Sunday 26 February 2023

Friday Night Game - ACW with "The Devil to Pay" free downloadable Rules.

 

The Devil To Pay

 

The Devil to Pay are fast playing rules for American Civil War miniatures.  They focus on the challenges and excitement of commanding an infantry brigade, while at the same time delivering that most valuable commodity in wargaming - FUN. 

 

If you are looking for a set of rules for your local club or to host a nail-biting convention game, then it’s The Devil To Pay!

 

The 2018 Edition of the Devil to Pay is now available for download.  It is free of charge; we hope you share it with other gamers and Civil War enthusiasts.


So much for the blurb - what are the rules actually like?


To me, they are a combination of many familiar ideas and concepts from other games (aren't they all?!) Every player has several units, each with two command/action tokens. In charge of three or four units is an officer, who also has between 1-3 command tokens, depending on how good he is - you roll a D6 before starting to determine this. If all units remain within a base width of each other/the officer figure, he can use his command tokens to issue "group" orders. 


In a bag are action "type" tokens, one grey, one blue, with FIRE, MOVE, or RALLY. The colour denotes which side does the action first (both sides do the same thing in the same turn) Also in there are four CARPE DEUM tokens; when they are drawn, the players roll off with a D6 each and the highest gets to choose what sort of action they want from the three options above. Finally, there are two "Whisky" tokens (I don't know!) - once both are drawn, the turn ends, and all tokens go back in the bag. This could be important if the game was set for eight or ten turns, as we had a couple of "moves" where only two or three actions were completed before both Whisky's were drawn.


So, elements of Bolt Action, Great Escape Games and Sharpe Practice (amongst others) are in here.


All rolls are with D6 and invariably, 1 2 3 are failures, 4 5 6 successes - so firing, a standard unit rolls 1 D6 per base and every 4-6 is a hit on the target with no saving throws. The first hits cause a marker per base, this reduces ability to fire back. Once every base has a marker, any subsequent hits remove a base from play. Of course, in the RALLY phase, you can roll to remove these markers by scoring - you guessed it - 4 5 or 6! But usually, you can only roll 2 x D6 per unit - but then again, you have at least two RALLY actions per turn (blue and grey) PLUS the four CARPE DEUM could potentially all be RALLY too, depending on what best suits the deciding player. The result is, it takes a really long time to actually cause genuine casualties on units, but at the same time, most units are carrying some disadvantage most of the time, so may only be firing 3 D6 instead of 5.


There are nuances, like getting an extra D6 in rally if you are in cover or taking one or more D6 off your firing roll depending on distance to target unit and whether it is in cover etc, but that is most of it - and as you can tell, I have been able to remember 75% of the mechanics after one three hour game which, to me, is the sign of a good rule set!


So, how did the actual game go - see below!



Above and below - initial set up (and I use the phrase advisedly, as we were a bit outnumbered!)



Several eye candy shots - all figures are OG from Julian's collection.


The theory was, all four forces had been maneuvering around in the darkness hours and as dawn broke, they find themselves on convergent routes. 



Johns small (three units of four bases) Union cavalry brigade prepare to defend the fence line against Julian's infantry brigade of four units of five bases, including one elite Zouave unit, supported by a battery of artillery.


After the first few rounds of fire, one unit of cavalry was forced to "skedaddle" (an actual thing in the rules) meaning a voluntary retreat.


The carbine armed cavalry was at a distinct disadvantage against infantry with rifled muskets. 


Union artillery (in my command) arrives and unlimbers.


John (who had played the rules with Julian previously) commented this battery was not long for the world and he was to be proved correct!


My plan had been to redeploy from the left flank to reinforce John and hold the bottom right corner of the table against Julian and Chris - I might have been better just to deploy in line and slug it out with Chris.....


At this point ALL Johns dismounted cavalry had been forced to pull back from the fence line, although thanks to the RALLY action, none had yet suffered any game ending casualties!


This is the last shot of my artillery - they were harder to hit (3 x D6 rather than 5) but still only requiring 4 5 or 6, and two hits per base. With fifteen bases firing, Chris destroyed them in one round of musketry!


Some of Chris's Rebs who wiped out my guns.


Meanwhile, bolstered by the arrival of infantry reinforcements, the US cavalry are once again manning the fence line.


View along the length of the table - a thin grey line at the far end marks Chris's command


Finally, after about two hours of exchanging fire, Julian's Rebs commit to a charge!


Two fresh regiments moved through the firing line and assaulted the fence line -one taking on the weakened, smaller cavalry unit, the other confronting my infantry.



And here are the results - my infantry rebuffed the Rebs and they rolled 3 D6 getting something like 15 inches - they can just be seen in the far distance in the shot above - but to the right of my unit, the dismounted cavalry is gone, and the grey coats are across the fence!


Victorious Rebel infantry finally gain the fence line.


Meanwhile, Chris converges on the woods, three units firing against one of mine - another inevitable result really - in a couple of rounds of fire, another Union unit was removed from play.


The final position when we called the game - an overwhelming Confederate victory - they lost no units at all whereas we had lost at least two, and possibly three. 

Two factors were at play - my tactics of marching to John were probably wrong - I should have just deployed more or less immediately (as Chris did) and confronted him line to line. The second factor was, we were quite seriously out gunned - I had slightly more fire power than Chris on our flank, but Julian had about double what John could deploy on their flank - so without my support, John's cavalry was bound to be overwhelmed eventually. For a learning game, however, it did its job - the rules were pretty simple and straight forward to pick up and remember after a couple of turns and for those who like "friction" and unpredictability in their games, these fit the bill without anything too complicated - and best of all - NO BLOODY SAVING THROWS! 

Doubtless, we are destined to play a few games using these rules over the coming weeks at Julians place, so look out for further game reports in due course!

PS
While tidying up the images used above, I noticed I had omitted to post one of my War of 1812 British units in my previous post - so here they are!




Now - that is DEFINITELY the last word for this post!

38 comments:

  1. Keith, when I see a set of rules with a mush-mash of ideas from several rules (you list some known rules but I recognize bits of other rules too), I wonder if there is an actual underlying design philosophy bringing all of these disparate bits together. Sometimes, I think not. What are the Carpe Diem tokens modeling? I suggest the ability to rally off hits IS a saving throw only in a different action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awww.....don't ruin it for me Jon....I really don't like saving throws ....and what you say has some logic....the difference seems to be though, this mechanism allows units to absorb a lot of damage but still carry on...
      As to the Carpe Deum....does it represent inspired leadership? Or is it just there to add unpredictability to the game, so players can't "card count" the action tiles? To my mind, one or two might have been better than four per game turn.
      Relating back to a couple of recent blog discussions, this is definitely a rule set at the "game" end of the "simulation to game continuum" that one blogger proposed!

      Delete
    2. You’re right. I should not spoil it for you.

      Delete
    3. Hey, no problems Jon, I wasn't serious.....I very rarely am!

      Delete
  2. Hi Keith an interesting post covering the sort of ACW action that appeals to me (pocket armies on a 6x4). There are elements in the rules that I recognise and like.

    The Whiskey Break is obviously replacing the ‘Tea Break’ and seems an okay replacement, but the Carpe Deum reference seem totally out of place. I like what is does, but a better ‘in period’ term might have been a better placement, as the ‘ancient’ reference feels a little disjointed.

    From your overview, I am left with the impression that this is a very robust set and so can easily be house-ruled, while staying stable.

    I note the free Valour & Fortitude (Napoleonics) rules on the Perry site us a 4+ for hits and does not use saves, though there are a good body of modifiers to bring in nuance - what is notable about the rules is that are written by the co-author of Black Powder, which does use saves, so an interesting deviation of design intent there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Norm...if by robust you mean simple then yes, they are! One house rule already being considered is to change the charge, which, as written, is six inches for all. including mounted cavalry, which seems odd....we will extend thus to twelve inches. As to the change in the Perry Napoleonic rules, maybe there are a lot of people who feel like me about saving throws!

      Delete
    2. Just reading through these at the moment & it says that cavalry do add 6" to the stated movement rates.

      Delete
    3. Haha, I am sure at one point, John said he had seen something like that...looks like we don't have to add a house rule after all!

      Delete
  3. They seem an interesting set of rules and well worth a try out for a club night

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Scotty - as mentioned, more game than simulation, in my mind - but then so are Bolt Action, To the Strongest etc ......
      They weren't the best rules I have ever played, but they worked ok - another problem I forgot to mention in my AAR was that both John and I were rolling well below average dice!

      Delete
  4. Great looking game Keith and you had fun even though you lost. Can't top that.
    The game seemed to play correctly - e.g. your point that you should not march to meet a stronger opponent, make them come to you.
    I think the rally rolls are ok, not really saving for every hit, you only get the chance to save a couple, no matter how many hits are inflicted. This means constant pressure on a unit will eventually force it to fold, where if you have saving throws, with a bit of luck you can stay the whole game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ben, our tactical problem was, Chris and I were pretty evenly matched (although I noticed when reviewing the images earlier that he started with all four units on the table whereas I still had to march on one infantry unit plus my artillery....but John had three weak dismounted cavalry units with short range carbines against four rifled musket armed infantry units - I really had to go to help him, or he would certainly have been beaten. Unfortunately, Chris could just swing to his right in his starting positions, and two of his units could already fire at me, in nice, dense columns of march!
      I agree about the impact of the rally phase - 10 dice firing, should, on average, achieve 5 hits - and as you say, only 2 rally dice can be rolled each Rally action, with only 1 as the average success rate - generally, you could stave off instant disaster, but being a target of firing almost always had some detrimental effect on your units.

      Delete
  5. Lots of borrowing, skeedadling being used in several places in '80's rules sets on ACW battles. All that rallying sounds to me like delayed saves. :-0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I think they are probably an amalgamation of all the "bits" the creators liked about other rule sets, Joe....I have done exactly the same myself on occasions! You and John are probably right n the rallies, they are just less irritating a few minutes later than immediate saving throws are 😑

      Delete
  6. A fine game there Keith and obviously a ruleset that has potential for you. These days I'm quite happy with Black Powder rules and their variants for my games, as it means the mechanics barely differ from period to period, allowing me to focus on the game rather than the rules. They do however have saving throws which are anathema to some!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Steve, although not great, the rules were adequate, and the one benefit was he simple they were to pick up and remember .
      We have played Black Powder several years ago, but I don't think any of us were particularly grabbed by it...maybe we should give the Perrys free version a try?
      The thing with Friday night games at Julian's is, we will always move on to another rule set....we must have played fifty plus sets over the years I have been gaming with him!

      Delete
    2. Black Powder II is better laid out as a set of rules and with some needed tweaks to improve things. The free Perry's rules are so similar, other than moving and firing reversed, that they're worth giving a go. I think with all rules, you need to play between 3-5 games, often quite small affairs, to get to know them and then see if they work for you.

      Delete
    3. Sensible advice indeed Steve....perhaps I will download the Perry rules tomorrow at work and give them a once over!

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. These rules had some nice, simple mechanics, Michal!

      Delete
  8. It seems like a simple enough set of rules to follow while still providing enough interest and variation. I have found it difficult to introduce new sets of rules to my gaming groups unless everyone is invested in them from the start and more than two or three people read and invest in them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol....I am guilty Lawrence...I need to play a game or two and have people explain the rules...I find reading rules only marginally more interesting than reading a commercial contract! That's probably why I prefer simplicity in rule sets.

      Delete
  9. An interesting activation system in the rules. Always interesting to see different approaches. Also, nice looking 1812 unit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks a lot Peter, I thought the activation system worked quite well although it's obviously a "game" mechanism...obligating both sides to fire or move at the same time doesn't simulate anything that happens on a real battlefield

      Delete
    2. But then in real life one side's army doesn't wait for the other side to stop firing before they have a go, so simultaneity does make sense. I recently reread Charles Grant's Battle (the first set of rules I ever used as a young 'un) & they had it for moving & firing back in 1970!

      Delete
  10. This is relevant to my interests.
    Oh, I have these rules (naturally, I have a LOT of ACW rules). They're on the list of 'rules to try one day.' Currently at #4 on the list because it got extra points for having a cool name. I agree that games set in the ACW where folks are firing HUGE miniballs at each other there should be no saving throws.
    I love the look of an ACW table. one day i'm gonna have to do a 28mm ACW army. 😁

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it's a pretty cool name Stew....sometimes, the name can be the best thing about a ruleset! Have a look at 1866 and all that blog if you want some more inspiration for 28mm ACW!

      Delete
  11. Excellent stuff, and you must have hit a nerve because we have been sent these rules with a view to using them in group ACW games :)
    I also hate saving throws mate, and I love the sense of chaos that cards bring in Field of Battle - and they seem to have replicated a lot of that here.
    Now...I'm also seeing a hack for AWI in these rules :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Including a direct link to where you can download these for free probably convinced a couple of people to have a look at them!

      Delete
  12. Great gaming and it's always nice to have free rulesets, Keith!

    ReplyDelete
  13. They are definitely my favourite kind, Dean!

    ReplyDelete
  14. They seem interesting Keith, and the game enjoyable. If the rules bring you tabletop fun who cares how they were constructed. If they work for you, then that is what matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Richard, they provided an entertaining evening

      Delete
  15. A nice looking game Keith…
    It’s always interesting to try out new rules… even if you don’t get a win.

    Nice to see De Watteville’s as well….

    All the best. Aly

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks Aly....the loss was mainly my poor tactics vis a vis Chris, but being outgunned didn't help us!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sounds like at least that this is a fun rules set and the game is a good looking one to boot.

    Outnumbered/outgunned games are my fav as they represent a more historical setting as a rare commander worth his salt would see the wisdom of attacking an even force. Forces the players to make hard choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true on the tactics of attacking Dai - I guess if I had been the Confederates, I would have complained I should have at least a two to one advantage - although Julian really did have that with his infantry taking on the much weaker dismounted cavalry!

      Delete