Mike

We don’t like the use of the word “skirmish” since that represents a combined formation and tactical doctrine.  We prefer the word open order.  We also display the formations differently.  For us skirmishing is a more linear formation with supports in the rear.  So, we show it that way.  Open order is units maintaining the same formation but with…[Read more]

As Garry noted, there are new rules for forming square on pages 98-100 in the Clash of Eagles supplement. It provides bonuses to the Order test depending on how far the cavalry starts its charge.  I like this rule, though as Garry notes above others don’t.

Part of the intent, I think of the rule was to force infantry in go into square when…[Read more]

Yes, but it must pass a command order or be in initiative range of an enemy and is limited to one move per turn.

I have found with Black Powder, when something “rare” happens to consider what might have happened rather than the “optics” of what happened.

Using your example, it is clear that the infantry battalion’s colonel saw the cavalry charging his flank and ordered his unit to face the enemy cavalry and issue fire.  Before the cavalry closed the…[Read more]

In Clash of Eagles there are some special rules regarding skirmishers, that provide a more granular feel to mixed formations based on infantry type and nationality.

Specific to your question:

The mixed formation requires a formation change.  The formation change represents the “parent” battalion dispatching skirmishers to screen their front…[Read more]

Shrapnel… not to be to nerdy… but yes but 3D6 hitting on 5s and @D6 hitting on 4s have the same expected value… “1 hit”.  But they have very different outcome distributions including upper ranges.  So with 2D6 you are more likely to have more 0 hits and 2hits.  With 3D6, you are less likely to miss and can even inflict as many as 3 hi…[Read more]

The answer to your question is provided by Garry and Big Al.  The only thing I would add is to better understand Black Powder keep in mind “hits” do not equate to casualties per se, but rather the morale state of the unit.

So as Al noted, by winning the combat, your unit is feeling “euphoric” and so no “Break Test” is required.  But it also e…[Read more]

When you get into special terrain, you need special rules.

The Clash of Eagles Supplement does have some rules for Earthworks and Entrenchments.  Mostly, they suggest defining them as light cover or heavy cover and require you establish the capacity of said features… like one artillery unit and one standard infantry unit, etc.

I think the…[Read more]

Artillery was general divided into two categories… artillery of the “park” or reserve and small battalion guns for direct support.  This approach remained the practice until artillery became lighter and more maneuverable and so larger caliber guns could be deployed in a more direct support role.

Brigades were first introduced as a tactical…[Read more]

The best way to view, Black Powder’s terrain rules are as suggestions and the rules even suggest you feel free to tweak them…

So, if terrain is important to your scenario, then I would define the rules beyond those in BP2.  I have seen “streams” that I could walk across without breaking pace.  I have seen ones that in other parts of the c…[Read more]

The FAQ that Garry refers to…

The Quick Reference Sheet (QRS) states that a break test is required for units suffering artillery casualties
from closing fire (b. Test if Shaken or suffering artillery casualties from closing fire). Because the best
result that cavalry can get from such a test is ‘retire’ this makes it practically impossible for…[Read more]

It might help to understand the nuances in the rules.

While unit B cannot fire it ability to support adds +1 to combat resolution.  So while it does not get to throw 3 shooting dice which most often would inflict 1 casualty, when combat is resolved its +1 has the same impact on the melee as inflicting one loss in melee.  You can visualize this “…[Read more]

Warlord has done a good job publishing supplements for Black Powder.  That said, I know it has a couple of supplements it has paid for but never published… the ostensible reason is supplements are not profitable enough on their own to justify the cost.  Instead they work better when Warlord has a line of figures to go with the period.

I have s…[Read more]

Black Powder is an “abstract” morale game and for those gamers more used to time, distance, casualty based game it can seem strange.  So think in terms of three ranges… artillery bombardment range, infantry and artillery effective range, and decisive range.

The latter range is “close range”.  The don’t really base those three ranges on the w…[Read more]

I agree with Garry Wills comments with one exception…

I would recommend if you are playing Napoleonics that you go with the Clash of Eagles rules for forming square from skirmish formation.   Clash of Eagles recommend that skirmish formation follows the same rules as line formation.  These rules basically require a unit to pass a normal co…[Read more]

Further Rules About Orders P29.  If a commander fails to give an order then that commander cannot give any more orders that turn.  BP1 was a bit more clear on the subject that it effects that brigade only.

In BP1 if the Commander in Chief blundered, then the whole army was done for the turn.  But C-in-C rules changed between two versions.

I think you can shoot… disordered.  I assume this since the unit is taking the charge at “the halt”.

Basic Rule

Normally, you can only “charge” the target of the charge.  So you would have had to declare both units the target of your charge. In that instance, both units were legitimate targets of the charge, while the cavalry is allowed to discontinue its charge against the square once it closes to 3″ from the square, it is not automatically…[Read more]

The only thing I would add is Heavy Cavalry with the 1D3 modifier is reserved for the truly elite heavy cavalry.  In contrast, what was once called “Heavy” Horse or “Heavy” Dragoons get the +1 modifier.  The term “heavy” referring more to the horse, than the soldier.