"New Warhammer Historical Napoleonic Rules - Waterloo" Topic

"write rules to push the sale of your massed unpainted figures."

Then send memo to legal to start looking into C&D orders for all of the other rules that are out there.

Since for GW there can only be one.

So, there are some initial reviews out there on the internets.

tinyurl.com/3dw7vfk
tinyurl.com/452mc48

Do any TMP curmudgeons have a copy yet?

link

'Biggest grime'. 'Smallest grime'.

Did he receive a soiled copy?

- There are only Army lists for France, Great Britain and Prussia with their respective allies during the Peninsular and Waterloo campaigns. -

Riiight. I'll pass, thank you.

"Cavalry units represent squadrons"

Actually sounds like an interesting scale they are trying….

It's not un known, Both Republic to empire and General de brigade often deal with squadron sized cav units, my of my 28mm and 15mm cav units are 12-18 figures, way below regimental strenghth

Connard, You'll have to excuse me, English is not my first language. Changed it, better?

Thanks for the review David. Damn Blogger won't allow me to leave a comment on your blog, for some reason.

I might buy it for the eye candy. It does amaze me however that they can't be bothered to cover the Austrians and Russians in a 288 pages rulebook…

Iannick
clashofempires.ca

Skatey – the word you were looking for was 'gripe'… :)

Yep, a rulebook that costs nearly £40.00 GBP and completely ignores the army the French fought most often and the army that dealt them their most crushing strategic defeat.

And has 82 pages of 'basic' rules!

That's about seventy pages too many for me, then!

To be fair the title of the book is Waterloo- so they have covered the three armies present in the battle there of. I know it's dissapointing to spend alot of cash on a book that doesn't cover all the armies or at least the main players, but it doesn't claim to be Napoleonic era- it's Napoleonic Waterloo specific rules.
I'm not overly bothered either way though. I just bought March Attack for £6.00 GBP Looks great having read through them. And covers lots of nations.
NB

I got the book and posted a quick "first impression". Certainly not a review…I haven't read the book yet, or played the game. I just picked out things I thought were interesting.

As far as "82 pages of basic rules", what I mean is that the core rules of the game cover the first 82 pages. This isn't 82 pages of text. It's full of example graphics, miniature photos, and era pictures as well. More "rules" are added in further sections, including army lists, siege rules, and campaign rules. But all in all it seems to be a very easy and enjoyable read.

The game is purposefully focused on the 100 days, hence the title. And then lists were added for British and French allies in the peninsula, which isn't much addition once all the basic stuff had already been included. That does, of course, leave out the Austrians and the Russians. And the 1807 Prussians as well. But it seems as though, for a first book, that those were never intended on being included. As it is right now, it's a game of the 100 days campaign, with the first "supplement" added…rules for the Peninsula. It seems as though it would be very easy to create lists for other armies, and I would imagine such expansions are planned.

There are some typos, and some errors I've come across, but nothing significant really.

I'm still reading the rules, and even after that it'll be some time before I will be able to get together an army to play, but from what I've read and seen, I think the game can best be summed up with-

It looks like alot of fun.

-Scott
djokergaming.wordpress.com

Can anyone elaborate on the "Guess the artillery range" thing? What stops you from declaring maximum range each time and hope that you find a target somewhere within the firing arc?

The Peninsula is completely different!

"Can anyone elaborate on the "Guess the artillery range" thing? What stops you from declaring maximum range each time and hope that you find a target somewhere within the firing arc? "

It's from WFB. Basically, you say, I want to shoot at those damned frogs. You say, "They're about… 48 inches away." Turns out you're wrong, and you hit a unit significantly closer. Also, there's usually a die scatter to add some deviation.

I'm still reading the rules, and even after that it'll be some time before I will be able to get together an army to play,

You keep working on your French – my British will be ready to take 'em on!

-Scott S.

Thanks for the clarification Carlos. Yes, that's a typical Warhammer thing that assumes gunnery is a random event and not a specialised profession in Napoleonic times.

You keep working on your French – my British will be ready to take 'em on!

Absolutely!

-Scott

Yes, that's a typical Warhammer thing that assumes gunnery is a random event and not a specialised profession in Napoleonic times.

If randomness is so onerous, do you object to other games using dice to resolve artillery fire?

Hi ScottS,

If randomness is so onerous, do you object to other games using dice to resolve artillery fire?

Not at all. Was just referring to the guess the range and scatter dice thing that Carlos explained. That is randomness. Dice decide probabilities and percentages.

Bandolier

I think that it has more to do with game mechanics, to balance artillery impact on the game, than with simulate actual performance of gunnery.

Best

Basileus66,
I agree that it is to do with game mechanics, insofar that it will be easier to convert Warhammer players to a historical game by keeping familiar systems in place. It is not a selling point to play rules that aren't balanced enough allow guns to perform like actual guns.

So historically, gun crews didn't estimate range, adjust elevation, compensate for wind and smoke, and then hope for the best? Wow, cannon must surely have won the war for Boney, cos he had so many. No? Oh.

There is no scatter die in Waterloo. Why do you assume peoples guesses as fact? Also there is no guess range in WFB. Now these are facts.

Gents, I have no problems with your statements. I was only commenting on the information provided in the previous responses. If these rules are presented as Napoleonic rules then they must be judged as such, regardless of their WFB (or not) origins. Hope you enjoy the rules.

Yeah, I must amend my statement. It's either Scatter die or Guess range, not both. So you nominate a distance, and that's where the shot lands. Keep in mind there's no pre-measuring, hence the "guess" aspect.

I like their idea of presenting the Waterloo campaign in a set of scenarios.
Max

Skatey: Guess ranges are how cannons worked in WFB at least in 6th and 7th Edition (if not earlier); IIRC That game is where Guess range originated.

Near as I could tell, range guessing was for shrapnel and howitzers only. All 'traditional' cannon fire is still direct and involves no range guessing.

I guess i find myself wishing that we would all buy the paper rules to explore the constructs and develop our knowledge, as well as our libraries. I wish we would more often use the computer rules to play our battles. At least one set of computer rules is really good, and becoming better and better- if there was more interest and movement in that direction, perhaps there would be more developers willing to invest in online campaigning and using the technology available to make gaming apps and interactive sites that would really expose our hobby to the "new blood" (mentioned earlier in the thread)that it needs. I do worry that the average age at our club meetings and conventions will continue to increase steadily unless we embrace what the technology can offer, and understand how unlikely it is that kids in their teens (when i started wargaming) will ever be as fascinated with historical gaming as we were unless it starts on a screen. I'm afraid this is a reality it does no good to ignore, bemoan, or scoff at, based on my experience as a teacher…I love paper rules, but glossy as they come, they won't draw kids like a computer, and that draw, we need. Just my opinion, of course.

Skatey: "I understand where you are coming from though. Good luck finding rules that do that handle that [modelling 'proper' battalions etc.]"

Black Powder does a decent job, as it was written more as a toolkit.

Also, don't call historical facts "fluff" (especially not in front of the rivet-counters!)- reality is not "fluff", as no one made it up.

Sure, some aspects of history are hotly debated, but erroneous information in history isn't "fluff", so much as tripe.

I think when people say "fluff" here they mean stuff that is not directly related to the mechanics and function of the game.

Admittedly, I'm being a bit silly. I haven't had my coffee yet. :)

Seamus, I must admit I have not read Black Powder. I have seen a few battles reports online with British on six stands, always those ten companies that makes things tricky I guess =P Having them on five bases (ie two companies per stand) seems the closest one could get.

Re: "fluff". We say "fluff" with quotation marks for a reason ;P

At least one of the AARs in the Black Powder book divide forces into several brigades each composed of several groups of 24 men (though this could easily be stands), but the rules are deliberately ambiguous about the number of troops per formation.

The AAR in question was the Battle of Freeman's Farm during the AWI.

Having been using the WAB Historical Forum 'draft version' of these rules at my club and now buying the official published set which have been apparently 4 years in making , have to say that I am very irritatingly disappointed for spending £36.00 GBP on set rules with loads inaccuracies ranging from claiming that "royal scots guards march into battle [image 42nd Highlanders [Black Watch] page 77] besides which British Guards regiments were never refered to in this way, to claiming that a photo of a French Imperial Guard Drsgoon helmet from Perry's collection [page 272]is a Gendarmes D'Elite helmet – when they wore bearskins ; or refeencing the British Orbat for Quatre Bras [page 258] and having the 44th Foot listed as Black Watch in same brigade with the 42nd Foot listed as 'normal British Line infantry'. Then you have the repeated use of Perry plastics box cover images [ 3 x French Lines infantry [pages 65,110 & 277],or indeed claiming that on page 51 the British Life Guards picture shows them apparently charging the Imperial Guard at Waterloo when they are clearly attacking a unit of Line Chassuers a Cheval , let alone showing the line diagrams of a French battalion on page 36 with the Grenadier company listed as being on the left of the line- when they should be on the right. I am sure folks will say I am being picky and I hven't even mentioned how I found the rules yet but frankly speaking , I could have voided wasting my money and kept using the WAB Forum draft version effectively and not been out of pocket and sorely disappointed.The rules may well work – but feel cheated all the same. There is no excuse for what is argueably the most documented and researched historical period for Wargamers.These were not all the inaccuracies found by my club members and I – just a few of the initial one's….

There was a draft version on the WAB forum? How did we miss those?

Skatey: Guess ranges are how cannons worked in WFB at least in 6th and 7th Edition (if not earlier); IIRC That game is where Guess range originated.

Originated? No, I'm fairly certain that they go back a long way before that. If I remember correctly many naval wargames from back in the Pre-WWII/Fletcher Pratt era used guessed ranges as a way to handle naval gunfire.

Sure, but I was referring to this particular incarnation of the mechanic (the GW method).

@ DrEvil – now that I have the book, I've scrutinised that photo of the Perry's equipment, and with respect I actually think you are wrong. The helmet looks to me to be a Gendarmes d'elite helmet, Minerva pattern, which were issued after the abdication in 1814. At Waterloo I believe a few of the Gendarmes wore these newer helmets, whilst some retained the older bearskins. Squinting at the photo, the cap badge may have been added later (1820s perhaps?), but the helmet is almost certainly the Minerva.

…140 posts in two weeks, 6,000+ TMP hits and now dead silence…what gives with Warhammer Waterloo?

Are people playing it?

Are there any AARs using these rules about?

I have found two reviews but am surprised to see very little more.

For such a release you would've thought that there would be a whole lot more traffic on these rules.

Anyone got an update?

Regards

Happy W

My copy arrived a couple of weeks ago. I was away on a trip. When I got back and had some time to look through it I discovered that the pages had been printed out of order!

A replacement copy on its way to me. I'll read and consider it when I've received that.

I've played a few games of it these last few weeks- I really enjoyed it. Now I couldn't tell you of the accuracy of the photos or the fluff history provided but it was a blast and that's what I was looking for in a game. Something I could complete in an afternoon or an evening. At the end of the day my opponents and I had a great time with some tense moments. That's all I ask for in a game.

Can you actually play the Battle of Waterloo, or is it another game named for the significant battle of the era that cannot actually GAME the battle in a reasonable amount of time (like Trafalgar)?

It comes with a a joined scenario tree for conflict around waterloo. Sort of a 'if the French win Scenario #1 then they get bonus A in scenario #2, if the British win then deny the French bonus B or go to scenario #3' and vice versa.

It also comes with the two distinct army lists for the French and British geared towards the Peninsular war or Waterloo. The Prussians get a single Waterloo list.

it has some siege rules as welland ten or so generic scenarios.

RavenousPuma-

Really glad to read that. Some of us in my gaming group are working towards getting our armies ready to play, but still have a little way to go. Glad to know you enjoyed it. I agree with you 100% on "That's all I ask for in a game". Can't wait to get a chance to play.

How many points did you use?

-Scott Merrifield
djokergaming.wordpress.com

hmmm seems interesting and I think its worth having in my library.

Do I really have to buy from them directly? No one else offers their products?

even the picture on the front is wrong – shows a British flank company officer (winged epaulettes)with a centre company plume (white over red).

Do I win "Winge of the Week"?

Do I win "Winge of the Week"?

No, but you get a 'Pedant of the Day' consolation prize :)

I've played with 500 points the first time to get a handle on the rules. Then 1,000 points per side and most recently 2,500 points- which at the time was all the figures we could scratch together.

I did have a few rules questions that I've asked for clarification on. Once I hear back maybe I'll post 'em in another thread.