"A problem with Black Powder" Topic

kevanG – Agreed. My note was based on the use of 'triggered', which as I indicated made an assumption on your definition of triggered.

The question of columns in the Austro-Prussian War is not dealt with specifically at all in the basic rules (in fact the war is bypassed in the nots).

For clarification of my post on this to Jeremy, Austrian columns under the 'stosstaktik' regime would almost always charge enemy units. This is one of the reasons why they suffered such heavy casualties when trying to engage Prussian infantry using 'schnellfeuer'. I used one of the 'useful' rules, which does actually permit such a charge, however too many hand-to-hand combats took place, which was what I meant by too effective. I am happy with the use of the charge rule as applied and must now consider further work on 'schnellfeuer' to limit their success.

Chad

Andy,

(i'm desperately trying to get a Waterloo joke in somehow but can't think of one!

A man after my own heart! :o)

I think it is different.

Exhibit A: I move, you shoot, you move, I shoot (ABBA)

Exhibit B: I shoot, I move, you shoot, you move (AABB)

In A both sides can be disordered after they move. In B only the first side can.

As Disordered units cant move/change formation (be given a Command) in the following turn this is important as units can get stuck where you don't want them to be.

Sorry Trajanus but it is the same. Disorder is removed at the end of your own sides move. This happens whichever way round you do it.
The faq that was released highlighted this. The rules state disorder is removed at end of the turn but it has since been pointed out that disorder should be removed at the end of your own sides actions.
Cheers,
Andy

Tzen67

Yes I am a member of the BP Yahoo Groupand when I started this thread I was disappointed by the type of information people were leaving in the files. At that stage there was only the FPW stats list.

Jeremy,
Its true that its hard to find other peoples sats anywhere. Speaking for myself i could put up the sats i use for SYW and GNW but the discussions highlight how we all do things a bit differently and i feel its fairly pointless putting my own ideas up. Also, despite a great number of games i'm always tinkering with my stats.

Look at the recent question on the yahoo group about how people deal with SYW Hussars and you'll see a variety of answers. Its an example of how people rarely ask out right for stats, more just ask for opinions and ideas how to handle things.

The great thing about BP is how you taylor it to your own period views,yet two people could do the same period very differently. If your totally new to a period i think there is enough basic info to get started in the book and then as you read up and gain experience you can start to tweak things to suit.

That said, i'll come and check things out on the Gentlemens Wargame Parlour.
Cheers,
Andy

Andy,

Oh Crap!

Too much use of the words TURN and MOVE! :o)

Lets try it BP rules style, as I have missed several things out in my explanation of what we do. (Apologies)

In "the book" it says a complete TURN is two "PLAYER TURNS".

Blue Moves
Blue Shoots
Both fight Hand to Hand

Red Moves
Red Shoots
Both fight Hand to Hand

END OF TURN
------------------------------------------------------------
However, We Play

Blue moves
Red shoots
Red moves
Blue shoots
Both fight hand to hand.

END OF TURN

Dice to see who is Blue for next TURN and repeat as above.

Each TURN, whoever was disordered in the previous TURN stays that way, until the end of the current TURN. If nothing happens to them, its then removed.

Oh so you roll again each turn? interesting…

Hi Trajanus,
Blimey, now wonder I was struggling to understand. You've gone way off script, not just a bit of tinkering but a re write! But that's what I think is one of the great things about BP. It's actually a very robust system that you can manipulate to suit your own style/views.

Thanks for explaining,
Andy

Yeah, sorry Andy.

Truth is that it's become so mechanical I had to stop and think about it myself!

Mike,

Yes we roll for initative every turn; we couldn't understand why you would want to create a command system so similar to Warmaster Ancients and not do so.

Trajanus

Introduced your sequence last night in our test game and thought it was an improvement.

Thanks

Chad

Trajanus

Under your sequence how do you handle a second disorder result? Unit disorderd in turn one is re-ordered at the end of turn2. If during turn 2 the disordered unit receives another disorder result, do you ignore it or move the re-order point to the end of turn 3? I think most rules ignore the secong disorder.

Chad

My friend and I had a very enjoyable start to our first BP game this evening. We played a few moves, and got a lot of things happening. We've left the game set up, and will continue it through the week.

It did move quite slowly, as expected, because of continual looking though the book while we are still newbies to the rules. But we found things sped up as the evening progressed, because nothing is too complicated, so after reading a particular point, it sticks in your mind easily enough.

Overall, we found this a very enjoyable set of rules. They were fun, elegant, moved quickly once you got the hang of them, and removed a lot of the pfaffing about that many other rules have. A telling comment from my friend was when he said "These might be the rules to get me back into Napoleonics"! … anyone who knows Scott would know this is a major statement!

Trajanus,
Was it a deliberate act to reduce the amount of melée in a turn or just a consequence of your sequence?

It must also be a bit trickier following which units are disordered. We find just switching the shooting and movement segments round gives you ultimately the same effect but with out the added complications ( random initiative aside).

Earlier you stated,
"In A both sides can be disordered after they move. In B only the first side can."
this is incorrect.

Cheers,
Andy

Well it seems all those who love Black Powder don't actually play Black Powder, but a chopped around version of it. Which kind of confirms my feeling that it is not a set of rules, but a toolbox from which you can construct your own set. Which is fine if that's what you want, but does mean if you do play somewhere else it is likely that the Black Powder that you play is going to be very different to the Black Powder they play.

Hi Fred,
Yes your kind of right. The game played at my house SYW is different from the game played at the club, Napoleonic and ACW. At the club it's Black Powder as per the book. At my house I end up trying out all sorts of variations.
Many people and clubs end up throwing in house rules of some kind and BP is no different. Believe it or not the core game mechanics remain the same so it's not very hard switching between variations. BP very much lends itself to tinkering but it's not essential.
Cheers,
Andy

Last night, we played with the rules exactly as written. No problem.

We've just finished our game this afternoon. We played with the rather drastic brigade and army morale rules, but they still provided an interesting end-game, as the losing army then had to think carefully about how to extricate itself. So for that player, the game still remained interesting, but just changed to having a different objective.

All in all, we're both delighted. We got faster and faster with the rules. Using the simple movement rules, interpenetration rules etc at first feels a little too advantageous to yourself, but it affects both armies, so it is swings and roundabouts. Knocking the complexity out for both sides means you just get on with the game rather than dickering around with complex but minor points.

We didn't use any special rules apart from British first fire, but nevertheless the game did feel Napoleonic enough. Next time we'll add in some more of the advanced rules to make the game even more suited to the period, and will also use some sort of scenario to add a storyline.

Our final conclusion of playing the rules is pretty much as we've thought from previously just reading the rules … a great set of rules for fun games with a period flavour (albeit with less detail) where you are not too concerned if you are the winner or loser; possibly not such a good set of rules for a more detailed period simulation (though, with tinkering, that could probably be changed); not a good set of rules for players for whom enjoyment revolves around winning, nor for use in tournaments.

Chad

Under your sequence how do you handle a second disorder result? Unit disorderd in turn one is re-ordered at the end of turn2. If during turn 2 the disordered unit receives another disorder result, do you ignore it or move the re-order point to the end of turn 3? I think most rules ignore the secong disorder

We play that if disordered you stay that way. So I guess the latter.

Andy,

Interesting point on the melee. No it wasn't a decison in fact we never thought of it that way.

Also on the disorder point, I may well be wrong.

However the whole of this debate has proved to me that we don't actually pay any real attention to "Turns" in our games, we just run the sequence until there's a result or its obvious that in the real time available there won't be one and its time to go home/down the pub!

We are not a competative group so the way we play it doesn't matter. Our approach is assisted greatly by the manner in the Command secton where you have to tell your opponent what you are rolling to do in advance.

We have played that style for years so the rest of BP is there to just allow us to go with the flow. In fact we often discuss the tactical options for either side as we go along so the collaberative game is more important for us than the exact detail.

BP is really good for this appoach as its mechanics can be adjusted and moved around without monster s occuring.