"New Rules: Napoleon At War" Topic

I've been playing these rules a lot lately and I have to say I think they are excellent. The rules do a great job recreating the tactics of the period. Previously I was playing Black Powder and a bit of Lassalle but i prefer these rules. The scenarios provide excellent challenges and there's a good variety.
Don't let the similarities with FoW put anyone off these rules. I think the mechanics are very well thought out and are simple but elegant. They are perfect for evening games and club nights.
Cheers
Andy

Don't forget that the brits do no not have their cavalry on the table, whereas the french can. This forces the British to form square and get shot up, or to keep line and get chewed up by cavalry. It really does represent the combined arms aspect quite well and it is a very fun rule set.

"It really does represent the combined arms aspect quite well and it is a very fun rule set".

Unless you are a Brit,…
;o)

Well, these rules may well tempt me to the Napoleonics. I used to play them many moons ago – but have since concentrated on Colonials, WW2 and Modern. The Napoleonics seemed to get a bit too rules heavy for me, I like fast and furious. I also have two young children who enjoy playing games like Lord of the Rings, Warhammer etc… They also play TSATF for colonials and other fantasy games. It would be nice to have a rules set that is simple and fun and easy to put together. I'm sure many are put off by just trying to figure out organisations, types of troop etc…. To have units 'out of the box' would be perfect for me. I'm happy to paint them up and I quite like the stereotypical approach as long as it gives a flavour of the period – Fire and Fury for ACW for instance…. So, I'm very very tempted by this range and may well take the plunge!!! It's been a long time, but I feel the call of the bugles. I do hope that the range expands to other countries and nationalities.

I'm guessing that a box of the artillery, infantry and cavalry for the British and French would make a good enough start! Any suggestions?

two boxes of infantry are necessary for every army.

Well there is now the French Cav list, so you don't need 2 boxes of infantry for every army…
But as a general guide, it's pretty good.

NaW does help players like me that haven't got much (any) knowledge of the period get started into the era, with the boxed sets.

And the rules do play pretty quickly, although we are moving pretty slowly as we try and get our FOW preconceptions out of the way.

Ok, "for every available infantry division", then… But the idea seems to be that two boxes of the appropriate type for the division you want to play will be necessary.

"cold blooded" rule.
Love it, so period, illogical, and mysterious really adds to the flavor.

Calling it low level C2, which it was, would really ruin the Rule Britannia magic of playing the thin red line against the froggies.

Good for them.

He have been having a lot of fun with these rules, both grognards and newbies alike. We have been looking for something like this that is simple enough for new players and quick games, yet has enough meat to keep the games interesting after several plays.

Oooohhh! Just received the rules and some boxes to paint up yesterday. First looks are very compelling – nice figures, nicely designed rules – good clear graphics and examples. The figures are quite crisp and clear – possibly as it is a new line! But still, they will paint up well.

I have two armies to paint! So it'll keep me busy for a while. I hope to have it all up and running by the beginning of February for a demo game at PAW2012 (Plymouth, UK)

Hi

Considering purchasing these rules but have my 15mm troops based for Lasalle. Would the 40mm wide Lasalle basing work with NAW ? My Inf are in 24s and Cav in 12s which seem to fit with NAW.

Cheers

sgtsteiner.blogspot.com

Hi
I've looked at this myself.
All my LASALLE armies are based on 40mm wide x 30mm deep.
That gives frontage of 160mm for a Battalion in line, (which fits in well with NaW).
What I have done is created an extra 20mm wide x 30mm deep base per Battalion that I can use when I take a 'Base loss' in NaW. Simple take away a 40mmm wide base and replace with a 20mm wide base. When i take a 2nd 'base loss', off comes the small 20mm wide base, and so on and so forth,…
I suspect I'll stick with Lasalle however.

Hi

Ta for info I thought there would be a simple 'workaround' .

Having looked at the QRS etc I expect Lasalle is a simpler set as such what is your view about both sets ?

Cheers

The QRS makes it seem a lot more complex. Actually, we seldom refer to the QRS as it has been easier to just memorize or find the rule in the book.

Our group has completely shifted over from LaSalle, including rebasing. They seem to play more quickly and fit our group's style more.

I find it interesting that in this post alone there are quite a few handles that I don't recognize. This is especially interesting in that the Napoleonic forum on here tends to be be comprised of a relatively small cast of characters. Probably this is a good thing- I've spent about six years or so trying to get into Napoleonics- only ever played a few games outside of solo games. One thing that was always lacking was an easy way into the period, and this seems to provide it. Of course, by this point I have my own weird idiosynchratic ways of doing htings that I've picked up from amongst the various sorts of madness you find in these forums, and I'm not going to change. It's too late for me. But maybe for the newbies there will be a brighter tomorrow, like at the end of The Duelists…….

Well all my figures have arrived! I am painting up like crazy – British and French ( that way I can always be sure of a game). I've done British and French artillery and some French Cavalry! I'm painting fairly fast and furiously – using lots of cheats like Army Painter, base painting and the like – but the figures are painting up very nicely. I really like the bases that they provide – another hassle removed! Of course, I am going to slow down to a halt with all the infantry to get through. Quite a few people are interested in the rules down at the club I attend and some have jumped in and bought some figures. Besides, if I don't like the rules, I can always use them with Black Powder! This is the first time I've owned any Napoleonics for some 20 years. Keep it simple! I think that the next period that is crying out for this kind of strategy of providing pre-organised boxes is ACW!

Looks a refreshing concept, and I like the "packaged" approach a la FOW. Its very convenient not to have to juggle with figures packed in 8s and commands packed in 6's. I still like my Essex though for 30p, or Lancashire games for bulking out my D class ranks for much less than 30p!!

Basing might fit in with existing General de Brigade etc basing to lure a few of the existing NAps guys to try them out…. do they fit the 1cm frontage per inf figure standard though? If so others can juggle in perhaps from Naps Battles, Age of Eagles, Lasalle etc etc using the 20 x 25mm infantry base etc from these rules…..

My understanding is two NaW bases 'side by side' is the same (or close enought to the same) as a single LASALLE 40mm x 30mm base, (assuming we agree that 40mm x 30mm has actually become the 'standard' for Lasalle).
NaW bases are also very close in size to Age Of Eagle bases.
I think that slowly but surely a 'Standard' base size is becoming a reality for Napoleonic players,…
Happy Days!

So how is this game progressing? Everyone still having a blast?

Anymore comments on how the figures compare to AB, Battle Honors, OG15?

I have read the rules and dabbled a bit, but nothing serious. I was thinking about ordering some of the Actual Man At War figures (a box of infantry and a box of cav). I do like the Packaging concept, but it sure is expensive to just "sample" the product.

I suppose now that its been out for a while, my inquiry is basically two part:
1) actual figure comparisons of this line to others (as in visual)
2) Now that its been played for a while, does it have any glaring problems? Many games are great early on , till after some serious play exposes serious flaws (such as balance, or all cav is only and best,)

I'm still painting like crazy! It's taking a while but I do like the figures – they are obviously from a 'fresh' line and so look clean and have good detail. I'm painting up artillery, cavalry and 2 infantry brigades for both the British and French! Hoping to have it all on display to use at the Plymouth Wargames Convention in February. I think I should have enough to start playing in a few weeks. What I love is that you have everything in the box, exact numbers of figures, commanders, drummers, etc…., bases and paint scheme. I wish they'd put the back of the figures as well as the front of them on the box though!

Can't wait!

I do not have any of the figures, as we already have 15mm figures for all nationalities painted and based.

we have played 12 games since we aquired the rules set. We enoy the simple rules, still getting period flavor, and the bloody melee.

I don't care for the way they handle the game table setup, and we have changed it to more fit our style of play. We use the aggression level as a dice modifier, and roll each turn to determine order of play.

We don't us the attack/defence Victory as we don't like how it works.

leader characteristics are sorely lacking, and hopefully when they release the upcoming campaign books they will address these problems.

Our group of gamers are all experienced, Age of Napoleon, Fire and fury, Napoleon's Battle players, Waterloo, Blackpowder, and Lasalle players.

Perry's waterloo had great promise, but we found a few things in the rules that disappointed us, so it has become a nice book to flip though. Black powder also showed promise, but we found more of what we wanted in this rules set.

Hi

When people are saying they are a FOW set of rules can I ask what they mean? Are you refering to the rule set or on a packaging approach?

I was interested in buying these and Legacy of Glory but a set of "simple" FOW rules would turn me off. Having a decent set of rules with a desing and packaging approach of FOW would not be a bad thing.

"FOW set of rules" refers to the packaging approach and the pick up and play approach eg both players can bring along a 2000pt army, randomly determine a scenario and get started.

As far as I'm aware it does not really share any rule mechanisms. Don't be put off by the "FoW" tag. I've played a lot of different rule sets and these have become my favourite so far.
Cheers,
Andy

The FOW tag simply refers to the marketing approach. Nothing to do with the rules themselves.

inquisitor
How do you think they compare to LASALLE?

The melee is vicious in this system, you certainly get results

If they have, it is very much the FoW model!

So will they be requiring you to buy new books every year?

Plus UGO – IGO does not appeal to me.

Also I saw above "lots of d6's" so is this another "buckets of dice" game?

You could be using 12 dice to fire for your battalion.
If thats bucket o dice then yes.
I have the rules nad the concept ticks alot of boxs.
However the system is out of balance. I guess it works well as a points game but no use for historical replays.

Max, what is the bases for your assertion that they are of no use for historical plays. We have not tried a refight yet, but are planning to play Quatre Bras later this month. So what problems did you run into.

Note, on initial play, we felt there were balance issues, too. However, after discussing things with the authors and playing many more games, we are very happy with the balance.

Mathematics. They say the points values are pretty close at valuing effectiveness under the rules.
So for example.
French Battalion=130pts
Russian=60pts.
That means the French are way too powerful to give a satisfying result from an historical replay.

We discussed this with Maxshadow on another thread. Although in essence it is a valid point I think in practice it is an incorrect assessment, and so I respectfully disagree.

This particular analysis resulting from looking at one unit in the army list results mainly from the use of special rules ( something I'm not a fan of but that I think works in this system).
My recommendation was to look at full armies and compare them rather than just one unit, or even better, choosing a historical battle that one thinks should be a balanced affair and doing the OB with NaW to see what point balance it renders.
This is because when you compare two base units, base unit could be interpreted to be a different thing due to the characteristics of the game.
For example, if we look at General de Brigade, another very nice set of rules you will see that if you compare a veteran soldier to a 2nd line soldier we have 2.5 pts vs 1.5, but NaW does not have the many different layers of troop classes, it has only 3 and uses special rules to provide differentiation and so when you compare a French unit and a Russian unit the authors could have considered the basic french unit to have a set of characteristics compared to a Russian unit that results in that balance of points, something that you would also see in GdB …

As I mentioned in the other thread, when you look at full divisional sized armies, which the list push to be fairly historical in composition, you don't end up with a 2 to 1 quantity superiority from the Russians.. you do end up with a some more troops but not 2 to 1 because of the composition of the Russian army and the presence of other troop types combined with the fact that many french units don't cost as much due to being downgraded.
In other words, a french infantry division does not end up equating to two russian divisions.

It is not always feasible to try every set of rules due to basing and other factors, so sometimes we need to do analysis like the one Max does to understand if we believe the rules will provide a satisfying game.. In the case of NaW, and given the mention that "it ticks a lot of boxes" I would recommend you give it a try.

I would recommend first doing just basic pick up games and then when you get the feeling of how the troop types work in the system you could design a couple of historical scenarios using your understanding to concert into the various troop types in NaW .. This is what I've done and now I'm jumping to converting lots and lots of historical scenarios.

In fact, I am converting many historical scenarios from GdB into NaW and they seem to present armies that are within reasonable boundaries of balance, considering of course that many historical scenarios are not really equal points game, but basically the total points in GdB terms and NaW terms for the scenarios show similar proportions for the armies.

So far I've done it mostly on the British-French scenarios, but when we did Russian-French pick up games the games presented reasonable armies with reasonable chances of winning for both sides, so I'm pretty confident that the system will provide good historical armies for scenarios.. but I'll have to wait till we try those scenarios to confirm (or not).

Point systems are a source of way to many debates :), the NaW rules are a very good system for providing single player games with a division per side or multiplayer games with a division per player..

I would recommend not getting stuck in the basic structure of the points and giving the overall game a try…at the end of the day when you move on to do the historical scenarios, like most grognards you will probably be making changes on the specifics of the units to fit your understanding of the historical armies anyways (it is in our nature as napoleonic gamers to do that :) )

I only recommend this because I think it is a pretty solid set of rules that in our club has engaged almost all the old napoleonic players and now is even starting to capture new historical wargamers; and so I think there is a good chance you might enjoy it.. but at the end of the day people have different tastes so it is up to you…

I say all this with outmost respect of your opinion while presenting a dissenting view.

I love the General De Brigade rules but I had been looking for a set of rules that allows for faster games when doing larger historical battles (I cannot normally spend full weekends like the lucky guys at WGH ), and a set that provides reasonable pick up games… I believe NaW is so far the best alternative for this objective from the dozens of options that have recently appeared.

cheers
Francisco

"You could be using 12 dice to fire for your battalion."

Yes that would be far to many dice and from what I have read that your opponent would get to make saves.

Our they trying to turn Napoleonics into 40K?

Plus I know that using points to determine your forces are meant to make everything even up.

But that is not Napoleonics warfare at all.

I do not want to just field 9 of my Battalions plus some Cavalry and Artillery.

Nope I want to field if possible multiple Corps per side.

I don't want to fight a battle on a 4' x 4' table but to see my troops on a 12' x 6' table if not bigger.

Plus not a big fan of UGO – IGO and prefer more of a random unit movement/action, which is why I use a Card Activition system.

Now if this gets more wargamers into Napoleonics then good.

But if they go the route of FOW in that they change their rulebook and army books every few years then that is not good.

I will be passing on these rules because I field my units as per historical order of battles.

If a division had two Bdes and 9 Infantry Bns than that is what goes onto to the table.

Not 1500 or 2000 points of troops.

Because point systems exist in a rules set does not mean that you are required to use them, nor are you required to play the published scenarios. These exist as guidelines for those who want to play, but have neither the knowledge, resources, or interest in setting up historical forces and scenarios.

The army "lists" have stats so that you can set up any historical OB. We are planning a big multi-player Quatre Bras game on a large table with many players. We will use the historical OBs. We are only referencing the points to see (according to the game) what the balance of forces is.

So, while I certainly respect your decision to play any rules you'd like, I don't understand basing it on whether the system includes a point system and generic army lists and scenarios, since those are not required to use the rules. On the other hand, I certainly understand not liking IGO/UGO or saving throws (however, they are not really saving throws).

Mithme, I believe if you'd try the rules you'd realize that most of the concerns you have don't really come up in that the rules don't fall into the shortcomings you mentioned…

Indeed NaW is not 40K naps, but rather a pretty good napoleonic wargame…

However you also mentioned:

"Plus not a big fan of UGO – IGO and prefer more of a random unit movement/action, which is why I use a Card Activition system."

NaW is indeed IGO-UGO, and even though the effects are somehow mitigated if you prefer a random activation system indeed this is not the game for you and is perfectly understandable.

Regarding point system pick up games and historical OOB, I like to do both so I'm happy that NaW seems to work well in both cases so far…

As I said we each have our tastes regarding rules :) that is why the more we have available the better, and recent years have been good for napoleonic wargamers..

cheers

Francisco

given the mention that "it ticks a lot of boxes" I would recommend you give it a try.

Hi SeldonH.
What I like about NapW.
Its an attractive, easy to read, easy to reference and well constructed book of rules.
I love the idea of making the introduction of Napoleonic gaming as easy as and clear as possible.
I like the idea of base removal to reduce the effectiveness of units as they participate in the battle.
The use of special rules for some troop types in different nationalities is a plus and I particularly remember enjoying reading the Austrian one and thought it was interesting and imaginative.
It uses the same infantry basing and more importantly the same organisation as my own for the French and the Austrian one gives me more Battalions for the same amount of figures.
Firing rules that handles things like partial cover in hassle free manner.
Very importantly Rules that actually cover bridge combat. Eureka!
I have no problem with a points system in fact they can be used for victory points in games.
I really like the reserve idea. It encourages a n extra Napoleonic feel to the games and helps separate it form a 18th century battle with extra skirmishers.
And finally the idea to place two commanders in each infantry box instead of getting people to buy a special Commanders box was a great idea. It allows people to build an army from scratch and play with what they have.
What I don't like.
You points system says that the French are far too good. If the points are wrong then that's good and start playing through the rules. But everyone says they are a close reflection of unit ability. In which case as I said then the historical scenerios will be out of balance.
I know what your saying that if you add equal points other units like a gun battery or cavalry it brings them closer per division. I take your word for it, I'm sure it works well under the rules. If you count the Austrian battalions as 1,000 men (90pts)then its a two to one ratio there too.
The French conscripts (90pts) are still worth 1 1/2 Russians or Austrians.
Anyway i think the rules are a great initiative and hope they do well.
If I ever see a post that says "hold press, NapW pick up games out of balance because French points ratings found to be wildly over estimated" then I'll be coming back for another look!

I do understand your points which you made clear on the other thread we discussed this, I don't necessarily agree with them but I feel it is an honest analysis.

As I mentioned on the 1815, British-Prussian-French games I feel historical scenarios are not out of wack, we'll see when we get to the Russians

cheers,
Francisco

Rob, how many 'points' are you guys playing in a standard game?

I couldn't quite figure out the Force organization chart….if I want to play the Prussian 15th Infantry Brigade at Waterloo, that's one Prussian Infantry Regt and two Landwehr Regiments. In order to do that, I have to use the one allowed 'optional' slot to convert one of the required infantry regiments into Landwehr. How do I get the Medium Foot Artillery, since it comes from the same slot?

I would also need to include a single understrength Landwehr Cavalry Regt. (30 points!) out of the support slot.

The OOB would be:

18th Inf. Regt (2 musketeer, 1 Fusileer), overstrength (as they had about 800 men each) – 390 points

3rd Silesian Landwehr, 3 battalions (regular strength, as they had about 600+ men each) – 150 points

4th Silesian Landwehr – 150 points

Two squadrons of the 3rd Silesian Landwehr cavalry – 30 points

14th Foot artillery (6 pounders) – 200 point medium battery.

That's 920 points with them all starting on the table. I'd like to add the 6th Hussars (190 points) since it screened this brigade's advance and can leave a regiment off to make up the difference.

But I can't fit it into the Prussian force org chart…..

The slots are the smaller boxes.. not the larger grey box..

So you can add the landwher regiment , and the medium foot artillery..
The cavalry regiment you can add it from organic or from support..

The "slot" means the small box.. so there is only one medium artillery box, meaning you can only have one… you could also simultaneously ( with your other choices) have two cavalry regiments, one from the optional grey box ( there is one cavalry regiment slot there ) plus one from the support ( you have another cavalry regiment slot there)… but that still allows you to choose up to one of each of all the other boxes.. this would allow you for example to include the 6th hussars..

So you can fit the whole 15th brigade into the org chart..

We usually play 2000 pts which would allow for some reserve troops that are coming from the reserve corps and have been volunteered to support your brigade (/division )…

hope that helps.. if not I can expand… though we might be dragging the thread off track :)

cheers
Francisco

Thanks! Though I don't think this is off topic at all.

Would my entire 2000 points have to come out of this force org chart, or could I 'duplicate' it? For example, if I was to take BOTH the 15th and 16th brigades, the ones that did the fighting in Placenoit, could I take TWO medium foot batteries? They each had one…..

That would be a cool force to play with…start with the 15th on the table and bring the 16th on from reserve.

"But I can't fit it into the Prussian force org chart….."

Why is there a Prussian Force Org Chart?

Is it something similar to the 40K Force composition chart.

"so there is only one medium artillery box, meaning you can only have one…"

Why?

What if the battle you want to fight had 3 or 4. This chart says no can do because you can only have one.

Yup, this set of rules is sounding more like FOW more and more.

Plus with the release of the Old Guard well you will have the power gamers coming out of the wood work.

Power gamers can ruin anything, point based or not. Plus, according to the force charts as currently released, a french army can have one regiment of old guard when playing a points based/org chart based game. The org charts are to try to prevent players from doing what you fear and taking an army entirely of guard. In that regards they seem to do their job.

When playing a historical refight it also doesn't seem like it would be too much of an issue to put aside the org-chart and to take the troops as they historically were. Just ignore the org chart/division sheet and stat out the armies using the forces and characteristics sheets.

"Why is there a Prussian Force Org Chart?

Is it something similar to the 40K Force composition chart."

:) well it is called army lists and I don't think those were invented by 40K… some people don't like them but they are helpful for pick up games.. no NaW police will show up at the club if you are doing historical OOB, but army lists help you have pick up games that look reasonable and they are also great way to learn history for new napoleonic players.. ( new players may not not what the standard proportion of artillery-infantry-cavalry in a typical Prussian Brigade or many other organizational factors)

They try to provide balance games and armies that look like historical organizations without the new player having to go do some reaserch ( something that they will start doing once they get into the period ).

In fact, the main rules don't include the army list, they are available as free downloads from their website, so if you hate army lists you can simply choose not to download them. Look at Inquisitor above, they took what they like and ignored what didn't suit their style of play.. isn't that what most of us do !?

The lists also important for tournaments, somthing you probably despise, but again, some people enjoy them.

In any case this being an IGO-UGO game I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you… These are clearly not a set of rules that you would enjoy and nobody here it tyring to convince you otherwise ( I say this with outmost respect! )

Clay, the army list represents one brigade ( for the Prussians ) or one division ( for others )… so if you want to field two brigades then you would build each of them according to the army list separatley.. but if you are doing a historical scenario for Placenoit I wouldn't worry about the army list..
I'm afraid you'd have to do a scenario game to do an army based on two brigades rather than one brigade plus attachments. But that shouldn't be a problem… Or you could pre-agree on a pick up game where each player fields two divisons, reserves are not allowed and simply the second division is a reserve. Actually that would be a fun game !!!

I'm running two historical scenarios in the upcoming months, D'Erlon's attack and Quatre Bras, I simply used the unit stats for the troops but used exclusivley the historical OOB..

Now when building my army ( British ) I am buidling the units in Picton's divison, and when playing pick up games I simply use the units according to the army list. Since technically the lists are 1813-14 there are slight variations from the 100 days lists that I'll end up using but roughly I can fit Picton's divison into the list.

The 2000 points really include the divison plus usually some troops from the reserve corps. When running historical multiplayer games we have each player running just the division and the reserves or forces from other divisions supporting the main force are usually under command of another player…

cheers
Francisco

I have made an Army Builder for NaW. I hope you find it useful.
link

There is a picture in the post of my interpretation of the Prussian Attack at Placenoit using NaW rules and I can confirm that the system works quite well. Indeed better than expected!

Awesome! The first thing that came to mind is that I could build the Young Guard, backed up by two battalions of Old Guard….people would freakin' love me for that….

@Clay….and you'd DO JUST THAT TOO!

I dropped TTS a line today and ordered:
Rules
1 box of each BRITISH box available.

I truly am a lead ! It will be humorous to watch the FoW guys play Napoleonics.

"The lists also important for tournaments, somthing you probably despise"

Yup, you got that right.

"Awesome! The first thing that came to mind is that I could build the Young Guard, backed up by two battalions of Old Guard….people would freakin' love me for that…."

Yes they would love you for that and if the lists allows it they should have no problem at all if it.

"It will be humorous to watch the FoW guys play Napoleonics."

If just might, though you would need to keep reminding them that "no there were no tanks during the Napoleonic Wars".

Though that does led to the parking lot issue since without any tanks there will be no parking lot.

"hopefully when they release the upcoming campaign books they will address these problems."

So will these books be a one time thing like the 1809 Campaign, Waterloo, 1812 and 1805-1807.

Or will they redo them and change minor things causing you to well buy the latest book if you want to complete in the tournments?

@Mith…I've been playing Napoleonics since 1980. I have NEVER played in a Napoleonic tournament. The idea of playing tournaments with Napoleonics is frankly anathema to me. You're right about the parking lot o' armor. It won't happen with armor but I'll bet you a buck that everyone that can afford it will bring out the Old Guard, Guard Cavalry, and Guard Artillery. I'll also bet 3/4 of them will be unpainted when these local guys plonk them on the table. That's another story. We'll chalk that one up to "my army's in progress of being painted". They never are done in my experience.

We'll see how this system plays out and if it's worth the time, effort, and ducats to build yet another Napoleonic collection that collects dust like my LaSalle collection. THAT was a stupid investment of rules, figures, painting time, etc. on my part. "Everyone is playing La Salle…you should too". Whatever….

I'll probably stick to my 25/28mm collection and work on my 54mm AWI collection if this system doesn't work out or the games are too uh…'white knuckled".

Mithmee,

"Or will they redo them and change minor things causing you to well buy the latest book if you want to complete in the tournments?"

You seem to be a bit obsessed with these kinds of things :), I believe most people have the ability to exercise free will and can chose if they buy a new book or not.

I enjoy the possibility of buying campaign books the same I enjoy buying scenario books for General de Brigade.. Even when I can do my own research for my historical games it is always interesting to see what others come up with.

In any case if I were you I wouldn't worry too much about a set of rules that you are not even interested in playing…

It reminds me about this story where Peter complains to his father that his brother John is bothering him by making stupid faces, his father locks John in his room but Peter complains again, and the father says, how come if I locked him in his room.. Peter answers, well I looked through the keyhole and he is still making faces at me !!

just in good humor :), I understand you don't like the rules, I don't like unit card activation for napoleonic games and there is little chance you'll convince me that Napoleonic warfare is whatever fits your description only and that is it…

As I said before to each their own, but providing a collection of cliches on every post is not very constructive I would say.. don't take it the wrong way, I'm just making sure you understand that I'm not trying to convince you to play a set of rules, and that you should also not attempt such endeavor.

cheers
Francisco

Gentlemen, there is no fighting allowed in the war room.

I wouldn't dare :)