Western goes French

[Matt]

If anybody fancies re-enacting the 3 Musketeers films this months WSS magazine has a rules conversion for Legends of the Old West into a 3 Musketeers game.

Looks very exciting - lots of sword play and bodice ripping action. Redoubt miniatures do a nice range of Musketeers miniatures.

[terrywarden]

Dont be fooled they may look nice pianted on the web but they are pigs to put together and not particularly good castings. Steve Cowperwhaite has a big collection including all the characters and I remember how disappointed he was with the figures.

[sapper]

I tried reading the article this morning, but the translation from the Spanish is excrutiatingly painful.

[mike]

Not interested in anything based on LotOW

I actually bowed out of that (<i>after</i> spend 25 quid on minitures and a weekend painting them up) because I was less than impressed with the close combat rules - basically just a random dice roll, no skill involved AT ALL

It didn't, in my opinion, work in 19^th century America (where could legitimately claim that most combat is ranged anyway) so it certainly won't work in pre-revolutionary France which will, apart from an initial volley of musket fire, be almost exclusively melee

Find a better rule set and I could be temped

[Stephen Mawson]

It's not quite that bad, although it is pretty random.

Higher attack rating allows you to roll more than one dice, increasing your chance of victory, and a higher fight value means you win ties more often. Your weapon choice also effects the results, as taking a -1 penalty on your dice roll means your less likely to succeed than a better armed opponent.

As apart from a small number of exceptions, most Wild West guys are going to be roughly equal in terms of hand to hand fighting. "I hit you with by pistol butt vs I punch you". Most brawls were likely to be settled by a lucky blow rather than superior fighting skills.

If I had to modify the current rules to cover a more melee oriented period. I would be inclined to do so by applying a further -1 penalty to the dice rolls for anyone attacking an opponent with a higher fight value. Those fighters who would have greater proficiency with swords ought to start off with a higher number of attacks to represent their greater proficiency in melee.

Between the two a better fighter should beat a less skilled opponent the majority of the time, with the less skilled party still having a reduced chance to strike a lucky blow and win.

[mike]

Jan 26, 2009 14:21:27 GMT Stephen Mawson said:

Higher attack rating allows you to roll more than one dice, increasing your chance of victory, and a higher fight value means you win ties more often.

Not true - unless you guys have added some house rules since I bowed out

In the GW core rules, if I remember them correctly, you get one die for each person in the fight - that's it, no modifiers except for a -1 for being unarmed

Since everybody quickly got armed with a knife (at $2 each this is something of a no-brainer) the unarmed penalty rarely came into play

The Fight value comes in only in the case of a draw

Totally random

In a skirmish game, especially one that will involve a LOT of melee (like, for example, pre-revolutionary Franch), I want to see a lot more sophistication than that

I want to see, at a minimum, modifiers for different types of weapon (swords, knives, clubs, axes, the butt end of a musket, etc) as will as for close combat skill

[Stephen Mawson]

You get one die, per attack of each figure involved in the combat. Pretty much all of the guys start with one attack, but that stat can increase in campaign play.

Not all of my possee are armed with a knife. Being armed with a heavy pistol or a rifle also applies a -1 penalty to the attack roll. Being unarmed applies a -1 to the attack roll, plus a -1 penalty to damage. From memory some of the rarer weapons, cavalry sabre, etc may give a bonus to hit or to damage, but I'm less sure about that.

I would be more inclined to use the Mordenheim system for a Three Muskateers style game. Change the skills around a bit, remove magic, etc. But that is essentially skirmish warhammer.

[mike]

Yep - Mordheim does work resonably well as far as I remember it (although I must admit it's some years since I last played it)

At least the close combat skill actually makes a difference and there are real game effects for different weapons, and therefore real tactical choices to be made there

Definately a better choice

It would probobly need some modification to fit the new setting - no magic (just ingore that section) and maybe some tweaking to the firearms rules

Warhammer/Mordhiem musketry rules are about right for the early gunpowder age (late medieval period), by the time The Three Musketeers is set (early age of reason) musket technology was considerably more reliable

Basically, I'd reduce the chance of misfire for this period but leave the rate of fire the same (we're still talking about muzzle loaders here)

[Stephen Mawson]

From what I remember of the Mordenheim rules I don't think there are any misfire rules for the blackpowder weapons.

I've always taken the warhammer blackpowder rules as being roughly equivelent to the 17th Century level of technology.

[mike]

You might well be right about Mordheim - it's a long time since I've played it


As for the Warhammer black powder rules, I disagree - by the 17^th Century most of the bugs had been worked out of black powder technology and gunsmiths had worked out how to make a reliable weapon (i.e. one that didn't blow up in the users' face)

True, there was still the occasional misfire (after all, black powder was never going to be entirely safe), but these were quite rare and tended towards the failing to ignite the powder rather than exploding in the users' face

The Warhammer rules have a far too higher chance of killing the man firing the gun for 17^th Century technology, but they are about right for the late medieval period (around the late Tudor/Elisabethan era)

[florisccg]

Jan 26, 2009 17:36:13 GMT mike said:

As for the Warhammer black powder rules, I disagree - by the 17^th Century most of the bugs had been worked out of black powder technology and gunsmiths had worked out how to make a reliable weapon (i.e. one that didn't blow up in the users' face)

Tell that to Michael Perry.

[Matt]

ROFL - point well made - although in all fairness he was re-enacting a 100YW battle.

[Matt]

Oddly enough I have just been sorting through the rules and models I have inherited off a friend of mine and he has a copy of "All for One" the skirmish game produced by redoubt to accompany their miniatures.

Would anybody like to borrow them to give them a go?

[John]

Jan 26, 2009 14:21:27 GMT Stephen Mawson said:

If I had to modify the current rules to cover a more melee oriented period. I would be inclined to do so by applying a further -1 penalty to the dice rolls for anyone attacking an opponent with a higher fight value.

I'd be tempted just to drop fight value all together, LotOW doesn't benefit from it anyway as number of attacks is far more important.

I might be tempted to add a few extra Brawlin' skills to try and vary combat a little though.