Hal Thinglum's MWAN arrived (Volume 13, No 2, Nov/Dec 94), and on page 75 there appeared Volley And Bayonet (VAB), by Frank Chadwick... yes, THE Frank Chadwick himself. Why this was published is a mystery... the rules were copyright 1994 by Games Designers' Workshop, they were in very rough draft format, they had lots of gaps... in general, it appeared that perhaps someone had made a mistake in placing them in MWAN. Nevertheless, our group gave 'em a try; at the end of some two hours of test gaming, however, we decided they definitely weren't ready for prime time. VAB bites off a huge chunk of gaming... the introduction states: The rules allow players to refight historic battles from about 1700... through about 1900... Since the covered era spans 1700 to 1900, I chose a year smack dab in the middle, and set up a Napoleonics battle, circa 1800. VAB is grand-tactical in scope; an inch on the field represents 100 yards, and the time span of each game turn is one hour. An entire brigade is represented by one stand (3 inches by 3 inches) and the hits on the brigade must be tracked... 4 to 6 hits and the brigade is destroyed. Artillery stands and cavalry brigade stands take only 2 hits. The half bound has 5 phases: Command... Determine the units within the command aura (6 inches) of the commandinq general. These move full distance, while others move only half. Movement... Distances here are large, in fact, one might say they are huge. Infantry move 16 inches, cavalry 24 inches. Units may close to contact. Rally... Disordered units are brought under control. Morale Test... These tests are taken by units of both sides who find themselves within 6 inches (short range) of enemy guns, or which have been contacted during the movement phase. Combat... This includes fire combat, and melee, or assault. Musket range is 2 inches, while artillery ranges out to 12. Note that the 16 inch infantry movement, at 100 yards per inch, is a move distance of 1600 yards, 4800 feet, almost a full mile in the half bound. This means that a unit can close to contact from almost a mile out, with no opportunity for defensive fire, since melee (assault) essentially begins on contact. Remember that VAB purportedly includes the British colonial era (the late 1800's), and what this type of sequence does is to completely deprive the Brits of their defensive fire power. Obviously, a wee bit more work is required here. VAB, despite the huge technological advances made since the middle ages, insists on using 6-sided dice. The result, of course, is that the 6-number scale isn't large enough to provide for all the modifiers of fire and melee, and to compensate for this, the rules provide for savings throws. What should be done with a single dice toss is, therefore, done with many. An example is given wherein a skirmisher unit is hit. Being skirmishers, the unit is always entitled to a savings throw. But then we see that the firing unit was disordered... so there's yet another savings throw. But wait, the skirmishers were under cover, and here comes a third savings throw! Yes, this is the stuff of which classic rules systems are made!! Being so broad based, it appeared to me that VAB loses much, perhaps all, of the "recognizable patternry" of the eras it's trying to simulate. In our Napoleonic game, for example, with its 1-stand brigades, units really weren't in square, or in line, or in column of march... they really weren't in 'anything', except some sort of undefined brigade formation. And when the infantry brigade fired, it tossed 4 dice, looking for "6's". And when the brigade was in melee, it tossed 4 dice, looking for "6's". There's somewhat of a "sameness" here, a very bland approach which to me nullifies the verv reason for miniature figures... I want to see the little fellas in line and in column, and I want to ensure that every little fella gets his own hit die. Some of our group thought the system would be quite applicable to the ancients period, wherein units moved and immediately rushed into contact, and the fire effect of the weaponry wasn't all that conclusive. I can only hope that Games Designers' Workshop puts a lot more thought into the system. There were six of us around the table for our test game. At game's end, we asked for a "thumbs-up... thumbs-down" vote on the rules. VAB received 5 thumbs-down, and a single thumbs-up vote. Brian Dewitt was the lone dissenter; "At least, they seem to be playable!", was his comment. Back to PW Review Nov/Dec 1994 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1994 Wally Simon This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com