"Is LaSalle set to become the FOW of Napoleonics?" Topic

One of the best things about FOW, the thing that makes it such a great game (note, game, not simulation) are the very good set up sytem and scenarios that make it easy to pick up and play an entertaining, balanced game. I think it's something that is often overlooked in the comments about FOW.

I have LaSalle, haven't played it, but the more I read about it the more I come to realize how important the deployment system and scenarios are to the game. What I inially thought was just a minor feature of the rules actually seems to be quite integral to the game. What I'm reading is that people are able to show up with their armies, throw down, and get a very good, tactically interesting game (yes, purist will gag because it's too easy, no need to hear from all of you).

Recognizing that FOW became what it is not simply because of the rules but also because of the "package" it offers (rules, models that are packaged for the game, dice, etc.) do you think that that's something that LaSalle could become?

Do you think that's what the author intends it to become?

It takes all sorts, so if people who like the FOW style of game enjoy it and take it to heart, good. More players for any historical period and historical gaming in general is always a good thing.

No interest to me, but I hope it takes off and those who play it enjoy themselves.

I don't think so. Not because it isn't a great set of rules or figure manufacturers aren't supporting it with packaged units, etc. The success of FOW is the result of a single creative and marketing engine, and LaSalle will never be so (unless Sam has plans I can't fathom).

Nor do I think Napoleonics will ever resonate with the masses the way World War II does. The history is not as accessible and there is no video.

Will LaSalle have a lasting impact in historical gaming? This is more probable. Napoleonic gamers may switch over, and some gamers may switch to Napoleonics becuase of these rules. But there will probably never be shiny pre-packaged units on retail store shelves, which is why FOW has the reach that it does.

Battlefront was making miniatures long before they published FOW. FOW was a way to promote their figure line and wrap it around an addictive game oriented for collectors. Bloody good business plan, as it turned out!

I don't see anything like that in Napoleonics, Unless there's some real merger in the works between an already-successful figure maker and an already-successful rules writer. Not just cross-marketing, but a full-on merger, because it would take several people on staff and a single -big- promotion budget to cover the world like that.

Foundry had the chance and blew it. The field's still open.

I hope not.

I hope so. It would mean that a lot of new people were brought into the historical miniatures hobby and into the horse & musket segment. It's all good.

It will be more like the FoG of Napoleonics.

mjc

Aspects of FOW that one could argue make it "successful" would not translate well with the Napoleonic Gamers I know.

-They don't like tournament play.
-They think anyone that needs a scenario book.. shouldn't admit it.
-They would argue rules without ambiguity are just plain poorly written… and not in the spirit of why they are playing.
-They would have a hard time buying into the idea that Napoleon fighting his evil twin could ever constitute a game they would admit to playing.
-They would rather spend their money on more figures than endless books on organizational structure and theaters of war… after all isn't that why the internet exists?
-They would contend there is too much variation and guesswork with respect to Napoleonic uniforms/colors/shades to believe that any such volume or series of volumes could become a complete and happy standard to please everyone.
-They think any respectable wargame should last 6 hours at a minimum… with anyone over-indulging in snacks being roundly ridiculed.
-They believe in a well played game there are no winners or losers… it's all about the spectacal.

As admirable as the "Herclean effort" FOW is…I think it would be the kiss of death to try an FOW package approach to Napoleonics.

Gag Gag

I do not know the rules, nor have I seen them yet, however, I hope this system brings Napoleonic players out from the woodwork like FOG did. This cannot be a bad thing for the period we play in.

Shane

I wish.

I am waiting to see which "size" and basing preference becomes the "defaco" standard. At least in the HMGS East cons.

However, unlike FoW I don't think I will be able to walk into one of my three FLGs and buy a "package" of say for example a regiment of foot including the proper basing. That's one of the tricks required to mimic FoW success.

Battlefront was successful by NOT trying to marked to "grognards" of WWII and I suspect any popular Napoleonic game will have to do the same thing. Conisdering the "time to table" for a Napoleonic force I'm not sure that there is enough latent demand. I hope I'm wrong.

i thought the FOW bunch were doing naps as their next big project ??

@dwight:

That's wishful thinking and rumor. Battlefront has never given even the slightest indication that they were poised to do Napoleonics. They've got a good thing going with WW2. Why sink millions into a huge new line of figures with so much competition?

@Sir William:

It's also speculation that Battlefront ever really attracted that many totally "new kids" to historical miniatures. When they did their own polling on their website back in the 1st edition FOW days, the result was something like fewer than 10% of their customers were truly "new", and most were middle-aged guys like me who had always played WW2 and already had 15mm figures. I remember being surprised to learn that I was apparently the "average FOW player."

They might not have been marketing for the grognards, but they obviously won over a lot of existing gamers.

As for which group of grognards is more inflexible in their thinking and more resistant to change: rivet-counting WW2 gamers or gaiter-button-counting Napoleonics gamers…? Seems like both have their panty-twisters in abundance, if for no other reason than they're both just big sub-sections of a small hobby. It does seem like WW2 gamers get crazier and angrier, though, at least judging by the tone of their threads, but maybe that's just because they have a very popular "standard" game set now (FOW) that can unify them in frothy hatred.

There's nothing that can get gamers more furious than a popular wargame.

I don't see why not.
It already has reviewers condemning it who have not read the rules. Both sets share that much.

I play FOW and Lasalle has gotten me interested in Napoleonics.

The ability to play pickup games is essential. As a complete newbie I require hand-holding in force design (in the absence of TOEs and points, something like Lasalle's "Army Builder") and want to be able to just show up at the club with a regulation force and play. Obviously that's not the only way to enjoy a set of historical rules, but that makes it very accessible for the average gentleman gamer.

They might not have been marketing for the grognards, but they obviously won over a lot of existing gamers.

My nards are as groggy as anyone else's, and it has sure won me over.

You know its hit the mainstream when Litko has a catagory for LaSalle, like they do for FOG and FOW.

Hello Becks Dark,

I never wrote "new", and I especially didn't mean new to wargaming.

What I mean is people who regularly game the era _currently_ are not the market. They're already happy. Yes a few will convert but it's the untapped majority, whatever that is; like those who tried some games in the era but never got into it regularly. Those are the ones a company wants.

Another way of putting it, most of the FoW players I know also have GW armies. Usually multiple armies. They played GW games regularly until FoW came along or they switch between systems now. These are people in their 20s through 50s. In short, it was the "frustrated GW veterans."

I don't know of many Command Decision or Battleground fans who do that. I suspect the Empire/Napoleon's Battles/Shako fans would be the same way. There are crossovers of course so I'm not claiming it's an absolute.

Besides numbers or guesses are probably not relevant, based on Battlefronts' Vietnam SNAFU I suspect they don't really know their own market anyway.

Make games, make miniatures, make them easy to buy. That seems to be the best approach.

Well putting Lasalle into the same category as FOW is not a selling point for me.

FOW might be an okay game but World War II it is not.

But if you like a game that rolls lots of d6's then FOW is for you.

But I much prefer a game that requires some thought other than rolling lots of d6's.

Well, Mithmee, if you want the wargaming hobby to be composed of 4 greybeards sitting around jawing and never even playing a game most of the time, then by all means continue to insult the intelligence of people who actually play games that are actually fun.

I don't know what it is with the elitists in this hobby. I met somebody who was chased out of Napoleonics by an elitist browbeater who wouldn't play him because his British infantry had improperly-painted details on the uniforms (the details; not that he painted their coats green or something).

You allege FOW doesn't require thought. Well, do having a sense of perspective and conducting yourself with a modicum of decorum require thought? Or is that too much thought for you?

And I'm curious… if FOW is not WWII then what game *is* WWII. I suppose that it simulates WWII perfectly and exactly in every way without the least compromise… but I'm guessing it has been out of print for 20 years and it takes longer to play a skirmish than to watch the director's cut of Von Stroheim's Greed.

Seriously, learn some manners and quit ruining the hobby.

FoG maybe, FoW no, not at all.

FoW sucess was/is due to the whole package of figures, rules and marketing, LaSalle has no figures and only a couple of train wrecks on TMP for marketing.

Add to that Napoleonics arent like WW2. I don't think any FoW type package will ever work for Nappy's.

Nappys also have several existing established rulesets that many people are happy with and LaSalle is only one fo a number of new rulesets to appear. It takes time to really evaluate a ruleset, what counts is what you are playing in 6 months time not what you like to read when your on the pot, and reaction on TMP to a ruleset written by an American is probably not the best way to judge it success.

To be honest asking the question at this point in time is, well, pointless. Ask it again in 3 or 6 months time and it might be possible to sensibly answer the question.

"most of the FoW players I know …. played GW games regularly until FoW came along."
Doesnt cover a single player I know of at my local club.

I do not know the rules, nor have I seen them yet, however, I hope this system brings Napoleonic players out from the woodwork like FOG did.

Did FoG pull a lot of ancients gamers out of the woodwork down under? Here in the UK my impression is that it was mainly a switch over from DBM and WRG 6th. Some seem to be switching back or to DBMM and Impetus.

If I may,
I think one of the things that people continue
to overlook about FOW and now Lasalle is the attraction
of a points/competition game. Usually when we go to a convention or a new club we end up playing in someone's game with their figs. Good fun of course. But competition games allow you to take your figs and meet a stranger
and play a game that you enjoy and know. The same holds true for the DBA games as well. I think it would be good
for Napoleonics to have some sort of quick pick up game of this sort, a few competitions won't hurt either.
Yes just my 2 cents, and note that I don't even play DBX or FOW but I do see the interest that they stir and I find it
good for our small hobby.

Here in the UK my impression is that it was mainly a switch over from DBM and WRG 6th. Some seem to be switching back or to DBMM and Impetus.

Yeah agreed on that.

Hmmm,

I've read a fair number of "Historical" Miniatures rules where the dreaded D-6 is king.
-takes a 6 to hit
-takes a 6 to penetrate
-takes a 6 to kill
-takes a 6 to change formation
-takes a 6 to change an order
-takes a 6 to save
-takes 6 to rally
The limitations of one chance in 6 chances to do anything successfully is not my cup of tea either, but apparently very popular with many gamers.

Some like to read comics, while others like to read theories on quantum string mechanics. I would not be a critic of either as I have done both. I venture to say somewhere in between is the sweet spot.

But we are straying off topic…. It's amazing how GW can work itself into almost any topic. The topic is a very good one as FOW Sam M are relevant to the hobby we all have a peculiar passion for.

I have the game but haven't played it yet. I wish it every success and think it may get more Napoleonic games going.

But one thing it will not become is a standard for basing. The rules sensibly allow for any basing scheme and too many gamers have too many troops based their own way to ever re-base for any set of rules.

I'll stick w/ Blackpowder myself, seeing as it covers a broader spectrum. Besides, I will probably end up using them for solo games. That said, I wish all the success in the world to Mr. Mustafa and "LaSalle". If I ever hear my FoW fanboy gaming friends mention it (which means there's a serious interest in any historical period other than WWII for them) then I will buy it and promote it actively.
Maybe I should paint up the battalion of AB Russian 1812 infantry I have in the lead pile as an inducement to them?

Cheers,
Tom

I think the discussion should be more about what impact will GW's new Napoleonic game will have on the hobby. Will it impact Nap the same way WHA impacted ancients?

I think the discussion should be more about what impact will GW's new Napoleonic game will have on the hobby

Very good point.

Generally, things have to exist before they can have an impact (although I suppose religion might prove some exceptions there.)

There's always going to be another big thing down the road. Remember how everybody was puckering their panties when Foundry announced "Napoleon." Before that came out, everybody was sure it was going to knock the world back three yards and to the left. Three weeks after it came out nobody could find a buyer for their copy on Ebay, and everybody had already moved on to forecasting about Black Powder.

The two things I'm sure of are: there will always be another Big New Thing Coming, and gamers will always trash it and say we should wait for the Next Big Thing.

There are two success stories out there. Games Workshop and Battlefront. Both got where they are through miniatures combined with rules that made people want to buy miniatures. The key is in the miniatures are where the money is. Note also, that both companies keep their focus rather tight. GW does dabble in a few things outside Warhammer and 40K, but their either very short run things because they'll never drive miniature sales, or they are relegated to spin off companies. I cannot see any company pulling that off with Napoleonics. To begin with, there is already to much competition in the figure manufacturing market, regardless of scale, and you'd have to dominate that market

-They don't like tournament play.
-They think anyone that needs a scenario book.. shouldn't admit it.
-They would argue rules without ambiguity are just plain poorly written… and not in the spirit of why they are playing.
-They would have a hard time buying into the idea that Napoleon fighting his evil twin could ever constitute a game they would admit to playing.
-They would rather spend their money on more figures than endless books on organizational structure and theaters of war… after all isn't that why the internet exists?
-They would contend there is too much variation and guesswork with respect to Napoleonic uniforms/colors/shades to believe that any such volume or series of volumes could become a complete and happy standard to please everyone.
-They think any respectable wargame should last 6 hours at a minimum… with anyone over-indulging in snacks being roundly ridiculed.
-They believe in a well played game there are no winners or losers… it's all about the spectacal.

J, with a few quibbles, you've described me!

I'd sooner use reference books than the internet and I can design senarios perfectly well from reading most histories of the Horse and Musket period with out help, thank 'ee very much. Sorry, I do like clearly written rules it makes everone's life easier.

It also explains why the likes of LeSalle, Foundry Napoleonics et al will not find there way to my library.

If you want to play that kind of game and it grows the hobby I've no problem with it. If you ask me to play in a tournament I will politeluy decline.

The cost of collecting and painting an entire army can be little high. I would like to see rules that allowed 8 friends to each paint up their favorite regiments and take them into the miniature field of battle. A scenario or tournament based game might make that possible. We need to connect with the prospective players personal history to get them started. Knowing that Wheat's Tiger Zouaves came from Louisiana is what made them my favorite regiment from the American Civil War. That is because my father grew up in New Orleans.

138 Squadron RAF,

What if the tournament was well organized by a grand group of chaps who were enjoyable opponents? What if they reciprocated by participating in your accurate historical simulation? I have been involved in miniature gaming for a long time and we know from experience that is is very difficult to attract players to a table with one person sitting at it. At our last Waterloo battle one of the players was a 1/72 scale tank model builder. He had a great time and we had an average of 8 players at the table as the day wore into the evening. It's the players that make the game, not the rules.

I think some people are bashing strawmen here.

@138 Squadron: "Sorry, I do like clearly written rules it makes everone's life easier. It also explains why the likes of LeSalle, Foundry Napoleonics et al will not find there way to my library."

I'll grant you the Foundry book, but Lasalle, Black Powder, and FOW are models of clear writing and excellent presentation. Much better than most of the old grognardy games of yesteryear.

I'm not sure what the rest of JSchutt's laundry list has to do with any of those games.

> You don't have to use any of them for tournament play. They all contain and encourage historical scenarios.
> Neither Lasalle nor Black Powder have any plans for scenario books. Lasalle has a scenario Wiki where gamers actually build their own scenarios and share them. They've already done about 10 of them. All free to the public, obviously.
> Nobody forces you to play ahistorical army matchups.. or to go to any tournaments for that matter. If you want to do nothing but historical refights, no one will stop you. (Although I'd argue that 'historical" is a pretty fine line, since we all know that Napoleon only lost Waterloo once….)
> Nobody seems to care how you paint your figures or what uniform guides you use. FOW has some basic guidelines. Black Powder and Lasalle just use nicely-painted photos as examples.
> Nobody is forcing you to use the game's programmed victory conditions. Both Lasalle and Black Powder have "gentlemen's surrender" type of rules.

As for whether a game should last at least 6 hours… well, suit yourself. I don't have that kind of time or patience anymore. But if you -did- talk me into playing for 6 hours, then I hope it's because the game is really big and fun and engrossing…. and not just because it's a slow, overly-detailed old rules system.

Seems that there is a rush to judgement for some. Longevity will be a key to domination of the market.

Domination is what you are talking about and I do not see any set of rules taking that position. We have had several sets of rules to hit the market for Napoleonics over the past few years.

Also there is a Fields of Glory due out for Napoleonics as well. So you cannot say that these will be the FoG rather than the FoW for Napoleonics.

The rules are doing good on their own two feet without any group over hyping them.

Will it be successful?
Sam has quite the following and the first reviews are encouraging so it will be at least as successful as Grande Armee I would think.

Will it be the next FOW?
Probably not.

*Most casual gamers have at least some understanding of WWII. Tanks/planes/troops. What more is there to know right? To a considerably lesser extent, they don't have as good of understanding of Napoleonic warfare.

*There is no dedicated miniatures line so no one-stop-shopping complete with spoon for feeding.

*No tournament play as mentioned above. I don't know this for sure so I'll take the poster's word for it. Seems to be longer playing times than a tournament could support anyway.

John

What if the tournament was well organized by a grand group of chaps who were enjoyable opponents? What if they reciprocated by participating in your accurate historical simulation?

I would consider doing a tournament in the circumstances that you describe, and maybe it could be found within the Horse & Musket. I enjoy playing with grand groups of chaps and can rub along with most gamers, 40 years of playing proves that I have found such people in the hobby.

My experience of tournament play in ancient gaming, on four continents and spreading back over 30 years is that I find the players who are small-minded rules lawyers who's comments to me included;

"I don't care if it's historically accurate, you can't do that under the rules."

"If you where 1mm to your left, you could do that, but now you've got to do this"

"It's all about ME!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"It's all about winning"

"This is a friendly game, but look at the rules, now because this four conditional clause has a comma here you can't do that."

If I may,
I think one of the things that people continue
to overlook about FOW and now Lasalle is the attraction
of a points/competition game.

This is exactly the point I tried to make when I started the thread.

And for FOW and apparently Lasalle it's more than just a point system. It's a scenario system that provides a framework for the games and good matchups. That's just as important for pickup games as the even points balancing of the armies.

So that's why I wondered aloud whether Lasalle could duplicate some of FOW's success as a game (assuming you backed it up with prepackaged units, bases, etc.)

The cost of collecting and painting an entire army can be little high. >/q>

I'm wondering if it's more expensive then an "average" FOW army or if more figures are required.

I'd sooner use reference books than the internet and I can design senarios perfectly well from reading most histories of the Horse and Musket period with out help, thank 'ee very much. Sorry, I do like clearly written rules it makes everone's life easier.

It also explains why the likes of LeSalle, Foundry Napoleonics et al will not find there way to my library.

Yea, that's great. You're smarter than me and know more about Napoleonic history than I do. Happy now?

i'b be prepared to wager the difference that a Lasalle army following the rules will be cheaper than a FoW one in the same scale.

leaving aside the 'essential' suppliments and extra books required, and the widgets and plastic watchamacallits and branded dice and markers.

you can have a sparse base if you are really pushed – FoW specifies figures for infantry bases IIRC.

and you can buy older model cheap 15mm scale Napoleonic figures from decades ago, which you can't do with 15mm ww2 armour and support vehicles.

three tanks is always going to cost more than 4 bases worth of infantry, I think.

You might not like Lasalle's system, fine, but to say they're badly written? That's just bad faith. Sam's rules are a model of how rules should be written.

i'b be prepared to wager the difference that a Lasalle army following the rules will be cheaper than a FoW one in the same scale.

Cost has never been a issue with FoW or GW players. They are clearly some of the most expensive game systems on the market and they do incredibly well.

Keraunos:

Depends on the manufacturer and how you choose to represent your figures. In general though I suspect you're correct that Lasalle will be cheaper than FOW.

You can pick up the AB unit packs for about $25 USD per battalion and $16 USD per cavalry unit. Not too bad for the cream of the crop in 18mm Napoleonics. My beloved Russian Artillery batteries are about $42 USD a pop… obviously a cunning plot to limit the number of Russian armies in play.

You can get cheaper miniatures or second hand ones. You can do the same with FOW as well. I know a number of people who use Old Glory or other manufacturers instead of Battlefront for their games.

You can pick up the AB unit packs for about $25 USD USD per battalion and $16 USD USD per cavalry unit.

So how many units in an "average" Lasalle force? Say 10 infantry battalions and 4 cavalry regts (you need artillery too). That's $300+ dollars.

Now what's an average FOW army cost? Once you buy infantry, supporting units (mortars, artillery, anti-tank guns, tank support) it's probably about the same. If you did an armored force with no infantry it's probably less expensive.

That's using the most expensive figures possible. If you go with second hand figures or cheaper models like Old Glory, the cost may be half that much.

"I suppose that it simulates WWII perfectly and exactly in every way without the least compromise… but I'm guessing it has been out of print for 20 years and it takes longer to play a skirmish than to watch the director's cut of Von Stroheim's Greed."

There was a live-action version of this, but nobody's played if for nearly 65 years.

For the past two weeks, we have been getting orders out the door for Christmas while working on pre-packaged units for Lasalle. We have sold (to locals) over 20 such units (inf, cav and arty) and have today, received orders for even more…..and haven't (until now) let folks now that we are even doing this!

Reading thru the rules and I see Sam's new set brining more folks in to Napoleonics! It's not really as question as to "Which rules set will sell more, be the most popular or set some new standard for production, etc., it's about how many new people discover the fun of actually playing and getting a several turn game of Napoleonics completed in a couple of hours.

Locally, it's the FoW crowd that have spurred on this avalanche of Napoleonic sales! They have parked their tanks while they explore the world of Napoleonics!

FWIW, our infantry sets include a mounted officer, one set of command, skirmish figures and elites. Small sized infantry units $15.95 USD and large ones, $19.95. Small Cav units are $16.95; Large: $25.95; small arty: $15.95; 4 stand $24.95, 5 stand Russians $27.50. (Limbers comes with 4 horses and 2 outriders)

Am still working on nations and lists. If you need one, email me the army, period and "large " or "Small" or by Sam's unit "name".

It's got me back to painting, again, and really enjoying it!

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

I know some folks like to bash LaSalle for the pre-packaged core armies, and think their own efforts to "research" OOBs are more "historically accurate," but thirty years of gaming has shown me that 80% of the snobs who think they're master researchers couldn't build a balanced, accurate core army if they tried.

In short, the armies offered up in LaSalle are a far sight more accurate and balanced than the bespectacled grognard who showed up at my club a decade ago with an army comprised of twenty-three battalions of Old Guard Grenadiers. Please.

I think LaSalle is set to become a very popular set of rules. They are well written and thus makes it easier for people who want to get into Napoleonic gaming. Generally one does not view Napoleonics as a tournament period but that might change with LaSalle. However, I am sorry to see Sam to put in all that effort that is bound to fail. We all know that Napoleonic gaming is just a flash in the pan. After all, it has no Landsknechts.

Rich