House rule: Flanking with dice, Ranged with modifiers

If two units are in contact, then they are in combat. They roll to hit on 4, 5, 6. Most units roll three dice; dragoons roll two.

In core Pub Battles, units move into contact to be considered in combat, whether this is imagined to be ranged or melee. Fields of fire were introduced in 2.0 rules to simulate simple ‘zones of control’ and prevent fiddly and gamey block placement. Keep 1/3 of a foot move away, or move into contact.

If units are in contact after all movement, during the combat phase, they roll three dice (dragoons roll two), hitting on 4+, with modifiers for cover (-1 to be hit for defending in cover) and flanking (-1 to hit a unit on your flank, +1 to hit a unit you’re flanking). These modifiers stack and balance.

The experimental 3.0 rules introduce ranged combat as well as close combat. Under these rules, close combat/melee follows the three-dice norm; but ranged combat is managed through dice limits. Infantry roll two, dragoons roll one, cavalry none. (Artillery all three of course.)

I’ve been experimenting with a house rule that swaps these approaches: so that flanking is managed through changes to the dice you bring to bear on combat, and attacking at range just introduces a -1 penalty.

House rule: Directional dice. All dice can be brought to bear to the front of a unit; maximum of two to the side flanks, and no more than one to the rear.

In this method, if a unit has three dice to fight with, and is in combat with multiple units, it must decide where to direct its dice. No more than two could be aimed at a side flank , and no more than one to its rear. This causes interesting decisions and reflects the advantage of flanking moves without summing +1s and -1s. No ‘accuracy’ advantage is given to hit when attacking a flank; rather, you are less likely to be destroyed, and can bring all your dice to bear on it. Attacking a unit’s flank or rear with a single unit limits its response to you appropriately.

Adopting this rule means you can’t use dice management to reflect ranged combats. But that’s okay: I simply set the baseline for ranged combat by infantry and dragoons so it only hits on 5s and 6s.

These units may fire at each other during combat from range, hitting on 5s+ under my house rule.

As to fields of fire, I expect units to keep at least a block-width distance or to close to melee. If more than a block’s width, but less than 1/3 foot move (conveniently approximately the length of a block), units fire on each other with the ranged target numbers if able. If the unit doesn’t want this, keep out of the field of fire as in the base rules.

Keep a block’s width between you or close to melee. Keep within a block’s length or a third of foot move to engage in ranged combat.

Fields of fire at range, and the interaction with flanking positioning, are potentially tricky, but I try to follow the spirit of the core rules, establishing 45° zones to the front for attack, and like zones to establish flanks. To some degree, this needs to be by agreement between players to establish intent, as per the Pub Battles spirit.

This image approximates the 45° field of fire to the front of a unit, and roughs out the flank and rear flank angles.

Players might agree that a couple of units at oblique angles to each other trade one-die pot shots or a two-dice exchange in cases of ambiguity.

Playtesting these rules on the small Monmouth map, I found that ranged exchanges were rare. Terrain tended to block line of sight and closing to close combat made more sense, pressing across the map. Flanking, however, was much more frequent. The image below illustrates an interesting, and crucial, moment in the late game:

Mathew, with Cornwallis’ dragoons flanking from within the woods, presses Scott to open the route to the objective of Sutfin farm. The main contact is in the open around Craig’s farm.

Under this house rule, Scott has to make decisions how to commit his dice. Does he train all three on Mathew in the open? Or see if he can repel the dragoons? They are in woods (I grant cover to *anyone* in woods, attacking or defending), so harder to hit (5s), but won’t absorb a hit like Mathew’s elites will. If Scott spends a round directing the maximum of two dice to the dragoons, he could see them off (11% chance). But then, they’re only firing two dice (because they’re dragoons). It’s probably better to focus on Mathew since he’s in the open (4s to hit), and more of a threat. But if he repels Mathew, he’ll still be flanked by the dragoons so won’t be able to direct all three dice at them. How should Scott respond to this divided attention?

The situation is reflected not so differently from how it is in the standard rules*. (And the situation here is complicated by the fact that there are dragoons involved.) But to my mind, it’s more intuitive and easier to handle. Instead of +1 for flanking, vs -1 for being flanked, and -1 for the cover, and no penalty to attacking Mathew which might reflect the distraction, it’s just 5s or 4s to hit (in cover vs not) and the question is where you aim your dice.

*If I understand the standard rules correctly, the choice would just be whether to fire your three dice at the dragoons, hitting on 6s (-1 for cover, -1 for firing on your flank), or three dice at Mathew hitting on 4s. (It seems a no-brainer to fire at Mathew.) Then, Scott’s unit would suffer the attack from the other contact (if still in contact) with no return of fire possible. The dragoons would be more likely to hit per die, though, gaining a +1 advantage from flanking. (It’s a 44% chance of one hit, 44% chance of two hits.) This would continue even if Mathew were repelled.

Most of these interesting decisions, then, are just Pub Battles at work! The rules as they stand don’t need changing. But the odds of the house rule strike me as leading to a closer-cut call, and the choice of whether and where to divide your attention is interesting to me. Also, I like keeping positional advantage (flanking) separate conceptually from chance-to-hit (cover, range). The number of dice reflects the number of arms you can bring to bear on a conflict. The modifier reflects your possible accuracy and ability to cause harm. The benefit of flanking is that it causes problems for your opponent in responding, not that it makes you a better shot.

One final trade-off is this: in the rules as written, a flanking move is especially likely to be deadly. There’s 30% chance of landing three hits, less than 4% chance of none! But return fire has a small chance to destroy you: 4% chance of three hits back. In my house rule, a flanking move mainly makes you safer from destruction, though a little more likely to take a hit. (50% chance of getting one hit, but 0% possibility of taking three.) It’s a bit less swingy, in particular reducing the chance of elimination of a unit on a single dice roll.

So, my main reasons for enjoying playing this house rule are that for me, it’s intuitive conceptually; it keeps modifications for different things simple and separate; and it seems to promote positional play of the field vs attritional play with the odds.