"Warlord Games Black Powder reviewed" Topic

I've put my review of the Black Powder rules from Warlord Games up on my blog. It's a bit long, but hopefully it will be helpful for people who think they might be interested but aren't sure. I've broken it up into some relevant sections of interest.

link

If you have any specific questions or your own comments to add about the rules, please don't hesitate to leave a comment!

Good review. May have to pick up a copy.

Thanks for the review. I'd be interested in hearing about the basic mechanics for command and control, combat, morale, casualties, etc. For example, is command and control the basic warmaster approach of rolling less than your command rating on 2d6 and then issuing second and third order if you roll? Is there base removal to track casualties with unused hits falling off at the end of the turn? Or are these all new mechanics?

Bob
C&C does rely on you rolling under the command rating but unlike WM you only roll once and the number you equal or roll under the rating by determines how many 'moves' the unit or brigade can do to achieve the orders it has been given (orders are stated by the player before the roll). This actually gives a different feel than the WM roll and roll again mechanic and makes it easier to move masses of figures.

There is no base removal at all – stamina is like hits in WM and when a unit hits its stamina (they can can be rallied off) limit it effects the units capabilities and usually results in a break test (units retire or can vapourise). Units can be disordered which effects their capabilities and combat ability etc.

People at my club have said it is like a shooty warmaster with all the annoying, fiddly bits gone. I think you can tell it shares a heritage with Rick's WM mechanic ideas but also gives them a brand new slant.

Rich J

You roll against the commander's rating. The amount of pips under the required roll determine whether you have 0, 1,2 or 3 moves. When within 12" of enemy you can elect to use an initiative move instead (a guaranteed 1 move as against the possibility of 0-3 moves).

There is no base removal (though I guess no reason why you couldn't if you prefered marking casualties that way). Instead, you add casualty figures (or other markers – I suggest pieces of gravel would be less obtrusive than paper or dice). If you get over the unit's stamina rating (most often 3) in casualties, the unit is shaken and a break test may be required, after which any casualties in excess of that stamina rating fall off.

Good questions, Bob. Others have answered them pretty well, but I should definitely add those answers to my review, as I'm sure others will be interested as well.

That's another misconception of Black Powder, that it is a form of Warmaster. There are definitely some similar elements, (the multiple possible moves, rolling under command on 2D6, rolling for hits then rolling saves, etc.) and I'm sure it evolved from Warmaster, but it's pretty different. The issuing of orders I think improved to only require one roll, and your number of moves is based on how much you pass by. There are also some orders where only success or failure matter.

There is no base removal, thankfully. Why take the figures off the table that you've worked so hard to paint? Stamina points are for the unit as a whole. Once your casualties exceed the stamina of the unit, they take a break test, which might result in them falling back, or routing completely. If they rout the are removed from the table. Until then, the whole unit stays on the table. At the end of a turn, you do discard any casualties greater than the unit's stamina, which is only used as a negative modifier for the break test.

As an aside, I think the authors need a bit of a lesson in statistics. At one point, I believe they say that going from causing a blunder on 12 on a 2D6, to causing a blunder on 11 or 12 doubles the chance. But the thing that's starting to bother me is with the command rolls. You roll 2D6 and if you're equal or 1 under command value, you move once. If you're two under, you move twice. Three or more under, you move three times. But in most cases, that means you are actually MORE likely to move three times than to move twice. That doesn't make much sense. I think I'll change it to if you're 2 or 3 under, you get 2 moves, 4 or more under you get three. I just don't get how, in all their games, they never noticed that 3 moves was more common than 2.

Also, shooting and combat are pretty similar to Warmaster. Each unit has a shooting rating and a hand to hand rating. You roll that many dice (though there are modifiers on the number), and you need 4+ to hit (with modifiers on the hit roll). Then the opponent can take morale saves (also with modifiers).

I played in my first game last week and I had a ball with the blunder table. We had a good laugh. It's a really good rule mechanic. To visit the blunder table you either have to forget to issue verbal orders to your figures, or throw double sixes.

"That doesn't make much sense. I think I'll change it to if you're 2 or 3 under, you get 2 moves, 4 or more under you get three. I just don't get how, in all their games, they never noticed that 3 moves was more common than 2."

Assuming that was the result they were aiming for. It is likely they intended to go for a regular three moves (it speeds up play after all) and less if the dice abandon you instead of a regular one move and more if you are extraordinarily lucky.

Precisely Pijlie … I suspect it had nothing to do with statistics and think it is rude to suggest that the authors 'need a lesson in statistics' – here is a BIG warning about the suggestions Albino S makes – he hasn't actually played the rules yet … it would be like me reviewing an new film and suggestions the director did something different without me having actually seen the film … always makes me laugh when someone reviews a set of rules suggests changes and then says they haven't actually played … oh well!

"It is likely they intended to go for a regular three moves (it speeds up play after all) and less if the dice abandon you instead of a regular one move and more if you are extraordinarily lucky."

If only rules authors would make their intentions clear, rather then leaving it to readers to deduce or guess the intent from the wording!

I found the review helpful, and might yet purchase a copy, so thank you Albino Squirrel.

That may be, Pijlie, that the intention was for 3 moves to be the norm, only getting less if you are unlucky. But it doesn't work that way, either. If you have a command value of 8 (with no modifiers), you are most likely to get 1 move, and almost as likely to get 3 or none at all, and least likely to get 2. If they wanted it the way you suggest, than every unit would have to beat the command value by one to get one move.

Yes, I have not yet played a game, and I probably won't go changing things until I've played the base rules as they are a few times. But that just seems like an obvious mistake.

arthur, the book usually makes clear the intention. In this case, they just say what it represents in reality. So they say that getting one move means "the order is issued and acted upon in due course", two moves means "the order is speedily issued and acted upon immediately", and for three moves "the order is issued in anticipation of events and hurriedly obeyed". So I suppose there is no specific indication there of what they see as being the most/least likely outcome.

I'm inclined to believe Rick knows what he is doing. ;)

Their intention is pretty clear just from the fact you throw 2d6 – and if in a decent position are likely to get 3 moves as you will be needing to roll around a 6 or 7 with the general with a commander they will need to roll better 'lower' giving a norm of a couple of moves… what isn't clear?

However glad to hear you will play as is and see as opposed to where you previously state to change it to play :)

I'm pretty sure it will work out fine for you.

"he hasn't actually played the rules yet" – "always makes me laugh when someone reviews a set of rules suggests changes and then says they haven't actually played"
Sorry Surferdude I think you are wrong. I have a friend who says the same thing, but that's just a fundamental diference in personality, not a reflection on ability to review something.
I regularly write off rules after a read and without a play, and my reasons for doing so are often reflected by others writing them off after playing them. Human nature, nothing more, nothing less.

Phil

I often write a set of rules off after a read through … but then I wouldn't say I have 'reviewed' them and stick up posts everywhere to say I have …

The guy even likes them but I just find it laughable to say that they will play them but change this and that without trying … if he likes the look of them so much why not see how they play out before writing about changing them. Also the bit about Rick and Jervis needing a lesson in statistics when actually the rules model what they want is verging on an insult really … if he'd played them he would see what the intention is.

Well Surferdude, I'll play the game however I want to play it. If that bothers you, too bad. I am capable of noticing when a rule doesn't make sense or doesn't seem to work how it is intended. And if I am writing a review to let other people know what the rules are like, I am naturally going to mention when that is the case.

I suspect Rick probably does know what he's doing. And I suspect they made it the way it is (0 or 1 under one move, 2 under two moves, 3 or more under 3 moves), simply because it is easier to remember. But since my memory is good, I think I'll probably do it a different way.

"Also the bit about Rick and Jervis needing a lesson in statistics when actually the rules model what they want is verging on an insult really"

Yes, take back that insult. I am sure Rick does know what he's doing. If he says that rolling 11 or 12 is twice as likely as rolling 12 then he is right. Do not criticise the Emperor's New Clothes. Bow down to the high priest Surferdude as he protects the new clothes. Or at least until he finds something else new and shiny to divert his attention.

What a load of nonsense.

"What a load of nonsense"
Agreed, and its really three times as likely:)

Albino – play it however you like, I do BUT that is not the point, the point is you made a comment (along with insulting RP and JJ who I do believe may know more about gaming than you mate)and suggested a change to a set of rules you haven't actually played … an observation would have been fine, maybe even say you don't get why but more when you had had a go .. to insult the authors by saying they need a lesson in statistics is just plain ignorant and rude in my opinion mate.

Greenleader – read the thread and the blog mate … the argument over the 'insult' is due to the comments over how they didn't notice their hideous mistake with the rules making 3 moves statistically more likely than 0-2 – nothing to do with the 11 or 12 bit at all.

The whole thing really stems from me not seeing how anyone can review and suggest changes to a set of rules they haven't played – bit like all the people who go on and on about no op fire in FOW when they haven't played it etc …

"to insult the authors by saying they need a lesson in statistics is just plain ignorant and rude in my opinion mate."

Except he was right, their statement as quoted is factually wrong, so they obviously do need a lesson in stats.

"argument over the 'insult' is due to the comments over how they didn't notice their hideous mistake with the rules making 3 moves statistically more likely than 0-2 – nothing to do with the 11 or 12 bit at all."

Sorry to say your also factually wrong, what he said was:
"As an aside, I think the authors need a bit of a lesson in statistics. At one point, I believe they say that going from causing a blunder on 12 on a 2D6, to causing a blunder on 11 or 12 doubles the chance."

So the 'lesson in stats' has everything to dp with 'the 11 or 12 bit'

Whatever :)
Now I do not want to start a probability argument where I was looking at the fact he was wrong over the command roll and had never played the game BUT:
Percentage of throwing 12 = 2.78%
Percentage of throwing 11 = 5.56%

Looks like twice as likely to me … check on most gambling sites for this … to think that Rick P who has been designing games for GW for years needs a lesson in dice throwing is an insult … esp as Albino S is actually WRONG.

There didn't want to go down this track but still … so like I said the insult bit has nothing to do with the 11 or 12 that people think they need to agree with :)

Rich

"..to think that Rick P who has been designing games for GW for years needs a lesson in dice throwing is an insult"

Gosh yes, we should all wash out mouths out with soap for even suggesting that someone with such experience of writing games could possibly be anything other than perfect.

And of course Phil Barker, who has been designing games for even longer, is even more right. And always will be.

At least we know where we stand.

errrr no not at all … just that albino squirrel was actually wrong in saying it in the first place … I'd have been more sure of my facts before putting a review up that stated the author 'needed a lesson in statistics' – bit of an egg on face moment really. Which just compounds the joke that he presented a review of a rule set, with proposed changes to combat the errant lack of a statistical lesson … when his actual stats were wrong and he'd never played the rules.

So go ahead be as snide as you like mate, no skin of my nose I have nothing to do with the rules or Rick P/ JJ just took offence to a review which proposed changes to the rules (which hadn't been played) and slagged off the authors associated players all in one swoop …

But as people will have got the message now that the 'negative comments' he has talked about are based on his mistakes anyway I think we have killed the need to continue arguing about it really … dunno about you but I have a life :-)

You are quite right, surferdude

Percentage of throwing 12 = 2.78%
Percentage of throwing 11 = 5.56%

I think, however, the point was, What is the probability of throwing 11 OR 12 versus 12?

In this case, the probabilities add: 2.78 + 5.56 = 8.34%, which IS 3 times the probability of throwing just a 12.

@Surferdude
Seems that you also need a lesson in basic stats.

Not an insult …. but you are just plain factualy wrong about the odds of a 11 or 12 being double that of just a 12, there can be no argument about this unless you occupy some alternative universe where the laws of probabilty are different.

As I said in the first place, it IS 3 times more likely and Albino Squirrel understood that, and it seems so did GreenLeader, and The Black Wash.

Maybe there is a point here that you should spend some time to actually READ the rules before rushing to play them, ahh a bit like Albino Squirrel did, oops ROFLMAO!

Simple Lesson in Basic Stats:
Ways to throw a 12:
1 = 6/6

Ways to throw 11 OR 12
1 = 6/6
2 = 5/6
3 = 6/5

11 or 12 is therefore 3x more likely than just 12.

So Albino didn't insult anybody becuase clearly they DO need a lesson in stats becuase they obviously suffer from the same misunderstanding of the basic laws of probablity that you do. You might also think about apologising to Albino for accusing him of something he clearly didnt do.

(all the above meant with good humour and tongue in cheek so dont toss toys out of pram please)

Hmmm, great example of not rushing to post before taking shoe out of mouth. I'm just not sure who it is who has got the shoe in their mouth. First I thought it was AS, then SD … but who knows, it's probably me in writing this post!

Whatever – I think 'Black Powder' is a very refreshing set of rules. It has inspired me to daydream about games in the way that only 'Sharp Practice'(for smaller level games) and 'Charge, or how to Play Wargames'(way back when when I was a teenager) has done before.

A heart-felt 'huzzah!' to the authors!

Bravo – once you get out of the group hug with our Albino one think about it – all a matter of semantics, one is twice as likely to throw an 11 than a 12, yes there are also 2 ways more of throwing an 11 than an 11 or 12 but it depends on how you look at the first statement in the book … all of it is slightly 'mountain out of mole hill' thing as the original point in both threads is that he misrepresented the command rolls (writing it off as being wrong – when clearly it is the intention) … so as Arteis says a 'huzzah' to the authors and I for one will drop it … Albino one can play with whom he likes, how he likes but never the less should be the one apologising one feels!

Like your post … all said in the best possible taste :)

Okay, I have no particular desire to prolong this pointless conversation, but saying that I have misrepresented anything is going too far. So now, just so nobody can think that I have misrepresented or misinterpreted anything from the Black Powder book, I will directly quote the relevant passages.

On page 95, under the rule for High Independence: "However, regardless of whether he goes first or not, the Commander will always blunder on rolls of 11 or 12 rather than just on a 12 as normal – making him twice as likely to blunder as other officers."

This passage is not open to interpretation, nor does it depend on how you look at it. It is just flat out completely incorrect. And when Surferdude said that my statistics were wrong, it wasn't a matter of semantics. He was just completely wrong.

From page 24: "Roll two dice, add the scores together to get a result from 2-12 and check the number against the following: If the score is greater than the commander's staff rating then the test is failed and no order is issued… If the score is equal to the commander's staff rating or 1 less, the order is issued and acted upon in due course – the unit can make one move. If the score is 2 less than the commander's staff rating, the order is speedily issued and acted upon immediately – the nit can make two moves. If the score is 3 or more less than the commander's staff rating, the order is issued in anticipation of events and hurriedly obeyed – the unit can make three moves."

Now, if you look at some probabilities, you will discover that, as I have said, in almost all situations getting two moves will be LESS likely than getting three, AND less likely than getting one, and less likely than getting zero. I have misrepresented nothing there, it's just basic math.

Now, unlike some other people, I do not claim to know exactly what the author's intended, but I don't see how it matters. If this does not do what they intended, than they unintentionally made a rule that doesn't work well. If they really do intend that battalions should be very likely to either not move at all, move slowly, or move very quickly, but comparitively very unlikely to move any speed in between, that's fine. In that case, they intentionally made a rule that makes no sense.

I happen to think it would make more sense if, in most cases, you were more likely to get one move than two, and more likely to get two than three. And in cases where you have a lot of positive modifiers so that your staff rating was say 10 or higher, you'd be most likely to get 3 moves, less likely to get 2, less likely to get 1, and the least likely to get no moves. This can be accomplished fairly well by the simple change I suggested, without making any dramatic differences, as it will just mean there is a single roll that would have given three moves, but under my change gives two. But the result makes a lot more sense, and I happen to want rules that make sense.

Now, I can easily determine how the rules, and my change, will work out in a game without playing the game. This is because I am capable of doing simple math. If others are not capable of doing so, that's fine, but it isn't my responsibility to teach it to them. But as far as I can tell, it seems clear that I haven't misrepresented anything.

Oh and I was just nice in the other thread :)

By putting what you put about the command rolls mate you did misrepresent the rules, for a start any modifiers soon change the target number making it less likely to roll 3 under when the number gets lower (unless you are good at rolling 1-3 on 2 dice) … and in my opinion was rude about the authors saying they needed a stats lesson … now you do not need to teach me mathematics believe me … but however it seems you need a lesson in manners … just a shame you are too far away :)

People have pointed out that sounds a bit threatening … not meant too at all (hence the smiley) I was thinking more of a cup of tea and a toasted bun or a curry while yapping away over the joys of the internet based arguments … sorry to anyone who took it the wrong way :)

Thank you, Black Wash and BravoX, but I think explaining math to some people may be a lost cause.

Anyway, I've posted a more detailed explaination on my blog of the command rolls, my suggested change to them, and how it affects the outcomes. I think it makes more sense. Let me know what you think:

link

Not a lost cause 'cos I didn't need it explaining in the first place :)

Tried them out tonight … didn't seem to make a huge amount of difference on the whole. Took some remembering to start with and we did find that our standard '8' commander seemed to get fewer 3 order rolls which slowed the game down and seemed to us to alter the feel of the game … depends what you want from the game though. We'll stick with Rick's version but can see why some people would prefer yours …

See that would have been the response right from the start of the whole thing if you hadn't suggested the authors didn't know what they were doing :)

Hatchet buried on my part!

Not a lost cause 'cos I didn't need it explaining in the first place :)

OK surferdude, if you're still claiming it was "semantics" and that you do understand statistical probability properly, how about a wager?

We use an online dice roller that rolls 2D6, and every time a 12 comes up, I pay you $10. USD Every time it comes up 11 or 12, you pay me $5. USD if, as you continue to claim, an 11 or 12 is only twice as likely as a 12, then we'll end up even after, say 1000 rolls, eh? You up for it?

Nick – read the bury the hatchett remark mate!

I NEVER claimed rolling 11 OR 12 was twice as likely as a 12 I SAID rolling 11 was twice as likely as a 12 – which it is … and this is what I take the sentence in the book to mean … AS didn't – end of story mate … please do not misquote me!

Here is what I put if you are unable to scroll up and read it :)

"Percentage of throwing 12 = 2.78%
Percentage of throwing 11 = 5.56%

Looks like twice as likely to me … "

Which is why I don't need stats lessons :)
So let's drop it eh?

On page 95, under the rule for High Independence: "However, regardless of whether he goes first or not, the Commander will always blunder on rolls of 11 or 12 rather than just on a 12 as normal – making him twice as likely to blunder as other officers."

How can you possible take that as saying you roll an 11 instead of a 12? Again, it's not semantics, it's basic literacy this time.

Dude, just apologise for getting it wrong, and move on if you want to bury the hatchet. Claiming that you're in the right when you're clearly wrong isn't doing you any favours.

It's the internet. No one ever admits they're wrong on the internet!

Thank you for backing me up here, Nick. It was pretty frustrating for me as well to watch someone be so obstinately wrong and then so stubbornly refuse to admit it. And it helps to know that I'm not the only person who saw things that way.

However, in the spirit of the Black Powder book, I say we settle this like gentlemen. As gentlement, I believe that honor would require us to have a duel. This way, we could both prove that we are so convinced of our correctness in this matter that we were willing to risk our lives to prove it. In this case, of course, we aren't risking our lives, only our credibility. And I'm sure everyone knows who won and lost.

And once the duel is completed, regardless of the outcome, honor is satisfied and everyone pretends it all never happened. At least I think that's how it worked. So let's just do that, and no need to expect people to subject themselves to the distasteful act of admitting to a mistake.

Ok – here we have it …
I admit I was mistaken about everything in the whole world … hows that :)

We both like the game … we will both tweak the game and the world will survive :)

I still think you misunderstood the intention of the command rule to begin with, your stats and suggestions smooth it out but still give the desired effect and work better for you and maybe others … so lets say I was mistaken again … another mistake on my part … see I can do it …

So was it a mistake on your part to rip into the authors in the way you did? Forget the 11/12 bit – I am on about you saying you couldn't believe that they didn't notice getting 3 orders was more likely (which is the way it was supposed to be) … I think it was a mistake … can you then admit that bit as we are now bearing our souls …

PS I really don't mind a duel though :)

Time for a brandy and a peace cigar and as long as the ladies cover up and not flash the odd ankle we can enjoy the rules together…. :-)

" Meet you in the drawing room "

If it isn't 'odd' can they flash an ankle in-between rules please …

You should buy your ladies from Calpe…hardly any flash at all!

Wow… this thread sucked out all my enthusiasm for the game. Hopefully when the book arrives in the mail, the pretty pictures will rekindle my desire to spend a ton of money on Victrix/Perry figs.

Believe me the pictures are pretty, and from tentative play the rules seem to work, although the authors are the first to leave them open to tweaking. Anyway, why should you be put off by the rather pointless argument above, which had ever less to do with the game's quality as it went on?

I'm with Petrov101. I'm less than enthusiastic about trying these rules if the argumentative responses are an indication of the players they appeal to!

@Mal Wright @Petrov101

don't let the pedantic ramblings of a minority put you off these rules, I played my first game over the weekend with a couple of mates and had a great time (battle report is here mikehobbs.co.uk/?p=1831 if you want to see)

the rules are a framework but with the info in the book I was able to design a scenario and work out troop stats in less than 15 mins and the game was a success

the simple fact is this, there are rules out there that allow you to play a set period and these rules normally have a great amount of detail in them and games can last a long time. Now and again I guess we all want to play that kind of game (or am I generalising?), all Black powder does is allow you to use the same figures you already have and put on a quick game with loads of mates that lasts a couple of hours and is fun.

Is that such a bad thing?

Thats never a bad thing Musketeer Mike. Its what really counts.

But why the flame war? Someone is presenting a rules review as they see it, preliminary of course, not based on play test, let them review. If you think they are wrong, why not write your own review and let the readers decide. The back and forth over some minor details as it seems, is off putting altogether. I still think I would like more information before I make a purchase, but it great to have some basic info before I spend what is now a small investment in a rule set . Thanks to everybody.

It would be much nicer to be able to flip through the rulebook in a store or something before deciding to buy it, so if you have a gaming store nearby that carries it that's the best option. But if you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them, and it would help me find out where my reviewing method might be lacking.

If somebody doen't try rules because of the storm of bad postings on TMP, I don't think we would use any wargames rules.