Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

T
thegiantbrain
August 11, 2022
188 0
W
WadeMonnig
August 10, 2022
449 1
O
oliverkinne
August 09, 2022
506 0
T
thegiantbrain
August 04, 2022
440 0
O
oliverkinne
August 01, 2022
740 0

Scout Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
July 29, 2022
829 0
T
thegiantbrain
July 28, 2022
511 0
W
WadeMonnig
July 27, 2022
860 1
O
oliverkinne
July 26, 2022
955 0
T
thegiantbrain
July 25, 2022
717 0

The Split - Review

Board Game Reviews
T
thegiantbrain
July 21, 2022
777 0
W
WadeMonnig
July 20, 2022
1132 1
MB
Michael Barnes
July 14, 2022
2595 0
T
thegiantbrain
July 14, 2022
726 0
A
adamr
July 13, 2022
831 0
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× For those who like to push chits.

BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS

More
29 Mar 2021 13:38 #321374 by Msample
Many people's first reaction to seeing GMT publish BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS was "why publish another game on the same subject ( WILDERNESS WAR already being out there close to 20 years ) . Funny in that many of those people probably have multiple Bulge games , etc - GMT has at least 4 off the top of my head for instance.

So while the game shares the same subject matter, it goes about it quite differently. It's way too early to say which is best, merely lets say it's a different way to look at things.

We played starting in 1755, planning to play the campaign. However the French won at the end of the first turn ( turns are a year ) due to Sudden Death, having scored just enough VP to do so. It's hard not to compare this game to WW, so I'll list some of the key differences.

- There are cards, but the game is not card driven per se. Each card has between one and four icons ( square or triangle ) which allows you to activate that type of unit or stack. Some square icons have naval symbols allowing naval moves. What this means is that unlike most CDG, activation is NOT keyed to leaders.

- The turns have a Build up phase - three action rounds which use one set of cads compromising lower number of icons, then six rounds of Campaign cards, which uses a separate set of cards with more icons. In both decks, there are some cards with events . The two phases are separated by both sides drawing reinforcements for the year. This results in a smoother, more historic flow than the possible feast and famine possibilities that can happen in WW.

- Each player starts the turn with 2 cards, chooses one then keeps the other in Reserve. So you don't have a hand per se, but a choice of two cards. Each card also has a die symbol - the higher value choosing who goes first. The first player can choose to hold one icon in Reserve to use after seeing the other players turn. Interestingly, battles are only resolved at the end of the round, not after each player's card impulse. This allows a possible "double turn" sometimes.

- Like WW there are both location based as well as Raid based VP. The latter work differently - you get 1 VP per 8 Raid points. Most non Wilderness spaces have a point value from 1-3. So torching some isolated outpost is worth 1, but you put the torch to Albany, its 3. You can only raid a space once per year; Raid points accumulate but don't get reset at the end of the year. Raids may be intercepted, but there is no combat - the Raid just doesn't happen and the unit returns home.

Since there are relatively few events, reinforcements are drawn from a pool of both units and special chits, the latter of which can range from "you get nothing sir ! " to special reinforcements like light units. Some units have leader icons which allow to draw a random leader. Overall there are far fewer leaders in this game vs WW, but since they aren't a basis for activation I'm fine with that. They function mainly to allow re rolls in combat and aid units who Routed - the latter can't attack again til they either Rally or are joined by other units who didn't Rout.

There's more to it than that, but suffice to say after the first play through we immediately decided to reset and try it again next time. I def suffered in that you have to unlearn some WW tendencies - while the historic framework is certainly the same, the design viewpoint forces you to think differently in terms of mechanics. Playing time is hard to peg - it took us a little under three hours , but that included punching out and setting up for the first time. With the game properly sorted this will speed up a lot. I'd guess that once you get hang of it, play times will comp with WW for the most part.
The following user(s) said Thank You: JoelCFC25, Gary Sax, Dr. Mabuse, Jackwraith, charlest, n815e

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Mar 2021 14:09 #321377 by charlest
Replied by charlest on topic BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS
Funny timing, I put in a request for a review copy of this earlier today.

It's been a long time since I've played WW, but this strikes me as substantially different, particularly because it doesn't really look like a CDG with the choice between two cards and lack of Ops.

The battle system looks intriguing too.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Msample

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Mar 2021 18:47 - 30 Mar 2021 18:47 #321458 by DukeofChutney
Thanks for the info.

I might buy this, but i want some indication on the balance and depth before I jump, so i'd be very interested in your experiences as you get games. I think Wilderness War is my fav CDG, but I am a bit done with the CDG system.

Also, yes Charlest, REVIEW!
Last edit: 30 Mar 2021 18:47 by DukeofChutney.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Mar 2021 20:04 #321465 by Sagrilarus
Replied by Sagrilarus on topic BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS
I’ve grown tired of card-driven wargames, as I think they overreact, putting too much noise in the channel instead of too little. This may be a nice middle ground.

I love the era.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Mar 2021 21:00 #321468 by Msample
Replied by Msample on topic BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS
The design has some clever and subtle ways to replace what would have been events in a traditional CDG. For instance, you draw reinforcements each Spring, but mixed in are chits with no effect, or replace the unit w/something else. Or a French fleets gets removed( instead of say the Quiberon event). It also results in a more even flow vs the sometimes very erratic nature of a CDG, esp single deck ones.

I think this template is very easy to adapt to other situations.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Sagrilarus

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Mar 2021 21:48 - 30 Mar 2021 21:50 #321469 by Sagrilarus
Replied by Sagrilarus on topic BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS
Painted minis, companion app, organized play, right? Collectible?
Last edit: 30 Mar 2021 21:50 by Sagrilarus.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 Apr 2021 17:15 #321679 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS
Any additional play impressions?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 Apr 2021 18:47 #321689 by Msample
Replied by Msample on topic BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS
Played again yesterday, has legs. I’m noodling a more thorough write up to post as a review.
The following user(s) said Thank You: JoelCFC25, Gary Sax, Sagrilarus, charlest

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Apr 2021 15:44 #321728 by Msample
Replied by Msample on topic BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS
Review submitted .
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, Sagrilarus, Jackwraith, sornars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 Apr 2021 10:32 #322134 by Msample
Replied by Msample on topic BAYONETS AND TOMAHAWKS
Review posted on front page ( Thanks Uba ! )

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.159 seconds