have some troops firing to pin the defenders in place and disrupt them while other units advance to contact.

[@BootsontheTable]

cheers for the comment. Of course we all have rule systems we like and dislike and some which we feel reflects how we want to play more than others. For me gaming is a balance between historical accuracy and game fun. Of course you are likely right that one a 1-2-1 basis an attacker should pay a heavy price, but that isnt much fun for a game for me at least. For what it is worth I agree with your comment on fast moves too for BP - but these are designed to get the combatant to grips quickly again for a fun engagement. It's that eternal discussion about whether we prefer pure historical games or games which have a historical flavour and enable each side a chance and a game which is quick to play and fun

[@danbuman8422]

Appreciate your honest opinion of the game.

[@BootsontheTable]

that's all I can give!

[@captainnolan5062]

Have you played Pikeman's Lament? If so, do you like that game?

[@crapphone7744]

Get out the old wrg rules for Napoleonic and black powder periods. They do the American revolution really well. The troops seem to behave just like they did in the history books. they're not an easy read in the play sequence takes a bit of getting used to but once you got it they run quick and give a great result.

[@BootsontheTable]

yeah I use Black Powder for bigger games and for smaller ones Sharp Practice and Muskets & Tomahawks offers a much more satisfactory rule set for me

[@crapphone7744]

@@BootsontheTable sharp practice looked interesting to me, but I'm seriously old school and struggle with a card driven mechanic. I prefer initiative related stuff to see who acts first. There's an obscure set of rules called legacy of Glory for Napoleonic that has the best command and control rules I have ever seen. You ever get a chance to look at them check them out.

[@BootsontheTable]

@@crapphone7744 I'll see if I can find them. Sharp Practice is probably my favourite rule set for the black powder period

[@crapphone7744]

@@BootsontheTable they take care for reading and they have a really odd turn sequence but once you play them a few times it's like holy heck this just works.

[@paulos0167]

I look at all Dan Merseys rules as easy to play gateway games that are good to introduce people to both historical games in general and a new period. I prefer Sharp Practice myself and hopefully these rules will see people give SP a go. Good review of your personal thoughts btw. 🙂

[@BootsontheTable]

Cheers for the comment. Yes if it gets more people into Wargaming then so much the better. We all have rules we like more than others - these are not my cup of Tea!

[@samb2052]

Well, I used SP as a gateway to AWI and ACW but prefer R & P on balance. Not perfect but at least I can pick them up after a 3 month lay off. Beauty in the eye of the beholder.

[@LawnBowlsforFun]

Well, Dom knows I quite like the rules, although I do see where he is coming from. Yes, they are firing dominant, but I don't have a problem with that as close combat was a rarity in wars of that period, so I am fine with it. Also, you were unlucky with your dice throws in the game, whilst your opponent (in the second half of the game especially) was walking on water. Whenever that happens it can be frustrating, but it can happen in any rules. I am very happy to play them again soon, especially with someone who has not used them before as I am sure they will pick them up easily and enjoy the experience, which is what it is all about. I may try two house rules to improve a couple of things but other than that I will play them as they are intended. I will let you know how I get on. :)

[@BootsontheTable]

actually my dice wasnt too bad - I saved a lot of morale tests and fired pretty well. Tony's werent that outrageous either - we just simply mowed each other down! I this ACW was more brutal in firing than AWI but these rules do have the advantage of speed and ease of use - just too easy for me!

[@martinradcliffe4798]

Not a big fan of rules that try to cover a large period of history. AWI and ACW don't really have a great deal in common.

[@BootsontheTable]

agreed Martin

[@crapphone7744]

I cannot imagine that British grenadiers going up Bunker Hill for the third time would work under these set of rules. From what I watched about your ACW game units broke way too quick from fire. Units in the open seem to be just fine and being behind a stone wall didn't seem to make much of a difference, which doesn't match my understanding of the period. I join you and not being impressed.

[@BootsontheTable]

yeah the trouble is there is no mechanic for troops to retire when hammered so those same British Grenadiers would just sit there dying! I know you can mod the rules but seems no point

[@charlesrowan1978]

Someone who is actually honest that something dosn't make sense in a rule set. BTW avoid like the plague Black Powder.

[@BootsontheTable]

that's all I can be mate - although sorry to say I rather like BP!!

[@francoantonelli4264]

i agree, i think all of these osprerules are the same. yes there are differences, but they are a little soulless for me. not getting any feeling for any period in particular. awirules loose files and american scramble. these are fantastic and free...

[@BootsontheTable]

yeah soulless is a good description

[@francoantonelli7723]

Ok. We’ve played 3 games now, AWI. And I firmly agree with your comments. Sounds odd to say, but they are just a set of rules. They could be any period, any time. With Osprey have 5-6 rule sets that are basically all the sameish. Thats a lot of rule sets... The officer thing is funny, but not great rule sets really.

[@BootsontheTable]

yes I played my third game the other night and it still didnt work for me so i wont be playing again. Others love the ruleset but not me... or you it seems!