"First game LASALLE rules" Topic

I haven't bookmarked TMP topics, but I may have to start with this one…

It's a classic, isn't it.

My thanks to the people who have said nice things about my work.

Obviously, as I told Jeremy, I initially tried to help Terry because I thought he had just gotten confused in the book… and then I realized he never had the book in the first place.

One would hope that would be a sort of minimum criterion for writing a review, even in the Wacky World of the Wargaming Web.

Why would I need the book to write a review? Why would I even need to play a game. I have a very nice box of Victrix British Peninsular Infantry sitting on a shelf behind me and I can tell that Liselle would be an absolutely horrible game to play. Please stop writing rules and giving free downloads of your reference sheets and erata. It is completely unprofessional and narcissistic.

Furthermore please stop using amazingly beautiful full color pictures, high quality paper, and I would also like to see your diagrams hand written by one armed midgets instead of looking professional. Really, what were you thinking!!!!!!

BTW I will hopefully be getting a your rules for real next week.

Actually, I don't care what you think about the rules Terry. Plus, I feel it is your Honourable duty to offer Sam a sincere apology for your misrepresentation and ignorance.
BTW, I do own the rule book and I am a pleased customer. In fact it has been almost ten years since I've even thought about painting up some Napoleonics for use in my own games, (I have painted some for others). I am now feverishly painting up 10mm Napoleonic armies for use with Honour.
Thanks Sam for a job well done.

Well I wouldn't mind playing Terry56. His Shooting rolls are even worse than mine for starters. :OP
(Actualy I only posted because I wanted be a part of an angry mob)
Max

We (Saint Paul Irregulars) are going to run a game tomorrow night. Of course we play piquet (gasp) and Carnage and Glory, so we are a little off anyway.

I will post a review w some pictures.

KAM

(Actualy I only posted because I wanted be a part of an angry mob)

A lot of my posts are due to that.

John….you are the angry mob. : )

I can't find the Young Frankenstein Angry Mob scene, but I did find this:
YouTube link

It has the advantage of being French Revolutionary themed.
Give me some men, who are stout-hearted men!

Pretty distasteful performance by rent-a-mob.

The latest Battlegames magazine has an article reporting more than 45 squares broken in 19 separate battles. Of course, there were a lot of battles…

Reviewing a game without reading them first? Pah! That's nothing. I'm going to review a game that doesn't exist, and say it's crap!

I hear that Sam is going to write a set of rules for the War of the Polish Succession. They will suck.

Maybe then you can write a review in French and terry1956 can say how your spelling sucks.

Is there some reason we're prolonging this train wreck?

Hey Ben:

Glad to see that someone had a look at the OSW rules. I am using similar mechanics for a Napoleonic set. My goal is to get in many turns and reduce the temptation to rush eveyone headlong accross the table before you run out of time.

Dano

Is there some reason we're prolonging this train wreck?

Post count.

there's no justice like mob justice!

What wonderful post. This no train wreck, more a lurching ship. Thoroughly enjoyed myself. Thanks to all contributors…a couple of observations… somewhere you guys have a gaming village missing it's idiot and one for the mob – Burn the rule heretics!!!

He's my contribution!
These Rules are FREAKIN AWESOME, (and I've not even played them yet).
WHY are the FREAKIN AWESOME? 'Cause there is a picture of my Wurtenberburgers, (painted by Dan Dunbar) on page 25!
Now if that ain't proof positive that these rules are the greatest contribution to English literature since WAR AND PEACE I don't know what is!!!

Seriously though; the rules are well written and well presented. I'll have a crack at getting a game in this weekend,…
Cheers
trailape.blogspot.com

Well, at the risk of getting intro another scrap I'm with BravoX. Sam's product appears excellently produced and laid out, and I certainly intend to pick it up (probably off Terry!) but other than maybe telling Terry that you disagree with him, what's with the fanboy mentality suddenly kicking in?

As for starting a bit of slapdash psycho-analysis, taht's unpleasant, as are several other comments. The guy has no right to an opinion now, is that it? So he says it's 'rubbish'. I find that level of criticism unlikely, but is he now no longer free to express an opinion, bizarre though it may be?

We have Armand on these forums asking questions ranging from the colour of Napoleon's socks at Wagram to whether Austrian troops marched to polka music and we still manage to tolerate him.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good fight as much as the next man, but how about saving the fanboy stuff for Warhammer, eh?

There, I've had my rant, but remain available here should anybody want a barney about it. ;)

Oh god help us all we now have the phrase fanboy on tmp !

So if you provide praise on somehing you belive to be good your a fanboy.

Evevrything in all walks of life seems to polorise opinion especially here in the uk. If I was Sam I'd go and work for RBS he'd get much less criticism.

I think the problem with Terry was the way in which he completly mis plays the rules, then when they were corrected said he still disliked them without even trying them.

Did anyone secure the book from Terry ?

Many of you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for the posts that you have made in this thread; you have behaved like a gang of playground bullies picking on a child who is "different".

This is utterly contemptible behaviour that nobody should expect or accept from adults. Grow up and behave like men, not like 7 year olds!

The point about the breaking of Squares at Garcia Hernandez (after Salamanca) was that it was achieved by cavalry alone, a lot of squares ceased to be viable in more than a few battles when combined arms hit them.

I think the problem with the original critique was that he moaned about ommissions after playing one game, but still decides he doesn't like them after it was pointed out where the things he missed were.

I would like to see a balanced review of Lasalle by people who have played it.

John the OFM: nice angry mob, any spare pitchforks?

Old Bear: You mean your currently scrap free? You finally laid paws on Jimi/mike/whateversockpuppet then?

me: I saw a mob and joined it, I thought it was for free bricoles.

I've lit my torch and looking forward to a good burning

[ I'm with BravoX…. but other than maybe telling Terry that you disagree with him, what's with the fanboy mentality suddenly kicking in? …The guy has no right to an opinion now, is that it? So he says it's 'rubbish'. … is he now no longer free to express an opinion, bizarre though it may be?]

[Many of you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for the posts that you have made in this thread; you have behaved like a gang of playground bullies picking on a child who is "different".]

I thought that the issue was that the OP had posted an angry, scathing "review" of a game book that it turns out he'd never read or even seen. In other words, an act of deliberate, malicious, dishonesty. The purpose of which was… ??

The initial responses to him were patient and even indulgent, until the dishonesty was discovered.

Ask yourself, if you were the target of this sort of thing, what would be your response? It's a Lose-Lose. If you ignore it, then it becomes fact, and that fact has direct bearing upon your business. If you try to correct it, you become the bad guy, for "whipping up an angry mob."

And of course since you have no control over what other people write, you'll be blamed for whatever responses *they* post against him, too.

So it's a serious question: What's the correct response? I'm honestly curious regarding how people would handle it, if it happened to them.

Thanks Arteis,

I sort of expected he was looking for highly detailed rules.

Helps colour in my view of his initial review.

Actually, there's some real entertainment value in all this, angry mob notwithstanding.

"Grow up and behave like men, not like 7 year olds!"

Does that mean I have to stop playing with toy soldiers then?

Seriously though 'I found the rules lacking in detail for the amount of effort they took but they weren't for me sadly because blah blah' would have avoided all this one feels!

Sam,I finally got over to see Dennis at OMM and picked up my copy. What a beautiful production. Thank you for that. I have read the rules, not played them yet, and they read very easily. I have always liked the style of your rules writing. You set the bar for others (I hope I am not being a "fanboy" here, but I am a fan). Grande Armee was/is a great set of rules to my tastes, but not necessarily to others in the Empire/Vamlmyesque camps. That is OK. Different strokes for different folks.
Lasalle looks great, reads great, and I hope to ply them soon (and hope they play great as well). Congrats, Sam
Hugh

I would just like to say I agree that everyone has a right to their opinion. It just seems unbelievable to me that someone would write a review, without actually having the rules. I am also one of those "oh so shiny" types. I have about 12 sets of Napoleonic rules. I bought Shako 2 because of the pretty pictures, but I like the rules. I thought they cost too much tho. Guess I'm old school. I have been looking at Lasalle, because I like Sam's rules. I am still tyring to talk myself into paying the cost, and am sure I will before Christmas. Even if I don't like a certain set of rules, I can usually find something good in them, if only for inspiration. I thank the rules writers, who take the time to give us games to play, the reviewers, who let us know how they play, and the manufacturers who put out the troops to play the game. After all, that is what it is….a game.

Just a minor point: it is only an assumption that the OP does not have the rule book; he has actually stated that he does.

Maybe one or two people should start using facts, rather than supposition.

Hi Fredd,

Yes, haven't heard from Jimi for years, which of course is devastating for me. I take it you are an old RGMW regular?

@ Sam,

It's tricky when you are in the industry, I know. Only recently I had a minor fracas myself and it is hard to gauge the reply when really you want to do unpleasant things. I don't really have an issue with you fighting back, as I think I probably mentioned in my little rant. I don't even mind others having a gentle pop, but it seemed to me that Terry just started getting a kicking for having the temrity to be different, as Colin said.

heeeheee yeah Old Bear I used to frequent that newsgroup on occasion. :)

What I have found being involved with a manufacturer, is that I don't critiscise other makers mini's anymore, even when I really really want too.

Its easier to just stay out of it and avoid any comments of bias. But as we don't produce any rules (yet) I allow myself to comment on them.

"So it's a serious question: What's the correct response? I'm honestly curious regarding how people would handle it, if it happened to them".

It should go without saying that you have a right to defend your rules / product from ill informed (or in this case what appears to be down-right "bagging").
You attempted to assist the "reviewer" when it was obvious he had "misread" (not read?) the rules and got dismissed out of hand.
Clearly you've made a substantial personal investment, (time AND money), so when some who can't be bothered to READ the bloody rules he claims to be reviewing puts it out there that "these rules are rubbish" what choice do you have but to attempt a rebuttle?
Finally, you can't be held accountable for the actions (or comments) of others.
BTW, I am a fan of Sam's rules.
Flame On!
Cheers

trailape.blogspot.com

The appropriate response would be to be civil with the complainant until it became obvious that he was beyond reason; then tell him that you would no longer discuss it with him and withdraw gracefully. Either that or make a joke of it.

My band recently received one particular review for our new album in a rather prestigious UK heavy metal magazine; the reviewer stated that he would rather listen to a car alarm for 75 minutes. We wrote to the magazine congratulating him on a wonderful review and agreeing that listening to a car alarm might be more soothing than listening to our album.

There is never any need to throw a tantrum over such things, especially when that leads to inaccurate assumptions being made and stated.

Colin

I have to say….

one of the funniest thread I ever read after realizing the whole story.

~Still on the fence for lasalle (financial reasons) but it seem a nice set of rules to add to to the collection… btw it or blucher came with an integral cavalry brigade? I need some help with some students with similar views ot Terry and awful vouces in additions.

Arrigo

"So if you provide praise on somehing you belive to be good your a fanboy."

No. You are a fanboy when you feel compelled to tell someone with a different opinion about your rule preferences that they are *wrong".

Playing with toy soldiers covers all types of different rules and even if I don't care for 90% of them that does not make the people who like them wrong, or anything other than of different tastes.

BTW this thread got much too long for a detailed read through. Has the OP admitted to not having the rule or is it just Sam's word that invoked the mob?

trailape,

What evidence do we have that Terry 'couldn't be bothered to read the rules'? he may well have misread them, but that's not the same thing. If Terry wants to say the rules are 'rubbish' then Sam's only rebuttle need be 'I am sorry you think that way but it seems from our sales that a lot of people disagree with you.'

This is not the sort of forum for this kind of thing. Go on Frothers if you want a flame war, because such a creature is impossible on a moderated forum.

Having an opinion based on jack squat is worth exactly that, and should be treated as such when presented in the manner in which it was presented.

"BTW this thread got much too long for a detailed read through. Has the OP admitted to not having the rule or is it just Sam's word that invoked the mob?"

Terry has noted he does have the rules. One of the other posters thought that Terry didn't have the rules..easy to misconstrue from the first post. Sam took it as Gospel and run with it. Just a lot of mis-communication going on. Is entertaining though. : )

I'm with Bear.

is he now no longer free to express an opinion, bizarre though it may be?

The guy didn't like the rules, or maybe doesn't even own them. So what? I read better constructed reviews.

No reason to lynch him because it's the safe thing to do.

[Terry has noted he does have the rules. One of the other posters thought that Terry didn't have the rules..easy to misconstrue from the first post. Sam took it as Gospel and run with it. Just a lot of mis-communication going on. Is entertaining though. : )]

I deduced it when I realized that all of his complaints were references only to the (free, publicly provided) QRS, and not the rules, even bizarre things like complaining that the type was too big. (If he had the rulebook, he'd know that the type is rather small 10pt, and that the QRSs are blown-up bigger for easier use.) He never once cited anything from the rulebook, and appeared not to know anything that was very easily found in the rulebook.

If he indeed tried to play the game without having read it or even owning it, then a more honest title for the thread might have been: "My attempt to guess the game rules from the Quick Reference Sheets" or something like that, but I imagine that wouldn't have been as effective as he desired.

If he ever reappears and (A) has the rules, and (B) has genuine questions about them, he could certainly get them answered in a civil way by asking in a civil manner.

In any event, I will offer Terry1956 a complete and full refund. All he has to do is ship it back to me in good condition, and I'll reimburse him for everything, including his postage.

@ Old Bear / Colinjallen etc…

I think the general population of TMP have shown recently that they CAN indeed read and accept critical rules reviews as shown by quite a few threads on the forums.

However what a lot of people find offensive are blatantly obnoxious and ill written so called "reviews" that are really a badly disguised attack on the rules or author either through ignorance or some unknown reasons.

I think Sam "religion is for mammals" has responded in quite a reasonable manner given the OP's original post and replies. I know i for one would have been fuming if something similar had been aimed at me. (not too likely as i have neither the patience nor skill to write a set of good rules)

I dont currently game Napoleonics but keep up an interest and may well buy Lasalle and one or two other rule sets in the next year or so once other projects are finished.

Reviews and comments i read on various forums like TMP can affect wether i eventually buy a ruleset so as Sam pointed out he has a right to defend his rules from ill formed "reviews" that could affect sales and impact him financially.

Stevus
Not a Sam "fanboy" just an independent tmp member…

Many of you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for the posts that you have made in this thread; you have behaved like a gang of playground bullies picking on a child who is "different".

This is utterly contemptible behaviour that nobody should expect or accept from adults. Grow up and behave like men, not like 7 year olds!

I'm sorry Colin, but since you don't use any capitalisation or punctuation in this post of yours, and it's riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

The post is rubbish, I'm afraid.

;)

Religion is for etc…Sam,

Your first response was great and very helpful.

When it became clear that "helpful" was not the response the poster was looking for you would have been better off just acknowledging that everyone has right to their opinions and that your sales records and other posts show that many people do like the game.

Your deduction , even if you are correct is not proof and you would have done better to leave out accusations of the poster trying to get something for nothing (trying to play from the QRS alone, do you think he be part of the pdf Pirate Scourge?).

Speaking out aginst Lasalle has apparently become something like speaking out against the Teamsters. You have a right to but shouldn't unless you want a lot of grief.

If the OP's points were nonsense, the weight of other reviews would have shown that soon enough.

@SingeDew: Speaking out aginst Lasalle has apparently become something like speaking out against the Teamsters. You have a right to but shouldn't unless you want a lot of grief.

Er, anybody remember my attempt to ask some questions about Black Powder?

TMP link

Doesn't take Holmes and Watson to deduce that some of the guys who are defending the right of crazy Terry to bash Lasalle were beating me to death for expressing skepticism about some of the BP rules just two weeks ago. (Hey, at least I own BP and read it!)

Wargamers are like little cults or tribal religions. Mess with their local deity and expect war.

Right now we've got a lot of new games out at once, so everybody's getting amped up and drawing battlelines. What that says about our collective maturity, I won't venture to guess, but perhaps the fact that we're already playing with little toy soldiers is one clue.

PS: On that BP thread, Trajanus predicted that the Lasalle praise would turn into Lasalle bashing within a week. Now that people are patting themselves on the back for the brave and heroic act of trashing another game anonymously on the internet, it looks like that prediction was spot-on.

As I had here the oportunity… somebody can told me what was the REAL color of the socks of Napoleon at Wagram??

And the Austrian Army DID march under polka music or was a tango?.

Amicalement
Armand

The appropriate response would be to be civil with the complainant until it became obvious that he was beyond reason; then tell him that you would no longer discuss it with him and withdraw gracefully.

Hmmmmmmm…….this sounds familiar. Oh wait, I know, these are the rules the actual combatants of the Napoleonic Wars were supposed to use. I guess that means all the combat was merely 'hammering out the rules.' Too bad they didn't have the internet back then, I'd have loved to see that thread.

Don