Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of the Big Battalions => Topic started by: Andrew_McGuire on February 15, 2021, 04:39:47 PM
-
I’ve just learned of the forthcoming (20 February) publication of a new edition of the above rules by Sam Mustafa and immediately headed to his site, honour.com, for enlightenment, which was not forthcoming. Another way of putting this would be to admit that my intel-gathering and digital skills are sadly wanting.
I’m primarily interested in changes to the original rules, which I own. All I’ve been able to determine from the above site is that the cover image is unchanged (but then I suppose suitably striking images of the eponymous beau sabreur are not especially abundant).
Does anyone know anything about the changes to the rules, or have a link to the relevant information?
-
There are some comments on the rules on this TMP thread...
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=545804
Mike
-
On the honour site there are some free downloads including a rules summary and chapters on basing and army lists.
Clive
-
Thanks you to both respondents. I’ve only skimmed the TMP coverage, but in short: “It’s a whole new game”. No excuse not to buy it, then.
Edit: Which I have now done.
Further edit: I have now discovered that the place to find the author’s description of the changes in the new edition is not honour.com (which appears to be the web store) but sammustafa.com. Said information appears to have been uploaded today.
-
I like the sound of 'mo' but, I'm reading mixed reviews: Some say the game is totally different from L1, and others that it's so based on L1 that 'mo' won't change anyone's mind about the Lasalle series - You'll still love Lasalle, or you'll still not.
Some of my friends loved L1, and I bought it on their recommendation. I, along with some of my other friends, didn't love it: some of them refuse to play it again, point blank, and I'm happy not to put on Lasalle games to keep them playing at my place.
Hmmmm. I'm going to have to play test it before I buy it.
-
I read the comments on the TMP thread which was the first time I’d seen any negative statements about Lasalle. In spite of having owned the original set for quite a few years - I bought a used copy from a seller in the US as it was OOP by this time - I’ve done no more than read it, or most of it, anyway. I nevertheless had the impression it was highly regarded, and felt the arrival of 2nd edition must be a notable event.
Now, as is so often the case, the doubts emerge. In any event, my copy appears to be on its way.
The extent of the changes described by the author is somewhat puzzling, however. With elements imported from Blucher and Maurice together with the totally revamped game structure it does seem fair to regard it as indeed “a whole new game”, which appears to beg the question, why - and for that matter, how - is it then still Lasalle? I can only assume the author does not wish to have two distinct Napoleonic games at the same level of command and tactical detail in his inventory, even if one is OOP.
However Blucher, the grand tactical game, is not vastly removed from the earlier Grande Armee, as far as I am aware, in its command perspective at least, though it is clearly regarded as an entirely different game. (I have not seen GA so cannot comment with authority on its differences with Blucher, though I am aware it does not share that game’s employment of cards to represent battalions; indeed I believe it represents a battalion on a 3” square, about half the size of the equivalent unit in the newer game).
One can only hope the quality of the new rules will make these questions of passing interest.
-
I've played Blucher, refighting Eylau, and really enjoyed it. For that level of gaming I thought the rules were excellent - going for feel rather than granular detail.
The games I've played of Lassalle, approximately six, were a mixed bag. The first couple of games seemed to go reasonably well: easy to pick up, etc. However, after the fourth game I could already tell that interest in them was flagging. I thought, as rules go, the games went okay. Nothing seemed too outlandish as far as results, etc. Our problem with them was a distinct lack of any tension: There were no big surprises and everything was a more or less predictable series of measures and countermeasures.
We play games using Piquet, TtS, and similar rules a lot - games stacked with chance, tension and surprises. Perhaps the 'mo' thing adds some of that to Lasalle. If it does, Lasalle 2 might get some interest here. I hope it does work for the better, if it does I'll buy a copy. But, to steal a line from Pulp Fiction, "...we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' motherf***in' pig."
-
Our group played Lasalle once. We hated it - I cannot remember the specifics except for cavalry rules were especially disliked. There is therefore not much eagerness in our group to get these new rules. We did enjoy some of Sam Mustafa's other rules - Maurice was a big hit. Blucher enjoyable if a bit abstract. Rommel was too abstract.
-
The new version is a completely different game; totally different command and combat mechanics, and a very elegant way of representing skirmishers. I guess he kept the name as it's set at the same level (you command division or so). Not had a chance to play it yet but will report back when I do. v1 was Ok but there were some gamey tactics which spoiled it.
-
and a very elegant way of representing skirmishers
Can someone tell me what this is?
L1 had a very simplistic, elegant way of representing skirmishers. Has this changed, or is it still the same 'more / less' rule.
-
I only know what I’ve read at sammustafa.com/Lasalle.
In the section headed What’s New in the Second Edition there is a summary of the new skirmishing rules. Essentially, each turn the players determine which side’s skirmishing screen has the advantage; this affects the momentum for that turn, among other things. I’ll let you read the rest yourself.
I don’t know whether anyone outside the US has received the rules yet. According to the Caliver Books website, copies were due to be despatched on 17 February. I only mention this because I received another book from them today which I ordered at the same time; an accompanying note states that part of my order - i.e. Lasalle - is out of stock. I do not know whether it has now been posted.
-
My copy of Lasalle 2 came two days ago.
The skirmisher screen lets you seize the initiative by giving you a momentum advantage, and in the advanced rules there is more stuff you can do (like reinforcing it by breaking formed units down into skirmishes). Nothing like the v1 system where the skirmishes affected each unit; the new system is more like the 'brigade screen' rules in General d'Armee (but much simpler)
-
I’ve now had a chance to play through the introductory scenario, using the basic rules only (so just one intervention order, and skirmishes affect only momentum). This is a very interesting and innovative set of rules. The big thing is that the various phases of play (move/charge, volley, bombard, rally, change formation) happen in an order chosen by the players. Choosing a phase costs variable amounts of momentum, and if you do things near the enemy, the initiative switches (so long as they have momentum left) and they get to do stuff. This makes for a lot of interesting decision making. How much momentum you get depends on the size of your force, whether you use your general for that purpose, and how much you win the skirmisher battle by. Moves are very generous when not near the enemy, but short when near, so approach marches and reserve moves are fast, but you can’t charge without getting within 4 base-widths which means the opponent will always be able to get a shot, or charge you, or possibly disengage, assuming they have kept some spare momentum back. I’ll need to play a bit more to get the hang of it, not because the rules are complex, but because the decisions are not always obvious. I may try the Quatre Bras scenario in the rule book next and use the advanced rules in which skirmisher advantage allows you to directly impede and snipe at enemy units rather than just giving you momentum.
For anyone who hated Lasalle v1, this is nothing like those rules at all. Can’t directly compare to any other set I can think of. Very interesting indeed.
-
That sounds extremely promising, the kind of innovative mechanics that one can really get excited about. I can almost feel the battlefield tension now and can’t wait to play.
But I’m going to have to, because my copy still hasn’t arrived.
Battlefield tension: that’s what it’s all about, no?
Where is Grouchy? What is that column in the distance? Grouchy, at last! No....
Never mind Grouchy, where is Lasalle? Ah, the post , it is......merde!
-
Never mind Grouchy, where is Lasalle? Ah, the post , it is......merde!
And this is one of the reasons why I buy digital editions only: no shipping costs, no delays and no space being occupied in my shelves! lol
No, seriously, of late I only buy a ruleset if I can get it in digital format. Otherwise, I pass. Luckily, Lasalle 2nd Edition is available as PDF.
I was about to try it this Sunday, but my friend cannot come -he has gone down with Covid, fortunately only mild case- so we will play an Advanced Squad Leader scenario through Vassal.
-
I’ve now had a chance to play through the introductory scenario, using the basic rules only (so just one intervention order, and skirmishes affect only momentum). This is a very interesting and innovative set of rules. The big thing is that the various phases of play (move/charge, volley, bombard, rally, change formation) happen in an order chosen by the players. Choosing a phase costs variable amounts of momentum, and if you do things near the enemy, the initiative switches (so long as they have momentum left) and they get to do stuff. This makes for a lot of interesting decision making.
Fully agree! I have played v1 a few times, but it didn't really catch on. Lasalle 2 is much more interesting with the twists during the order phase. It looks like this will be my go to rules for my 6mm armies. In 28mm I prefer a bit more detail, but that comes with a price in additional game time.
The only thing I found a bit clunky is counting the number of skirmish points available this turn. That is one of the few moments where buckets of dice are needed. Perhaps adding the number of skirmish dice to the unit base might make it easier to keep track (even if just on the roster).
-
I put all the skirmish dice for each side in a box lid. The number only changes if battalions form square (or march column) or are eliminated, so I take the relevant number dice out of the box when that happens and count sixes (more complex in the advanced rules if you break down formed battalions to reinforce the skirmish screen)
-
I put all the skirmish dice for each side in a box lid.
That is a smart solution. I'll try that too.
-
Antonio: I’m just the opposite. I even bought a used copy of Lasalle 1st edition from the US rather than download it. As I never played it and the 2nd edition is now out this has joined the ranks of my regrettable purchases.
I now have my copy of v 2, but have only read the introductory sections. I was a little disappointed that, unlike the 1st edition, it is a paperback. I recall that Blucher, which is in hardback, originally cost £24 but increased to £40 after a few months. Lasalle 2nd edition is only £1.50 less.
I’ve also just paid £32 & postage for the Essential Player’s Guide edition of Et Sans Resultat! which has a mere 70 pages. The Complete Player’s Guide edition has 100 more, but is not currently available From the UK stockist, Magister Militum. Something of a tangent, but unfortunately these issues are becoming significant.
-
For anyone who hated Lasalle v1, this is nothing like those rules at all. Can’t directly compare to any other set I can think of. Very interesting indeed.
I was not that interested before, but you have completely swayed me!
-
Can’t directly compare to any other set I can think of. Very interesting indeed.
It reminds me of the legendary Crossfire by Arty Conliffe. There you can continue with your turm until your opponent interrupts you successfully. In Lasalle it is not related to the success.of the interrupt, and you have a limited amount of actions per turn. Very exciting rules.
-
We just played our first face to face game using these rules (I had played two solo games, the second using the advanced rules). We used one of the scenarios in the book (Making the omelette) with 300 points of attacking French in 4 brigades against 230 points of defending Anglo-Spanish also in 4 brigades. The French had a marked superiority in cavalry and artillery.
These are really very nice rules; the interplay of momentum with actions near the enemy allowing the opponent to interrupt is great. The decision on how to use your commander (for momentum, or to intervene later in the turn) is interesting. The advanced skirmish rules work well; you get the effect of the winner of the skirmish battle deciding where to concentrate there effort with the ‘voltigeur’ figures, and it can have a big effect.
We played without the labels - just used dials to mark unit strengths and markers to show permanent losses and shaken status.
Most impressed; easily the most interesting tactical Napoleonics rules I’ve played (I like General d’Armee a lot too, but that set is a lot more complex and plays much slower)
-
Would Lasalle 2 work for multi-players per side. It sounds like the interactivity element may not work for more than 1 per side.
A friend has a copy & 4 of us are going to try them in a few weeks.
-
We played with 2 players per side and it worked fine; they just discussed how to spend momentum, but you could also have a commander and a subordinate.
-
We played with 2 players per side and it worked fine; they just discussed how to spend momentum, but you could also have a commander and a subordinate.
Thanks Steve - will try and remember to report back here after the game!
-
Thanks Steve - will try and remember to report back here after the game!
So we played yesterday - Battle of Issy 1815. I was the French coming out of Paris to give the Prussians a drubbing.
Initially we didn't like the rules, but they grew on us as the turns progressed. Our main gripes are:
1. The "skirmish phase" is ridiculous. Essentially this involves rolling 10-20 D6 fishing for 6s. If you get 2+ more than your opponent you get an extra momentum point. Momentum points are spent to move/shoot/formation change/etc. A division gets 2 or 3 at the start of each turn, plus D3, plus maybe 1 from "skirmish".
2. The concept of "global" vs "force" orders seemed pointless. Example: a force order can be give to units in a single brigade within 6" of each other. A global order can be given to the entire division. Weirdly, while moving is a force order, changing formation is a global order. No idea why that is.
3. Bombarding is an order - it seems a bit odd that artillery would sit around scratching if not explicitly told to fire.
4. If you want, you could move a unit up in march column, change formation, and fire. The opponent can interrupt at various points in this, but It seems like a lot of activity.
5. Melee combat is quite random. It is D6 vs D6 with modifiers - unit strength is one modifier and it can range from 1 to 6 depending on how battered a unit is - so this is much more significant than being in a town, which only gives 1 or 2.
6. Artillery bounce-through is too strong. We though it should be reduced against the 2nd/3rd/etc unit hit, but it is full strength against them all.
Anyway - we only got about half way through after 3 hours, so we will resume in a fortnight with some cavalry appearing. Cavalry is one of the areas where Lasalle 1 really irked us, so we will see what happens!
-
The advanced skirmish rules are much better - the 'Voltigeur' markers are much more useful than the extra momentum points.
Yes, you can march up, change formation and fire. But the opponent gets to interrupt after each of those, so a more usual sequence would be:
March up, opponent shoots at you, change formation, opponent charges your shot up troops.
Combat can be a bit swingy, but because you need to win by 3 to rout the enemy, it tends to be attritional.
-
6. Artillery bounce-through is too strong. We though it should be reduced against the 2nd/3rd/etc unit hit, but it is full strength against them all.
So we ballsed this one up. It is reduced - only hits on a 6 on 2nd unit (4+ on first).
-
We finished Issy last night - it ended up with 2 infantry and 1 cavalry "divisions" per side. French honour was achieved as we contained the Prussians and even captured a town and one of their supply points off them. Final thoughts - we quite liked them at them end, but will make several changes for our next battle:
1. Cavalry get +4 in melee versus infantry not in square. Since melee is D6 vs. D6 and you only need to beat your opponent by 3 this means cavalry will most often rout infantry. The problem with this is that the best defence infantry can get is only +1 or +2, so cavalry can charge infantry behind a stone wall in a wood and still get a net +2 meaning they will most likely win and quite often break the infantry. This was the same problem original Lasalle had. Our proposed fix is to NOT give cavalry the +4 if infantry are in difficult terrain or else the cavalry had a movement complication caused by terrain when charging in.
2. The skirmish "hunt for 6s" to be replaced by a version of the advanced rules. We thought the advanced rules were too complex/powerful for skirmishers so we'd keep it simple so that a skirmisher inflicts an extra complication on any order the target attempts.
3. All global orders become local. A simplification which removes a lot of strangeness about e.g. a division at one end of the battle changing formation meaning that a division at the other end of the battle also changes formation. To balance this we'd drop formation change as an order and include it in movement - costing half a move at either start or end of the move or else a complication.
4. A couple of changes to melee: Cavalry can only be broken by other cavalry. Maybe use an average dice for the D6 vs. D6 roll, or else change the break from 3+ difference to 4+ difference.
-
On the first point, we only give the bad formation modifier to infantry in the open who are not in square vs cavalry
-
Also on the first point; cavalry are not allowed to charge in or into bad going, but there is still a problem if the infantry have a corner out of the terrain, hence the need for a house rule.
-
Thanks Steve - house rule it is!