Black Powder. Hmmm...

[Conquistador]

<snip>
 another gamer who enjoys the grand battles might need that sort of simplification in order to keep the game moving along at a decent pace instead of getting bogged down with individual actions and reactions. Each to their own.

Too true, I played a multi-player Napoleonic game where each gamers were each commander ran a Corps and adjusted companies in formations...  Needless to say these rules were the antithesis of the Two Hour Wargames philosophy...  Long, micro-managing nightmare, IMNSHO.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Conquistador]

I find they give an enjoyable game with a nice amount of 'friction' within a club night of 3 hours. The core rules are simple enough for you to lay flavour for the period on top.

But I'm curious - why would the rules used instantly turn you off an article? If they're a ripping yarn, contain useful OOB information or scenario derails, might you be missing out on something that could be used with your rulesets of choice?

I feel the same way about TS&TF rules after many, many, many years of playing them.  If a good friend did not use them as a base for all his non-GW (Restraining self from Evil Empire ranting...) war games I would never play them again.  There are certain mechanics in TS&TF that work well but there are some that... don't...

Gracias,

Glenn

[answer_is_42]

I think Black Powder captures the 'feel' (or, at least, the popular perception) of smoothbore musket warfare quite well. I'm not 100% sure I'll keep using it, but I've had no serious problems.

On the other hand I find the idea of using it for later wars a bit silly - I especially found it bizarre that the book dismisses the likes of the Franco-Prussian war but then provides scenarios for Zululand and the Sudan! The idea of using BP to fight these colonial wars strikes me as strange, to say the least.

[jazbo]

Sorry to say but the OP is venting and I don't see the point of the rant.

"I don't like chocolate ice cream therefor anyone who does is not a twue ice cream lover".

Piffle.

Whatever rules you use its playing with toy soldiers.

I would suggest BP are a fantastic set of simple and adaptable rules that allow people to get on with enjoying a well designed scenario.

Perhaps the OP spends his time in studious seriousness when he games.

Me, well me and my mates have a right laugh and a curry and don't have to look at the rules more than once a game. Wonderful, simple fun. And having had the pleasure of playing them with some warlord games notables at Stallard towers I can attest to the rules being written to provide a great shared experience pain free.

Oh and we play a lot of colonials and it works fine. You just have to have the gumption to create decent unit stats and a scenario.

[Argonor]

Can't say that I have anything to add regarding BP, as I have never played, nor read. the BP rules, but I follow this kind of discussion with great interest, as my first and foremost motivation in this hobby  is finding and playing good rules that I feel provides a solid framework for playing a genre/period (and sometimes adjusting well-flavoured rules to suit my taste in fast and fun tactical play).

Generally speaking, I prefer rules that capture the tactical and technical 'reality' (in quotes, because I also play fictional settings), but at the same time remain relatively simple, and fast to play.

Some gamers at one end of the scale are very process-oriented, and like rules that reflect drill and loading speed of smoothbore muskets, while others. at the other end, are purely result-oriented and just want to move units/figures from point A to B, roll some dice for combat results not distinguishing between weapon types, and ranged/close combat, just as long as the enemy is in 'combat range'.

I think it's a very wide/long scale with a lot of graduation in between the extremes, and most of us probably have a preferred span of grades somewhere along the scale. I tend to play rulesets somewhere between 3/4 and Fully result-oriented, because I like fast pace (and have enough gaming experience to make up some flavoured special rules/troop profiles - for instance I have a set of home-grown Warmaster Napoleonic rules).

Every man his cake - the important thing is to find gaming opponents/buddies whose preferences somewhat overlap your own, so you can always find common ground when deciding what to game.

[Brian Smaller]

I like them. I have played in two big games so far using BP rules (mostly as written) and they worked well.  Someone above mentioned units sprinting across the table. Sure - that can happen - but only if the commander orders it. And unsupported attacks rarely work.

I have more granular rules that I prefer for Napoleonics when I am either solo gaming or playing with one or two like-minded mates, but Black Powder (as we are using it here in NZ) seems to give the result that we all want - comaraderie, clean tables that look damn fine and usually a result.

[julesav]

A friend and I have been looking for a set of rules to use to refight battles from the 1866 Austro-Prussian War. We have tried quite a few sets including Weigle's 1866, and Neil Thomas's rules for 19th Century Warfare. But to our shock and surprise a doctored version of BP has been our favourite, so far.

[Gonvalon]

There are some points you need to know about yourself and your gamemates to have fun with blackpowder.

1. Are you ready for the frustration that troops will do what you want them to do.
I am a big fan of rules that create fog of war. BP with it command rules, making one, two or even three moves possible in one turn, or with bad luck no move,
gives a real thrill to me. (There are options to trigger the results, depending on your decisions. But I like that a cavalry unit might get a battery by surprise. Something I really missed in the GW clone rulesets. It´s not thrilling for me, if it is just mathematics, to know when will my opponent reach my lines.) Not every gamer type likes these surprises. Look into your heart what kind of gamer you are. And if you like games that are more like chess then BP is not your baby.
2. BP works best, if you have a creative mind, that is willing to work out a nice scenario and even willing to do the job of a games master.
The rules tool box of BP allows you to create fantastic scenarios and really thrilling game evenings. I use BP for years now and for me it was the best table top ruleset I ever used.

Is it historic?
Again it depends on you. A few weeks ago I did a big La Haye Sainte game, with special rules from the tooles box. We just played the first attac and the game created step by step the historical events. A while ago I did the same with a well settled "very historical" ruleset (that I don´t want to foul here) and the game went a catastrophic way. The frenchies had never a real chance to get a step into the farm. The brits were bored shooting frenchies and shooting frenchies and ... and the french were very frustrated.

So finally BP needs creativety and the right gamers willing to go this way, then it is excellent. Well ... in my eyes.

[Barbarian]

My only concern about the game is the price of the book and the supplements.
Being a 10mm player for large battles, it bother me when the rules are more expensive than the minis.

[Aerendar Valandil]

I'm really with Gonvalon her. I really like to be forced to play opportunistically, to be totally screwed by things not going as you expect, by the dice not agreeing with your weighing of risk and gain. Moreover, the game is very easy to pick up for someone not very accustomed to the rules. You can just step in at turn two and have an itch of the basics by turn three, usually without having lost already as with many other games in which knowledge of listbuilding, rules and deployment almost decide the game beforehand. It's great that at a certain pont the game is just over, usually after a quick climax after a long buildup in which everyone still has all chances, withhout having been forced to play for hours being slowly grinded down to a pool of reddish goo. It's really made for a casual way of playing in which the story, the general direction, the banter and a quick, tense decision are more important than pure, well thought out and executing strategy and detailed rules. I really like that kind of play. Not everybody will, and I understand that. And I understand that the BP-family is the fashion, and as gamers are fashionista's if not for clothes, a ruleset will be discussed until reduced to an undefined brown substance. That can be annoying if the current hype is not your type of game.   

[Axebreaker]

I think Black Powder is great as you can play as simple or complicated a game as you wish as the rules can be tinkered with quite a bit without them falling apart. Personally I rather enjoy an evening with my friends talking and rolling some dice and moving figures then spending too much time with my nose in a rulebook or measuring exact inches. We use the popular 66% reduced ranges and movement plus a few other house rules and it runs great.

I'm getting older and for me at least a Larry Leadhead caption captures my feelings pretty good in regards to gaming life.


Anyhow to each his own and as long as you and your friends are enjoying yourself then that's what's important.

Christopher

[jamesmanto]

 
That cartoon sums up my progress as a gamer too. I used to want very detailed games that took forever. But we were young and could meet EVERY Saturday night to play so if a game took multiple sessions, so what?
25 years on we're lucky to play once or twice a month so having a game go over time is too much.

When we first gave BP a go with my friends extensive 15mm ACW, one fellow commented "We did a lot of maneuvering and battling in only 3 hours!"

[Fuzzywuzzieswiflasers]

"On the other hand I find the idea of using it for later wars a bit silly - I especially found it bizarre that the book dismisses the likes of the Franco-Prussian war but then provides scenarios for Zululand and the Sudan! The idea of using BP to fight these colonial wars strikes me as strange, to say the least."

Franco Prussian war! Pffft! If it doesn't have Stout hearted British redcoats it's not wargaming my dear boy!   

Cheers
Fuzzy

[n815e]

Hmmm...  There are things I don't like, but other people do.  Is there something wrong with that?  No.

I've played complicated rules that claim to be more realistic or even "simulations" and they really aren't.
If a game models what I think are the key components of a period, at the command level I am playing at and they provide an enjoyable time, then that is wonderful.
Whichever that set may be to you, might not be to me and there is no right or wrong about it.

Are there sets that throw history completely out of the window?  Sure.  Those aren't for me.
Are there sets that confuse complexity for realism?  Sure.  Those aren't for me, either.

I'm not a "fanboy" of Rick Priestley, but I do like some of his games.  I also know that he has been an historical gamer for longer than he has been a designer of games.

[answer_is_42]

Franco Prussian war! Pffft! If it doesn't have Stout hearted British redcoats it's not wargaming my dear boy!   

  Dare I suggest the book is a little biased towards Anglo-Saxondom? (and I find the faux 'gentleman's club' tone of the book rather annoying, too)