"Having problems with these rules." Topic

I have read of people having similar problems with these rules. These are really typical rules from across the pond. I get so lost when reading them. They seem to be just a bunch of unrelated tables and charts and way too much role playing.

Has anyone come up with an "Americanized" version of these rules? That cuts through all the silly role playing stuff and cuts to the chase? Puts them in some kind of normal wargame rules organization. I can't even figure out how many figures are in a unit? For that matter what units are we talking about?

I really want these rules to work but I feel like I am going to have to re-write them. I shouldn't pay for a set of rules and then have to re-write them. I can understand the occasional house rule but… Am I alone here?

The units are of variable size, 5-12 figures. Smaller for skirmishy types and bigger for line infantry.

And the units would be 'platoons' or half companies for the most part. A formation (group of units under a more senior Big Man) represents a wing or division of a battalion.

There are some videos on Youtube showing the basic game play. Those might help you.

I like the rules very much, I've made a company of line troops 40 figures just like in the Sword and the Flame. You should down load the Quick reference sheets and I bet that would help your game.

The author has a step by step video on YouTube which you might find useful.

When you have to have a YouTube video to explain how to play the game, you are admitting you have failed in writing them.

Rallynow;
Contact me at battlefield_designs {at} rogers {dot} com
or check out my website here:

battlefieldgamedesigns.com

I may have what you are looking for. If you are going to H-Con in July I will be running games there. Check out the PEL for some Sharpe game scenarios.
Regards,
Hitman

When you have to have a YouTube video to explain how to play the game, you are admitting you have failed in writing them.'

That's load of BS using youtube is just another tool for teaching how the rules work.

I have to disagree with Winston Smith. A youtube video increases the game's exposure. Not everyone is able to try out other rules or have a group that tries out new rules.

I watched and/or played in games and as a result bought (or chose not to buy) the rules. While working in the UK I managed to watch and play in games run by Rich of Too Fat Lardies at SALUTE several years in row. As a result, I have bought and played several of those rules.

I have found Sharpe Practice well written and easy to follow. I am not sure I understand what the OP's issue is with them.

"When you have to have a YouTube video to explain how to play the game, you are admitting you have failed in writing them."

So Bolt Action, Flames of War and many other sets are badly written too then?

Really?

The rules seem well enough laid out to me. They take you through the mechanics and how to organise your units.
There's a good quick reference on the back cover.
There are some excellent scenario supplements (and numerous scenarios in the various 'Specials'). Reading those also helps with understanding how to put together your own scenarios.
If you have questions, asking on the Lardies forum or the Yahoo groups will get good answers.

A Youtube video is just a "play by play" in another format. Nothing wrong with that.

But if you are doing errata, clarifications, etc. in a video then yes, that's a failure in writing.

I played these solo just to try them out and had no problems with them that I recall. Seemed pretty straight forward.

Just ignore the RPG elements (they are they to reflect the Sharpe Novels they try to represent) and you have a pretty easy core system.

I think the videos are a nice addition, like the step by step guides you see in many rule set. As for the RPG side of the rules they are a nice addition to a rule set that is based in a movie/tv world.

They where the first TFL ruleset I got, and my yankee redneck self had no trouble understanding and playing them.

Owen

I shall defend Rich here on one point, the movie/tv aspect is in the rules, but all the mechanisms, formations and the core of the rules is based firmly in research of the period and is about as historically correct as a 21st Century person could get to them without a time machine.

Maybe if you could explain where the difficulty lies we could help more?
It may well be that the rules are not meeting your expectation of the game in the same way that FoW isn't setup to reproduce division level ww2.

Armies throughout history are organised at some point to small groups/squads/sections/platoons etc. and the rules work in that area of small groups.

The core machanics have been extended to other periods such as the ACW, AWI, Carlist War, and I remember seeing one game for Wars of the Roses that looked very nice.

David

One of the 'problems' with SP is that you do have to do some preparatory work, like producing/printing off cards for the Game Card Deck and Bonus Cards – though there are several sets ready for download at the TFL yahoo group.

The mechanisms are quite different from many other skirmish level games and it is a much easier game to 'learn by doing' than simply reading the rulebook. The yahoo group and TFL forum are a great resource when learning the game – but, as previously mentioned, would be easier to know what you don't 'get' in order to steer you in the right direction.

It is a rule set that you'll either love or hate – I'm definitely in the former category and revitalised my interest in gaming, so it's worth persisting with.

And the role-playing element is strictly optional, though it is a game all about Big Men, heroic actions and derring-do , so the 'story' can be an important element.

The King's English is definitely different than American English, but I had no trouble understanding these, unlike DBA. We rarely ever use the Role playing stuff, so you can just ignore all the Big Man Characteristics fluff and play without it. SP is different than most other wargames. Learning the difference between what Big Men do (Initiatives) and Groups (Actions) is critical to understanding the game. The Sharp Practice Forum is a great place to get your questions answered. link

As an Australian I can say I have no issues what so ever with how SP is written.
As for the YouTube videos all I can say is they are no different than the video tutorials you find being use to promote Bolt Action and FoW.
The video is great for introducing new players to the game.
If you don't like the Roll Playing aspects ignore them.
Maybe the issue is the rules are written in ENGLISH and not in 'Merican?

I started cutting and pasting the rules centered on their boat rules for boarding party actions. I removed the line/light foot and references to horse, got rid of almost all of the nationality flavor rules and have them down to about 30 pages.

I agree, a lot of filtering is needed to organize the rules, but the basic premise of, to paraphrase Patrick O'Brian, the great man influencing outcomes and the use of blinds is what makes this rule set enjoyable.

Adobe Professional helps.

"Down to about 30 pages…"

Hmmm…the entire rulebook is only 68 pages long, and that includes an 11-page guide to Napoleonic drill which is entirely optional.

The 12-page section on National Characteristics is actually very relevant because it ensures that the different tactical doctrines employed at company level during the Napoleonic period can be replicated – but, of course, if you're playing British v. French, you can happily ignore the sections on the Austrians, Prussians, Russians and Spanish.

The core rules are 24 pages long, there are chapters on optional troop types (Sailors, Native troops etc) which can be ignored unless being used in a game (4 pages), and another 4 wholly optional pages on creating characters for your Big Men.

But if you're still deterred by the current style of the rules, maybe wait until SP v2 is released sometime in early 2016. – I'm sure the author has learnt a lot about rule-writing in the intervening 8 years and all will be much clearer, whichever side of the Pond you are on. :-)

Youtube? rewrite? Really?

What ever happened to playable rules written in some proper syntax?

Sharp Practice 2 is a very good example of playable rules written in proper syntax.

As a person with dual citizenship, I'd have to say that the original comment about "Americanizing" the language is absolutely stunning. The rules, and the new supplement, are beautifully written, and a joy to read.

As a person who has mostly played 'big box' Wargames like 40k, bolt action, xwing etc, the rules are a little denser but I think they're laid out fine. Probably my favorite set of rules now.

These rules are well designed. Not everything written is going to click for everyone, but if you don't "get it" then it's you who have the issue because the rest of us have figured it out and are happy with the system. Watch the youtube videos because you have just qualified to be a visual learner, and it WILL actually help provide clarity.