I Tried 28mm Pike & Shotte, And Cried

[Codsticker]

I would suggest 'built in flexibility' :-).  Most of us are happy to adapt otherwise perfectly good rules simply because they don't fit our perceptions of how it 'should be'.

I certainly find that. There is always something I want to tinker with, even in sets I love.

[Kommando_J]

Is that a roundabout way of saying unfinished and not properly thought out?   

From what I can see, on the whole warlord has a tendency to 'wing things', I know the bolt action rule set was bought up first then the setting was decided.

One of the drawbacks to everyone being so chummy together, why tailor make a ruleset when you can buy a friends?

[Arlequín]

Most of us are happy to adapt otherwise perfectly good rules simply because they don't fit our perceptions of how it 'should be'.

I live in a glass house as far as that's concerned, so maybe I shouldn't be throwing stones. Truth told I quite like Pike & Shotte, but I was aware that they were for grander games than I would typically be playing.

From what I can see, on the whole warlord has a tendency to 'wing things', I know the bolt action rule set was bought up first then the setting was decided.

I was under the impression that Bolt Action had to be written from scratch, as Mr Priestley had already used his WWII rules as the basis for 40K 3rd Edition... or so I seem to recall him saying. Whether it was a joke or not that Mr Cavatore had no idea of what WWII was about when he wrote them, I would hate to decide. I do have my suspicions that it wasn't...

 

[Kommando_J]

I may have the wrong ruleset, I definitely recall that one of them(possibly black powder?) was written first, bought by warlord games then used for a setting.

[Arlequín]

It depends on what you mean by bought and to be honest I'm not 100% on the lineage of the rules. As I understand it Black Powder, Hail Caesar and Pike and Shotte, are all derived from the same core, which is what Priestley and co have been using for some time, and which have 'Warmaster' somewhere in their origins. Bolt Action was commissioned out of the blue and is essentially unrelated to the rest.

None of the above may actually be correct, I only check these things out before buying a rule set to ensure I'm likely to like them.

We are drifting away from the topic though... as interesting as it may be to do so. 

[Hobbit]

I had a couple of fairly long conversations with Rik Priestly a few years ago regarding BP, and by extension HC and P&S.

The bottom line to the movement rates was that the group generally played on the Perrys' huge table and they always liked to play along the length of the table (something like 16ft.) The result would be that shortly before last orders at the local, the opposing armies would just be getting into position and the battles would rarely be fought to anything like a conclusion. Not wanting to do away with the approach marches a system was developed whereby they could be incorporated into the game without taking up most of the game. Once the armies are in proximity to one another the movement distances become much less relevant. The "move then shoot" turn sequence is also designed to encourage aggressive play.

As to the rules sets feeling "unfinished" the explanation went something like; the rules were designed as a "fast play" set for experienced gamers who had an intrinsic feel for how their armies should behave. The players would therefore assign reasonable values to their armies and special instances would be covered by special scenario based rules. As there was often a scenario designer/non-player umpire at the table rulings for unusual circumstances could be made at the table.

There is also the recognition/acknowledgement that no set of rules ever survives first contact with the players; and thus there is the granting of permission to tinker as the author knows full well that that's what everyone will do anyway.

I've played quite a lot of BP, HC and P&S and have found that they work best with people who see the game as "an entertainment"; it is far too loosely written for those who must win at all costs. Personal opinion is that P&S is the weakest of the 3 sets and, at times, feels a bit clumsy BUT overall isn't bad. For BP we halved all distances (an generally used smaller units) and found that it worked fine; for HC and P&S ground scale/movement was never an issue.

[flags_of_war]

I've played P&S on small boards and i quite enjoyed it. Very simple and like all warlord games needs to be considered entertainment rather than a historical game. I've only played a handful of games so not used to the things that end up annoying you after a while.

We did have some experienced players giving us tips and we changed the sequence of play for P&S. We made it that the shooting phase came first and then movement. This seemed to work well as it's seems more reasonable to assume that any marching force would be fired upon first rather than them having an opportunity to fire first after getting organised from the movement.

[SteveBurt]

I've played Black Powder a few times - most recently for a Zulu War scenario.
As a game it was excellent - went down to the wire with lots of excitement.
But it felt nothing like a Zulu War battle 
I've also used the rules for Napoleonics and ACW. ACW probably worked best, but I've been left feeling unsatisfied by all the games of Black Powder I've played. It falls into the category of rules I'm happy to play but won't choose.
We used to play a fair bit of Warmaster Ancients (the grand-daddy of these rules), which also gave a great game but was never very much like an ancients battle.

[Corso]

In my opinion Black Powder cannot be played on a 6x4ft table without reducing movement rates - that infantry can potentially move 36" in a single turn is too much!

Pike and shotte is much better. Though warhammer historical English Civil War is too much warhammer for my liking!

[Leftblank]

Tnx all for your comments. I play Hail Caesar with 15mm and distance in cm's and that works fine.
I will publish a P&S update later this year.

[Atheling]

We played The Perfect Captain, Very Civile Action rules in medium sized games when I was a member of SESWC a few years ago and they were a lot of fun:

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/vcactions.html

They are free too- though TPC does ask you to make a donation to a charity of your choice.

Worth considering?

Darrell.

[Vermis]

I can't disagree with the OP. I persuaded a club to try BP and P&S when I joined (they were tired of WAB ECW) but the little problems soon showed up. Table size wasn't too much of a problem - the club's in a library room, where lots of tables and terrain tiles can be pushed together - but it was quickly agreed to cut BP movement rates down anyway. A couple of members also took advantage to roll out their huge ECW armies in a big club game. Just as you described - an 8' table, but still no room to manoeuvre! And then later, those members got just a little shirty when the rest of us had to lean on their humongous collections, 'cos our own were taking some time to build up. Somehow.

So slightly ironically, I started looking at WG games as superior replacements for Warhammer, and they ended up putting me off 28mm too.

[A Lot of Gaul]

I can't disagree with the OP. I persuaded a club to try BP and P&S when I joined (they were tired of WAB ECW) but the little problems soon showed up. Table size wasn't too much of a problem - the club's in a library room, where lots of tables and terrain tiles can be pushed together - but it was quickly agreed to cut BP movement rates down anyway. A couple of members also took advantage to roll out their huge ECW armies in a big club game. Just as you described - an 8' table, but still no room to manoeuvre! And then later, those members got just a little shirty when the rest of us had to lean on their humongous collections, 'cos our own were taking some time to build up. Somehow.

So slightly ironically, I started looking at WG games as superior replacements for Warhammer, and they ended up putting me off 28mm too.

Any rule set is going to experience some 'little problems,' if the players will insist on overloading the table with troops.