A House Divided, 2nd Edition22 August 1996 edition
When A House Divided was released at “Pacific Origins” in 1981 (right beside the original, color cartoon version of Axis & Allies), I was hooked. It was such a constant companion that it traveled in my car with me wherever I went, in the hopes I’d link up with another potential player. Some years later, when I founded BattlePlan magazine, in the quest for material (which the staff writes for the first few issues of most magazines), I started compiling notes for A House Divided and created a three-part variant article for the game. This article (found in issues 1-3 of BattlePlan magazine), plus other ideas and suggestions, form the backbone for the second edition of A House Divided.
Some have asked, rightly I believe, about the need to tamper with “a classic” instead of simply re-releasing it. In the case of Second Edition A House Divided, the “classic” part of the game is still there, almost untouched, and the rest is just bells and whistles for devotees of the game. Everything is optional, and players can decide for themselves what rules level to play at.
Besides, not every rule added to the second edition was radical. Some were simply clarifications, like Fort Monroe and leaving entrenchments to attack in a containment situation. Others were more radical, like ending the reign of Blitz Cavalry, and have a major impact on the second edition of the game.
Speaking of Blitz Cavalry, the strong arm of A House Divided’s first edition, let me quickly remind everyone that cavalry raids in the second edition are still quite viable and remain of considerable nuisance value. Note that boxes change back to their original color when cavalry raiders leave, so raiding in Kentucky reverts boxes back to neutral status and raiding behind enemy lines in one’s home territory actually “recaptures” it.
Many people seem fixated on supply considerations. Supply is not as big a deal in Second Edition A House Divided, and could easily be ignored altogether. In fact, unless there is a clear siege situation, don’t even bother with supply considerations! I’m sure Ty Bomba (of Command magazine) is smiling right now, as he and I have argued over the value of convoluted supply rules in wargames since forever. His games have ‘em and mine don’t (and I think mine are more fun).
The change in color between full- and reduced-strength units was not my idea. Marc Miller dropped that little item in the rules book at the last second, rationalizing that the white side is easier to see. I argued for tradition among veteran players (and lost). Stubborn as I am, however, when I play, the black, face-up side of the units remains their full-strength side!
The More Support From the Confederate Border States and the Foreign Intervention rules are not there because players will be seeing their effects in every game. Quite the opposite. These are the great “what ifs” that motivated the Confederacy. Why do you think the South launched offensives in Kentucky and Maryland? They wanted a shot at these die rolls, plain and simple. If you restore that motivation (by adding these two rules), that Southern strategy again becomes attractive.
While some have poo-poo’d the benefit of adding militia units to the Confederate pool should they get More Support from the Confederate Border States, I feel that they become a key focus on the game. Adding one creates a real shift in the balance of power, while adding two makes this shift profound, indeed. There’s nothing like having expendable militia units available to die off in battle because they come back soooo quickly.
There is a reason that there are only three leader pieces in the game: simplicity. I didn’t want to make them an entire sub-game of A House Divided, as some would have liked. They were created to be important, but not decisive of themselves. Now, all of you chromophiles out there who just love to add stuff to a good, simple game -- to you I suggest that you create your own variant on expanding the role of leadership in Second Edition A House Divided.
Finally, the scenarios and tournament game are, admittedly, hardly play tested. These are pretty much “off the drawing board” and presented to you as is. Frank Chadwick helped with the 1863 Order of Battle, while the other scenario’s OOBs were blatantly borrowed from other Civil War games and warped into the A House Divided mold. I hope all my theories about these scenarios work out well in practice, but since I’m a firm believer that “real wargamers play the campaign game,” I didn’t really emphasize the scenarios.
I hope everyone rediscovers the joys of playing A House Divided with the advent of this second edition. There’s plenty of new stuff inside the box, and with any luck, the second edition will create just as much stir as the original edition did back in 1981.
Want to know more about 2nd edition A House Divided? Click here.
Want to know some key difference between the 1st and 2nd editions? Click here.
Regarding the Like Battlefield Targets rule: I sure wish I had written it better, but a key word was left out that makes this rule unclear as it is written. In the rules text, it is vital to, on line seven, insert the word “cavalry” between “enemy” and “pieces.” In other words, it should read: “enemy cavalry pieces.” Hmmmm.... Upon rereading it, this rule seems pretty clear to me. Just follow the letter of the rule and it will make a difference in cavalry casualties in battle situations. That, in turn, will make a strategic difference in the way you’ll conduct the war.
Inadvertently, the Effects of Being Out of Supply rule still refers to “units which are unable to forage.” I deleted that sucker three times, and that *#%$ reference still made it into the printed rules book. The old Forage and Breaking Rail Lines rules are dead! Remove this passage (and put a stake through its heart); it has no relevance whatsoever in Second Edition A House Divided. What did get cut but shouldn't have been was that Confederate Foreign Intervention pieces in ports or able to trace a supply line to a port are automatically in supply.
Only units that are currently routed are considered routed for desertion purposes. In fact, change the second morale die roll modifier sentence to read: “If the unit IS NOT routed (see Battlefield Morale): -1”
Leaders move like infantry units of their respective sides. There is NO Cavalry Jump Move for Leaders. (Nice try, though.) They enter the game and can change their status after their owner rolls for marches that turn.
From: hcmeyer@uci.edu (Hank Meyer) Subject: A House Divided questions (Nov 95) Christopher Weuve [caw@intercon.com] inquires: >A House Divided, 1989 ed., Advanced Game Rules, p.1 reads: "If two or more >pieces are in a box, they must trace a supply line or forage." The rules >then go on and explain how to trace a supply line. As near as I can tell, >however, the rules for foraging are not included -- anybody have any idea >what the rule is? Yes. Next question <grin>...(there is no official errata to the 2nd edition that I know about). This is a misprint left over from the 1st edition rules. There is no foraging in the 2nd edition. Either Frank Chadwick or Alan Emrich told me this in a conversation on the game. There is also a key word omitted in the Like Battlefield Targets rule on page 10. The second sentence of the rule should read: "Even then, the infantry pieces may choose to ignore the enemy ((CAVALRY)) pieces as targets and start ganging up on enemy infantry pieces (same source as above). There is some inconsistency in the rules as to what month the game starts in. Page 3 (Playing the Game) states twice that the game begins on the June 1961 turn while page 9 (Game Length) says the game lasts up to 40 turns, from July 1861 to June 1865. Page 9 (The Short Game) says it lasts for 10 turns, from July 1861 to June 1862. I don't know the answer to this one, as you can make an equally convincing argument for starting the game in May, June, or July of that year. The Turn Record Chart indicates the game starts in July. There are some errors in the Army Maximum Size Table on page 13. The rule above the table says the Alternate Endings are determined at the end of each March game turn while the Table says May. I believe the table to be in error ALTHOUGH if the game begins in June, then June through May of the next year is exactly 12 months (one year). This also seems reasonable (I never asked Alan or Frank about this). On the other hand, Union militia drafts take place in April, so it's logical to compare army size at the end of March. The numbers in the South Advantage column for 1863 and 1864 are wrong (it should be obvious) and should be 10 and 14 (rather than 11 and 15) respectively. The unanswered question I have is if a player can recruit new units in a city that was captured in a previous phase of a current turn. As the Capturing Cities rule states "a player captures a box by having at least one piece there at the END of either player's turn", so I'd tend to think not. Finally, through an error in production, the Union Generals were miscut in some copies of the game. The correct information for all generals is: GRANT: Factor 1 beginning February 1862, Factor 2 beginning June 1863. SHERMAN: Factor 1 beginning May 1862, Factor 2 beginning August 1863. LEE: Factor 3 beginning June 1862, Factor 2 beginning September 1863. Two articles on the 2nd edition have been published that I am aware of: *Wargamer #18 (Jan-Feb 90) by Alan Emrich (a 3 page overview of the game) *Wargamer #22 (Sep-Oct 90) by David Nicholas (an 8 page in-depth analysis of the game including designer notes by Alan Emrich). Well worth reading. Alan clarifies some other things in this piece: Only units which are currently routed are considered routed for desertion purposes. In fact, change the second morale die roll modifier sentence to read: "If the unit IS not routed (see Battle-field Morale): -1". Leaders move as infantry units of their respective side (there is not a cavalry Jump Move for them). They enter and change status after the player rolls marches for that turn. >Also, has anybody else noted that GDW has a tendency to leave out at least >one rule per game? The _Ironclads and Ether Flyers_ naval miniatures rules, >for example, refer to a "fire table" that does not exist. I really like >GDW, but proofreading has never been their strong point. Complain, complain, complain... Jim Sandefur <BoulderG@aol.com> writes: >Most of the advanced rules for HD violate the spirt of a great game. If you >want more detail or to simulate a particular element of the ACW you'd do >better ignoring the advanced rules by GDW and make up your own. I think that's far too strong a statement. Firstly, the intro to the Advanced Rules itself states: ...While they greatly enhance the simulation value of the game (making it more "realistic"), they also add a degree of complexity which should not be undertaken by novice players. Like the proceeding standard game rules, they are all independent in themselves and can be added to the game separately or together... This effectively says mix-and-match, which is kinda like making up your own with a pre-existing template. Also, as Alan says in his designer's note in Wargamer #22 (Sep-Oct 90): ...Mr.Nicholas rightly asks the question about the need to tamper with "a classic" instead of just re-releasing it. Well, the "classic" part of the game is still there, almost untouched, and the rest of it is just bells and whistles for devotees of the game. Everything is optional, and players can decide for themselves what rules level to play at... Hey, the capture Washington rule is a real killer for the Union player...you start acting like McClellan and feel good about it <grin>... Hank