Black Powder. Hmmm...

[fitterpete]

I can help out a little
First off Black Powder does not resemble any edition of 40k whatso ever.Not anymore than any game that uses D6s,to hit rolls,attacks,morale rolls etc does.

I thought the comment was about Bolt Action, which is like a severely mutated 7th cousin twice removed of a early edition of 40k.So not really alike at all but you might find something in it similar sometimes.
So I hope that helps clear that up at least.

BTW I like Warhammer mechanics,both WHFB and 40k, and have always used them to play almost any period.
Till BP came out and now I use it for anything 1500-1900.WHFB and or WAB variants are for anything earlier and 40k and WH Great War anything later.
I'm more about the miniatures and terrain and period than the rules, so I use what I know to make it easier/faster to play.
Pete

[Argonor]

I can help out a little
First off Black Powder does not resemble any edition of 40k whatso ever.Not anymore than any game that uses D6s,to hit rolls,attacks,morale rolls etc does.

I thought the comment was about Bolt Action, which is like a severely mutated 7th cousin twice removed of a early edition of 40k.So not really alike at all but you might find something in it similar sometimes.
So I hope that helps clear that up at least.

I also thought that at first, then went back and read the comment again, then was in doubt.

BTW I like Warhammer mechanics,both WHFB and 40k, and have always used them to play almost any period.

That's, of course, your prerogative. 

Till BP came out and now I use it for anything 1500-1900.WHFB and or WAB variants are for anything earlier and 40k and WH Great War anything later.
I'm more about the miniatures and terrain and period than the rules, so I use what I know to make it easier/faster to play.
Pete

Which is a sound course, if/when the rules appeal to you. I have really never liked the GW mechanics which is probably why I never got any armies for battle games painted up during the years when nothing else was readily available. Right now I have 5 armies in the making for a system that appeals to me, and I'm pretty sure at least 3 of them will be completed during this coming winter (probably not enough time for doing the last 2 before spring as I have other stuff to paint up, too).

For the third time: Different taste, different rules. Discussing taste is really not going to get us anywhere, as we're not likely to agree on anything but to disagree. Stating what rules are preferred/disliked and giving reasons for it, on the other hand, may help others to get an idea, whether they would like to try them out, or not, because, as I wrote earlier (twice), we all look for (and emphasize) different things in a ruleset. I am, first and foremost, a gamer, and the way a game plays is by far the most important factor for me when deciding what to play. I do like a nice table with nice minis, but I collect and paint minis because I want nice playing pieces, I don't play games because I collect and paint minis.

And all this does not mean that I cannot enjoy a demo game with a ruleset I wouldn't normally use, if the presenter is guiding me, and I don't have to learn/memorize some rules I'm not likely to use again. BUT, if I get bored during the first turn, feeling that the rules play me, rather than the other way around, I'll probably  tell the person hosting the game, and suggest he replaces me with another player.

[fitterpete]

The BTW part was not trying to make you suddenly want to play 40k rules just because I said so

I should have pointed out that the reason I use BP for that time frame is because I wanted a different type of game for those periods.To further my point that 40k and BP are not  alike or I would just use the WH rules for everything
.
I just didn't put it as well/clear as I would have liked.

I'm not trying to get you to play BP.I'm just letting you know,as someone who plays them both, that BP and 40k are nothing alike.BP is probably not for you to tell you the truth.If you are a gamer first the rules are probably to simplistic for your taste.

Pete

[WitchfinderGeneral]

So every ruleset that makes you roll more than, what, 1, 2, 3, 4...how many? dice at a time is just a pale imitation of GW's games?

I never said GoB is a 100% WH imitation. We were talking about "distantly resembling". If a game aims to be a 'mass combat fantasy' game it has to pass a comparison test. And I think GoB has some resemblance to WH. More than Black Powder has. I just want to say, don't let you put off from BP by this fact!

[Argonor]

I talked about the mechanics when making that comment.

Of course there will be some similarities between two games that cover the same subject (both use fantasy races, units, and d6, measure in inches, etc.), but the way they are played (alternate activation vs IGOUGO, the way unit movement works, and the way combats are being resolved) is very different. THAT is what sets games apart. GoB does not owe anything to GW in terms of mechanics, in fact, it could have been created in a reality that had never seen the warhammer rules.

BP is probably not for you to tell you the truth.If you are a gamer first the rules are probably to simplistic for your taste.

Simplicity in a period ruleset is fine, as long as the framework rewards gameplay that is consistent with the subject, and does not reward tactics that would not (or rarely) have been seen in the given period.

Example, napoleonics:
British linie infantry should have an extra bonus to their firepower when drawn out in 'the thin red line', encouraging players to use that formation, whereas French line infantry should have an extra close combat bonus when in attack column. The British will be encouraged to keep the line and try driving the French back through use of superior firepower, while the French should be inclined to using shock tactics. Those bonusses should NOT be generic (i.e. the Brits should not get the close combat bonus for attack column). Shock troops like grenadiers an heavy cavalry, on the other hand, could have a generic bonus.

If such flavour is not there, and all troop types feel too generic across nations, it gets a little obsolete to game 'historical' war games. No need for tons of special rules, just enough to create the 'feel' of a certain subject.

Rules that try to cover a long period often get too 'vanilla-flavoured', because peculiarities associated with a certain army may fluctuate over time.

[Axebreaker]

@Argonor

I really do encourage you to read Black Powder first and possibly some of the supplements and blog reports before making a critique. I say this without malice, but it is a bit silly to argue something you have not read. 

The basic Black Powder rules are generic so you don't have to relearn the mechanics for every period, but what's important to remember is you can add special rules to give period flavour either by using what is given in the BP rulebook or supplements or by making or adjusting rules to suit what you think it should be. Black Powder is excellent for absorbing interpretations without falling apart. Taking your Nap example one could simply give an extra dice to the British player firing in line and conversely one the French player when attacking in supported column would do the trick of encouragement. 

Black Powder is for sure not useful for players interested in tournaments or line by line rules with a strict guideline, but for those who like space to be creative and interpret periods to their point of view and fast way to achieve it. Depending on my mood or time BP is a lot of fun, while at other times I prefer a tighter format.

Christopher

[Argonor]

@Argonor

I really do encourage you to read Black Powder first and possibly some of the supplements and blog reports before making a critique. I say this without malice, but it is a bit silly to argue something you have not read. 

I didn't. And I haven't. I don't think I've commented on the content of the BP rules in so much as a single sentence. Please read the entire discussion. I think it's a bit silly to critize someone for doing something he didn't.

I merely commented on a post that said that either Bolt Action or BP (I'm still not sure) is a spin-off of 40K, that in that case I wouldnt touch it. I didn't write that is is so, it may not be so, and then of course my comment is void.

My post on simplicity is meant generically, not pointed at any particular ruleset - although I could probably find some examples. I may have hit spot on, though, since you saw it as a critique against BP?

I still maintain the position, though, that I haven't read anything here that makes me want to go out and buy Black Powder. The need for buying supplements is also a point against buying; why would I want to buy an incomplete set of rules needing further purchases to play a specific period, when/if I can get a dedicated set of rules for the same or possibly even a lower price?

[Arteis]

The need for buying supplements is also a point against buying; why would I want to buy an incomplete set of rules needing further purchases to play a specific period, when/if I can get a dedicated set of rules for the same or possibly even a lower price?

'Black Powder' actually gives you not one, but seven complete 'sets' of rules in the one book, plus the generic set that forms the framework for them all.

The first part of the book is the generic rules.  The second part takes you through seven scenarios set in different horse and musket periods, providing you with special rules and army stats that achieve the difference in flavour that each period and army need.

For example, in the Napoleonic game, the British get the 'First Fire!' rule which encourages players to use disciplined firing tactics, whereas the French get the 'Reliable' rule when in attack column, which encourages use of that formation.

The supplement books aren't necessary.  They add a lot more detail and special rules if you want them, plus give you loads more scenarios and stats.  But the seven different periods in the basic book are totally playable as is.

[Nevyen]

Reading through the comments in part (so if i missed this sorry!) but the whole set of warlord games rules in my view have been about creating a range of accessible wargames rules that are historically based for a generation of warhammer and 40k players who are growing up.

I play General De Brigade, mess around with allot of the Lardies rules sets and don't mind the occasional game of Empire .....when the mood takes me.  However if it want a rules set that is easy to pick up, has core mechanics that resonate with a large group of people and that will provide a result in 3 hours then Black-powder, Hail Caesar, Pike and Shotte and Bolt Action are brilliant go to rule sets.

They can provide the flavor of the period/periods, will be universally recognized by most war-gamers and as I said are accessible.  There are allot of rules that are great for specific periods, but honestly are not as accessible or as well written about.

I think each person will have their taste and viewpoint but i think if the hardest critic cannot deny that a good accessible rule set that attracts a new generation of historical players is a good thing for the hobby. The explosion of solid product support from warlords, victirx, perry's and other companies surely has a bit to do with a significant increase in accessible rules sets.

It's my opinion on the whole thing and I'm sure others will point out reasons to counter it. However i made the transition from 40k to ancients on the back of Hail Caesar and games of Black Powder and participation games re-introduced me to Napoleonic players and some new ones as well.

That can't be a bad thing, and has been a whole lot of fun as well



     

[Gary Mitchell]

There are special rules in 'BP' that can use used to give period flavour. It's as much a tool kit as a set of rules. That's it's beauty IMO

[n815e]

Why does someone who hasn't read, played or expressed interest in a set of rules spend so much time arguing over them?

[Saxon Dog]

Love Black Powder. Use it for AWI and Napoleonics. Will also use it for ACW when I get chance. I'd need to read up on the ACW first though so u can tweak it to get the rules right.

I've also found the rules to be very Napoleonic when we play (or very 18th century when we do that) though it's clearly a game and not a "simulation" that takes 6 hours to finish two turns. Really helps if you know your period and armies well though.

[Hobbit]

I've only just spotted this discussion and I would add to the chorus of support for BP.

I think that one of the key points that has perhaps been overlooked in the discussion thus far is that in many respects BP is about the command and control of an army and not the micromanaging of individual units. A major point of the core rules is to encourage players to customise the rules to fit how they believe a period should play. The rules, whilst being accessible to new players, are largely aimed at experienced wargamers who already know and understand the period that they wish to play but are looking for a fast play game (and quite possibly not their only set of rules for the period). With a reasonable knowledge of a period it is very, very easy to tweak the rules as written to give the feel that you want for a specific period and this is what the rule writers encourage.

In a conversation that I had with the authors the rules were described to me as "permissive not prescriptive", the authors recognise that gamers will always tweak rules; in essence what they're doing is saying "we know you'll do that; go ahead, we're fine with that". The rules also take a very laid back attitude to gaming and don't attempt to define every possible eventuality; again they assume a certain maturity in play in which gamers can resolve any issues with the use of common sense; the assumption is that the game is being indulged in as an entertainment and that it is not a real contest of life or death.


I was very put off by the concept of "one set to cover 200 years" but once I'd read and played the rules I was actually very impressed. The "special rules" section gives you most of what you need to customise your armies to be period specific or very clearly signpost the way to do this for yourself if what you want isn't already covered.

I've used it for Marlburian right up to 1914 (with the appropriate application of "special rules") with many very different groups of players and have never been disappointed. All I can say, in conclusion, is that if you get the feel of "vanilla" or "chicken" then (in my opinion) you're not applying the special rules properly or designing your scenarios properly.

And for the record, I see almost no connection with WH or WH40K.

[Schrumpfkopf]

Never got into BP for the reasons mentioned by Melnibonean. Not sure how the add-ons improve the experience/feeling of the period as imagined, but I might change my view if somebody plays them with me.

That said did I play and enjoy in the Grand manner for a long time - a game that is even more generic than BP, so I should likely better shut up. :--)