Game: Samurai

Thread: Re: Learning the Samurai GBoH System: The Anegawa "Lite"

Desaix — 2008-11-21T19:39:35+00:00

Kawanakajima 1561 is also a game with a smoother system you could look at...

Image

sandro — 2008-10-12T16:37:34+00:00

Oda Nobunaga's Clan

Image

sandro — 2008-10-12T16:35:03+00:00

ANEGAWA battle

Thread: 4-th players !

Bask — 2008-09-15T14:44:25+00:00

Hello,

I want to try samurai with 4-players ! Did anybody try it ?

Which scenario do you recommend ? I don't want one that is up to 4 hours !

Thanks for feedback and help

Justin

Thread: Re: Simple GBOH and Samurai !

kentreuber — 2008-09-04T15:08:52+00:00

I'm thinking about throwing out the whole thing and using the Royalists & Roundheads I system.

Thread: Simple GBOH and Samurai !

Bask — 2008-09-04T14:47:17+00:00

Did somebody try to make Simple GBOH and Samurai compatible ?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that Simple GBOH doesn't work 1:1 with Samurai, is that true ?

And if I had to make them compatible, what should I do ? Would it be in your opinion a lot of work ?

Thanks

Thread: Shock, and TQ checks.

spaztian — 2008-06-06T17:29:15+00:00

Is there anyone that can easily explain Shock requirements, and particularly which units HAVE to make a TQ check?

I am a mildly experienced wargamer, but this one stumps me.

I am assuming that it is actually very easy, but for some reason my brain just doesn't pick up the wording in 9.1 - 9.15 at all. It seems to be contradictory.

My understanding is:

-ALL full strength units (except Teppo and Yumi) that are in contact with uncommitted enemy units HAVE TO Shock attack, and DO NOT check TQ.

-Disrupted units (except Teppo and Yumi) CHOOSE to Shock attack.

-Full Strength units DO NOT make a TQ check.

-Disrupted units that choose to Shock Attack MUST Check TQ.

Now, the first sentence in 9.14 contradicts this...

"The moving player places a Shock- Must Check TQ marker on top of each unit that must Shock attack in the ensuing Shock segment and on any Engaged Disrupted unit that has chosen to attack."

But according to the third sentence of 9.12, Full strength units that HAD to Shock Attack DO NOT make a TQ check!

"Non-Disrupted Engaged units do not make a Pre-Shock TQ check."

Thanks for any help!

Thread: Re: Samurai Review

jomni — 2008-05-22T02:29:02+00:00

Ah this detailed review scared me! I was about to pick this up on EBay.
Definitely not my type of game... after all the struggling with ASL (not really counter intensive but very rules and chart intensive).

Thread: Re: Taisho Contingent Units - Activation & Orders

kopje koffie — 2008-04-16T05:23:33+00:00

I think yes, yes and yes.

Thread: Re: Position Superiority - Facing Changes After Shock Combat Engaged

kopje koffie — 2008-04-16T05:21:02+00:00

This is correct, the unit cannot turn around until its own shock phase. Don't get flanked!

Thread: Re: Learning the Samurai GBoH System: The Anegawa "Lite"

ibn_ul_khattab — 2008-03-09T13:34:49+00:00

Thanks for responding richard, sorry if I came off harsh, I love both games a lot (in fact I like all the GBoH I've played). I was being a bit narrow minded too, it is the job of the game designer to make the historical decisions (most of these aren't easy to say the least), just because they aren't the same one I might make doesn't really make them wrong. It is one of the few periods I know something about, sometimes I get a bit preachy

Thread: Re: Learning the Samurai GBoH System: The Anegawa "Lite"

BROG — 2008-03-09T10:23:48+00:00

". . . there are a lot of problems with the japanese names in this one sadly, many are spelled incorrectly or just wrong,"

Incorrectly IS wrong . . . however, transliteration from one language to another is NOT a science, but a very rough and twisted art. I would note that all of the names we used were "vetted" by some Japanese playtesters as being acceptable . . . and one still gets differeing results. Cf. "Gojiro" vs "Godzilla".

Glad you liked the game . . . as noted, try RAN, the mechanics are smoother and the battles smaller . . .

RHB

Thread: Re: Learning the Samurai GBoH System: The Anegawa "Lite"

ibn_ul_khattab — 2008-03-08T22:32:13+00:00

Great Session report, It will be really helpful for new players to see what you went through. Yeah the forces aren't super well matched, but it is possible for Tokugawa to get more of an upperhand if you play with trumps, etc.. (he is a better general after all).

None of the Samurai battles are super balanced, mainly because I think the route levels aren't used to directly adjust for the forces (you are supposed to bid for sides, using the bidding to modify the rout points). Having said this once you get familiar with the scenarios you should be able to do this without too much problem.

Taisho Units - Which Clan?

Are the Taisho units a separate clan/contingent? It appears so, but I'm not able to find a clear statement of this status. Rule 5.31 states "He (a busho) may give Orders only to units from his clan." It makes sense that they would be considered a contingent, but somehow I'm missing where it states that explicitly.
Yes they are, I don't have the rules infront of me so I can't quote you the section, but basically he functions exactly like a normal busho in that he can move his personal contigent, be finished, etc.... One thing to remember though is once he moves out of his Honjin, his stats are reduced.

Does the Taisho "Finish", Just Like Other Busho?

Once again, it seems pretty clear that he does, IF his Taisho units are a separate contingent for continuity purposes. If not, I'm not sure how you handle the Taisho, other than for Clan Activation and Continuation. We played as if he "Finishes" just like any other Busho if the controlling player passes on a Momentum check, or fails the momentum check. Follow up question: Is a Taisho or So-Taisho still able to activate clans is he is finished?
Yes you played correctly, I think if you look at the beginning of the rules it states that Taisho and So-Taisho function like busho, except they have a few extra rules.
Yes I believe he is able to still activate clans, as activating clans doesn't have any requirements to be active.

When a unit is flanked or attacked from the rear and cannot reactively facing change, does it ever have a chance to turn to face its attacker if not ordered?

We had two cases where a kibamusha unit was flanked by another due to good momentum checks. If a kibamusha fails the initial facing change, is it doomed to suffer the terrible effects of positional superiority for the successive opponent's busho orders as long as he maintains momentum? In the first instance of where this happened, a unit was flanked on the initial orders phase, then was shock attacked on both subsequent momentum-generated orders phases, with predictable results (full-on rout). Does the flanked unit ever get a chance to turn around while the opponent has momentum, or does it just have to sit there and take the beating? Since we couldn't find anything to show that it would be able to turn, it just sat there and got routed (more or less).

I'd have to look this up to be sure, but I beleive the answer is no, if your opponent can keep flanking and you failed already to change facing. Flanking is harsh...

There are also spelling errors scattered throughout the Rulebook and Scenario book (for example, in the map for Anegawa on page 10 of the Scenario book, it shows "Nobunag" instead of "Nobunaga"). I'll also try to flag those for errata.
Yes there are a lot of problems with the japanese names in this one sadly, many are spelled incorrectly or just wrong, especially on the counters.

Much of the historical interperatation is pretty suspect as well. I've read most of the books in the bibliography and I wonder about how the deigner arrived at some of the conclusions he did, although RAN fixes many of these.

If you end up liking this it is well worth picking up RAN, which has a better balance of scenarios I think.

Thread: Position Superiority - Facing Changes After Shock Combat Engaged

Kozure — 2008-03-08T19:55:34+00:00

(These questions repeated from my session report - I'll cut and paste any answers not found in one location to the other)

When a unit is flanked or attacked from the rear and cannot reactively facing change, does it ever have a chance to turn to face its attacker if not ordered?

We had two cases in our learning game where a kibamusha unit was flanked by another due to good momentum checks. If a kibamusha fails the initial facing change, is it doomed to suffer the terrible effects of positional superiority for the successive opponent's busho orders as long as he maintains momentum? In the first instance of where this happened, a unit was flanked on the initial orders phase, then was shock attacked on both subsequent momentum-generated orders phases, with predictable results (full-on rout). Does the flanked unit ever get a chance to turn around while the opponent has momentum, or does it just have to sit there and take the beating? Since we couldn't find anything to show that it would be able to turn, it just sat there and got routed (more or less).

Thread: Taisho Contingent Units - Activation & Orders

Kozure — 2008-03-08T19:54:36+00:00

(These questions repeated from my session report - I'll cut and paste any answers not found in one location to the other)

Taisho Units - Which Clan?

Are the Taisho units a separate clan/contingent? It appears so, but I'm not able to find a clear statement of this status. Rule 5.31 states "He (a busho) may give Orders only to units from his clan." It makes sense that they would be considered a contingent, but somehow I'm missing where it states that explicitly.

Does the Taisho "Finish", Just Like Other Busho?

Once again, it seems pretty clear that he does, IF his Taisho units are a separate contingent for continuity purposes. If not, I'm not sure how you handle the Taisho, other than for Clan Activation and Continuation. We played as if he "Finishes" just like any other Busho if the controlling player passes on a Momentum check, or fails the momentum check. Follow up question: Is a Taisho or So-Taisho still able to activate clans is he is finished?

Thread: Learning the Samurai GBoH System: The Anegawa "Lite"

Kozure — 2008-03-08T19:11:21+00:00

Introduction

This session is intended to record my thoughts and experiences with trying to learn the Great Battles of History (GBoH) system in its reduced "Samurai" format. The idea is to both help me collect my thoughts on how to learn and play and to help others do the same, especially if they're completely new to the GBoH system. I'm concentrating less on what I did during play, but rather how and why things were done.

Background

I love the idea of Japanese military history, but I'm still a novice when it comes to its intricacies and details. Being of partial Japanese descent, the theme appeals to me a great deal as well on a personal level. I'm also a fairly long-term wargamer, having started out with Squad Leader in 1985. However, despite one disastrous foray into Cataphract a few years back, I've never tackled the GBoH system. It's pretty daunting at first and I'm still learning, but after this session, I'm feeling a lot more confident about it.

Both my opponent and I have a fair amount of experience in a variety of wargames at a variety of scales. More recently, we've learned the Men of Iron - Volume I : The Rebirth of Infantry system, also by one of the co-designers of Samurai, Richard Berg. We found that there were many similarities between the two systems, for obvious reasons, and it made entry into the GBoH rules much easier.

Set-Up

Initially, I had no idea where to start. There isn't really a scenario singled out as a learning scenario, nor are there ones which seem suitable. However, a trip to BGG helped me locate a thread which made a suggestion to use Anegawa and only the Taisho's forces, not those of the main So-Taisho's armies. Thread linked here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/269493

I cut out the unit counters necessary for the game plus all of the status markers, and sorted them into baggies (to be replaced by a Plano box later) for easy access.

I read through the rulebook over the week leading up to the game, and explained the basic rules and concepts to my opponent the night of the session. Since we both knew Men of Iron, many rules were very familiar.

We elected, for the purposes of learning the rules, to omit the following rules:

Samurai Challenges
Individual Combat
Hara-Kiri
Trump Option

We understand that they are fairly important to the game system and we will re-introduce them on our next effort, but I wanted to streamline the first game as much as possible. The trump option is especially important to re-visit, but for now, we wanted to keep things simple.

Finding units was made easier by the colour coding of the pieces, and fortunately Anegawa features the Asakura clan, which is a fairly small contingent in the counter mix. The Tokugawa is a little harder.

The Asakura has a definite numerical superiority and is pretty much equivalent in terms of quality. The Asakura Taisho is worse in intiative at 4 vs. Tokugawa's 6, but given the numbers and sub-commanding Busho, there is no significant qualitative advantage, so overall, the Tokugawa are at a disadvantage, in my opinion, in this set-up.

Since I was the one who learned the system first, I took the Tokugawa to handicap myself.

With a very light counter density, set-up was quick, less than 15 minutes if I recall correctly (long for Euros; a blink of an eye for many wargames).

Something that initially confused me because I missed a line in the scenario book is that the number in square brackets beside the Busho for each clan is the clan flight number. It's stated fairly clearly on page 2 of the scenario book; I just missed it.

Gameplay

We decided to play it slowly, following the Sequence of Play on the back of the Rulebook as closely as possible.

The first turn marked the first hiccough; I couldn't figure out if the members of the Taisho's forces were considered a clan for activation purposes. I'm still not sure about that; hopefully someone can clarify. We went on the assumption that they are.

I won initiative, but with the smaller force, I decided not to be aggressive and opted merely to get a better defensive position on the banks of the only terrain feature in the battle, the minor river that runs through the middle of the map. I positioned Sakai and Ishikawa in this way, intending to use Ogasawara as a mobile reserve, and in an emergency, the Taisho's forces as a secondary reserve. My opponent moved Maeba to the right of his stationary Asakura Kagenori clan, trying to wrap up my left flank. I extended my line as much as was possible, then refused my left flank with Ishikawa's kibamusha. Unfortunately, he got some good continuity and managed to flank the end of my line, beating up the poor kibamusha unit on the end pretty badly and pressing the main ashigaru force of Ishikawa strongly.

In response, I committed Ogasawara to that flank. I managed to flank the very kibamusha unit that had flanked my own with Ogasawara's kibamusha, routing him, but the left line was crumbling fast. I made a gamble and committed my Taisho's forces, moving Tokugawa out of the honjin. My thought was that I was a compact enough force that the benefits of being inside the honjin were outweighed by the peril of the left.

Of course, my opponent seized the opportunity to move his previously stationary Asakura Kagenori clan against Sakai, sending Yumi forward first to pepper the kibamusha anchoring my right, then flanking with kibamusha. Unfortunately, with a full three orders phases (passing two) momentum checks (and me with no trump), he was able to swing around the line and started to pummel it mercilessly. In addition, once the rightmost unit (the Sakai kibamusha) routed, he simply rode an additional kibamusha right past it to take a run at Tokugawa himself, who I had foolishly left unprotected in my hasty effort to reinforce the left.

Strategy Moment #1

Never, ever leave a so-taisho/taisho or busho alone in a hex, even if you think you are pretty certain of not being attacked. Kibamusha, with the right combination of luck on Continuity rolls, positioning, command radius and range, can strike pretty quickly. Your opponent only needs to get a KB within 2 hexes of your Busho to have a very good chance of killing him outright!

(back to the play-by-play)

I should have left the Taisho KB or KBH with Tokugawa, of course. I just wasn't thinking. I checked rule 4.72, then 6.43, then hung my head as my opponent rolled a 7 on the killing and capturing check. Tokugawa Ieyesu, future Shogun, killed by a rookie mistake.

At this point, with my left in serious trouble and my right starting to look bad, and Tokugawa out of the picture for future clan activations and continuity (yes, I know he would be replaced, but still...) AND he hadn't even committed his sizeable Taisho reserve, I conceded the match and we went to the post-game.

Total time, including simplified rules explanation, set-up and play was about two hours. Had I not been a baka, it probably would've gone another hour or less. Not bad for what is usually reputed to be a pretty in-depth game.

Post-Game

My opponent had trounced me pretty badly, and I had screwed up three times. I hadn't protected my right properly with my units, I shouldn't have committed my Taisho reserve so early, and I had left my Taisho unprotected.

In my defense, the Tokugawa forces are pretty badly outnumbered, with very little qualitative difference to give them an edge. I can't really see how Tokugawa historically managed to put Asakura to flight and attack Asai's right flank given the conditions as presented in the game, unless he got some of Nobunaga's reinforcements somehow.

My opponent just extended his line past mine on both flanks, then sent units around the end, then jumped on the openings left by my tactical blunders. Solid play on his part, but nothing showy. He did use his yumi on the left pretty well, since once Sakai was "finished", he knew that I couldn't send units out to hit the archers after they fired. The 3 disruption points the right-most unit (Sakai's KB) taken as a result were instrumental in its later rout at the spearpoints of Asakura Kagenori's kibamusha.

Rules and Concepts We Missed

Or more accurately, rules that I missed, since I was the guy who was supposed to have read the Rulebook.

Reaction Facing Change & Reactive Withdrawal

I had forgotten about reaction facing (7.17) and withdrawal (6.43). I had read the rules, but until I noticed how easy it seemed to flank with good continuity or momentum checks, I wasn't cottoning on to the fact that in some cases, I could've avoided the issue. I noticed the oversight the second time I was about to be flanked pretty badly and it helped a lot for both of us to understand these movement/facing reactions as options for the rest of the game.

Cannot Use Last MP to move Adjacent to Enemy Unit

I forgot this completely, even though it's clearly marked "Important:" in the rules. You cannot use your last MP to move adjacent to an enemy unit, except when executing a Norikuzushi charge (6.34). This probably would've slowed down some of my opponents very sweeping attacks.

Clans Becoming Inactive

Rule 5.26 listed information on how you should change a clan's status from active to inactive if (generally speaking) out of contact with the enemy. I don't think there would have been an issue with that, except in the case of the Sakai and Asakura clans staring at each other over the river for a few turns without engaging. It may have affected how I used the Taisho contingent, since they would have gone inactive after a while. Obviously it will become more important with larger battles, so I'll be sure not to miss that in future.

Engaged Units

It was a little hazy in the rulebook about what the status of "Engaged" entails. The rules relating to the Engaged status are somewhat scattered through the various sections. Fortunately, there is a nice summary on reference card #2. We were uncertain about how to get units out of being engaged once they were engaged, but the section on Active Withdrawal (6.41) covered that, as well as the reference card summary.

Still Unresolved Questions

Taisho Units - Which Clan?

Are the Taisho units a separate clan/contingent? It appears so, but I'm not able to find a clear statement of this status. Rule 5.31 states "He (a busho) may give Orders only to units from his clan." It makes sense that they would be considered a contingent, but somehow I'm missing where it states that explicitly.

Does the Taisho "Finish", Just Like Other Busho?

Once again, it seems pretty clear that he does, IF his Taisho units are a separate contingent for continuity purposes. If not, I'm not sure how you handle the Taisho, other than for Clan Activation and Continuation. We played as if he "Finishes" just like any other Busho if the controlling player passes on a Momentum check, or fails the momentum check. Follow up question: Is a Taisho or So-Taisho still able to activate clans is he is finished?

When a unit is flanked or attacked from the rear and cannot reactively facing change, does it ever have a chance to turn to face its attacker if not ordered?

We had two cases where a kibamusha unit was flanked by another due to good momentum checks. If a kibamusha fails the initial facing change, is it doomed to suffer the terrible effects of positional superiority for the successive opponent's busho orders as long as he maintains momentum? In the first instance of where this happened, a unit was flanked on the initial orders phase, then was shock attacked on both subsequent momentum-generated orders phases, with predictable results (full-on rout). Does the flanked unit ever get a chance to turn around while the opponent has momentum, or does it just have to sit there and take the beating? Since we couldn't find anything to show that it would be able to turn, it just sat there and got routed (more or less).

Other Comments

We noted that many references on the Reference Cards and the Scenario book seemed not to refer to the correct section in the rule book. I imagine this is some issue to do with the re-organizing of the rule book for the second printing. For example, on page 2 of the Scenario Book, paragraph 3, ("Exception: Teppo and yumi units do not have clan IDs [see 8.16]"), which points at a rule which doesn't seem to have anything to do with that? There are a few more like that , but I'll try to collect them as I come across more and post to an Errata thread here at BGG.

There are also spelling errors scattered throughout the Rulebook and Scenario book (for example, in the map for Anegawa on page 10 of the Scenario book, it shows "Nobunag" instead of "Nobunaga"). I'll also try to flag those for errata.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

A good learning game, but pretty unbalanced, numbers-wise. The counter density and unit mix is just right for learning the system - but it might be better for a more fun time for the Tokugawa to add three or four AS and one or two KB more to Tokugawa's clans - maybe spread evenly between Sakai and Ishikawa.

I enjoy the GBoH as simplified in Samurai. Cataphract was pretty overwhelming. However, it's still a little fiddly and the rulebook and reference charts might be better re-arranged. Certainly long time GBoH afficianados will probably scoff at my newbie-ness, but it's a little tricky when you're trying to get into a system with so many exceptions and little quirks.

On the plus side, some rule sections, like Shock combat, were actually easier to figure out once you actually got into them, while other rules sort of snuck up on you as they're kind of buried in other rules (like Engagement and Routing effects).

Still, a terrific theme and a simulative experience, along with engaging command and control options, will definitely keep me coming back to this game. Many thanks to my opponent, Captain Physics (Tim) for being patient and bearing with me. I hope to lock yari with him again in the future!

Thread: Re: Recommendations on learning how to play this GMT game?

Kozure — 2008-03-08T17:07:51+00:00

Kozure wrote:
I have a learning game lined up with a friend this upcoming Friday. I'll report back here with a session report and a follow-up post to this thread about how we fared. Given that we've both played and enjoyed Men of Iron, this should be a logical next step up in complexity.

Played last night. Some rules were easier than I thought they were going to be (shock combat pre-shock TQ checks, etc.) and some rules blindsided me because I didn't understand them as well as I should have. A lot of rulebook referencing, but fortunately I had a patient opponent who was also learning.

I'll write up a session report as well as a post about first time player mistakes and questions.

Playing the Anegawa battle scenario with only the Taisho clans (Asakura vs. Tokugawa) is definitely a good way to learn. We set the eastern limit of the play area at the XX23 hex row, to reflect the abstraction of the main battle forces duking it out on that side of the field. We used babo-saku markers to delineate that line.

Image

KokoLeMakak — 2008-03-05T23:51:55+00:00

The Sekihagara map from the original edition

Image

KokoLeMakak — 2008-03-05T23:51:06+00:00

The Okehazama map from the original edition

Image

KokoLeMakak — 2008-03-05T23:50:15+00:00

The Nagashino map from the original edition

Image

KokoLeMakak — 2008-03-05T23:49:20+00:00

The Mitakagahara map from the original edition

Image

KokoLeMakak — 2008-03-05T23:48:10+00:00

The Anagawa_Kawanajima map from the original edition

Thread: Re: Recommendations on learning how to play this GMT game?

Kozure — 2008-03-05T14:52:13+00:00

I have a learning game lined up with a friend this upcoming Friday. I'll report back here with a session report and a follow-up post to this thread about how we fared. Given that we've both played and enjoyed Men of Iron, this should be a logical next step up in complexity.

Thread: Re: Recommendations on learning how to play this GMT game?

Kozure — 2008-03-04T22:58:04+00:00

ibn_ul_khattab wrote:
I've played this a little. It isn't the easiest game to learn how to play, but it isn't that hard either. Here are my recommendations

1. Don't worry initially about samurai challenges
2. You can probably leave out individual leader combat all together.
3. Just try to get movement, combat and command and control.
4. I like the trump system better in this than in the normal GBoH and they are more even on both sides. Try reading this section closely, it does make sense, but can take a little bit of doing.
5. Try playing the anegawa scenario, but just use the subcommanders as taisho. This will give you about 4 commands a side. Try this and then you can try a full game. Some of the other scenarios are smaller, but they are full of special rules.
6. Be patient. Wargames always take a bit of time to learn.
7. If you like it or want smaller easier scenarios pick up RAN.

Hope that helps

These are great suggestions, even for people with experience with wargames. I was about to post a question about which scenario to start with for two experienced wargamers who haven't played a game from this series before, but point #5 is a good answer in itself.

Great answer!

Thread: Turmping and Activation Points

T-Mo — 2008-01-30T01:34:37+00:00

If an inactive clan is successfully activated for continuity and the opposing player trumps, the rules are clear that the trumped Busho is finished but if an activation point was used to activate that clan is that point used or not used for the player whose Busho got trumped?

T-Mo

Image

Radz — 2008-01-20T16:09:18+00:00

Samurai 2nd Ed Countersheet 5 Front

Image

Radz — 2008-01-20T16:08:30+00:00

Samurai 2nd Ed Countersheet 4 Front

Image

Radz — 2008-01-20T16:07:33+00:00

Samurai 2nd Ed Countersheet 3 Front

Thread: Re: Recommendations on learning how to play this GMT game?

JayShan — 2008-01-15T19:00:21+00:00

Thanks for your input. I'll give your recommendations a try.

Thread: Re: Recommendations on learning how to play this GMT game?

ibn_ul_khattab — 2008-01-13T21:02:56+00:00

I've played this a little. It isn't the easiest game to learn how to play, but it isn't that hard either. Here are my recommendations

1. Don't worry initially about samurai challenges
2. You can probably leave out individual leader combat all together.
3. Just try to get movement, combat and command and control.
4. I like the trump system better in this than in the normal GBoH and they are more even on both sides. Try reading this section closely, it does make sense, but can take a little bit of doing.
5. Try playing the anegawa scenario, but just use the subcommanders as taisho. This will give you about 4 commands a side. Try this and then you can try a full game. Some of the other scenarios are smaller, but they are full of special rules.
6. Be patient. Wargames always take a bit of time to learn.
7. If you like it or want smaller easier scenarios pick up RAN.

Hope that helps

Thread: Re: Recommendations on learning how to play this GMT game?

T-Mo — 2008-01-13T20:18:49+00:00

Just purchased this myself. I'm going to play around with the Vassal module. Seems like it would be fairly good game to play by PBEM using Vassal. Anyone up for a game - let me know.

T-Mo

Thread: Re: Recommendations on learning how to play this GMT game?

Beyak — 2008-01-08T22:43:15+00:00

JayShan wrote:
I bought this last year as a P500 because I have a interest in Japanese Samurai history, and it could be played solo. But I am having a difficult time learning the game. I may be in over my head with this one, I'm not really a wargamer as such but I'd like to give it try. Does anyone have any recommendations on how to learn to play it, and are there any online examples of play. Thanks, Jay

Jay, you shouldn't be ignored here. I wish I could help you but I have yet to play this game. I have played other games in the series and enjoyed them. I didn't own those other games and was tutored by someone that did read the rules first. We had a good time with the games and I felt they were fairly easy once you started to play.

I read the rules to Samurai twice now and I have finished punching all the counters. My impression is that this game is significantly easier than the rest of TGBoH. My plan was to set up a scenario and look at the pieces for a bit. Perhaps I'll make a tentative first move then see what happens. I don't know of anyone interested in playing any of this series anymore so I will have to solo it until I find someone.

I too, would like to see an example of play. I was thinking I would try to put together one of my first solo games, complete with errors, as an example of play.

Good Luck!

Thread: Recommendations on learning how to play this GMT game?

JayShan — 2008-01-05T04:15:11+00:00

I bought this last year as a P500 because I have a interest in Japanese Samurai history, and it could be played solo. But I am having a difficult time learning the game. I may be in over my head with this one, I'm not really a wargamer as such but I'd like to give it try. Does anyone have any recommendations on how to learn to play it, and are there any online examples of play. Thanks, Jay

Thread: Re: Out of Command

BergBROG — 2007-12-31T12:49:46+00:00

Hmmmm . . .if the unit is in command range when the Busho gains Momentum then he is now In Command, as that would be a new "turn" . . .

RHB

Thread: Out of Command

Rhialto — 2007-12-31T07:13:29+00:00

I have just recently purchased Samurai (2nd edition) and it is my very first GBoH module ever.

The reason for writing this post is that I have a question about the Out-of-Command Units rule (5.6). This rule states that a unit cannot be given orders and the counter is removed in phase H. This means that if a unit is out-of-command, it stays out-of-command even if the Busho has moved and is now in range (for example, during a momentum orders phase).

Is my assumption corrent?

Thread: Re: Differences in New Edition??

BergBROG — 2007-12-27T11:41:49+00:00

The changes are all cosmetic . . . plus any errata has been subsumed. The second game of this ilk, RAN, does have some new/different rules (and the battles are shorter).

RHB

Thread: Re: Differences in New Edition??

duckweed — 2007-12-27T04:37:49+00:00

Looks to me like the counters have shrunk in the new edition- I assume from 5/8" to 7/16").

If you look at the photos posted here for the old and new countersheets, you'll see that there's 2 few counters per row on each row of the sheets. Or at least it appears that way to me. I've only seen the old version firsthand.

Thread: Re: Differences in New Edition??

Peso Pete — 2007-09-15T18:27:20+00:00

I played the first edition quite a few years ago, so I'm going strictly on memory here. The first edition had a bit more errata than is found in most GBoH games (mostly having to do with the chrome rules in this particular game). The second edition incorporated the errata and sported better graphics (IMHO). I seem to recall the maps in the first edition being more white and having more glare than the new maps, but I may be mistaken.

Thread: Re: Differences in New Edition??

ibn_ul_khattab — 2007-09-02T22:26:17+00:00

Not sure I only have the new addition, my guess is not a lot changed other than nicer maps and a few rules updates. Does the originally limit trumps and contingent activations based on the strength of the general?

I don't mean to presume too much, but I don't think he means RK's Samurai, it is really Samurai: Warfare in the Sengoku Jidai

Thread: Re: Samurai Review

Thunder — 2007-09-02T22:18:00+00:00

Thanks for the Review Mike. I picked up this box in my FLGS the other day and pondered the purchase, but decided to do a little research first. I am glad I did. I have spent many hours hunched over hex and counter games for hours...20 or 30 years ago. Your review brought that back sharply and clearly.

I have nothing against Hex and counter games...the better ones. I was hoping for something in the 2 to 3 hour time span, and not so fiddly. I agree wholeheartily with you Mike; elegant, smooth, period representative games are the goal.

Peace

Thread: Re: Differences in New Edition??

Thunder — 2007-09-02T22:01:42+00:00

I am interested in this question as well. I am pondering picking it up.

Peace

Thread: Re: Mistakes?

ibn_ul_khattab — 2007-07-12T03:51:04+00:00

I believe the actual name is Naito not Naitou (I'm not 100% sure though its been a while since I read all my japanese history books). Thanks for the help though. I'll be checking the scenario descriptions once I have finished reading the rules. It seems odd, I think there must be a reason, I mean surely you would at least copy the name out of a book, sure if the book was wrong than fine, but these are just completely odd. I have a few of the books from their bibliography, one of them (which covers each battle in the game, by stephen turnbull) lists the names correctly, so I seems odd. Thats why I wonder if they were following some antiquated system of naming.

Thread: Re: Mistakes?

sdiberar — 2007-07-12T03:25:47+00:00

Naitoh would be correct for Naito, assuming it's a long "o". "oh" is an acceptable spelling in that case; "ou" is also acceptable. The others look like mistakes or poor abbreviation.

I noted that the first edition of the game had numerous name spelling errors in the scenario descriptions. I can't comment on the new second edition.

Thread: Mistakes?

ibn_ul_khattab — 2007-07-12T00:30:26+00:00

Does anyone know why the anglicized english on the names on the counters are wrong? I just got the game and I looked over the beautiful counters and I realized that the names seem to be spelled incorrectly (at least from any spellings I've seen and from the small amount of japanese I know). For example instead of Naito on counter says Naitoh. Another shows Hashiba Hideyoshi spelled Hid'yoshi. As I recall another also says Morzumi (I can't remember what this should be, but I'm not aware of that being a possible spelling or pronunciation of a japanese word or name) It seems to me that perhaps they are using another system for writing japanese in English. There are lots more, but that is all I can think of off the top of my head. Anyone care to shed some light?

I have to admit I'm not an expert or even a fluent speaker of japanese, but I studied it at high school, I am familiar with most of the samurai clans and names and I haven't seen them spelled like this. I know they wouldn't have done this for no reason so I was wondering why the counters had the names spelled like this.

Thread: Re: Reprint shipping

JohnnyD — 2007-04-17T15:31:04+00:00

It's so nice when you get that SUPERIZE notice!!!! It's like Christmas all year if you space your pre-orders correctly....actually depends on the production....but it's still cool!!!!!

Thread: Reprint shipping

thesama — 2007-04-12T22:35:56+00:00

Looks as though the reprint has shipped (just got the UPS shipping informaiton in my email mere minutes ago).

Hooray!

I think I preordered this almost a year ago (or what seems like it)!

Thread: Differences in New Edition??

tomg — 2007-04-09T22:05:17+00:00

Would someone who knows post a brief list of the differences in the new edition with the older edition. I have the orginal edition and would only the new if there are enough differrences.

Thanks,
Tom

Thread: Re:

Runes — 2007-03-26T18:14:31+00:00

The first samurai-related movie that comes to your mind is that cruise-bullshit?! Oh fuck, the sequel to this game is even named after a film by (one of) the best director(s) of all time: ,,Ran'' by Kurosawa Akira.
I really pity you

Thread: Re: Reprint map images uploaded

lmyrick — 2007-02-02T14:35:12+00:00

Shouldn't be too long. Maps are at the printer now. Don't know about counters, rules, etc.

Thread: Re: Reprint map images uploaded

Scott Firestone IV — 2007-01-31T22:51:08+00:00

Looks sweet. Now when?!

Thread: Reprint map images uploaded

lmyrick — 2007-01-31T20:01:21+00:00

I've uploaded some images of the new maps for the reprint of Samurai. Check them out in the gallery.

Thread: Re: Any other opinion?

r3gamer — 2006-04-24T13:55:45+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I guess I can always try simple GBoH if I don't like those mechanics.

Must... hold back...from preordering...

Thread: Re: Any other opinion?

darthcliff — 2006-04-24T12:50:56+00:00

I think that sumo's review of Samurai can be summed up by a fragment of one of his sentences:

I quickly turned anti-GBoH again

Looking over his collection, my guess is that he gave Samurai a try because of the subject matter but found the game was not to his taste.

I have never played Samurai, but I have played Alexander and Cataphract. My advice to you is to find someone who has a copy of one of the other GBoH titles and play a game or two. The core rules and concepts stay the same throughout the entire series, with some minor changes in each module to deliver a unique 'flavor'. The momentum and trumping mechanisms are at the core of the game system and do require a little getting used to. After a couple games you are either going to love the GBoH series or hate it. I love it, and have both Samurai and RAN on pre-order.

Thread: Any other opinion?

r3gamer — 2006-04-22T14:24:30+00:00

The only review we have here is great, but does anyone else have a different opinion? Samurai is still in the P500....and I really would like to preorder it, but this review kinda holds me back from doing so.

Thanks.

Thread: Re:

Lawrence Hung — 2005-10-05T15:27:53+00:00

MMG counters are a lot powerful than the cannister shown in the movie.

Thread: Re: Samurai Review

sumo — 2005-09-09T08:51:01+00:00

Thanks Jeff.

No, I am firmly out of love with GBoH and haven't mustered the enthusiasm to try Simple GBH. Others have, and it seems to help but not solve the time and fiddliness issues.

Anyway, just a view from leftfield, pissing against the wind. I know the game system has tons of fans.

Thread: Re: Samurai Review

peacmyer — 2005-09-08T18:22:47+00:00

Thanks, Mike, for such an excellent review! I've only played a tiny scenario from _Great Battles of Alexander_, which nevertheless helps me grok your comments.

Have you had experience with the _Simple GBoH_ rules? If so, do they address many of your concerns? How well will they port to _Samurai_?

Thread: Samurai Review

sumo — 2005-09-08T14:17:29+00:00

In many respects this is an easy review to write. I don't care for reviews based on paraphrased rules and laundry lists, so thankfully the hard work has already been done by the many reviewers of the GBoH system. By now, you will have either played it and fallen in love, doomed to buy expansions ASL-fashion for evermore, or will have sold it to those nice people at the flea market. Samurai is, I am assured, standard GBoH with some minor tweaks, one of which I couldn't honestly discern because of the intricacies of the activation rules, and the other which sometimes takes over the action in the shape of individual combats. Thankfully, there are none of the battle line rules from SPQR which, all things considered, is a godsend.

What I thought might be interesting, before telling you what I didn't like, was to come up with a summary of what appeals to me about GBoH, even after the agonizing experience that was Samurai. Firstly, I think in the right situation (a small scenario and preferably a well known battle) it does a creditable job of conveying the situation, flow of the battle, unit and weapon differentiation and no little period atmosphere. Largely the product of OrBat research, but still there. This is what drew me to play and replay Alexander, with its phalanxes and skirmishers, and to give Samurai a chance. Secondly, as a gamer in many other fields, I rather like the idea of trumping and its effect on the game. Note I do not say this is a historical benefit, just a gaming one. It keeps the game ticking over, and adds uncertainty, but I think the same effect might be achieved in a less involved and more historical fashion. Thirdly, there is a challenge to this game system that makes me want to play it, analyze it and try to get inside the heads of the designers and fans. Why? Because as with many fields, one must know ones enemy. So there is an almost academic interest in determining why these games are played at all.

With six distinct battles, Samurai delivers a good selection of commanders, troop mixes and situations. Indeed, if one were choosing the important, and interesting, combats and characters from a history book, these would be the ones selected. Sadly, despite the impression that many get from popular history, there are few brightly dressed archers, cavalry, swordsmen and ninjas here. Those depicted are later Samurai battles where the field is dominated by the uniform, but still exotic, ashigaru spearmen, the cavalry are somewhat hamstrung and the musket is already becoming a force to be reckoned with. Nevertheless, the busho and samurai are present in numbers, which partly makes up for it, and you can always imagine the sweeping action from Kagemusha and Ran as a reference point.

But now to brass tacks. We played Okehazama and Mikata-Ga-Hara, each taking around 45 minutes to set up and up to four hours to resolve. We each won one game, but the second battle is so unbalanced as to make this an invalid comparison. In fairness the rules clearly point this out, it was just that we were looking for the shorter games in preference. If you wanted to play Sekigahara, which is effectively the biggest in the box and the one most of us know, I guess you would be looking at 7 or 8 hours of play, perhaps more, and this doesn't even include all the troops at the battle. It is a matter of conjecture as to whether the large number of troops out to the East might have had some involvement, or at least psychological impact, but the designers elect to leave them out.

The first moan concerns set up, a gripe not specific to Samurai but reflecting a personal drift away from lots of counters and hexes. This took me back to the bad old days. Popping loads of counters, scanning for factors, squinting at hex references, stacking, the time taken. As they say round these parts, purple faced, "I can't be having this". These days, it is not unusual for me to learn, teach, setup and play some boardgames in 45 minutes. Even in the historical field quick play games show where, to my mind, we have to move. Whether that is in the short, medium or longer term for the market, I really don't know, but I am there already. And waiting.

The next game aspect is command, activation and the infamous trumping mechanism. I have said this before, but if you could come up with a more artificial and strained system to simulate command, I'd really like to see it. Ironically, it works as a game but fails to recreate period command procedures and their impact - with commensurate bearing on the battle process. This to me feels nothing like commanding an army, and perhaps more to the point it rarely acts like a Samurai army being commanded. It is too flexible by half, allows for battlefield feats that must be considered unlikely and, as a by product, spawns some of the stodgiest and incomprehensible rules I've yet had the necessity to read. Is there an editor in the house? We also desperately need a flowchart to explain all the various states of trumped, finished, activated, momentum, continuity and so on. I can't be alone in finding this a nightmare of terms and play sequencing. I think the impact of the system is reduced in Alexander because of the simple linear battles, fewer units and factions and the relative unanimity of the armies. Certainly I didn't find it as onerous as in SPQR, LotN and Samurai. But most of all it feels too gamey - this is not wrong in itself, but the terminology of trumping and the ability to stop an opponent in his tracks feels out of place here. And neither is it design for effect, since barring poor die rolls, the commanders have it way too easy. The result is battles that are driven by mainly the whim of commanders, rather than fate.

All of this I can live with, but not condone, since I know trumping is the core of the system and perhaps much of its appeal. But when we got to the meat of the game, combat, I quickly turned anti-GBoH again. I am sure you know how it works: identify factors, check charts, add modifiers and shifts, roll dice, check charts, fiddle with hit markers, flip counters, re-stack the fallers, repeat ad nauseam down the line, go gradually mad. The killer blow is that, broadly speaking, Samurai counters can take about twice as much damage as their forebears. Oh joy. It feels like a death of a thousand cuts. Some of the smaller engagements were taking two or three turns to get a result, and the overall flow of the game (otherwise pretty good) was lost in a number of prolonged battles that, towards the end of the second game, I really couldn't be bothered to work out. Thankfully, there is a rule that allows for entire factions to depart the board due to cracked morale, which quickly relieves the suffering.

The question I have is whether the detail benefits (namely unit micro-differentiation, incremental losses and multiple counters per faction) are a) required and b) balanced by all this fuss. Doubtless this is down to personal taste, and I can see why the detail appeals, but the same could be tackled differently, using fewer counters, quicker systems and introducing the detail in compensating mechanics. All that said, my opponent for both battles enjoyed the combat more than I did. While he too hates long set up times and hundreds of counters, he is more used to miniature gaming systems where lengthy and intricate calculations and casualty marking are common. But even he said the games were far too long for the benefit derived and questioned the realism of the command and activation systems. A man ripe for conversion!

If I was asked what I remember about the games, I would say the samurai challenge rules. This is both good and bad. Good because it generated enough interest for me to remember it above the profusion of dice rolls and factors, and because it was flavoursome, bad because it seems to be another artificial command mechanism often used to slow troublesome units, and because this is a battle level game at heart, not a series of individual combats. Granted, they were important events but surely not to the extent, and the time, they take in the game. And comment on the internet would at least back this up. There is no talk of how the battles went or how long they took, or whether the results were historical, it is more a focus on graphics, how many battles are in the box and how many severed heads were taken.

I don't know in how high a regard Rodger MacGowan is held these days. To me he is doing much the same formulaic stuff as he was years ago and still getting away with it. I have nothing against his style, which can certainly be appealing (my favourite box art ever is GDW's 1815), but what I question is his approach. In evidence I have two major gripes, both relating to the counters. The first disappointment is just four uninspired counter illustrations in the entire game, despite the fascinating uniforms and heraldic variety of the Samurai period. This is not the work of a graphics studio going the extra mile. One doesn't wonder for long how the talented designers at Vae Victis would have tackled the counter graphics - and it is safe to assume cries of 'Wow!' and 'Cor!' would not be far behind. By contrast, Samurai is a sombre game representing a unique and exciting period. But still worse are the counters themselves - a mishmash of numbers, colours, codes and factors that frankly are anything but intuitive. I thought the secret of good design was that it conveys the message and the information clearly - I would suggest that these counters achieve neither. Granted, the designers have dictated that these figures be present and familiarity with GBoH will greatly improve the situation, but there has to be a better way. We spent a lot of time just looking up what all the factors were, especially on the commanders.

So that is that. A game that, because of the subject matter, should appeal but which managed to not only alienate me, but also decided me against the system for good. I know this will be a different strokes argument, but it depresses me that a game system this fiddly, inelegant and archaic seems to have established itself as something of a tactical standard, yet it could be so much better. Quicker, simpler, historical and with just as much decision making interest. There is so much that is wrong with GBoH and so little right, that I do wonder at the success it has achieved. A triumph of marketing over content? Or simply what gamers want to buy and play? Or, most likely, that there is so far nothing else to rival the series?

Mike Siggins

Thread: Re:

Kevin Moody — 2005-04-07T16:47:52+00:00

kphenninger (#469265),
Early musketry in earlier period vs. Gatling guns in the flick?

Lawrence could use three MMG counters from his ASLSK game and I'm sure he would have a fine simulation.

Thread: Re:

kphenninger — 2005-04-07T16:21:47+00:00

Kevin Moody (#469160),

Difference: TC's Last Samurai was in a post-American Civil War period I believe, and GMT's Samurai is 1560's to 1610 if I remember correctly. 300 years apart.

Early musketry in earlier period vs. Gatling guns in the flick?