Scenarios, House Rules and FAQs

[@EdwardEast-x1j]

I hope you all have a fantastic time next weekend at the event, sadly I won’t be there as I’m pretty new to the hobby. But currently building my armies! Will definitely be keeping my eye out for other events like this in the future.

[@merlin4084]

While I can't go to the event, I'll say this much about scenario 1. Don't just have a single objective in the middle of the table. More often than not, players will just focus on that one objective and ignore the rest of the table. It is always better to have multiple objectives down the centre line than it is to just have a single objective. Additionally, maybe it would be best to have a link to the pack in the description. Not everyone will be part of the Warlord Black Powder group (I'm not for example) Just save it to Google Drive and link to it here. Simples.

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

I did save it to google drive, but then to access it I had to sign up and all sorts of malarkey. It should also be on the Boards and Swords events page this week (I'll link to that)

[@emilemoorhouse7025]

May it be a good idea that for the purposes of scoring VP’s in the “hold the middle of the board scenario” that units always count as at least stamina 1 even if they’re technically shaken? Or was that a conscious choice? :) Really looking forward to the event, it’s a mad dash to the finish line with the painting now!

[@MattVarnish1103]

Thanks for fixing Black Powder :)

[@matthewwheelden9263]

General question here. In Version2 of Black Powder is the rule written anywhere about multiple units in say attack column contacting a Line that only one can contact as at club it always causes a heated disagreement as to whether it exists or not. If so which page/s please. Also are the commander stat rules in Version 2? If so again which page please

[@m0ltke582]

It's in A Clash of Eagles p108, section Column attacking Line but not in the BP2 rule book.

[@matthewwheelden9263]

Oh thank you. That will be why we can't find it

[@iainmc9859]

You Go, I Go - designed to accommodate everyone but resulting in throughout the game the first to go always knowing they're not going to get to respond to the second to go's last roll of the dice, literally ! Presuming that most Napoleonic wargames are divided into 'rounds' something like: Artillery, Movement, Firing and Melee it adds a large element of fog-of-war and variable command effectiveness at any given moment to have each side throw an initiative (I'd suggest without modifiers) for each round. Eg: Turn 1 Artiillery - Player One throws a 2, Player Two throws a 4. Player Two fires artillery first. Player One removes casualties and does any morale checks immediately. Player One fires second. Player Two removes casualties and does any morale checks. Movement - Player One throws a 6, Player Two throws a 5. Player One moves first, any closing fire resolved, casualties and morale test immediately apply. Player Two moves ... etc, etc It forces Players to have a plan B if you're having a 'bad dice' day even if you theoretically have the bigger or more powerful army, and be far less sure of events during the ebb and flow of battle. The law of averages says it should even out across multiple turns, but the decisions made by players are more pressurised and thus less certain.

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

Yeah, that's certainly a way of doing it! I like Epic Armageddon, you roll per turn and add your army's strategy rating. I think Shako had a similar system

[@eruditefool4183]

I like that... Gonna try that out

[@iainmc9859]

@@NapoleonicWargaming Of course, you can both throw a 3, I'd suggest then breaking the round down a little, eg, both fire at full strength, player suffering most casualties performs morale tests first. It can create that set of unknowns, like why did Grouchy stop for chips and mayonnaise on his way to Waterloo, or how come King James IV come down off the hill at Flodden.

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

@@iainmc9859 Hahaha. Yeah, I do think messing about with texture structure could work, but then when does it stop being BP?! 🤣

[@iainmc9859]

@@NapoleonicWargaming To be honest I just think its a general wargaming observation, regardless of rule set. There's a playtest video in there somewhere. Rules are meant to be broken 😊

[@matthewwheelden9263]

One Faq question I would ask is if you could clarify some of the points for units as the unit entry pages have different points for some units than the values listed in the force selectors on the following pages.

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

I'd absolutely love to! Do you have any examples I can look at?

[@matthewwheelden9263]

In Albion Triumphant vol 2 Brunswick infantry battalion are listed as 33 on the references and 22 on the selector is probably the biggest. Rifle Companies are down as 47 on one and 48 in the other. I'll have a comb through later this evening to check for others.

[@doughudson5649]

How many scenarios are there

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

4, two on each day

[@ratelmike8825]

Righto Tim. I may need to tweek my list then a bit. Tough fighter. Apologies in advance for dumb question here as Im still getting up to speed on the rules and my army traits. Are Highlanders automatically given tough Fighter?

[@NapoleonicWargaming]

Not a dumb question at all! Yes, they get it 'build in' I believe