"A problem with Black Powder" Topic

How far removed is modifying BP from writing your own rules? It appears to me that if you know enough of the period and have years of gaming experience. Then you could just as well write your own house rules.

VERY far removed. BP delivers a set of relatively generic (for the blackpowder period) rules that can be played as is but MAY be customized to suit taste or period flavour. But as anyone who has veer tried can tell you, writing an entire well-functioning ruleset is a lot more difiicult than that (or else we would be ankle-deep in them).

how do u mean moving and shooting alternatly?

its done in the Igo Ugo system, player a moves and shoots then player b moves and shoots. Are you saying both should move then both should shoot?

My preference (and one that turns out quite nicely) is I move, you shoot, you move, I shoot.

This prevents strange stuff like infantry that runs up to an artillery battery (from outside firing range even!) then fires a volley at them that Shakes them without the battery being able to even fire at them once.

Or your line standing and watching the enemy march up to you, firing at you, then receiving your charge and firing at you AGAIN, all the while without you being able to fire a single shot at them.

Personally, I wouldn't use BP for a historical subject for which a polished, tightly written, dedicated game (rules set) is available if I was personally running the game.

This brings up visions of charts within charts supported by sub-charts, myriad detailed rules for once-a-century-occasions that have to be checked every turn and discussions about whether Austrian dragoons may charge before tea-time on a weekday…..

My preference (and one that turns out quite nicely) is I move, you shoot, you move, I shoot

I have no idea why BP does not have this as its default method we changed to this after one game!

the anorak brigade have been keeping me away from Naps for a while.

Anorak?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In British slang an anorak (pronounced /ˈænəræk/) is a person, usually male, who has a very strong interest, perhaps obsessive, in niche subjects. This interest may be unacknowledged or not understood by the general public. The best known explanation of the term, is the use of anoraks (a type of rain jacket) by train spotters, a prototype group for interest in detailed trivia.

Henry Martini,

I think your comment about differing approaches across the pond to wargaming rules is bang on and very astute – I've said something similar myself when comparing BP with LaSalle rules on this forum. Perhaps its a reflection of the differing level of esteem lawyers are held in the respective cultures – didn't someone say that the US was a nation founded by lawyers for lawyers!

What interests me as a Brit newcomer to Australia, which in many ways is a fusion of Brit and US approaches, is the innate conservatism of local wargamers to new rules – I think the attitude here to BP, after playing a few games, (Generalising Wildly) is 'I won't be buying them, they are too easy and they make the game go too fast and I had way too much fun'!

Kind Regards,

Sparker

Pijlie – period specific, precisely targeted doesn't equate to unnecessarily complex. I myself have designed an Australian Frontier skirmish game that employs imbecilically simple mechanisms and is entirely chart-free, but which because of its highly focused design parameters is unusable for any other subject.

Thanks for the compliment, Sparker. As I mentioned, I play with a local group that has taken to BP with gusto..but then, most of the members are first and foremost gamers not steeped in military history, who spend as much time playing RPGS, boardgames, and computer games as miniatures games.

Oh…and don't forget that lawyers turn into politicians.

Henry,

Each to his own in any case :o)

I am probably some sort of hybrid. I'd like to read as much about a period as possible but in games my main goal is to emulate the athmosphere of the period, not the factual details. Hence my demands on a ruleset are aimed for mood and fun and not simulation detail.

So your set for the Australian Frontier sounds interesting!

I've run three 40mm Anglo-Zulu war games with them so far and they were are a lot of fun. Two of those were at Cold Wars. At Histoicon I'm going to be running 3 BP games, two 40mm British colonial games and one 15mm Japenese Samura period game. The last one is a stretch but it should work. Its set in 1637.

"Those seeking something nearer a simulation must look elsewhere."

" Should the command level of an army actually make infantry columns able to move faster than cavalry?…etc."

All rules are perspectives. What you take to be "common sense" is merely the product of many years of people repeating the same basic mechanisms in every rules set.

But if you want a set of rules that are both quick playing and provide a grand-tactical perspective on the black powder period (rather than just being an upsized tactical set), get Volley & Bayonet.

number 6

Thats obvuiously where Im going wrong. I am looking at BP for internal logic and not finding it. I expect common sense to be common sense. I am not looking at what has come before.

Basileous comment about cavalry moving slower under some commands and his references to the obscure mid 19th century identifies his preception of the issue. He seems to say, cavalry can sometimes be slow….but you wouldnt do a mechanism that on average has infantry columns moving faster than cavalry….You just wouldnt do that because it is silly. He doesnt seem to realise that this is what I am discribing and the effect is constant across the same commanders. It isnt a case of different commanders with poorer ratings….The same guy will move his infantry columns faster than his cavalry, unless he tries to move them with the same die roll, then the infantry slow down because they use the cavalries number.

Now just consider that statement with common sense. What is it that causes this? Why is it that both cuesta and Napoleon can move their infantry columns faster than their cavalry?

People are playing this and dont even notice! They don't see past a +1

Er…infantry columns dont move faster than cavalry.

cavalry moves 18", infantry 12"…..theres not much grey area here.

Infantry columns are just more likely to move at all….

in some very rare cases.

errr…..oh dear

'They dont see past a +1'

and youve attributed the +1 to the wrong cause!

yes…. well….

Sure Mike……

Can I ask you,

What would you rate 1809 austrian and french command values at?

and Should French infantry in columns move faster than Austrian Cavalry?

*facepalm*

You are aware that the +1 AFFECTS HOW MUCH YOU MOVE?

18 inches v 12 inches? really?

kevanG,

Should French infantry in columns move faster than Austrian Cavalry?

Simple answer is they don't.

I suspect that is not your question as you preceded it by one on command values, which in the rules, as you are well aware govern (along with a die roll)the number of moves a unit or group of units can make per game turn.

Your question is no doubt directed at the fundamental mechanism of variable amounts of movement in a game turn, as expressed in multiples of the base value, for the troop type.

Thus it is perfectly possible for a French infantry column to move 36" (3x12") in a game turn, when opposing cavalry only move half that amount (1x18")or not at all.

Basically its a timing thing and part of the shortcomings of most IGOUGO game structures.

You can rationalize it any number of ways: Orders not arriving or being ignored, incompetence or hesitance of commanders, visibility, micro terrain that would be present but is not practical to model on the table top etc. etc.

Its a random reflection of activity over a time period, not out right speed.

Useful in a game that does not base itself on frontages, ground scale, or accurate models of time and distance relationships, because the authors chose not to go that far.

But you knew that, didn't you?

Trajanus

Yes, I knew that, and I also know they didnt acheive it

and the correct answer, when you take the command system into account for overall movement, is that they do!…unless you have the command values the exact same on both sides and even then , the infantry will only move about an inch less on average per turn

But you didn't want to hear that did you?

look past the +1.

@Pijlie & Trajanus
"My preference (and one that turns out quite nicely) is I move, you shoot, you move, I shoot"
Forgive me if this is an obvious question but is this different from simply making a side shoot then move?

@ kevanG. Out of interest, and apologies if you've stated this elsewhere, what are your favoured Horse and Musket rules?
Many thanks,
Andy

kevanG,

when you take the command system into account for overall movement, is that they do!…unless you have the command values the exact same on both sides and even then , the infantry will only move about an inch less on average per turn

I'm not surprised, although I've never stopped to do the math.

As I said:

a game that does not base itself on frontages, ground scale, or accurate models of time and distance relationships, because the authors chose not to go that far

However, I'm mildly intrigued you find BP worth this level of detailed thought.

If it were a set of rules where its author's or indeed its fan boys lauded the content as a new frontier in detailed simulation (or the attempt there of) I could understand it.

As they are nothing more than a 'knock down drag'em' out entertainment and don't profess to be any other I'm left wondering why.

Are they to popularist?

Is it that you feel that some of us are giving them ‘heirs and graces' by sprucing them up with a little bit of history?

Is it because they are not based on the aforementioned proper frontages, ground scale, or accurate models of time and distance relationships?

If so, that kind of thing applies to pretty much every commercially available set I know of and I know quite a few.

So come on, out with it, where's the beef?

Don't bother with the detail; I think most of us get the drift. What's the guiding principal of your objection?

'However, I'm mildly intrigued you find BP worth this level of detailed thought.'

I found BP to give particularly strange looking games, weird combat results, weird command…while a lot of people I play with rushed headlong into buying (and encouraging others to buy them too) then using these rules for a particularly large game, from which I walked away.

I spent a lot of time playtesting to learn them to get to the bottom of what was happening and to do the "tweaks " that everyone talks so fluidly about, but the tweaks create even bigger problems elsewhere..and half the Useful rules are not adding flavour, They are fixes to a broken, unelegant ruleset.

So The beef is that they are a badly designed cats cradle of poorly selected mechanisms interlinked in a user unfriendly way to the point of requiring a wholesale re-write….albeit abandonment is a better option.

But as Cypher says in the matrix, "I know this isnt a real steak……Ignorance is Bliss"

"Are they too popularist?"

Not in my house they aint!…and some of the players I know who did have high hopes for them are quietly abandoning them.

well I spose you could replace the orders system with a chart to roll on to see how much time a unit has available to carry out its orders, then roll on another chart to see if the adc gets decapitated by a cannon ball on the way to deliver them, another to see how much time the brigadier has to think about his orders and write them down, then roll to see if the regimental commander can understand his handwriting, with modifiers varying according to which school they each went to….

Alternatively you could say any orders are given and understood automatically…but we know thats not very realistic, so having agreed that we need some form of unpredicatability involved in the giving of orders and that its going to be impossible to put a number to all of the possible variables so all we really need to do is draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the grey area.

Basically the BP way isnt the only way, but its certainly not more wrong than any other way.

And yes if I roll 3 moves for the infantry but only one for the cavalry of course the infantry will have gone further, but it doenst mean they were moving faster. Just that the donkey wallopers spent more of the time allocated to the movement phase (however long that is…30 seconds, a week..whatever.) faffing about. Or trying to find somebody to read the order to them…

Some people just cant see past a +1….

Iteresting Mike,

Its not the direction I would go but… give it a go.

_Personally I would remove most of the pointless modifiers and simplify the over-elaberation, but the people who play it dont want to do that because for some reason, they think it must get more complicated.

I like your comment about orders are given and understood automatically. Black powder recognises that only happens when you are engaged within 8 inches …….no …wait…errr…is that kinda a bit weird again?

But hey if you think that attack columns have a better idea about when to form square than a line., then don't mind me thinking that it's a bit whacky du lally

Who would have thought you could hide so much nonsense behind a +1.

*sigh* very well, en garde, mes amis! ;)

Modifiers? Hmm…ok, aint got the book to hand but IIRC thats, +1 for column of march, +1 for reliable, -1 for unreliable, -1 per 12" distance, no modifier for light cav or units that are experienced in detatched opps. Thats all we use…doesnt seem unreasonable. I cant see why youd remove those.

I also dont see how removing them makes it more complicated. Slightly less so surely. Not a huge difference either way.

Ok, and then you jump to Initiative Orders. Think youve got this wrong here. Orders are NOT automatic close in…but you already knew that, you just like an argument with no basis…you still have to roll to do anything other than moving away from or towards the enemy, which is about right: the regimental commander can see the enemy right in front of him and can decide what to do about it, just like its his decision when to start shooting, not the generals. He uses his own Initiative based on the immediate situation, not being privy to the finer details of the wider battle…the clue is in the name. ;)

And since when did attack colums get a better idea of when to form square? They both (in naps and after) form square when they are charged to their front (am I right in thinking its ONLY the front? doesnt apply from the flank?) As the Line has a longer frontage it surely has more chance of forming square.

Ah…but you were talking about French columns werent you so they become a tiny bit more reliable. Still a silly argument (and one that would only apply to every other possble manouver EXCEPT forming square!), once youve got 'em all pointed in the right direction little further clarification is required beyond singing the Jungle Patrols theme song, "Hup, two, three, four…"

Attack columns have the +1 bonus….the same as March columns off road…Hence why they and for some obscure reason, march columns can form square easier.

Making them reliable is just icing on the cake.

Hmm, You get to make a single move if you are in engagement range without rolling for it!

but Hey, I dont have the rules in front of me either

Hmm, thought that was just the french columns that got +1, I shall check later. As I said before forming square is a bad example becouse you do that automatically ;) And as I said before it is easier for a column to advance than a line: Easier to keep your dressing and your formation, and (Ill repeat it!) once theyre in column soldiers tend to realise that maybe its time to march forward becouse thats what they do in that formation…

And yes you do get a free move when the games afoot. Thats cos lieutennant colonels arent stupid and dont wait for the general to tell them to do the obvious. JUST LIKE HOW YOU DONT NEED TO TAKE A COMMAND CHECK TO SHOOT once you get close enough to do so! Its a little bit of micromanagment that the General will not concern himself with.

All this is pretty obvious stuff mate.

If I was commanding a battalion of infantry, and suddenly a bunch of enemy regiments appear within musket shot to my front, do I:
A ) Ignore them, my general would have told me if I was suppossed to do anything.
B ) Order the lads to give 'em a volley, 3 cheers for the king and CHARGE!

Its not difficult is it? Most of your "problems" with BP, dont seem to have much basis. In fact the only real problem I found with it is one you havnt mentioned, and which my group solved by adding a +1….

Okay, just so that I know that leuitenant colonels can telepathicly link their minds to their brigade commanders when engaged with the enemy for complete co-ordination of forces up close and personel…. doing the obvious is so obvious, especially when it isnt obvious with all that smoke and noise and battle stuff going on, but Hey, I'm sure Ive got it wrong again…

Like its so obvious I should shoot , I'll charge instead….I obviously know that my brigade commander will want me to do that

ermm…your doing this on purpose now..

Why would telepathy be required? He can see the enemy right in front of him, he cant just ignore them or wait till they go away, his men are firing volley after volley, he has to make a decission with or without the Generals imput, and he has to make it NOW.

Its not an attempt to keep the battle coordinated, and keeping in mind the wider picture (I already said that last time!) , its a straight choice between continuing to fire, backing away, or driving off the nearest threat with your bayonets, and he makes his decision using his Initiative to decide which is more likely to be successful, weighning up his own strength, the presence of any support, and his enemies strength…

But again, you know this, its obvious, its how it works and your just being difficult!

I'm doing it on purpose????

A column can decide, completely arbitarilly at the players whim, to form square or come out of square or form line or wheel or charge or stay put and provide a support to some other unit with the same total latitude to do the same. It's 100% guarenteed and can be done in any order you like because you are in 8 inches of the enemy. Now, it may be obvious to you that it is obvious what to do for every one of these actively engaged battalian commanders, but I just suspect that maybe, it wasn't 100% guarenteed you can co-ordinate front lines like that with everyone able to do the wide variety of potential actions that are always somehow the 'obvious'.

If by pointing out that this seems a bit peculiar to me, then Yes, I'm doing this on purpose.

Its not arbitrary, and it is limited. there are only 3 options: forward or backward in a straight line, or stand still. No manouvering, no changing formation.

Just the regiment reacting to its surroundings.

It doesnt get easier just becouse the enemy are closer: its more limited whether its the Brigadier or the colonel thats giving the order. Its just that now the colonel isnt acting as part of the bigger overall plan: thats done for now, the general has placed him in a fight and now hes got to fight it.

Funny, It hasnt been interpreted that way locally! Hope Bill is reading this!

Forward includes wheels, oblique movement as the rules state you have to cover 50% frontage of the target and how do you advance to combat if you can't cover 50% of the frontage. Interesting about the formation changes, but didnt read that as an exclusion.

……..And it looks like there was a good reason.

page 30 Initiative orders

"A unit using its initiative can move once just as if it had received an order. In most situations,the unit can move in any fashion the player wishes, but the unit is limited to a single move."

This obviously allows for the wheels, charges , changs of formation and all the other goodies I previously mentioned.

And the straight forward and straight back isn't quit as rigid as "in a straight line" either. The rule actually uses the phrase "must move roughly straight forward or straight back". then clarifies this by this statement

"All further movement must be made in their front or rear quarter."

that in itslf doesn't even rule out pivoting.

hmmm havnt the book on me, but wed always interpreted it as as toward the closest enemy or away from them. I can defo recall that squares can change formation in the presence of cavalry….

Still cant see what your complaining about though, are you suggesting that it would be more realistic once the battle lines close for everyone to stand around doing nothing?

If only brigade commanders and commander in chiefs can decide what a unit does, then why do battalion and company commanders exist?

its more limited whether its the Brigadier or the colonel thats giving the order. Its just that now the colonel isnt acting as part of the bigger overall plan: thats done for now, the general has placed him in a fight and now hes got to fight it

Yep, that's the way it works. Its called Regulation!

The whole Brigade follows the Regulating Battalion's example. The Brigade Commander drives the Brigade via his instructions to one Battalion and the rest follow suit.

Once in musket range they are all let off the leash to batter whats in front of them. Battalions were generally instructed as to carrying the position by fire or assault. Although sometimes the front Battalions might fire in support of a second line coming on in Assalut Column through the gaps in the first line.

The 'Brigade' moves and the 'straight ahead' rule simulate this pretty well.

Unfortunately like every other set of rules BP fails to explain this, even though it represents it!

Use Regulation, nominate a Regulating Battalion and keep everyone lined up with it and/or in relative position to it. Every Battalion must then stay in the same formation except to form square if surprised – self preservation takes precedence.

Do this and all those independent movement and reactions kevanG hates go away.

Plus it has the virtue of being historically correct!

You can't see what I am complaining about?

Perhaps its hidden behind a +1.

"Still cant see what your complaining about though, are you suggesting that it would be more realistic once the battle lines close for everyone to stand around doing nothing?"

You mean like they can do when they aren't engaged? Perhaps there should be a chance of that happening rather than an ability to act completely co-ordinated.

If I was guessing about the +1 I didn't spot, and from your previous answers, It didn't have anything with charging within 12 inches did it? Playing your way would make it harder to charge within 12 inches of the enemy than from further away.

In respect to your comment

"Orders are NOT automatic close in…but you already knew that, you just like an argument with no basis"

I have shown that orders are automatic close up and I already knew that even if you didn't, and I will confirm that I never argue without a basis.

I really do not understand why everyone rises to kevanG's baiting.

If he had read the introduction to BP he would have some idea of the authors' intention, which is clearly stated (kevanG re-read page 4!!!). If he bought them as a set of Napoleonic specific rules then he is clearly misguided (either that or he believes that period lasted from 1701-1898 (also stated on page 4)).

He suggested just over a week ago that he had more to do in his life than respond on this thread. Since he's back, whatever that 'more' was it wasn't very satisfying.

In short, he doesn't like them (probably doesn't understand their approach)and never will. Move on guys and don't waste your 'breath'. You have an ice cream's chance in hell of changing his mind. He should find a set of rules SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE NAPOLEONIC PERIOD and then moan. At least then it might be constructive in the context of Napoleonic wargames.

Chad

@Pijlie & Trajanus
"My preference (and one that turns out quite nicely) is I move, you shoot, you move, I shoot"
Forgive me if this is an obvious question but is this different from simply making a side shoot then move?

This "I move, you shoot, you move, I shoot" is used in other rules – notably Fire and Fury.

I don't know about Pijlie but the need for something different in BP became apparent to us because, as written, they allowed one side to move up and shoot, while the other stood by and let them do it, incurring possible disorder and moral tests with out the right of reply.

This seemed to favor the side moving first to an undue degree.

"If he bought them as a set of Napoleonic specific rules then he is clearly misguided (either that or he believes that period lasted from 1701-1898 (also stated on page 4))."

Actually, I have never done napoleonics with them, Just ACW, AWI and 7YW…….nor did I buy them, Thank God!. From my experience, I beleive they have a wider period of rubbish than just napoleonics.

DaveOB believes they suit AWI best, I think they suit ACW best, but by best I think I mean Least worst.

@ kevanG.
It's the Proximity rule that limits your actions when close to the enemy.

@ Trajanus
I understand the reasoning. We have experimented with
I shoot, I move, you shoot, you move and i'm wondering if there is much difference with the way you do it.

I quite like how changing things round means its possible to disorder a unit by shooting prior to charging.

"It's the Proximity rule that limits your actions when close to the enemy."

.but nowhere near what has been assumed by some people playing it, especially when the initiative rule is also triggered at exactly the same time. You cannot actually have one of these occur. They are both mutually ocurring, unless you interprete the proximity rule to refer to a distance only to your front quarter.

Its just one of those little foilables where 2 rules seem to not mesh together too well..

For chad47.

I understand what BP are trying to do and I understand their approach. It isnt far removed from Lasalle or for that matter, Fire and fury as an older set example or even the wargames holiday centre Horse and Musket rules. They are more complex than Rank and File.

All of these have mechanisms that mesh better then BP.

And the 'more' was very satisfying…..

Tzen67,

We went the Fire and Fury route as we were used to it.

The key thing for us was to stop the marching of a Line to point blank range and shooting the hell out of a unit.
Bearing in mind that unit could be artillery and how easy it is rout in the rules (We have changed that too, by the way)we thought it totally wrong.

It may be that our way gives the defender a better chance of stopping the attacker.

We go ABAB, you go AABB.

Which means Side A still gets to do everything first. This is not such a problem if you dice for who goes first each turn but the rules assume the first side is always first, through out the game. To my mind, your way still gives to much advantage to Side A.

We play that disorder stays on until the end of the movement part of the sides following turn. That way you can be disordered in a charge or be disordered when facing one after being shot at.

Initiative rule – "…so sometimes it is preferable to forego an initiative move in favour of issuing an order which could potentially give to or three moves."

Sounds optional to me and is not 'triggered', by which you seem to imply it is compulsory.

The proximity rule applies both to initiative moves AND moves resulting from the normal order process and as such applies independently of initiative. Initiative and proximity are only mutually occurring if you choose to use the initiative rule.

Chad

Hmm!

The thread pauses for a week then virtually doubles in three days.

If I can go back to what I thought was the purpose of the thread (after all I started it) which was to deal with the lack of guidance on troop stats and appropriate special rules in given circumstances as beyond the example scenarios in the book so I wrote

"so far little seems to be emerging to offer further guidance in either the Warlord BP forum or the BP Yahoo Group besides an FPW listing on the latter.

I've started a thread in the "Duke of Marborough Orangery" of the Gentlemen's Wargames Parlour link for colleagues to share any stats they might have determined on and to discuss their rationale.

Visitors welcome. Anyone wishing to enrol as a Gentleman is equally so."

The invitation is still there.

Funnily, Ive never seen two batlelines close to within 12" (usually more like6" in our games) and then start doing bizarre manouvers all over the place. The rules may or may not allow all kinds of formation changes or back flips, but it never actually happens.

All the movement you see is an occasional shuffle to get the lines dressed properly (before the Sergeant Major has a fit) and the occasional bayonet charge, though usually both sides will have spent quite some time weighing it up before anyone risks it.

The only formation changes you see are..ermm…well you dont, actualy. If anythings is in square it tends to have to stay there becouse of the proximity of cavalry (presumably the ones that made it form squre originally), if anythings in line its not moving cos its trying to pump out as many shots as possible, and if anything is in column of assault its not trying to form line becouse its trying to shrug off the hits and get stuck in. And neither will be trying to form square becouse they dont need to: they get that as a charge reaction when charged anyway!

The Austro-Prussian War isn't an obscure subject!

Jeremy

I posted test stats for 1866 on the BP Yahoo group and am presently testing Marlburian. The 1866 test went reasonably well but the Austrian columns were to effective, so adjustments need to be tested.

Marlburian game in progress and again it is probably not quite there. Happy to post those in due course if you wish.

Chad

Thanks Chad.

I have this naive feeling that if those of us who like them share information they will even get better.

'Sounds optional to me and is not 'triggered', by which you seem to imply it is compulsory'

I never said it was compulsary and any implication is your own

The initiative rule is triggered at 12 inches. Outside of 12 inches it is not an option to use,

The proximity rule is similarly triggered at 12 inches. It doesnt apply outside of 12 inches. Anything within 12 inches has both rules, Anything outside has neither rule.

Some command levels are actually better to use the initiative rule because they have such a low chance of success. Anything with 7 or 6 command IRRC or any general applying any negative modifier on an 8.

'The rules may or may not allow all kinds of formation changes or back flips, but it never actually happens.'

You are not watching the games I am seeing. It happens all the time… Gaps appear in lines and winners turn on flanks with complete ease, ending with both sides looking like they have 3 men and a dog as survivors.

And the effectiveness of columns in the rules is recognised as an issue outwith the Austro Prussian war.

@ Trajanus
Forgive my pedantry but what you describe is ABBA which (apart from a string of successful hits in the charts) is no different from AABB.
(i'm desperately trying to get a Waterloo joke in somehow but can't think of one!)

@ Jeremy Sutcliffe
Are you a member of the Yahoo group? There is much discussion of rules and house rules there.

Cheers
Andy