[Legere]

Ah thanks.  No big deal I guess, pity it can’t be cleared somehow, that said, the forum is pretty quiet given the use of FB these days so I don’t use it much anyway.

[Legere]

@Big Al  Sorry for the late reply, I use so many forums I tend to only visit the most active on a regular basis, particularly given the wholesale migration of forums to FB (which I’m not keen on, stuff just disappears too quickly, sinking into the tide of “My painted X”).

As to the AT2 rules in the Epic book, it’s hard to say really as there isn’t a section in the book entitled “Suggested New Rules for Napoleonics” unlike in the supplements where they are all bundled together. It seems that in the Epic book, whatever changes have been brought in have actually been incorporated into the rules as changes, not clearly marked that they are not BP core rules.  Taking a quick look it appears that there is no option for 2 attack columns to charge a line and the book makes it clear that it’s one on one with a couple of exceptions (2 battalions or Standard or smaller size being able to charge a large battalion in line).  In a typical Warlord proof-reading fo-pah there is actually a line of text that says “The accompanying diagram when an Attack column charges a line, maximising its frontage as it does so”.  Of course the accompanying diagrams on that page (and the pages before and after) do not show that at all!

It does seem though that they have made adjustments to special rules, I can’t recall the detail know (and I can’t be bothered to look it up) but IIRC the “Marshall’s Baton / Knapsack” from AT1 or AT2 was effectively rendered obsolete when BP2 came out given the changes to the way commanders were dealt with, in the BP Epic book the Baton special rule is there which can be applied to some commanders which merely then gives them the Inspirational leader quality from the list of commanders qualities.  Quite why they need to persist with these largely pointless and confusing ways of describing rules (e.g. why do they just not say for 10 points you can give X French divisional or army commanders the Inspirational quality) is beyond me.

I still like BP but for me it really does need the supplement rules to make it more Napoleonic, otherwise it’s just playing a generic game where it’s just the colours of the soldiers that are different.  The problem with that is that we have BP1, the three Nap supplements, BP2 (which rendered some special rules obsolete but Warlord couldn’t be bothered to do an FAQ / Errata explaining that) and now, Epic Napoleonic with yet another version of the rules.  Coupled with Warlord’s frequent copy/paste errors and lack of proof reading I now find flicking back and forth through the various books really, REALLY tiresome to such an extent that I have more recently switched to playing General d’Armee (a well written, Napoleonic specific, clearly laid out and well presented set of rules where everything is in one place!) and, with the changes that I see for v2 of GdA (due for release this summer AFAIK), that switch will likely be permanent.

Apologies for the OT swipe at BP but, while others are happy to use vanilla BP for everything across the board (e.g. just swap ACW for Napoleonic army), I’m not.  It’s when you start going “off piste” that the problems start, trying to find what is current and what is not, or even where it is, as answering your question shows.  Great rules, by and large, but hard work IMO.

[Legere]

I imagine the national traits for the new nations are in the supplement?  Hopefully the Russian navy will fare better than the Spanish with their string of negatives balanced by just one positive on a ship that will likely not get used that often.  Of course national traits are optional, just a pity that I’ve seen so many comments from Spanish fleet players, and even their opponents, saying that playing them gets real old real fast.

 

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Legere.

[Legere]

Quite looking forward to giving this a try. Agree entirely about the tokens and templates from the starter set!  I’m not THAT interested in the US / IJN (at least at the moment), I intend to buy the hard back rule book so no need for that, I have loads of dice so essentially it’s JUST the templates and tokens.  I think I’ve found somewhere that does a good template set, will have to hunt around for the tokens.  Pity to feel like your’e forced to the starter to play the game.  Easy enough I would think for them to bundle those things separately like they do for Bolt Action or even do a RN / Kriegs starter set.

[Legere]

It contains some of the additional rules from Albion Triumphant 2.  It’s a useful book IMO as I prefer the size / weight for carrying round, it’s also Napoleonic specific which I like.  In addition there are some Epic specific changes relating to the numbers of bases used and the impact on formations.

There are sadly a few errors, the Skirmishers restriction (explained in BP1 WRT Napoloenic units and only those with the Skirmisher rule being able to form Skirmish Order at will vs those only allowed to use it when entering / passing through terrain they would normally be prevented from entering).  Units in the lists still have the ‘rule’, but nowhere does the book state what it means, that was an omission in BP2 as well mind.  Simple copy paste error too with the Household Brigade being correctly listed in AT2 but not in Epic.

One issue with the Epic book is that it’s a compilation of BP2 and AT2, nothing wrong with that per se, except that it might appear that additional rules like Pas de Charge are actually rules, rather than additional Supplement rules that always made it clear that they were optional.  It’s one of the rules I’m on the fence about but, having the BP2 book and the supplements, I know I needn’t use it (and likely won’t if not using other nations that can also form Attack Column, thus POSSIBLY having a need to differentiate between them and the French).  Those coming straight to the game via Epic might think PdC is a bit overpowered, not realising that it’s optional.  That said, I’m sure the Epic book makes the tool box philosophy clear, I haven’t checked it line by line.

Overall though, I really like the Epic book but I’m glad I have BP2 and the Supplements.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 8 months ago by Legere.

[Legere]

Aiyoooo.  Talk about having a ‘doh’ moment!!  Too long in covid isolation / lockdown here with no gaming for 18 months leads to the panic re-reading of multiple rule sets in a matter of days, preparing QRS sheets and new player guides for various rules and totally forgot the concept of BP morale saves being a score to beat, not to get below!

Must admit I did have a bit of a ‘Whaaaat’ moment when I checked all the guard cavalry stats and the ceremonial aspect, as you say, very much misplaced for this era, was the only thing I could come up with for the unfathomable worse morale level.  Except of course it’s better.

Thanks for the reply though, time to relax with a whisky, put the books down and let the brain de-clutter for a few days methinks 😉

 

[Legere]

I ended up opting to split the infantry bases in half giving bases of 30 x 20mm and stick with 4 bases per battalion.  The cavalry are also based on 30mm wide bases, 3 per base but sticking to the Epic standard of 3 bases per regiment.  The 50% reduction allows for a full Black Powder game on a 6′ x 4′ table (the equivalent of playing on a 12′ x 8′ table if using the standard / 28mm basing) and also conveniently doubles the number of infantry battalions and cavalry regiments.  Of course it also allows me to use the figures for other rules too should the need arise.  There’s several rule sets I’m interested in using 30mm wide bases, none using 60mm.

[Legere]

The two most popular seem to be just use cm in place of inches (but that’s always seemed way too short for everything for me) or just half all the inch distances.  Of the two I prefer the latter but we have actually produced our own QRS sheets where we have changed the inches to cm and added 25% to everything, not just the artillery ranges.

[Legere]

You will also sometimes see the +1 / +2 confusingly written as D1 / D2.  So essentially there is just +1 / +2 or D3 (as was pointed out above use a D6 where 1/2 = 1; 3/4 = 2; 5/6 =3).  I actually use a D3 dice.

[Legere]

While these are great for ‘standard’ BP on big tables they do stick with the standard BP basing and 24cm frontages.  While you could tinker with that (3 bases for standard size battalions) it does create problems for depicting attack column and square, problematic IMO given most battalions will be standard.  Another option would be to reduce the bases sizes by half, either cutting the WL bases or (if that would make one end look tatty), use 30x20mm bases purchased elsewhere.  That though would throw out the command stand ratios but I suppose you could do some kit bashing to an extent.  Some troop types may well be way over-represented doing that too.

[Legere]

Great stuff, thanks for doing this.  I spent a LOAD of time doing Nap specific QRS and unit / army summaries in spreadsheet format (on Powerpoint) and meant to get round to doing something like this.  All just takes so much time though so never got round to it.

[Legere]

OK, got it thanks.  Very good point it is too.  We will be playing a few systems, though mostly BP,  and the 15mm infantry will be based 8 figures in two rows to a 40*30 mm base with two bases to a battalion, the frontage is thus 80mm.  I had planned to model a battery using two guns on 40*40 mm bases making a battery also 80 mm wide, given a battery had roughly the same frontage as an infantry battalion.  The lack of protection as a result of doing this would clearly increase the vulnerability of artillery even further, though I suppose once infantry are in charge range the artillery is likely toast anyway.

The other issue I suppose is how far do you take this frontage argument?  20-30 years ago I recall folks being VERY hung up on frontages whereas rules these days seem to lean more towards being more ‘representational’, focussing more on effect and a playable game system than accurate geometry.  I used to try to model the frontages of battalions and cavalry regiments accurately, getting quite pedantic at times, but of course it all falls down as soon as you start to consider were all the units at EXACTLY the same strength, in EXACTLY the same formation etc etc.  In hindsight it was probably pretty pointless.

Now I don’t bother.  I use the small, standard and large unit sizes just for the footprint and manoeuvre implications but other than that, infantry is as described above and cavalry are also two bases of 40*30 mm with 3 on each.  Given our lack of ‘accuracy’ with regard to infantry and cavalry unit frontages I do wonder if there’s any point getting hung up on the frontage of just one unit type, e.g. artillery, particularly if it’s at the expense of disrupting how it is ‘designed’ to be represented and used in the game, as you say, it unbalances things somewhat and means that infantry cannot really protect artillery at all (I know they can’t support as such but they could give closing fire if they were to be unavoidably contacted too – at least I think).  One benefit of using just one gun per battery would be that my 4 current foot artillery batteries become 8 LOL.

As was mentioned above, BP2 includes the option on p.17 to model batteries with more than one model but suggests that unit frontages should be the same as a small infantry battalion.  By unit I’m assuming it means the whole battery.  This would I think allow the use of greater numbers of guns if using a higher figure count than we are, perhaps for 28mm figures.  With our basing though we plan to have a small battalion as 1 x 40*30 base, standard and 2 x 40*30 and large as 3 x 40*30.  As such our unit frontage should be 40 mm anyway so that would take us back to square one, one gun per battery it is 🙂

 

[Legere]

Big Al’s post said “Further, the increased unit frontage (and this is why I think players like it) means that there is less chance of bringing a second unit into the fight when they charge the artillery. If you are charging a single model, any adjacent unit will be contacted and included in the combat. That means additional Closing Fire attacks and additional HTH attacks from the enemy, reducing your chance of success – artillery can’t be supported. I said it was fragile, which means it can be ganged up on and easily destroyed. However, you can place it next to an infantry unit to help to protect it. Increasing the frontage strips it of this protection. Nobody ever mentions this when talking about artillery basing, instead they babble on about the “area” that artillery should cover, conveniently forgetting that it is reflected in the rule that it cannot be supported.”

There being no figures on a table or a diagram I’m struggling to visualise this.  Are you saying that if a battery is modelled by one gun with a friendly  infantry battalion to one or both flanks, if the battery is charged by an infantry battalion in line that battalion must contact one of the flanking battalions too so will take fire etc. whereas if the battery is as wide as the attacking battalion then only the battery will give closing fire etc.?

[Legere]

Oh, that’s interesting.  Is Pas de Charge no more then?  I didn’t realise BP2 had invalidated supplement suggested rules, merely that you used them only if you wanted?  If any rule or suggested rules have been ‘rendered obsolete’ it might be useful if an FAQ was published so folks can easily find what they are.

[Legere]

Yeah I think you’re right.  Reading it over several times, the Howitzer rules seem to pertain to a unit description whereas Shrapnel, another artillery rule, is an ammunition type; a special rule that is noted in relevant unit profiles, those units having the option to choose that ammunition type when firing.  Also, at no point in the howitzer section does it mention that these rules apply to units containing only howitzers or units containing a mixture of cannons and howitzers (which would pretty much be every battery I guess), further leading me to think their effect is factored in for regular batteries and that the Howitzer rule and fire profile only relates to full batteries of them.  Ordinarily I would just assume that the howitzer rules only apply to full units for the reasons above but at times I find BP a bit confusing as to what exactly is intended in the application of a rule because of the way that some other rules are unclear (see below).  I know the rules are written to be deliberately loose but it would sure help though if at times they added some clarity as to how the rule was intended to be used, regardless of whether players might want to change it later.  In this case a caveat such as ‘The rules for howitzers apply only to units made up entirely of howitzers (single weapons, sections or complete batteries) and are not intended to be an optional weapon choice that players can choose to use when firing any other batteries, even though those batteries may contain howitzers.  In this case the fire from howitzers has already been factored in to the unit profile”.

I’d agree too that the 3 Nap books could do with being aligned with each other and updated where necessary for BP2, maybe by way of an FAQ/Errata/Update.  It’s not something Warlord seems to do though.  The only errata so far is for BP1 and that was 2010!  One of the things that I was really stuck on, and this was not long after buying the books so I hadn’t got my head around the publication order, was the ‘A Marshall’s Baton in every Knapsack’ the wording of which renders it unusable with BP2.  Took me ages to figure BP2 came last and they just arbitrarily changed it.

Much as I like Black Powder I find reading a Napoleonic specific set like General d’Armee is WAY easier, with everything in one place so you’re not flicking through 6-8 different parts of books to find the rules for X,Y and Z.  I actually like the granularity of BP more to be honest and, while they both use an activation system I like BP’s a lot more.  The ADC tasks also to me seem really at odds with what you’d be doing as an army commander (like re-supplying arty ammo ) and why can’t a brigadier order more than one battalion to attack unless you’ve bought your way out of the restriction that turn.  Popular game for sure but doesn’t appeal to me as much as BP, save for being 20 times easier to read and learn!  Kinda digressed a bit there 😉

Another one is Cavalry Mixed formation from Clash.  There’s 9 paragraphs that tell you virtually nothing about how the rule is applied other than to tell you it’s similar to the Mixed Order rule in the main book, an infantry rule.  Many of the other rules in Clash are explained in detail  but not this one.  So is it similar in application as they suggest or is it applied exactly the same.  If it’s only similar, how is it different, if it’s exactly the same, why not say exactly so people are clear!  IIt’s not unreasonable to expect a rule that’s applied to cavalry might vary a bit from the way it’s applied to infantry, perhaps with regard to formation placement / coherency etc so it could do with explaining, but no, nothing.  Just 9 paragraphs of how they don’t use it in their games?  Bizarre! I’ve heard people excuse things like this by saying “it’s the style the rules are written in” the way the rules are intended to be used, for casual friendly games, is no excuse for lack of clarity IMO, it’s just sloppy.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Legere.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Legere.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Legere.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Legere.

[Author]

Posts