"Which set of Napoleonic rules cause the most arguements?" Topic

I was wondering, which set of Napoleonic rules are the most likely to cause heated arguments and threat of coming to blows among the players? Is it because of the interpretation of the rules, or some other reason?

The definition of "maneuver element" in Empire has caused some entertaining displays locally. Me, I don't care. Just give me some figures to push around and tell me whn it's my turn and what I need to roll.
If you say my ME is a brigade, fine.
If you tell me it's a division, that's fine too. Just settle it before the game and keep the beer flowing.

I thought that's what Napoleonic rules were for. :) At one time we used Empire and brass knuckles. Now I'm with the OFM. What do I need to roll?

TMP link

This was quite a doozy.

Food and drink settles all.

Legacy of Glory, or Legacy of Pain as we called it.

Food and drink settles all.

Preferably beer.

Legacy of Agony……

Ah, back in the day when Empire first came out, units had individual orders and movement could be pro-rated, Oh the foaming at the mouth and the shouting matches. Oh the joy of pole vaulting over mouse droppings. Baa ha ha…..

Gosh I would have to go with Empire, and Legacy of Glory.

And to a MUCH lesser extent Valmy to Waterloo, and Grande Armee.

VR
James Mattes

Any rules played will probably face disagreements.

Keep in mind, its not just the rules, its also the players.

Some are just prone to argue, even if the rule set says "roll two die; high number wins".

Although I could never master "Legacy of Glory" far enough to get to a disagreement to have an argument about. The disagreements are often not about the rule[s] per se, but physical things…ie; are you in the 45 deg arc, can you contact/hit at 6 inches or was it 6.125 inches. Those are not rule-based.

Empire used to cause a lot of arguments when we played them decades ago. Thus the reason we haven't played them for decades.

Quarrie's rules: simultaneous movement and fractions thereof.

Empire but I would not have it any other way. Ive been playing Empire since I was 15. Im 38 and still loving it!!

I love the wisdom of the D6 Judgement:

"Look, I'll roll a D6 – 1,2,3 we'll interpret it your way, 4,5,6 we'll go my way…."

And its interleavable in all rulesets….Bonza!

Played a few but Empire III is all I have now, never argued with myself yet. But have had to settle fights between units of the field so to speak.

Dammit Caeser, I missed that one and naturally had to peek which then lead to the 'Terry1956 "Lasalle" slag-off' thread. I want the hour and a half I wasted on this drivel back!!! :)

I can remember a fair few "discussions" over Napoleons Battles back in the early 90's – the tight measuring and angles made such a difference to the outcomes that arguments were inevitable.

I think it's more wargamers than rules.

Even the most vague or incomptehendisble rules can be broken down, adjusted and settled amicably by a decent set of gamers.

Even the best written could provoke an argument if your stuck with a win at all costs berk, a cheat or a rules lawyer.

The ones that are played to win, rather than produce an outcome, and then played without an umpire.

Another vote for Legacy of no Movement, or Legacy of whatever…

Legacy of where the hell are the rules, you mean?

I love the idea, but where are the actual rules?

Rules don't cause agruments, people cause arguments.

The rules I made up, as they concist of trained monkeys with loaded muskets fighting it out, those damn monkeys always get in an argument over the finer point of litrature.

The french monkeys alway feel Voultaire is best, while the Britsh monkeys prefer Shakspear