"Rally Round the King is unplayable from the Rulebook" Topic

I gave it another chance. And then another. But the verdict has become more and more clear: The game is not playable without a major re-write. Information is simply not there in many cases (and on such basic ones as what the "arc of fire" actually is or how expanding a bodies frontage works and what its movement costs are, some rules are only in the examples, some rules seem to be implied in diagrams but are not stated in the text and it is unclear how they work, it is unclear whether corner-to-corner contact constitutes melee contact etc.)
Its a pity as the parts of the game that I can understand are quite interesting, but it has already been too much work to arrive at a basic understanding of the clearer parts of the rules and that is still unsufficient for play. In short: The rules do not need clarifications, they need a re-write.

Am I right or what am I missing? There could be something, as all the reviews seem quite pleased with the game – I wonder how they managed to even play.

My suggestion is don't switch to DBA for a rules replacement. :)

>Am I right or what am I missing?

Check the front and inside cover for the words "version 0.1 for play testing only. Comments to ….."

DBA is crystal clear in comparison.
I have in the past complained about Chipco rules being badly written. But they are light years ahead of RRtK. Someone has said something about Phil Barker writing too "stream of consciousness" – with RRtK it seems you need to also read the authors mind and all the things that are not in the rules to make sense of them.

And no, its not play test. Its the one they sell through their online shop.

To be fair: Ed (I believe) is very helpful and a great guy. But the rules still do not make sense at all.

Have you set up the game on a table and just tried to run through it using the solo rules? I did this, stumbled a few times, asked some questions and got through the game. Seeing the game in action makes several aspects of the rules much clearer.

That said, it IS a THW rules set; sometimes it comes down to winging it.

-Will

Have you gone to the yahoo group and asked your questions? Details about that should be in the book. THW has a very active yahoo group and there are folks there who fall over themselves to answer questions. Also Ed patrols it pretty frequently and usually jumps in on rules questions.

it is unclear whether corner-to-corner contact constitutes melee contact etc

I'm not really an ancients gamer, but honestly, I've never seen an rule set that allows melee between units that are *only* in corner-to-corner contact. Most rules I've seen try to force you to properly align a unit as it moves so that the formations meet head on. Corner-to-corner is purely a game thing and wouldn't really exist in real life. The troops would move in to fight, not to stand at corner/ contact and let the two corner guys fight it out. What a silly mental picture!

Yes I have (tried to) play a few games. Very frustrating, as every heureka moment I had was destroyed at finding equally valid contra arguments or stumbling about the next thing the rules seem to be silent about.

The rules do force you to align. And that is exactly the reason I suspect that corner-to-corner contact is inteded to work – as in DBx overlaps. If it is not, that would mean that you would want to catch the enemy at an angle, because (for some reason) you do not align in that case and could bring more troops to bear. The other reason I believe that corner-to-corner is inteded is that it explicitly works that way for the REP bonus you get for friends in contact.

I have asked questions in an earlier thread and Ed also has answered a lot of them. The problem is that there are so many problems that I really do not feel like trying to play this game anymore, which is a shame, which is why I bothered to write this and not just dumped the book in the bin and called it that.

"Corner-to-corner is purely a game thing and wouldn't really exist in real life. The troops would move in to fight, not to stand at corner/ contact and let the two corner guys fight it out. What a silly mental picture!"

Quite so, but how does that help in playing a wargame where such situations happen and are even intended to happen by the rules? Its quite obvious that this is an abstraction, as all wargames rules are.

Have you gone to the yahoo group and asked your questions?

Doesn't that suggestion support the OP's point? If you have to go to a Yahoo group to understand the rules to play the game, it probably does need a rewrite.

Typical of Two-Hour Wargames products in my experience.

Quite so, but how does that help in playing a wargame where such situations happen and are even intended to happen by the rules? Its quite obvious that this is an abstraction, as all wargames rules are.

Good questions. I would probably just move on rules wise. Some people like vague rules that cover the basics and leave them to fill in the blanks (like say FUBAR). Others prefer tighter rules that cover "everything" (DBA). The rest of us fall somewhere else in between. I felt that way about CR2.0 so I left it be and played other stuff until CR 3.0 came out. I wanted to like CR 2.0 but I just couldn't wrap my head around a lot of the mechanics. But CR 3.0 was way better and it's a game I play quite regularly now.

But to answer the question above… that's when you and your foe come up with a workable solution and move on. Granted, that's just a band-aid that later turns into a house rule. Too many house rules and you're not really playing the game that you purchased. But on the other hand, if you like tinkering and you're happy with them then what's the difference?

But yeah, if it's that frustrating then I would move on. Plenty of other rules out there to try out. Ed is a pretty decent guy. Tell him how frustrated you are and who knows?

Doesn't that suggestion support the OP's point? If you have to go to a Yahoo group to understand the rules to play the game, it probably does need a rewrite.

Not really. I've never read a rules set that was perfect, complete, and totally understandable. Every rules set I've ever had has had me scratching my head and trying to figure out what the author intended to say. Even Barker's DBA, which is VERY tight with its wording, has left me asking a zillion questions… which then got me talking to people who really play the game. When I spoke to them and asked my questions then a lot of my confusion went away and the rules made sense. YMMV though.

Typical of Two-Hour Wargames products in my experience.

LOL! Nice. Show me one company that this jab DOESN'T apply to?

Indeed there would be too many house rules – writing a new system would be easier than house ruling away the problems I encounter trying to play the game.

One of the reasons for this thread is that I would like to know how other people feel about the problem. If I am not in a lone little minority on this, the next step would be to ask Ed whether he can do something about it. (Just to note it right away: Ed is cool and there is no need to endangering his blood pressure. Let us all keep this nice, please.)

I would suggest that the problem of Phil Barkers writing style has nothing to do with the problems in RRtK, as in PB's case the rules mostly actually are there, in RRtK's case I suspect they are not. Now if someone tells me that this is intended and the rules indeed are meant to be vague and more or less intentionally leave grey areas and holes open – well, *then* I am beating a dead something really.

There you go trying to use facts and being reasonable to dispute pithy comments again, Tgunner.

Don't you know that there is only one true way, and it's <insert pet game here>!

- Monk

I dont think you aimed at me, but in case you do – the rules I do like are Impetus, Fantasy Rules!, Lasalle, Alien Squad Leader, and probably L'Art de la Guerre. I do not want to compare rules here, but at any rate it might be helpful to see where I come from.

No worries, hwarang- you're just having trouble wrapping your head around a particular ruleset, and asking for help, nothing "pithy" or snarky about it at all.

- Monk

I buy lots of rules and some I like some I don't and they sit. on a shelf gathering dust. But these rules are simply not understandable. Its like u try to teach me baseball but only cover hitting a single. To me that's unacceptable. I can understand not liking the rules. But that's a matter of taste but incomplete rules is not right. I got no hard feelings but I will be contacting thw and asking for a refund.

I thought I was the only one. Ive got a couple different sets of THW rules nd just cant get my head around them. Things just arent explained well.

Chuck

I am not an advocate for these rules – you can see my own struggles on my Solo Battles blog (I am about to post another game of RRtK), but in answer to your questions:

what the "arc of fire" actually is

Page 39: "The firing arc is normally straight ahead of the firing unit, the width of the base. In addition all skirmishers, chariots, and elephants may also fire to their direct rear, the width of the base."

What is unclear? The use of the word "normally"?

how expanding a bodies frontage works and what its movement costs are

You can increase the number of units in the front rank by adding one on each flank. The units moved to the flank cannot exceed their movement getting to that position (i.e. measuring from their starting point to their ending point).

I will grant you that the rule for "how much movement does it take" is a bit strange, but it is there. Page 31 states that "units may use their full movement allowing only if they do not change direction …" and the Expanding rules is under the Changing Direction section of the rules. Hence expanding takes all of the movement for the body, but the units expanding to the flanks have their movement allowance to perform the move.

it is unclear whether corner-to-corner contact constitutes melee contact

Page 40: "Whenever opposing units come into base-to-base contact melee occurs. Base contact need not be complete and may be corner-to-side, side-to-side."

I guess for you this is a case of "well it doesn't SAY corner-to-corner, so it is undefined", huh? For me it is clear: corner-to-corner is not listed therefore it is not sufficient contact. In other words, the rules explicitly grant permission, all unstated is denied (not undefined).

Now watch one of the authors come along and say I got it wrong … :^)

It is interesting because this debate (of sorts) seems to come up with certain rule sets. Look at anything by Neil Thomas and you will see "holes"; same with any of the "old school" masters. They did not define every last little detail and left it to you to sort out the little bits.

It sounds to me like you want 'tournament tight' rules (even if you don't play in tournament). I would definitely recommend DBA 3.0 for you. Same low complexity and figure/unit count.

Actually, it is very easy to "strap-on" the reaction system to other game systems. That and RRtK's War Rating/Activation system is nothing but a modified PIP system. (An interesting one, but one that needs a little work if you are going to use DBA's freer movement.)

Dale

No, you're not alone. We had to have someone who was experienced with the rules to run a THW game before we could play a game unchaperoned. Mind you, we did have fun playing the games. I've never been able to translate HOTT into casual American gamer to give it a try, either.

First off…Dale was nice enough to point out page references. Thanks Dale.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't take someone's opinion personally and appreciate the feedback.
You didn't come off as snarky to me.

Some people understand the game better from reading it while others learn better by playing it. Some have to be shown with a demo, maybe a video is on order.
I've taken this into account with a different format as you can see in CR 3.0 that's available for free.

link

It started with Star Army and is in the newer books going forward. There's a STOP! box after each few pages that is there to help gamers to learn the rules step by step. Even to the point of recommending that you use one figure per side in a demo to learn the concept. Of course there's no guarantee that someone will bother to use the boxes.

Many gamers just jump right in and give it a go based on their previous experiences. Some are tournament gamers that spend hours reading rules looking for loopholes and ambiguities that they can benefit from. I'm not saying that applies to you or anyone specifically.

But regardless it's not working for you so feel free to email me directly if you want and we can discuss it further.

twohourwargames@yahoo.com

And yes, the older THW products (over five years ago)could be confusing at times but they have improved in part by listening to the feedback from the Yahoo Group. With over 5000 members something must be working.

Thanks again,
Ed

Mooseheadd – PM sent.

I'd suggest taking a look at these examples. They aren't of RRtK but show another way we are trying to get the message across. Maybe I could do one for RRtK.

link

link

The second link is bad.

link

Thanks Dale.

Hwarang

Maybe this will help.

link

Thanks for all the answers!

I am certainly not the kind of gamer who exploits rules holes. But I like my rules to have as few holes as possible – that does not mean that I am highly allergic to them (my favourite game would be Impetus and the rules have been less than watertight in some areas when I began playing, now all is a bit clearer.)

The reason I was not giving page numbers obviously was that I could not find those rules. I was deliberately trying to keep the examples simple, I could go on and write quite a few more complex situations that I am quite sure are not in the rules. My favourite example would be Frenzy troops in a complex formation reacting to a Threat to their side – what do they do? Do they turn and are then dragged along? Are they not even supposed to take the Enemy Threat test? (the "facing" part on p. 37 could refer to both the active and the passive unit. Also I believe the sentence it appears in is grammatically impossible, but not being a native speaker I might be wrong on that.) Are they allowed to expand?

Arc of fire is clearer than I thought then. That is my error.

"You can increase the number of units in the front rank by adding one on each flank"

That is not in the rules as far as I can understand them. The thing about "adding one on each flank" is exactly what is unclear. You can understand the text that way, but you could also understand it as taking a unit from each side in the rear and pacing both on one of the front rank flanks. However: The major biggie is that it does not state whether that eats up half of your movement, all of it or whether its done as part of a move or whatever. Look at the rules for wheeling and it should be obvious why the placement in the section alone is unsufficient explanation.

"I guess for you this is a case of "well it doesn't SAY corner-to-corner, so it is undefined", huh? For me it is clear: corner-to-corner is not listed therefore it is not sufficient contact. In other words, the rules explicitly grant permission, all unstated is denied (not undefined)."

Normally I would agree – but these rules explanations are so wonky that I did think it quite possible that this was intended but not stated. Especially as in the "Expanding" part it does say that you can bring more units in contact by the expansion – this seemed to imply that corner-to-corner ("overlap") would be a melee contact. If it is not a melee contact, another problem is still there (see my first post).

Ed, the problem is that the standard situations you use in your examples (single line vs. single line frontally) are more or less clear – its the slightly more complicated situations that are unplayable. Maybe the problem with the CR system for this game is that it was intended for skirmishing and the mechanics and/or their en detail description have been insufficiently changed to cope with the problems of games involving formed troops?

I think that RRtK does not cope well with these rules holes, less so than other rules sets. This is because the tables and the tests are not very good for making up stuff on the spot.

My favourite example would be Frenzy troops in a complex formation reacting to a Threat to their side – what do they do? Do they turn and are then dragged along? Are they not even supposed to take the Enemy Threat test?

That shows me that you really are having a hard time understanding the rules. The Reaction Tests on the QRS, in bold lettering, has Frenzy written on it explaining how the unit reacts. As in

Frenzy will charge.

Obviously this means Frenzy units take Reaction Tests. You are confusing them with Fanatics. Fanatics do not and that's spelled out on page 7 under Fanatics.
Another example.

"You can increase the number of units in the front rank by adding one on each flank"

That is not in the rules as far as I can understand them. The thing about "adding one on each flank" is exactly what is unclear,

Page 33 – Under Expanding
"Bodies with more than one rank may expand the front rank of Bodies by one unit on each end."

The thing about "adding one on each flank" is exactly what is unclear. You can understand the text that way, but you could also understand it as taking a unit from each side in the rear and pacing both on one of the front rank flanks.

Really? Even with a picture underneath showing how it is done.

The major biggie is that it does not state whether that eats up half of your movement, all of it or whether its done as part of a move or whatever.

It specifically states that no unit winds up further from its starting position that its movement allowance permits.

I'm not going to argue this. The rules are pretty straight forward but you are trying to find reasons to fight them.

Example -Contact is defined early on. Under Forming Bodies it says contact is base to base. What part of that is unclear?

"Well is it corner to corner, corner to side."

That's coming from you and your prior experience. Are they touching? That's base to base contact.

Dale had a question about how to count support and how do the units have be lined up. What's the rule say? Each friendly unit in contact up to 3.

"Well is it corner to corner or…"

That's coming from him. Are they touching? That's base to base contact.

One gentlemen said he couldn't understand the mechanics until he had someone show him then he understood. Obviously they read the rules and understood them.

Sorry, but the rules do not need a rewrite. There are hundreds of people that play the game from having only read the book.

Some people don't learn well just by reading. Some have to have a demo or have it explained to them. Like in school. You get a text book, the teacher does some examples on the board, and you do some problems or tests. They teach it three different ways because people learn three different ways. Because all three ways are not available in this case there can be some confusion on the part of the person trying to learn the rules. They are different ways to learn and none is better than the others, just different.

So when someone tells me the rules aren't clear or need to be rewritten I understand its just their opinion and they can't figure it out. Because hundreds of others can.

"That shows me that you really are having a hard time understanding the rules. The Reaction Tests on the QRS, in bold lettering, has Frenzy written on it explaining how the unit reacts."

No, I do not and I realize that there is such a column in the Reaction table. The point is that it is totally unclear how such a charge is done for said unit.

"Really? Even with a picture underneath showing how it is done."

That picture does not explain anything – that might as well only be one option of how to do it. It is not clear whether one also would be allowed to take two units from each end in the rear and add them to one of the front ranks ends. Or whether I could also opt to just enlarge on one side etc. That is what I mean.

"It specifically states that no unit winds up further from its starting position that its movement allowance permits.

I'm not going to argue this. The rules are pretty straight forward but you are trying to find reasons to fight them."

You need to state whether the units that are not taking part in the frontal expansion are also allowed to move or not. Since you roughened up the tone I will follow suit with that:The rules's are not straight forward, they are sloppy.
What good it is to have a set of rules that needs someone familiar with your explanations to play it?

"That's coming from you and your prior experience. Are they touching? That's base to base contact."

Then why dont you define base to base contact in some way? You do not, as far as I see it. On p. 26 in forming bodies it says "touching (…) in any way at all, even corner-to-corner." On p. 40, melee, it says then "Base contact needs to be complete and may be corner-to-side, side-to-side."
How can you argue that this is not confusing?

Please stop trying to tell me I am willfully misunderstanding your game. That is not so. Me and my gamepartner spent 4 hours last afternoon trying to make sense of the rules, as we really would like to use the game with the campaign system for a fantasy campaign. It was frustrating.

Since you roughened up the tone I will follow suit with that:The rules's are not straight forward, they are sloppy.

Really. Perhaps you should reread your original post.

Rally Round the King is unplayable from the Rulebook

That's a pretty belligerent opinion. But it is your opinion and you are entitled to it. IMHO I would think it should read "Rally Round the King is unplayable from the rulebook for me."

What good it is to have a set of rules that needs someone familiar with your explanations to play it?

I stand by my previous post which you choose to dismiss. There are hundreds of people playing the game from reading the rules.

Thanks for your input now have your last word and we can move on.

Maybe the problem with the CR system for this game is that it was intended for skirmishing and the mechanics and/or their en detail description have been insufficiently changed to cope with the problems of games involving formed troops?

Just a point of clarification as I believe this would not be the case. RRtK is largely based on (and a large portion of the battle rules are unchanged) Warrior Kings. Warrior Kings was released in 1998 and I think was one of THW first rules releases. The skirmish sets came later. So it is unlikely to be the case as suggested.

Even stranger then.
I tried to be helpful in suggesting an excuse for why the writing might seem so confused and why the concepts are "explained" the way they are. My guess (thus the question mark at the end of what I wrote) was that the writing of the rules might work better with skirmish games, where interaction of figures is less of a problem than in such games dealing with formed and physically rather large units/bodies.

As for the "hundreds of people without any problem" – if there really are "hundreds" of people playing RRtK, that would be a very impressive number.
However: The tendency of the people voicing their opinion in this thread does not quite support the notion that the rules are playable well (I add "well" to underline that clunkiness is not really acceptable for a rules set I spent money on) from reading the rules. Of course the numbers at hand are by no means statistically relevant, so hard to make anything of it.

Ed contacted me first and said he would refund me for the rules. Very Kind of him. But being a fan of his other rules and having played Nuts endlessly i told him that it was ok. He said no i insist. He said i could choose another rule set so i asked for a supplement, and to show Ed i also support him i ordered another supplement on top of the one he sent me out for free. Ed has always been a class act and responds quickly to any hiccups. Thanks Ed.

Yes and thank you for introducing more civilised manners again. Even though this thread has been rough going (also on my part – I cannot resist a good provocation ^^), I too want to add that I think that Ed is a good person.

Ed kindly sent me a copy of these rules, and I must admit I do find the layout of his rules difficult to follow, but I am going to persevere as they look like a good set of rules. I think, and please do not take offence Ed, the THW rulesets are much easier to unserstand when someone experienced with them runs you through a few games. I've a few sets now, which even if I don't play, I like to read through, look at ideas, fluff etc. I've many a set of rules I've bought that I don't play so that is not a comment on the quality of Ed's stuff, more an indication that I am a typical gamer ;-)

Well I never take offense as everyone is entitled to their opinion. I enjoy the criticism and comments equally and try to get better through both.
Now let's go game.

For what it is worth, I read through and then set up a solo match with some odds and ends based up for HOTT. As with all other THW games I have thus far played, my experience has been that the rules become more clear as you use them. Once you have them down, they just flow. Same thing with Ganesha Games product. Both core game engines are MILES away from what I was used to and it was only when I set down some miniatures and did a "walk through" that I sussed the rules out. Anyhow, it was smooth sailing for me and I look forward to more games, especially when no opponent is available. There is something to be said for having a game you can play anytime you have the time.

Wow. This thread, 2 years later, is still a 'glue ya' to the seat' dramatic read!
Whew! (wipes sweat off forehead)
And it resolves peacefully in the end. Ah, thus what gentlemanly humanity there is in the miniature wargamer.
(fires up a cigar)

It wasn't REALLY resolved, though. Chuckle…