"First game LASALLE rules" Topic

,My first game of Lasalle. OK this was just a quite game with a few troops. The France had 6 battalions of 4 bases each formed into 2 brigades with a battery of 3 guns in support and a hussar regiment of 6 bases.
Their enemy was made up of 1 battalion of Russian infantry of 4 bases and 3 battalions of Austrian infantry also of 4 bases each, in support a 3 gun battery and a battalion of Austrian grenadiers of 4 bases.
The French had the honor of attacking.
The French started with artillery fire with no effect, their hussar regiment moved forward trying to get on the flank of the Austrian right.The French infantry in mixed order formation started to move forward( this was my 1st mistake) with a move of 2 inches it would take the French an age to get across the table.
The Austrians opened up with artillery fire to no effect.
Move 2. Again the French opened with artillery fire with no effect needing 4+ at long range. The hussars moved forward along with the ever slow infantry.
The Austrians artillery fired giving the French right battalion 1 disruption point.
Move 3. The French hussars charge. The Austrian infantry pass a test and form square, the combat was just non t and the hussars had to fall back with 1 disruption. The artillery of both sides fires again with no effect. The French infantry move up.
Move 4.The French artillery targets the Austrian infantry in square formation ( please note there are no + points for this type of target) again there is no effect. The French infantry moves forward. The Austrian artillery fires and the French infantry take 1 disruption.
Move 5. The French artillery limbers up, the hussars dice for their disruption and are back in the game and move forward. ( yet again a set of rules in which cavalry can just ride all over the place). The French right hand brigade stops to dice for their disruption and removes this.
The Austrian artillery open fires again with no effect, the 2nd Austrian infantry battalion seeing the hussars riding towards them form square.
Move 6. The hussars charge the Austrian Square and draw in the combat. The table for inconclusive combat on on page 135, just gives reactions for winners and losers, not much help. I just moved the hussars back again.
Move 7. Yet again the French move forwards and the Austrian fire had no effect, by this time i was getting bored so moved the figures into musket range, i.e. 4 inches.
The French opened fire with 8 dice to the Russians 4, forcing the Russians to break in the combat, Note there are no plus points for support, or generals etc.
On the French right the fire fight was a draw with no effect on each side, the combat was also a draw, again I had no idea what was to happen and give up the game.
What do I think of these rules, Well they just leave too much out, they are more like slow fast play rules, will I play again, well NO. I just did not like them at all.
michael

With respect, I think you may have misunderstood some rules. That's understandable for a first game, playing solo. If this helps:

1) It probably would have been a good idea not to try to move across the whole table with infantry in Line formation, but rather to advance in columns, and then when you get close, change to Lines, as was done historically. If you do that, you can move to contact in two of your turns. (That's what the movement rates and recommended table size were geared for.)

2) I'm not sure what a "Draw" in combat is, since that's not part of the combat results. If you mean that each side rolled the same number of hits, then as per "Inconclusive Result" (page 59), the defender wins: the loser takes 1 DISR and falls back. The list of outcomes that follows should cover all possible situations. (What happens if you're in Square, what happens if you countercharged, etc.)

3) It appears you might not have located the combat or shooting modifiers. For instance:

"The French artillery targets the Austrian infantry in square formation (please note there are no + points for this type of target)"

- Actually, Roundshot gets double dice vs. Square. (p.46-47, and again on the QRS in the back)

"Note there are no plus points for support, or generals etc."

- Actually, Combat modifiers are located on p.55-56, and the modifiers for generals' tactics/skill are on pp. 72-73. The game's concept for "support modifiers" is explained on p.129.

4) " the hussars dice for their disruption and are back in the game and move forward. ( yet again a set of rules in which cavalry can just ride all over the place)."

- Bear in mind the 1DISR suffered by cavalry in *every* combat result, even if they win. Cavalry actually gets tired very quickly.

5) "so moved the figures into musket range, i.e. 4 inches. The French opened fire with 8 dice to the Russians 4, forcing the Russians to break in the combat"

I'm not sure what's going on here. From your description, it appears that you may have confused the shooting with the melee combat? There is no way to break a unit in shooting, when rolling 8 dice, since 9 hits are required to break outright, just from shooting (an astronomical number, usually requiring you to stick your head into canister range of multiple batteries.)

On the other hand, this sounds like it was also a melee combat? In that case, I'm not sure why the Russians were only rolling 4 dice. They should have started with 8, and then – assuming they had no bonuses for terrain, esprit, etc., the only possible negative modifiers would have been -1 each for DISRs. But they couldn't possibly have more than three DISRs (a four-base unit breaks when it takes a 4th DISR), there's no way they could have had 4 dice.

In any event, as I said, it's quite understandable that playing a new game by onesself, for the first time, one will miss some rules or get some things confused. If you're genuinely interested, I invite you to the Lasalle Forum at:

sammustafa.com/honour/forum

Tanks for getting back, one question whats the point of having quick play rules if you need to keep looking back into the book.
I just did not like these rules, at all. sorry

[Tanks for getting back, one question whats the point of having quick play rules if you need to keep looking back into the book. ]

Well, unless you have extraordinary mnemonic powers, then I assume that on your very first game, and with nobody else there to help you, you'd probably have to consult the book a few times, yes?

That is, after all, what rulebooks are for.

But I can assure you that the game plays a bit differently when it is played correctly! [wink]

You miss the point, The fact that I as you don,t have mnemonic powers, it would of been a btter to cut out over a 130 pages of pictures. and have a bit more on the quick play sheets and not just 4 large text pages. Just far to much is left out of these rules to make for an interesting game. I feel it is trying to all be all things to all men and just not cutting it.
michael

Well I have to say the Lasalle forum has taken off quickly.

The rules look great and I am planning to test my Escape to Valdelacasa scenario with them in the next week or 2. I have 3 out of the 4 new rulebooks now and the Lasalle rules certainly are the best laid out. The diagrammes are fantastic.

What actually does the term "quick play rules" mean and is Lasalle supposed to be quick play rules?

John

fuentesdeonoro.blogspot.com

Give it up Sam. You can't help those who won't help themselves :)

I guess I'm having trouble following the evolving nature of the complaint.

If the game would have been better, cut down to a much smaller quick-play set, then it doesn't make much sense to complain that "too much is left out."

And if too much has been left out, it doesn't make much sense to complain that "it is trying to be all things to all men."

But for what it's worth, the many, many gameplay illustrations in the book were a conscious decision to try to "show, not tell" the rules as often as possible, while also making it pretty.

And when people do in fact play the rules as written, the experience is somewhat different from that described above.

best wishes,
Sam

Times like this I wish we both still had suppurating membership :)

I agree with Connard Sage! I would let this one go Sam, I see little point in responding.

John

Just for Terry1956 – Shortest rules I can find…

"Shut Up and Roll
Wargame Rules for: Small Figures, Fictitious Armies, Impatient Players
By Generalissimo Dan Damianoff, of the Canadas.
Units: All on 3" by 1½ to 2" bases. Infantry: 12 figures; Skirmishers: 4; Cavalry: 4; Artillery, 1 crewed gun; Generals: 1 figure plus aides. Organize into Brigades and Divisions. Figures are not removed.
Sequence: (1) Side A moves then Side B moves. (2) Firing: simultaneous except that non movers fire before movers. (3) Side A declares a charge on one unit and resolves combat before moving, then side B does the same, repeat until done. (4) Divisional Generals now take over for lost Brigadiers. The turn ends.
Moving: Generals/Cavalry/Horse Artillery move up to 12" (6" to unlimber) Infantry/Artillery move up to 6" (3" to unlimber)Modifiers: -1" per 2 hits, -1D6" if more than 6" from its general or if its general is lost, -2" in rough terrain (except skirmishers). About face is 3", all other maneuvers are by wheeling.
Firing: Straight ahead only, nick the target stand to be eligible. Firer and Target roll 1D6, modify as follows:
Per hit -1 Superior troops +1 Musket: 3" At or by skirmishers -2 Inferior Troops -1 Rifle: 5" Canister +2 Superior fire drill +1 Canister: 4" At target in cover -1Versus flank +1 Shot: 12" Result: If the modified firer's roll is greater than the modified target's roll, the target takes one hit. If the firer's modified roll is greater than six more than the target, the target is eliminated. Melee: Charge Range is 3" for Cavalry, 1" for Infantry. Each unit involved rolls 1D6, modified as follows: Per hit, inferior unit, at target in cover:-1 Superior unit, Guards,defending obstacle:+1 Charging flank:+2 Charging same type (ie cavalry vs cavalry):+1 Cavalry charges infantry, infantry charges artillery:+2 Cavalry charges Artillery: +3 Cavalry against Lighter Cavalry:+1 Result: If the attacker and defender are less than three different, there is no attack and the charger does not move. If a unit loses by between three and six, it turns, retreats a full move, passing through friends, and takes one hit, if blocked by enemies or terrain it is eliminated. If a unit loses by seven or more it is eliminated. A victorious charger occupies the defender's space. Victorious defenders do not move."

Still prefer Lasalle…

Sorry chaps, the rules are rubbish.

Sorry to hear that. Wanna sell your set cheap?

You say rubbish after one game?

And, it was a game when you clearly missed all of the key rules which you complained about?

I think that says more about the reviewer than the rules.

by comparison, which rules do you like? so we have a valid basis for comparison.

terry1956 ignore these guys. How much do you want fer your rule book?

Sorry chaps, the rules are rubbish.

I'll give you 20 quid for it, and I'll pay postage

kawa.jeff@ btopenworld. com (close the spaces)

This is shaping up to be the funniest TMP thread of the week:

"Scathing, angry review results in bidding-war for game!"

Now presumably he HAS the book to sell…? (nothing in the original post mentioned anything other than the Quick Reference Sheets, which are available for free on the website.)

On the other hand, if he reviewed the game without actually *having* it, then it's funny enough to put in my Greatest Hits of Crazy Wargamers album…

true Sam, except you don't get the sale…

hence my question – whcih rules does michael like?

For example, if he says he likes WRG 1645-1845 (or whatever it was) it will affect my decision on whether to pay closer attention to his review, and hence whether it colours my purchase decision in the new year.

If the reviewer's reading skills are on a par with his spelling and typing skills, I am not surprised that he missed so much.

OK

One person playing solo doesn't like the rules.

Hardly a validly representative sample.

Sorry chaps, the rules are rubbish.

Oh, well that settles it then. :)

Sorry chaps, the rules are rubbish.

Oh, well that settles it then. :)

Not quite. You still need capital letters or bold font.

John,
Lets be nice.
John(nappy)

Holy Crap… Call me slow (it was a sleepy morning), but for some reason I didn't figure this out until just now.

Terry1956 doesn't have the rulebook ??

He downloaded the free QRS sheets from the website and tried to play just from those. That's why he messed so many things up and complained that things weren't adequately explained. That's why his initial post only makes reference to one page (135), which is from the QRS, not the book. That's why he says things about "130 pages of pictures," which obviously aren't true (since most of the "pictures" are actually "how-to" diagrams explaining how the game works.) And that's why he demanded that the game rules ought to all be on the quick-play sheets, not the book.

I must be getting senile, to have missed that in the initial post. Well, Inspector Colombo I aint'!

This just keeps getting funnier. Last week people were complaining about all the game reviews by people who hadn't played the games. Now we've apparently reached a new level: Reviews by people who haven't even READ the game!

Awesome. Just… awesome.

Well to tell the truth I don't think "terry1956" bought the rules. He most likely down loaded the free tables from the web site and atempted to play the game. Nice try though.

Just goes to show how far some folks will go to get attention.

Absolutely bizarre!!!

This is definitely going in the Greatest Hits Album.

I'm laughing too hard to be angry.

Connard and MadMonkey… I have some bad news about your bidding war for the "used" copy….

You gotta admire the cheek of some people.

I have the book, its just not very good, try playing the game, leaves so much out its not real.
I should also point out that the lasalle rent a mob can take the P… as much as they like the rules are not good.
I say again whats the point of having 136 pages of diagrams and pictures and some very very large text, and out of this pages 132 to 135 are the QPS, now to my mind QPS should have all the factors on them to play the game, these don,t.
also when you look at the shooting sheet, what happens if the target is cavalry, artillery being fored at my formed infantry, why does open terrain effect irregular infantry or rought terrain for that matter, the factors are all about terrain, what about drill, that was an overriding factor, DRILL. then we have it that firefight leads to combat, ir close bayonet combat. if you look at the combat rsults table, Inconclusive, loser takes 1 DISR per inf or cav unit. Well if the combats INCONCLUSIVE there are NO winners or losers are there. work that out.
Generals don,t count. morale is well none realy, the units just run, and with know generals just keep running.

Once again someone has proven that there is no intelligent life on the planet. Please shut off the lights and move on.

I feel inspired. I may start reviewing games using just reference sheets and sample pages offered on publisher websites!

Some serious mob mentality here.

It seems obvious that Terry1956 has rushed to a judgement and has been foolish enough to publish it on TMP.

This precipitate action would not appear to add to his credibility as a critic of rules systems.

However, with time, he maybe proved to be right. In that case do not forget the naive common sense of the little boy who called out that the Emperor (Napoleonic or otherwise) had no clothes.

I tried to play a set of rules based on a playsheet I found in a bin at Historicon, which I stuffed in my trouser pocket. After I washed my laundry, I found the remains of the playsheet.

I set up a solo game but half the rules were blurred, and a bit had torn off. Plus, I stepped on them with muddy boots, and my dog ran off with them for a couple of hours.

The game wasn't very good. The rules I could actually read didn't cover a lot of situations in the game.

The designer must have been a fool.

Jeremy, I'm an old gaming warhorse, so I'm fully aware that there's a natural arc in game reviews, in which people spend a couple of weeks all excited and happy and full of praise, and then a couple of weeks snorting in contempt and trashing the very same game, and then they move on to something else. I would never be so naîve to think that any of my games would be immune to that cycle.

I'm also aware that it's a natural gamer impulse that if a set seems to be getting popular, it brings out more vehement criticism in spite. When you get up to the levels of Foundry or GW or FOW, you find people convinced that they're the antichrist.

But you have to admit that it's sort of a new low when somebody "reviews" a game without having read the rules!

I mean, you have to wonder what inspires somebody to go to the effort to trash someone else's work on the internet without having even seen it. I'm not going to play the role of Angry Schoolmaster and say, "Okay Terry, if you really have the book, then what's on page 52?" But come on!

If you read my first responses to him, I initially thought, "this poor guy is really confused; let me try to explain…" When it dawned on me what the actual situation was, well, I just decided not to waste any grey hairs getting angry about it.

People have been playing, liking, and disliking, my games for years. It's perfectly normal. This sort of malicious foolishness, though… well, it's not the honest little boy who said the emperor had no clothes, and I sure hope it's not become the new "normal."

wargamers with no clothes on.

yuckie !

I'm having a rather interesting email exchange with the OP. He appears to have…issues.

But he has a point – I tried out these rules and they were a complete waste of time, absolutely nowhere does it include any modifiers for my zulus or what to do when the Ninja realises his mission is impossible.
How I am supposed to play? Buy some soldier figures or soemthing? Lets face it they suck.

Issues? SEN ones by the sounds.
I had a few rules when reviewing rules for WJ and others … never review without playing at least twice – get in touch with the author if I had any issues incase I had missed something and give them the right to reply anyway and the GOLDEN ONE … if I hated the rules don't bother running the review as who am I to say I am right and they are rubbish … all it proves is that I didn't like them.

To me it sounds like the OP either wanted a set of quick play rules which still allowed micro management (lets hope he doesn't pick up BP) and hordes of detail OR he is in the pay of some of Sam's opposition :)

Either way it is really beginning to annoy me that people call the tripe they post on blogs and TMP for various rule sets REVIEWS without either playing them or playing them wrong!

Like me Gran used to say "If you can't say anything nice, don't bother saying anything"

If anyone cares,

We are going to try these rules in 28mm in the Spokane Area sometime in December. Date will be sometime between the 11th and the 27th (still working on that).

So . . . if you want a look, drop me a line.

mjc

Quite funny in some respects.

I have read throught he rules twice now and all the modifiers seem to be on the QPS unless I've missed something.

The rules to me seem very subtle in approach. You are not forced to follow historical formations\support etc but if you don't you get burned.

In rules such as shako that explicitly give support bonuses you end up going with formations that give the most bonuses. This becomes a maths\space calculation which is ok and I enjoy Shako but it can become very gamey and most outcomes are reasonably predictable.

Now what I've alwasy wanted is rules which reward good tactics, planning and historical docterine but don't force it down your throat. The other thing I want is that one off fluke to be possible, the risk taking may once in a blue moon pay off…

For example, how many squares broke due to cavalry during the whole napoleonic wars ? To my limited knowledge 2 both during the pursuit from Salamance. So it shouldn't happen but I want the possibility for it to happen.

Lassale seems to fit with these wants, I am a rule addict and have at least 12 rules sets and these are by far my favourites.

Terry reminds me a bit of a chap I used to play Shako with, he had just got into wargaming, I attacked had 18 battalions he defended with 22. the front was very small and I went for a simple frontal assault knowing I'd more then likely lose. Which i did, but he enjoyed it and he learnt the rules. We played this way 4 or 5 times.

The he became a "your rubbish, you can never beat me" type of person. So we played a game on a big table, with the balanco of forces similar to suggested by the rules. I had a proper plan and tore him apart easily, only using 1 battalion before he reached his breakpoint. he had learnt the rules but was a very poor tactician.

What happened next ? Shako were terrible rules, Napoleonics were rubbish, and he moved on to WH40K without me.

Now you may think a typical teenager, until you realise he was 32.

My grandad used to say "Nowt as funny as folk"

Keep up the good work Sam, great set of rules.

I feel complelled to point out to Ben Waterhouse above, and the rest of you good gentlemen, that "Shut Up and Roll" was proferred to the Old School Wargame Group as an exercise in writing a one-page set of rules.

I release you from having to use them.

Shoot he's in "Ole Blighty". Connrad Sage has a unfair advantage, called postage rates. : ) I bow out gracefully from the bidding skirmish.

I seem to recall that a Dutch-Belgian square broke during the French Cavalry charge at Waterloo.

Captain Gideon

[I'm having a rather interesting email exchange with the OP. He appears to have…issues.]

If I were you, I'd only pay him *After* the book arrived!

Cheers Dano!

I had them in a file and couldn't remember where I had got them from…

All hail OSW!

And now onto meatier things – How many different ways can one spell Lasalle?

best
Ben

Classic. I think I was in a game with this guy at a convention once.

Shoot he's in "Ole Blighty". Connrad Sage has a unfair advantage, called postage rates. : ) I bow out gracefully from the bidding skirmish.

you may make an offer if you wish, I have withdrawn mine. I don't mind being insulted, but only a fool insults me before I've parted with my money :)

I know I've written this before to you Sam, but I honestly don't know why your rule authors bother to publish games for us. You don't make money on these ventures and so many people complain and whine about what you have done that I can't imagine why you would want to torture yourself more. Complaints about Grande Armee, complaints about Fast Play Grande Armee (which were free after all!), comlaints about Might and Reason, then pre-complaints about Lasalle, post release complaints, hell I'm sure you have complaints about Blucher already! Heck, Mark Severin gets complainst about Grande Armee reprint already!

I hope you get together with your wargamming group of firends this weekend, have a great afternoon or evening, enjoy a drink and a laugh and get encouraged!

If people don't like your rules (or any other author), then by all means, they have their own views, but not having the decency to offer suggestions or ask questions is really base. To be flat rude about it is disgusting as well.

For whatever it is worth, I thank you and every other gaming author out there who goes through the pain and agony plus spending your own money to develop, publish and distri bute rules.

Even for rules that I have not cared for and enjoyed, I have always been greatful that the author at least gave it a try.

Similar to those who put games on at conventions, I've played in some that didn't turn out well, but I have always been appreciative that they went throught that effort to do the event.

If I should ever see you in person Sam, I would love to buy you a drink at one of the conventions. Gosh knows you and others don't need this level of response.

Erik Engling

Keraunos asked which rules Terry1956 does like, as that will affect his decision on whether to pay closer attention to his review, and hence whether it colours his purchase decision in the new year.

Well, as Terry himself hasn't replied about that, here's the answer from a much earlier posting he made:
"HI, being an old hand and a lover of the old empire rule set which no one plays any more (pity) I am looking for a rule set that will allow a good size large game without leaving out most of the detail.
whats out there for 15mm games with about 400 figures per side or more.
I have played GdB which is just a cut down empire rule set
to my mind, what else is out there chaps, must have light infantry,line and so on, and real use made with artillery.
michael"

He's quite particular, too … in another recent post he said "most [Napoleonic rules] are total rubbish and most others are just copies of the same rubbish with bette [sic] pictures."