Rules Sticker -- Triumph Version 1.2

[David Kuijt]

Changes to Triumph! for Version 1.2

The print version of Triumph! was released in November 2019. We at Washington Grand Company have been pleased with the stability of Triumph!. But games are complex, living systems, and in the nearly six years since the release of the print version we have identified a small number of rules changes that enhance it.

We have decided to release these changes in two formats. First, we are updating our electronic rules to Version 1.2, including these changes. This new version replaces the old one. Anyone who has purchased our electronic rules has access to the new version, for free.

Second, we are creating a sticker, intended to be placed upon the blank surface of the back cover of the print version of the rules. This sticker has the rules changes for Version 1.2. Anyone who has a physical copy of the rules may purchase the sticker for a nominal fee. Players may decide instead to print the sticker on adhesive label stock (Avery or similar) and add it to their rulebook. An electronic copy of the sticker will be available for free.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank our players. The development of Triumph! has been the culmination of decades of work in this hobby, and we appreciate your support.

[David Kuijt]

RULES STICKER

1. Movement Rates
   1. Bow Levy move 3 MU.
   2. Rabble move 4 MU.
   3. Horde move 3 MU.
      These changes modify Triumph! 35.5, Table 5 (Tactical Movement Distance)
2. War Wagons
   1. War Wagons have a combat factor of +3 defending in Ranged Combat. This replaces the value given in Triumph! Appendix B table B.1.
   2. Add “or War Wagons” after “Shooting at general’s stand” in Appendix C table C.1.
3. Rabble Pass-through
   1. Add “or Rabble” after “Skirmishers” in rules 42.2.b, 42.2.c, and 81.1.c.
4. Pavise Fix
   1. Modify Pavise combat factors to +3/+3. This modifies Appendix B table B.2.
5. Pursuit and Fall-Back
   1. Modify 80.1. Replace “It moves a distance equal to its own base depth” with “It moves 1 MU”.
   2. Modify 86.1. Replace “its own base depth” with “1 MU”.
6. Pike Rear Support
   1. Pike receive +3 for Rear Support. This modifies Triumph! 69.2 and Appendix C table C.2 in the Pike row (in both places replace “+2” with “+3”)
7. Pass-through and Combat
   1. Modify 42.6, adding “, or in close combat” after “ZOC of an enemy stand”.

[David Kuijt]

Sticker Discussion
Or “what do these rule changes mean, in brief?”

1. Movement Rates
   All three of the cheap infantry stand types (Horde, Rabble, and Bow Levy) get a +1 MU movement improvement.
2. War Wagons
   The old defending-vs-shooting combat factor of +4 was too high. Instead of that, War Wagons get the same benefit vs. shooting that Generals get – reduce enemy offensive shooting combat values by 1. This makes their defense vs. most missile attacks a +2:+3 combat, rather than a +3:+4 combat.
3. Rabble Pass-through
   Rabble can now move through friendly stand types the same way Skirmishers can, on movement and combat results.
   This enables historical tactics for armies (like Polybian Roman) who use Rabble as “poor skirmishers.”
4. Pavise Fix
   Pavise were too strong against mounted; this modification reduces their combat factor in close combat against mounted from +4 to +3.
5. Pursuit and Fall-Back
   All stands now fall back and pursue 1 MU, rather than their base depth.
   This fixes some peculiarities having to do with disengaging on pursuit when losing troop types have deeper bases than their foes, and other idiosyncratic behavior.
6. Pike Rear Support
   Pikes getting rear support improve by +1.
7. Pass-through and Combat
   Correcting an identified error. Troops should not be able to pass through friendly troops that are in close combat.

[Brummbär]

Thanks guys!!!
Looking forward for this and hopefully a lot of games to test out the changes

Will there be an info from Wargame Vault about the availability or how will this be handled?
Again: thanks for making this available for free!!!

[Viking]

Great to see that Triumph is alive and well! And, as an owner of the digital version, also very nice to see that I won't have to pay for the rules again (something which has made me avoid certain other games which shall remain unnamed...).

Using one fall-back/pursue distance for all units will of course remove the "punishment" for using a line of units with different base depths - I always thought that extra loss of coherency in combat was intentional, both in Triumph and in a certain legacy game system, but good to learn that's not the designers' intent here.

I realise of course a lot of playtesting and historical research has gone into this, and I'm looking forward to trying it out. Just thinking about the Pavisiers change, it's a significant downgrade, what convinced you it's still worth its 4 points? I'm a bit on the doubtful side here and would like to be less so

[David Kuijt]

Using one fall-back/pursue distance for all units will of course remove the "punishment" for using a line of units with different base depths - I always thought that extra loss of coherency in combat was intentional, both in Triumph and in a certain legacy game system, but good to learn that's not the designers' intent here.

You'll see that there is still little coherency in a battle after things get stuck in. Don't worry about that.

The problem is/was oddities that made no sense. Like bow levy managing to escape engagement with warrior/warband. Warband is faster than bow levy -- howcome a bow levy that falls back can disengage? Or Warriors fighting Warband -- they stay engaged if the Warband win, but don't stay engaged if the Warriors win? Or Knights fighting Cataphracts -- Knights are faster. So howcome the Cataphracts can disengage for combat for free if they fall back? There are a half-dozen of those little nagging points. Horde falling back farther than Bow Levy or Rabble? Odd.

Square-based stands are the source of many of those peculiarities, and square bases in Triumph (and in legacy systems back to WRG 4th or earlier) are largely an artifact of figure size, not a deliberate game-design choice. Nobody can say with a straight face that a formation of Chariots in real life would be deeper than a formation of Horsebow, for example. It's just that you can't fit a Chariot figure on a 30mm base.

Just thinking about the Pavisiers change, it's a significant downgrade, what convinced you it's still worth its 4 points? I'm a bit on the doubtful side here and would like to be less so

They don't get shattered by any mounted (except Knights) -- previously (before the change) they were an effective stand type against enemy foot, and totally dominant against mounted. Now (after the change) they are the same against enemy foot, and still pretty dominant against mounted -- JavCav or Horsebow or Elite Cavalry or Bad Horse need to double them in close combat to kill them, and if they don't and somebody falls back (either side does) they take shooting and are more at risk than the Pavise was in the previous attack (and the Pavise is not at risk at all).

Knights are a greater danger, but that's historical -- neither Italian Condotta nor Byzantine Pavises were essentially immune to Knights, which is the situation at +4. Anna Komnene's description of the effectiveness of the charge of Frankish Knights makes clear that Byzantine foot were not dominant vs. them. You'll find that massed Knights against massed Pavises is still dangerous to the Knights after the change.

Cataphracts are defensively a bit better off than Knights (they defend against shooting at +3), and a bit more capable of winning in close combat than JavCav or Elite Cav, but a line of Cataphracts is still not the most effective way to break a line of Pavises -- better to try with foot. Advantage still stays with the Pavises, even if they don't do something clever.

Elephants are dangerous, but the shooting and the fact that a broken line of Elephants takes a zillion pips (and that reserves to fill holes behind an Elephant line are at risk of getting splattered by Elephant recoils) evens things out. And we're not so worried about misaligning the game with historical usage there, because examples of Elephant formations fighting Pavise formations are pretty much absent -- the Eastern border of the Early Achaemenid Persians seems to be just about the only examples of those two troop types fighting that we can find in history, and detailed descriptions of those battles are so far absent. Having one or two stands of JavCav in reserve to fill holes punched by Elephants in your sparabara will still be competitive.

Summary: don't worry about the poor little Pavises. They're still a very strong stand type.

[Brummbär]

Can't wait to get some test-games done to see the changes in action.
Especially the new pursuit/fallback - so far I am really curious how "deep" the influence of this might be.
On a second thought: does base depth really make a point after these changes?
Haven't played in a while and I am a bit rusty on rules, but where does base depth come in play or makes a difference?
Maybe a bit longer flanks...

Also the added +1 one pike support got me thinking as I love playing armies with lots of pointy sticks.
This might rally mean that you more often change for the deeper deployment with the added risk of getting overwhelmed on the flanks.

And as mentioned before: I love to see that Triumph! is still alive and evolving. Still my preferred system on the tabletop!
Keep up your stunning good work - thanks!

[Rod]

Still evolving, still growing.

Many of us have had "life gets in the way events" slowing down some things. I took on a teaching gig and it keeps me busy during the school year.

I have a new series of GT Historical battles in the cooker, the guys have been working hard on the Fantasy publication. I think you will find these updates are a subtle, but significant upgrade to game play. The Rabble changes really help with the Polybian Romans and battles like Ascalon for example.

I will try to get my Historical scenarios out this summer, the only thing stopping me has been time to play test. I hope to run a few of them past the group if we have time at Historicon in July.

[skc]

Played our first game with the new amendments today. Must say I did find the 1Mu Fall back/Follow up a bit fiddly after being lazy about using base depth fall backs. However I suspect this is more realistic, than the base depth variations. As I've done with my 'Zoc Tree (Tree on a 4cm square base) I have now made a 'Recoil Tree' on a 2cm square base to try make the new recoils less fiddly and easier to measure.

[Brummbär]

Quick question - when all troops fall back 1MU, is it really still crucial to have different base depths at all?
Would it make a difference if all bases were 1MUx1MU? Or do I forget/overlook something...