I already have several Crusader Miniature( All Dark Ages) armies, and am looking
to expand into the SYW.  I was wondering if anyone knows if Mark has any plans
to expand in the future to expand the British, French or Russian SYW figs.  I am
hesistant to buy them if I can never get cav or artillery to go with them.  Any
advice would be appreiciated.


Thanks

As we are thinking about gaming the French revolution (Eureka figures look
terrific) we were looking for rules and came accross R&F. I have ordered the pdf
file and reading tthem through at the moment.
Question, has anyone tried them for French Revolution and if yes, any additions?

greetings
Jan Bruinen
  http://www.aldegarde.nl/

Had a recent SYW game with a player new to R & F: Prussians with 28 army points,
Austrians with 32, 6' x 4' table. My opponent liked the rules for all the
reasons you'd expect (simplicity, clarity, speed of play), but the following
points arose:

Army Break Points - after 2.5 hours play, only one unit per side had been
actually lost. However, taking off an army point for every unit at half strength
gave the Prussians 25% losses. This seems to support my opinion that something
has to happen at 25% losses and additional reasons to lose army points have to
be found (unless you have all day to play). It was clear from looking at the
table that the Prussians were the army on the back foot.

Veteran/Green firing - I used a simple +1 to the firing dice for veterans, -1 if
green. This seemed to produce the required effect without unbalancing things: if
you are going to divide troops into classes there need to be distinct
advantages/disadvantages to mark those classes as significant.

Flanking deployment - Mark, it would be interesting to have your ideas about
rules for flanking deployments, which I think would add interest to the
'standard' game.

Comments appreciated, cheers, Keith.

Hello Everyone.

The new Gladiator figures are now listed on the Crusader Miniatures UK site.

We hope to have castings on Tuesday.

We have a special 'buy all four packs' pre-release deal, but we also have
another present for you.

There is a one-off Gladiator figure available, some of you may recognise him.
You can buy the figure on it's own, but we are giving away the figure with every
order of 4 or more Gladiator packs. Visit Crusader UK and have a look.

Not available to US customers from us of course.

Yours
Nick Eyre

Just got my copy of Rank and File rules. Nicely produced and looks as if it will
produce a good game. I am in the process of rebuilding a 28mm Russian Napoleonic
army ,so will use as is, but I am also interested in Marlburian era, using 10mm.

As written, rules start at 1740, but I cannot see any good reason why they could
not be pushed back to 1700 or so, covering WSS and GNW. In WSS I would reckon
British cavalry (and dragoons?) might count as "shock" cavalry. Would have to
allow dragoons to mount/dismount during battle (historical precedents)unlike in
"Age of Reason" variant. Would probably restrict infantry and cavalry formations
to line, column of march and 2 deep line and skirmishers might be limited to
Pandour types. For GNW, would need to think about pike armed infantry and I
suppose Swedish cavalry would be definite "shock". If I kept base sizes at 40mm
square for infantry would be possible to depict actual 3 and 4 deep lines-mind
you it would make the units about 100 to 150 figures because you could get 12 to
15 10mm figures on a base. Would certainly be a spectacle. can't wait.

I've thought seriously about it. I don't see any significant issues with
using the Crusader rules. The great thing about the Age of Battles period
(1550-1615) is that it is nicely self-contained, and 4 army lists (Samurai,
Ikko-ikki, Koreans & Ming Chinese) covers all of the protagonists. You would
have to add a few minor special rules to mix up the Samurai armies a bit, as
well as rules for arquebusiers, but aside from that it would be all go.

This period hasn't been well served by 28mm miniature rules, which is
amazing considering its almost universal appeal. The WAB supplement has been
canned indefinitely, FoG doesn't cover it, DBx fell flat, Warmaster is a bit
generic and so on. There are lots of minor rules sets around, but no
stand-out set in either quality or popularity (IMHO).

It's a period close to my heart (second only to Imperial Rome) and I've even
dabbled with my own rules set for it. I'll probably waste an hour or more
today looking back at my notes and thinking about it. I'll send you an
invoice  ;-)

Cheers

CW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony" <heorothall@...>
To: <Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:06 AM
Subject: [Crusaderminis] Crusader for Feudal Japan?


> Has anyone tried using the Crusader rules for Feudal Japan?  Each time and
> place has its on idiosyncracies.  Would Crusader rules be a reasonable
> fit?
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Tony
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Has anyone tried using the Crusader rules for Feudal Japan?  Each time and place
has its on idiosyncracies.  Would Crusader rules be a reasonable fit?
Thanks and best wishes,
Tony

Sounds very reasonable to me, we sometimes forget that we have to use our
imagination a little when viewing our tabletop battles.

  We are having a Crimean game on Weds using the scenario in Black Powder but
using R&F of course. I will try and remeber to take my camera.

Phil


--- In Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark@...> wrote:
>
> HI there,
>
>
>
> Yes - it does basically represent the cavalry flowing around the square -
> how much actual physical contact there is is debateable but after the first
> impact the whole unit would be able to 'fight' for both sides.  The cavalry
> would still suffer the disorder effect of fighting squares in subsequent
> rounds so only hitting on a 6 at best.
>
>
>
> I have never liked moving individual stands about to represent melee lapping
> round flanks and so on - it is simply assumed that this happens without
> physically moving the figures themselves - doing that can open a whole new
> can of worms as far as rules go.
>
>
>
> Hope that makes sense and sounds reasonable.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> From: Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of olafnn2003
> Sent: 16 November 2009 23:57
> To: Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Crusaderminis] Re: Erudite advice
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Crusaderminis%40yahoogroups.com> , <r.chapman-hughes@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello mark again today something cropped up in our game. A brief overview,
> i unit of cavalry charge a square, the first round of melee is a draw onto
> round two, now it states in the rules that in the sercond round all the unit
> get to fight my point is this how could a whole square fight being at
> opposite ends of the melee, and surely the square would not ghange formation
> to be able to get all its stands into the melee? any advice p.s when is your
> new rules system gong to be on sale?, cheers richard.
> >
>
> > > I may be mistaken, but doesn't this simulate that the cavalry would flow
> round an unbroken square, horses are quite intelligent and do not readily
> hurl themselves on to a steady body of troops.
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com, <r.chapman-hughes@...> wrote:
>
> Hello mark again today something cropped up in our game. A brief overview, i
unit of cavalry charge a square, the first round of melee is a draw onto round
two, now it states in the rules that in the sercond round all the unit get to
fight my point is this how could a whole square fight being at opposite ends of
the melee, and surely the square would not ghange formation to be able to get
all its stands into the melee? any advice p.s when is your new rules system gong
to be on sale?, cheers richard.
>

> > I may be mistaken, but doesn't this simulate that the cavalry would flow
round an unbroken square, horses are quite intelligent and do not readily hurl
themselves on to a steady body of troops.
> >
> >
>

Sorry if this question has already been answered but is there any chances to see
a Thracian general pack released sooner or later.

Same question for the nice German Para HQ pack in the photos?

Thanks Mark

Hello mark again today something cropped up in our game. A brief overview, i
unit of cavalry charge a square, the first round of melee is a draw onto round
two, now it states in the rules that in the sercond round all the unit get to
fight my point is this how could a whole square fight being at opposite ends of
the melee, and surely the square would not ghange formation to be able to get
all its stands into the melee? any advice p.s when is your new rules system gong
to be on sale?, cheers richard.
---- keithflint60 <keithflint60@...> wrote:
> Mark, I think your point about the Army Morale rules being suited to one's
style of game are correct, and make framing rules a bit more difficult. My
brigades will never be much bigger than 4 units and my overall forces will
consist of about 15-20 units a side at most.
>
> However, I did get the impression from the book that the army morale rules
were meant to apply to whole armies or to formations of wing or divisional size,
rather than brigades.
>
> With the above in mind, my own 2 ideas to try are:
>
> 1. Armies/Formations become unsteady at one third of their points (i.e. no
rallying) and are automatically broken and leave the field when two thirds are
lost.
>
> 2. Unsteady at one quarter points lost, then at half points lost, dice on the
morale of the predominant type of unit as suggested by yourself for 'wavering'.
On failing, however, the formation or army simply abandons the field.
>
> I also intend to use losing one army point for a multi-stand unit at half or
more casualties, and one point for any units currently routing.
>
> Whilst an individual brigade in the heart of the battle might conceivably lose
50% or more, I can't really imagine (in a game or real life) a division or army
losing as much as half its strength, let alone two thirds or three quarters,
before it broke. Hence I think it makes sense to make the breakpoint take place
at fewer casualties.
>
> Anyway, I'll give my ideas a go a maybe report back if anything interesting
crops up.
>
> Cheers, Keith.
>
>
>

Mark, I think your point about the Army Morale rules being suited to one's style
of game are correct, and make framing rules a bit more difficult. My brigades
will never be much bigger than 4 units and my overall forces will consist of
about 15-20 units a side at most.

However, I did get the impression from the book that the army morale rules were
meant to apply to whole armies or to formations of wing or divisional size,
rather than brigades.

With the above in mind, my own 2 ideas to try are:

1. Armies/Formations become unsteady at one third of their points (i.e. no
rallying) and are automatically broken and leave the field when two thirds are
lost.

2. Unsteady at one quarter points lost, then at half points lost, dice on the
morale of the predominant type of unit as suggested by yourself for 'wavering'.
On failing, however, the formation or army simply abandons the field.

I also intend to use losing one army point for a multi-stand unit at half or
more casualties, and one point for any units currently routing.

Whilst an individual brigade in the heart of the battle might conceivably lose
50% or more, I can't really imagine (in a game or real life) a division or army
losing as much as half its strength, let alone two thirds or three quarters,
before it broke. Hence I think it makes sense to make the breakpoint take place
at fewer casualties.

Anyway, I'll give my ideas a go a maybe report back if anything interesting
crops up.

Cheers, Keith.

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark

To: Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:34 PM

Subject: RE: [Crusaderminis] Rank & File force break point - optional rule ideas

On a separate note, how is progress on the ACW supplement?

 

Written and mostly laid out but still needs to be proof read and ‘tidied’ up.  I expect it will be available March next year – I have the WWII skirmish rules coming out before then.

 

Perhaps a little too complex, with three levels to consider? One of the
great attractions of R&F to me is its functional simplicity.

 

Yep, that makes sense so as you say I’d just make this another optional rule that people could ignore.  I don’t think of any of the R&F rules as ‘official’ in any way – more like suggestions J

 

From: Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Woodfield
Sent: 15 November 2009 04:09
To: Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Crusaderminis] Rank & File force break point - optional rule ideas

 

 

Perhaps a little too complex, with three levels to consider? One of the
great attractions of R&F to me is its functional simplicity.

Also, I can perhaps envisage a formation that has a mixture of units with
different morale classes getting punished because the Green units have been
thrown forward and been smashed. The hoary old Veterans waiting in reserve
might be disadvantaged by a single bad die roll because the formation is
suddenly wavering.

Still, as always it is simple enough to modify or ignore if it doesn't suit.

On a separate note, how is progress on the ACW supplement?

Cheers
CW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <mark@...>
To: <Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:15 PM
Subject: [Crusaderminis] Rank & File force break point - optional rule ideas

This may be a bit rambling so anyone that doesn't care about the rules can
stop reading now :-)

After a few comments and a couple of recent games I think that the Force
Break Point rules may need an optional rule. They are simple at the moment
and do the job - but maybe not soon enough for the time that people have to
play. Our full day games bring them into play well enough but the evening
ones are shorter and tend not to - this isn't really what I intended.

So, I'm open to suggestions on how to make Brigade/Division morale have more
of an impact on the game. The rules need to fit in with what is already
there for the most part, not involve any new tables and not make players
keep track of too many variables.

Here is a suggestion to start with - I'd be interested to hear what folks
think.

Rather than the current rules the Formation/Army Break Point is now set at
25% for unsteady, 50% for wavering and 75% for broken. These points are
calculated in the same manner as they are at the moment. Players also need
to know the average morale level of a formation.

The info would now be presented as (for a Regular 14 point Brigade for
example) 4/7/11 Regular. Meaning when it has lost 4 points it is unsteady,
7 points it is wavering and 11 points it is broken.

Unsteady - the current Force break point rules apply - basically no
rallying.

Wavering - the formation will need to take Force Morale at the end of each
turn it has reached its wavering break point and also the end of any turn
that it loses another unit. Players will simply need to make a mental
note of which formations need to take tests - shouldn't be too hard and I'm
sure your opponent will point them out if you forget.

The results of wavering are that at the end of a turn when you currently
check for force break point you may also have to roll force morale tests.
These tests are simply based on the average morale of that formation.
(Green/Regular/Veteran) and use the starting morale number according to that
level (5, 4 or 3). To take a Force Morale tests the whole formation makes
one die roll and simply needs to get equal to or greater than its average
brigade morale. If it does there are no bad effects, if it fails then each
unit in that formation will be effected as though it had failed a morale
test. This means that good order troops become unsteady and unsteady units
become routed.

Broken - Once a formation reaches 75% or more losses it is broken, there is
no way to stop the remaining troops from routing.

Notes - there are options open to modify these rules by adding bonuses for
good commanders, `half' points for units at 50% losses and so on but I have
tried to keep it as simple as possible. As with all the other rules in R&F
these are open to club amendments to fit in with your style of game. If
players want to there is also the option to make the Force Morale tests
simply become another morale test at the end of the turn for all units in
that brigade using all the usual modifiers - losses, leaders and so on.
This is more detailed but also more time consuming.

If anyone has other suggestions I'll be happy to hear them.

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Perhaps a little too complex, with three levels to consider? One of the
great attractions of R&F to me is its functional simplicity.

Also, I can perhaps envisage a formation that has a mixture of units with
different morale classes getting punished because the Green units have been
thrown forward and been smashed. The hoary old Veterans waiting in reserve
might be disadvantaged by a single bad die roll because the formation is
suddenly wavering.

Still, as always it is simple enough to modify or ignore if it doesn't suit.

On a separate note, how is progress on the ACW supplement?

Cheers
CW


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <mark@...>
To: <Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:15 PM
Subject: [Crusaderminis] Rank & File force break point - optional rule ideas


This may be a bit rambling so anyone that doesn't care about the rules can
stop reading now :-)

After a few comments and a couple of recent games I think that the Force
Break Point rules may need an optional rule.  They are simple at the moment
and do the job - but maybe not soon enough for the time that people have to
play.  Our full day games bring them into play well enough but the evening
ones are shorter and tend not to - this isn't really what I intended.

So, I'm open to suggestions on how to make Brigade/Division morale have more
of an impact on the game.  The rules need to fit in with what is already
there for the most part, not involve any new tables and not make players
keep track of too many variables.

Here is a suggestion to start with - I'd be interested to hear what folks
think.

Rather than the current rules the Formation/Army Break Point is now set at
25% for unsteady, 50% for wavering and 75% for broken.  These points are
calculated in the same manner as they are at the moment.  Players also need
to know the average morale level of a formation.

The info would now be presented   as (for a Regular 14 point Brigade for
example)  4/7/11 Regular.  Meaning when it has lost 4 points it is unsteady,
7 points it is wavering and 11 points it is broken.

Unsteady - the current Force break point rules apply - basically no
rallying.

Wavering - the formation will need to take Force Morale at the end of each
turn it has reached its wavering break point and also the end of any turn
that it loses another unit.     Players will simply need to make a mental
note of which formations need to take tests - shouldn't be too hard and I'm
sure your opponent will point them out if you forget.

The results of  wavering are that at the end of a turn when you currently
check for force break point you may also have to roll force morale tests.
These tests are simply based on the average morale of that formation.
(Green/Regular/Veteran) and use the starting morale number according to that
level (5, 4 or 3).  To take a Force Morale tests the whole formation makes
one die roll and simply needs to get equal to or greater than its average
brigade morale.  If it does there are no bad effects, if it fails then each
unit in that formation will be effected as though it had failed a morale
test.  This means that good order troops become unsteady and unsteady units
become routed.

Broken  - Once a formation reaches 75% or more losses it is broken, there is
no way to stop the remaining troops from routing.

Notes - there are options open to modify these rules by adding bonuses for
good commanders, `half' points for units at 50% losses and so on but I have
tried to keep it as simple as possible.  As with all the other rules in R&F
these are open to club amendments to fit in with your style of game.  If
players want to there is also the option to make the Force Morale tests
simply become another morale test at the end of the turn for all units in
that brigade using all the usual modifiers - losses, leaders and so on.
This is more detailed but also more time consuming.

If anyone has other suggestions I'll be happy to hear them.




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Mark,

You might remember I posted a while back concerning artillery ranges. I am
tempted to extend them a bit for my games, but to do this it would help if you
could indicate what types of guns you had in mind when classing smoothbores as
heavy, medium and light for the SYW period.

Thanks, Keith.

Mark, thanks for the post, those ideas sound like a good way of bringing games
towards a conclusion when time is limited. I always enjoy games that have a
beginning, middle and end, and these suggestions seem just the thing. If I have
anything to add or suggest in return I'll post a reply.

As a gamer from way back, it's a real pleasure to have the internet and be able
to interact with rules authors and other gamers. This  would have been
impossible what, 15 years ago? Of course, the authors themselves need to be
receptive and open minded as well. Can't be easy some times to have your rules
pulled apart or nit-picked, especially considering they are a commercial
product. On the other hand, some sort of web support is really an important part
of publishing a rules set these days, and rightly so.

Best wishes, Keith.

This may be a bit rambling so anyone that doesn't care about the rules can stop
reading now :-)

After a few comments and a couple of recent games I think that the Force Break
Point rules may need an optional rule.  They are simple at the moment and do the
job - but maybe not soon enough for the time that people have to play.  Our full
day games bring them into play well enough but the evening ones are shorter and
tend not to - this isn't really what I intended.

So, I'm open to suggestions on how to make Brigade/Division morale have more of
an impact on the game.  The rules need to fit in with what is already there for
the most part, not involve any new tables and not make players keep track of too
many variables.

Here is a suggestion to start with - I'd be interested to hear what folks think.

Rather than the current rules the Formation/Army Break Point is now set at 25%
for unsteady, 50% for wavering and 75% for broken.  These points are calculated
in the same manner as they are at the moment.  Players also need to know the
average morale level of a formation.

The info would now be presented   as (for a Regular 14 point Brigade for
example)  4/7/11 Regular.  Meaning when it has lost 4 points it is unsteady, 7
points it is wavering and 11 points it is broken.

Unsteady – the current Force break point rules apply – basically no rallying.

Wavering – the formation will need to take Force Morale at the end of each turn
it has reached its wavering break point and also the end of any turn that it
loses another unit.     Players will simply need to make a mental note of which
formations need to take tests – shouldn't be too hard and I'm sure your opponent
will point them out if you forget.

The results of  wavering are that at the end of a turn when you currently check
for force break point you may also have to roll force morale tests.  These tests
are simply based on the average morale of that formation. 
(Green/Regular/Veteran) and use the starting morale number according to that
level (5, 4 or 3).  To take a Force Morale tests the whole formation makes one
die roll and simply needs to get equal to or greater than its average brigade
morale.  If it does there are no bad effects, if it fails then each unit in that
formation will be effected as though it had failed a morale test.  This means
that good order troops become unsteady and unsteady units become routed.

Broken  - Once a formation reaches 75% or more losses it is broken, there is no
way to stop the remaining troops from routing.

Notes – there are options open to modify these rules by adding bonuses for good
commanders, `half' points for units at 50% losses and so on but I have tried to
keep it as simple as possible.  As with all the other rules in R&F these are
open to club amendments to fit in with your style of game.  If players want to
there is also the option to make the Force Morale tests simply become another
morale test at the end of the turn for all units in that brigade using all the
usual modifiers – losses, leaders and so on.  This is more detailed but also
more time consuming.

If anyone has other suggestions I'll be happy to hear them.

--- In Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com, "trimsaran2003" <vickywatts724@...> wrote:
>
> As I mentioned in my last post, our group plans to have an AWI game of R&F
next week. One of the things I want to do is extend the number of troop grades
to better reflect the variety of troops in this war.
>
> At the moment, I am thinking the following rough approximations:
>
> Elite - Guards, combined grenadier and light infantry battalions
> Veteran - the best of the line troops, e.g., 23rd and 33rd Foot, some
Continentals
> Regular - most of the British, German and American line, some Loyalists
> Green - most Loyalists and American state troops, the better militia.
>
> I want to fit in another class at the bottom to reflect the poorer militia on
both sides - call them Levy or whatever. I'm unsure of the best way to do this,
whether to give them a basic morale value of 6 or make them reroll good morale
throws to reflect their shakiness, or whether to give them a -1 in firing and
fighting, or some combination of both. Any ideas or comments before Tuesday when
I have to produce the QRS would be really welcome.
>
> John

> When we play AWI if the British are charging green American troops we make
them take a waiver test to reflect the effect of the British bayonet charge,
effectively treating them as shock troops.

Phil

As I mentioned in my last post, our group plans to have an AWI game of R&F next
week. One of the things I want to do is extend the number of troop grades to
better reflect the variety of troops in this war.

At the moment, I am thinking the following rough approximations:

Elite - Guards, combined grenadier and light infantry battalions
Veteran - the best of the line troops, e.g., 23rd and 33rd Foot, some
Continentals
Regular - most of the British, German and American line, some Loyalists
Green - most Loyalists and American state troops, the better militia.

I want to fit in another class at the bottom to reflect the poorer militia on
both sides - call them Levy or whatever. I'm unsure of the best way to do this,
whether to give them a basic morale value of 6 or make them reroll good morale
throws to reflect their shakiness, or whether to give them a -1 in firing and
fighting, or some combination of both. Any ideas or comments before Tuesday when
I have to produce the QRS would be really welcome.

John

--- In Crusaderminis@yahoogroups.com, "trimsaran2003" <vickywatts724@...> wrote:

> We used all of the appropriate optional rules, with one addition - Prussian
foot could move up to half and fire at full effect, over half and fire at -1.
>

Hi John,

Interesting rule for the Prussians. Most books mention that the Prussians fired
faster than anyone else and some (if I remember correctly) mention they were
capable of loading whilst moving but few rules attempt to reflect this. My own
period specific house rules allow Prussian infantry to wheel up to 90 degrees,
and Prussian infantry and cavalry to oblique move, to reflect their superior
drill.

Glad you liked the rules.

Cheers, Keith.

Having read a description of a game on the OSW group, I decided to invest in a
copy of the rules, and, after a bit of time making some markers and writing a
QRS specific to the 7YW, last night our group had its first game.

This was a pretty evenly matched game, with each side having 8 bns of line
infantry and 2 bns of grenadiers. Austria had 2 regiments of dragoons and 2 of
hussars with a battery of 3 medium guns, Prussia had 4 regiments of dragoons and
a battery of 2 medium guns. Unit size varied from 4 (grenadiers) to 6 (some
Austrian infantry) bases. The table was 5' x 4', and, because we were using 10mm
figures, all distances were halved. Grenadiers were judged to be Shock (not that
this made any difference to the game) and veteran, all others were regular
except the hussars who were green. Each side had 5 brigadiers, 2 wing commaders
and a CinC.

There were 4 players, none of whom except myself had even seen the rules before.
We played for 3 hours, by the end of which the Prussians were definitely
winning, though none of the wings were even approaching the break point.

We used all of the appropriate optional rules, with one addition - Prussian foot
could move up to half and fire at full effect, over half and fire at -1.

The process of writing my own, period-soecific QRS made me pretty familiar with
the rules. I handed out the QRS to the other players and let them get on with
it. By halfway through the game, they were all handling everything pretty well
on their own, and we only had to make 2 references to the rulebook throughout.
However, everyone (including myself) forgot to use battalion guns. Ah, well.

Everyone's impression was that this was a good, fun game - a breath of fresh
air, really, with a great deal of freedom from rule-referencing and record
keeping. We shall definitely use it again - next week we shall try AWI, with
another period-specific QRS.

John

hi in crusader do elephant always mv 6 inchs even when they charge

Hi there,

I am in the process of clearing out some space in my figure collection.  There
is an Excel list in the files section and also photos of everything in the
gallery.

If anyone is interested please let me know - I thought I would offer these to
the yahoo group members first off and also at 10% off these listed prices.

Shipping will be charged at cost, if you need any more informtaion on the armies
please just get in touch.  Mark@...

Hopefully these will go to a good home and leave me some space for my new
project :-)