Monday 18 December 2023

En Garde! Rules Review

These rules were a purchase to encourage myself to finish my pike and shot 28mm project.  I remember testing Ronin and being fairly impressed at a game that tried to make melee a bit more interesting; adding decisions and resource management into the process. En Garde! is very similar, pretty much v2 (but less shooting than Ronin, from my recollection). But have my tastes changed?

The Shiny

It's an Osprey Blue Book with all that entails. ~60 pages long, most of it rules. Just enough art - the minis shown are a bit chubby (we can charitably call them 'characterful')- are there any good musketeer lines? and some Osprey art. I didn't have any trouble using the book. I reckon most folk who read this blog have an Osprey book by now, anyway.  It doesn't hook you in and sell you a cool game universe like Zone Raiders or Carnevale, or Gamma Wolves - but Zona Alpha did better, with a similar layout. 

Not great, not terrible.

Overhead (What you need to know/have to play)

You throw 2D6, and will need a few counters (reload, combat pool tokens, wounds etc - about a dozen or so each), Models are classed Rank 1 (wimps ) to Rank 5 (OP hero) - each with a combat pool corresponding to the rank. There is Move, Initiative, Fight, Shoot, Armour stats and some special rules.

Overhead is pretty simple - you don't need a lot of kit, and there's not a lot of stats or special rules to memorize, but games will have tokens scattered about.

Activation & Movement

Players alternate moving models until all have moved, then alternate shooting until all have shot, then come to the combat phase which is a bit trickier. 

I quite like the activation - players can skip movement in favour of reloading, or hiding, or aiming, or giving an order (leaders can do a joint move with nearby allies). Lots of decisions. They also have a facing which is a good way to add tactics (rather than the 'everyone sees 360 noscope' of many games). You can jump and climb and fall and all that skirmish-y stuff you'd need in a swashbuckling game.

There are lots of decisions here and it is simple yet interactive. I like it a lot.

 

The minis in the book could charitably be described as 'characterful' - are there any good musketeer/swashbuckling miniature lines?

Combat

Ok,this is where I nope out. Hitpoints? I hear you ask. No. This is a game where the mechanics (resolution) of combat is simply so convoluted and slow, my 2023 self is simply not interested.

Shooting. You roll (add) 2d6. Add your Shoot. Then add or subtract up to 13(!) modifiers, some of which rely on you tracking if you have moved or aimed this turn. Then subtract 6. If the score is 1 or more, you may have wounded them. But wait - you now need to use this number for the wound table. To do this you take the number, then add your weapon strength and subtract target armour, then consult the wound table*. *I don't mind stun/light/grievous/kill wounds, but even this is not straightforward; needing differing amounts of stuns/wounds before you go 'up a level.'

Phew. A few things to do there. But that's EASY compared to melee combat.....

Now I applaud any attempt to make melee meaningful, beyond just pushing models together and rolling dice til someone loses. Ronin and En Garde! use "combat points" a resource you can allocate to attack or defence. Better troops have more combat points. I'll do my best to explain, but the examples and explanations in the book took up several pages of dense text, so not sure if I can do this in a few paragraphs. Here goes:

The players secretly draw counters equal to the combat pool (total) of the models in melee, assigning them to attack or defence (I used black or white Go counters for Ronin). They then reveal them to each other. Each model in the combat then rolls for initiative (d6+stat+modifiers). Models can opt to attack or pass (in order of best->worse initiative), rolling off in case of draws. This is the rough combat sequence.

However there's also a fair bit involved in actually making an attack (attack resolution). Pick the attacker, remove an attack counter from the pool. Defender declares Ploys. Attacker declares Ploys. Attacker rolls 2d6 + Fight +/- any modifiers (usually to do with weapon type or wounds), then Defender rolls 1d6 + Fight +/- modifiers. Subtract the Defence total from the Attack total. Just like shooting, if you get a 1+, you may have caused a wound. You then add any weapon modifiers and deduct defence, and voila! You have resolved a single attack. In only 8-9 steps!

Ploys are things like parrys, feints, ripostes or powerful blows - which allow you to modify rolls or even regain attack/defence tokens. (Cool, but other games do similar stuff, much faster)

I love the idea of the resource management (do I go all out attack? defend? balance?), the hidden counters, picking ploys - it's just the resolution is so bloody convoluted I'm not actually interested in playing. The mechanics are getting in the way of the game. The rulebook example (between three models) goes for a whole page - hundreds of words of dense text. To call it a RPG-lite is unfair to many RPGs which do combat much more efficiently.

Morale tests are triggered if 25% of the warband suffer a wound (or the just leader) in any given turn*; then you test in a way about as complex as you'd expect (*I'm curious: if a 10-man warband loses only 1-2 guys each turn; could they all die without ever needing a morale test?) Maybe I'm reading it wrong, exhausted from the preceding pages. There's plenty of modifiers, and there's different states (Wavering and Routing) which have different effects. Removing stun tokens is different again.

The combat ideas are good, but there's so many steps - so much adding, subtracting, modifiers. I could completely resolve a fight between 3 guys in ME:SBG in the time it takes to just allocate attack counters or roll for initiative in En Garde! - and there'd still be another 7-8 steps to go. It's just not worth it. Not only are the mechanics clunky, the extra tactics and options it gives are not worth the time.  I'm sure the process could be streamlined but if I pay for rules I'd like them to work 'out of the box.' The 20-model 'cap' is very optimistic. I'm a bit sad - I wanted to like these rules.

Chrome (Gear, Special Rules, Scenarios, Campaigns)

There is a sensible weapon and armour list which covers major types used (you could probably use En Garde to play Ronin's Japanese period). The ~20 special rules are also reasonable. There are extras rules for mounted combat and cannon. There are sample warbands - from landsknechts to aztecs, conquistadors, ottomans - even the musketeers: and 5 scenarios.  Enough to get by, but not lavish (probably as expected in a limited size book). There is some 'campaign rules' but they are very very limited - a paragraph or so of how to level up - nothing like the full-fledged Mordhiemesque campaigns of Burrows and Badgers or Zone Raiders. I did like how some extra rules for magic and monsters were included - you could have a witch hunter, a mage, a werewolf, a witch etc.

The best bit is there is a point system allowing you to build a model from scratch. I do like this. It means you can fill the gaps yourself, if you think the warband or unit lists are lacking. It's great.

I'd label this "competent but unspectacular." It's does the job, but doesn't really sell me on the setting and the campaign is a token gesture. Although the 'create stats for your own mini' building system is pretty sweet. More rules should do this.

Recommended: Not for me, thanks.

En Garde! does a lot of things right. The activation and move sequences are good; interactive with lots of decisions. The special rules and gear lists are sensible and clear. I love the points system allowing you to make units from scratch - true freedom! I applaud the idea of making melee a series of decisions - something more than just deciding to push models together. But after seeing these mechanics? If that's what it takes to add depth to melee, I'm cool with just pushing models together and chucking dice, and doing it 10x faster. The mechanics get in the way of me playing. It makes a sword-fight slow.

Not sure if you will like it? Read the above section on combat. If you think it sounds cool and cinematic, like the idea of secretly assigning attack and defence points - and you aren't bothered by the processes involved - then grab this game. I recall playtesting its predecessor Ronin and finding it interesting but slow: 10 years later, I am less tolerant of multiple steps, modifiers and math. Others may disagree - I'd say the general vibe on the net about Ronin and En garde! is positive.

Admittedly this game has inspired some more game design musings (melee)/(elements of a game that are dealbreakers) and it has inspired me to rework on my own homebrew Middlehiem rules and experiment with melee stances. So I am getting some use out of the rules...

26 comments:

  1. ThThere's something there in the attempt to introduce some resource management with ploys & combat points, but yes it sounds like clunky game. At least they're trying though!

    Maybe if the combat points & ploys (and, why not, the hit points) are moved from the individual models to the overall "army" level", and the number of modifiers is reduced?

    We are evolving in opposite directions. I'm really no longer cool with the idea that melee is just shoving models together and chucking some dice with highest wins. Especially not since in so many games tactical movement also doesn't really matter or is a complete no brainer you can do on autopilot. A solution must be found!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd rather not shove models together and chuck dice til the best wins either! I'm pretty sure I've explored melee in the past in game design posts, complaining about it....

      https://deltavector.blogspot.com/2022/02/game-design-87-melee-dilemma.html

      ....But if the alternative is spending such a huge amount of time and so many steps... a sword fight shouldn't feel slow! It feels LESS like a fight, takes more effort, AND takes me 'out of the flow of the game.'

      I'm sure the above rules 'could' be streamlined and there is a few simple fixes. But I if I end up rewriting half the rules as homebrew, are they worth buying?

      -eM

      Delete
  2. I have to say I also really like the Osprey blue book format. Affordable, to the point, focus on rules, not too much space wasted on fluff and artwork. Man, I hate fluff :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think fluff is usually good, especially if it isn't something commonly understood.

      Something famous like WW2? - nah, there's no need for fluff in a WW2 rulebook. A weird sci fi setting, yes, it is useful to know the feel of the universe (why) and the type of fighting (how) we are to expect.

      When fluff is bad is when it interferes with easily using the rulebook. Like when key rules are buried amongst a bunch of random stories. Or there are funny stories and text bubbles interrupting the rules. Or when you have to go 150 pages before you FIND the rules *cough* Carnevale *cough*.

      I think fluff can be useful, but it shouldn't actively interfere with the rulebook... explaining the rules. You know, what the book is actually for...

      I like the pricing, but do think the Osprey books are constrained at times - many need a extra 10-15 pages to do a proper campaign or warband system etc, or to spread out rules to make them more readable.

      -eM

      Delete
    2. I read books/comics, I watch movies/series. So much of that stuff is so much better than the fluff we're served up in game books. I don't need that mediocre stuff. It's almost never original, creative or well-written. Just a brief intro establishing theme & mood will do for me.

      One thing I do like in rule books is an implied setting. Unit, weapon or ability names that say something (but not everything) about the what they are and about the larger setting, preferably in a way that stimulates your own imagination rather than close it off with a full & final lore dump.

      The Doomed does this well. It gives you weapons like the Oxidiser, in game terms a lethal ranged weapon, but you're not told what it looks like, how it works or even whether it's a pistol or rifle or maybe a ring shooting rays. It's no more than a cool name informing you this is a setting with weird tech weapons, but you get to decide on the details, and I love that room for personal interpretation. In itself it's not much, together with the other little hints it succeeds at unobtrusive, integral world building. It's also very appropriate for a miniatures agnostic game.

      Delete
  3. Soapbox rant -ignore if desired. I'm with you regarding the level of...stodginess?...resolving melee combat, but...why is that level of detailed planning/plotting/executing to represent what is (most agree?) a quick, fierce flurry of activity that is in actuality an instinctive expression of a fighter's training and experience -as far from planning/plotting as could be- taken to a level of magnitude greater in air or space fighter combat games without so much as a whisper of dislike? (sorry for the 'anonymous' post...can't seem to manage a login?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. If you have lots of planning/management in what should be a fast flurry of blows, etc it 'feels' off.

      My homebrew fantasy rules currently use few 'modes' or 'stances' stolen from vidoegames - power attack (less chance to win fight, but more damage); all out defence (easier to win, but do no damage), mixed with fighters facings mattering (i.e. 180d arc not 360), and ability to move around enemy model once in combat/break away (dodge roll), and bash/counter (no damage, but reduce their defence/armour next turn or stun = improve odds later).

      ^No special planning, you just declare it if you/your weapon is capable of it.

      I mix this with 'stamina' - a resource you either have or don't (so I don't need to track) - i.e. stolen from stamina bars in videogames...

      Logins have been a problem for months - I just use my initials so others can follow who is commenting to what. And I run the blog :-/

      -eM

      Delete
    2. "Yeah. If you have lots of planning/management in what should be a fast flurry of blows, etc it 'feels' off." Agreed - so the mystery I face is why such planning/management (to an even greater degree) is not just tolerated but expected in air combat?

      Delete
    3. I experiment with air combat a lot (should be heaps of posts here on this topic) and I think there's just too many factors to consider, slowing it down:
      Energy (height vs speed) vs positioning, detection, pilot skill vs aircraft performance... ...to play quickly. So it will feel wrong unless you abstract a LOT; or skip some key aspects.

      The other issue is one where the designers just get it wrong. If you are flying a single plane, then it's probably reasonable enough to plot/plan maneuvers. (I mean, I'd probably be OK with this in a melee game like En Garde if you only controlled 1 mini, too) But not everyone has 10 mates all willing to play a single plane each.

      Once you want to control more than one plane, most aerial rules are just waaay too detailed (and stupidly so - you can't micro each throttle change or stick pull if you are controlling ~6 planes as a flight commander etc IRL)

      The only game that tries something new is Blood Red Skies but their rather insane pricing and weird scale makes it hard to recommend.

      -eM

      Delete
  4. Outside of 3d prints, the best Musketeer-esque minis I've found are Tiercio Creatives stuff, and I'm planning on picking up some boxes of Anno Domini 1666 minis to see what they are like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I think I've bookmarked the 1666 stuff already - they look great! - but they are very pricey/hard to get in Australia.

      Postage from anywhere but UK is pretty insane - i.e. $80 for a rulebook from USA is not unusual.

      I guess I need to see my 3D printer folk.

      -eM

      Delete
  5. The problem of Melee Yahtzee is a persistent one. Some have more tolerance and even preference for it than others. Sadly, I am not sure anyone has hit on the "winning formula" yet, and even if they did I am not 100% sure it would be rewarded!

    When I was a (terrible) Fencer, you actually did put a lot of strategy and thought into your sword fight. It was not just instinctual or reactions. You would try to plan out what you wanted to do, how the opponent might react, and then what you would do; all in your head before you started. The actual action then lasted a second or three, but it had all been planned out before. The winner often being the one to best "guess" what the other would do and counter it. In that regarding, this system probably mirrors that approach. Fine (possibly even good) for 1-on-1 duels but a bit awkward when you get to multiple combats.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coincidence - I was also a terrible fencer in my youth! (My daughter just found my old foils and gear and left them messily on my bed yesterday).

      -eM

      Delete
    2. So a bit like Kitano's remake of Zatoichi, where he plays how the duel would go in his mind, sees himself falling, and at the last minute changes sword hands, and of course wins? :)

      Delete
    3. A 3rd poor fencer and amateur HEMA-ist. If we agree that stance, premeditated attack, weapon properties and combatant skill all matter, how about a melee resolution mechanic that follows that?
      First players choose and simultaneously reveal stances for all combatants. This could be done with dice, cards tokens. Stances show where the combatant is defnding and may be prerequisites or give modifiers for attacks. 2nd, now that stances are known, players choose an attack/technique for each combatant, (again dice/cards/tokens). Techniques determine the result, having a speed, target and lethality. This allows for a 2 step process that determines who hits first, where and whether they injure, potentially without dice rolling at all, or only for damage/lethality and a high level of simulationism.
      Might try to flesh this out!
      LX

      Delete
  6. I played this game a lot in a variety of periods and found it not clunky at all.

    Perhaps a review would be better based on an actual game played instead of the rulebook.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect it would be a lot smoother after a bunch of games/if you have someone to learn with to get past the initial hump.

      Unfortunately as the 'early adopter/only adopter' I don't have much motivation to persist.

      -eM

      Delete
    2. You might have a point. Sometimes you need to learn to play a game, and if that doesn't involve memorizing hunders of pages or a decade of practice just to get a smooth playthrough, I'm ok with that. The alternative are the dumbed down rehashes of the familiar we see so much of these days. Instanly playable but also quickly boring.

      Delete
  7. Es muy difícil que haya muchos modificadores y detalles y mantener un ritmo de juego fluido. Y más sin caer en Melee Yahtzee...

    MM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would probably be OK and flow fine if you played it lots, but it wasn't an instant 'pick up and play' like, say, Zone Raiders.

      It's not a bad game - there's a lot to like - it just had one 'dealbreaker.' ....Which for me can be as petty as having to record hitpoints.

      In my old age, I tend to like my wargames and their mechanics to be summed up in a quick 'elevator pitch'/'movie pitch'.

      "You take turns acting with minis"
      "Each mini can do 2 actions - like move, or shoot"
      "Some actions mean your mini can't do anything more i.e. if you climb, then that's it - no shooting afterwards"
      "To do stuff like shoot or jump, roll under your stat on d20"
      "...That means rolling low is good!"
      "You roll to hit with your gun or sword; under your stat"
      "Your opponent then rolls to block under his defence stat"
      "Your opponent then rolls against his survival stat to see if he is dead or just wounded."
      "Then your opponent has a go with one of his minis"
      "Oh, and also you get a few Command points that means you can spend them to move two models in a row, or activate a wounded model, or get a single extra action."

      ^ With these few sentences, my opponent is ready to play Zone Raiders.

      -eM

      Delete
  8. There was a trend for a while that I call "One Roll to Rule Them All". The idea was to wrap To Hit, To Wound, and Armor save into 1 single dice roll. This often involved combining the attacker and opponent's abilities and situational mods into the roll as well. When it was all said and done it often looked like what we see in En Garde. Sure, it was one roll, but to determine the outcome of the roll was not easy or at-a-glance.

    Thankfully, I think this "One Roll to Rule Them All" trend is over. I never really saw an effective, simple, and easy to resolve at-a-glance version for these efforts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An old space-fighter game called Silent Death had my favourite. It was unique.

      A blaster might roll 2d6 to hit, then you took the better of the two rolls as the damage.

      A laser might roll 2d10 (more accurate) but you tookl the worse of the two rolls.

      Another weapon might roll 2d4 but add the rolls together for damage.

      =Each weapon had its own rule!

      I recall the game with nostalgia but I think I spent more time making ships than playing it (I disliked hitpoints from a young age!)

      Even now the EM4 ships designed are it are my most cost effective miniatures.

      -eM

      Delete
    2. Oathmark is an excellent and much played example of a One Roll system.

      Delete
  9. I love the "one roll". If you keep the modifiers limited it works great. Thinking Rogue Planet where you stop counting at 3, or The Doomed where your maximum modifier is just a +/-1. this works because both games have restricted dice outcome ranges (2-12 in RP, 1-6 in TD).

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've played a bit of En Garde, and as other's have said, didn't find it as clunky in play. That said, we had previously played and enjoyed Ronin, which has similar, but simpler mechanics, so we were already familiar with the basics.

    I'd recommend Ronin as a simpler (and, I think superior) version of this idea. It has teh core element of teh system, which is choosing and using the attack/defence counters, but it doesn't have En Garde's ploys, and combines the weapon and armour modifiers into the attack/defence roll, rather than applying them separately to a 'Wound score' . So both combatants roll, add all modifiers at once, and then if the attacker wins by 1 or more the defender is wounded.

    This puts more meat on the bones of melee combat so it's not just a dice off, without too much complexity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember quite liking Ronin (albeit only a few test games, ~10 years ago?) and was surprised I didn't click with En Garde.

      I know my tastes have changed over the decade to prefer faster games (i.e. I was a big Infinity fan back then; but not so any more) but if Ronin was a bit quicker/simpler, that would also make sense.

      -eM

      Delete