True, but not really being the boardgame then!
Now, if Cyrano could have two instances of TTS running simultaneously (on two Steam accounts presumably), then he could manage and update two different boards, porting one team's moves over to the other board when visible sight has been established...
Dammit, Pratt, as if I am not sufficiently frustrated trying to figure out how to run a straight KS in this environment!
.
As to the remarks: first, yes, these are the better rules. I like CA, but these really flow nicely and feel right.
Saturday's game will be the Battle of Abu Klea and won't benefit much from secret deployments for reasons that a viewing of the "Four Feathers" (please only watch the older version) will make clear.
That said, I screwed up two rules that would have made a difference.
The first I spotted in game, namely that troops "hugging the wall" will retreat off the board if given the opportunity to do so. This would have gone badly for the Mahdists but, as I said at the time, it would have been entirely unreasonable to punish Jason for a rule he didn't know.
The other I've only discerned by a, what, fourth, close reading of the rule. When units take casualties they are required to take a pinning test. This is a 2d6 minus the number of casualties sustained in the attack that caused the test. If the result is less than the unit's leadership, the unit receives a pinned marker. So far so good. When, however, the Rally phase comes around, the unit must attempt to Rally. This is a 2d6 less the number of pinned markers the unit has -- not, as we did -- the number of casualties sustained. This makes units much more durable. So durable, in fact, that there's an optional rule to take total casualties into account which I think is essential. As a result, Velker's camels would have been in much longer and Jason's hordes would not have thinned out quite so quickly.
Still, I am really looking forward to Abu Klea.
And I think I will put together a really big Isandlwana.
REMEMBER BURNABY!