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

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.

I hope you researched 'fun' and 'enjoyment' properly before you started having fun and enjoyment.

- 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? -

Well, I started with Warhammer when I was about 13. Played with partially painted armies until I was about 20-21. Then I discovered historical (Ancients for a very short while with WAB and then Naps). Since then, my armies are based, painted, everything. I probably would not be in this hobby if not for all those evening fighting against my brother's (also) partially painted armies. So I would say yes to your question.

If only a few of those gamers are drawn to "Napoleon" like I was to WAB, how can it be a bad thing? After all, I too once was one of those gamers who don't paint their stuff. People change. Historical got me motivated the way Warhammer never could.

You're the first I've ever met then. The GW to FoW players brought their garbage standards to the game with them.

And what's all this about "new players"? These aren't new players I'm referring too. They've been in the GW hobby for YEARS.

Oh, and I get my "FUN and ENJOYMENT" out of looking at the figures on the table. Do I have to give that up to make somebody else happy? No.

I sure wish that ocean was a little bit wider. Let me guess, you aren't married. Right?

Pity he stifled me

Who stifled you? Not me….

I'm on my way to London for a couple of weeks in August…no place is safe.

And I'll be at Historicon…oh my I'm ruining the hobby for everyone!

Clay,

I'll be at Historicon too, hosting a number of Napoleon's Battles games. I'll also be at the bar. If you know Duncan Macfarlane, he knows me and will point me out.

Bob Coggins

I'm on my way to London for a couple of weeks in August…no place is safe.

That's OK, I never go there if I can help it.

Thanks Bob. Will Craig be there? He doesn't remember me anymore (from playtesting at Yaquinto)….

Well, I don't know what the "Standards" in the UK are like, but some of the best painted miniatures / armies I've ever seen are Fantasy and SCI-Fi armies. I wish some of those gamers WOULD come across to the "Historical" camp.
Oh, and if any "Club" tried to tell me what armies I could or could not paint, well let's just say I wouldn't be a member of that club for long; (what a bunch of tools).

No, it's pretty normal for a company that makes and sells miniatures and is running a competition to *require* painted and based miniatures. GW (yes, the same GW who's players don't bother to do more than put legs on bases) has done so since at least 1993 (first year I checked on the rules for their Games Day competitions).

There is a difference between tournaments and friendly gaming. It seems that a lot of you (speaking as one who does not currently play Napoleonics) only play given scenarios. Y'all seem to spend a lot of time preparing for a battle, painting the troops, etc. Do you not play 'pick-up' games?

I play Flames of War now. I used to play 40k, but I got tired of the continual rules issues. I even play Infinity (for ~10 man skirmishes). Funny enough, I'm looking at Legacy of Glory for my Napoleonic fix. In a setting where a company would fit in a box roughly 15 feet deep by 50 feet wide (or a battalion in a 15x150 foot box), why would I want to us less than a couple regiments of troops on the table?

I'm convinced that a set of rules should be excellent in the mechanics and in its ability to recreate history with accuracy and feel.
Glossy pictures and high quality paper are utterly secondary to me. (as anyone who has bought my rules will confirm!)

That said, i cant see how after a few reads of a set of rules, one can write a reveiw and critise its mechanics.

You can say its glossy or say its badly set out. You can't say it plays badly till you have got out your lead and tape and given it a test run.
A lot of subtelty often lies beneath overtly clunky or horrible looking mechanics.

It may be the worst set of rules ever written, but dont knock it till youve tried it. Then knock it if its bad!

Clay,

I want to make sure I am understanding your argument…

You are against the type of players that full color, well illustrated and professionally produced rule sets bring to the hobby because of their lack of aesthetics?

This is certainly the not strongest argument I have heard for a return to the good old days of $10 USD mimeographed rulesets with poor production values.

Unintentional irony is a cruel mistress.

God, I love the old paperbacks with black and white drawings. Bundles of tables and in very small font.

I'd go down Spirit Games in the 80's and buy a new one every week. Some bleeding good rules as well, such as REAPER and Firefly and Korps Kommander. It made you want to break open the paper pag of badly moulded 1/300 scale armour and start checking armour penertration vs plate on the graph-paper.

Happy days

…ah, the days when a calculator, protractor, pen and paper, and percentile dice were standard kit for every gamer.

Everything was so much more "historically accurate" back then….

What was the name of that famous artist who painted Napoleon at Wagram, using a pocket calculator to check on the "Fall Back Table" to see what modifier the Saxon Corps had?

What was the name of that famous artist who painted Napoleon at Wagram, using a pocket calculator to check on the "Fall Back Table" to see what modifier the Saxon Corps had?

Vernet? pron. 'vernier' after the calipers, obviously.

I'd go down Spirit Games in the 80's and buy a new one every week. Some bleeding good rules as well, such as REAPER and Firefly and Korps Kommander. It made you want to break open the paper pag of badly moulded 1/300 scale armour and start checking armour penertration vs plate on the graph-paper.

I for one mourn the demise of such games. We shall never see their like again.

Hopefully…

I don't think that it is out of the ordinary to ask that your opponent bring painted miniatures to a wargame. One shouldn't have to defend that position. It's all in the delivery I suppose.

At the same time, I wouldn't begrudge some kids playing a game at the game store with unpainted minis. I wouldn't want to play in their game, but if that is what it takes to get them started, then so be it.

I will probably purchase Napoleon for the eye candy, but I doubt that I will ever play the game as I prefer to use my own rules or ITGM. I just don't want to learn a new rules system or rebase the figures that I already have.

I hope that Napoleon is very successful – it can only be a good thing for the hobby.

I can recall a couple of years ago asking if Napoleonics were dying out. What a difference a year or two makes. Now it seems like Napoleonic wargaming has become very dynamic and is back on an upward trajectory, I am happy to say.

Tommiatkins said "That said, i cant see how after a few reads of a set of rules, one can write a reveiw and critise its mechanics.
You can say its glossy or say its badly set out. You can't say it plays badly till you have got out your lead and tape and given it a test run."

I didn't say it plays badly. Obviously I could not make any comment on how it plays because I haven't played it.
However, it is possible to comment on individual mechanics without playing a game. For example, artillery is more effective in these rules against infantry in line than in column. That is based on the to hit tables, so I don't need to play the game to criticise that particular outcome.

"For example, artillery is more effective in these rules against infantry in line than in column. "

Ahh,ok.They probably suck then!

(Unless its shots accross a line from the flanks)

You are against the type of players that full color, well illustrated and professionally produced rule sets bring to the hobby because of their lack of aesthetics?

No, that is not my point. (which some say is on the top of my head)

The idea that "Hey, let's use X rules and X set of plastic miniatures to recruit GW gamers into Napoleonics" will lead to MASSIVE LOWERING OF STANDARDS in our hobby. These players are more concerned with pushing markers around to play the rules instead of getting into the history of the Napoleonic wars and putting on a presentable representation.

Now I don't care what somebody does when I'm not involved. However, this has happened TO ME with Flames of War. I was perfectly happy (with a group of friends and fellow gamers) playing FoW…and then the GW crowd got involved. It suddenly became MY PROBLEM that they put crap like a single unpainted figure on a team base (because, hey, they are busy….like I'm not). This wrecked the gaming experience for me and my friends at the game stores, so we quit going. FoW died out in the stores after that…we just play it at home.

So no, I'm not a huge fan of this idea, nor of the concept that we need to recruit 'new blood' who don't show any interest in the things that make this part of the hobby special.

(Oh, and Fritz' comments are outstanding.)

will lead to MASSIVE LOWERING OF STANDARDS in our hobby.

What are these 'standards'? Where can I find them? Are they on the 'net?

My 'hobby' doesn't sound at all like your 'hobby'. For which I'm profoundly grateful.

"I have have my principals. If you don't like them I have others" Groucho Marx

"This is my truth, tell me yours" The Manics

If I were you (see 'profoundly grateful', above) I'd quit while I was behind

Clay,

Craig will be there.

Bob Coggins

Thanks Bob, looking forward to it. (Now I just need the tickets to show up!)

$92 USD to register. But then it was easy to click on all those optional things like T-shirts.

And Connard – you are correct. We are not in the same hobby and my comments do not apply to you. (However, there's a new ruleset out by Foundry. It has lots of pretty colour photos that you might be interested in, if you are ever want to join my hobby.)

We are not in the same hobby and my comments do not apply to you.

However, I appear to be in the majority here. Sooo…

I've got the new Foundry ruleset, ta. You were obviously unable to read my comments about it on these very pages.

I'd have a shot if I were you. You might learn something

My standards are based more on my opponent than the figures they have or how well painted them are. Which means I'd happily play against a teenager with a half-painted army than Clay.

Incidentally, it's fun to see that Mr High and Mighty Standards is touting books that have been overwhelmingly decried for their poor scholarship in another thread here.

Link? Just for S&G :)

I just mentioned the pretty pictures, not the scholarship.

You're making up a lot more than what my words mean. Oh well.

There's scholarship in there?

If I want to see pretty pictures I shall visit an art gallery. The game's the thing

That's another quote Clay.

Your serve, I think.

Tag! You're it.

Nick: "it's fun to see that Mr High and Mighty Standards is touting books that have been overwhelmingly decried for their poor scholarship in another thread here."

I noticed that, too. Mister Must Do Proper Research to Play Napoleonics recommended a book that has been discredited by pretty much every historian in the field.

Clay: "I just mentioned the pretty pictures, not the scholarship."

No you didn't. What you wrote was:

[Bowden's "Armies on the Danube" is a fantastic resource for the specific details of the 1809 campaign.]

No mention of pretty pictures in your post, nor in that thread:

TMP link

Clay, if you're going to argue on TMP, then we demand that you adhere to the proper high standards of research and truth-telling. Your haphazard ranting is ruining the TMP experience for me and everyone else! We have standards here, boy! Harrumph! Harrumph!

Good grief Sam. I've been consisent in my message, but cannot be responsible for how others interpret it. And I don't mind running over anyone who says I'm a bad guy because I don't want to wargame with garbage on the table – but it doesn't make sense for me to drive off the road while following others who take the issue into the weeds. You can go there yourself.

Interesting how I'm the snob but it's others here who say they don't want to game with me. If somebody is unhappy enough about some TMP postings to stay away from my gaming table, imagine how I feel about unpainted figures.

Dude. Some of us won't play with you *because* you're a snob. If you weren't, we'd have no problem with you. You only have yourself to blame.

so, apart from Clay and Fritz, am I the only one who thinks that having a charge bonus for wearing a kilt is the sign of something rather silly going on?

I've already mentioned my eyebrow raised at these rules. I don't think I'm likely to buy them, because of things like kilt-wearing gives you a +1. I'll probably keep my existing armies based for Nap POW and GA, base up my newest army for FoGNap, and see what basing I need for Honour (hopefully I can use my GA stuff there if the basing's the same, reduced scale 6mm). If necessary, I'll buy another army for Honour. :)

so, apart from Clay and Fritz

Hey, hey, don't drag me into this debate. I deny the allegation and I deny the alligator.

you are excused, crocodile

so, apart from Clay and Fritz, am I the only one who thinks that having a charge bonus for wearing a kilt is the sign of something rather silly going on?

Where have you been? I thought everyone knew about the "Devil's in skirts". +1 seems restrained.

;-) …taking a risk at humour on a Napoleonics thread so I hope this winking smiley will protect me.

;-) …taking a risk at humour on a Napoleonics thread so I hope this winking smiley will protect me.

Nope, sorry.

*pours scorn and opprobrium on elcid1099's head*

ha! that'll learn ya.

I think kilt bonus is a very weird thing as well..and I despise unpainted figures..and I have read every post and regard Clay to be with the angels and truly wonder what is going to said when the Blackpowder rules come out..that will be something, even the authors sort of imply they are historically suspect..looking forward to that..any bets on the kilt charging bonus will be in them?

I despise run on sentences and poor punctuation, but I don't keep banging on about it. Although I might refuse to game with anyone who doesn't have an English degree.

We really need a 'flogging a dead horse' smiley :)

Nice,

"I noticed that, too. Mister Must Do Proper Research to Play Napoleonics recommended a book that has been discredited by pretty much every historian in the field."

I feel behind the curve. So I you wouldn't mind telling me:

Who? Arnold? Gill? Who discredited the Armies of the Danube?

Why? Why did they discredit the book?

Thanks.

Bob Coggins

Does anyone know if an egroup has been set up yet for these rules?
Dennis

OzNapoleon on Yahoo.

We have been putting an FAQ together with info from the author.

cheers

CK

Is the author contributing to the yahoo group then ? Maybe you could direct him here to comment on my review ?

Koori
I searched for the group but it says it is not found. Could you please email me the link. It is my screen name plus @aol.com
Thank you
Dennis

Bob, a Google search doesn't seem to reveal anything negative about "Armies on the Danube" by Bowden. I cried for days after Sam told me it was discredited by "pretty much every historian in the field." My father used to read it to me as a bedtime story, so this is quite a shock.

Sam is right about one thing though – it could benefit from some glossy color photos, at least from the point of view of a tired child.

Bob, feel free to send me an email at smustafa@optonline.net, if you need to discuss that book.

Clay, you already brought it up four years ago on the GA Yahoo site, as part of your meltdown when I got something like 25+ requests to ban you from the site, and several emails of sympathy informing me that you'd done the same thing on other forums. (Remember when you kept posting about how much you hated me, the game, and the site, and that you were never coming back…. But then oddly never went away, and complained that you were being silenced and oppressed?… and then finally a year later asked to be re-admitted?)

I am understandably reluctant to engage with you again on any topic, for obvious reasons. But if you need to review it again, here are the posts. The discussion of the sources for 1809 OBs and scenarios is part of that whole miasma:

link

No, I don't remember.

That's why I provided the link, so you can jog your memory.

I thought wargaming was supposed to be fun. Why so much angst?

Sam,

Your email address cannot be read by my provider lets try it the opposite way. My email is rratisbon@comcast.net

Bob