Giving 'Men Who Would Be Kings a Try'

    Left wing of my force on its way to destroy a Pathan village in Keith's 'Men Who Would be Kings'

Our group has become enamored with the Daniel Mersey line of rules in the last year or so. Our latest foray into the "Rampant" system, as it is sometimes known, was last night trying out the Colonial rules, The Men Who Would be Kings. Our group has played Lion Rampant, Xenos Rampant, and Rebels and Patriots, so far. This was a new one for us, and in our opinion, the bloodiest of the lot! Since we had six players, and Keith did not have enough figures of any one native people to make a three-player side, he decided to set up three separate, one-on-one matchups. In the first, Allen's Zulus trying to prevent Mike W's British colonial force from marching past them and reaching the safety of the opposite board edge. In the middle game, Tom was commanding a Boxer Rebellion force intent on reducing a church they'd previously burned, and drive off the Western powers forces attempting to save the Chinese Christians there. Joel and I played a Brits vs. Pathans matchup on the Northwest frontier. I was attempting to destroy a village while Joel was trying to prevent me from reducing the buildings to rubble.

    Although they activated below par, my British artillerists were deadly with their shots!

Unfortunately, I did not think to take pictures of any of the other matchups. I focused on my game with Joel, as we were trying to learn the specifics of this set. Although the Rampant games share a common set of mechanics, each game has their own twist or tweaks for the periods. The big thing we noticed for Men Who Would be Kings, besides the bloodiness, was that all types of activation rolls need the same score for success. In our games, it was usually a "6" on 2d6, or a "5" if you had Discipline +1. So, it didn't really matter if you were activating to move, move at the double, shoot, or charge into melee, your unit needed the same number for all of them. Each troop type does receive one or two "free" actions -- well, most of them do. My artillery did not, and ended up failing their activation roll pretty much every other turn like clockwork!

    Early stages of the battle as my British force of 4 units advances on the Pathan village

The biggest difference -- and what caused this game be so bloody -- is everyone's base "armor" is one. In Rampant games, the shooter or both sides in melee roll their prescribed number of attack dice, typically looking for a 5 or 6 (or 4-6 for many cases in this game) on 10-12 dice. You total up your hits and compare it to the armor of the enemy. If they have an armor of two, you inflict a casualty for every two hits. For example, if a shooting unit score five hits, and the target has an armor of three, you would do only one casualty (no rounding up). If they have an armor of 2, you inflict two. And if you have a armor one, like most troops in this game, that's five hits! Actually, the game doesn't even use the term "armor." The only things that acts as armor are cover and long range.

    Close up of Keith's 25mm Ral Partha highlander figures, who fought very well in battle

So, when my British highlander units at short range and in close order (Why not be in close order, as it doesn't reduce your move or make you easier to hit?) fired at Joel's Pathan unit, I was hitting on each 4-6 on 12d6. I admit that I was rolling very well to hit throughout the game, routinely scoring six or even eight hits. Needless to say, that will devastate a 12-man unit! So, Joel and I were done in about an hour of gaming. Although he was defending a village of hard cover buildings, it didn't help him much. The scenario ruled that a unit inside would be eliminated if a building was destroyed. To do that, I had to inflict 10 hits. When attacking the building (at short or long range), I rolled 12 dice and needed a 4-6. On my first shot at a building, I rolled five hits in one turn. Joel's occupants realized that an average roll on my next shot would destroy it. So, they scrammed and advaned to attack my infantry, instead. So, the hard cover was essentially a death trap for his troops, and useless as cover for him. 

    Pathan left wing advances towards my forces, thankfully across open ground where we could shoot

My tactics in the scenario were simple. The artillery was on my far right corner of the board, and would shoot every turn it activated (about 50% of the time) at either enemy troops or reduce buildings. I placed both of my highlander infantry units in close order, and they would advance till within range and then plant themselves and fire. And fire. And fire again. My British lancers would wait till a unit had been reduced below half strength, and then charge and finish them off, while the infantry switched to target a new Pathan infantry unit and begin reducing them down. 

    After the enemy was softened up by the highlander's fire, the lancers would dash in & destroy them!

We outranged the Pathans' rifles, too, firing 24" to their 18". So, I essentially had the advantage of sitting back and waiting for them to come within range, and then shooting them down. Yes, I realize that was the basic tactic of colonial European powers in this era. I can't imagine it made for a fun game for Joel, though. He killed four of my troops the entire game -- two by shooting and two by fighting back in melee when my lancers charged home. When he and I decided the outcome was a foregone conclusion and called it, he had only two reduced units left of the six he began the game. It was a bloody slaughter!

One difference in Men Who Would be King that I did like was that the number of dice rolled to attack an enemy by shooting or melee is controlled by the number of figures in your unit. In most Rampant games, a unit rolls the maximum dice (typically 12 or 10) when it is above half strength. When it falls to half or below, it rolls half that number of dice. In these rules, it is normally one dice per figure. So, you can wear a unit down with casualties and gradually see a reduction in its effectiveness. Maybe another reason our games were so bloody is that Keith made the decision to minimize the terrain in our first, learning game. I think that was a good idea, but it hurt the natives. Another thing that hurt the natives was the boards were relatively narrow -- each area was only about 3.5 feet wide by about 4-5 feet deep. The narrow frontage prevented them outflanking the colonials, and made our firepower that much deadlier, with enemy units always in our shooting arc. 

    The closest the Pathan advance got to my forces -- they were soon driven back by artillery & rifle fire

An obvious fix would be to give the natives more cover and the opportunity to outflank the enemy. Would it help the native forces? Definitely. That said, in the middle game, Tom's Boxers cleared the field of the colonial Western power units. He was able to use the Boxers' deadly charge and cut down the enemy. Now, Tom and Mike S admitted they got a couple rules wrong that might have affected the game some. Mike seemed pretty convinced he was outclassed, though. So, maybe it depends on which native force is matched up against which colonial power? What about the third game? It was pretty evenly fought -- and bloody, of course! However, Mike W's British fought off the attacks and destroyed enough of the Zulu enemy that it was obvious he'd be able to eventually fulfill his victory conditions and march off-table. So, it was 2-1 colonials. 

The games went VERY quickly -- the longest finished at two hours (Joel and I after an hour or so). So, I think the balance probably hangs in the scenario design and forces chosen. An unfavorable scenario, plus unfavorable matchup, can be very one-sided -- like my game. With me having the superior range (36" for my artillery and 24" for my rifles), I could sit back and pound his village all day long. That forced him to come out of the buildings and come after me. He was also hampered by the scenario, which forced him to deploy half of his force in the central buildings and the other half on his baseline. Contrast that with Tom's scenario in the center. Mike S was forced to put on sacrificial lamb of one of his units in the center ruins of the church. Tom's entire force could advance from his baseline together -- too many for one unit to keep at bay. It was just a matter of time before one of the Boxer charges drove him from the church and slaughtered him. And then, his remainder force coming up would be depleted of its firepower by the lost unit. With the Boxer's bigger units and superior hand-to-hand ability, I think Tom's scenario favored him as much as mine favored me over Joel.

    One building reduced to rubble in the village, and now the lancers prepare to sweep through it

Still, I enjoy playing the Rampant series of games. I think this particular one may need more tweaks, or careful scenario design, to prevent it from being a one-sided bloodbath. Obviously, we could use the same colonial figures and simply play the Xenos Rampant rules, if we wanted. We'll see what Keith wants to do, though. Either way, it was a quick fun game, which is what the Rampant series does well!

MINIATURES Acquired vs. Painted Tally for 2025

• Miniatures acquired in 2025: 288
  
• Miniatures painted in 2025: 172

TERRAIN Acquired vs. Painted Tally for 2025

• Terrain acquired in 2025: 36
  
• Terrain painted in 2025: 61

SCATTER Acquired vs. Painted Tally for 2025

• Scatter acquired in 2025: 115
  
• Scatter painted in 2025: 150