"Le Feu Sacre review - long" Topic

Le Feu Sacre III by Darren Green, Review – Long

Review by David Brown

Le Feu Sacre III, the latest version of the TooFatLardies rules, is one of the many recently published Napoleonic-era sets competing for player attention.

The rules are 68 pages (+ two pages in the form of a quick reference sheet and a glossary of terms to help the three pages of contents navigate you through them) in black and white with a colour cover. Richard from TooFatLardies invited me to review them and provided a PDF version, the rules are available in hard copy or PDF.

These rules raise questions about what players might expect in a commercially produced set; is there some level of incompleteness before rules become instead ‘guidelines or suggestions' or a ‘toolbox' rather than a complete set.

Indeed the author's preface reads "…a rule "tool-kit" whereby the basic rules are very robust when it comes to customisation…"

Le Feu Sacre III (hereafter LFS) is notable for what it doesn't provide players, ie. the things you'll need to sort out yourself. I'll detail that later.

The rules themselves spell out a modest section on design philosophy; however the Lardy Island web site toofatlardies.co.uk/blog has an amusing interview with the author to gauge more of his intent.

LFS is presented in black and white with diagrams throughout to help explain rules concepts, the layout is in single column over A4 and would probably benefit from a bit more white space and bulleted lists here and there.

The overall feel is in keeping with the Lardies' brand – if I said amateur in it's meaning ‘for the love of it' that might convey their style, in any case they are happy to remind people they don't have glossy colour pictures.

LFS aims to be a set of rules that emphasises command and control set at a corps level; it integrates a grand tactical system while drilling down to a quite detailed tactical-level combat representation.

At times you get the feel that two sets are being squeezed into one. Sections of the rules look fiddly (units must keep 1" apart as a general anti-fouling rule, be within 2" to offer combat support and within 4" of an officer for some command purposes) and hard to square with the higher-level command strategic game.

The rules also project if not complexity, because the individual clauses are easy to understand, then ‘density', as there are a lot of steps or elements to individual rule mechanisms.

Scale and Scope

Troop scale in LFS is 50:1 at the suggested basing scheme for 15mm. Larger number of smaller figures can be used, while going to 25/28mm figs is possible with the author's caution that you will need a large playing space.

Units are infantry battalions, cavalry regiments or artillery batteries. Infantry are recommended based as 10-18 figs (depending on historical precedent per nation) in a single rank by companies. Cavalry are typically represented in four squadrons of two per base. A single gun model represents a battery.

Basing recommendations look idiosyncratic; continental infantry have a frontage of 8mm per fig while British are 11mm per fig (cavalry based two per 25mm), however the rules state that other systems can be used where the ratio of relative unit frontages is maintained.

The rules suggest they work best with 16 to 30 battalions + supporting artillery and cavalry, so a ballpark 400 figs lotsa figs game.

Units are organised into divisions and brigades (sometimes regiments are mentioned). An organisational chart or two would help here, not only for people new to the period but also to see the intent for the numbers at each level – the rules talk of splitting exceptionally large units into two, Russian Light cavalry and fresh Brit battalions for example. Is this to help the combat mechanisms or for the command mechanism, or both?

The rules use an action point command system, which will be described later, where the number of ‘things' relative to the number of action points available to spend on them has a major impact on how games play.

Ground scale is one inch = 50 feet.

Time scale = a turn of 15mins. LFS expects players could crank this out in 15 minutes of play ie real time. They rules don't suggest a playing time for the suggested army size.

Machinery

Troops are defined by class, in grades A-B-C-D, by any special Character of three possibilities; Elan (adds to combat attack, gives some troop interaction options), Stoic (can take more punishment, varies after-combat reactions) and Brittle (modifies morale), the last two being mutually exclusive. Infantry are rated for their skirmisher ability, rated from 0 to 3. Specialist Skirmishers are a separate troop type for mostly riflemen, while Revolutionary French can form Grande Bandes as loose order swarms.

Cavalry types can be Light, Lancer, Line, Heavy and Cossack. Guns are either Foot or Horse and can be light (3-4lb), medium (6-9lb, howitzers) or heavy (12lb).

Formations for infantry can be line, square, attack column, column of march (and sometimes Platoon column). Cavalry can form line, column of march, column of squadrons or column of divisions.

Armies are also classified by Doctrine as Linear or Impulse, which may limit formation options and deployment rates.

Shooting and Combat

Artillery fire, "Bombardment", and specialist skirmishers have an effect at distance, other musketry is subsumed into Combat.

Artillery fire is calculated by consulting three charts and rolling 2D6 to compute the number of ‘hits' on the particular target types. Hits, and unit hit strength is equal to the recommended number of figs per unit, figure removal is not necessary but available as an optional.

Units so hit take a morale test with a d6, consulting a range of plus or minus factors and checking what a failed result means depending on their status, formation, type etc.

Combat is determined by computing a unit's combat factor, a number from 0 to 6 based on type, formation and enemy type, plus or minus tactical and quality factors. The higher factor unit adds 2D6 to the difference in scores to generate a number from 2 to 13+.

This number is checked on a chart to give an outcome depending on the quantum of the score and the type troops involved, the outcomes may be routs, ‘reaction' test to trigger routs, shaken etc and a variety of hits to the combatants.

A particularly catastrophic result can cause ‘reaction' tests for nearby troops.

Troop Status

Units who lose half their Hit strength (half +1 if Stoic) become Permanently Shaken, other troop states are Shaken, Rout, Pursuit, Normal, Blown, Disordered, Surprised, Reforming, Pined, (depending how you view them, also, scattered, destroyed, captured, retiring off the field).

Combat tactical factors apply at unit losses of 10% and 25%, which with the 50% above, fresh and ‘dead' sets up a five-step internal troop state.

Units will probably need markers for most of these states as the sequence of play and activation will make remembering them tricky. Units' hits will have to be marked, the author suggests with dice or on a roster.

Command and Sequence of Play

The author says "LFS aims to accentuate the issues of command and control", the rules provide random activation of ‘commands' (ie divisions, or independent brigades) who then roll for a random action allowance ie PIPs (Personal Initiative Points) which are spent within an overlay of standing orders.

Commands are activated via a card draw, each independent commander represented by a card (some ‘event cards' can be included in the deck) that when drawn activates him to roll D6 + or – quality for PIPs.

I assume there is one deck with both sides' commanders included, and not one per player as in some systems, and that the deck is shuffled at the start of the game and after the final activation (rather than keeping the same sequence of activation) – but this is not explicitly stated.

Pips can be spent on tactical or grand tactical moves and some other interventions such as rallies, changing orders and directing artillery fire away from their usual target etc. Some things cost 2PIPs each and distance from the officer adds to the cost.

Orders are Attack, Manoeuvre and Hold. Each modifies, allows, requires or bars certain troop moves, for example an Attacker must initiate one combat, where possible, before other PIPs are spent.

The sequence of play for an activated commander is;

Spotting – of ‘hidden' enemy
Tactical commands – roll for PIPs and allocate them
Compulsory moves
Bombardment – arty and skirmisher fire
Grant tactical Moves
Tactical Moves
Combat
Reaction Tests
Grand Tactical Commands – changing orders.

The commander completes the above and the next is drawn from the deck. There is a mechanism for the supreme general, when drawn, to instead activate a subordinate.

Grand tactical to tactical

The strength of LFS is the interplay between Grand tactical and tactical. The system of ‘Blinds" ie divisional deployment shapes either 8"x4" or 16"x4" which I guess you cut from cardboard or cloth that move about the board to suggest an accumulation of troops that the enemy has inexact information about. Some can be dummy blinds to deceive the enemy.

Blinds can be spotted by the enemy, which is easier the closer they are, in which case the troops on them are now deployed, there are Column of march Blinds, Semi-deployed Binds, and fully deployed Blinds, which trade off speed and preparedness to form a battleline when the enemy nears. You can change the formation of blinds to the different types or voluntarily deploy.

There are comprehensive rules for moving from the blind in particular formations when desired or engaged by the enemy – the point of blinds, besides keeping information from the enemy is that they allow extra broad moves and consume far fewer PIPs.

Backup

The rules include 21 pages of lists of historical named commanders (who can take qualities of Bold, Able, Gifted, Solid, Poor, Cautious, that modify how they perform various actions) and unit stats for the big six European powers and some allies.

There is a dedicated LFS website (if it's mentioned in the rules, I missed it) at lefeusacre.co.uk that includes some orders of battle, scenarios and an errata.

There is a general Lardies and a LFS Yahoo group. The latter includes more orders of battle in the files.

Neat Ideas

There are two neat ideas in LFS that deserve special mention, pining and fire-fights.

Many rules have enemy proximity and zone of control rules, LFS creates the concept of a ‘pin' where troops in proximity react in a certain way after announcing a pin on an enemy or having one put on them. Giving the process a name and then some other functions has the benefit of making organising and describing the rules section easier but also allows a mechanism for more nuanced troop interaction.

Firefights is nice piece of period chrome, it is a possible combat outcome when an infantry assault stalls and both sides stand off and start raggedly shooting. Some rules allow this to happen by other means, but formalising it as a troop state/combat outcome is clever.

Missing bits

Earlier I flagged gaps in the rules that players will have to fill themselves. TMP readers can look elsewhere for debates about how much players should work out for themselves or expect to find in rules.

Players will have to negotiate game set-up without a points system or scenario examples printed in the rules, there are army lists which include troop stats, and what % of morale spread (in the form, French line inf in 1805-07 at x% D- grade y% C-grade etc) but not how you then build an army in terms of proportion of arms or into commands.

There are no rules for setting terrain on the battlefield or the size of suggested pieces, or suggested battlefield size, so players will have to work something out.

There are no rules for deploying troops onto the battlefield. There are no end-game rules or higher- order morale, such as a division giving up under pressure.

None of the above is a killer for these rules, but it would be good to get some guidance; Pip systems are sensitive to the number of things per commander and such games play differently depending on the ratio.

Overall troop density and terrain density affects how useful/common or not grand tactical moves are – a crowded table can make them pointless.

Conclusions

I can't help thinking LFS is over ambitious, the tactical level game looks sound in itself, as indeed that fact that it's now into a third edition would attest.

The Preface to LFS mentions: ‘…downplaying the minutiae of combat.." it's hard to see what else you could possibly put in if you were so minded – maybe separate out musketry and graft on a more general morale function.

However it's the interplay between grand-tactical and tactical that makes these a good set, they look ideal for historical refights where somebody is willing to cook up orbats and test the ratio of command to troops.

I'm not sure if the detail at the tactical level is holding back the grand tactical, do you really need out of phase Opportunity Charge and Evades and Intercept Charges at the grant tactical level. Do you need an Opportunity charge rule that has a dice roll and 10 modifiers to see if it succeeds – and another for emergency square formation and another for Intercepts.

I'd like to see a version of these rules that plays more to its strengths, by massively stripping the detail from the ‘bottom' and adding more at the ‘top', perhaps weather, time of day to add depth to spotting, command- morale to allow sweeping crash-throughs of an enemy position, command friction perhaps by an order miss-interpretation mechanism spring to mind.

The command activation mechanism, orders and Pips systems will ensure these rules play out well and give engaging games, even under heavy tinkering from enthusiasts.

David Brown

I really appreciate the rules reviews you've done. Very informative.

Thanks David
Again a very good review, now since you are turining into a weekly item, how about Black Powder and then just move on from there.

William

So how do they play?

Thanks for the review.

Just a quick and possibly off-topic question (for anyone): are there big changes from LSF2? I have the latter in hard copy and am considering getting the new set as a pdf.

Having played LFS III several times (and LFS II many times), I would like to offer some comments of my own.

In play, the tactical element does not hold back the grand tactical; the grand tactical element is a smooth and quick process, while the tactical side works quickly and well once you have played the rules a few times.

As for the lack of terrain guidance, points system etc, I get the impression that LFS is aimed at the more knowledgeable Napoleonic gamer and those who want to either directly use, or base their forces on, real OOBs.

Colin

There are quite a few changes though the basics concerning move distances, blinds etc are the same. The overall feel of LFSIII is very much the same as LFS2 however, it incorporates rules for the Revolutionary period and early Napoleonic period wheras LFS2 was primarily for 1808+

LFSIII has different combat reactions to LFS2 and incorporates the ideas of troops with Elan and being Brittle, plus Stoicism is dealt with more fully.

The army lists are more full than in LFS2 showing which troops rate as Elan, Brittle, Stoic, and those which are Trained Light Infantry and those able to form Grande Bandes.

There are lots of other little tweaks and subtleties too.

I would also agree with Colin's comments.

Your reviews so far have really hit the spot I think in terms of giving potential purchasers the info they need to make an informed choice. More please!

Personally, I think that a review is only of use if it is based on several plays of the rules.

If you want me, I'll be hunkered down in a bunker;).

Nice review, LFSIII is a game that needs playing to watch the interactions and some of the rules that can look odd on the page, come to life.

The basing convention is for historical frontages to come into play, but as mentioned other systems do work.

The comment on Big Battalions (british ones were mentioned) is the same followed at the time, it becomes 2 wings of the Battalion, not 2 seperate units. Austrians can also get big Battalions as well, again it is historically correct.

On this comment 'There are no rules for deploying troops onto the battlefield.' umm that is basically the whole blinds system…

I am of course with Colin in the Bunker :)

Personally, I think that a review is only of use if it is based on several plays of the rules.

That would be ideal. But reviews like evilgong's tell you more than you would get just browsing the book at a show. Basing, how combat works, turn structure, C&C, morale, etc. We all know the kinds of things we like in games and the kind of things we don't like.

It is a bit like reviewing a car without driving it!

Colinjallen
Not sure I buy the argument that you have to have read and played the rules in order to give a review. It is obvious that this is a review based on reading and not playing.

If you want to play the car review game, well ok I will bite. If I like BMWs and like all that they are about, and some one reviews the latest Yugo I am sure I don't have to drive the Yugo to know that I don't want to buy the Yugo. The same applies to these great reviews. I get what I need from these reviews to determine if I do want to try them or not, are they in my ball park or are they in some other league!

Thanks again David for great reviews.
William

William,

Then that must be something on which we will have to disagree.

Regards,

Colin

I'm with william on this.

first step evaluation – is it the sort of game I am intersted in.
these reviews cover that adequetely.

second step review – how does it play – of which, only those which pass the first step review are worth reading.

after which the informed decision is easy.

so I already know an after action report for napoleon (amongst others) is not worth my time, since I got enough from early reviews before it was played to establish this.

while the Lasalle reviews (such as they have been) have retained interest so I await some proper play testing reports from folk who have put a bit of time into their game.

its a filter process.

Personally, I think that "play testing" for a review is precisly the wrong way to formulate a review.

First and foremost, is that play testing can never uncover all possible situations which might be encountered during a game. I think it is resonable to set up specific situations and test them. For instance, in Napoleonics there are typically three or four formations available: line, column, and square. It makes more sense to me that a reviewer would set up a square and try to break it with a cavalry unit rather than simply hoping that this situation might present itself during a game. By the same token, if the reviewer has enough experience, he can simply make an analysis of rules and predict the outcome. No figures need be set upon the table.

It is much more valuable, to me, to explain (without giving away the rules--which is harder to do that you may think) the philosphy, scale and mechanics of the rules. Indeed, there are some mechanics the I like an those that I don't. It is valuable to me to know how the game works. This is especially true in these days of ecommerce and easy international ordering as the book may not be physically available to peruse. Likewise, critical bits of information like the table size, number of figures, size of figures, whether an umpire is required, etc. etc. etc. are valuable buy/pass decision factors. Given this sort of information I can pretty well guess whether I will buy and try the rules for myself.

The information, if you want to call it that, is whether the reviewer liked the game, whether he played it or not. I don't give one whit whether someone, of whom I know nothing, likes or dislikes a game. That's such a subjective matter as to be meaningless.

So, please take note past and potential reviewers. Tell people what they need to know to make up thier own minds. If you provide the facts and provide meaningful analysis based on your understanding of the period and mechanics presented by the author we will all be thankful. Battle reports in the guise of a review do little and may actually mislead. There is, of course room for subjective opinions in reviews. However, these should be in addition to, not in lieu of, an objective analysis.

One of the reasons for my preferring reviews after a few games have been played is that it tends to get rid of what I see as a problem with this review, namely that the reviewer does not really seem to know how some systems work in practice. He picks up on points which, on playing, are quickly recognised as being both sensible and quite elegant rather than potential problems.

I agree with Colin. The above is not a review of the rules. I would call it an overview of the rules. Not to say that it is not useful in some regards. But I would have appreciated the reviewer to have played a few games. There is a big difference in playing the game than in reading the rules a few times through and then writing up a report. I would not be interested in a review of car where the reporter didn't test drive the vehicle!

I think it is possible to review a book whilst only partially reviewing the game. Seperate but overlapping things.

Wrt LFSII I feel that some more notes/explanation of the core combat resolution mechanic would have been helpful – explanation/rationale of outcomes, examples of how the 'real' results have been modelled by the mechanics etc. It is such a Big Thing [the heart of the rules] that I think it deserves more space and attention.

Don't know if that has been addressed in V3.0.

M.

These reviews are quite useful.

I can't stand reviews such as:
"I just got the book, the paper is high-quality with glossy finish and the pictures are lovely. On page one there's a picture of some Perry sculpts painted by McVey, on page two we are spoilt with three pictures of Victrix plastic conversions… On page 73, the terrain used seems to be Grand Manner painted to a high standard… Based on the table of contents, I can tell these are going to play great."

Caesar, have you just got the latest Wargames Illustrated by any chance?;)

evilgong said : "These rules raise questions about what players might expect in a commercially produced set; is there some level of incompleteness before rules become instead ‘guidelines or suggestions' or a ‘toolbox' rather than a complete set."

I gave up on LFS (it was the 2nd edition) because of the fact that they were, IMO, incomplete, and need lots of house rules / clarifications to be playable. It seems a lot of the TFL rules are really designed to be played with an umpire, so they don't go into as much detail as is required and don't cover a lot of situations that may occur.
I'd be interested in seeing if LFS III clears up some of the problems and "holes" in LFS II.
You mentioned what you noted as missing, but what about :
Movement – are you told how units can be moved (wheels, straight line, oblique movement, etc) ?
Definitions and consistency of terms – in LFS II words are used without definitions or explanations, sometimes with apparently inconsistent meanings (the worst example is enfilade, which is used three times, in different contexts, all without explanation).

Interesting coment on TFL games. I must admit that the only experience I've got is with Sharp Practice. I wouldn't consider Sharp Practice to be incomplete.

I will make a personal observation, though, about gaming and game rules in the U.S. and U.K. I have many rules covering different periods from both countries. I have played games in both countries. My meger experience is that there are different expectations on each side of the pond.

The U.K. gamers seemed to be more about having a jolly good time and as such were less inclinded to expect every single little odd situation to be covered by the rules. This seems to be, for the most part, reflected in rules coming from the U.K. as well. When situtations arrise, as they must, the rules generaly instruct players to do the right thing and carry on.

Games written in the U.S. often say the same thing, but gamers int he U.S. tend (and I'm speaking only from my own experience and in general, so don't take it personally) to either not read or comprehend the words. In general, the U.S. gamer wants game rules that address everything that can happen on the table and when the rule don't, they will bicker endlessly over the issue.

For this reason, I'm always a leary of statements like, "I thought the rules were incomplete." or, "The rules leave too much up to the players." Such open ended statements can mean vastly different things depending on the writer.

XRays,

I tend to agree that there are two types of wargamers in that respect. However, I am not sure that it is a US/UK divide; after all, DBM (or whatever the latest version is called!), or virtually any WRG/Barker production, must be the most over-defined rules ever and they seem to be very popular here.

The most "British" gamer that I ever played against was actually an American; in some ways, I suspect that the authors of Black Powder must have been spying on our games all those years ago, before he had to go back to the USA, leaving me with his cat.

I have never found any "gaps" in LFS II or III; but then, maybe I play with a group of people who do not need to have every word defined for them and are quite capable of being sensible and "having a jolly good time".

After all, it is only a game, isn't it?

Maybe we can come up with a TMP set of definitions for articles/postings about rules:

'Overview' – bare bones listing of a game's features, with no subjective comments.

'Review' – description of the book and the game mechanics as written, including subjective comments if desired.

'Playtest' – description of the game mechanics based on actual play, including subjective comments if desired.

These are all quite distinctly different, and as to which of them people find most useful, that's up to individuals. But at least you'll know what sort of article you're getting if it is defined as one of the above in the title. A 'playtest/review' combination may actually cover all the bases.

In the case of the original posting about LFS, the term 'review' fits well.

I actually like the way the TFL rules like LFS are written so you can play it in a style that suits you.

Just skimming through LFS III which arrived today, and just finished reading Black Powder.

Have to say I very much prefer the approach taken in the writing of both of these sets over the "try to cover every possible aspect" approach of Barker and old SPI games.

I found the OP's review very helpful although my copy of the rules was already in transit. Never saw the previous incarnations of this game though so cannot comment on changes.

Looking forward to giving these a try.

"I actually like the way the TFL rules like LFS are written so you can play it in a style that suits you."

Which is fine if you know what you are getting when you buy the rules. When you buy TFL rules you are getting a "toolkit" or set of loose guidelines. Personally I prefer rules that tell you how to play the game without having to make decisions before playing about what this or that rule means and how you are going to play them.

I still do not get the "LFS is a set of loose guidelines" concept; that is very different from a toolkit.

LFS can be played "as is" straight from the book with no problems, or it can be adapted and bent as players see fit.

What it certainly is not is a set for rules lawyers or those who like to quibble about every last point from which they can gain an advantage. These are rules for playing for pleasure with friends.

I agree with M C. I'm half-way through reading Black Powder and can't wait to get it on the table. The rules are written in a conversational, sometimes toungue-in-cheek, manner that feels comfortable and freindly. That's the way I like to play games. Even when I enter into tournaments, they are for fun, like HotT.

I have no problem throwing a bunch of troops on the table and having a good set to. I don't really need army points systems etc. It is, after all, a friendly game. If there is some undefined situation then my opponent and I will argue a little and either agree, reach a consensus, or roll a die then move on with the game.

I know a lot of people profess this philosphy. We (my regular opponent and I) have put on several convention games and only once, that I can remember, did we encounter anyone who violated our "this is for fun" policy. When we run the games it's with an understanding that we aren't really going to worry about the niggly bits too much. If people want to pick apart the rules, they can do it on their own time, not the precious time of the other players at the table.

I had a great experience with Sharp Practice at Millennium. The GM was well versed and didn't take himself or the game too seriously. I liked the game so much I bought the rules to read them in detail and was not disappointed. I like the relaxed informality of the game and the freedom that "loose" rules represent.

M. Mark

I take your point but I don't think I've ever been able to play a game or rather learn a set of rules without building an understanding through practical experience up to being able to play properly. I can't read a rule book and learn the game like that I have to get my toys out and do some trial situations building up to a small game against an opponent. During this process anything we're unsure of can be decided and a note made. That one set of rules is more 'definite' than another can obviously help, unless you disagree with the rules in the first place. Of course I do understand that others may want more from their rules but I have to agree with Colin that I really think LFS are far, far more than a tool kit of rules, even if the author himself modestly describes them as such.

To comment on the review. I do think its a fair overview and can see why DB has written this piece however some of his concerns about potential problems with the rules would be laid to rest if he were to play them a few times.

Also worth mentioning that at just £7.00 GBP for a PDF copy these are good value (£12 for hard copy). On a restricted budget I simply don't have £30.00 GBP to buy a rule book to try out.

'Playtest' – description of the game mechanics based on actual play, including subjective comments if desired.

Surely a playtest is what happens to a set of rules before they get any official release, to iron out any kinks or bad rules?

That is definitely one definition, Nick … however, do a search of "playtest review" on Google, and you'll find any number of games playtested and reported after development as an imformation to other gamers.

I think XRaysVision may well have a point about some wargamers requiring every aspect of the rules laid down in minute detail… this thread is now mutating into a detailed set of rules for reviewing rules!

Hee hee … you guys are trying to get wargamers to agree on what review and playtest mean when we can't even agree on what 28mm means!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks David
Again a very good review, now since you are turining into a weekly item, how about Black Powder and then just move on from there.

William
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't own Black Powder. These reviews take up the spare time of 5-7 days.

While it's been interesting to write them up, I'm also worried that I'll just get something plain wrong (as opposed to opinion) and do the rules a misjustice and make myself look foolish – so I put in extra time to re-read my reviews.

I may do some more reviews, but painting French Dragoons will take over in the short term.

David Brown

hi there

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On this comment 'There are no rules for deploying troops onto the battlefield.' umm that is basically the whole blinds system…

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ok, maybe I should be clearer. Deploying from the toolbox to the table. Yes the Blinds are proxies for troops.

By example, some rules (a) require a deployment map or description that players mark up in secret and then 'deploy', sets down, troops simultaneously in line with their map.

(b) one player sets down all their troops and then the other sets down all his.

(c) a system where players take turns at setting down part of their army, perhaps unit-by-unit or comand-by-comand.

Some of the above methods may or may not fit well with the command and control rules for a particular game.

I've played many games that are dead at deployment because one player can't move to overcome a bad match-up at deployment.

regards

David B

Colin said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Personally, I think that a review is only of use if it is based on several plays of the rules.

If you want me, I'll be hunkered down in a bunker;).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

This is a legitimate criticism, I hope I include enough information about the rules that people get a feel for them and play them for themselves.

I'd love to see a set of rules that included ideas and mechanisms so novel that I'd have to say that I have no idea how they'll play.

With LFS' system of; activation by commands, plus a PIP system informed by an overlay of orders – I didn't need to play games of it to know how that works. I know it works, I knocked up a home-bake set of massed fantasy rules about 3 years ago with those features (but not activation by cards, it used a player-nominated system).

regards

david b

Thanks David for the review/overview or what ever anybody wants to call it. This has been very helpful in getting a broad feel for the rules which would be nice to have on all sets of rules I'm interested in shelling out my limited funds for. Granted that in some cases it is nice to have additional information based on play testing however as you are not compensated for your endeavors it would be extremely rude of me to criticize your very detailed and fine review for not having that luxury.

As a mild swipe at those who feel a review is not helpful unless it contains a play test (for lack of a better term) please buy the rules, play them yourselves and round out David's review with your "after playing review."

I should chip in here and say that I asked David to review LFS after seeing his excellent review of another rule set.

I liked what he had done there as his review seemed to be an honest reflection of his initial impressions of a set of rules which, as others have mentioned, would give potential purchasers a "warts and all" view that would allow them to decide if they thought the rules could be for them.

I provided David with a pdf copy of the rules (he lives on the opposite side of the world to me) and have not had any contact with him since then. Which is exactly as I think it should be.

It would be all too easy to get some idiot to post a "these rools ROCK" fanboy type review; but frankly a review thta claims that any set of rules is perfect for all gamers is nonsense, and that was not what I was interested in.

The review that David has produced for LFS is a first class overview of the rules that goes into the real nitty-gritty of how he thinks the game would work. Naturally the reader has to take into account that this is not a review based on playing the game, however subsequent postings have added to David's initial comments, and I think that any potential purchaser has been given a good indication of what the rules are actually like by this thread as a whole.

My thanks to him for taking the time to produce the initial over-view, and to everyone else who has contributed for their additions.

Richard
TooFatLardies

Better review than the 'Black Powder' ones, which seem to salivate more about production quality, and use this to prove they must be good.

I have them, but not had a chance to play- I won't bother review when I do, as this one seems to cover all the major points. I would point out lots of games have no terrain set up or deployment rules – Fire and Fury for instance, and Shako. Plus I've played a number of US written sets that have players arguning over interpretation, or they could be seen as TOO precise and so obviously nonsensical situations arise.

They are Black and White for the PDF/self print market.

I do have a few quibbles with the rules.

1) Basing. It is not simple- it doesn't know whether to be a ratio system or universal- the line is thatyou can use any systems basing, as long as the ratio is correct- this turns out 1 4 Cav stands must be slightly longer than a standard '12 figure' battalion (even though you don't have to play figure ratio…). The basing for the British is shot- less men each with wider frontage, 'because they fought in two lines'- That's because they had less men to start with. And the frontages of 8mm and 11mm (Brits)- not convenient measurements. The diagrams on page 5 are inconsistent.

I might be using 1 base = 3 strength points. I'm not sure why the writer related the strenth to figures to figure scale, as that immediately counts out any bases not based at 1:50, especially as he says it doesn't matter. I want to use 10mm, where figures have a 6mm frontage, so I'd have skirmish lines for all the extra space needed.

If I base on (say) 25mm wide, then I have a problem with cavalry. I can see why the rules state

The most important thing to get right is that a twelve figure infantry battalion in line does not have double
the frontage of a four figure wide cavalry column

as there is a combat bonus for 100% wider, but it means making cavalry slight wider bases (in rules as they stand 2 stands of 2 cavalry are 50mm, a 12 'figure' line, 96mm).

The combat resolution table results has CV=13+ -losing defender routs or losing attacker stands disordered.
No definition of loser. I think it should read If Lower CV is Defender then…. If lower CV attacker then….

There do seem to be a lot of minor exceptions and situation specific rules.

I want to try them- many of the basic ideas I like- but I may have trouble finding an opponent. Having other TFL rules, it isn't the elegent simplicity I have come to expect.

These rools ROCK!

Actually haven't played them Just had to be said after Richard's post (which I rather agree with).

I am reading them and like what I've seen so far.

Hi,
thanks for the review and the many interesting comments (I'm the author). I just wanted to comment on points systems etc. I'm one of those wargamers that just doesn't "do" points systems. Infact one of the driving forces behind the development of LFS was to allow recreation of the many actions where one side was badly outnumbered, but managed to win. To that end, there are quite a few scenarios on the web site (http://www.lefeusacre.co.uk) and we regularly publish new ones in the TFL summer/xmas specials. In all of these scenarios, I take a historical action and fix the victory conditions to see if you can do better or worse than your historical counterpart, and so the issue of points is avoided.

cheers,
Daz