Maurice: 18th Century Rules from Sam Mustafa

Sam Mustafa has made an initial announcement of his much awaited new rules scheduled for release early in 2012. These are focussed on the linear warfare of the 18th Century (specifically 1690 to 1790)  and named after the famous French Marshal Maurice de Saxe. The rules look to include some new innovative thoughts utilising action cards and feature a “Succession Wars” campaign. And they have been built with Imagi-Nations in mind as well, featuring flexibility of unit ratings and even troop scale! Finally a reason to dust off my boxes of Wargames Factory plastic figure boxes and get on with building my War of the Spanish Succession (WSS) armies – Marlborough here I come! You can download a copy of Sam’s flyer in PDF, about Maurice: War in the Age of Gentlemen and ‘Philosophes’ 1690-1790 here from Or you can read more from Sam at the Honour Games website and/or download the flyer from the Honour Games Download Page.

Maurice: War in the Age of Gentlemen and Philosophies 1690-1790 Cover

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Pingback: Gosh those Victrix Austrians Look Nice! |

  • Pingback: WSS Here I Come – Well Almost! |

  • Pingback: Maurice – First Game Impressions |

  • Erik

    I’ve tried a couple more games of Maurice this weekend and found them very interesting. Both went to nightfall and both finished with die rolls that could have given victory either way! Great fun and played out in 4 hours each game and 120 points per army. However, I’m still struggling a bit with the anti-cavalry bias I see in the rules. Maurice is generally recognised as a game first and simulation second so it seems to me that as cavalry costs the same as infantry they should be equally as effective even if in different ways. I also think that the bias against cavalry is not historically correct as during the lace wars period cavalry was still used in much larger relative proportions than in the Napoleonic period and generals weren’t idiots. If cavalry wasn’t as good as infantry why would they saddle themselves with all the problems of fodder provision or use valuable horses that could have been hauling guns or supplies? The For the King card is a great idea but why is it infantry only? Dashing cavalry making the extra effort spurred on by loyalty to the crown is just as likely as infantry doing so so why not make it applicable to all troops? Generally the number of positive cards applicable to infantry greatly outnumbers those applicable to cavalry.
    One thing about the That’s not on the map card – the AAR on this blog seem to suggest that the players may be using them as interupt cards played after the active player declares a charge. This isn’t correct as That’s not on the Map is an event card playable only during the active players turn so noone should be forced to charge through a terrain piece put in place by the That’s not on the Map. This might make it less of a super card than it appears in these AARs.

  • Pingback: Marching On Richmond: The Conclusion |