"Black Powder Questions" Topic

I'm dipping into this game with some interest mainly in 18th century wars. There are just some things that seem really wrong, so can somebody tell me what I'm missing here?

1st- Cavalry units can possibly move up to 54" in a turn (three moves of 18"), but a cavalry general can only move a maximum of 48"?

2nd – With a decent general there's a good chance (at least 1-in-3) of getting a triple move, meaning that my infantry could move 36"… in Line, right? I understand how they do the dice modifiers for formations like attack columns and march columns, making it even more likely to move fast, but am I reading that right? A general with an average command value of 8 needs to roll 5 or less on two dice and his infantry can move 36" in Line??

3rd – I have a 5' X 9' pingpong table. If we each set up about one foot from our respective edges, then our armies are about three feet apart at game's start. The sequence of play appears to be: I move, I shoot, We Fight. So with decent luck, my infantry can move across the entire board on the first turn and charge you, before you can even shoot me?

Somebody please tell me where I'm missing something? It looks like there's about a 1-in-3 chance of getting a triple move each turn, and hopping across the entire board in one swoop.

You are missing something. You aren't playing with a big enough table.

If you want to play on a table that small you should reduce the distances in the game. Either cut them in half or use centimeters.

Every measurement in the game is some multiple of 6" so just multiply by 2/3. A 36" move is now 24". Works for me.

You aren't missing anything by the letter.

What you are missing is that just because you get a triple move doesn't mean you'll use it, or want to use it.

Suppose you get a triple move with your first roll on the first turn with a brigade of troops. Do you take it, knowing that your next roll to command a unit could end as a blunder and no other unit in your army can move? In a sense, being allowed a triple move can cause more mistakes than would be possible in a system that always moved you the same old amount reliably.

Secondly, the manner in which orders have to be given might often limit some triple moves. For example, your order might be to advance to the road and then form into line. You could go further if you got a triple move but you don't want to overcommit. In our play, we got a lot of triple moves that could not be used because the orders didn't cover that eventuality, on purpose.

Finally, these rules are for gamers that want to get stuck in quickly. They don't want us spending an hour marching toward each other. What is wrong, the writers might ask, with fighting on turn one?

You have to order your troops before finding out how many moves you get to fulfil the orders … yes in theory you can charge heavy brigade like across the table but to do anything useful it would have to be ordered to charge (in general terms but still) and then if you only get 2 orders off you are left screwed in the middle of nowhere …

Also you need more room – a lot of the games in the book are played down the 9-12 foot table or at least on a 6' table often with troops 'coming' on (which makes the risk of taking one brigade flying down the table even greater).

On a 5 by 9 I'd be cutting the ranges down a bit – we play on a 4x3 but using cm in 10mm (so about the same proportions) and have not found charging across first move even if possible to be that useful once the novelty of occassionally being able to do it gives :)

However the rules are made to get stuck in quickly – sort of built in fog of war we have been finding !

So, really, are you guys joking with us when you suggest a 5' x 9' table is considered SMALL in BP? And you'd need to adjust movement distances if playing on such a SMALL table? You cant be serious?

I'm blessed with a library and dedicated gaming room where I can make up a 7' x 11' battlefield with folding tables but many people have a lot less space than me.

Can I suggest that this fact, if widely known, might somewhat limit the market potential of BP.

It is stated plainly in the intro to the rules and in interviews etc the distances in the rules assume a big table 9x6 and up, the norm seems 12x6 …

However it also says that people not blessed with such a size can adjust the distances and the mechanics work as well … in the end though playing on 28mm on a 6x4 is not going to give the real feel of the game no matter what one does. On a 8x6 most games would be OK anything less width wise would need the distances reigning in as 24" infantry movement is not uncommon (could be 36").

We play in 10mm on a 4x3 in cm equating to a 10x7 ish table and the game is a delight.

We halved the distances/movement rates for our test game last friday and played on an 8 x 4.

Cracking set of rules, best game of Naps we have had for ages and five of us finished a big game in a few hours.

Well impressed with the system.

I think your table ia reasonable size, and the game will work.

There's apossiblity that you can march a unit across the table on turn one and fire. There's a larger possiblity that the rest of your army won't be able to keep up.

So just because you can march one unit right across and into action, do you do it?

What about some sort of support, what about softening the enemy up first? What about a reserve if things go wrong??

Big multi moves are abundant in many games, from the first bound Psiloi ambush in DBA, to lighthorse subsequent moves in DBM, to getting a good run of cards in card driven games, like LFS/Sharp practice, etc, through to rolling well in warmaster or BKC.

You can do it, but do you?

That's the sort of question I like rules to ask me.

Si

Sounds like these rules enjoy giving you enough rope to hang yourself!

As Surferdude said:

"It is stated plainly in the intro to the rules and in interviews etc the distances in the rules assume a big table 9x6 and up, the norm seems 12x6 …"

However, that's a bit of a cop out as you need to see this before you buy and you can't or may not be able to. There again, that's the case for a lot of rules and their potential players, so I guess you shouldn't nail BP with that one.

The more important thing is that BP is not a "button counter" set of rules. So far, short of complete anarchy, I have yet to find or see anything in the rules that could be adjusted that would wreck the way they work (and they work very well).

Yes, this does mean you could find different players have different 'house rules' but these are not meant for competition use so does that really matter?

All measured distances in the rules be they movement, shooting or involved in combat/moral tests, are easily divisible by 2,3,4 and 6 so scaling is not a problem.

The authors have taken an approach on a style of gaming that features 28mm figures and obviously find that from their perspective big figures in big units need big moves.

That is not the case, we play Warmaster Ancients with 28mm units and the standard distances from the book and our games have been warmly received at national conventions for how they look and play but that is on a 12x6 table.

It really is just a matter of choice. The only point where figure scale becomes a problem for any game set is the ratio between the surface area of your table and the amount of space taken up by the units themselves. Trying to play any rules with 25 – 30 28mm units of, say 24 figures, on a 6x4 rather than a 12x6 is ridiculous.

Reducing the figure scale to 15mm or less solves the problem, as does playing a small 28mm action if that's what you prefer.

I would politely suggest that anyone who has large 28mm Armies that they want to field every time they play and only has access to a 6x4 might have considered the implications of this some time ago!

Becks Dark,

Halve all ranges and movement distances and then try again. It won't mess up the rules.

Also, if you are playing in 18th Century don't worry about Assault Columns you shouldn't be using them anyway!

"It is stated plainly in the intro to the rules and in interviews etc the distances in the rules assume a big table 9x6 and up, the norm seems 12x6 …"

In the UK, that would be a BIG table, the like of which you will only see at a club, if at all.

Most wargamers in the UK use tables of 6x4 or smaller…

"Halve all ranges and movement distances and then try again. It won't mess up the rules."

To keep things in proportion, you'll probably have to halve the unit sizes as well.

The use of really big tables has been one feature that they certainly did not keep from the public.

Everything I've read on the Warlord site about the game has made the intended size very clear.

While I have no such table, I do not begrudge folks releasing rules that cater to that size any more than I do to rules that cater to 2 foot by 2 foot tables.

I can halve the movement rates, weapon ranges, etc.

But is a Line of infantry really moving 36"? And the only difference between it and a march column is that the latter is simply *more likely* to get to move 36"?

And why can cavalry move faster than its commanding general?

I don't mind making adjustments for a game, but I was sort of hoping I could play it "out of the box" without having to try to guess how to re-write it, first.

sounds like these are 28mm for the US market and 15mm for the UK market.

I don't own BP, but I do own and play Piquet:Field of Battle, which is similar to BP in that a unit can move 1-3 times based on a die roll. In FOB, the base infantry line move is 8", so you could move 24" on a triple move (cavalry base move is 12" so 36"). FOB makes it even MORE random as the sequence of play is jumbled up via a card deck, so you could actually pull 3 or 4 movement cards in a row – and if you rolled triple moves every time you could get like 12 moves in a row (so cav could move 144"). Having played several games of FOB on a 5'x8' table, it's not as bad as it seems. Experienced players rarely take full advantage of such moves. If your big move doesn't work out as expected, you're left hanging out for a counter attack. Secondly, in FOB your opponent can opportunity fire as you move. In FOB, a single combat die roll can do absolutely nothing or it could completely wreck a unit – so if you go charging in without local superiority you could find your units streaming to the rear.

From what I've read of BP it's more tame than FOB. First off, you'll never get more than a triple move before your opponent can react since it's still an "IGO UGO" system, just with random move distances. Secondly, and this is the kicker, in BP you need to announce what your unit intends to do BEFORE you find out how far it can move. So if you state "my unit will move all the way from my base edge to your base edge, wheel left and attack you on the flank" and then you don't roll that triple move, your unit will move out to the center of the table and then sit in the open and possibly be shot to pieces. And if you stated that "my unit will move 12 inches to the top of the ridge and defend it" and you then roll the triple move, your unit will still only move the 12" to the ridge and then stop – losing the extra moves. So between that and doing what carne68 mentioned (reduce the base distances by a third) then you should have no problem playing on a smaller table – including a 6'x4' table.

"To keep things in proportion, you'll probably have to halve the unit sizes as well."

The unit size in the game is pretty much irrelevant. The authors suggest 24 man units as standard but you could play with four figures in a unit if you wanted to as long as you could make them form line, column, attack column and square and if you are playing a period where those don't really aply you wouldn't even need to do that.

So halving the unit sizes for this game would be completely unecessary.

its the halving of the unit footprint which was being suggested.

if you have a 24 man unit in 28mm – on 4 cm square bases probably- and you halve movement down to a normal 6 " move, its going to look really screwey.

since the figures don't shrink, the suggestion is halve the unit size to match.

or down scale to 15mm

I have the rules, not played them yet but am planning to halve distances and use 16 figures for standard sized units with my 28mm ACW.

Your cavalry, at full movement rate, cannot outrun your general if you don't want it to. It is entirely a problem only if you allow it to be a problem and move them max distance because you can.

Think of the possible distance that cavalry can go beyond the maximum distance of the general as their 'out of control speed'

If you are imagining it to be a problem with 'why can a formation get their horses to move faster than a single rider' then I can only say 'get over it'. It is much more a game than a simulation.

"If you are imagining it to be a problem with 'why can a formation get their horses to move faster than a single rider' then I can only say 'get over it'. It is much more a game than a simulation."

At least cavalry move faster than infantry …

But is a Line of infantry really moving 36"? And the only difference between it and a march column is that the latter is simply *more likely* to get to move 36"?

That's not the only difference.

A column is far easier to move a long distance than a line – hence armies march in column. Hence you get more chance of a march column moving smoothly to it's objective than a line. I'm not sure what the beef is there, seems obvious to me.

However, when it gets there a March column may not shoot and is one dice down in fighting. It also suffers a -2 for morale testing.

So you might be better moving up in column, deploying to line when closer and then advancing on the enemy. I'd also use a skirmisher screen and artillery on the way in. Maybe keep a reserve too, just incase things go wrong. Ideally have cavalry waiting in the wings to mop up the ruoted enemy.

I have a feeling your just looking for issues that are not really a problem unless you want them to be. If you play by skipping unsupported march columns across the whole board in to static lines then I am sure you'll learn a rather historical lesson.
There's a difference between 'I can' and 'I will'.

I've only read though these rules so far, I'm planning a 10mm game next week. To me they look like they are based on warmaster with some freethinking ideas to reduce geometry and exact unit/base size issues. I like warmaster and I like free thinking.

I've got LFS3 coming too, so it'll be enjoyable to compare the two on the table.

As for cavalry outstripping a General – happened all the time didn't it? British cavalry were off and away, out of reach most of the time.
Cavalry are for galloping, Generals are for commanding.

Si

OK, so Wellington is not a cavalry commander…
What the generals range limit does is show that if you gallop cavalry for too long you're likely to lose the coherent command and organisation of the unit.
So you don't move your cavalry unit fiurther than the general can catch up, unless it's a very specific situation where you can clean up safely without using command – so within initiative range.

Becks Dark
Yes you are missing something.
First off your comment about moving into contact on turn 1 without being shot at is wrong. Turn to page 51 and read the rules on Closing Fire. Continue on through the Traversing Targets rule.
Might I also recomend fighting your next battle with your troops coming in on the 5 foot end of your table. This will give you 4 more feet of table to be fought over.
Dennis

"So you might be better moving up in column, deploying to line when closer and then advancing on the enemy. I'd also use a skirmisher screen and artillery on the way in. Maybe keep a reserve too, just in case things go wrong. Ideally have cavalry waiting in the wings to mop up the routed enemy."

Whoa! Steady that man, this sounds like History!

Tactics even!

I think I have spotted the flaw in BP thinking – they don't lay the world on a plate and tell you how to run things to be 'historical' and yet they are capable of giving an historical game.

Players therefore have to have knowledge of their period to cope – The Horror!

Well done to "bendsinister" for his grasp of whats needed!

>> I can only say 'get over it'.

>> your just looking for issues that are not really a problem unless you want them to be

>> I have spotted the flaw in BP thinking – they don't lay the world on a plate and tell you how to run things

My My. One would think that I'd insulted somebody's mother.

I'm actually not "looking for problems" nor do I need the world laid out on a plate. I'm just not so sure about using a rule set for 18th century warfare in which an Infantry line can outrun a march column or a cavalry unit, and advance across a table in one move before being fired upon once by the enemy.

>> Players therefore have to have knowledge of their period to cope – The Horror!

If I didn't have some knowledge of the period, then I'd have never raised the questions, now would I? If I were totally ignorant of 18th century warfare, I'd probably think that Black Powder worked just fine.

Since I'm not going to get a bigger gaming space in this lifetime, and since I'm not keen on trying to rewrite a ruleset to get it to work right on my "too small" 5X9 table, that leaves me a bit frustrated with Black Powder.

But since raising these questions seems for some people to be a direct challenge to their religious beliefs, I'll just leave it at that.

Since I'm not going to get a bigger gaming space in this lifetime, and since I'm not keen on trying to rewrite a ruleset to get it to work right on my "too small" 5X9 table, that leaves me a bit frustrated with Black Powder.

No rewrite of the rules is required. Just make up a hasty modified move/fire distance chart or instead of inches use cms.

Becks Dark. Do not insult the Emperor's New Clothes.

BP are ideal for any table size, any scale of figures, any war in a 200 year period from muskets to magazine rifles. And any spelling errors therin are not errors but intentional and the English language will forthwith be changed to accomodate these changes as per the Word of Rick.

Frankly I think you should consider the safety of your soul after some of your comments.

"But is a Line of infantry really moving 36"? And the only difference between it and a march column is that the latter is simply *more likely* to get to move 36"?"

I think that actually IS the point. In most rules, the difference between the times a line and a column take to travel the same distance is done by giving each a different *maximum* move distance.

In BP, the difference in time a line and a column travel the same distance is done by making it more likely that the column will be able to arrive at its required destination sooner than the line will, no matter whether at minimum or maximum move distance.

To me, the BP system seems more realistic. In real life, I think a line may reach its destination later not because the men necessarily march any slower, but because it often stops to align itself as it meets rough going of any sort. So, depending on the amount and type of such rough going (most of which will be too small to be represented on a wargames table), it is less likely to achieve its destination in time.

The column does not have these difficulties to the same degree, so it can usually reach its destination sooner. This is not because the men march any faster, but because the formation means that it is less likely to be hindered by rough going from following its orders.

I'm just not so sure about using a rule set for 18th century warfare in which an Infantry line can outrun a march column or a cavalry unit, and advance across a table in one move before being fired upon once by the enemy.

These things are possible in any set of rules.
If I don't move my column then your line will 'outrun' it, what ever that means. Unless the rules specifically detail that you MSUT move every unit every turn.

Advancing across the table in one go with a single volley in reply – it happened. I read only last night that the French under Paradis at St Thome did it. It's a risky move but given the right circumstances it can win the day. Why should a rule set forbid it because infantry only get to move 100 paces per turn.

I'm not holding up BP as an example of the ultimate 'new' ruleset, I am just explaining that it provides opportunities for inventive and intelligent play. This is similar to card driven games where you can play the percentages, initiative swapping games and the variable order length games like WM. Sometimes you get opportunities, sometimes you don't – similar to real life.

It can be a frightening thing to confront a 'new' idea head on, if you've always played straightforward IGOUGO games where I move everything and then you move everything, then this is a leap of faith. Just because you can move again and again doesn't mean you have too unless it's favourable. The whole 'giving oders' thing means that you have to determine an objective prior to testing for the order. If your order is for the march colmn to march as fast and as far towards the enemy as possible, then they will see some return action from the enemy when they stop short. If they do hit, then they are not in a favourable formation to attack, so the odds are stacked against you – think it through, is it sensible? You CAN do it – should you?

For me it's a sensile decision, one I'd only get wrong once. I'd prefer NOT to have the rules make this impossible because I lke to think through the options. I'm newish to Napoleonics and ECW, I'm learning the tactics by making the mistakes on the field. I've had line after line cut down in one game by cavalry; now I know what squares are for. I've had villages held by skirmishers hold back massive attack columns; now I know how to work my light troops and artillery to prepare an objective prior to an attack with reserve.

Before you decry this concept as broken, give it a go. If you play it out and witness something that doesn't work then report back.

I wouldn't be too worried about table size, it seems you have enough area to have a good time. Of the limited number of scenarios in the book; one is on an 8x6 and another on a 9x5 – exactly as you have. So, even the authors down size and get away with it.

Go on; put the figures down on the 9x5 table and then pick holes if you find any.

Si

I'm going with a number of posters on here and playing it in 10mm on a 6x4.

I played a 28mm AWI game last week on a 6x4 table with a british force of three battalions, a unit of jagers and a light dragoon unit against an american force of two militia units, two rifle units (small), a light dragoon unit and three continental battalions. We stuck to the distances in the rulebook and it all worked fine.

GreenLeader and Becks Dark

"Do not insult the Emperor's New Clothes"

Very amusing but the truth is that we are subject to this kind of 'debate' every time a new set of rules pops over the horizon and as many go out of their way to rubbish a new idea as they do to applaud it.

While in we here on this thread wrangle over the rights and wrongs of a 36" move, on the various threads that have appeared welcoming "Lasalle" others are happily embracing the concept of "Base Widths" as the standard unit of measurement!

Over recent years gamers have progressively (?) turned their collective backs on any concept that involves accurate frontages for units, accurate movement based on real march speeds and pretty much every concept of drill as performed in the Horse and Musket period.

All of which we are told make the game too slow and too and too complicated to be fun or playable. As such most concepts of period warfare and its associated mechanics have gone out the window.

I therefore find it completely hilarious to be having a discussion on what may or may not be 18th or even 19th Century warfare on the wargames table.

On the "Warmaster Horse & Musket" thread 'colinjallen' mentioned that he had seen a BP game where "some of the outcomes of the rules mechanisms seemed distinctly unhistorical" but for what ever reason he did not care to say what these were.

Becks Dark has restricted himself to the issue of two aspects of movement speeds to decry the apparent lack of suitability of the rules for 18th Century warfare neither of which hold water.

Is it any wonder that those who like what the rules are trying to do, or God Forbid, have actually played them, are getting a bit steamed?

Movement in these rules is unashamedly representative as are weapon ranges. As with any rules that offer unpredictable movement it is supposed to represent the 'friction' of the battlefield – bungled commands, lost orders, variable terrain that's not physically represented and a hundred other things that screw up the real world.

Hence the fact that a line reaches a given point before a column due to a disparity in dice rolls need not be a major failure in the baseline distance allocated to each individual move.

Try the game and/or come up with some factual historic s please.

BTW:If you think this debate biased, please read the "Lasalle" pieces – Sam must be squirming with embarrassment, or maybe he truly is "currently the best wargames rules writer" (No offense Sam) although I guess its nice to be appreciated!

By way of explanation, the Bleep Machine has taken offense to the mention of the noun for a male chicken moving in an upward direction!

Sometimes I really do despair!

[please read the "Lasalle" pieces – Sam must be squirming with embarrassment, or maybe he truly is "currently the best wargames rules writer" (No offense Sam) although I guess its nice to be appreciated!]

I'm channeling P.T. Barnum at the moment, and just being glad that the attention is positive… knowing full well that it will cause an inevitable backlash within a week or less – just cuz – during which the game will be disparaged as being good for little more than catbox lining.

PS – I think the Black Powder movement rules are very clever.

Sam

PSS – Wait a second… Are you insinuating that I'm NOT the greatest?

YouTube link

Greetings

People get a bit excited by rules. There's no one true way.

I've bought Black Powder and I have Lasalle on order (skimmed a copy on Saturday) and have LFS III on order as well.

I think it's true to say that BP is designed to produce a fast enjoyable game that can cater for a wide-ish range of horse and musket games. It was also created pretty much by a gaming group that is comfortable with the way they play. It's natural that some will find this to be what they want and others won't. The potential 3 moves is as much about getting the action moving as it is creating friction (it can be a way of hanging one of your brigades out to dry with flanks in the air …).

Lasalle (which looks very good BTW Sam) has its own acknowledged abstractions and LFS likewise.

Me, I intend to try out all three on the table before I come to a conclusion – and that conclusion will partly be based on my own biases.

Regards

Edward

Hey Sam!

Never figured you for a Rap fan!

How about you trying to print the lyrics on TMP and see how many words are left at the end of it! :o)

"Me, I intend to try out all three on the table before I come to a conclusion – and that conclusion will partly be based on my own biases."

Sounds fair to me – the only one I havem't got yet is Lassalle.

On the "Warmaster Horse & Musket" thread 'colinjallen' mentioned that he had seen a BP game where "some of the outcomes of the rules mechanisms seemed distinctly unhistorical" but for what ever reason he did not care to say what these were.

I often wonder about 'historical' results. From my limited knowledge of the period I have seen quite a few recorded examples of wildly different historical results for similar situations.
Some things are supposed to be constant, but even then there'll be an exception. Squares don't get broken by cavalry – someone will trot out the one or two documented occaisions where they were.
Artillery are destroyed if overrun by infantry – yet Assaye sees guns over-run and then used again by the enemy.
Column beats line as often as line beats column. Poor troops never stand. Guard always win…

What exactly are historical outcomes or results?

If we use a die to add chance to a result are we not inviting exceptions to the table?

By taking command of our armies are we not removing the genius of Napoleon? OK maybe we can move 36 inches a go, but do we know what to do with our troops who are now 36 inches away in the same way Napoleon would? How can I hope to get the same historical results as him, even if I am classed as 'gifted' in the rules – I may actually be 'daft' in reality…

Do we rely on complex rules interactions to 'force' historical results or do we have to play historical to get historical results??
Si

Another point. In the rules you have to give units a fairly detailed spoken order BEFORE finding out how many moves they will get. If that order is to advance as far as possible across the table or to take a distant hill – and then you get only one move – you have rather given away the plot to your opponent and will have to suffer the consequences :-)

Gents,

Awaiting my copy of BP.

A question re unit representation. I believe the game allows a flexible unit representation ie one unit is a battalion, regiment (ie x3 Bns) or brigade. Is that correct? Or is the game very much one unit is a battalion, cavalry regiment and artillery battery?

What would be a standard sized unit in 28mm based on the authors frontages ie how many stands represent a average or standard unit and what frontage would that be…40mm per base??

I have all my troops based on 1"x1" bases – I'd like to keep the same proportion of game as the 12'x6' table. Thus a 2/3 change of scale to my 25mm bases would keep the game table proportions correct.

I'd like to do historical battles on a larger scale such as the battle of Shiloh. The command and control at this level is where the command system shows through. If the basic unit can be designated as a brigade then this would seem possible. Is that possible and have players played historical battles and OBs to a satisfactory conclusion?

Any thoughts on the above would be greatly appreciated.'

Regrds

Happy Wanderer.

FWIW there was a BP (7YW) game at our club last night in 10mm on a 'normal UK' table – 6 x 4, playing sideways.

they seemed to have no problems whatsoever with halving distances – but they did halve (more than) the figure scale as well.

I'm hoping one of the players will post a more detailed report later today on it here. (I was too busy getting Alexander killed again to say more about it, sadly.)

Keraunos
Did they half distances or play with cm instead of inches??
Si

We play on a 4x3 in 10mm using cm and use a 90mm frontage (which is about right when scaling down) – we have played quite a few of the book scenarios as are and it works fine.

Playing in 15mm on a 6x4 using halve distances seems to work fine as well.

not sure, but probably cms – they were using 4 x 30mm square bases for most units I could see.

This thread has been a real eye opener for me and has lead me to rethink how I look at rules systems.
I was wondering how does or could Black Powder show an operational difference between a French and early 19th century Austrian army? Are there options in the rules that can give that sort of period flavour?

Surferdude, can i ask about how many units you would use on the 4x3 table?
regards
Max

To put a difference between 1805 Austrian and French, I might do something like this:

French will get +1 to follow orders if in attack column.

Austrian brigade commanders might be given the Low Independence trait (unless advance guard) which means they are -1 on command rolls if they roll before their army commander but can reroll blunders.

I'd give Austrian jager the sharpshooter ability

Just coming out of the Boulogne camp, I'd give the French 'valiant' which gives them one free break test reroll

My goodness these rules have some depth and flexibility to them.
I had originally thought that they would be much too generic to suit me for Napoleonic play. But they instead seem capable of bringing great character to the armies you field. I wonder if the authors are considering releasing army lists in the future?
Thanks Malcolm.
Max

We use the same number of units as any of the games in the book – using cm instead of inches and 10mm figs the 'size' of our table is around 11' by 7' in rule terms … the number of units is the same so normally about 5-7 'brigades' with about 4 or five 'units' in each one so around 30-35 units I suppose.

MS there are a few player based lists beginning to appear on the warlords forum and our yahoo group … Pike and Shotte are getting a version of the rules apparently.