"Foundry Napoleon review - nice book, shame about the rules" Topic

anyone?

"I think the best course of action is to use your house rules.
If your house rules make it a fun game then you have won."

Trouble is, it would need so many that it is in effect a complete re-write. I may as well write my own rules using the parts I like from this and other sets if I was going to do that.

"And to top it off, the Highlanders don't get a special rule to represent their skirmishers – they get a bonus in combat for their ferocious charges instead "

I've just looked this up in the army lists. Highlanders wearing kilts (yes that's what it says) gets to re-roll 1s when they charge into combat. Now the British in line shoot better than other nations so this isn't going to happen very often. Yet the points cost for a Highland infantry unit is 25 compared to 20 for a normal British unit. So a 25% increase in points for a small increase in effectiveness. That doesn't give you a lot of faith in the points system.

Besides, its a shiny thing and the Eagle loves shiny things!

The Shiny Factor cannot be dismissed when contemplating new gaming purchases.

Its a game designed to sell figures and get new players involved in the era. Its not the end-all of Napoleonic miniatures wargame design as other rules are. First let roope em then turn them loose in the corral and those who are interested will choose another set of rules. As a game designer, I personally hope Foundry and FoG rules attract tens of thousands new historical gamers, who being gamers will become dissatisfied and look for something new.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

I have read all of these posts and re-read a number of them. I have to say, I think some of Marshal Mark's complaints have not been refuted. An number of answering posts have effectively stated that a player 'can get around that flaw' by doing this or that. In my view, having to do so only underlines MM's point.

As I see it, the whole discussion, including comments from both sides of the debate, reinforces MM's argument quite well: the rules are badly written.

Over the years I have noticed in rule sets the same problem that made web sites so infuriating for so many years: managers and ultimate decision makers did not insist on independent testing of the products before they were launched. They relied on a presentation by the people who created the website. The web designers, like rules writers, already knew the product quite well. The real test is when the customer tries to use the product. It very much sounds like these rules were not tested by independent players previously unversed in the game.

Kenny

"Trouble is, it would need so many that it is in effect a complete re-write. I may as well write my own rules using the parts I like from this and other sets if I was going to do that."

Respectfully I disagree with this.

I think that I can get a fun game out of these rules that wont be too far removed from my view of the history. I suspect that I can work around any issues I have with the rules and don't have a problem with doing this. Time will tell. The army lists I won't be using, but I prefer using historic orders of battle anyway and I always end up with raised eye brows when reading army lists. As I've said I've not been put off further trials of the rules … and apparently I'm not alone.

Obviously your milage varies – variety is the spice of life! 8O)

Salute
von Peter himself

"I've just looked this up in the army lists. Highlanders wearing kilts (yes that's what it says) gets to re-roll 1s when they charge into combat."

I would like to see further discussion of this rule! Maybe it's time for an entire army of kilt-wearing Scotsmen…..

Think of the modelling possibilities….

Yes, I was thinking that there may well be a good game in there. But, we all play so many rule sets, many games, etc --- I don't want to be frustrated by a game's rule book. This is why magazines, etc publish reviews, of course. So we can be warned ahead of time.

If the publisher is reading all this, it's a good thing. Feedback makes for a better second addition, or (more easily) clarifications on their website.

Kenny

Why not send the Scots regiments into Afganistan wearing kilts now while we are at it?

I can think of one perfectly good reference to prove this will scare the bejeezus out of the locals!

bound to be a net referenceable citation asss wel, if you search for Khyber Pass and Sid James

Having read these rules several times and now actually played them, I would like to comment here.

On reading, I was struck by the various "oddities" and historical anomalies in the rules; having played them, I can only say that I will not bother doing so again. As written, they do not work; in particular the "engagement range" rule is nonsensical and the "command card activation" mechanism is too blunt an instrument. They may give a fast and fun game but it has nothing to do with what it is supposed to represent.

The "history" and background parts of the book are very much of the Janet & John variety; they contain very basic information that could only really be of use to a total neophyte.

Overall mark: 3/10 (at best!)

Bob Coggins has as usual a good poitn.

We need new glossy rules to get the Warhammer generation hooked on historicals – it happen to a degree with Flames of War – old codgers may compalin that they want their cheap photocopied rules the new geneation wants to be hooked in a new way.

If they are serious about gaming they are going to start changing to better sets of rules. I look at what I started with out of Grant and Featherstone fun to get the idea of historical gaming into my head but I'm glad I moved on.

Two points:

1. Any game that generates this much interest even before it's available to most customers, is going to sell a LOT, no matter what's inside. And come on, gents, that IS the point of making a book: to sell it.

2. Any game that sells more than six copies world-wide is going to get torn to shreds by dozens of "reviews" on the web by people who have never played it, and in some cases haven't even read it.

IMHO best described as "All fur coat and no knickers".

The piccies are nice, the rules however are not and the army lists are even worse. Definately one for beginners.

My copy goes on e-bay next week.

…and I agree with Colin, 3/10.

I am not overly convinced by the argument that the neophyte Napoleonic wargamers who are supposedly going to be drawn in by these rules will then convert to "better" sets of rules.

I would like to see some evidence that this has happened with other similar sets (Flames of War and Fields of Glory) before being convinced or even slightly persuaded.

John,

Yes, but won't you at least try them once? Is reading a ruleset enough to make a definitive opinion of them?

How can we play if reading the rules results in mutually conttradictory "events"? If I were remotely interested in this book, I would value such information to help me decide.

I must make it clear that *I* have neither purchased these rules, read them or own any Napoleonic figures.
The "faint praise" amid the damns says that it has pretty pictures and organization of the various nations. It seeems to me that anyone desiring to play Napoleonics should alreday have that.

I should also point out that I am a known Foundry basher. That does not include the product, which is usually good to excellent. Usually. I have yet to run across a Foundry book that I did not feel was worth the price, even though I usually get them at a discount somewhere.

Thanks 138,

But in the interest of full disclosure Craig's and my rules are Napoleon's Battles. They are boxed, in full color with 12 historical scenarios, include wooden markers and card templets and army cards, include a CD which includes the ratings of over 3000 generals and the labels for the units in the scenarios. They cost, and wait for it, "$75.00." According to our publisher, this is a fair price when compared to what you get in FoG and Foundry.

Craig and I would have hoped, and indeed we argued for a less expensive product. Alas the days of 20 page two color rules for $10 USD are gone. It is simply unacceptable to those raised on GW, the new players.

As for whether gamers will switch or convert to other rules, one only need read this site to understand Napoleonic miniatures gamers bounce from rules set to rules set like a pinball in a machine. This is because all of us are searching for the Napoleonic Grail in rules.

Good Gaming.

Bob Coggins

Bob

I did get a copy since some people here play NB. I think they give an historically reasonable outcome which is what I look for. I do wish there was less emphasis on dice rolling. That said I will continue to play them.

Elliott

[I would like to see some evidence that this has happened with other similar sets (Flames of War and Fields of Glory) before being convinced or even slightly persuaded.]

Indeed. There are virtually no hard data on *any* aspect of the hobby, even down to the most fundamental questions like "How many gamers are there?" So I've always been suspicious about any sort of claims that this or that pretty rules-set will "bring in the new kids."

Some old timers might remember that back when FOW first began to hit big, they did a poll of their customers on their website, asking things like, "How old are you?" and "How long have you been gaming?"

And the data they collected showed that the average age of their players was in the mid/late 30s, and the average FOW player had already been playing other WW2 and historical sets for 10+ years.

True "new kids" comprised a very small number of their customers, and there's no way of knowing whether that was indeed greater than any other high-end historical game product, BUT…

…there just aren't that many high-end historical game products. At the time of that poll, it was just FOW and Warhammer Ancients.

Now that is changing, which is a good thing.

Nice is absolutely correct.

There are no reliable market surveys. That said, the age of 35 is about right when one considers the age of GW. So too does some experience with armor rules, given the nature of the GW games.

On the other hand, Osprey and Foundry have a giant distribution network when compared to the normal historical miniatures products. Indeed, I cannot think of a chain bookstore in Baltimore that does not offer some Osprey books, random tough they may be and I have no doubt that one day I will run across FoW on their shelves. All of this is a good thing and so too is the passing of the $10 USD rules.

138,

Gosh! am I surprised and flattered. I appreciate the support.

Ah! the dice. Welcome to the world of higher command where, no mattter how you angle the odds, things beyond your control will get out of hand. One of the objects of the rules is to give gamers the opportunity to position their formations as to overcome the vagaries of chance.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

I welcome this new rules set from Foundry as it will encourage people to start gaming with relatively big units which are suitable(ish) for my particular drug "In The Grand Manner" (ITGM) and General de Brigade (GdB). Even better to hear there are problems with the Foundry rules set as this may lead gamers to look for alternatives.

There may not be many gamers who get into playing Napoleonics from scratch (without any previous miniatures experience). But we may see some FOW and Warhammer/W40K players who get into Napoleonics.

Neil
reinforcementsbypost.com

I agree Neil.

The closest I have previously got to Napoleonics was playing Slaughterloo, which I enjoyed as a fun game which did not take itself seriously.

I have read the reviews of napoleon, both favourable and not. As a beginner to the period and looking to make the switch from W40k/WFB/WAB/FOW I like the look of Napoleon. It may not be perfect for more experienced players but will help me make transition.

I like the look of Perry's metal French range and with their various French plastics I intend to get into them when finances improve.

Cheers

James

I am now convinced to stick with CLS for big games and DBN for small ones.

"We need new glossy rules to get the Warhammer generation hooked on historicals – it happen to a degree with Flames of War "

No, we do not need these people. The 'GW' crowd in Flames of War are the ones who started putting turretless unpainted resin tank hulls on the table to proxy them as tank destroyers and ripping packing foam out of boxes to use as terrain.

I'm totally against recruiting any portion of the gaming community that does not hold to some basic presentation standards.

[No, we do not need these people. The 'GW' crowd in Flames of War are the ones who started putting turretless unpainted resin tank hulls on the table to proxy them as tank destroyers and ripping packing foam out of boxes to use as terrain. I'm totally against recruiting any portion of the gaming community that does not hold to some basic presentation standards.]

Nice job. You've just ruled-out 90% of the people who ever got into miniatures at all, including me, had you been around when I was 13.

In fact, my first Napoleonics game ever was on my parents' living room carpet, using WW2 Airfix Germans and Brits, spray painted blue for French and Red for British. (I think we used Fallschirmjägers as "Guard Cuirassiers" [sic], but I can't remember exactly.)

It was a hell of a lot of fun, and got me hooked, and I've been playing for the past 30 years as a result.

Fortunately, there was nobody like you around at the time to tell me I wasn't wanted in the "gaming community."

I play for fun, if people are above or below the standard I expect then I have the right not to play with them.
I do not have the right to tell them not to play at all.

>No, we do not need these people. The 'GW' crowd in Flames of War are the ones who started
>putting turretless unpainted resin tank hulls on the table to proxy them as tank
>destroyers and ripping packing foam out of boxes to use as terrain.

Those are exactly the sort of people we want to bring into Napoleonic gaming. When they see quality painted figures, with beautiful terrain and buildings, they will be unsatisfied with what they have and strive for a better gaming environment. Draw them in, let them have one puff, and get them hooked.

From a recent post I found blogs on vintage figures, and magazine articles, from the early history of wargaming. I read an interview by Donald Featherstone of Bill Lamming, a figure sculptor and vendor, written in the early 70s. Lamming said that figures designed just a couple of years back could not now be sold because the market had moved upwards in terms of quality. When people see an improvement in figures, terrain or buildings, many of them want to incorporate these improvements into their games.

Isn't there a saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? Let us welcome these people.

Seems people were expecting this set to be the holy grail of Napoleonics. Were you other authors going to dump your rules to play them if they had been?

James, go for it mate. I'm sure you will work around the lack of the systems integrity from years of playing 40K and WHFB. Just another walk in the park!

I don't take my 25mm Napoleonic gaming seriously, I have 6mm for that. So I'm happy to play this set to get use outa my old Minifig and Hinchcliffe.

Jeez , I should ask Foundry for free lead for .

[No, we do not need these people. The 'GW' crowd in Flames of War are the ones who started putting turretless unpainted resin tank hulls on the table to proxy them as tank destroyers and ripping packing foam out of boxes to use as terrain. I'm totally against recruiting any portion of the gaming community that does not hold to some basic presentation standards.]

That's simply not true. I've seen paper flats being used at historical conventions. Go to the thread on this very board to see people making Napoleonic armies out of rice, or proxying Napoleonic ships of the line with Pirates of the Spanish Main card ships. People from all walks of gaming proxy things, or use cheap materials for their hobby – it's not specific to the GW crowd. Just because you or I wouldn't like to play a game against them doesn't mean that there's no place for them ;)

One of the strengths of FoW is every neophyte is welcomed without recriminations and without ridicule. One of our weaknesses is Napoleonic gamers who presume to be elitist.

Alas many forget their roots. Well here's mine.

I got into miniatures gaming through Bob Bard an icon in the minatures figure hobby who in the 50s wrote "Making and Collecting Military Miniatures," which had a chapter on gaming. Forturnately he too lived in Baltimore which gave me the opportunity to visit him on numerous occasions, in the late 50s, when I was in high school .

Talk about elites – well he was. He was not only wealthy but had the breeding of old wealth. He lived in a coop flat in a townhouse on Mount Vernon Square, next to the Washingon Monument. The building had a uniformed doorman/elevator operator who wore white gloves who greeted me with, "Mr. and Mrs. Bard are expecting you and who on succeeding visits greeted me, a sniviling teenager, as Mr. Coggins. Mrs. Bard wore what I can only describle as an afternoon dress which reflected her class. Bob wore a suit and tie, not a sportcoat. She served tea, not the bagged stuff, from a Stieff silver service.

After 45 minutes of conversation, Bob and I retreated to his inner sanctum, his office/room, in the basement, which was filled mostly with 54mm figures. Even though I did not want to collect he kindly told me how to get in touch with Jack Scruby and even wrote a short note to Jack on my behalf. Had it not been for the kindness and patience of Bob I would never have developed a life time hobby of miniatures gaming.

For the next 10 years between college and the army I bought and painted 20mm Napoleonics from Scruby. Thinking my painting was good, in 1969 I attended the MFCA wargame day at Womrath Hall in Philly. Boy, was I surprised and embarrassed. My painting stunk. But rather than be discouraged I was inspired and won the best painted army at Origins 79 and at the MFCA in 1982.

The point is, Bob, who was a real elite and a gentleman, treated an unwashed barely intelligent high school boy with kindness and respect and with his encouragement started me on a life-time hobby, miniatures wargaming, and the historical study of Napoleonic warfare.

Clay, we all were beginners. Try a little kindness, its genlemanly to do so. As I did, the new guys will eventually get "it," and those who don't will be gone.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

Fortunately there are a few thousand miles of ocean between me and the elitist. We shall probably never meet. That's a win/win.

Clay,

You either have a wry sense of humour or you are a true example of the worst kind of wargamer.

My own first games, played when I was in my pre-teenage years, utilised unpainted 20mm Airfix figures on sellotape bases(!), with hills made from unpainted polystyrene tiles and roads from unpainted card. If you are not displaying a sense of humour in your post, I am very thankful that I never ran into anyone with the attitude that you display or I suspect that I would never have had so many years of pleasure from Napoleonic wargaming; indeed, I would probably never have moved into my eventual career path.

As to your self-description of "the elitist", I was born into a supposed "elite"; as such I was always taught that one should use that status to help and support others, and never to belittle them. There are, or should be, great responsibilities that come with being a member of an elite.

You are not an elitist, you are a snob.

And yet none of these examples are unpainted resin tank hulls popping up in ambush as tank destroyers in a FoW game.

If you don't have this problem in your gaming community, then I'm jealous. But the GW gamers in the DFW area are notorious for putting washers, coins and other crap on the table as 'proxies'. I have literally seen GARBAGE glued together and used in a game.

picture

picture

I have no confidence at all that these people will do the research necessary for Napoleonics.

Fortunately I have my collection and am more than happy to let them push my stuff around the table.

Well mate, I suggest that in the future, whenever you see a wargame that fails to live up to your aesthetic requirements, or whenever you see people interested in Napoleonics without having done the correct prior research, rather than ranting about it here, you should walk straight up and tell them everything they're doing wrong.

I have no doubt that you would rapidly become even more popular than you apparently have become on TMP.

Bob, what a great story. I hope that is recorded on a blog somewhere. I've been reading some early wargaming magazine articles, and the Courier's time line of wargaming, it makes for very interesting reading.

For most wargamers, this hobby is ultimately about having fun; if people want to use proxies of whatever sort, good for them!

To demand that people do "the research necessary" for Napoleonics is both ridiculous and somewhat sad; it is a game and people can play it at whatever level they choose.

wow perfect for a world championship? or not? who would like to referee

So the next time I'm playing Flames of War and my opponent pulls out an unpainted resin Sherman hull and tries to use it as a tank destroyer I should just smile and say "How cute, another new guy to the hobby"?

Every one of you are wrong. The way to recruit players into this hobby is to put presentable games together. That is what attracts attention and gets a passerby interested. Some of the comments above echo that fact.

"When they see quality painted figures, with beautiful terrain and buildings, they will be unsatisfied with what they have and strive for a better gaming environment."
- not around these parts. I have never seen players that use WHFB armies of unpainted legs glued to bases EVER finish an army.

If a person wants to do this in their own gaming circle – fine. But when I show up at the tournament, gaming club or whatever with an army that I spent six months working on, it's insulting to play against something that's being glued together as it's being used. (And don't tell me about these being "new players" – they've been playing for years and none of their armies are anywhere near finished.)

Good luck if you like it. I don't and will continue to run games with a high standard. And all of those guys are welcome to play.

[If a person wants to do this in their own gaming circle – fine. But when I show up at the tournament, gaming club or whatever with an army that I spent six months working on, it's insulting to play against something that's being glued together as it's being used]

"Hey, everybody, here comes Clay! Quick, pretend to be doing research! We wouldn't want Clay to be offended… He's too important to The Hobby to risk turning him off with our inadequate knowledge and artistic abilities!"

Well, Clay, if you note the images you posted, there's some mighty nice painting being done, and it seems that folks are continuing to work on their models.

To my mind, what stands out most, is the different ages of the players and the fact that they all seem to be having fun. The one thing I find most discouraging about some groups is the elite attitude and snobbishness of what amounts to a bunch of spoiled old geezers trying to gain some sort of meaning in their little lives by strutting about with their toy soldiers, as if they were real armies, and their owners actual Kings and Petty Princes.

I've been gaming for over 40 years now. I have never refused to play anyone who had partially-painted units, or less than perfect terrain. In fact, I almost didn't play Napoleonics because of folks like you. The first club I joined let me know in no uncertain terms that I was only allowed to paint certain forces, as other members had the "rights" to the other country's units. Anything that i wanted to paint had to first be "approved" by the club, my research submitted, along with the makers of the minis and the types and shades of paint I wanted to sue, and then it would be voted upon and "approved". The finished unit then had to be "approved" by the club before it could be placed on the table.

This was in the early 1970's. I told them where they could go, and never went back. My friends and I got boxes of Airfix Napoleonic minis and played with them using rules we found through a hobby magazine. I can't even remember which ones they were. Our WWII, though, were by Charles Grabnt, and we freely mixed 1/72 Airfix figures with unpainted (or spray-painted!) Rocco 1/87 mini-tanks.

As to new blood, I'll tell you where they are coming from, and it isn't the glossy, fancy-produced rules. The new gamers are, in fact, GW players who "discovered" the plastic Perry & Victrix boxed sets and are converting them to WH Fantasy Battles, and WH40K armies. There are some amazing conversions going on over on that side of the aisle, and quite a few have decided to also try their hand at historical gaming.

For just one outlet, swing over to the Warseer forums, and check out the "historical gaming" section. The site is almost exclusively sci-fi and fantasy, with a heavy slant to GW products, but the Historical section has some excellent threads, with folks posting all the time about how they would like to try historical gaming, and where to purchase figures, what rules sets to use, etc.

Clay, I'm glad you have high standards, though I suspect it must get awfully lonely at the top.

Every one of you are wrong.

I think there might be an alternative explanation…

"Every one of you are wrong."

That's 'every one of you *is* wrong.' If I'm going to be in the wrong, I must at least insist on being grammatically correct.

I have the wrong flag on my 1809 Carabiniers too. It's my own private shame…

It's not my intention to make anyone angry over this. I just love the hobby and do not agree with the concept of recruiting new Napoleonics gamers from a population with horribly low standards in the hobby.

1. "Standards" are relative.

2. Nobody's asking you to recruit anybody. If people get interested, then they get interested, but there's no point in discouraging them, or criticizing the way they have fun.

3. I do historical research for real, for a living. I don't need some wargamer to tell me that I need to do a certain amount or kind of "research" in order to play a ing game.

I just love the hobby and do not agree with the concept of recruiting new Napoleonics gamers from a population with horribly low standards in the hobby.

Well, if we're going to get all metaphysical* about it.

Love should be unconditional. 'Loving' something – or someone – on your own terms is a little bit sad. N'est-ce pas?

*metphysical in it's original sense. Probably

Do you honestly believe that people who have no desire to paint sci-fi/fantasy miniatures will suddenly change their mind when they get into Napoleonic wargaming?

"The first club I joined let me know in no uncertain terms that I was only allowed to paint certain forces, as other members had the "rights" to the other country's units. Anything that i wanted to paint had to first be "approved" by the club, my research submitted, along with the makers of the minis and the types and shades of paint I wanted to sue, and then it would be voted upon and "approved". The finished unit then had to be "approved" by the club before it could be placed on the table."

That is EXACTLY what happened to me when I first got into this hobby. My first attempts at painting miniatures were actually laughed at. But I didn't take it as an insult (they really are horrible). Instead, I worked harder and did it right.

"The first club I joined let me know in no uncertain terms that I was only allowed to paint certain forces, as other members had the "rights" to the other country's units. Anything that i wanted to paint had to first be "approved" by the club, my research submitted, along with the makers of the minis and the types and shades of paint I wanted to sue, and then it would be voted upon and "approved". The finished unit then had to be "approved" by the club before it could be placed on the table."

The second word of my reply to that load of old toss would have been 'off'.

I'm expected to be good, and improving, at the job I'm paid to do. If a similar approach were required to something I do in my spare time for enjoyment and relaxation, I'd find another hobby.

There are, in classic motorbike circles, exactly the same sort of people. They will tell you, in mind numbing detail, the correct pinstriping colours on the tank of a '59 Road Rocket, and the precise pattern in the footpeg rubbers. I have no time for them either, most of them couldn't ride a bike well if their lives depended on it.

And we won't even mention the horrors I've perpetrated on my 70s Strat. Let's just say it's not exactly the same guitar…Let the purists wail.

Funnily enough, given the snob's bias against the FOW crowd, the only time I've seen stipulated that every figure must be painted and based appropriately has been at FOW competitions.

At our club, as long as some effort towards painting and basing has gone on, we're fine with it; having said that, since most of our club don't have any Napoleonic figures (or rather, do have some, but they're in the bags that they came in, since we've just bought a load of them and haven't had time to paint them up yet), we've been playtesting the new FoGNap rules with all sorts of stuff – csrd bases with the unit written on, 6mm vs 15mm figures (as long as the base is the same size), you name it. We've also been using some of the FOW scenery (OMG! That farmhouse is mid 19th C, not early 19th C!) for our games.

We've had fun and enjoyed ourselves, which to my mind is much more important than whether or not some moping whinger thinks they're painted to his standards.