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

"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."

Hmmm, sounds like there is cheese for all ages :o)

If they do become the FOW of Napoleonics, does that mean that Sam will have to take over a major wargames magazine and totally ruin it?

This Dinosaur is sticking to General de bridge (3rd edtion out June 09?)

Another dinosaur here:).

With old Glory and the Army discount, i can put out a PZ III company for under $100. USD I dont know that I can win a lot without support, but I can play.

I could perhaps do that with 1/72 plastics for a Naps army. But the 1/72nd stuff is a lot harder to find than metals. And they look like toys until they are painted. Of course they are toys, as are all minis, but the soft plastics really look like it.

I would love for Sams rules to be the FoW of Napoleonics. Or any other set of rules. I dotnt think it is though. In fact I am not sure there can be such a thing. The period just does not seem to lend itself to that.

Have to admit I find this whole concept rather silly.

Lasalle is just a set of rules. It isn't a method of selling a range of figures and it doesn't impose a rigid basing system like FOW does, so two Lasalle players may turn up for a game with their Napoleonic armies and find they're quite incompatable as they are based very differently. It doesn't matter too much how your army is based for Lasalle (VERY wise move here!) as long as both sides are based the same.

I have played FOW but after about 20 games or so decided I preferred alternative rules. This doesn't make FOW a poor set of rules. They just aren't for me. I've started playing Lasalle and have enjoyed it so far. I haven't played enough to say that these will be my preferred Napoleonic set in future but they're heading that way. Due to the flexible basing I can also play a variety of other Napoleonic rulesets which I find a great advantage.

Can't understand why people just don't play whatever they want. As long as they enjoy the game who cares who popular or unpopular the ruleset may be?

Not if you use available data for comparison. Difference between GW, Battlefront (perhaps Partizan Press should also be included in this short list) and the rest is that the first three serve you everything on a silver platter – rules, miniatures and periphery materials are available from a single source. Also, marketing and branding purposefully creates almost immidiate brand LOYALITY. True, there are other companies that use same concept (Corvus Belli for example), but GW and Battlefront are also having an edge in respect of distribution.

My conclusion is therefore that unless a company can provide 'complete experience', it is impossible to reach the level of success of GW/Battlefront. Currently, only other company that could achieve that would be Osprey/Slitherine – they have established presence on the market, they have distribution channels and necessary printed materials. All they need now are 'Osprey Miniatures'.

In respect of the side discussion regarding 'serious' historical gamers and 'tournament/we play for fun' gamers – would you folks give it a rest? Yes, some people won't mix with each other because their 'ideology' is fundamentally different. That's how it works everywhere, deal with it and stop whining over the fact that someone doesn't want to play with you.

As my mates who are xGW store managers say (the same goes for the shops who sell FOW I suspect) a lot of sales are from some bod who walks in (it may be the player or someone buying a gift) and saying I have xx core army what can I buy for 15 or whatever quid to make it better?

Until a NAP game can do that it probably isn't going to attract the spoon fed brigade that FOW and WH/40K do – I think the rules could do it but until the figs are there it probably isn't going to.

It isn't going to be FOW because it's not tied to a line of figures.

Anyone who says it is poorly written has not read rules written by Sam Mustafa.

I won't get a set soon because:

1) I've spent too much recently.

2) I recently got my crew to play a new set of Marlburian rules. They are not eager to try another set of anything, and I have a copy of Black Powder in the chamber. In time…

I'll know it's "FoW-Naps" when somebody wants to use their Scots Greys as a proxy for Grenadiers a Cheval….(to "try them out" before buying).

Im a bit mystified about where "Lasalle" stands in regard to the vital issue of command radii.

[Im a bit mystified about where "Lasalle" stands in regard to the vital issue of command radii.]

Pretty much the same as every other Napoleonics game: Officers have command radii, inside which they can have various effects upon their units, and units outside the radii are penalized in various ways.

I have played in many Napoleonic competitions, I think the only rules that sort of worked were WRG.

There used to be a large competition following, my gut feel is that the decline in Napoleonics was down to ever increasingly complicated rules that required more and more troops, based differently and that never produced a result.

And the lack of willingness of people to learn yet another set.

I think to me the interesting question is: Is it going to entice new players to play NAPs and forgo/supplement their 40K/Warmachine/AT-43/etc gaming and start a new army up and play throw together games at the club? Which is the thing that FOW did in a lot of places.

The rules may well fit this category as they are simple to pick up but seem 'tight' enough not to degenerate into 'debates' all night long (I love Black Powder but can not see the game lasting long without moaning at our club with throw together games – as a set of rules for a jolly multi player game yes … but not as a 3 games on at once semi competitive night). However although a small game in a sense it still requires a lot of figures, I need the same size force for Lasalle as I do for Black Powder (organised differently but the same amount of bases) which is marketed as a set of BIG games which is I think going to put some people off (I hope not but it may well do).

"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."

That about cracks it for my money. FOW is totally stylized WW2 with the recognizable ability for tournament play. Like building an army for Warhammer 40k or whatever.

I don't think Lasalle meets those criteria. Nor would I suspect Sam wanted it to.

Bede19025 wrote:

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.

Bede:
A game, not simulation? The designers of FOW say:

Flames Of War is a games that allows you to recreate the battles of World War II using miniatures figurines, and so experience the war from the point of view of a front-line company commander…by using the sort of tactics and cunning that a real-life commander would, you and your miniatures soldiers will fight their way to victory after victory!

It is hard to imagine how they could provide that experience of a 'real-life front-line commander' without simulating it. However, Sam says of LaSalle:

If you have a club, or a larger collection and gaming area, Lasalle can also be used to simulate historical battles of the Napoleonic Wars, such as Quatre Bras, Albuera, Saalfeld, or Eggmühl. In these cases, multiple players with multiple forces and a larger table will allow your group to simulate the excitement of a significant battle.

Sounds like the game rules are designed to simulate to me. Doesn't that make it a simulation?

Bede19025 wrote:

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).

There is a great deal to making a set of wargame rules work and it will be great if LaSalle brings more folks to Napoleonics and the hobby. Sam has never made it a secret that making his rules financially successful is a major goal of his. Whether it will succeed at the level of FOW is quite a stretch, but stranger things have happened.

Best Regards,

Bill H.