Your thought about a missing French counter may be one slight abstraction mentioned on the French tables (The Vallière battalion is rolled in to another, per the playbook note.).
No - I haven't found anything missing in the game for this battle. It's that I swear something hit my leg while clipping counters, but couldn't find it on my floor. :P
Crucially I am working on the proper fix to 11.5… my notes on it are aimed at working out the right wording given how we tested and what our draft ACTUALLY said. And to note: We agree, 11.5 in the rules as printed is incoherent. The rule that was playtested and in the draft rules somehow was botched in the printed version…. thus, we need to address this in living rules, the text update would look like this, in some sense: First step: No die roll. Cavalry retreats one, infantry does not advance. The cavalry retains its facing and is not disordered. Next: Then there are two conditions that are additive: 1. If the infantry has its IV then it is expended and the cavalry is disordered. 2. If the cavalry is unable to retreat it is disordered. In any circumstances a cavalry with 2 disorders is routed. And - whenever routed marker is placed (for any reason!) that routed unit marker retreats two hexes.
Yep - saw it on BGG and it made sense that way. I know some people have commented overall on the rules, but this was the only real problem I had (well, there's an image too, but I tend to ignore them).
I found the rules to have more questions than the one issue pointed out in the video and Welker did admit a whole rules section was covered up in the layout. Attacking into a different wing across the wing boundary. Here are two issues I have had: 1: Charge orders and movement of the individual units. Here is an example of the difference from M&P. Does it matter the order you activate the units? 2: Compliance and the fact that the line is not straight across. Does the line compliance change on the far left? Or does the line angle up 60 degrees to account for the angle of the line? I sure hope the line angles. Otherwise, the units will seem to be oddly placed, I think.
Unfortunately, although I've picked up a few VV games, I simply haven't been able to bring them to the table yet. The magazines being all in French is a detractor, and the unmounted counters....that, and too many games in boxes I haven't gotten to.
It is a big scrum in my experience thus far. One does seem to have some choice, but not a great amount of choice. It is kind of enjoyable to see the action take place. The setup, I think, is very important to being effective.
Thirty Yeats War is a great game. Not quite sure why it git a bad rap. I'm a Ben Hull fan but got burned badly on Fields of Fire 2 and Won by the Sword, so I passed on this even though I love MPS. I will watch your playthrough with hope.
The game is not a continuation of M&P. I actually feel a bit burned by this release. If they would have just said that this is a new series, I would not have felt a bit burned. Have played the first scenario twice thus far. Enjoyable, rules need some serious revision, but so different from M&P.
@@calandale That makes sense. I have not thought of that myself. Assuming that was the case, I think the designers/developer should have made that clear maybe with a message in consimworld, BGG, and/or an email to the P500 backers. But then again, I assume GMT is not raking in the cash and might not have the human resources to provide that "customer service."
@@ThePettho I might slightly disagree. "Well written" is a bit of an overstatement. There are some confusing elements, a whole rule missing, and other questionable issues. At the same time, the game uses new innovative concepts and some of these issues are very understandable.
I found it better than most GMT rules sets in terms of understanding 'em. Then again, I've found some really horrible rulesets easier to understand than the tendency to 'nail everything down' that goes into modern ones.....
I just like to listen to Enrico.
Most of the games he explores I am interested in, some of them aren't.
I listen to him all the same.
Interesting looking game thanks for the video 😊
Will be interested in your experience with this one.
Your thought about a missing French counter may be one slight abstraction mentioned on the French tables (The Vallière battalion is rolled in to another, per the playbook note.).
No - I haven't found anything missing in the game for this battle. It's that I swear something hit my leg while clipping counters, but couldn't find it on my floor. :P
This should be a good one. Interested in seeing what designers did here.
Living Rules and errata coming soon.
Crucially I am working on the proper fix to 11.5… my notes on it are aimed at working out the right wording given how we tested and what our draft ACTUALLY said.
And to note: We agree, 11.5 in the rules as printed is incoherent.
The rule that was playtested and in the draft rules somehow was botched in the printed version…. thus, we need to address this in living rules, the text update would look like this, in some sense:
First step:
No die roll. Cavalry retreats one, infantry does not advance. The cavalry retains its facing and is not disordered.
Next:
Then there are two conditions that are additive:
1. If the infantry has its IV then it is expended and the cavalry is disordered.
2. If the cavalry is unable to retreat it is disordered.
In any circumstances a cavalry with 2 disorders is routed.
And - whenever routed marker is placed (for any reason!) that routed unit marker retreats two hexes.
Yep - saw it on BGG and it made sense that way. I know some people have commented overall on the rules, but this was the only real problem I had (well, there's an image too, but I tend to ignore them).
I found the rules to have more questions than the one issue pointed out in the video and Welker did admit a whole rules section was covered up in the layout. Attacking into a different wing across the wing boundary.
Here are two issues I have had:
1: Charge orders and movement of the individual units. Here is an example of the difference from M&P. Does it matter the order you activate the units?
2: Compliance and the fact that the line is not straight across. Does the line compliance change on the far left? Or does the line angle up 60 degrees to account for the angle of the line? I sure hope the line angles. Otherwise, the units will seem to be oddly placed, I think.
Yeah - the second point is left vague from what I can tell. I actually thought I was violating the rules by using common sense as to 'rear'
A recent issue of Vae Victis (#134) featured a game on Neerwinden 1793.
Unfortunately, although I've picked up a few VV games, I simply haven't been able to bring them to the table yet. The magazines being all in French is a detractor, and the unmounted counters....that, and too many games in boxes I haven't gotten to.
The lighter near all that paper makes me nervous....
The pipe is a lot more dangerous - burning embers regularly fall....
Is this just a big rugby scrum or has it got any maneuver?
Probably very little - it's more about reserves.
It is a big scrum in my experience thus far. One does seem to have some choice, but not a great amount of choice. It is kind of enjoyable to see the action take place. The setup, I think, is very important to being effective.
Thirty Yeats War is a great game. Not quite sure why it git a bad rap. I'm a Ben Hull fan but got burned badly on Fields of Fire 2 and Won by the Sword, so I passed on this even though I love MPS. I will watch your playthrough with hope.
The game is not a continuation of M&P. I actually feel a bit burned by this release. If they would have just said that this is a new series, I would not have felt a bit burned. Have played the first scenario twice thus far. Enjoyable, rules need some serious revision, but so different from M&P.
I think there was a more M&P like prototype that led to the more abstract design.
@@calandale That makes sense. I have not thought of that myself. Assuming that was the case, I think the designers/developer should have made that clear maybe with a message in consimworld, BGG, and/or an email to the P500 backers.
But then again, I assume GMT is not raking in the cash and might not have the human resources to provide that "customer service."
They can't even do basic quality control anymore
I wanted to get this game but the comments I saw about the rules being a mess kept me away. Modern board game rules are in shambles.
It's odd, because so far, these have felt like refreshingly good rules to me. Other than that one rule....
Agree, the rules are well written although it’s a fairly different game making the system more challenging.
@@ThePettho I might slightly disagree. "Well written" is a bit of an overstatement. There are some confusing elements, a whole rule missing, and other questionable issues. At the same time, the game uses new innovative concepts and some of these issues are very understandable.
I found it better than most GMT rules sets in terms of understanding 'em. Then again, I've found some really horrible rulesets easier to understand than the tendency to 'nail everything down' that goes into modern ones.....
@@calandale I agree. :) I understand much of the game rules and given the new ideas in the rules the rules are decent.