"In praise of Black Powder" Topic

Just to say that I'm finding Black Powder everything I had hoped for as the basis for Napoleonic games. Producing enjoyable actions with a good look and feel.

As predicted they are taking everything we can throw at them in terms of tweaks and are for whatever reason (haven't stopped to think why, yet) giving a much better Nap game than the few outings we gave them for ACW.

Good to hear! What kind of tweaks and house rules are you using?

Thanks very much for the review – I have been torn about buying yet another rule set, so positive reviews help

Well, we are feeling our way at the moment however:

1. Playing in 15mm, we halved all measurements with the exception of artillery ranges.

2. Included in this is the increase of 3 dice for artillery range out 9".

3. Under Break Tests – a score of 4 – 0 gets you moved back three moves rather than removed but less than 0 and your off the table at once and don't come back.

4. If your unit is driven off the table on a 4 – 0 Break Test result you may return once you are no longer disordered and have a throw which allows you to reach the table edge.

5. The above also applies to artillery. We just couldn't go with artillery coming off the table for every failure on any score.

6. Change in turn sequence to I move – You shoot – You move and I shoot.

7. Commanders moving have to dice for the distance they themselves move on the table top,(1/3, 2/3, Full Move) unless attached to a unit.

We may also go to a dice for initiative at the start of each turn, with the winner choosing to move or shoot first in that turn, as per the above.

The rest, so far is, setting up the various troop stats and attributes to suit our view of national capabilities.

Oh! Two more I forgot.

We don't say units have to change into skirmish formation to enter bad terrain/woods. We just take a half move while in it.

However, when fighting in BUA we deem defenders to be in Skirmish and after the first round, attackers in column and/or line are treated in this way as well.

Depending on more testing on this one, we may treat attackers as Skirmish from the outset.

I'm hopeful from the good buzz these rules are generating that they will allow my friend and I to field our rather enormous Age of Reason armies and still manage to fight out a complete battle in one evening. AoR was a good set of rules but I think our armies have grown beyond what they can handle in the time allowed.

I'd also like to be able to field all (or at least most of) my Anglo-Indian army for the NWF in a battle too.

I wish that someone would post a step by step "how to get started in a game" and a "sequence of play" list of instructions. I have been reading through my copy and seem to be having trouble figuring out how to play the game. I am old, obtuse, but willing to learn.

1. how do I rate Staff
2. how do I create characteristic charts for the various troops
3. what else do I need to do before I actually start pushing figures around the table.
4. do I give orders to each unit in the brigade, or do I give one order for the entire brigade

Fritz- I can answer the last one, even without the rules. The answer is either and both. You can go

1 Bn will advance to that ridge

Assuming you rolled at least one successful command move (even if 1 bn needed 2) you can then say

Bns 2 and 4 will form line and pivot to the left" (assuming they are with in the coherence distence of each other)

(Again a successful roll)

Bn 3 will go into skirmish order

You could alternatively have said
"The whole brigade [again assuming in distance of each other] will advance to the ridge line, and form firing line"

As to (1)- I suggest starting with a Rating of 8. Remember in general they suggest all generals have the same rating (though there is nothing to stop you giving individual ratings). See how that plays and fiddle with to taste.

2) For your first couple of games go with a generic structure eg Generic 1808 French (or whatever)
1 Bde
Line
Line
Light
Light
Gun

2 Bde
Line
Line
Line
Light
Gun

Cav Bde
Med Cav
Med Cav
Horse Gun

and look through the special rules and pick some that seem right for the army. Eg All inf can do mixed, and square, light get First Fire, and a named line bn in 1bde is elite. French in Attack Column get +1.

Use the 'Average' stats given in the back (something like
HtoH 6 Shoot 3, Morale 4 Stamina 3 for infantry)

Do the same for the other side

Shove em on the table

That's all I did for my first game, a test against my 13 year old.

If your doing 18th cent you can say "No Mixed, No Attack Column allowed"

Don't agonise over it too much. If really stuck use my FPW for your trial game and adjust to period

link

or pick a couple of Bde from the demo games in the book

So you just spent $48 USD to write your own set of rules.
Gotta love their marketing.

And these are the only rules I have every made a comment of worse than, I don't play them.

Just so you know not everyone likes these rules.

Yes, but if you caught the Amazon "sale" you picked Black Powder up for less than $20 USD Worth it for the eye candy alone!!

Oggie

thomalley – just a polite question from someone who also doesn't care for Black Powder: If you tweak a set of rules or make some changes to them, does that count as writing your own set of rules? If that's the case then I am very proud to say that I am an accomplished rules writer as I have yet to buy a set of rules I haven't tweaked or modified to some extent in the 30+ years of gaming. It probably why I keep buying rule set after rule set, since I am searching for the perfect set.

Just to be clear, I meant no offense just a bit of tongue in cheek

'So you just spent $48.00 USD USD to write your own set of rules.'

Or, 'So you paid £10.00 GBP for that Lego and you had to make a toy yourself?'
It's about using your preferences, research and knowledge to enhance the rules, not a one stop rules shop. I've never played a set of rules that didn't have at least one 'fault' or feature that needed changing. Of course, not to everyone's taste.

"I have yet to buy a set of rules I haven't tweaked or modified to some extent in the 30+ years of gaming"

Bingo! And that Gentlemen is where we have it!

A rule set that makes no pretense at being the total answer but just says 'play it as written, if you want, or hack it all you like and it will still work!'

That's why it sells!

The Black Powder rules are a lot more complete than what many critics suggest. I find The core rules of the game to be quite comprehensive and clearly written. In terms of the actual writing style, they are one of the best rule sets I have ever read. Black Powder is one of the few rule books that I actually found entertaining to read due to the good natured humour that pervades the text.

Where effort is required by the player is in scenario and army design. However, the rules give examples for seven different periods. Each period includes a suggested unit list and a recount of a battle the designers fought. There is also a tool kit and points system for designing your own units, as well as unit templates. I really like this "tool kit" approach as it allows players to tailor forces to suit specific historical battles.

The designers of Black Powder make it clear that the rules reflect their own personal play stle, where the focus is on having a fun game that has a "feel" for a period without getting bogged down. They also stress the need to put in a bit of effort to come up with a good scenario before hand. For those that appreciate the above principles Black Powder will be a rewarding game.

Always tweak rules.
But changing one or two modifiers is a tweak.
This gentleman changed the sequence of play, the ranges, the movement, fire for artillery.

And I probable wouldn't care about these if they were a $10 USD pdf.
But come on, $48. USD

As the person who mention the preference, I agree. I just don't think the reviews have really told the story about how much you have to do.

Thomalley,
I know what your saying. I gave it some thought too. But for some reason its not the same with theses rules. I think perhaps because your encouraged to do so. It reminds me of the first rules I used as a kid. The Terry Wise ones. Part of the fun was the constant adapting to new periods and adding on what you thought was important.
Maybe its because BP has simple robust mechanisms that allow me to add what I think is important in a Napoleonic game.
Der Altre Fritz.
1. how do I rate Staff?
Bottom of page 11. Try using 7 or 8.
2. how do I create characteristic charts for the various troops?
There are example Napoleonics on page 127.
3. what else do I need to do before I actually start pushing figures around the table?
See bottom of page 5 plus perhaps some casualty and shaken markers or what ever you normaly use. From then on just follow the sequence of play on the QRS.
regards
Max

Not sure why qnyone would pay 48 bucks. Amazon has them for about 35.00. I bought a copy and look forward to playing them.

Amazon has them for about 35.00. I bought a copy and look forward to playing them.

The pre-order was for $20!

Yeah, great deal. It was a mistake on Amazon's part. I should've acted faster.

Well I won't shock you all buy telling you how much I paid for my copy Down Under, but it wasn't cheap!

However, played my first game with a couple of other experienced Naps gamers yesterday and now feel my money was well spent.

The rules, completely untweaked at this stage, flow well and gave a good feel for our large 1805 Moravian scenario – the French command and control really felt blitzkreig like, whereas the poor old Russians and Austrians really were blundering about all over the shop – to my mind, a historical feel.

We did feel the artillery was a little 'unpowered' though, that might be our first tweak…

To follow the tone of the rules – 'Jolly well done chaps – first rate set of rules!'

Kind Regards,

Sparker

Mine were £15.00 GBP via an Amazon trader ($23 ish)

"This gentleman changed the sequence of play, the ranges, the movement, fire for artillery"

Well that's the first time I've been called that for a while!:o)

It sounds like a complete rewrite but its not.

Brett's post puts it very well – "I find The core rules of the game to be quite comprehensive and clearly written"

And again as Ben Ten says – "It's about using your preferences, research and knowledge to enhance the rules, not a one stop rules shop"

I think its a fair point to say reviews have not told the whole story but on the other hand the "story about how much you have to do" isn't quite right either.

You don't have to do anything at all, if you don't want to, you could get a good game as they come.

However, any rules that go from 1700 – 1900 will probably lack enough focus to those who favor one particular period in that time huge time frame.

I would say its fair comment that if you know the major periods well, without pushing a bit harder than the basic differences already contained in the book, it might well feel like there was not enough distinction between them.

However, to do this would have made the book twice as thick and a heck of a lot more expensive.

At least you are given the tools and flexibility, all you need bring is some knowledge.

I've played Black Powder; nothing like as good as I expected but certainly fun and quick with big models on a huge table. I won't be buying a copy though.

I like em!

I have not read or played these rules but from what I am hearing this sounds like the difference between rules writing and gaming in general between Britain and the States.

Some of the rules I have read, which were primarily intended for a British audience, usually an early version of a set of rules written and published locally and then re-written later for publication in the states. The styles are very diffierent.

The British style of rules writing is more of a conversational style. The rules are intended as a frame work and the players build upon it. I can understand how this drives some American gamers crazy.

Some Americans like myself started gaming with Avalon Hill and SPI board games where the rules read like a technical manual and every possible situation is covered or if not numerous pages of errata is required to fix the problem. So naturally we expect our miniature rules to be the same. We don't want have to pick out the rules from a bunch of prose.

For example many years ago I read a very early version of an ECW set of rules from Britain. I think it was "Matchlock". They were very loosely written and just went on talking about going into the West Country and what you may find there and on and on… I was thinking; Are there some rules in here somewhere?

Most American's are too impatient for that style of rules writting. Most of us have a good understanding of the history or we wouldn't be looking to invest so much in a particular period. Just get to the point.

Maybe it's because we have a shorter attention span, I don't know but I understand why Fritz is asking these questions. But then again I admit I have not read or played BP and unless it is a convention game I sign up for, probably won't. Just not my style but for others it's just the ticket and that's great. Something for everyone.

"Most Americans…" Really was that on the last census form that went around?

Los

"Most of us have a good understanding of the history"

Now I know why wargamers stand out in the US! :O)

rallynow, having read and played Black Powder I found the rules to be remarkably clear and comprehensive. They provide more than just a "frame work". Yes, they are written in a conversational style, but I never found it difficult to pluck specific rules from the prose. To me Blackpowder gives an example of good writing by communicating quite complex ideas in as entertaining a manner as possible.

I have a lot of old boardgames, and do appreciate a more "technical" writing style. However, this technical writing can be a chore to read and a real put off to new gamers or old hands that want to dabble with a different rules set/period. Rules that try to cover every eventuallity often become bloated and make the reading process even more laborious as the core of the game is lost in a host of exemptions.

I think Rick Priestly is to be congratulated for his clear yet engaging writing style in Blackpowder. Reading the Black Powder rules was a joy, which actually enhanced my ability to learn them. Too many wargames writers seem to fall in love with their own systems and neglect the value of well written English. The horrific writing style in DBA/DBM leaps to mind with its neverending sentences and convuluted expression. I don't mind the DBA/DBM rules, but decipherring them is like pulling teeth.

"Some Americans like myself started gaming with Avalon Hill and SPI board games where the rules read like a technical manual and every possible situation is covered or if not numerous pages of errata is required to fix the problem"

Know that one! Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader remains the most incomprehensible documentation I have ever attempted to read.

This style of presentation is also why I hated Napoleons Battles!

This is my only gripe with BP,while I do like the writing style in general, don't do this in the rules text. Use sidebars, write extensive design notes, whatever… But explaining why you made a rule the way it is in the rule itself, no.

Other than that I think BP is a great book and rules set. My friend and I did a first play test last friday using truly ancient Airfix Nappies glued to beer mats to get a feeling for the rules before we decide on how to go further (scales, basing, etc). We really liked it, even having read the rules just one and a half times there weren't any big problems or questions and the game itself came to what we think was a realistic result. We will be playing more BP, that's certain.

Stefan, Who at Bristol is playing black powder?

Airfix Nappies glued to beer mats

tha's proper wargaming, that is.

I was wonder what to do with all my old airfix figures.
Outback Restaurants leave stacks of coasters on the table, about 3" square. That should work.
thanks

Never underestimate the usefulness of the humble beer mat ;-)

And in response to mr Last Hussar, my friend and I had a great evening at our wargames club testing a new set of rules. My Highlander brigade withstood the French assault and later defeated them, breaking their brigade while the French guards were held up by another brigade carefully positioned behind a patch of rough ground… Proper wargaming by any means.

So what if we used a bunch of 40 year old Airfix figures glued on beer mats rather than spend lots of time on money on a set of rules we are not sure we like yet? Some other club members have shown a lot of intrest and I'm sure we'll be playing some big Nappie battles in the future with loads of unpainted, beer mat based Airfix, Esci, Italeri figures. Grown men pushing around a bunch of historical miniatures, that's proper wargaming any day!

I think its brilliant you used beer mats- lovely and quick. Hope you used historically correct ones- Stella etc for the French, McEwans for the highlanders. I agree with you- too many people get hung up on millimetric detail that you can only see when magnified.

I have use Lego bricks before now to get a game going.

kevanG – Stefan had a game with me (based on the battle of Lobositz), at the Portbury Knights club.

Always ready to extend my wargames aquaintance if you are in the Bristol area and would like to explore BP.

Cheers, Keith.

Was lucky enough to win a copy of these, and I'm very impressed. You do need a big table and lots of figures, though.

We did feel the artillery was a little 'unpowered' though, that might be our first tweak…

We felt a bit the same way during our first few games. We used the rules for the ACW, and thought that the guns "didn't quite do what guns did" in an approximately division v division- sized engagement.

During our most recent run out of the rules, we had artillery behaving more like units – instead of one gun model representing a battery of 4 or 6 guns, we had each model representing (roughly) a section of two pieces, with each piece having the appropriate artillery stats from the rulebook – so, a Union 6-gun battery was represented by three models, each of which fired with the full amount of dice, and took casualties in the same manner. We found that approach to be far more consistent with our understanding of artillery deployment and use during the ACW, and we didn't feel it overpowered the artillery either.

I am very, very pleased with these rules. They've already given me excellent value for money (I've enjoyed every one of the four games I've played) and the fact that they look pretty is – to me – a nice bonus. I'm well satisfied with them.

That said, if you like/need your rules hyper-detailed and with subsections to cover every possible occurrance and permutation thereof, then this are most emphatically NOT a game you want to play. You won't enjoy these rules at all, in the same way as somebody who doesn't like fish has no business in a seafood restaurant.

I have a basing question for these rules.
I'm using 15mm figs, and I'm basing them on 20mm squares while I build up my forces. I wanted to start organizing them with three bases as a normal sized unit, four as a large and two as a small unit. I have yet to get my hands on the rules, but I'm wondering if this'll work or not. I like the look and that the smaller units give me more units for my buck. Space is also a consideration. As I collect I'll be able to start putting together bigger and bigger units, but for now I was hoping I could get away with the above scheme. I don't care about the ranges being messed up so much- I can adjust for those. Another question I have is, would having just one row of bases (with two ranks of figs on each base) screw up the rules? Or could I get away with this? Thanks!

I wanted to start organizing them with three bases as a normal sized unit, four as a large and two as a small unit.

That would work as long as both sides are based the same way. Shouldn't make any difference to the rules. You can also probably designate a single base as a "tiny" unit if it comes to it.

would having just one row of bases (with two ranks of figs on each base) screw up the rules? Or could I get away with this?

Shouldn't think so. The number of figures on the base shouldn't make any difference – certainly won't mess up anything as long as both sides are based up the same.

The only thing I would say about how your proposed basing system might affect gameplay is that the assault column formation must be (in practice) at least two stands wide, so a three-stand unit might limit how you portray that on the table. Other than that, I don't think it'll matter whether the figures on the base are in single or double ranks. Any unit in line is only going to be one base deep anyway.

Ahh, that was my big question- whether units in line were one or two bases deep. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that in the ACW period you only use line formation anyway. For Napoleonics I'd probably go with larger units, since you'd need to represent columns and such. For that period I'd do six large, four regular and two small. For that matter, I might even go with 40mm x 20mm bases for that period. Not entirely sure though. Like I said, I prefer to have a lot of units vice a lot of figs, at least when I'm doing anything under 25mm.

I have been playing BP with 15mm Austrians & French Napoleonic and halved all distances.
3 games so far, lot of mistakes in the first but once you read the rules a few times they make sence and are easy to remember.
One of the best sets of rules I have seen in many many years.
Keith

I'm using/will be using 10mm from Pendraken, which fits nicely with the distance reduction- Priestly et al use 28mm with inches, I use 10mm figs with cms.

Also the basing fits nicely. BP demo games often use 3 figs on 45mm front. 10mm is 40% of 25mm/Inch. 40% of 45mm front is 18mm, and I intend to use 20mm- close as dammit, easier to make the bases for, and will fit 3 10mm figs..

My BP games for SYW/Napoleonics will be 40% reproductions of those by a bloke who has famous figure designers for mates.

(ACW will be rebase to 30mm to fit easier with Peter Pig rules and F&F though)