"Rate Foundry's Napoleon" Topic

Writing in the June issue of Miniatures Wargames, authors Bruce McFarlane and Bob Barnetson reviewed Foundry's Napoleon ruleset:

For historical background and as a painting guide for the new-comer to Napoleonics gaming, Napoleon might be a good resource. As a rule set, Napoleon is a dismal failure.

How do you rate this ruleset? On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is excellent and 1 is terrible.

Foundry was kind enough to show us preview pages. Those were sufficient to discern the value for money. No sale!

So…. 0?

Allen

Allen you are so harsh! Surely the eye candy alone rates a 0.5!

Kind Regards,

Sparker

Allen…you are being to kind …being a member of such good standing you need to be,,,wereas I am a nobody I do not have to be so kind.

The Napoleon rules set is no more then a worthless attempt to sell more figures by Foundry.To call it a rule system is almost an insult to every other gameing system ever published.It has so many holes and dead ends that without a doubt one can say that it is not even finished.(most likely sections were left out to make space for more glorified pictures)

so a rateing of negative 20 is more befitting of Foundry's joke

It's a good picture book, and that alone merits a 2.

The rules… yuck.

Sorry, I'm not really impressed by many of the photos nor the painting guide with the really crappy Austrian Cuirassier….

I made the mistake of purchasing them. I read the first few pages and immediately sold it. I would give it a 2 for the perdy pictures, but as far as the rules themselves, a dismal 0.

1
Even some of the Eye candy is toxic!

There is a kernel of what would be a good set in there. I just don't get why they were published before being ready.

rating: 3 (for the kernel!)

A generous 1

Read them, reviewed them and played them.

Major isssue with the morale system which does not work with the sequence of play.

Also orders are needed when troops are in proximity to the enemy and these get harder to issue as units are lost from a command. So units can often not even fire at an opponent!

Conclusion the system needed much more play testing before it was published.

Nice book. 6.

3

I'll betcha, though, that they sold more copies than all the other recent Napoleonics releases, combined.

In a perverse way, that's the best possible outcome: you make a ton of money, and never have to worry about anybody playing the game!

On a scale of 0 to 10 I'd rate it minus 5

I EBayed my copy, lost a tenner on the whole deal, so -10 seems a fair mark. Embarassingly shambolic IMHO.

Where is Matthew Fletcher? Has he ever backed up his rules? Who is he, anyway?

Whoever he is I don't blame him for staying away from the the internet. Not feeling much love here. Nobody needs this kind of grief for writing a set of wargames rules. Life is too short.

To be fair to him and Foundry. It is a gorgeous book. The rules are nor my cuppa, but they are not that bad. I am sure there a many who enjoy them. And putting together a hardback of this quality is no mean feat. Thank god some folks out there at least try.

I blame him. And Foundry. He needs to come out and fix these rules – at least answer questions about them.

The rules are unplayable as published.

It's possible that they were edited into an unplayable and he could go a long way towards filling in the gaps.

Hell's Bells, does no one have a good word to say for this set? No One Leaping mindlessly to their defence? No One reading , say, 'The Rules are unplayable as published' as 'Your Mom is a hoo-er' and responding accordingly?

This, seriously, must be a first – I am almost tempted to buy a set to see how awful they are that there is not a single 'fanboy' out here.

PS – one of the threads Bill started in this series suggests there were 4 sets reviewed at the same time – Bill has asked about RtE, BP and This – what was the fourth?

Pat

Seriously Pat, in all my years gaming I've never bumped into such a catastrophe. At least reading Phil barker's rules (if such hing could be managed) resulted in being able to play a game that was finished and pretty much worked. I remember reading my set for the first time and wondering if I'd been suddenly struck dumb, it was that out of whack.

Foundry's increasingly desperate attempts to be historical gaming's answer to GW has never had a lower moment, IMHO.

The 4th set of rules that got reviewed was Lasalle which the reviewers thought were the best set but for some reason we are not being asked to rate them?

Possibly because every time a thread about Lasalle gets going there's a fanboy-antifanboy bloodbath? I'm not saying that's the case, it's just a guess.

I can't understand the 'fanboy-antifanboy' problem with Lasalle either I'm affraid. Not what I was looking for but good luck to those who like them.

I'd agree with Ian on this, Foundry is trying to do a GW with historicals but with one difference; GW rules are playable.

Elliott…harsh, but sadly extremely fair. I actually feel like a bit of a schmuck for falling for the hype. I really should have known better but like many I was seduced by the glossy coating without waiting for reviews of the contents – never again.

"I was seduced by the glossy coating without waiting for reviews of the contents – never again".

("Heavy sigh") Ditto!