Early thoughts on SoN

[gorillacrab]

(partially reposting from another site)
I've been test driving these new rules solo as I learn them and thought it would be handy to share some thoughts on this new product.
The game sets out to allow the player(s) to be the commander of a division (2-5 battalions, say) – often in the middle of a larger battle that is happening all around "off-table". This it does quite well. Random events may happen, higher commanders may come by (perhaps bringing reserves), or off-table artillery may aid your attack.
This is not a game for a player focused only on winning and losing – and wanting predictable gameplay to help achieve a win.
This game is very appealing if you want to feel like a harried commander managing his division, getting some surprises (good and bad) and making a lot of hard choices. Yes, there is card management but I found it worked very well.
What I have really liked so far is some mechanics I have not encountered before and provide fresh and dramatic game experiences. For example, Heavy Cavalry or Lancers can be given an "Intimidate" order – the figures do not move but it is assumed they are sending outriders, or turning, which will force nearby enemy units to take disruption tests. For once cavalry doesn't have to charge home to be a danger…
There is also a similar Harass order for Light Cav, which forces the enemy to withdraw skirmishers.
By the way, the skirmisher rules are logical and elegant too. You simply place a few skirm stands on the table to show they are active – but all measuring is done from the main battalion. It works quite nicely and seems less finicky than many other rules (skirmishers are often the most difficult things to get right in Nappy rules and I think these are pretty smooth).
There are also a few major differences I've found between SoN and other rules (though I await clarification on these points.) These include allowing Disordered units to launch Charges (albeit with penalties in melee) and an innovative morale/casualty depletion system, one that gives the enemy VPs if you rally troops (kinda counter-intuitive but makes sense as you play it.
Also, this is not a game in which every brigade and battalion will advance and be active equally. Activation cards allow you to give orders to several units in a single brigade – mechanics encourage you to keep multiple brigades active (fatigue penalties for consecutive activations in the same brigade), but like a real general you will need to focus on different defensive or attacking pressure points as things evolve. You even have decisions about how to use the cards – as each has 3 potential uses (activate # units, special event or rally options).
As for a con, I suppose I'd like to have seen army unit stats for a broader range of Nappy armies (the later years get the emphasis) instead of some pages devoted to history that most of us know fairly well. Also, I wish issues such as Disordered Troops listed all effects in one place a bit more clearly - but these are minor niggles.
Anyway, I am still getting to grips with SoN but hope these early impressions will be of some use. I'm certainly enjoying learning the game despite the current global heat waves.

[fred]

SoN??

[Chad]

Soldiers of Napoleon rules from Gripping Beast

[olicana]

SoN: Soldiers of Napoleon. Beat me to it

We've just played our first game here. Marks out of ten, for a first run out, solid eight verging nine.

We took it steady, playing out a four 'brigade' game (about 18 units a side) in four hours over two evenings. I think this sized game, with one player a side (we had two), could be done in a couple of hours after a few games - obviously decision making takes longer with two players using the same hand of cards and constant (first game) looking things up. The rules are well written and laid out and the basic rules are pretty simple but, initially there are quite a lot of fiddly bits to get your head around and remember. Going forward into our next game, it should be quite straight forward and strategic card play will undoubtedly be much better.

Combat is smooth and combined with the rally rules works very well indeed. 8 out of 10.

Movement, if you can get past the rough terrain rules (which are a little illogical to my mind but easy to play), and the short move distances (small table rules - I have a big table), is fine. BTW all distances are calculated in paces - for us a pace was an inch. I'm not going to score this out of 10, home rules WIP for a bigger table.

The three possible uses for every card was excellent. Card play isn't new but in this game it seems very well balanced and offers exciting possibilities and 'game narrative'. Events are definitely worth playing even though they often reduce the number of brigade actions. Excellent, 10 out of 10.

The rules, much talked about, concerning action going on off table [flanks] that effects what happens on the table-top sounded very intriguing. In actual game play they are very abstract and nothing to talk about at all really - don't buy SoN if all you are looking for is inspiration in this department. Possibly because of the initial intrigue, our conclusion was a disappointing 3 out of 10 here. The rule is fine as a rule, just absolutely nothing to write home about.

On the whole, a very good set of rules we will play again (next week, in fact). They are worth the investment if you like decision based games over chucking dice in something more ploddingly predictable. We play a lot of Piquet, Commands and Colors and To the Strongest: SoN are definitely a part of that Pantheon.

One rule which I'm not sure of, is how the brigade officer 'at risk' rule works through. You get two action cards plus one for each brigade officer command stand not 'at risk', easy. Command stands are 'at risk' if the enemy are within 10" of it at the end of a turn, okay.

But, here's the thing. During the turn you need to note how many enemy units come within 10 'paces' of a brigade command stand during a turn (turning a dice face next to command stand to indicate). Then, at the end of the turn, you roll that number of dice in the end phase, any '1' resulting in a fail. However, when you fail the penalty is so small it hardly seems worth all the tracking because all it does is force the commander stand to make a compulsory move away - and this is only "up to 20 paces.....[and] further away from the enemy" - not more than 10 paces from the enemy, note.

When I first read this rule it made perfect sense because I thought [wrongly?] that the officer was only at risk if he failed his test by rolling a one in the end phase. Am I missing something? No big deal, it just seems like a lot of trouble for so little effect and all slightly arse over tit.

[Golgotha]

Thank you for the reviews - these rules sound like they may well be worth giving a go.

The rules, much talked about, concerning action going on off table [flanks] that effects what happens on the table-top sounded very intriguing. In actual game play they are very abstract and nothing to talk about at all really - don't buy SoN if all you are looking for is inspiration in this department. Possibly because of the initial intrigue, our conclusion was a disappointing 3 out of 10 here. The rule is fine as a rule, just absolutely nothing to write home about.

Pity this element sounds like it could be potentially excellent... especially if playing a part of what would have been a bigger battle...

[Greystreak]

One rule which I'm not sure of, is how the brigade officer 'at risk' rule works through. You get two action cards plus one for each brigade officer command stand not 'at risk', easy. Command stands are 'at risk' if the enemy are within 10" of it at the end of a turn, okay.

But, here's the thing. During the turn you need to note how many enemy units come within 10 'paces' of a brigade command stand during a turn (turning a dice face next to command stand to indicate). Then, at the end of the turn, you roll that number of dice in the end phase, any '1' resulting in a fail. However, when you fail the penalty is so small it hardly seems worth all the tracking because all it does is force the commander stand to make a compulsory move away - and this is only "up to 20 paces.....[and] further away from the enemy" - not more than 10 paces from the enemy, note.

Furthermore, it's also a bit counter intuitive because an officer who fails can move more than 10 paces away and get his card next turn (and the more enemy units that are closer the easier it is - more dice to get a 1), officers who pass can't.

When I first read this rule it made perfect sense because I thought [wrongly?] that the officer was only at risk if he failed his test by rolling a one in the end phase. Am I missing something? No big deal, it just seems like a lot of trouble for so little effect and all slightly arse over tit.

I think you've got this rule wrong, Jim.  In addition to having to make an 'emergency evasive move' (in the End Phase determination), each At Risk command stand causes the player to lose -1 Action Card "next turn".  See p.33, "For each 'At Risk' command stand, deal -1 Action Card to the player next turn."

If you're running three Brigade commanders in the front ranks, exposed to Risk, you could have a tiny hand next turn . . . 

[olicana]

No, got that. We actually played the right way.

My mistake in what I wrote. I have deleted that bit now. It referred to how I had originally read the rule.

Luckily, another member of the group also bought the rules and read them so we didn't actually miss much, or get much wrong, between us. The two things we got wrong: On the first night we played a save Vs artillery (played it right the second night). On the second night we didn't immediately place the reserve's command stands when they arrived, thus depriving the side of an extra card. Other mishaps were simply because of poor play (not knowing the rules and their consequences) and, it has to be said, playing on a ridiculously small (6 x 4) table.

I'm sure everything will make much more sense, when played better, in the second game on a larger 6 x 8 (still small) table.

[gorillacrab]

Very good report. I have tried 2 solo games and agree pretty well with everything and look forward to my game with opponent next week. I thought your rating of off-table events was a tad low - and felt if there were too many of these random events they would take over the game.
The discussion on the details of the Brigadier "at risk" rule is interesting. Reading the rules again, the brigade commander is at risk if, at the end of the turn, he is within 10 paces or had been, and took an evasive move (rolled a 1, as you noted). And, yes, the penalty is losing an Order Card for the next turn.
This brings me to another key factor in game play - if you are taking an action that will inflict hits or threaten generals, you want to do it as late in the turn as possible, preferably on your last card played, to prevent your opponent from playing cards that offer counter-measures such as Rally.
To clarify, units with excessive damage are only removed at the end phase of each turn - so a unit in jeopardy in mid-turn may still be saved (have its disruptions reduced) using a Special Order or Rally effect.

[olicana]

Reading the rules again, the brigade commander is at risk if, at the end of the turn, he is within 10 paces or had been, and took an evasive move (rolled a 1, as you noted).

That's not right. He is 'At Risk' simply for having been within 10" of the enemy; the move away is an extra effect caused by rolling a 1: The rule is quite clear on this. However, I think, like you, it might be better played the way you say. More playing the way the rule is written first will tell.

I agree, actually winning the initiative and going first (potentially running out of cards first) can be a bad thing. It will be a swings and roundabouts thing, I guess.

"How Goes the Day?" [off table effects]: In the end phase, the "How Goes the Day" check, to find the effect of what's happening off table (in other sectors of the battle), is done by each side simply rolling two D6, adding any Tactical Advantage points (added for very few criteria), then comparing the rolls to calculate the effect: The winner gets the initiative in the next phase; a side scoring double the opponent gets a victory point; scoring triple gets two victory points. That's it, as simple and abstract as that. 

In our game the French had plus two Tactical Advantage points, one for having a greater scouting factor and one for choosing 'All-out Attack' as their tactical order. For these two simple things, and poor rolling by the British, the French won eight or nine VPs during the game. That was a game turner.

So, I'm not saying that the "How Goes the Day?" check doesn't have an effect, because it certainly can. I'm saying that a lot was made of this rule in various reviews without explaining its very simple and abstract nature. It was one rule that we were consequently, and particularly, intrigued by until we read and played it. All I'm saying is, it's so simple and abstracted that it has no 'narrative' quality. There is no story as to why off field events effect the on table happenings. In short, though it's fine as rules go, it's actually very underwhelming considering all the hype that went with it.

[gorillacrab]

While I understand what you say about How Goes the Day lacking defined narrative punch, that's minor, and there is also the chance of a senior Commander showing up with any effects he brings (that's more dramatic).
Also admit to being puzzled when you wrote my definition of At Risk was incorrect as I essentially wrote the same as you - he is at risk for ending the turn within 10 of the enemy OR being within 10 and then galloping away when rolling a "1" on the general's check. If I understand this rule correctly, rolling a "1" benefits the Brigadier as it allows him to immediately move 20 (although he still suffers the -1 card penalty).
Meanwhile, I actually have plans to face a human opponent this week and eagerly await what the game experience will be like.

[owaincaesarius]

Just a simple question to those who have the rules....we tend to play club games with 2-4 players per side. Is this manageable with this rule set? Or will some players end up having nothing to do some turns?

[TomMcC]

For owaincaesarius,

I'd say no. Possibly for 2 vs 2, but any more and people will have little to do. We found it best 1 vs 1. 

Have you played Commands and Colors (normal, not epic), the Longstreet or Maurice rules of Sam Mustafa, or boardgames like Combat Commander or Paths of Glory? The game play is similar to these in the sense that side A plays a card and does stuff, then side B plays a card and does stuff, then side A again, and so on. 

The practical side of trying to give more than 2 people per side something to do would be frustrating, or could lead to just playing a card for them to have something to do.

Just my tuppence worth,
Tom

[olicana]

Multi-player Games.

We've been playing two per side. First game we played one hand as a team. This was quite slow because 1. It was a first try out. 2. There was a lot of team discussion about what card to play next. We decided not to do it this way again.

I looked into playing as per the rules for "Great Battles" but this is essentially splitting the table into sections and pairing players one on one with no interaction between sections - none of us liked that idea and after a two minute conversation this idea was binned. I thought this would be the general consensus so I had a reserve plan up my sleeve.

Again, we were playing two per side: Each side had his own hand of cards (2+1 per brigade command stand). One player was nominated Divisional commander and could hand out the cards for 'high command stands' as he thought best. (And best if the players like each other ).

Then, we assigned a standard playing card to each player; a similar four card deck (we had black Kings, Jacks, red Kings, Jacks) was also to hand. Then we shuffled the small deck and dealt the cards face up to determine order of play for each full hand. Whilst the new hands of Action Cards were being dealt, the 'player sequence deck' was also shuffled and dealt.

There was one last order marker per side. If either side had a player with more cards, the other side could 'Pass'.

The game moved quite quickly (we are getting used to the rules now). The randomised order of play seemed to work pretty well and allowed 'cross over' action between 'sectors' of the table.

IMHO, unless playing 'split table sectors', two per side is probably max.

[olicana]

Difinitive answer on being AT RISK:

"If you fail the test, by rolling a 1, you lose the card and have to run-off. Passing the test, then fine, carry on as normal. Just taking a test isn't enough."
Warwick Kinrade