Remove this ad

Lead

Feb 1 16 12:37 PM

Tags : :

Yesterday evening my friend Rob and I played our first two "Lion Rampant" games ("Bloodbath" & "Defending the Indefensible").  We found Mr. Mersey's rules to be fun and "unfussy".

I know that many do not like the "3 inch rule" . . . but I really like it.  For one thing, it keeps similar-appearing units from getting mixed up; but most of all I like it because it really forces one to "think ahead" (particularly if you are hoping to move between two of your own units). . . .  So if you haven't been playing with the 3" rule, please give it a try.


-- Jeff
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Feb 2 16 7:05 AM

In my case, we play 1/72 scale and with such scale the 3" is very embarrasing. We adopt a middle ground: we consider it as a "zone of control" as it is used in oder game rules. Friend units can cross it, but enemy units feel "unsure" about being so close to a threat such these, and normal rule is applied for them. It helps to maintain the intentionality of the rule, but keep the movement fluid.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Feb 15 16 5:05 PM

Bluebear wrote:
Yesterday evening my friend Rob and I played our first two "Lion Rampant" games ("Bloodbath" & "Defending the Indefensible").  We found Mr. Mersey's rules to be fun and "unfussy".

I know that many do not like the "3 inch rule" . . . but I really like it.  For one thing, it keeps similar-appearing units from getting mixed up; but most of all I like it because it really forces one to "think ahead" (particularly if you are hoping to move between two of your own units). . . .  So if you haven't been playing with the 3" rule, please give it a try.


-- Jeff

I couldn't agree more. It may be an abstraction, but it gives the game an extra tactical dimension and makes it work well as a game. It also, as you say, makes manoeuvre a more important and delicate process - a good thing in my book. 

A common complaint about LR/DR is that the game lacks flanking effects. But I think the 3" rule more or less covers this; units end up unable to retreat because they have foes threatening them in the flanks/rear and often take additional casualties as a result. I often suspect that those who complain about a lack of flanking bonuses have probably been playing without applying the 3" rule. Now, the urge to tinker with rules is generally a Good Thing in wargaming. But I think people sometimes mess with rules before they've even played a few games with them as they stand. I notice that some people abandon the failed-activation turnover too, on the grounds that it keeps players out of the game for too long. But in fact it does the opposite: it tends to make turns short and sharp.

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Feb 17 16 9:42 AM

Hobgoblin wrote:


A common complaint about LR/DR is that the game lacks flanking effects. But I think the 3" rule more or less covers this; units end up unable to retreat because they have foes threatening them in the flanks/rear and often take additional casualties as a result. I often suspect that those who complain about a lack of flanking bonuses have probably been playing without applying the 3" rule. Now, the urge to tinker with rules is generally a Good Thing in wargaming. But I think people sometimes mess with rules before they've even played a few games with them as they stand. I notice that some people abandon the failed-activation turnover too, on the grounds that it keeps players out of the game for too long. But in fact it does the opposite: it tends to make turns short and sharp.


I completely agree about the fail activation = turn over rule. In fact when I see people complaining about this I wonder if they have been playing the same set of rules as me! Even in multi-player games it has never been a problem for us.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#5 [url]

Mar 27 16 5:59 PM

As far as the 3" rule goes, we play in 28-32mm, and have house ruled very similiarly to other comments - enemy may not approach closer than 3", friends have to leave a 1" gap (we play a fair amount of shieldwall based forces, and felt that the 3" gap in the line was visually unappealing, but still felt it played an important role in regard 'Zone of control' on the table.

It's worked well for us so far.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Mar 28 16 1:37 AM

To be the Devil's advocate, I wonder why enemy can't close closer than 3" but friends can come within 1".  I think this may complicate the mechanics when you have several units attacking several defenders.  In this setting you may win a combat with unit 1, pushing back the enemy, but now you are within 1" of another enemy unit which was adjascent to the defeated unit.  What happens now?
I must admit, I have wondered about the 3" rule and felt it makes retreats and relieving battered units too difficult but, then, that is probably the idea.  I think what you do need is a big enough table to give units plenty of room to move and maneouvre.  This is, afterall, a skirmish game, not a big battle game with opposing shield walls.  
I have also wondered about changing the 3" rule when using reduced figure units, but I think this just complicates things and may have consequences for movement and firing.
As much as I like to tinker with wargame rules, I think I will leave this one alone.

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Jun 3 16 9:44 AM

3" Rule

While a bit unusual, it works very well when you play it on the table. It really makes you think about how you place your units during your manoeuvres. It also means to get those crucial 'multiple charges' you really need get your unit placement correct. Well worth trying before you jump to the house rules.

Activation fail: turnover
Clearly you've never played Crossfire! Hehe...
This is one of the best parts of the LR:DR mechanics for me. The dynamic nature of the friction/impetus/initiative/call it what you will is a really appealing part of the rules. As with crossfire it means you need to phase your actions right. Generally going for those action on the '5+ success' scale before the riskier 7+ options. It adds a simple and elegant layer of tactical decision-making and complexity to an otherwise beautifully simple rule set. To make sure your retinue gets at least a few things done, you need to do the simple stuff first. IT also means that you should be using your units to their strengths. It for me seems to be part of the 'simple to learn: difficult to master' mindset at the heart of the best games.

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Jun 8 16 5:55 PM

3" Works Very Well!

IMHO, the game as a system simply does not work nearly as well without some sort of "hard" boundry. If that is 3" fine. If others lack table space and prefer to simpy use "contact", I think that can work but only almost as well as IMO the movement rates-rules; the weapon-spell distances and the unit spacing restrictions are all related (esp. for things like charge/wild charge) and are all key elements.

I am the 3" police in our group...or was. After about 3 games each, they have all come to realize, some sort of boundry is needed and table space is never an issue with us (nor visual scale as use 28s).

If we had a small table, or something, make it 2", 1"....unit contact. But at 3", it makes the units look like "Units".

Example of a 72pt game we played a week or two back of Dragon Rampant is below.  Even with my old eyes, and an (almost) entire table shot, you can see where one unit ends and the others begin and we had zero issues with withdraws, etc.  It just works IMHO.

54135d9158ddbdec1fb6b3a8ba93cb9af5f3e65.

My 2 cents,
GG  

Last Edited By: Grumbling Grognard Jun 8 16 8:02 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help