Black Powder. Hmmm...

[CPBelt]

(and I find the faux 'gentleman's club' tone of the book rather annoying, too)

Ironically, it's an element I quite enjoy. Then again, my Masters specialty is 19th century British and American literature, so I may be a bit biased. 

[dhtandco]

Ive just seen this thread. As the person who wrote the Chotusitz article I thought there was enough in it for you to pick up and do your own refight whatever rules you are using. Never really considered people stopping reading it because I mentioned BP !
However I must agree that the one size fits all approach is getting a bit stale British infantry are pretty much  6 3 4 3 Steady throughout . I haven't got the American revolution book but don't think I will be far out and I don't get the period feel much BUT if you only play one period that's not really an issue, and its popularity proves it is more than acceptable for a huge audience so fair play!
We wrote our colonial set partly because we thought we had outgrown BP and are now playing a lot more Zulu, Sudan, Indian Mutiny and Boxer rebellion games because of the fact we can see differences between all the forces involved.
My Chechen article in MW contains references to force on force and bolt action (spoiler)

[Slekke]

As a Napoleonic building up painter, is can state that these commercial rules are only good for a painter to have an excuse to play a game on his table, and wants to admire his work.

Keep on building up your armies, and when the painting job of all you armies are done, than make, create your own set of ruling (that is wat we are doing).

Keep in mind :
The more you paint, the better and faster you advance (keep that in mind).

[Slekke]

Keep in mind that ruling sets of black powder, with a big historical periode 1700 till 1900, are fine for players who want to start wargaming but do not want to study 10 or more rulesets needed before playing.

I tested this ruling and it have found some strong positive points in this ruling set.  Good te get started in a clubhouse were you normal only have 3-4 hours of playing time to finish your battle.

[Kommando_J]

As an intro to wargaming I would say 3 to 4 hours is a bit much, plus the amount of miniatures needed is somewhat prohibitive, I think it is indeed 'too' generic, it's not really suited to some of the conflicts mentioned such as the French Indian war plus the refusal to include gatling/machine guns as being unsporting/flavorful made no sense.

It's like bolt action in that supplements overcome the main problem of the ruleset not being designed specifically for the setting, I would say in bolt actions favor it is more accessible to the young/new crowd having smaller requirements and it being more collect what you want then fight with that over fighting historical battles only.

It helps that it's really a port of a an earlier 40k ed. but really that should really count as another charge of laziness on Mr Priestley's part to some.

[Argonor]

It helps that it's really a port of a an earlier 40k ed.

Well, that instantly kills it in my optics. Can't be bothered with anything just distantly resembling warhamster mechanics.

[WitchfinderGeneral]

I played a Rorke's Drift scenario with BP rules. It was like "check if your troops do what they are commanded to do (in my case they didn't), then try to make enough damage (roll enough 4's - which I didn't) so your opponent messes up his morale check and flees. It was easy to get into the rules and the game was looking good on the table. It was also entertaining but I wouldn't buy the rules because I guess they become dull when you get deeper into them. And this is no era of interest for me anyway.

[Fuzzywuzzieswiflasers]

The pike and Shotte version of BP is a lot of fun, gives a quick game even with a lot of players and units. The failing command roll can be frustrating at times and the system does need some kind of "opportunity charge" mechanic but otherwise the rule system is very sound and more nuanced than it first appears once you get a few games under your belt. Having a well designed scenario with clear objectives makes for a better game.

Cheers
Fuzzy

[WitchfinderGeneral]

Well, that instantly kills it in my optics. Can't be bothered with anything just distantly resembling warhamster mechanics.

Like God Of Battles? 

[Argonor]

Like God Of Battles? 

Shortly spoken, that is a very perfidic comment. Have you even read the rules?

God of Battles mechanics bear NO resemblance to warhamster. It's a fantasy game, and you have units - and that's where the resemblance stops. No tables, no extra 'to wound' roll after hitting (and being able to wound is not influenced by the target unit's stats, so you don't have units that can't hurt some opponents), no all-powerful magic or characters, no game-changing artefacts - just sheer tactics.

[Pijlie]

Shortly spoken, that is a very perfidic comment. Have you even read the rules?

If I understand you correctly, you haven't read BP either but you are quite willing to dismiss it already. I for one don't know God of Battles, but I do know that yesterday we played the battle of Brandywine in the historical fashion and we emulated Cornwallis' attack plan, taking the fords on the left, overrunning the Continental flank and rolling up the Rebel army in under three hours. With Black Powder. In a very "American Revolution like" manner, with charging grenadiers and Highlanders and columns deploying into line across the river under enemy fire.

So in dismissing rulesets because they might resemble another one without having tried them at all you might rob yourself of some genuine gaming fun!

[Argonor]

If I understand you correctly, you haven't read BP either but you are quite willing to dismiss it already. I for one don't know God of Battles, but I do know that yesterday we played the battle of Brandywine in the historical fashion and we emulated Cornwallis' attack plan, taking the fords on the left, overrunning the Continental flank and rolling up the Rebel army in under three hours. With Black Powder. In a very "American Revolution like" manner, with charging grenadiers and Highlanders and columns deploying into line across the river under enemy fire.

So in dismissing rulesets because they might resemble another one without having tried them at all you might rob yourself of some genuine gaming fun!

True, as already stated, I haven't read BP. I wasn't the one making the link to an earlier version of 40K, I am merely stating that if it exists, I have no interest in the rules.

I believe I have already stated that people look for different things in the rules they play. I steer away from rules that have mechanics derived from the two main games of GW, because I think those rules are tedious and rather outdated in their take on things, and the fact that they have never been able to inspire me to finish even a single unit - and, frankly, I don't think a historical version would work any different for me.  Actually, I know they don't, as I have WAB. I dismiss or buy a lot of rulesets based on what I read on this forum, and I haven't read anything so far that would convince me to go out and get BP. That doesn't mean that I would expect others to make the same decision. You can play whatever rules suits your taste and style of play, just don't expect me to share your taste.

[Pijlie]

You can play whatever rules suits your taste and style of play, just don't expect me to share your taste.

Seems like a sensible philosophy to me. 

[WitchfinderGeneral]

God of Battles mechanics bear NO resemblance to warhamster. It's a fantasy game, and you have units - and that's where the resemblance stops.

You forgot the BUCKETS of D6 to score the 'to hit' value. And the fixed army lists. And other stuff I can't remember right now. I read the GoB rules last week and I was a bit disappointed at some point. Because I was hoping for the ex-GW-guy NOT making ex-GW-rules. But it feels like a very streamlined version of WH to me. This is not all bad, I got some editions of WH on the shelf. But bashing some games because they resemble a certain game and liking other games although they do the same is not fair.

[Argonor]

You forgot the BUCKETS of D6 to score the 'to hit' value. And the fixed army lists. And other stuff I can't remember right now. I read the GoB rules last week and I was a bit disappointed at some point. Because I was hoping for the ex-GW-guy NOT making ex-GW-rules. But it feels like a very streamlined version of WH to me. This is not all bad, I got some editions of WH on the shelf. But bashing some games because they resemble a certain game and liking other games although they do the same is not fair.

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? Just like DreadBall is just a sci-fi rip-off of Blood Bowl? 

I simply do not agree with you on this. Having both played and watched several games, I can assure you that GoB is NOT warhamster-light. It is simple, fast, fun, and allows for the better tactician to win a battle using inferior troops, and every trooper counts, and is not just a wound marker (actually, it features almost everything I want from a war game, that warhamster does not).

What (war) game does not use dice and a 'to hit/wound/kill/whatever' roll?? And 'buckets' of dice? I think the largest number rolled is about 12 (a large loose unit having not suffered any casualties before its first combat - as the larger formed units roll only half their strength). It CAN be more (but not many), due to upgrades, and spell effects, but you very rarely get to roll that many, as every casualty subtracts from your dice pool. The unit being hit gets to roll saves - true, it's a bit old-fashioned, but also a feature of many, many other rules, AND, in this version, it elegantly does away with the need for calculating a 'to hit/kill' roll target number based on the fighting units' respective abilities.

And, until now, I wasn't 'bashing' anything - I just stated - in other words - that BP is not for me if it resembles 40K (any Ed.), because yes, I dislike GW's 30-odd years old mechanics (which I have had absolutely NO positive experiences with).