Has Anyone Tried BLB for ECW ???

obriendavid · Post by **obriendavid** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:40 am

barr7430 wrote:I have never played WECW. I am a touch Warhammer phobic as I think the ancients rules are pretty ridiculous but I believe that WECW has element of 1644 in it?? Maybe be mistaken there though...

Barry, if you want to come through to the club some time I'll give you a game of WECW or my Blood and Iron Warhammer version and hopefully I'll cure your dislike of Warhammer. Even Angus who hates Warhammer enjoyed the mid 19th century rules.

Cheers
Dave

quindia · Post by **quindia** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:54 am

Wow...

Bibio, you DO know that VWQ is like eight or nine pages long without the event charts. It probably needs quite a bit more work than the addition of highlander rules!

Jeff, I think most rules don't allow the enemy to return fire in the opponent's shooting phase. I know the card system sometimes leaves a unit stranded, but with the commander cards I usually find I can reasonably give as good as I get.

Dave, I didn't your request! I'll send the rules after posting this.

Card turn systems are love/hate games. The rules were written for my own table. I wanted a card driven turn system, three stand infantry units (inspired by photos in WI of Barry's TYW collection years ago), and no removing models during the game. Those three things were the impetus for the whole project. I know there are lots of - in the set and almost everything needs more explanation to make it more accessible to the general public. I've had fun games with them and sometimes have to make up rules as I go (I even write them down if I remember later).

I would certainly be interested in seeing VWQ get the BLB/R2E treatment... it might get me motivated to get back to my Royalist army! VWQ is only one project Barry and I have talked about... the only thing I'm sure of is that we will be working on something else soon!

Well, maybe after a short rest...

Bluebear · Post by **Bluebear** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:33 am

Clarence,

You will note from my comments that I personally preferred your "no simultaneous fire" format . . . it was my regular opponent who refused to play it that way (*sigh*).

In the second game I played (against Pete, not Murdock), we played "your way" and the game was a lot better (even though I lost) because of the ebb-and-flow.

And please allow me to also praise your "event cards".

-- Jeff

bibio · Post by **bibio** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:58 pm

Clarence wrote

Bibio, you DO know that VWQ is like eight or nine pages long without the event charts. It probably needs quite a bit more work than the addition of highlander rules!
To me that is one of the beuties of the system it is not overly complicated with what ifs ,the shorter a ruleset is the better,there has been many a good ruleset ruined by too much being added to the second edition.

iain

mikeb · Post by **mikeb** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:18 am

These are a few pictures of WECW units from tournament play. While not as nice as some of the painting done here, the WECW units still look good. They armies are based for DBR but I can use them for any rules.

Mike B

Bluebear · Post by **Bluebear** » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:40 am

I'm scheduled to give VWQ another try in a few weeks . . . and I'm looking forward to it. I'll again have to use some "substitute" troops, but they will be correctly based for VWQ.

I am however a bit angry with myself for missing the VWQ option in the "What to do Next" Poll . . . so I voted for something else . . . *grrrr*.

-- Jeff