"Snappy Nappy Debut at NJ Con: Rules Comment" Topic

Had a four-person game at NJ Con Saturday morning, although, technically, the first Snappy Nappy game at a convention was at Origins 95, but that was the original home-made photocopied set…

Basic game, 1809. Two French corp vs. two Austrian, the main objective in this meeting engagement being the heights (with village). Initiative rolls found the Austrian (newbie player to SN) a tad faster to grab the village and set up a defense [won the initiative roll at the crucial moment], the French (veteran player) a tad cleverer with a pinning effort up front with a flanking maneuver on their left [superior French command and control]. The French stormed up the hill, only to be thrown back. The Austrians had to shift troops to meet the flank threat.

The other players, one French and one Austrian, both veteran, danced in some hideous terrain, with the French grabbing the slight ridge early and bundling back an Austrian flank attack.

In the end, an Austrian brigade of militia offered unexpected resistance [passed morale checks] and the French had momentary command confusion when their commander was wounded in an attack [via Leader Loss Table]. A last desperate charge into Austrian guns failed. The newbie won. Total game time from first initiative roll to final French retreat was 1 hour and 39 minutes.

The newbie caught on pretty quick -- by the third turn, he was shaking out his line and going through combat without any help from me. The French flank attack caught him a little by surprise, but that's tabletop tactics, not rules mechanics. He said, "My men were more napping than snapping." That got a laugh.

About halfway through the game, he uttered an opinion that warmed my designer's heart so much, I wrote it down: "One thing I'll say. At the end of each turn, you see progress. I can't tell you how many games I've played where nothing happens."

Exactly.

Russ

Sounds like a lot of fun

(sigh) Yet another rules set to try out

From the "Hobby News" thread (I keep finding threads around)

For those who wish to judge the rules by its cover and title…you should. Snappy Nappy represents a new and ultrafast way of simulating battles -- big battles … battles that you don't even attempt with "traditional" rules because you don't have the time, space, or patience.

Snappy Nappy restores movement to the tabletop, with brigade sized units, a morale-based system without figure removal (or caps, rings, or other table cluttering bric a brac), and command control that gives you freedom to command a battle instead of endless charts.

Battles ebb and flow. Commanders concentrate on the tabletop situation, not rules quirks. Reserves matter.

Now to the questions:

Yes, this is a rules set based on the old Snappy Nappy from 1994 -- 15 years of playtesting has refined the system. It's smooth and newbies -- including teenagers -- understand the mechanics by turn 3. They need time to understand the relationship between the three arms, but they learn that soon enough!

I don't have time to read, digest, and understand 100-page rulebooks full of modifiers and minutae. So games have to be fast and enjoyable and challenging. Under two hours is what I look for for an enjoyable Friday night game.

Each commander is rated from "Poltroon" through "Genius" and influences morale and combat. In addition, the command system uses a hierarchy of seven orders, which a commander can alter depending on the C3I of the army.

For those with more space, multi-table games are great. I've run 22 gamers (newbies through grognards) across 7 tables in my basement in 5 hours in a huge Fall 1813 campaign.

That's what Snappy Nappy does -- emphasizes the movement and motion of battles and leaves the figures on the tabletop. It lets you maneuver and fight like you read about in Campaigns of Napoleon and other books.

And, if you order from OMM (www.onmilitarymatters.com) Snappy Nappy comes with a free music CD ("Emperor Triumphant") for background battle music and a free copy of Napoleon magazine #17 (overview of the Napoleonic era) while supplies last (500 of ET, 1000 of N17). I believe those are firsts in wargaming…

Russ

What's the basing scheme for these rules?

…and what figure scale (or size) did you have in mind when you designed the rules?

a morale-based system without figure removal (or caps, rings, or other table cluttering bric a brac)

…sounds like a using a roster (written records). Or do you move the position of the command stand in the unit to indicate it's morale level?

This game could be the best thing ever. It could be brilliant. It could be the Golden Future of Wargames Mechanics and inspire a whole new series of playable but excellent Wargames.

I still would rather Share a 1-bed Apartment with Joseph Byrd than own anything with such a title.

Pat

OK, just got the rules in the mail, (great service as usual by On Military Matters). First impressions are that the rules are well written and in an easy to understand format, I didn't need alot of flipping back and forth to understand them. Simple as advertised, but I think the subtle may be there as well, but I will have to play a game or two to see. What intrigues me most is the scope of the games, these are not grand tactical, I would describe them as operational. Rules recommend a 40x20mm Infantry stand and a 40x40 cav stand for 15mm figures, that said I don't think it is too critical as long as everyone has the same bases and they are rectangular. Unit consist of two bases, so that simple formations can be represented. I'll try to post a report of our first game. Now if only I could get a hold of those old MWAN articles with Russ' scenarios. It is unfortunate that Magweb went down just prior to the release of these rules.

Rectangular bases, hey? Dammit.

Rules recommend a 40x20mm Infantry stand and a 40x40 cav stand for 15mm figures

so 2 NB infantry stands side by side? As my Cavalry is on 25mm square I suspect I'd stay with that

As I said simple formations are represented, so 2 stands back to back are a "square" this is probably the place where rectangular bases are needed and that only from a visual aspect, two square bases back to back would not look right, in any other case I don't think it would matter. I don't think that there would be any problem putting 2 smaller stands together to represent a single base, so 4 stands would make up a unit as long as 2 stands always acted together.

Russ Lockwood, designer, here, picking up some copies from OMM…

"First impressions are that the rules are well written and in an easy to understand format, I didn't need alot of flipping back and forth to understand them. Simple as advertised, but I think the subtle may be there as well, but I will have to play a game or two to see. What intrigues me most is the scope of the games, these are not grand tactical, I would describe them as operational."

Correct. And thank you for your kind comments.

>Rectangular bases, hey? Dammit.
>so 2 NB infantry stands side by side?

As I state in the rules, as long as the front edges are the same length, you won't have a problem even if you use squares. Generally, I like the depth of the cavalry to be twice that of the infantry, but we've played games with various depths (but always the same length).

2 stands side by side are a "line", one behind the other is a "column", and back to back is a "square." When on a road and side by side facing opposite directions -- that's "road column."

These are what I call "stances" -- not that every bttn is in square, but that the leading ones are.

And yes, four stands can make up a unit if you remember which stands belong to which unit.

Russ

Got my copy of the rules. If I have questions, is there another place aside from here to ask them?

My first question regards interpenentration/passage of lines. If a unit falls back through another due to combat/morale, the passed unit takes a morale check. What about passing through as a result of normal movement? Is that allowed?

As always, it may be written there and I'm not seeing it… middle age.

Yes, you can ask questions here, or e-mail me directly at lockwood@voicenet.com or at militarymatters@att.net

***interpenentration/passage of lines. If a unit falls back through another due to combat/morale, the passed unit takes a morale check.***

Correct. That's covered on page 27, section 12.4, "Retreats"

Remember to leave gaps in your second line troops so retreating front line troops can go through and you won't have a morale check problem. 2nd line reserves are always helpful and if you leave them in column 6 inches from the front line, they will be able to plug a hole within a 45-degree arc (oblique movement is allowed).

***What about passing through as a result of normal movement? Is that allowed?***

No. Not allowed.

That said, much depends on your style of gaming and the situation. For a friendly games, we ignore situations like "nicking a corner" or "a millimeter short." And there is that passage on page 41: "Tinkering."

Russ

I'm in Pat's corner here. Americans have no idea how pratish the title sounds to British ears.

It'll probably hurt sales over here :)

Well, even on the Yank side of the pond it has problems. My wife saw me sitting on the couch reading the rules and remarked, 'That's a poor name'. She's not down on the hobby either.

That said, it reads well and I've prepared a Marengo scenario for a really short game sometime in July. The rule book has a scenario for a short game – Austerlitz. I figure Marengo is even shorter. My crew likes 'em short and sweet.

Thanks for the answer, Russ.

Ross,

So how would this play with 28mm? I have a bunch of the Perry Plastic I'm looking to start on in a few weeks and am looking for a simple, fun set of rules. The idea of using 4X40mm square bases sounds reasonable. Easy to keep track of by coding the back of the stand.

I'm not keen on buying a bunch of 10mm at this stage, as I've enough trouble with the 28mm painting-wise. If I were to go to 10mm, I'd prolly just spray-paint each unit in it's base colour and go from there :)

respects,

Personally, the name doesn't bother me, and I think the cover art is a refreshing change, but for ardent admirers of the Corsican Tyrant, how about Vite L'Empereur!

Musket range is one inch, mighty abstract at either 28mm or 15mm (which is what my figures are), or even 2mm. Artillery ranges are anywhere from 6 inches to 12 inches.

It's a grand tactical game.

Ah… thank you. Never mind then… :)

My infantry figures are on 25mm square bases. 2 of them make a stand and 4 of them make an SN unit.

My horse is 25x50mm and again two of them make a stand and 4 a unit.

Guns are about 50mm wide and one makes a unit.

I don't see any problems with using 28mm figures.

>Thanks for the answer, Russ.

You're welcome.

>…it reads well

And thank you for your kind comments. As you can see from the "About the Author" section (p.49), I'm a writer/editor, so I am pleased that you and others have found the rules easy to understand and follow -- and I hope especially appeal to those battle, not digest reams of rules.

>Musket range is one inch, mighty abstract at either 28mm or 15mm (which is what my figures are), or even 2mm. Artillery ranges are anywhere from 6 inches to 12 inches.
>It's a grand tactical game.

Correct. Basic unit (2 stands) = brigade.

Snappy Nappy emphasizes speed across the tabletop, simple (but subtle) mechanics, and a command system that makes you a marshal, not a lieutenant. You have to think outside the box created by all the previous tactical rules sets and remember that maneuver counts before slugfests.

>I've prepared a Marengo scenario for a really short game sometime in July. The rule book has a scenario for a short game – Austerlitz. I figure Marengo is even shorter. My crew likes 'em short and sweet.

I'd be interested hearing how it went. And it will be short…Austerlitz totaled about 150-160,000 and 400 or so guns versus Marengo with about 60,000 and about 125 guns or so. You can even step Marengo down to a regimental level. A buddy of mine did Raab -- about 85,000 -- at the regimental level with 6 players last Historicon in open gaming on a 2.5-foot wide table. I have a nice photo of the game on my wall.

>So how would this play with 28mm?

Just fine as long as you remember to make the frontages of your stands the same length.

M C LeSingeDew notes how you could create "large" units. Note the frontage is the same in his scheme.

>I'm not keen on buying a bunch of 10mm at this stage, as I've enough trouble with the 28mm painting-wise. If I were to go to 10mm, I'd prolly just spray-paint each unit in it's base colour and go from there :)

I completely see your point…from page 4, section 2.31 Figures: "At the most basic level, you can simply spray paint an army's worth of figures a single color: red for British, blue for French…"

"Imagination rules the world" -- Napoleon.

Russ

I can't wait to see these, have got them on order. At last my 6mm collection will get a decent outing : )

A decent outing, eh? You're saying they are "coming out of the closet?" :)

Would there be any interest in setting up a Yahoo Group for these rules to promote discussion (learned or otherwise) and for sharing scenarios?

I must say I am quite interested in these rules having slogged through a refight of Craonne using Age of Eagles in which we managed only 2 or 3 moves a night! We had considered this to be an improvement on Empire.

Are all brigades treated as 2 stands? Certainly there could be a large variation in the size of brigages from one nationality to the other.

>Would there be any interest in setting up a Yahoo Group for these rules to promote discussion (learned or otherwise) and for sharing scenarios?

Have to look into that. Been such a whirl to get Snappy Nappy out (and my other rules, Hyperspace Hack due this week) that I haven't gotten over to Yahoo yet. We did send out review copies to all the major wargame magazines.

>interested in these rules having slogged through a refight of Craonne

My dictionary says about 40,000 French against 90,000 Allies, or roughly (rule of thumb estimate) 10 units vs. 20. That could be a good 3-player game, or if you either give players fewer units or cut the figure scale in half to double the number of units, a 6-player game. Hmmm…first game…flipping through the rules to double check things…about 2 and 1/2 to 3 hours.

>Are all brigades treated as 2 stands? Certainly there could be a large variation in the size of brigages from one nationality to the other.

Generally two, but there is an optional rule which allows for three stands per brigade (pg 37, section 23.1).

And yes. There is often a large variation in brigade sizes. I note on page 7, section 3.1, that scale (1 stand = 2000 infantry or 750 cavalry or 24 guns) is meant to be a guideline. You can halve or double it depending on the battle or campaign. Understand that will also double or halve the number of units, too, lengthening or shortening the game.

I'll also point to page 13, section 5.3 (Preparing for Battle: Orders of Battle) in which I offer some pointers on creating a SN OOB -- primarily that if you look at a particular corp, you can adjust the number of stands/units to reflect the overall corp strength instead of accounting for every last individual soldier or trooper or gunner. Consolidating understrength brigades into one "unit" is acceptable. At this scale size, you have wiggle room for your OOB, and I might add, for the skill of the players.

Snappy Nappy Newbies can handle 6-8 units. Grognards can handle three times that number.

Russ

If you don't ask they won't tell?

A turn by turn AAR with photos to demonstrate how the rules work would be good.

I'll ask Russ to create one. I know he'll be at Historicon with a booth for demos.

Dennis from OMM
onmilitarymatters.com

Look forward to reading that, to get a flavour of the rules and how a game plays out.

See the two reviews of Snappy Nappy here in TMP…

TMP link

Dennis from OMM
onmilitarymatters.com