Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ronin is a small-scale skirmish game. Players will need, in the exact words of the author, "at least 4 and up to 20" figures per Buntai (that is, band or team). I include the exact words because I could not find rules for minimum or maximum figure count otherwise. In any case, I reckon even fielding only 4 figures per side could result in an interesting game given its mechanical depth. And similarly, a game with 20 figures per side might well take all day. This is a rather complex game, certainly at the upper end of what I am willing to deal with in a skirmish game, so keep in mind that this is only an overiew and I am not going to cover every detail.

To begin with, a variety of statistics define each figure. The most basic ones are Rank, Combat Pool (CP), Initiative, Fight, and Shoot. The last three are simply modifiers. Rank (from 0 to 5) generally denotes how powerful and costly a figure is but is also the basis for list building and morale mechanics. CP gets to the heart of the game. This is the number of Attack and Defense Counters the player may draw for a figure during the Combat Phase ... but we'll come back to that. Suffice it to say, more is better and a figure's CP is generally equal to its Rank (although even Rank 0 figures have CP 1). Of course, figures are also defined by what kind of equipment they use but we shall return to that as well.

The turn is structured around five phases: priority, move, combat, action, and end.

During the first phase the players roll off for priority and then make any necessary morale checks. Morale is tested by rolling equal to or less than a faction-based morale value on 2d6. The test is for the whole Buntai. You have to take a morale test during the priority phase if your Buntai’s morale is currently wavering, or if at least 25% of your starting strength or your leader died last turn. At any given time, the Buntai will be steady, wavering, or routing. At steady morale, figures act normally. At wavering, figures will only move into melee if the player can roll 7 or more on 1d6 plus the figure's rank. At routing, the player must make the same test or her figures will attempt to run off the board.

To me, morale in Ronin seems to be less about forcing a decision and more about generating drama. That is, it seems to be something that is "also happening" as opposed to a mechanic players directly leverage. It’s also a bit clunky. Why is there a Buntai-wide morale test as well as an individual subtest? I suppose the point is that a Buntai can regain morale, even in dire circumstances – Samurai spirit! After all, the Buntai-wide test is more susceptible to chance.

At the beginning of the next phase, the player with priority can pick a model to move or use a missile weapon. I note the rules do not say the player must pick one of the models she controls. I did not find this clarified in the errata so I assume this means the player with priority could choose one of her opponent's models for her opponent to move. The rules do specify that passing on moving/using a missile weapon ends the phase for you. I guess this means you could force your opponent to choose between making a disfavorable activation or forfeit activating the rest of his figures. Figures that use missile weapons (explained below) during the movement phase do so at a penalty.

I really like the rules for blocking line of sight. Light cover 2 inches or more deep between the shooter and target blocks line of sight. Any amount of hard cover also blocks line of sight but only if the target has neither moved nor used a missile weapon this turn. This definitely encourages you to use the terrain in a more thoughtful way. It also can impact the order in which you activate your figures.

Next up comes the combat phase. Any models in base-to-base contact may be engaged in a given combat. The player with priority chooses a figure that she controls (as opposed to how it goes during the movement phase) around which the combat is defined. Regardless of how many bases are actually touching, only four different figures may be engaged with any single opposing figure. And one side of a combat will always only have one figure. Determining which figures are engaged in a given combat is an opportunity for disagreement. Ronin affords the players a lot of mechanical control over play, what I call competitive design, so it is a bit strange that the game merely advises applying “common sense” to this rather crucial issue.

Given the following situation, let’s say the player controlling the figures identified by letters has priority. She picks Figure A. Which of the numbered figures are involved in a combat with Figure A?



The real question, of course, is who gets to choose? The rules are effectively silent on this issue. Mr. Woodfield recommends that the players take into account the sequence in which the figures joined the combat but I cannot see how this could be dispositive. My inclination, perhaps as a matter of sportsmanship, is that the player who did not choose the figure ought to choose. This is also a matter of logic, to some extent, because none of the figures that player chooses will be involved in another combat, so to speak. That is, while they may defend against any attacks made on them, they may not attack more than once per turn. So in the above situation, if the player controlling the numbered figures chose to have them all involved in a combat against Figure A, then none of them could be involved in a combat against Figure B despite Figure B being able to make attacks against them. (But what if the player with priority wanted Figure B to also be involved in the combat? I honestly don't know. In that case, however Figures A and B may only attack one of either Figures 2 and 4.)

If you are totally new to Ronin, you may need to re-read that paragraph after reading about how combat works.

After the players (somehow) determine which figures are involved in the combat, each player takes a number of counters equal to the sum CP score of the figures they control that are involved with the combat. They may choose any combination of Attack and Defense Counters, which should obviously be different colors. You spend Attack Tokens to make attacks, enhance attack rolls, and/or enhance initiative rolls. Defense Counters are only used to enhance defense rolls. Any roll can only be enhanced one time. The Counters are chosen secretly and then revealed before any rolls are made. Next, the players determine in which sequence the figures get to make attacks by rolling 1d6 for each figure involved and adding the figure's initiative stat. The figure with the highest initiative gets to make an attack first. Initiave can be enhanced by spending an Attack Counter, in which case the player rolls two dice for the figure in question and discards one of them.

A player has to spend an Attack Counter to attack another figure. The Attack Score for that attack is the sum of the figure's fight stat and 2d6. This may be enhanced by spending an Attack Counter, in which case the player rolls 3d6 instead and drops one die. The defender then adds its fight stat to 1d6 to determine the Defense Score. This may be enhanced by spending a Defense Counter, in which case the player rolls 2d6 and keeps both results. (Armor also adds to the Defense Score.) The Defense Score is subtracted from the Attack Score. If the result is 1, the defender is stunned. If the result is more than one, the attacker inflicts a light, grievous, or critical wound depending on how high the result is. Being stunned or taking wounds impose penalties on a figure (such as death!) which apply immediately and could effect the ongoing combat. Wounds also stack. Two light wounds equals a grievous wound. A grievous wound combined with either a light wound or another grievous wound is a critical wound. Taking a critical wound means the figure has been killed.

Shooting works in a similar way except (a) no Attack or Defense Counters are in play and (b) the Attack Score uses the shoot stat rather than the fight stat and the Defense Score is universally 6 plus modifiers for armor and cover.

The attacker can make additional attacks by spending additional Attack Counters. Although Attack Counters are spent out of the pool of counters for all allied figures involved in a combat, a figure may only make a number of attacks equal to its CP. Once the current attacker is finished making attacks, the figure with the next highest current initiative (taking any effects of being stunned or wounded into account) becomes the next attacker, and so on, until every surviving figure involved with that combat has finished making attacks. Then the player without priority may select a figure that has not made an attack this turn and a new combat is delimited and resolved, and so on until every surviving figure in each Buntai has made an attack.

After the combat phase comes the action phase, in which the players (beginning with the player who has priority) alternate activating models to use missile weapons, do various non-combat actions (like looting bodies or reloading teppos), or rest. Resting gives models a better chance to shed any stunned tokens in the last, or end, phase of the turn. Game length is scenario-specific but the basic skirmish is 1d6+6 turns. Victory points can also be scenario- or even faction-specific (bandits gain victory points by looting bodies, for example) but you generally earn points equal to the rank of a figure you kill (Rank 0 is worth a half point).

Ronin is not the most elegant rule set, in my opinion. But building the combat system around a secret draw/counter pool mechanic is so brilliant that I can completely forgive certain facets that may be clunky or vague. I really cannot wait to play this game. If it turns out to play as well as I think it might, despite being a rather tedious read, I can imagine using these rules to do French and Indian War skirmishes and Three Musketeer type games.

I love the Combat Pool mechanics. It is great for low level, duel type mechanics.

I used something similar in my Gladiator rules after reading this and a game at Mizaki's Teahouse called Conan. I recommend you check out Conan if you get a chance!

Edit: I added a link to Matakishi's Crom rules.
http://www.matakishi.com/conanhub.htm

Thanks for the review. I've wondered about it for a while. The Osprey wargamign series is producing quite a few gems.

Great review, I am certainly going to buy this for use with my samurai figures.

It seems to me that in the close combat example, the A figure could easily choose to fight all figures 1 to 4. That certainly would accord with the flashing swordplay characteristic of "chanbara" films and TV.

In Ronin, "combat" is a term of art. A combat is a group of figures engaged in melee that take turns attacking in initiative order. But a figure seemingly can attack other figures as long as they are base-to-base even if the target is not part of that combat. Which is to say, the target figure will roll up a defense score when attacked but that figure will not roll for anything otherwise. This also means that any figure that is not a part of the current combat will not have access to Defense Counters when defending against an attack.

To go back to the example, let's say the player with priority selects Figure A and the players determine Figures A and 1-4 are all involved in the combat. Let further assume that Figure A-B and 1-4 are the only figures still in play. After the combat involving Figures A and 1-4 is complete, the only figure left to activate will be Figure B. Figure B is base-to-base with Figures 2 and 4 but they cannot be involved in a combat with Figure B because they were already involved in a combat this turn. Even so, Figure B can still attack them and they get to roll a defense score as part of the process. But because they are not "involved" in this combat, they don't get to draw a Counter pool to enhance those defense rolls or make attacks.

@Easy E: Oh hai.

 Eilif wrote:
Thanks for the review. I've wondered about it for a while. The Osprey wargamign series is producing quite a few gems.

Well, it's more like clusterbombing us with inexpensive rule sets written by everyone in the world and seeing what sticks. So it's statistics really.

But yeah, I like Ronin a lot. Thanks for the write-up, Manchu! I wrote a bunch of articles about Ronin myself over on Skirmishwargaming.com.

 Sigur wrote:
@Easy E: Oh hai.

 Eilif wrote:
Thanks for the review. I've wondered about it for a while. The Osprey wargamign series is producing quite a few gems.

Well, it's more like clusterbombing us with inexpensive rule sets written by everyone in the world and seeing what sticks. So it's statistics really. .

Maybe, but I don't think that flippancy gives quite enough credit to Osprey who -to be fair- has only published 9 unique rulesets and 2 supplements in 2.5 years. Of the 5 or so that I've bought, I haven't had one that seemed poorly-done and I haven't heard much negativity about any of them on the web. For the most part it seems that Osprey has done a very good job of picking authors with a track record and subject matter for which there is an existing or potential market. After all, nearly every ruleset they publish seems to either have a dedicated miniature line (Via Northstar) or a company willing to step up and have their minis associated with it.

I much prefer the Osprey method of diverse (authors and subject matter) and affordable rulesets in attractive and compact packages rather than rules-heavy, expensive systems.

Me too Elif, which is why I have been buying them up!

They won't keep it coming if no one is buying!

I bought their Napoleonic naval game. I know this is off topic but it has a relation to the wider topic of Osprey rulebooks.

It seems to me that Osprey are leveraging their historical competency in wargaming and publishing to put out a series of rules that captures some of the best of the early 1970s/80s rulebooks in terms of cheapness and accessibility combined with the professional production values that are standard nowadays.

Too many wargames are £30/£40 productions in hardback A4, very heavy and expensive. I find it very refreshing to have rulebooks available at what might be called a pocket money price point.

I know hardly anything about the UK miniatures scene in the 70s/80s (am very keen to learn more) but I fully agree that Osprey's model combining low cost, high production values, and tempered design complexity is most welcome. It won't keep me from buying Ironfist's gorgeous Battlegroup books (the truly loveliest rule books IMO) ... but it is nice to have a cost-effective entry into a period or theme you might not otherwise consider.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I bought their Napoleonic naval game. I know this is off topic but it has a relation to the wider topic of Osprey rulebooks.

It seems to me that Osprey are leveraging their historical competency in wargaming and publishing to put out a series of rules that captures some of the best of the early 1970s/80s rulebooks in terms of cheapness and accessibility combined with the professional production values that are standard nowadays.

Too many wargames are £30/£40 productions in hardback A4, very heavy and expensive. I find it very refreshing to have rulebooks available at what might be called a pocket money price point.

Very much agreed. I used to go to a wargame shop in the 80's and early 90's that had alot of these kind of rulesets. These new Osprey rulesets have some of the same size and affordability. However, where as the old ones were cheaply made, usually in B&W with minimal graphics and sometimes self bound, Osprey books -while not quite as ornate as GW/PP/etc- are full color throughout with lots of pictures and artwork. One other difference is that the new osprey rulesets seem to be slightly slanted (though not in all cases) towards faster playing games rather than more detailed crunchy simulations. Though I'm not sure if that is coincidence or deliberate?

Too many rules are part of systems that are trying to be the next warhammer. They want to wow you with the incredible production values, charge you a premium and then rope you into paying for many more similar products. Even non-system rulesets seem to feel the need to compete with the look and size of such rulesets. It's harder to find a rulesets like Osprey where the author essentially says:

"So you want to play ______ ? Here's a ruleset that will make easy to play that genre/era/etc with the figures you have/want and no strings attached."

The result is that in many cases you can buy an Osprey ruleset and the figures you will need for a given game for less than the price of a GW rulebook and sometimes less than a Codex.

Back in the 1970s and 80s in the UK, there were lots of rulebooks available quite cheaply. Typically A5 size, B&W, few illustrations, soft covers, costing about £2 to £4.

The whole Wargames Research Group series for ancients and other periods was done that way, also Laserburn for SF, and WW2 and modern rules such as Firefly, Operational Manoeuvre Group, and others. I still have lots of these on my shelves, partly for nostalgia but also because they are very compact.

The reason for this low production value was that typesetting and printing was incredibly expensive and difficult before the desktop publishing revolution that occurred in the mid-80s.

Despite this, the quality of rule-writing was as good as anything. Rules mechanisms are not governed by the amount of bling put into the book but by the ideas of the authors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum:

Fighting Sail, Fleet Actions 1775 -- 1815 is the new naval book from Osprey that I mentioned above.

I only got it last week and have done nothing but skim it yet, but I will try to do a review over the weekend.

Agree 100% with the sentiments about the Osprey books, great to have the low price-point and easy accessibility. Support from the likes of North Star with 'official' miniatures is a good idea as well. I know historical miniatures of this period are readily available, but I think it certainly helps with noobies to historical gaming who are perhaps tentative about taking that first step.

Very much agree about North Star.
I don't see myself buying many of the their figs (though some of the IHMN are very nice) but The North Star connection is certainly an excellent bridge to guide folks from the pre-packaged GW/PP/etc realm to the more open world of wargaming.

I had my first game of Ronin earlier this week and a second 3 player game afterwards. It went well and was enjoyable. We got most of the rules right except for morale where we forgot about the wavering state between steady and routing. Morale also seemed like it doesn't come into play very often, none of us lost 25% strength in a single turn very often so most of our checks were the single one for the leader dying. Movement seemed a little bit weird as you can run away faster than you can charge but work okay in our games. Shooting is very powerful and having some soldiers get injured or killed can swing the game when it comes to melee. Having said that, the highlight of one of our games was when a teppo Ashigaru shot an uninjured Samurai dead before he could continue his massacre. Melee combat is quite fun and tactical with the combat pool and is the best part of the game. I really enjoyed trying to work out the best use of my stones.

Overall I was very happy with our early games and look forward to playing it again.

Hopefully this isn't too much of a 'necro', but thought I would post my findings about the game here.

It's definitely a nice little ruleset. I've been using it for dark ages skirmish combat and it works well for it (especially as a nice break from Saga, and for some scenario play)

Most of the Japanese weapons have equivalences in European warfare, and things such as shields can be brought into play by just adding a further '+1' to defence.

Otherwise, I use Hearthguard as 'samurai' equivalents, warriors as Ashigaru and levy are peasants.

My only thoughts of changing the rules are about introducing some kind of 'shield wall' concept, although I'm wary about over complicating things.

Otherwise, think there is no reason this couldn't work with many other ancient or medieval periods, it really is very versatile!

Pacific, Osprey have recently published a reframing of Ronin for Musketeers-style fencing. The set is called En Garde.

I just got it in the mail, so a review is in the works.

 Pacific wrote:
Hopefully this isn't too much of a 'necro', but thought I would post my findings about the game here.

It's definitely a nice little ruleset. I've been using it for dark ages skirmish combat and it works well for it (especially as a nice break from Saga, and for some scenario play)

Most of the Japanese weapons have equivalences in European warfare, and things such as shields can be brought into play by just adding a further '+1' to defence.

Otherwise, I use Hearthguard as 'samurai' equivalents, warriors as Ashigaru and levy are peasants.

My only thoughts of changing the rules are about introducing some kind of 'shield wall' concept, although I'm wary about over complicating things.

Otherwise, think there is no reason this couldn't work with many other ancient or medieval periods, it really is very versatile!

I thought about this some last night. Take a page from other games. Shieldwall confers 1 free defense counter per round. You could set it so that it requires a set number of models to be involved in the combat, or have it fail when one side out numbers another sufficiently.

Thanks Manchu, will be sure to check that out

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Hopefully this isn't too much of a 'necro', but thought I would post my findings about the game here.

It's definitely a nice little ruleset. I've been using it for dark ages skirmish combat and it works well for it (especially as a nice break from Saga, and for some scenario play)

Most of the Japanese weapons have equivalences in European warfare, and things such as shields can be brought into play by just adding a further '+1' to defence.

Otherwise, I use Hearthguard as 'samurai' equivalents, warriors as Ashigaru and levy are peasants.

My only thoughts of changing the rules are about introducing some kind of 'shield wall' concept, although I'm wary about over complicating things.

Otherwise, think there is no reason this couldn't work with many other ancient or medieval periods, it really is very versatile!

I thought about this some last night. Take a page from other games. Shieldwall confers 1 free defense counter per round. You could set it so that it requires a set number of models to be involved in the combat, or have it fail when one side out numbers another sufficiently.

That's definitely a rather fine idea!

Might give it a try although I'm loathe to end up with large groupings of miniatures, which is arguably the instance when a shield wall would have been used - and if I end up with groups then may as well be playing SAGA!

Dux Bellorum is the Osprey ruleset for shieldwall era though it's aimed at small mass battle using elements of troops rather than skirmish with individual figures.

I would be very hesitant to include sheild wall rules in a small scale skirmish game, there simply aren't enough bodies to form a wall.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Despite this, the quality of rule-writing was as good as anything. Rules mechanisms are not governed by the amount of bling put into the book but by the ideas of the authors.

We have differing memories of that 'quality'... Some were bloody awful.

Also those cheap rules, were not cheap then... £5 in 1980 was a lot more than it is now...

£5 in 1980 is the equivalent of £15 today.

Most rulebooks were less than £5 though. I still have my copies of Laserburn etc, with the price sticker of £1.95 on them. That's about £6 in modern money.

Production quality was a lot less, of course. No colour, no photos and usually lots of typos.

The big boxed rulesets like Empire 3rd edition or Stars N Bars were more, of course, but also had higher production values.

I dare say there were crappy rules in the 1980s. There are still crappy rules today, and some of them cost £50 a set.

Yep... Sure are.

At least they have pretty pictures to offset the fact they are awful.

Then again, cant think of many rulesets from the 70s and 80s I want to play again unless someone put a gun to my head...

The thought of some makes feel faint... and Laserburn was bad enough. Though I do like the campaign/scenatio expansion books.

But on the whole, I do think rules now are a lot better than the majority of the older sets. I never want to have to look through a list of 70 combat modifiers in Tercio again, or use a protractor to work out the angle that my AP round is hitting the enemy tank at...

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I would be very hesitant to include sheild wall rules in a small scale skirmish game, there simply aren't enough bodies to form a wall.

Ronin is usually a small skirmish game, but it can scale up. We often play with four people, each with anywhere from 6 to 12 models a side, and often with other neutral models and civilians on the field.

Not the prime place for shield wall, but if you want to scale up you can with it.

Or you can play Saga....