Monday, November 16, 2020

Rules Review; Blood and Valor

 

       I had heard great things about Blood and Plunder (a rules for the Pirate era from the same publisher) but, having a different set that I was quite happy with, had never played them. When I saw that Firelock Games was bringing out a set for the Great War era I was interested and picked up a copy shortly after they appeared at Michigan Toy Soldier.

       Having read the rules a couple of times through I decided to give them a go with my gaming group.  Our first scenario pitted three British tanks against a well-armed group of German Stormtroopers with the tanks having to fight their way across the table and off the far edge. I always prefer historical scenarios to the contrived one where everyone is fighting to capture some odd bit of dirt. Tanks often were stripped of the infantry and ended up forging on alone toward the objective, plus this would stretch the rules and give an idea as to tank vs infantry combat (always a difficult thing to model in a rules set).  I had to improvise rules for the T-Gewehr as the book does not supply them. I also had to come up with effects for bundle grenades as these are also not addressed in the rules.

        Our second scenario was a simple meeting engagement on the Eastern Front (for which I had to improvise stats for Russian troops as none of the eastern forces are covered in the army lists provided in the rules). This saw roughly identical forces facing off, each side having one gun, a couple of MGs and the balance of forces being infantry trying to capture a village at a crucial road-juncture. 

        In both these games we made some mistakes as we were just learning the rules but the games played fast and fun. The bidding structure for unit activation added another layer of decision-making and trying to outguess your opponent without slowing the game too much. The rules are clearly written with good examples of play and simple enough that by the end of the second game we had things pretty well in hand, not even needing to check the QRS.

        Overall, if you are looking to play a GAME that looks like the Great War, this will provide you with good entertainment. The game systems are straightforward and easy to remember and they reward careful use of the troops that you have to hand. You won't need too many troops (we played games in the area of 300 points and didn't need more than seventy figures on a side) and the 3' x3' playing area means that you don't risk breaking the bank buying terrain either. This is a fun game.

         On the other hand, if you are interested at all in how troops fought in the Great War these will leave you wondering about a good many things. Weapon ranges are tiny and the penalties for firing at longer ranges (the range-bands are in six inch increments) stack up very quickly, and the troop organization presented in the Army Lists bears no relationship to how actual units were organized. There is no provision for the mixing of weapon-types at the squad level that occurred later in the war. Although cavalry are addressed armored cars are not, and the French Schnieder tank has gone missing entirely. Troops stats are blandly alike and units are only differentiated by "Special Rules" which allow rerolls of dice under certain circumstances. Although the Army Lists expend a lot of space on the Gallipoli, African and Near East campaigns the entire Eastern Front is ignored and the Italian Front makes no appearance either. Naval gunfire barrages are included but there is no consideration of air-power at all. A great many other weapons are ignores as well, an example being the T-Gewehr. I am left with the feeling that these rules just substituted Great War soldier type for Pirate types with a feww odd new bits "bolted on".

          Physically the rulebook is a well made hardbound product that is clearly printed on good-quality glossy paper. The layout suffers badly from the current trend to substituting flashy color photos for content as well as some glaring layout issues. 

the contents pages are a two-page spread with a color photo background but the contents subjects and page numbers are printed at about a six-point font, despite there being two full pages of space dedicated to the matter 
 

this could easily have been juxtaposed with the Contents page 
and the remaining space given to a Russian army list 
 
I consider myself a slightly above-average painter but I have to say that if I were going to illustrate an entire page in my rule-book I would have rounded up better-looking minis than these

        In all these rules strike as the sort that we used to get for free in the pages of Wargames Illustrated (back in the glory days, before it became a "house-rag" like White Dwarf); simple, easy to play mechanisms, with a dollop of history on the top. The use of over half of the page-space for photos of minis unrelated to examples of play simply makes it look like they are trying to fluff up a rules set that would easily fit on ten pages to create a sense of value-for-price. Another complaint is that there are markers required to play the game indicating unit status (i.e. "running" or "taking cover") but these are printed on the back of the QRS while there are several pages of advertising and blank pages for "notes"  that is just sloppy layout.
        I like the Command bidding system, it simulates the decision-making that a small-unit commander would experience; "Where do I exert my energies to accomplish the mission". The rules mechanics have finally broken the strangle-hold of "roll one six-sided die" that has plagued small-unit games for the last decade by going with ten-sided dice, these allow the rules to include more factors and each one is less impactful upon the result. The sequence of "roll to hit, roll to save, check morale" will be familiar to gamers from the sixties and seventies (such as dinosaurs like me); it might be old but it works just fine.  With a fair amount of tweaking to bring the squad organization into line with reality these can be made a playable and somewhat realistic set of rules but I am left with the nagging feeling that the rules were haphazardly pasted over the original Pirate Rules without enough research into the Great War and what made it so different from the conflicts that preceded and followed it. I won't be buying any expansions that come out for that reason alone.

       I can say that these rules will give you a fun game, they play slick and fast; but if you are looking for something that will give you a real feeling for commanding small-unit actions during the Great War I think that you should consider other options.

23 comments:

  1. Excellent review. Thank you very much.
    Rod

    ReplyDelete
  2. Were the rules card activated? B&P uses cards to activate your units.
    You get a "hand" of one card per unit, and play them in order of suit
    on the card.

    If not, then the B&V is distinctly different from the pirate game.
    Given the efforts the company is making to expand B&P into the golden age of piracy, and with hints they're going into the AWI period, the issues you point out may result from B&V not getting sufficient attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These are not card activated, the bidding system replaces that part of the game. I have seen something similar in years past but that was back in the 1990's it is an interesting system and adds another layer of thinking to each turn. In fact it is probably the best part of this rules set.

      Delete
  3. Great after action report. How many people showed up to play?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was RUP and Trunkmoney and I for the first game, then just Trunkmonkey and myself for the second effort

      Delete
  4. hI

    Have you tried Through the mud and blood by too fat lardie? I play a Bolt action variant at convention. I have also Played Over the top and Warhammer WW1, but as you say it very basic in unit organization.

    I made some 3-d inlayed boards for my games.
    Link to Picture https://i.imgur.com/dieWHpD.jpg

    BilL Daniel

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't tried Mud & Blood, I have given the other two a try. Most rules fail to reflect the change-over from all rifle armed squads of 1914 to the mixed weaponry of the later period. Fewer still make any effort at conveying the loss of command control as the battle developed. Very swiftly the leaders were in control of only the few men they could see and shout to; the British tried to solve this problem by creating a wind-up machine to remorselessly execute one act, the Germans took a different approach and told everyone what the mission was and that they were expected to make every effort to complete it, officers or not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very nice review. Well written and enjoyed by me. 😀

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do some research on the second book for the series.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would rather just do the research and give it away free to my fellow gamers

      Delete
  8. Mmm so you modified the rules before even playing your first game so see how the basic mechanics actually work?.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I added weapons that they hadn't bothered to include. These did not change any of the basic mechanics; simply inserted weapons systems into the empty places that were taken up by the dozens of photos. The Germans made over 15K T-Gewehr and they were widely used. German infantry had been making bundle-grenades since the beginning of trench warfare. The lack of these within the rules is a stunning oversight.

      Delete
    2. its not that they didnt bother.. the game isnt designed for tanks and tank combat, hence no rules for them. I mean there were how many battles involving tanks in ww1? a handful.. so is there really a need for that?.
      I think honestly you confused ww1 for ww2 here.
      maybe you should take some time to actually play a game as written and check it out.. and i still paint better than you ever will :)

      Delete
    3. but there ARE tanks in the rules. More than 5300 of them between the British and the French, they were one of the crucial weapons that broke the deadlock of the trenches. The game was played exactly as written, I only added the missing weapons.

      Delete
    4. Yes. And when did tanks come into plat? The end of the war.. this is meant to be anytime in thewar and tanks are very late editions,, like air power. For most of the war they just took pictures of each other and occasionally shot at each other woth pistols..bombin was all by hand for the most part.
      Anyway all that is out of the scope of the rules which are primarily warband style rules rule ww1. Its very much in keeping with the style game blood and plunder is.
      Not that ive a vested interest. The writer and i are old wargaming buddies.. as i said these rules are borne our of a convention game we played years ago..they are a lot of fun for a quick night with the boys
      Give them another shot just as they are written. And by the way
      War has always been about “taking that odd bit of dirt”

      Delete
    5. The first aircraft to mount a machine gun and use against an enemy was 5OCT1914, French pilot Louis Quenault shooting down German observer aircraft. So, no they didn't just fly around taking pictures of each other. The "Fokker Scourge" began in July of 1915 when the Eindecker with it's synchronized forward-firing machine gun nearly swept the Allies from the skies, in the first year of the war.

      Tanks first use in combat was at the First Battle of the Somme September 15th, 1916, the mid-point of the war. They were used in every major Allied offensive after that.

      Infantry in WW1 fought in recognized formations not "warbands" these formations had an established TO&E (I'm not saying that they did not vary from them, just that was a prescribed model). A modicum of research would have provided that information.

      Foolish me, I thought war was about defeating your enemy as quickly as possible with the least loss to your side. The objective is the enemy army, not a bit of dirt.

      A calm reading of my post will indicate that I said " I can say that these rules will give you a fun game, they play slick and fast" and "Overall, if you are looking to play a GAME that looks like the Great War, this will provide you with good entertainment. The game systems are straightforward and easy to remember and they reward careful use of the troops that you have to hand. You won't need too many troops (we played games in the area of 300 points and didn't need more than seventy figures on a side) and the 3' x3' playing area means that you don't risk breaking the bank buying terrain either. This is a fun game.". I like the Command bidding system. I stand by my points regarding the lack of verisimilitude to historical formations and the excessive use of photos instead of content.

      Delete
  9. Hi anton.. you dont like my minis? Well thats a shame. You know im an award winning painter.. i do confess these arent my best work but they were painted many many many years ago. We used them in the book becuase this was a pet project and one that started as a simple convention game years ago.. i had about a month to paint some 300 figs..lets see you do better.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's not that I don't like them, I don't like that 60% of the surface area of the pages are given over to photos of them which adds no value to the rules set. Perhaps if the mass of pictures were trimmed back a tad there would have been room for rules on anti-tank rifles and bundle grenades.........

    ReplyDelete
  11. You didnt say that.. you said you thought you could do better..you really cant i saw your blog.
    So this is disengenouous at best. Ive been in magazines, i run a painting clinic(and sculpting clinic) on facebook.. i dunno dude what do you do to grow the hobby outsode of write snarky reviews for games you played incorrectly?
    Im not upset..just to be clear. I find the whole thing kinda laughable

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You certainly sound upset. I'm glad that you have been in magazines, that must be wonderful for you. I create content and give it away free to those who wish to partake. I run painting clinics for kids at wargames conventions, but tend to avoid Facebook entirely so I have missed out on your revelations contained therein.

      I said that if I were going to illustrate an entire page in a rulebook (which people are expected to pay for) I would round up better looking minis. The picture that I posted was of some black-washed, block-painted figures that were glossy. I leave it to my readers to decide if mine are better or not, myself I prefer a matte finish.

      I went to your blog that is listed with your profile, it is devoid of content, so I'm not really in a position to judge your work.

      As far as my contribution to the hobby I have run games at all of the local conventions for the last twenty-five years, I have donated thousands of figures to gamers less fortunate than me, I have published (for free) several rules sets and have worked with local youth groups to promote wargaming as a hobby.

      Delete
    2. I concur with Anton's critique of the game.
      A creator needs to be able to accept critical feedback. The rules has flaws AND strengths. I believe the hobby needs sharp eyed fans to keep the quality of wargame rules high.
      This is a historical game. From what I gather, one could easily swap out WW1 miniatures for any other period.
      I hoped to see an Italian force list.
      I have not read the rules, so I am unable to comment on the padding photos.
      I compare this game to Chain of Command by TooFatLardies. Their slogan is gaming the period not the rules. This game has accurate unit compositions and equipment. This is the standard for a ToEs in an historical, modern era wargame.
      B&V may have originated from a convention game and fond memories. This is great. However, a historical game needs to have a decent level of academic integrity. If not, the period suffers for it and may push gamers to other conflicts. There must be an easily accessible body of work on the Great War.
      I understand that a set of rules based on the Trojan Wars or conflicts in biblical era India will have more conjecture than fact.
      I am unable to invest in a set of rules that seems to ignore historical documentation.
      I was hopeful for these rules being a good introduction. I believe they will be for players new to the period (of which I am one). I enjoy historical gaming that both entertains and teaches me about the unique concepts of the conflict. This game gets you halfway there. You will need to research the war for yourself to fill in gaps.
      It sounds like this game does that at maybe 45 out of 100.
      I also think that the drdevo is a dummy account and a troll. I highly doubt that this person is really a friend of the creator. Anton said that he is an older gentleman. That makes him easy prey for juvenile internet trolls.

      I could be wrong.

      What game do you (Anton) suggest as a better example of skirmish warfare in WW1?
      Great review, btw.

      Delete
  12. Nice review Anton. I mirror your sentiments; a fun game but not historically accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My goodness. Dr. Devo is cranky. It would be better if he defended the rules by showing why they do reflect WWI trench warfare.

    Although I'm glad, at age 62, that simplicity and clarity are now seen as key elements to a good rule set, I'm now concerned its gone too far, particularly with skirmish rules. "It gives a good game" is not the only thing I look for in historical wargames. If that's all I wanted, I could play Risk, Chess or 40K.

    This was a great review, focusing on exactly what I want to know about a new set of wargame rules.

    ReplyDelete