My thoughts, *sigh* (A review of "My Oath Sire" wargame rules)

At MK Campaign Jim Lucas gave me a copy of his new (well 2025) Wars of the Roses rules "My Oath Sire". I speak to Jim at Campaign and Partizan most years and exchange views if possible. We both tend to be busy but it is good to swap ideas. This time round I suggested he upload the pdf to Wargame Vault.

I wasn't sure if the style of rules was my thing, and I'm not in the market for a set of rules ideally suited to 28mm figures right now. Which is a way of saying if I hadn't been given a copy I wouldn't have bought them.

Any how, I thought it would be interesting to give them a go, so I read them through. And watched the You Tube video. Then read them through again. Then tried to put together a QRS, as one hasn't been included. This is surprising as the rules aren't that complicated so the essential bit should fit on a couple of sides of A4. At times there are a lot of factors. I read them again and took a load of notes. Good job they're only c70 page long, plus the print is big as is the line spacing and there's lots of photos and some of it is scenarios and so on that you don't need to read to learn the rules.

Essentially it's a fairly simple system. You roll for initiative, you roll to activate a unit (one or two actions),  you roll to move and you roll lots of dice to shoot or fight. And you roll for your "Spirit", which approximates to morale. Hidden in the simplicity are some clever ideas and a bit of complexity. So I compiled a QRS and re-read the rules. I have to say now that in spite of their being chapter headings like "Shooting" not all the info you need to work out shooting is in that section. For example the rate of fire for archers, cross bows and hand guns is in the "Troop Type" section, and other fragments of subjects are scattered liberally in different places and sometimes under other headings. Like part of the melee outcome rules are under the "Fallen Leaders" heading even though they have nothing to do with leaders being killed. Other rules are poorly explained and seem to rely on "common sense" or just knowing what the author intended. For a product retailing at £26.50 (!) they need to be better written and better edited. However probably most of what you need is explained.

Still. I persisted, and set up a solo game this Saturday morning. I used a couple of pre-prepared armies  of 1000pts each from the back of the book, and substituted one of my 15mm stands for a individual 28mm figures. I used identical lists for both sides.

The Yorkists are nearest the camera.

With the Yorkists winning the initiative I declared the left hand "unit" would move twice. That was unwise. The second move requires you to roll "Spirit", which they failed and became "Dis-Spirited". The Lancastrians then charged them.

The Yorkists got beat, losing two casualties to one. You roll a number of dice per stand depending on 1st or 2nd rank, then hit on a number determined by your unit type. The hits are then divided by the opponent's armour number to determine final hits. I can't see that you get a combat benefit from charging, mostly, but I could be wrong. If charging you get to use your "Attack" value, not your "Defend". For some Attack is lower (i.e. easier to roll) than Defend and for some the other way round. I couldn't discern any logic.

Also, it is noted in the rules you don't get "mixed" units. If you want to do the accepted archers in front of billman array, you have two units (one of each) one behind the other, and have to roll Spirit to drop back. It's also a gamble as movement distances are random too.

Back to the Yorkists, they moved and shot. The Lancastrians then charged the archers with billmen.

The archers got badly roughed up and fell back, Dis-Spirited. The Yorkist Men at Arms charged the Lancastrian billmen. I think you can charge on the oblique. I couldn't see if you had to line up like DBA. All the example photos in the rule show units lined up.

The Yorkist Men at Arms lost, and were Dis-Spirited. Despite the presence of Warwick. Three out of 5 Yorkist units have failed Spirit tests, and I've only been going 15 minutes at most.

The table as it stood at this point. I think that the units nearest the camera moved forwards, but that was turn one over.

Next turn the central melee resumes. The Yorkists win and regain their Spirit. But Warwick dies. So they lose it again. The Lancastrians retire quite a bit.

The Lancastrian archers then pepper the Yorkist Men at Arms, and kill LOTS of them.

On the Yorkist right flank the Lancastrian Men at Arms force the opposing Billmen back, and they are Dis-Spirited.

This is after about 75 minutes of play. The Yorkists have four Dis Spirited units, two of which have virtually evaporated. The Lancastrians have given them a real kicking, so I ended the game.

Note these are two identical armies, although not set up identically. Apart from one opening move error, noted above, this was all down to the luck of the dice. A game of skill this isn't, nor one for tactical sophistication.

Somethings I need clarification over:

1) Do you declare both of your activations at the same time, or can you wait on the outcome of the second before deciding? (I think the former is implied)

2) Do you have to move the full distance rolled if you can?

3) What happens if a normal movement roll is enough to make contact as you can only contact by charging. How far short do you stop.

4) Do you line units up DBA style? I not, how much if a unit needs to make contact for it to fight and does everything fight?

5) Is there any way of regaining Spirit other than winning a melee?

6) Is there a charge bonus that I missed? 

Alas there's no contact email in the rules and I couldn't find a dedicated blog or FB page or whatever on which to ask them.

Conclusions? I think I know enough to run a game with other people now, and it would be good to introduce cavalry and artillery. I may need to make 1 base = 2 elements and uses centimetres to make this work. It look to me like the type of game you'll like if you like this type of game. I probably prefer it to "Test of Resolve", although the latter is much better written. Neither is a great model of late medieval English combat, in my opinion.

I probably need to re-read them through again having played a game, to see what I missed, if I can find the time next week.