"Horse foot and guns is here!" Topic

Surely not it must be a dream!!
link

Blimey! At last!

Shame I prefer the 1997 playtest version:)

Good grief! Does this use BW measurement like DBA 3.0?

Hopefully !

Phil

But you're not actually that Phil are you Phil…

Should I be on the edge of my seat waiting for 'Kepi and Rifle' etc?

The photograph conjures up Old School memories, – particularly the carpet tile terrain.

Coincidentally I played in an HFG campaign this weekend…..

link

Good stuff David -did anyone walk in on this wig fest-they must have wondered what the Hell was going on :)

I'm all set to go at it with this lot.
link

Good God! I liked the aerly drafts so I guess I'll buy one but I'm shocked to see it.

I wish Phil well with this one. He is , in my opinion, one of the most innovative rule designers of the last 40 years.

martin

I took part in a play-test years ago at an early COW … and managed – in Phil Barker's own words – put tactical innovation back 50 years. (My Prussians were charged by a French cavalry force that went straight through my first line of infantry … then my second line … then my gun line … and finally my HQ!)

I'll certainly be buying a copy.

Ordered.

Also ordered. :-)

Also also ordered… ;-D

And ordered :)

and, of course, ordered.

Yes, ordered.

I shall have to dig out my revisions which converted the whole thing to squares.

yes, but has it been translated to English yet????

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I would have been interested – having, like Bob the Temple Builder, seen early playtests at CoW – but the statement that there will be supplements for different periods within the range of HF&G puts me off…

After waiting so long for this edition, how much longer would I have to wait for the Napoleonic specific period version?

but the statement that there will be supplements for different periods within the range of HF&G puts me off…

I too saw the early playtests at CoW and I am sure that it was always the case even then that there would be three more detailed interpretations of the basic rules engine for specific periods. Even the names given in the lulu.com page ( initially "Tricorne & Musket" covering 1701-1790, "Shako and Bayonet" for 1791-1850, and "Kepi & Rifle" for 1851-1914.) are what I remember from way back then.

Also, I think it is incorrect to think of these as "supplements". The idea as I understand it that they will be more detailed with a lower unit representation scale (a bit like the relationship between DBA and DBM).

Well, given that I've used the playtest versions to fight Waterloo, Wavre, Gitchen, Nachod and Mons, I don't think we need wait for the 'supplements' to actually play a game.

Pretty sure the Major is correct on this one – Kepi and Rifle etc are for a lower level set to.

MajorB is correct, there has always been a plan to split the period into 3 and produce more detailed games at a lower level…

Mike

I understand that this is a version of the internet rules and not a product edited and published by WRG Ltd but put out by the Barkers directly so it will be interesting to read a review…

I got mine now – I'm pleased to report it still features that farcically complicated section about how set out your figures on a base lol.

I understand that this is a version of the internet rules

Not sure what you mean by "internet rules"?

and not a product edited and published by WRG Ltd but put out by the Barkers directly

Given that Phil and Sue effectively ARE WRG, I don't see any difference.

No, Phil is one director of WRG ltd, there are 4 other directors including Sue and I believe that the rules were published through Lulu without consulting the other directors and as such are a Barker only publication.

Mike

I believe that the rules were published through Lulu without consulting the other directors and as such are a Barker only publication.

If that is so, then please explain the following from the WRG web site:

"To bring the story up-to-date, in January 2010 a new company, Wargames Research Group Ltd, was formed and in June 2010 its first publication, DBMM Version 2.0 appeared. This was the result of further extensive testing by the discussion group and will be followed by other publications – the fourth book of army lists, the long-awaited "Horse, Foot and Guns", "
link

Here they are

Here they are

So which one is Phil?

You see I actually put time in trying to decide if Phil and Sue were Lennon and McCartney or John and Yoko.
Fruitless exercise of course…

Ordered.

Really must get some of the leadpile painted….

Not sure what you mean by "internet rules"?

HFG was available in draft(s) as a free download on the internet for a decade-hence "internet rules".

I already have a download of HFG so a hard copy of the same with a cover on it would be of little worth to me.

A finished copy on the otherhand would be a review would be handy.

HFG was available in draft(s) as a free download on the internet for a decade-hence "internet rules".

Which was also true of DBA v3.0.

I already have a download of HFG so a hard copy of the same with a cover on it would be of little worth to me.

Of course, what you don't know is what has changed between your downloaded draft version and the rules as published now. There were some important changes between the last free draft of DBA v3.0 and the published "Purple Book", not least of which was the inclusion of several diagrams.

I suggest that you think twice about buying this. It is just the 2004/2006 draft that has been put on Lulu. It is not complete, and by no means the finished article.

I have to say I'm a bit pissed off with the Barkers -first I bought that pile of DBA book that Sue Barker put out and now this.

This from the Yahoo group -seems like something has gone badly wrong.

"This product was represented as the finished article. Having bought it and recommended it to friends The publisher puts the following note on the Yahoo group:

" I have been asked to make a statement to anyone who is considering the purchase of HFG currently published by LULU. Please be aware, it is for anyone who would like a printed copy of the downloadable rules. This version does not contain any new rules, or new material. It is still in development and not a finished WRG production. Chris Hanley WRG "

Why wasn't this information available when I purchased this and how do I go about getting my £17.00 GBP back that has been wasted? No one would have bought this knowing it was something they have already printed off and dates from 2006!"

And there was me, thinking sue barker only presented a question of sport.

Mashrewba,

The note on HFG yahoo group is NOT from the publisher. Chris is a director of WRG. The HFG lulu print is the work of the Barkers, not WRG. I realise that a number of people think that Phil and Sue ARE WRG on their own but they aren't – Chris and others put a lot of editing work into DBA 3.0 and DBMM before it was published.

Mike

Hmm…I don't look at the Yahoo Group sites now because I find the current format much less convenient to manage. It's far more difficult to follow (or even find) conversations and notices. I wish they would go back to something more akin to what it was.

"Of course, what you don't know is what has changed between your downloaded draft version and the rules as published now."

Yes that's why I said a review would be handy. I do now know thanks to Mashrewba and you Major now know what 'internet rules' meant. TMP at its best.

and you Major now know what 'internet rules' meant.

Well, I know what you think "internet rules" meant, but I'm not sure that is what Mike meant by the term. OTOH, the "rules" of the Internet are something completely different IMHO:
link

Context is often the key to understanding what is going on around you.

So when Mike posts

"I understand that this is a version of the internet rules and not a product edited and published by WRG Ltd but put out by the Barkers directly so it will be interesting to read a review…"

On a thread about the publication of HFG-it might bring to mind the various iterations of HFG once available on the internet as a free download.

No doubt you are right though and Mike was talking about something else entirely.

According to a message posted by Sue Barker on the HFG Yahoo group, the "version 1.1" available from Lulu is a printed copy of the playtest version on Phil's website. This is the 2004 version and not only isn't a finished product, it isn't even the most recent playtest version.

Apparently the new (hopefully completed) version will be 2.0, which may be ready in an unspecified amount of time. Given the number of times that the imminent publication of HFG has been announced and retracted already, I'm not inclined to believe that this project will ever be completed.

LT

Also when asked directly if punters would be getting their money back in the wake of this *bleep up the silence was deafening…

Clearly the title of this thread has now become deeply ironic. To borrow a line from Fawlty Towers -"It's up. it's up -no it's down again".
No smiley face.

Including postage from Lulu, this ruleset set me back £21.98 GBP – a lot of money for a slim volume consisting only of black and white text throughout

Had I seen this thread first, I would have held off making the purchase.

I am not a happy bunny.

Henry
MWBG

Sue has made a monumental mistake which has cost quite a few people money for a next to worthless set of rules and in doing so has damaged her name, her husbands name, WRG and the eventual HFG rule set.

Her silence on the issue the costs that her mistake have encouraged people to incur has been deafening.

The truly sad part is that studied ignorance of the comments or problems raised by those who buy their rules is something new for the Barkers ….

There would seem to be a certain arrogance it has to be said.

FWIW I checked Lulu this morning and HFG is no longer listed, so nobody else will be throwing their money down that hole. While I certainly don't believe that there was any intent on the Barkers' part to defraud the gaming public, I feel that those of us who wasted their funds on an obsolete and unfinished product are due some sort of recompense.

LT

@Brass1

I fully agree. While no-one at the moment is shouting 'fraud', it would seem that at the very least a certain amount of misrepresentation. If the rules are simply the draft from 2006 or whatever, why are they being formally published? I ordered a copy on the understanding that it would be an up to date version, and would have some degree of finality about it. Is it possible to cancel the orders from Lulu?