"Foundry's Napoleon, first play!" Topic

Well I had a chance to try these out at Foundry's open day. Overall my first impression was they give a good game.
What I liked:-
(1) The combat system was easy to pick up and implement in practice. No complex looking up of tables or leafing through the rules to find factors.
(2) The morale system worked well and the more casualties a unit takes the less likely it will pass a morale check and once a unit has reached a certain level you can not rely on it to perform and you need to get it out and replace it with fresh units. As casualties can be accumulated through fatigue results too, this avoids keeping seperate records for fatigue. Overall gave a plausible result.
(3) By and large the command card C&C worked well with one exception – more of that anon.
(4) Terrain effects are simple to implement, have a variable element and seemed to give plausible results.
(5) It looks good in play – the unit sizes are large enough to allow representation of different formations and the visual spectacle is on the whole pleasing – again with one reservation – more anon.

What I didn't like:-
(1) The command card system occassionaly gives odd results. I think this is due to the fact that you can't give out a command card if out of engagement range and you can't move within engagement range unless you have a command card. So units stop magicaly on the engagement range even if they have only moved an inch. I think it would be reasonable to allow a unit to move a full move into engagement range without a command card if starting outside engagement range. Also as has been noted before the interaction between cavalry and infantry engagement ranges means that infantry can prevent cavalry moving over quite a wide arc despite not being able to threaten the cavalry in any way. Again easily fixed if you feel so inclined.
(2) The casualty markers can look messy – units can accumulate quite a pile and by the end of the game were carrying round a pile of markers – a more aesthetically pleasing solution IMHO would be to use a casualty stand with some sort of marker on it – say a magnetic number to indicate the the current tally.
(3) The army lists and special rules I'm not very keen on. The rules are Francophilic – Matt admitted as much to me on the day and I would think it hard to get a good chance against an equal points French army with anything other than the Brits. That may not matter to many who don't use points, or who think the French should win every time, but the fact remains the French have a raft of special rule advantages that aren't reflected in the points. Personally I shan't be using the lists much.

Overall a positive experience. Will definitely play again.

While I like your honest review I cant help noticing the "What I didn't like:-" section to be the biggest :)

Probably the most positive thing ive seen about them so far.

….Sorry, trying not to be cynical :(

I'm currently in the process of reading these.

So far, so good. I'm pretty sure I'll give them a chance and try to play a few games. Are they the best rules ever? Probably not, but I still think part of the reason they got such a bad rep is because they're from Foundry.

- Probably the most positive thing ive seen about them so far.-

link

Thanks for the review. Do you think you would have been able to play the rules if the author was not present? My impression on reading them was that they are a bit unclear in places and that one would definitely need the author to explain things the first few turns.

I'm still a bit on the fence as to these rules (see my review here:
link ) – I have a nagging feeling that there might be a good game (notice I said game, not simulation :) ) hidden in there, begging to be let out :). At the very least, they have gotten me painting up Bavarians.

While I like your honest review I cant help noticing the "What I didn't like:-" section to be the biggest :)

Eh?! 5 points in favour, 3 against. I've given a bit more detail in the against section, cos I didn't want people to think I was just whinging, and really they are minor points – the casualty marker thing is easily overcome for example. As for the army lists I'd probably feel the same way about a lot of lists you get with rules. They are, after all, largely subjective.

Do you think you would have been able to play the rules if the author was not present? My impression on reading them was that they are a bit unclear in places and that one would definitely need the author to explain things the first few turns.

Tricky one to answer. Always easier when you have someone there to help you along. :-) It would have required a lot more looking up for sure, but I think only the occassional head scratching moment.

My impression on reading them was that they are a bit unclear in places and that one would definitely need the author to explain things the first few turns.

One thing I would say about that is there are things not covered in the rules that you would have to reach an agreement with your opponent about. A couple of examples from the game.
(1) The unit with your divisional general closest to it throws only 1D6 against the general's command rating instead of 2D6. The rules don't say what to do if 2 units are equal distant (we played it that the general has to be closer to one, players choice, made before any command rolls are taken). Also of course you can move your general so as to be closest to the unit you really need to pass command for, but the rules don't say how far you can move him. In theory it could be across the board if you have 2 units from the same division split that far apart (although why you would do that I don't know). The general consensus from the foudry guys was that movement shouldn't exceed cavalry charge distance.
(2) The movement rules are very basic and during the game one of the players wanted to wheel a unit in line, to line up with an artillery battery, but a simple wheel would have seen the edge of the unit interpenetrate the artillery battery. We were told that it was permissible to shuffle the unit along sufficiently to clear the artillery providing no part of the unit moved more than the standard move. It doesn't say that anywhere in the rules.
Bearing in mind that no rules cover everything and those that try to are pages and pages along and impossible to use I'm not too bothered about that, but I play with people who are there to game not to win.

@ robartes – read your review and I haven't looked closely at the pictures, but the Foundry guys have a shed load of figures painted. There must have been over a thousand painted figures there on the day and that wasn't their full collections by any means. You can see that they have a lot of figures painted from the pics showing battles in progress.

@ robartes – read your review and I haven't looked closely at the pictures, but the Foundry guys have a shed load of figures painted. There must have been over a thousand painted figures there on the day and that wasn't their full collections by any means. You can see that they have a lot of figures painted from the pics showing battles in progress.

Yes – the game photos in the book definitely look real. It's just the 'catalogue' photographs in the reference section that seem to feature copy paste clones.

How did you handle volley fire? IIRC, the rules state that units that haven't moved more than a standard move can fire in the volley fire phase. So units given cards to fire (ie stand & fire, advance & fire) fire in both the card phase AND the fire phase?

What I liked from this ruleset is the command cards and the engagement range concepts. Something different, yes! All rulesets have strong and weak points. The hunt for the perfect system is the same as looking for the 'holy grail'…

How did you handle volley fire? IIRC, the rules state that units that haven't moved more than a standard move can fire in the volley fire phase. So units given cards to fire (ie stand & fire, advance & fire) fire in both the card phase AND the fire phase?

Volley fire phase is for those units who aren't on command cards. If you are on command cards you complete all those before any standard moves are made. So you can't be active in both the command phase and the standard move phase. Oh and command card resolution isn't simultaneous so if you fire on a unit before its command card is turned up it takes fire before having a chance to reply and make take morale, fail and go onto lost orders before being able to act.

Thanks for the review! I bought the rules and two of us are going to play them and Shako 2. Should be interesting to see which we favor.
I am so used to figure removal for killed that a morale based system is appealing for a true change.

"The unit with your divisional general closest to it throws only 1D6 against the general's command rating instead of 2D6."

This is something I wondered about when I read the rules. Presumably, you could roll the 1D6 for the closest unit, and as a result of their command they move so that they are no longer closest, but some other unit now is. I assume that other unit doesn't also get to roll 1D6, and only one unit per turn can take advantage of the 1D6. But I don't remember seeing that mentioned in the rules.

I assume that other unit doesn't also get to roll 1D6, and only one unit per turn can take advantage of the 1D6.

That's the way we played it.

But I don't remember seeing that mentioned in the rules.

The whole general thing is a bit vague. How far they move, which is the closest unit if 2 qualify etc.