"Black Powder - Initial Impressions" Topic

My copy of Black Powder has arrived.

I'm going to spend the next hour or so having a good scan-through.

Any specific points for me to address in my initial review?

First-first thoughts? Handsomely produced 181 page hardback. Photo colour a little subdued [but not badly so].

Game rules take up ~ 75 pages.

Respectably laid out as text and images – I'll decide whether that extends to them as a set of rules later.

M.

For 30 quid these better be pretty damned impressive. I will need good reason to buy these instead of waiting for the Lardies 'Le Feu Sacre' in the next 6 weeks.

Basing conventions, main gist of rules, use of period specific rules would all be points of interest!

Basing is an easy one.

Recommended:

Inf – 20x20
Cav – 25x50
Art as required
Commanders pictured on round bases.

4 figures in a 2x2 arrangement is suggested as an ideal block. A unit will be betwen 4 and 12 [standard 6] of such elements.

This is very pleasing to me: link and link

A proper summary of the gist of the game will require more time to look through. First thought – Warmaster subtext [unit stats and command]

As to period-specificity, basic units can be given abilities to reflect time/place – e.g. 'Fanatics', 'Lancers'. There is also a short section on specific weapons – e.g. machine guns, howitzers. No discrete sub-period specific chapters – i.e. there is no chapter on Napoleonics or ACW or Colonial etc. Scenarios have specific special rules to reflect period and situation.

Last Hussar – what would constitute an impressive set of rules to you?

How are casualties decided?

Does it use the stand-removal mechanic of other warmaster-ish games to track casualties? Are there different formations for the stands comprising the unit.

Recommended:

Inf – 20x20
Cav – 25x50
Art as required
Commanders pictured on round bases.

Single basing? That surprises me if only because the Perrys supply multi-figure size bases with their plastics.

Yes to different formations.
Each unit has a number of hit points. No figure removal
Nom de Guerre – note my point that a four figure element is the standard.

EDIT: Misread post, sorry.

Oh, yes. My mistake!

I'd be interested to know the possible range in unit hit points, since I'd likely want to track them with casualty bases with different numbers of casualties on them. But if the hit points can be very large, that would be difficult.

Also, how important is the number of stands? Does each represent a particular number of men? Or can a unit be any number of stands you choose, as long as you are consistent?

Albino – units are deignated as tiny, small, normal and large – each with a range of figures
For inf:

Tiny – 6 figs
Small – 12-16
Normal – 24-30
Large – 36-40

Cav approximately half that.

A unit has hit points ['stamina'] of 1-4.

Thank you, Midpoint. One more thing. Does it rely heavily on number of figures? I use 10mm figures, so a unit of 24 figures is pretty small for me. Does it seem like it would be easy to use other figure scales? Or would that involve messing around with the rules, like saying that every 2 10mm figures count as one figure for game purposes, or something like that?

Pg. 174-175 – Using smaller or larger troops.

For 10mm specifically it suggests halving all distances – or replacing inches with cm.

I don't think the figures per unit is the key – just the designated size of the unit and the number of stamina points – see above.

M.

Okay, sounds good. So I could just say 6 bases means large, 5 bases normal, etc, and not worry about number of figures. Using cm instead of inches would also work great, since the numbers will all be the same. Thanks again.

Albino,

Just take the 20mmX20mm frontage for each infantryman, and replace the single mini with a number of 6mm minis. I once played WAB that way, using one base of 4X15mm minis to replace one single 28mm, and it worked fine. Just remember that you are, in that type ofcase, removing a base rather than a single casualty.

It would look really impressive if you kept the basing, but filled them up with 10s or 6s.

75 pages of rules. Okay, that drops those rules for me.

The 75 pages have an awful lot of rhetoric in them plus a lot of diagrams and photos – to put it into perspective the QRS is basically one A4 sheet with the other side being a very spread out break test table.

75 pages of rules. Okay, that drops those rules for me.

There appears to be a lot of pretty pictures, so I would bet it's not 75 pages of text.

I am concerned at the current tendency to havea single set of rules from 1700 to 1900 – fr me the later period is quite different, while the 'musket' period has sufficient differentiaton within it to merit a certain amount of specific rules at least.
Luckily I'll be able to read, or indeed play, these rules before I buy :o)

It'll probably work a lot better for some periods than for others. But as long as it works well for at least one period, and it's a good read, then it's worth trying. I'm sure I'll pick up a copy.

Do the minis have to be individually based?

No

how are rules dealing with skirmishers?

By an 'impressive set' it would need to play easily and logically, and capture the period. Most of all it needs to be enjoyable, even if I lose. If it is a conversion of a set of rules for another period, it must not feel 'forced'- ie the mechanisms are the sacred, no matter what.

One red flag that has already popped up is the suggestion if using 10mm halve the distances. Why? If it is a 'base' game then the size of figures is irrelevent, unless the ground scale is definately 1:100(ish).

Last Hussar

Without having seen the rules, I would imagine that they suggested halving the base sizes as well.

One good reason for changing ground scale with figure scale is for the look of the thing.

As the set tries to cover all of my major periods of interest (Napoleonics, ACW, Colonials, eventually 18th cent.) I'm interested in seeing whether it could be a good bring-and-play set for a club. While I wouldn't expect it to be as period-specific as, well, period-specific rules, I would want some obvious differentiation between those "big 4" subdivisions.

How does the game make a SYW ranker different from an OR in Zululand?

How are different types of cavalry and artillery modeled?

Is the command system flexible enough to model different command structures in these conflicts?

Overall, I can take care that the armies on the table are organized appropriately to the periods (and usually ignore rule advice on that anyway), but how do the rules support those specific differences in play?

also if you can save on table space then you gain many advantages…

Well the subliminal marketing for these must have been good because a set arrived for me yesterday and I have no recollection of ordering them! :-) On a quick read through looks to be a core set of rules with a bunch of add on rules to add period flavour. So for example Napoleonic armies are subject to the form square rule which means they have to form square if threatened by cavalry. Yes the 75 pages is not solid text – masses of pictures and diagrams and a lot of the text is explanation no bad thing IMHO.

My copy arrived today. It look fantastic, well explained and with sufficient variability in unit abilities to cover the different sub-periods.

Looking forward to getting my AWI armies out of their storage and onto the table!

My copy hasn't arrived. Does it come by ordinary post?

Yes, I wish I had enough painted figures and table space to have each regiment consist of 30-40 bases with 8 10mm figures on each. But I certainly wouldn't enjoy having to change formation, or even move them without a movement tray of some sort.

Currently my ACW stuff is organized as five bases (of approximately 20mm square) to a regiment. So I suppose I'll try to get close to the same number of figures as they suggest, which will take up much less space on my table, and use cm instead of inches for measurements. Not sure what I'll do if I start a Napoleonic army, since I'll probably want to stick to even numbers of bases to make forming square easier.

Sadly, my copy hasn't even shipped yet. And mine has to cross an ocean to get to me, so it might be a while.

Rick is pretty laid back in the rules about the basing and number of figs etc – most people's stuff should work so long as one has enough!

The halving with 10mm is so they can be used on a smaller table by playing in cm not inches.

In regards to a question I posted on the Warlord Games forum about using 15mm, Rick suggested a normal 15mm Battalion/Regiment should have a 12cm frontage. Which is pretty much the same as I used in the past. My 15mm ACW are based up on 30mm x 30mm bases so I should be able to jump straight in and have a game with four of my current bases per regiment.

What is the turn sequence? IMO the most important question.

"Where's my copy at?" is the most important question for me! I'm getting seriously impatient!

Will they pass the "bottle of wine" test?

This is a simple test for over complex rules – if they can't be played after the players have had a bottle of wine each they are too complicated.

They will easily pass the "bottle of wine" test; nice rules and fairly simple.

@mawaliuk2 & colinjallen: The only sensible comment on this thread! ;-)

Just had our first game (7YW game) … no wine involved I am afraid but a fair size 'basic' game done in a couple of hours – we played in 10mm using cm instead of inches but the mechanics were smooth and easy gave a good fun game.

Very impressed and going to have to finally do that 10mm Nap project !!!

Rich

I got my copy yesterday, after a very quick read, can't tell if they will do the job. More reading and play test will be required.

I am in search of "perfect set of rules" for my taste (I know the beast like this does not exists, but one must keep on trying). I have narrowed my search to 3 sets, Black Powder, Rank & File, and the upcoming Revolution to Empire.

One day I will find simple, fun and yet challenging set. (I hope).

Cheers

Hi all i copy my copy from orcs nest ( i`m not rubbing it in ) and i must say what a lovely ruleset, and the pictures are stunning of the figures and battles etc..

As for rules a nice easy read and i do like what they done, you have the command phase,but unlike cold war commander ( warmaster rules..? ) one roll is made and the better the roll the more actions you are given up to three, so you don`t need to get rolling until failed.

Actions are for movement with a few special like " Rally " but you don`t need to roll for actions to shoot which is great.
Also once within 12" of a enemy unit movement options are limited too as in real life it would be.

Combat and shooting are great, a standed unit can take 3 hits anything over that is bad for a break test, and even if you take the max hits which as i said is three you still stay in the battle until a failed break test makes you run off the table… A great idea.

Example
Stamina for my standed unit is 3 so three hits i can safely take and hits cannot be got rid off unless " Rally " which is something you cannot so with all your units all the time etc.

So i can 5 hits in one turn of shooting and my unit is 100% fresh,( lets say i do not make any saves ) so i take 3 hits max which is my stamina, and make a break test with a -2, because i took 5 hits, once the test is over and i`m still on the table, the extra 2 hits drop off and my unit stays in the fight with three hits which shows they are in a tough postions, if i take a extra hit, then the break test is at -1 for the test and then you drop the extra hit back down to your max level which is three.

So easy to know, no hits per figure or base, just the total unit which stays as one for the complete battle, on taking bases off etc.

Anyway hope thats makes alittle sense, rules for horses and cannons are great as well and yes movement is quick, as infantry can move 12" per go and maybe up to three times, so maybe upto 36" of movment in one go.

Of course you can scale down and they is a points options doe people that like it.

For me a great read, and a stunning looking ruleset, it must win some medals at some point…

Well down warlords

I just my copy on the far side of the globe.

Something that immediately struck me as positive when reading through is the repeateded use of phrases such as …

"what we generally do is…"

"We find it best to do …"

At one point they say "This in another useful rule- the value of which will become obvious once you have played a few games"

For me, it seems to have an old school charm and, from watching what Warhammer has become in the past 30 years, I'll read it as Messieurs Priestley and Johnson trying to return to the what they like about wargaming and less about what will suit the needs of a mega-company bent on world domination. I'll give it a try for that reason alone.

I'm still waiting… :(

Thanks for all the comments – especially soulman for his detailed review of the combat mechanics, which do indeed sound interesting.

Could someone give a brief summary of how ranged combat works (infantry/artillery) and how cc/melee/assault works?

Do people have the general impression that the unit capabilities (standard or special) are sufficient to differentiate between the periods?

Some things that I am instantly liking about them (for my current needs):

Units are simply units. It doesn't matter at all how many figures or models you have in a unit ot how it is based or even if it is based at all. Units are designated as standard sized, large, small, or tiny and so long as everyone knows which is which and you can tell what formation it is in, you're good to go. There's never any headcount taken. Units take 1-4 hits depending on size before they are removed (3 for standard).

I like the order system. Before rolling dice to test to activate a unit, you declare aloud exactly what the order is. So, for example, "Parkinson's Brigade will advance to Cobble Hill and there form into lines!". WHen you test, you may fail and none of the units move and that General is done ordering for the turn. You might get three successes and your troops will advance twice and if the hilltop is within 24" they can use their third move to form into line. If you only get one or two successes though your men are left advancing in the open for this turn. You don't have the option to nicely put them into lines. Similarly, if you order your brigade to"form into column of march" and manage to get three successes, they don't get to do anymore than form into column of march.

There is still initiative moves so that units within 12" of the enemy (or are out of combat in march column etc) can still always make one free guaranteed move of limited scope but that disqualifies them form getting orders that turn.

I like the "Follow me!" order which allows a commander to take personal charge of a single unit for a turn and not have to declare what it will do beforehand but can make decisions as it goes and finesse things. It is, reasonably, the last order that a general can try to give in a turn.

Not surprisingly, the movement sequence is I Go – I shoot – melee – You go – You shoot – melee. There is no system for response moves but there is charge reaction.

Some sample special unit abilities:

Terrifying charge: charged enemy must take a break test

Stubborn: Re-roll one failed morale save each time you make a test

Heavy Cavalry: +1-+3 on combat result when charging

Form Square: Units with this ability can AND MUST attempt to form square when charged by enemy cavalry

Crack: Re-roll one failed save if you currently have no casualties

See, now, I think that "activating" units is a crock. To my thinking, it's a "gotcha!" gimmick that really has no place in a wargame.

YMMV, of course, but I don't like that sort of thing.