"First game LASALLE rules" Topic

Hi
I have no problem with a review that says a particular rule set is crap or otherwise, as long as the person saying so can actually explain why.

Old Bear
Re your comment:
"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".

Well if he did read the rules, he "misread" them so badly he might well have not bothered. To flick / thumb through a book and to have claimed to "have read it" is rather dishonest don't you think?

and as for your comment:

"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 guy (Sam) has invested a lot of effort into these rules. For him to simply "roll over" while some guy claims "they are rubbish" without actually demonstrating / explaining why is unreasonable I suspect. And all this while the release of these rules are in "the early days"?!?!

All I know for sure is if I was in Sam's boots I'd come out fighting to defend my work if it was being bagged by someone who "appears" to have based their inflamitory comments on trying to play from a QRS.
Constructive critisism is one thing, but ill informed cheap talk is another,..
I think Sam has behaved very well and restrained. Look at the very first posts in this thread / topic.
For people to now critisize him for not simply rolling over like some mug is (IMHO) not only unfair, but pretty bloody unrealistic.
Just my opinion of course.
Cheers
trailape.blogspot.com

P.S.
Armand has pricked my interest!
Can somebody tell us what was the colour of the socks of Napoleon at Wagram??

And DID the Austrian Army march to polka music (or was it a tango)?

LOL

Actually, seriously, what did Napoleonic socks look like at all? In all the guff about Napoleonic uniforms, you never see anything much about socks. ;-)

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.

The point is who exactly is in charge of determining a bloke's opinion? The Thought Police? If I don't like something then no amount of browbeating will make me stop.

All that said, I am not agreeing with Terry – I am defending his right to say it. This is one of the fundamental principles that democracies live by, or are many people here only accustomed to military history. Terry has now vanished, but whether that is because he was a sock-puppet or becuase he isn't able to stand up to the mauling is questionable. I don't know, that's for sure.

As for whoever said that Lasalle fervour would degenrate into Lasalle bashing – when has that happened exactly. An unkind assessment of that might be the twisting of the words of others to suit one's own purpose. At best it suggests a lack of thorough thread reading. Certainly neither Colin or myself have panned Lasalle in any way whatsoever. Quite the opposite, I'd suggest.

Raul Alberto:

They Waltzed onto the battlefield of course.

And they didn't wear socks, the Officers and Naplolean etc would have worn silk stockings, with lace around the top and suspenders to hold them up with…

trailape says: "I have no problem with a review that says a particular rule set is crap or otherwise, as long as the person saying so can actually explain why."

If only folks praising rules followed the same guideline. Does not apply in this case but how many times has someone asked for "good rules and why" and gotten the response "Glory of the Red Sock Hobbits is great!"

As for this case the "merit" of the OP's review is quite clear by post 8. Why did this thread have to turn from logical debunking to witch hunt? The guy did give his reasons. Sam pointed out where his reasons countered the reality of the game. Should have thought that would have been Sorted! Anyone who reads the thread will get the gist of it by the eight post.

Beck's Dark: re That Other Game. You seemed to do quite well standing against the mob : )

"All that said, I am not agreeing with Terry – I am defending his right to say it. This is one of the fundamental principles that democracies live by, or are many people here only accustomed to military history. Terry has now vanished, but whether that is because he was a sock-puppet or becuase he isn't able to stand up to the mauling is questionable. I don't know, that's for sure."

While I would normally agree with you I think this instance I can't. The original post claimed to be a review of the rules from a players first game. Every single point the player made about the rules not being what he was looking for, or a just a complaint against part of the system was shown to be false. A first it looked like it was just points missed on the original reading.

At this point the rules look like they do meet the criteria of the player who now says he still doesn't like them. It is then shown that there is more then a lack of reading the rules but that the player has more likely not even got a copy.

This is not a fair and balanced review. It comes across as a whiny complaint against the rules for no reason at all, I would suggest nothing more then an attack on the rules.

If someone is going to make a fair and balanced review that suggests that the rules are not what they want, or shows up errors in the rules. Well in that case I agree, let them have their say.

If someone is going to take the P. Whine and complain without though or reason then how can they, or even you expect anyone to take them seriously. This is not a serious thread, this is a comedy thread. The original poster is being treated to the same level of respect he has shown. No?

I might have a mission for today. Since I have not yet purchased the rules (I'll wait for them to show up at a local hobby shop so I can 'support the cause'…hope you understand)….it seems a good opportunity for me to download the free QRS, set a game up just like Terry, and see what happens!

Darren,

I'm with M C when he says it turned into a witch hunt. Then it ceased to be funny. Sam also made a tactical error (ironic in a wargames designer ;) ) when he jumped to the conclusion that Terry did not have the rules and promptly revelled in it. Far better to ask Terry to confirm or deny the fact.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Hey, we had a perfectly good witch hunt going here and now your all getting reasonable…

Wanders off to find another thread!

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

Well, actually depend the formation. When in line did march on Waltzes; if in Attack column they used pavanas. Polka was only used for skirmishers (you know… the brisky pace). Tango was only used by Argentinian Horse Grenadiers! (that was their secret weapon to break Royalist squares)

And that Napoleon used socks is a myth spread by the envious British oligarchy! The Emperor only used panties of the finest Persian silk! (white or green liveries; no fleur de lys, though, but embroidered tiny gold eagles)

Having now played a game of Lasalle (I do not own the rules but a friend has them and, yes, we downloaded an extra QRS), I would make the following comments:

1. The QRS is comprehensive and covers everything that one would need after reading the rules and playing a few games.

2. The move sequence takes a bit of getting used to, but it works well and provides for an interesting game with plenty of uncertainty.

3. The rules themselves cover just about every eventuality (certainly all of the ones that we encountered) in a clear and well-written style.

4. Command and control seemed rather too "light" for our tastes.

5. Again, speaking only for ourselves, we found the style of the rules to be a little too nuanced towards potential competition play. We may be wrong on this, as it may be more related to a generic difference UK and US rule writing styles.

The big question: would be play them regularly? Sadly, probably not; the main reason being that, while well produced and well written, they do not seem to offer any advantages over our current rules of choice (Le Feu Sacre and General de Brigade).

Having said that, I am sure that they will appeal to many.

I now await the lynch mob but be warned, I am armed and have rigged the claymores:).

I now await the lynch mob but be warned, I am armed and have rigged the claymores:).

Seems a fair and balanced review to me. At least it has punctuation and paragraphs.

No rules are going to appeal to everyone. I can't stand Empire, for example, but others like it…

Colin -

thanks for a very fair, sane, and sober review.

Nobody is going to jump anyone for writing that they tried a game, liked some things, didn't like others, and decided not to play again.

Sam

PS – I'm tuning out now. Out of TMP in general, that is. If anybody needs to find me, they can do so at my website, on the Forum.

Decided this morning that I'm spending too many minutes and brain-cells worrying about this when I've got a publisher's deadline to meet in a scary-soon sort of way.

Back to writing about nice, pleasant things like the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the Nazi seizure of power…. topics that never get anybody upset….

A friend of mine bought the rules and i got a chance to see them myself.

Now it's been sometime since i played Napoleonic's but i might give these rules a try at some point,but there's a couple of things that i would like to say.

First off where's the list of Commander ratings for men like Napoleon,Wellington,Blucher etc?

As far as i know almost every other set of Napoleonic rules always had a list of all the leaders,Marshall's and General's so you know who was good and who was bad.

Then we have the Elite status for troops where it appears that all Elite troops are the same,and i take slight issue with that.

If we are talking about Elite troops then the first thing that comes to mind is the Guard of the various nation's.

For myself the French Imperial Guard was the Elite of the Elite's,and vin many of the past sets of rules like Empire the French Imperial Guard a step or two above all the rest of the Guard troops.

And before you ask i've played Napoleonic's for a fair portion of my adult life,say 10 plus years with such rules as Empire II,Empire III,Vive Le Emperor,Battle's for Empire.

And over those years that i played the French Imperial Guard was always on top of the ratings chart.

Captain Gideon

For myself the French Imperial Guard was the Elite of the Elite's,and vin many of the past sets of rules like Empire the French Imperial Guard a step or two above all the rest of the Guard troops.

And over those years that i played the French Imperial Guard was always on top of the ratings chart.

Congratulations, you've finally found a set of rules that don't perpetuate the myth that the Garde Imperiale were supermen.

Another plus point to Lasalle

Gideon,

Given the level of these rules, it is unlikely that people like Napoleon, Wellington, Blucher etc would make an appearance; the rules are more concerned with divisional commanders and below. I also suspect that they are intended to put the gamer in the position of the commander and let him do what he can with the situation rather than trying to include the effect of historical personalities. Of course, I may be wrong, and it could just be that this was left out, along with any real command and control rules.

As to the unit ratings, I do not see any problem with them as they are; the French Imperial Guard were good, but were they really better than, for example, the Russian guards? It is really down to how and when they are used.

However, the rather broad unit ratings are one of the aspects of the rules that made me feel that they were rather intended for competition gaming.

Colin

First off where's the list of Commander ratings for men like Napoleon,Wellington,Blucher etc?

Game is set at the division level. No Napoleon, Wellington, Blucher. I suppose you could give them stats if you choose a scenario where they are actually leading from the front, but essentially you command a division.

For myself the French Imperial Guard was the Elite of the Elite's,and vin many of the past sets of rules like Empire the French Imperial Guard a step or two above all the rest of the Guard troops.

First, not all "guard" units are rated as guard under the rules. (similar to other rules). And see page 108, bottom right re: "No Supermen."

But consider this: Old Guard Grenadiers of 4 bases would receive 8 dice in close combat, plus two for being guard, two for being valiant (if going up against average "reliable" unit), for potentially 12 dice versus 8 for most average opponents. This is a huge advantage in the game. The French Guards also automatically get a "superior" commander, which has other advantages.

Besides, didn't the British Foot Guards defeat the Old Guard at Waterloo? They are rated the same in the game.

Here are my written notes from my solo, QRS-only playtest! I have actual photos if you'll click the 'link'…

link

***

Lasalle QRS playtest
These are my comments typed out as I play.

My 15mm collection is based for Empire. That means lots of 2, 3 and 4 figure wide bases….how will that work with Lasalle? I have plenty of 3-figure wide based infantry units so it shouldn't be a problem.

French: six battalions of four stands each. One cavalry regiment of six stands. three bases of artillery

Allies: 1 Russian battalion of four stands, four Austrian battalions of four stands each. Three bases of artillery.

French attacking
- What's the difference between long and short range artillery fire?

French guns put two hits on an Austrian battalion – 3 dice, 4+ to hit, range 11 BW. Two hits converts to one DISR. I cannot figure out what to do about it – do I test morale?

Moving on….time to advance.

How far do generals move? I notice that units can still move full if out of command range. Oh look! "Remove smoke markers from your artillery"….I need to dig out some smoke markers….

Austrian turn
Artillery fires – 3 dice, 4+ to hit, range 8 BW. One hit converts to zero DISR. Oh well!

Movement – flank battalion forms square

Okay, it looks like you remove smoke markers after moving! I'll just toss them out until I learn what they're for.

French turn: artillery fire, no effect. General advance, but I'm just pushing the cavalry up a little because I want to stay out of musketry range and don't know if premeasuring is allowed.

Austrian turn: I'm guessing now that "Short range" artillery fire is canister. Six dice do four hits, which is converted to 1 DISR. Russian battalion forms line.

French turn: Artillery, no effect. Unlike Terry, I know better than to charge cavalry into fresh infantry (especially if it's in square), so I'll hold off….though it's tempting. French battalions are just barely out of charge range (4 BW?). General advance covering about half remaining distance (I eyeballed it). I did premeasured the general's command radius to make sure everything is in command.

Austrian turn: Time to shoot! Let's see how it works….it doesn't look like spreading the fire out is going to produce any results. So I have to concentrate as much a possible (I don't really like this….it's "gamey"). The Russian line puts two hits on the center battalion advancing on it = 1DISR. I just can't bring myself to fire two Austrian battalions at the same target when both have an enemy unit to their front….so I'll split fire. And what do you know! One unit gets two hits for 1DISR. It looks like the square would only fire with one die. Austrian artillery fire puts another DISR on a French column.

No movement from the Allies – let's see what the French do.

French turn: okay, shooting first. This is very weird…the columns shoot one die each. I'm starting to think an attack column might need to be two bases wide (and shoot with two dice). I don't know…too late now. However, the three columns advancing on the Russian line do two hits for 1DISR. The artillery put 1DISR on an Austrian unit and the rest of the fire has no effect.

Wow, I have no idea how to charge. No morale test? I'll just move them in. It appears the Austrians/Russians will get a chance to respond in their turn and THEN we fight (like WRG 1685-1845 rules).

Austrian turn: Reaction phase. One reaction is to FIRE. I will do that. The Russian fire is divided and has no effect because of this. 3DISR now on the French battalion attacking the artillery. Musketry has no effect anywhere. I know I do not like this….

Combat: Okay, since the Allies already shot, I'm assuming that doesn't happen again (because they are all in contact with the enemy), so we'll just fight. I'm laying out the dice first. Since I haven't specified morale I'll assume it's all the same. It's basically eight dice per infantry unit, minus one die per DISR. (I can see how it's impossible for the Russians to fight with four dice like Terry did in his ‘playtest'…).

Die rolls! See the photo for the actual rolls. I can't really figure out how the Russians divide up their dice, or what "Enemy covers less than or equal to your front". I'll ignore it and figure I'm okay since this isn't a squirrelly attack.

Results: Now this is breaking the spirit of this playtest…but I remember reading comments about Lasalle from somebody playing it at Historicon where he said you needed twice as many 5+ results to get a ‘Decisive' result. That is NOT on the QRS! This seemed to be an issue with Terry – but I'm going to play it as requiring twice as many 5+ results for a decisive result, otherwise the combat is "Inconclusive".

Okay…as luck would have it…every single combat was "Decisive"! The artillery did zero hits, so I'm ruling that 1 is more than twice zero. My non-QRS interpretation will have no actual effect on this playtest.

Hmm…defender breaks if it loses, attacker falls back. I don't know how far. I'll eyeball it.

I have taken a photo of the after-combat results. I'm at a total loss of what to do now. Do I put DISR on any units? Do I pick up routers? Do nearby units take any sort of morale test? How do I check "Army Morale"? The QRS has an Espirit chart, Recovery Attempt chart and DISC tests. I don't know what to do with them.

Game called on account of wargamer confusion. This is certainly always the rules designer's fault!

My 15mm collection is based for Empire. That means lots of 2, 3 and 4 figure wide bases….how will that work with Lasalle? I have plenty of 3-figure wide based infantry units so it shouldn't be a problem.

LaSalle specifically addreses basing for other games on page 6 for 15mm games. Not something a QRS should contain.

What's the difference between long and short range artillery fire?

Short=cannister; long=roundshot. (p.46)

French guns put two hits on an Austrian battalion – 3 dice, 4+ to hit, range 11 BW. Two hits converts to one DISR. I cannot figure out what to do about it – do I test morale?

No morale tests. DISR=effects on morale, order, wounded, killed, etc.

How far do generals move?

Sub-commanders stay with their "force." Common sense. Move them anywhere to keep units within command (if possible). Officers move after all other units in their force.

I notice that units can still move full if out of command range.

Yes, but suffer some penalties for DISC tests, combat, and cannot make a DISR recovery attempt.

Oh look! "Remove smoke markers from your artillery"….I need to dig out some smoke markers….

It's simple reminder that the artillery may not move during the side's activity phase.

Okay, it looks like you remove smoke markers after moving! I'll just toss them out until I learn what they're for.

See above.

… don't know if premeasuring is allowed.

Premeasuring is allowed.

Austrian turn: Time to shoot! Let's see how it works….it doesn't look like spreading the fire out is going to produce any results. So I have to concentrate as much a possible (I don't really like this….it's "gamey").

You perhaps don't understand that strict shooting/targeting rules found in the rule book. It is difficult to mass fire on one target.

It looks like the square would only fire with one die.

Squares do not fire. (It is incorporated into the close combat).

This is very weird…the columns shoot one die each.

March columns do not fire. Attack columns fire with bases in the front rank (so typically two dice for a four base battalion).

I'm starting to think an attack column might need to be two bases wide (and shoot with two dice).

Attack columns are always at least two bases wide for 4 base units and three wide for six base units. A single base wide column should not be an attack column in any set of rules! (Especially since historically attack columns were much wider than deep, right?)

The basics of the game, such as how to form units to represent the various formations, is something that does not belong on a QRS, right?

Wow, I have no idea how to charge. No morale test?

Units with one DISR left cannot charge.

The Russian fire is divided…

No divided fire. Pick one target based on priorities (full vs. partial target, etc.)

… and has no effect because of this. 3DISR now on the French battalion attacking the artillery. Musketry has no effect anywhere. I know I do not like this….

You did it wrong, so it's no wonder you did not like it!

Die rolls! See the photo for the actual rolls. I can't really figure out how the Russians divide up their dice, or what "Enemy covers less than or equal to your front". I'll ignore it and figure I'm okay since this isn't a squirrelly attack.

Now you've really ed it up!

1/2 dice if an attacker contacts more than one defender, for example, or 1/2 dice if contacting less than or equal to the defender's front (no "chip shots" in this game).

Results: Now this is breaking the spirit of this playtest…but I remember reading comments about Lasalle from somebody playing it at Historicon where he said you needed twice as many 5+ results to get a ‘Decisive' result. That is NOT on the QRS!

The rules clearly lay out that an attacker that scores 2x the hits scored by the defender then the attacker routs the defender. Otherwise it's essentially an inconclusive result, and the attacker falls back.

This seemed to be an issue with Terry – but I'm going to play it as requiring twice as many 5+ results for a decisive result, otherwise the combat is "Inconclusive".

Right on!

Hmm…defender breaks if it loses, attacker falls back. I don't know how far. I'll eyeball it.

If defender is decisively defeated, its broken and removed from the battle. If the attacker is deceisively defeated, it's still inconclusive.

Do I put DISR on any units?

Depends on the results.

Do I pick up routers?

Yes.

Do nearby units take any sort of morale test?

No.

How do I check "Army Morale"?

Page 66.

The QRS has an Espirit chart, Recovery Attempt chart and DISC tests. I don't know what to do with them.

Buy the book!

Game called on account of wargamer confusion. This is certainly always the rules designer's fault!

Only if after reading the rules and playing the game the gamers are still confused, then yes, you have an argument (assuming average intelligence on the part of the gamers). You really cannot expect a free downloadable QRS to contain all of the information needed to play every aspect of the game? This would be just silly nonsense.

You really cannot expect a free downloadable QRS to contain all of the information needed to play every aspect of the game? This would be just silly nonsense.

I think that was the point of Clay's 'review'…

I think that was the point of Clay's 'review'…

I think his clear intent was to demonstrate that somehow LaSalle is an inferior game because you cannot play it from the free downloadable QRS, which is a crock of

Even in his game you need unit cards to play, which, by definition is not on a QRS.

link

From the above link:

These are the quick reference sheets we use. There is a different one for each nation because we don't need to crowd it with things that don't apply for that game. The key element is to do each step in order and everything you need to know is in that step.

Austrians in 1809.
Pennisular British.
Prussians in 1813-15.
Russians in 1813-14.

Each side in a game has a number of "Force Cards", one for each brigade.
These cards get changed around for our games, but this is an example.

Austrian Force Cards.
British Force Cards.
French Force Cards.
Prussians Force Cards.
Russians Force Cards.

So, I'm not quite sure as to his point. I've never played a rules simply from a QRS, without having first read the rules.

I think his clear intent was to demonstrate that somehow LaSalle is an inferior game because you cannot play it from the free downloadable QRS, which is a crock of

I think you're holding the wrong end of the stick, old boy.

It's a take of the OP, surely you can see that?

It's a take of the OP, surely you can see that?

Then why did he state: " Game called on account of wargamer confusion. This is certainly always the rules designer's fault!"

Unless he was poking at Terry1956?!?! If that's the case, then I did misread Clay's intent.

Godwin's law — "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

No-one's invoked Godwin's Law, what's your point?

This thread seems to have fallen down the rabbit hole…

I think he is asserting that we are headed in that direction, given the length of the thread so far.

I think someone needs to draw Malatesta a picture, preferably in crayons if he didn't understand Clay's points, and Connard's explanation.

I think someone needs to draw Malatesta a picture, preferably in crayons if he didn't understand Clay's points, and Connard's explanation.

Why the vitriol?

Funny is though, on the other topic about being able to play with a QRS, he advocated being able to play with only a QRS.

TMP link

Sam,

I suspect that Clay's post was a slight mickey-take of the OP. As to his final comment: "Game called on account of wargamer confusion. This is certainly always the rules designer's fault!", I think that needs to be regarded as a somewhat ironic comment about the attitude of some wargamers: "I cannot get my head around this; it can't be me that is thick, so it must be a fault with the rules."

Colin

Colinjallen,

If you are commenting on my posts, I'm not Sam. His names are far more "adventurous."

I may have misunderstood Clay's posts, and maybe I'm a bit thick, but I'm still not Sam!

John

John,

Apologies, Sam uses so many names and I rather foolishly and stupidly assumed that you were him.

Colin

I always thought that Godwin's Law was one of the 1967 addenda to the 1937 rules of Mornington Crecent; doesn't it prevent one being in Nid if Leicester Square is played immediately before Cromwell Road, as per the Mortimer Variations?

Thanks for the comments, guys. I really had to dig to the back of the closet to find my unused 15s, so this took a few hours to pull off.

And yeah, I was basically taking Terry's original 'O.B.', trying a game with just the QRS and see if I could duplicate his results.

I certainly duplicated the confusion, as I was at a total loss after the combats. But in no way would I pretend to have actually PLAYED the game and declared that it sucked!

(notice that I made a "BW" measuring device for it!)

"I may have misunderstood Clay's posts, and maybe I'm a bit thick, but I'm still not Sam"!

Son of Sam?
lol
;o)

I can see how one could mistake this P take of the "TERRY system" of Rules Reviews, (I think I just coined a phrase), as an attack on the Rules though,…
Cheers

We don't need no QRS. Both sides deploy all of your troops on the table from end to end. Take photos of the setup. Each commander in chief rolls 2D6. Highest roll wins. Pick up your troops & go home.

As far as i know Malatesta the British Foot Guards did'nt fight the Old Guard at Waterloo,and you might be right about most of the Guard units out there.

But i still say that the Old Guard should be better than the rest of the Guard units for anyone out there.

And it's possible that the answer to my question about Leader ratings for Napoleon,Wellington etc will be dealt with when the Blucher rules comes out.

I'll check out pages dealing with the basing question but i highly doubt that i'll be rebasing my French anytime soon for these new rules.

Captain Gideon

As far as i know Malatesta the British Foot Guards did'nt fight the Old Guard…

Sorry, Middle Guard.

but i highly doubt that i'll be rebasing my French anytime soon for these new rules.

No need to rebase.

I do not like green eggs and ham.

Nice.

"I DO like Green Eggs and Ham!
I DO"!
said Sam

"But I still say that the Old Guard should be better than the rest of the Guard units for anyone out there".

And I disagree. They were not Supermen.
There appearance on the battlefield did cause allied commanders to through metal fits though, (allegedly / apparently / rumor has it).

And as pointed out in an earlier post by Malatesta:

"But consider this: Old Guard Grenadiers of 4 bases would receive 8 dice in close combat, plus two for being guard, two for being valiant (if going up against average "reliable" unit), for potentially 12 dice versus 8 for most average opponents. This is a huge advantage in the game. The French Guards also automatically get a "superior" commander, which has other advantages".

The rules also do go into some detail in regards to explaining "Commander ratings" (or lack there of).
Clearly these rules will not be everyone's cup of tea.

Just for grins, I played the same game again with my rules. I changed some of the units up to fit with the organzation that I use.

link

I thought Clay's posting was brilliant. I just about burst out laughing while I was reading it. And now I'm amazed anyone thought he was actually serious!

But, then again, we all think Terry1956 was serious … so, who knows, perhaps his is also a rather too subtle (or is that unsubtle) p-take?

;-)

Coopman: you have just describe Warhammer and Warhammer 40k, but you forgot the +3 for using GW flock and the +3 for only using GW paints.

Someone saying 'rubbish' is the price of any creative endeavor. Critics can be harsh, but the only way to avoid criticism or your work is not to do anything.

Very happy with my copy of Lasalle, but doubt I will ever play a game with it. Divisional scale seems a strange choice given the bravery and vision of "Grande Armee".

Are these rules aimed at tournament play and "pick-up" games (as I think you call them in the States)?

The presentation values are first class – best I have ever seen in a set of wargames rules.

Divisional scale seems a strange choice given the bravery and vision of "Grande Armee".

The next rules in the series is "Blucher" which may be more to your liking in terms of scale--army command level.

You can play a historical Corp per side with them Ian.