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.

Force On Force (which I love and contributed to) is not really a skirmish level game at the same level Infinity is though. You are maneuvering fire teams or squads vice individual figures (though the figs are usually individually based). The player is generally a platoon leader with supporting assets vice a leader of about 5 figures.

Another rule set which could work for modernish skirmishing is Two Hour Wargames 'Chain Reaction' which are a free download on the THW website.

There are also plenty of fun rule sets for 28mm Wild West gaming out there to consider, along with some fantastic figure ranges and buildings.

 Easy E wrote:
If you like Infinity you wil like Force-on-Force.

I haven't decided if I like Infinity yet

WarGames Factory is coming out with some interesting mini's .
(Spanish War..Norse, Roman..)
Nothing fully fleshed thou ..
Rules Sets ..just to many to cover atm ..
PICK an ERA ..Makes figuring out where the best deal on minis is ..(good looking after a decent paintjob/Minor conversions) to rules sets..lots of them out there..many for free

 frozenwastes wrote:


Maybe it's a language barrier issue.

I'm British, but live in Denmark

I wrote that I found the rules are vague because I found numerous issues that interrupted the flow of the game (Dux Brit). So my gaming buddy and I had to stop several times to discuss, yet another, hole in the published rules whenever we played a scenario. Yes, much is available online and the TFL team answer enquiries promptly, but that doesn't help much mid game. Frankly, it's put me off trying their other offerings and its not as if there is a lack of choice.

As to some of the comments that followed, in some cases, it seems like people take any criticism of their chosen rules as a personal insult.

 Durfast wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:


Maybe it's a language barrier issue.

I'm British, but live in Denmark

I wrote that I found the rules are vague because I found numerous issues that interrupted the flow of the game (Dux Brit). So my gaming buddy and I had to stop several times to discuss, yet another, hole in the published rules whenever we played a scenario. Yes, much is available online and the TFL team answer enquiries promptly, but that doesn't help much mid game. Frankly, it's put me off trying their other offerings and its not as if there is a lack of choice.

As to some of the comments that followed, in some cases, it seems like people take any criticism of their chosen rules as a personal insult.

People do take it personally. My issue with your post was that you didn't expand on what you meant or why you said it. After reading your latest post, I think i actually agree with the issue you raise (though the cause isn't vagueness but something else). Their approach can lead to a few things that seem obvious to the author that are not obvious to the reader. I remember in my first game of IABSM, I did end up looking something up online on a smart phone. Fortunately someone had asked the exact question I had and I found the answer with a search of TMP.

I don't think it's a matter of vagueness though, but of the rules not being in front of enough fresh eyes before they go to print. If the people working on them are familiar with how they should work, and all the playtesters are already familiar with their approach, then there might not be anyone to see what the game ends up being like for those who approach only the text of a given game. I had one instance like that with IABSM and none with Dux Brit, but it could be that my familiarity with IABSM has given me the same "lardies goggles" that the playtesters have and I just didn't see the hole like someone who is fresh to the text and approach would..

Thanks frozenwastes, that's just what I meant. I was fresh to the system, but very familiar with the period.

Also my comment about follow on posts was not aimed at you, but the personal comments from marielle. It's mazing how brave people can become when behind their computer screens

I'd like to throw my hat in and also recommend SAGA as others have already done.

A few points on why I like it.

-It is very fluid and the rules are simple to understand which makes it so I spend more time playing the game rather than reading the rules.

-Each faction feels quite distinct, while there are some similarities between factions such as Bretons and Welsh, overall they each feel different which gives more tactical options.

-On tactical options I find the rules to advocate good planning and tactics to be victorious.

-Each scenario is fun to play and all feel different from each other, I especially enjoy "Wooden Oaths" as I haven't played such a chaotically fun game before.

I'm really enjoying the rule set and looking to acquire more war bands. I think this will be one rule set I'll definitely be playing for a long time.

At the moment I'm looking into Muskets and Tomahawks, could anyone tell me more about the game and why they find it enjoyable?

Actually, just saw a boxset of those miniatures the other day, so I too would be interested if anyone has any comments on Muskets & Tomahawks?

I quite enjoy Muskets and Tomahawks, but this is only after 3 or so games, quite awhile ago. Really need to play it again!

It has none of the battleboard stuff, and activation is done via cards drawn from a deck.

For example, both players have two units of regulars, and one of irregulars. This lets each of them put two Regular, and four Irregular cards each into the activation deck.

For irregulars, one card is one action, but there are four of these cards. For regulars, there are only two cards, but each gives two actions. Therefore, regulars are slow to react, but when they do react they do so with vigour, whilst irregulars are the opposite.

Regulars also get bonuses when in formation (volley fire, morale bonus), unlike irregulars. However being in a nice formation makes them easier to hit, and they cannot maintain it after losing too many men/being in rough terrain. As far as I remember, max unit size is twelve figures.

Blackpowder weapons are deadly close in, slightly less so over half range (3+, but 4+ to kill at long), but require one action to reload. Rifles require three actions to reload but can reach across the table (which is rarely useful due to terrain). Bows require no reloading actions, but are quite weak (5+ to kill).

Range is often short due to there usually being terrain covering the entire board (and this game has a sight chart, so often you can't even see enemies to fire at them), but open area engagements are brutal short affairs where regulars rule, volleying everything into oblivion, as it should be.

I've found the games played to mostly be short, fun and extremely brutal once fighting starts. I lost five men from a twelve man unit in one volley, and clearly shocked by the losses, return fire was high and nary a frenchman was injured. Note that this game was our first and therefore had almost no terrain (compared to how we played later!).



There are lists for Indians, French and British during French Indian Wars. Also Americans, Indians, French, Hessian and British for fighting during the American War of Independence.

I see the objective for that battle is a supply dump next to the crossroads.

Haha! Thanks for the write-up MRDWhitey, very informative - always looking for new skirmish games, so might give this one a closer look.