"Black Powder Rules" Topic

My single favorite period for miniatures is the American rebellion, and more specifically the late war in the South (the region of my heritage).

Believing myself, rightly or wrongly, to be deeply steeped in the military history of that set of campaigns, and having a 50-year experience of miniatures gaming, I have developed, along with generous contributions from fellow gamers, a set of "home" rules that work for us and that we mutually believe to give a good simulation. I'll also say that these are detailed rules, fully written out, and the result of extensive play.

However, these "home" rules:
• Use simultaneous movement – my lengthy experience is that many gamers do not care for this.
• Will render a full decision in more than 4 hours – typically 6 to 8 hours.
• Are a bit dense – require, IMHO, one to three games to really become comfortable.

I am, therefore, on the lookout for a commercial rules set that can provide a reasonably historically accurate finished game in 4 or no more than 5 hours and could allow me to host games for "novices".

With this in mind, I seized upon the opportunity to attend an AWI game using Black Powder, which I know from TMP to be a pretty popular rules set.

Here are my impressions:

The book has high production values and is lavishly illustrated. It appears to have been professionally edited and laid out.

I was relying upon a book owned by the chap putting on the game. If there have been multiple editions I cannot say to which edition I was exposed.

The book is, IMHO, poorly organized. There is no index. The TOC needed more detail, especially given the lack of an index. Our experienced GM still spent quite a bit of time finding specific rules.

The book is conversational in style (in that regard it reminded me of a recent Osprey supposed rules set). Some or even many may find this characteristic appealing. I found it frustrating; I prefer clear, straight-forward rules.

While I see it claimed that many of the miniatures photos are intended to illustrate play, in fact anyone who knows publishing (as I do, professionally) knows that these were all staged photos, essentially mini-dioramas, and did not add to elucidation of actual wargame play.

The rules try to cover too long a period: from flintlock smoothbore muskets to magazine-fed bolt-action rifles. The result, for me, was that it failed to capture the essence of AWI warfare.

A specific error for AWI is the handling of so-called skirmishers. In historical fact, only riflemen, over-mountain rebels and Indians actually skirmished in battle; "regulars" performed skirmish activity only in picqet duty and in "affairs of posts". Artillery is also much too powerful.

I always applaud injection of fog of war, but this set's system whereby movement is totally random, injects, for me, far too much luck into the end results.

Last but not least, the price of these rules, while seemingly in line these days with other commercial horse-and-musket rule sets, is an obstacle for me.

Hmph. Well, you certainly don't want to start potential recruits on a set which doesn't reflect period tactics as you understand them--and there seems little point in an introductory rule book which costs as much as a small army.

May I suggest that you consider a stripped-down introductory version of your home rules? This avoids expense and copyright problems, lets you decide what are the tactical essentials and starts the kids with the mechanisms of your regular rules.

Also, you speak of length of game without reference to size of battle. Perhaps if it takes 6-8 hours to play Guilford, you can use Cowpens for beginners?

We have our home grown rules that I can send you on the AWI. It is simple but we love it. If you want to look over a copy send me your e-mail address. It is designed for 40mm figures but will work for any scale.
Doug

msc1d@aol.com

I do not love Black Powder, for all the mentioned reasons, and a few more. One particular pet peeve of mine is that each scenario is followed by a "how the game played" section, which is nothing more than an alternate history of the battle in question, while the space could have been so much better employed in a further illustrations of the game mechanisms at play. Fluff.

Our experienced GM still spent quite a bit of time finding specific rules.

There is a lot to be said for having a well organised play sheet rather than having to thumb through the whole book.

And I would comment all of the above apply equally to the BP approach to the Napoleonic period. No doubt the fan boys will be along shortly to explain that it all improves once you buy all the specific period books and all the special extra rules but now we're talking a serious amount of money for a still largely generic horse and musket set of rules.

If I had no other options they'd be ok and the books are pretty but there have been so many better alternatives released in the last 2 – 3 years, period specific, with detail, correct tactics and command and flavour for a lot less money.

there have been so many better alternatives released in the last 2 – 3 years, period specific, with detail, correct tactics and command and flavour for a lot less money.

Could you suggest some alternatives then?

You might want to try British Grenadier from Partizan Press. It is period specific and has been around for a few years although I cannot tell you how well it plays as I have not had the pleasure of doing so but it seems fairly popular.

Dear Robert Piepinbrink,

Thank you for your comments.

We've experimented with, as you suggest, a "stripped-down" version, but without success. It reduces historical accuracy without having a meaningful impact on the play time.

Dear 9th Royal Norfolk,

I am hoping to try British Grenadier. Call me cheap, but like other commercial AWI rules sets, it is too much money for me to purchase sight unseen.

Dear Nsolomon99,

I second MajorB's query. Could you make some specific recommendations?

I entirely know what you mean about cost. The original edition of British Grenadier was rather more reasonably priced than the current deluxe edition – I guess the publishers all have mouths to feed.

One other ruleset are the WRG rules for 1685 to 1845. I have an unplayed copy (it's cheaper and quicker to read rules than to play with them) but they always looked "cleaner" than your typical WRG rules. Even though they date back to 1979 I think there is still an "underground following" for the rules. There's a review here and they have been re-released as part of John Curry's History of Wargaming project – they're available direct from John.

If you search on Scribd there is a dodgy scan if you want to have a look

Maybe I'm a "fanboy" because I really don't understand some of the criticisms.

A specific error for AWI is the handling of so-called skirmishers. In historical fact, only riflemen, over-mountain rebels and Indians actually skirmished in battle; "regulars" performed skirmish activity only in picqet duty and in "affairs of posts".

Who is forcing you to skirmish your line troops? A formed unit entering difficult terrain goes into open order and resorts to it's proper formation when back on good ground. That sounds accurate to me. When forced to fight in open order there are some limitations, as one would expect.

Artillery is also much too powerful.

Then make them less so. The rules as written are a framework for gaming. I suppose the artillery rules reflect the better artillery found in the Napoleonic era. I change the effectiveness of cannon fire for even older conflicts that do not have specific supplements. The is one for the AWI,i believe.

I always applaud injection of fog of war, but this set's system whereby movement is totally random….

If you had your troops moving in a "totally random" fashion, then maybe you were playing the game incorrectly. You actually tell your troops where you want them to move and randomize the probability that the order is received. If that was too low for your liking, increase every commanders rating by 1. Again, BP is not a "set in stone" ruleset. Adjust it to your liking or to the era being played.

The rules try to cover too long a period: from flintlock smoothbore muskets to magazine-fed bolt-action rifles

It cover the black powder era. Hence the name. The supplements deal with difference in tactics, units, etc.

I think the look of the book is rather tacky with some very average pictures…….

Your criticism seems to contradict the other criticisms. To each their own.

……and the supplements are not worth bothering with….

That's a pretty broad brush. What if you are interested in the era covered by the supplement? I mean if you have no interest in the ACW, then surely BP having a supplement in that era is not an indictment on the rules. is it?