"Tell me about Black Powder" Topic

Well BP has its weaknesses especially in regards to being used with napoleonics – Lack of unit organizational details / Artillery misrepresented on the battlefield scale wise / triple moves by a unit regardless of formation / breaktest lacks any positive modifiers / Poorly organized / HC and Pike and Shotte contain some changes that from what I understand can be utilized effectivetively to "upgrade" BP itself. So good part is it is a relatively "easy" game to teach new folks with. Perhaps if the special rules were geared more in 'napoleonic" or "period" renderings / nomenclatures – that would help. Pretty pictures are great but only if they make the rules more playable.

it sucks

Well I'm enjoying adapting and using Black Powder. But I must admit cortland makes some realy good points.

A friend of mine, a very experienced wargamer tried them out a Historicon this summer and said they were one of the worst set of rules he had ever played. It seemed as if the rules were being made up as they went along.

Every review I have read by those who like and those who dislike them have convinced me never to play these rules. I have read that you are provided a "tool box" and from that you write the rules. I can do that with my own tool box, thank you very much.

When I pay good money for a set rules, that is exactly what I want, a set of rules not an erector set. Admittedly I have not played them but just from the reviews both positive and negative, I won't waste my money on them.

'I want, a set of rules not an erector set.'

Oooooh, Maaaatron!

its reely dum cos i cant use my giant robot skorpion when i verse the olden days soldiers in dum hats so it sux

I've played BP a few times and are ambivalent about them. A lot of the criticisms are valid and a lot of the positive stuff is valid. It's just another game to me that I'm happy enough to play. But I won't put on a BP game myself. The tool kit thing is ok, but with so many add-on options you start to question why you really need all of them. Perhaps period specific supplements would have been a better option.

I've put on quite a few games, played a lot as well but have found that you need to put a bit of work in to the troop stats otherwise you get a game of Black Powder with WSS or ACW figures rather than a WSS or ACW game using Black Powder as the rules.

For a club evening 2-3 hour game they are great, but I'm yet to be convinced that they work when re-fighting actual battles .

I bought the rules, have read them and have played Hail Caesar so I have a decent idea of the mechanics. I like the idea of one core ruleset that covers the horse and musket period as I really dislike learing new rules all the time. But we have to consider what changed that should be reflected on the tabletop. I think (and I could be very wrong) that army organization, troop types, C&C, and shooting ranges all have to be dealt with to distinguish the various conflicts of the period. So I think it's possible to represent the period in one core ruleset as long as these differences are accounted for.

While I intend on making BP my horse & musket go-to rules, I think it is incomplete as written. Warlord has a great opportunity to increase their sales by putting out supplements for each sub-period (18th Cen, Nap, ACW, Colonials) that tailor the core mechanics and army organization. I think this is their plan albeit they are haven't really focused on it.

I have heard rumours of a Peninsular War supplement coming out soon. They have already done a 18th Century supplement, which I don't have, but perhaps it is useful to discuss that supplement (The Last Argument of Kings) to see how it tailors the game to that period of warfare. I think that will at least give an idea of how well the core rules can be adapted to be period specific.

Well I really like BP. It allows me to play entertaining games with toy soldiers. Ok there are a couple of oddeties but nothing too wierd compared to a lot of other games IVe played. Its core command and control mechanics do the job without getting overly complicated (so many rulesets miss them out entirely but surely they are an important ingredient of a wargame?) the game flows very well and combat etc is handled simply but effectively. My main criticism would have to be of a certain duplication of effect: for instance a cannon at long range hits on 5+ with one dice, 4+ on two dice at medium range and 3 dice on 3's at short range…both methods of addressing the affect of range on shooting are fine, but I would rather either vary the number of dice used to shoot, OR include +/- modifiers to the score needed…both seems a bit much. But this is a small complaint.

I think it is easily modded to play many periods well, but I dont understand the criticism I read above about it not laying out Organsation of armies? It tells u how to forms figures into battalions and battalions into brigades…for a game what more is needed? If you desire such details there are specialist publications, ospreys and so forth, that go into more detail about how many men are needed in each grand division and which of them played the oboe and dyed their hair pink…a game is the last place I would expect to find such information! If chess sets are not required to explain the historical combat effectiveness of the Queen and provide example of their ability to move in one direction or another then why should any other game be required to tell me how many ranks the Tiddlington Militia fought in between the hours of 5 and 6 am on alternate weekdays (market days excluded?)

That sort of detail is best left to historians and their ilk…

I guess that I should explain my "It sucks" comment. Realize that is just my opinion. I am a firm believer in a set of rules should reflect the period covered. I have participated in over ten games using these rules. Unfortunately, I will be playing in more because that is the set people know. Here is a list of some of items that drive me nuts:

1.) There is no relation to ranges and movement rates to unit frontages.

2.) Ranges to not seem correct to me. I am not going into a dissertation on effective weapon ranges, but realized the effective range of an AWI smoothbore musket is a 100 yards and an AWI rifle is 300 yards. The rules state Smoothbore 18" Rifle 24".

3.) You can freely interpenetrate units. You cannot even do that in chess.

4.) You have your Warmasterish movement system with about a half dozen exceptions.

5.) The Disruption on a six. I find this rule extremely annoying. An average battalion rolls three dice. Every time a battalion fires there is a 42% change the target will be disrupted which means it is frozen in place and has a disadvantage in melee and firing. Aren't the hits a unit takes suppose to reflect this?

6.) Rules are generally too generic.

7.) The rules are buried in the flavor text. The flavor could have easily been put on a side bar. I have spent about three to four hours of my time just sifting through the book writing eight pages of notes.

8.) Squares move or move the same as line.

9.) As a matter of fact line moves at the same rate as a column.

10.) Regular units cannot enter wood. This is a problem when playing America Revolution or American Civil War.

11.) It is just a tool kit which I paided $35 USD to $40 USD bucks.

12.) More supplements are coming! Why should I pay for something that should have been addressed in the base rules? I do not play "War Hammer" or "Flames of War" for just this reason.

13.) If I can potentially get three moves in a turn, why can't I get possible to fire three times if my unit did not move during its turn?

14.) The time period covered is way too large.

The rules are fun to read and the pictures are beautiful, but I could have bought ten copies of Battlegames magazine for what I have invested in this rules. Because of the generic nature of these rules, I find that you play the rules and not the period.

Cortland – Those a lot of the same criticisms that I have. Especially the crazy long ranges. The Disorder on a 6 hamstrings so many games that they turn into staring contests. But, a lot of the people who enjoy BP will point to your reasons saying that's why they like it: diff'rent strokes and all that. I'd much rather play Rank & File at the same level and get more satisfactory gameplay and outcomes.

Cortland, It is a 42% chance of NOt being disodered by 3 dice.

Bandolier, thats why 2/3rds of troops do the staring contest

Rank and file are highly though of by eveyone I know who has played them. Simple, unfussy, quick.

Best of all? A minor tweak doesn't break the system the way black powder's crude mechanism interactions baulk at a modifier.

Eh? How is a 1 in 6 chance 58% ?

Thats a 16.6% chance of disorder on each dice.

I just cant see..no matter how many dice you use, how 1/6th of the results on a dice ammounts to 58% of all possible results and the other 5 results only account for 42%.

unless you use weighted dice…

Don't lines squares and columns move at the same pace?

nope. Squares dont move at all, lines move normally and columns tend to be a little quicker.

I was tempted to reply to all of Cortlands criticisms on the basis that some were simply wrong..but I didnt understand quite a few at all so I gave up ;)

BTW That thing about Disorder…Neither figure given by KevanG or Cortland sounded right, it seemed counter-intuitive that 1/6th of the availble faces of a dice could account for more than half the possible results so I spent most of the day doodling, googling, and staring at the wall with a daft look on my face and generally trying to think my way back through time and an awfully large amount of cider to my maths lessons at school concerning probability…Ive spent quite a lot of the day trying to remember how to draw a 3 dice probability table…halfway through my 4th pint of the evening I finally got it: 91 of the possible 216 results on 3d6 will result in at least 1 roll of 6, thats 42%. Which still seems wrong but isnt…and Im fairly convinced it doesnt occur that often in my games.

Cortland was right first time, which just goes to show that if you think you understand probability theres a very good chance you don't.

Hi Cortland,
I agree with you about the musket ranges. I reduced mine down to battalion frontage and it had no negative affect on the game.
The disordered rule (you referred to it as disruption, 6 on shooting) works very well for me. What it means is a battalion badly affected by an enemy volley temporally can't close. The result can lead to short range exchanges of volleys. This looks and feels historical to me. Though again my units are only 6 inches apart so look like they are in close combat.
I'm sorry but you are incorrect in the comments you made on the movement rates though.
8) Squares can only move once at half speed 6 inches per turn max(Page 74). Line can move 6 times as far 36 inches max. Not the same.
9) Column has a bonus for movement over line. So assuming a command rating of 8 the column moves 29.4% faster. Not the same speed. But it is command that counts not theoretical speed.
10) check out pages 114-115 regarding moving through woods with regulars.
(I'm not saying you should like the rules or play them just making sure people don't misunderstand)

Units in March column get a STAFF RATING +2 on a road or +1 in the open, which means a SR 7 becomes a SR 9 on road. otherwise a SR 8. All units in a column get one free move on a command roll failure. So units in column will always move.
I am having some of the same problems with my group, but I found most are older and do not like change. So we play different rules, for AWi, ACW, Zulus War and SYW. I want to use the same rule system so will can play different periods and not have to consternate of the tactics and not just the rules.

I derived the percentage from the following formular.

1-(1-(Faces/DieType))^Qty Dice

Faces = 1 of six in this situation (To roll a six)
Dice Type = Six Sider
Qty Dice = number of dice

1 Die = 16.78%
2 Dice = 30.56%
3 Dice = 42.13%
4 Dice = 51.77%
etc.

Oh! I am sorry about the Disorder/Disruption mix up. I am moving on to Maurice which addresses a lot of the qualms that I have with Black Powder. I know that I should not have posted. I did not have the rules in front of me.

From what I understand the +1 +2 for different formations are part of the command section of the rules which determines potentially how many moves you get. The infantry rate of speed (one move) in all formations is 12". They do address square which is limited to one move only. I am not sure about page 74 and the 1/2 rate. I do not have the book with me anymore.

I do admit that I am old (59 going on a thousand), and a little inarticulate. I like to think that I am open to new ideas which is why I keep buying new rule sets. For example, I have been using Command and Colors Ancients with minis. It gives me the feel of a ancient battle plus a nice boardgame.

Cort N

From what I understand the +1 +2 for different formations are part of the command section of the rules which determines potentially how many moves you get

Which determines how far you move in a turn. And they are all in the same section of the rules even a casual look at the rule book would have revealed that.

The rules are buried in the flavor text. The flavor could have easily been put on a side bar. I have spent about three to four hours of my time just sifting through the book writing eight pages of notes.

Exactly! I find this very annoying when trying to dig out rules buried in a bunch of text that has nothing to do with the game. You spend hours with a highlighter picking out the rules. Then you end up re-writing the rules. But you need to keep in mind it is a "toolbox" you pay for the privilege of writing the rules yourself.

I don't know who wrote these but my guess it was a Chap from across the pond. As that is or was the predominate style of writing rules there. Until they are rewritten by someone here in an attempt to make it a usable product.

Although I have found it in several rules sets from this side of the pond also like the original F&F, Chief of Battalion and others. Very annoying. Stop showing off your knowledge of the period and just write the damn rules please!

And here I find the rules a pleasure to read and not difficult to follow at all.

I derived the percentage from the following formular.

1-(1-(Faces/DieType))^Qty Dice

Faces = 1 of six in this situation (To roll a six)
Dice Type = Six Sider
Qty Dice = number of dice

1 Die = 16.78%
2 Dice = 30.56%
3 Dice = 42.13%
4 Dice = 51.77%
etc.

A simpler way of going about it just 5/6 to the third power, or 5/6*5/6*5/6, which gives us the odds for the event where we don't roll any 6s, and that's approximately 58%, hence a 42% chance of rolling at least one six.

It does sound a bit dramatic, perhaps the break test rules in Hail Caesar address this then? Although that was a design principle for the era. More interesting, then, would be to know how it is handled in Pike & Shotte.

Someone mentioned BKC and BP sharing the command system, that is actually incorrect, as BP uses a new command system that I find superior: you roll one command roll per unit (or division when done as a division order), and the units get one, two or three moves based on how much you beat the roll by.

It's a system I'd much prefer to see in BKC. In fact, I'd prefer to see a lot more of BP/HC in BKC, like the stamina system etc.

Time for a new version of BKC?

I just lost the will to live.

I've played GNW, AWI, Naps, ACW, APW, FPW and AZW with a few tweaks. They've all worked surprisingly well except Naps. I believe there are inherent issues in the mechanisms that prevent the rules working for Naps.

I bought the rules and the Argument of Kings supplement purely for the eye candy and the snappy writing style, both of which I enjoyed. I enjoy looking at both books from time to time, so I did not have any qualms about the price. I doubt that I will ever play a game with the rules unless I happen to play in a BP game at a convention.

I am completely happy using my own Fife & Drum rules for games with multiple figures on a stand or BAR for larger big battalion/movement tray styled games.