We really like the morale rules in Tilly’s Very Bad Day, with both positive and negative events affecting a unit’s resolve. But I’ve been wondering whether I should shuffle the steps around in the sequence of play for the morale phase. This would mean we strengthen resolve before we weaken resolve, making units slightly more resilient. I explore three options: (1) current rules; (2) heal before harm; (3) unit morale.
This is one of a series of posts musing on resolve in Tilly’s Very Bad Day.
Option 1: Current morale phase
The sequence of play for the Morale Phase in Version 2 does it the opposite.
- Phase 6. Morale
- Step 6.1. Remove Shooting Markers
- Step 6.2. Commander Loss
- Step 6.3. Morale Erosion
- Step 6.4. Unit Heroics
- Step 6.5. Commander Rally
- Step 6.6. Army Morale
Notice that things that harm resolve (commander loss, morale erosion) are before things that repair resolve (unit heroics, commander rally).
Option 2: Morale phase with revised sequence of events – heal then harm
I’m starting to suspect we should flip those around, so the repair protects the unit from rout due to the harm. That would mean the sequence is:
- Phase 6. Morale
- Step 6.1. Remove Shooting Markers
- Step 6.2. (was 6.5.) Commander Rally
- Step 6.3. (was 6.4.) Unit Heroics
- Step 6.4. (was 6.2.) Commander Loss
- Step 6.5. (was 6.3.) Morale Erosion
- Step 6.6. Army Morale
Notice that things that repair resolve (unit heroics, commander rally) are before things that harm resolve (commander loss, morale erosion).
I’m not quite sure how that would change the game, but it would make units more resilient so would probably extend the game.
Option 3: Unit morale phase – unit by unit morale
We are up to version 2 of Tilly’s Very Bad Day and this version, plus all previous versions, assumes the events in the morale phase happen sequentially. All commander loss events are handled before all morale erosion. Pretty obvious really, “sequence of play” and all.
- Phase 6. Morale
- Step 6.1. Remove Shooting Markers
- Step 6.2. Commander Loss
- Step 6.3. Morale Erosion
- Step 6.4. Unit Heroics
- Step 6.5. Commander Rally
- Step 6.6. Army Morale
But even when I wrote the rules, I caveated this by saying:
Designer Notes: Although officially Morale erosion (Step 6.3), Unit heroics (Step 6.4), and Commander rally (Step 6.5), and are separate, sequential steps, we often find it convenient to do them together. We go from one side of the table to the other and deal with every routed marker and attached Commander in turn.
Put another way, my lot never, ever, play the official sequence of play for the morale phase. My lot do each side simultaneously and bounce around units in any order that want. Typically we start with the most interesting units, figure out what affects them, and go from there.
So, rather than break the rules every time we play the morale phase, I wonder if I should change the rules to reflect what we actually do. Or at least something like it, something unit by unit. That would mean moving to doing all morale for each unit in term. I’d probably ask players to check the commands one by one, starting from the active player’s right, and using the location of the commander as the guide to the order of checking. When looking at a command assessing morale of all units in the command before moving on to the next command. I would also shuffle the order of the steps around to repair is before harm, and separate out army morale (as above).
A consequence of this change is that the current moral phase splits into two (unit, army):
- Step 6 Unit Morale
- Step 6.1. (was 6.1.) Remove Shooting Marker
- Step 6.2. (was 6.5.) Commander Rally
- Step 6.3. (was 6.4.) Unit Heroics
- Step 6.5. (was 6.2.) Commander Loss
- Step 6.6. (was 6.3.) Morale Erosion
- Phase 7. (was Step 6.6.) Army Morale
When doing unit morale, choose the unit, and go through the steps above. Remove the shooting marker, if any. Strengthen resolve if it routed an enemy unit (unit heroics); only one unit per rout. Strengthen resolve if a commander is attached (commander rally). Weaken resolve if the commander is a casualty (commander loss). And finally weaken the resolve if the units sees a friendly rout (Morale Erosion); only one unit per rout. A unit can never exceed its original resolve and any strengthening of resolve past that level is lost. A unit that reaches zero resolve routs and is immediately removed, with consequent impact elsewhere.
After all of that, check whether one of the armies has broken.
Observations and conclusions
I’m inclined to go with both proposals, after all option 3 builds on option 2.
Option 2: Changing the sequence of events around for the morale phase helps players to rescue units at risk. They get a sense of satisfaction that they have cheated events by rescuing an otherwise doomed unit. It might extend the game but not by much.
Option 3: Moving to assessing each unit in turn reflects what we do, but I can’t help feeling I haven’t described it well. I’d appreciate it if somebody has a simplifying suggestion.
What do you think?
Steve, I am just getting used to the Tilly’s Very Bad Day rules so cannot base this on any great playing experience.
By the sound of it the third option sounds best, especially as it helps move the game along smartly and in important areas rather than starting at one side and dealing with unimportant results before getting to the main decisive area.
I like the idea of morale collapse which you sort of get with the idea of unit /wing / army morale tests. However an idea might be to test unit morale at a decisive point of the battle and if one unit breaks then that result impacts outwards from that point. This is when superior/elite units really show their worth by ‘stopping the rot’ and large low morale armies fall to pieces unexpectedly.
In terms of mechanism, personally I am against ‘saving throws’. We have all been there, an important event happens, the dice are rolled, its a failure! Oh hang on we have a saving throw because there is a general 300m away and it passes. It does not reflect real life, it doubles or trebles the number of dice throws (and time) and it kills the suspense. Or even worse, a re-throw. I would prefer to incorporate all the factors into a die roll even if it means I have to throw a 1 on a D20 (5%) than roll several dice in sequence to get the same odds.
The other thing that struck me on my recent read through of the rules, is the relatively minor role played by generals and commanders. Going back to DBx where the number of PIP points really mattered to a command, the death of a commander really did make a difference in loss of PIP points and the gradual loss of control during the battle as the army formations broke up into individual units and therefore required more PIP points to achieve anything. Some mechanism to reflect army/wing command might be worth considering, maybe?
Hi mikhailkoshkin, welcome to the Tilly’s Very Bad Day club.
Although the advanced rules offer more, morale collapse is embedded in the standard rules. Morale erosion and commander loss are killers.
I think the rules, as written, give the effect you’re describing but without the need for a unit level morale test. Instead I just rely on better units having higher resolve. But every friendly rout has an impact.
Like you I don’t like saving throws. the only one in Tilly’s Very Bad Day is checking for a commander casualty. I have a draft rule that eliminates this exception.
Commanders have a massive impact on the game. Just not in the way DBx does it. Commanders are the only way that units can rally. they help in melee. But once attached to aid in melee or with rallying, they are exposed to becoming casualties. you really don’t want your commanders to become casualties. Every unit in the command loses one resolve and the units all have to make command checks to move. This is devastating.
What I’m talking about in this post is really nuance. Improving a system that already works.
I suggest we keep it the way it is.
(1) Improving morale for killing a unit happens before that unit dies – this seems counterintuitive to me.
(2) Doing all the steps for a single unit before going to the next unit also breaks the game – the game is played in phases, but for morale we execute all the morale steps per unit – that seems counterintuitive to me as well.
(3) If you execute each phase right across the table gives historic effects – a single unit breaks, causing its neighbours to break, and failing morale ripples across the battlefield.
(4) Harming units before fixing them makes the units more brittle. Battles are won by breaking your opponent’s morale. A unit taking only 5% battle casualties becomes combat ineffective as the troops lose the will to fight. This leads to decisive battles which gives a fast, exciting game. Dragging a game out doesn’t make it better.
Hi Steven,
You said “I can’t help feeling I haven’t described it well. I’d appreciate it if somebody has a simplifying suggestion”. I’m not sure I’m going to be much help with that but here goes.
First, I think my friends and I are roughly on the same page as you and your group, in that we don’t necessarily follow the sequence as laid out in the current version. Rather what (I think) we’re doing is to apply all of the morale effects to all of the affected units nearly but not quite simultaneously, as follows.
We first identify all the units that will rout without hope of recovery.
Then we apply the effects of (a) morale erosion to any friends and (b) unit heroics to any enemies.
If (a) causes further routs we go round that loop again, applying erosion and heroics to nearby units as applicable. Of course this may cause further routs but the loop doesn’t often go on very long.
We then apply the effects of Commander Losses. If I have to tell a good story about why we do that at this stage I will say it’s because it takes time for the news to spread. There are also fewer units left to consider by then.
In all this, Commander Rally is the exception. The timing of the Commander Rally effect is entirely at the discretion of the player, so that it need never be wasted. If I have to tell a good story about why we choose to apply Commander Rally in this way I’m sure I can think one up. Just give me a minute.
Finally, we check Army Morale if necessary.
This all sounds much more convoluted than it actually is but in any case it’s well worth the effort as the cascade of morale effects is one of the best and most realistic features of Tilly without any doubt.
Hope that helps. Regards, Chris