Monday, February 13, 2012


Yes, I have had the bit between my teeth and running amok. Once I got dug into consolidating the latest ideas into the draft of Hearts of Tin that was on  line, things just started to click. I've rolled a lot of things back and incorporated much experience gained over the last 2 years into something that has me excited  again.   It reminds me of an improved version of the games I played  many of the scenarios with during the 2008/09 Game a Week project. My anticipation is that this will deliver games like my Plattsburg fight while still being able to handle larger games using smaller figures and small games with just a few stands.

During 2009 I successfully played several such smaller games (aka skirmishes) and believed that I had written my universal Horse and Musket Rules but subsequently, once I got to fussing on how to cram more troops onto a smaller table and started tampering, I " improved"  the rules to the point where the small games were no longer satisfying, (and the big ones had lost some of the flavour to be honest though still working fst and furiously for bigger games) I believe that is all fixed again. If I am right, then I may have my universal system again.  Since Rob Dean and I now have a simple set of skirmish rules for F&IW and 1812, MacDuff may have finally met his match but no Requiem just yet.    

Hopefully a test game tomorrow.

The updated rules are available from the link to the left. (now where did I put that bag of 45mm square bases, bought and never used....)


  1. Well if you turn your back on MacDuff, I think he'll be welcome at my table.

    I think you might have hit upon your solution with the flexible scaling for Hearts Of Tin. Fingers crossed for your test game.

    Dr V

    1. Doc, I hope I never turn my back on and old friend like MacDuff.

  2. Pleased to see HofT back up and running.

    I've got a few queries about the new draft but probably better to wait until you've had a chance to playtest. Except to suggest that the first sentence of 8(e) could be a bit too radical and innovative :-)

  3. I'm oddly pleased as well. But sure, let me play test and then let me know what I've missed :)

    Perhaps I should have added a line about not sending me the results in writing?

    1. Let me explain that one! Para 8 is the one taht says feel free to modify the rules. I meant to say a radical like my mentors Featherstone and Yawford and Young but didn't want to compare myself to these gentlemen. The refernce is to the paragraph in Charge! where the authors note that they didn't bother with rules for Horse Artillery but that wargamers were welcome to make up their own but need not submit the results.

      Of course, in my case, I like hearing about adaptations.