Hi Trev....when me and Nev play its usually a game with 2 support choices and a 6 x4 is usually a bit cramped, the trouble is when we have played on a 8x6 we still never use the extra 2 foot as usually the game either times out ir its a mad attack to take the objective:) ..using a 8x6 for a Historical type scenario would be a lot better, the Austerlitz scenario in the Lasalle book would be good to try out (as anybody actually tried it? ....

Paul

I think the 6x4 table size is just a traditional thing. It also is influenced by timber amufacturers as boards tend to come from 8x4's but that is a little too large for most peoples temporary gaming facilities, hence they get cut to 6x4. 7x5 and 8x6 are both very good sizes to go for but then you find most rules writers are trying to write for the masses, not the minority.

Trev

Yep that's the one I'm thinking of - I don't recall any of the other references saying the table "had" to be 6' x 4' just the suggestion it be so...

Yep, I figured as much, but wasn't sure.

But I take your point about consistency with the "Unit of Measure" thing... :-)

Yep, the "unit of measure" should stay consistent to keep everything nice and neat.

Page 87, Lasalle Rulebook, "The board diagrams are presented here as 3:2 ratio rectangles (traditionally a 6' x 4' table)."

But I take your point about consistency with the "Unit of Measure" thing... :-)

Where does it say that?

I didn't say anything about "common size" I clearly said "fixed table size". This, to most, is odd since the BW is not a fixed measurement.

Page 83, Lasalle Rulebook, "Table Size: 4' x 6'"
Page 84, Lasalle Rulebook, "Table Size: 4' x 6'"
Page 85, Lasalle Rulebook, "Table Size: 4' x 4'"
Page 87, Lasalle Rulebook, "The board diagrams are presented here as 3:2 ratio rectangles (traditionally a 6' x 4' table)."

Granted, page 85 says 4' by 4', but why did Sam make BW the universal measurement in Lasalle, but gives a fixed table size of 4' x 6', or even 4' x 4' for that matter. Maybe a better way would have been to list table sizes as BW like everything else? Also, it fits in better with page 91.

Maybe it would be better to change it to read:
Page 83, Lasalle Rulebook, "Table Size: 30BW by 45BW"
Page 84, Lasalle Rulebook, "Table Size: 30BW by 45BW"
Page 85, Lasalle Rulebook, "Table Size: 30BW by 30BW"
Page 87, Lasalle Rulebook, "The board diagrams are presented here as 3:2 ratio rectangles (traditionally a 30BW by 45BW table)."

...but gives a fixed table size of 4 x 6...

If you base up for 30BW then you can always sabot base for the 40BW option. Might give you more opponents!

Good point Evil Trev.

A gaming buddy of mine come up with a cleaver way to extend the 30mm BW to a 40mm BW for when we play in games that others have their figures based on 40mm BW. Its easier for use to add that simple extension then for them to chop off chunks of their bases.

I use 30mm x 24mm bases and affix six infantry figures or two cavalry figures per base. I did this for the simple reason that my Napoleonic collection was mounted for 1:30/1:33 ratio. For artillery, I use bases that measure 30mm x 40mm. I then affix at least two crew and cannon.

With the bigger 15's (true 18mm and 19mm figures) this works just fine. But with real 15mm figures (true 15mm), I think it looks a little "lose", but passable. This is what you get when there is no set standard in the figure industry and we end up with figures that vary from true 15mm to true 19mm height - at this scale, a difference of 3mm to 4mm is very noticeable, which was their plan in the first place (trying to force you to use only their figures).

after much deliberation I'm almost at the point of deciding to go with 15mm on 30mm x 25mm bases. Before I commit and abandon Sam's recommended 40mm BW for 15mm figs can you answer this question for me. I'll be using a 6' x 4' table. Can you play a game with two support groups on that size table with 40mm BW? Or realistically are you limited to one support?

Hi Hepworthnot, we use bases that measure 30mm x 24mm (artillery bases are deeper), but for different reasons. I can tell you it works, however we play on tables that are in BW and not in feet.

What we never understood was why did Sam make BW the universal measurement in Lasalle, but gives a fixed table size of 4 x 6. A better way would have given to list table sizes as BW like everything else. Taking a BW of 40mm (recommended for 15mm figures) as a guideline and 1" = 2.54mm, instead of a 4' x 6' table, we get a table of 1219.2mm x 1828.8mm, or 30.48BW x 45.72BW. But we round this to 30BW by 45BW so that we get a nice 2 x 3 ratio table... as you would with a 4' x 6' table.

If you base up for 30BW then you can always sabot base for the 40BW option. Might give you more opponents!

There were 2 armies with sabot basing of one type or another at the weekends tournament (Marengo).

Trev

Thanks Guyot

yes you can play with two supports using 40mm bw on a 6 x 4 but it does make the game tight at times. Two supports are better on an 8 x 6 table.

The main consideration for basing is what base convention your opponents will be using as both side need to be based the same.

Hi,

after much deliberation I'm almost at the point of deciding to go with 15mm on 30mm x 25mm bases. Before I commit and abandon Sam's recommended 40mm BW for 15mm figs can you answer this question for me. I'll be using a 6' x 4' table. Can you play a game with two support groups on that size table with 40mm BW? Or realistically are you limited to one support?

Cheers

Tim - understood - and I get where you are coming from. :-)

And I appreciate you are basing things on your previous experience(s) with the couple of tourney's last year which generated some concern (which I missed alas - I would have been there if I could have, with bells on). HOWEVER as you guys who are ahead of me on the curve have now had a lot of time to learn the rules and appreciate the subtleties you may find the games play quite different now with experienced players...?

I think Sam has a lot in common with Arty (Conliffe) - his rules have a lot of subtle stuff in them that many players miss because they play 2-3 games then start fiddling around and tweaking - and never playing the game as written for long enough to discover the hidden depths...

...it would especially concern me if it's primarily because "both British players wanted to stop playing the game because they felt the game was horrible" was the reason - that sounds very terribly of 'preconceived' notions and 'expectations' more than anything. I know it probably isn't either on your part or perhaps even of those players, but I honestly just can't see how "changing the balance of the game" = "bring(ing) other people into this hobby" when the game has supposedly been extensively play-tested to ensure the AB stuff is balanced?! :-)

Ultimately I'm no Napoleonic 'expert' - it's a bit of a second-tier period for me - but I know enough about it that what I can say is Lasalle is the best Napoleonic ruleset I have ever played - it's the first time _ever_ I've played a Napoleonic's game that actually feels and acts like it's described in the memoirs and accounts of the actual battles! I said to Cam not 2 weeks ago it's inspired and excited me about the period in a way no ruleset has ever done previously - only Arty's SHAKO came anywhere near close, everything else (that I have tried) has been disappointing for various reasons (Napoleon's Battles, Principles of War, WRG, etc) or just too huge in scope (Ebb & Flow) or downright dreadful (Corps d'Armee).

In fact I haven't been this excited about Napoleonics since Bruce Quarrie's article(s) in Military Modelling about 1980 on doing Quatre Bras with 10-fig Battalions of plastic Airfix figs!

I got this excited by the game as it is immediately after playing my very first game - and I can see the fundamental subtleties that are there that recreate fairly authentic paper-scissors-rock type interactions of troops as it was IRL... Hence I'm sceptical it needs changing so much to "attract players" - the rules are great because of what's not there, they are the closest thing to rewarding historical tactics I can see for Nappies and would hate to be modifying them significantly and setting a defacto "new game" without extensive tournament AB List game experience - like 6-10 tournaments with decent numbers of players (and good variety of armies) in each to get a true sampling of results... Otherwise you are just fiddling to favour the current clique - IMO at least...

:-)

As always just my 2 cents and being Devil's Advocate a little - YMMV.

J.

..also all this is getting further and further from the game as Sam designed and play tested it - things like having no bonus troops for attackers surely will just unbalance the AB Lists for attackers - and if you are adding 2 extra objectives, ignoring reserve rolls, etc, as well surely it'll mean the whole fundamental balance of the 'game' will be off...?

But the point is there is no attacker, or both are attackers ( i guess that will depend on the players, i know a few players here that are a tad aggressive with what ever army they are using).Yes this is changing the balance of the game, but when at the last Call to Arms both British players wanted to stop playing the game because they felt the game was horrible I don't see this as being a bad thing. Also we are kind of play testing a tournament rule pack here as I want this Call to Arms to bring other people into this hobby as there is something great to see these armies fighting across the table. I know we get lots of people looking over at us when we play at the club here in Wellington.

What I am looking at doing is a selection of missions some will be just straight AB games, but after playing some of the Lasalle missions posted on the Lasalle Wiki they have been very fun games.

rogering of the victory, reserve and other conditions it may well mean games are stodgy, indecisive, and/or unexpectedly (& disproportionately) biased towards particular armies or troops...

I hope my rogering does not do this to the ruleset, as this is what I am trying very hard to avoid.

What I am after is a balance game for all armies, I want both sides to feel that any army choice they make can win a game at the moment there are just "better" options in the AB lists, the last thing I want to see is just a selection of French armies with Light Cav or Austrians with their Hussars running around.

Just curious. What time limit do you have for your tournaments in NZ?

I "think" it was 3 hours.

Just curious. What time limit do you have for your tournaments in NZ?

..also all this is getting further and further from the game as Sam designed and play tested it - things like having no bonus troops for attackers surely will just unbalance the AB Lists for attackers - and if you are adding 2 extra objectives, ignoring reserve rolls, etc, as well surely it'll mean the whole fundamental balance of the 'game' will be off...?

And I agree with Cam, I don't see how pouring more troops on table makes the game any better (for a tournament at least) - it takes away the challenge of deciding what support to have (you _can_ have Infantry & Cavalry reserves - no dilemma over which to choose, or whether to have Light or Heavy Cav - take both); And I'd suggest will simply increase the number of draws and such when playing in a limited time environment...

I do have plenty of troops - so no issue from me for availability - and I'm a megalomaniac who loves lots of troops on table - BUT I just can't see how this would make (tournament) games better - with the 1 option AB lists in a 3-4 hour limit the games should be fresh, fast, and decisive. With more troops on table, and much rogering of the victory, reserve and other conditions it may well mean games are stodgy, indecisive, and/or unexpectedly (& disproportionately) biased towards particular armies or troops...

Just my 2 cents... YMMV.

John

Not that excited about a 2 support option tournie personally. I have 3 25mm armies, but would need to paint more figures to use any of them with 2 supports. But it could be done if others want that.

Cam

For Call to Arms how would people feel about using two Support options with the normal reserve rules, but not having the attacker have bonus troops, both sides will have objectives or will have three objectives across the centre of the table.

That should mean for most armies all they will need is one more battalion of troops and another battery on cannons to complete the second support option over the normal attacker bonus.

For those who are reading this Call to Arms is 28mm with 50mm BW's hence why we are going with 8x6 tables.

If I could have some feedback on this from you guys that are thinking of coming down to Wellington that would be great.

At the moment we are going with 3 objectives spread across the centre of the table and both with core force plus support on table at the start, with who holds the most objectives at the end of the game wins. I have enjoyed all the games we have had using this system.

I guess the reserve rule is something that is never going to please everyone, I will try and find a nice middle ground for Call to Arms.

As for table set up I will most likely go with pre set tables 8x6 with no modification allowed.

Well the French Support option will be used, if we keep the normal reserve rule. Send in the Guards change in the "Tips" section will also be used as that just makes sense.

Re. fields:
How can fields be rough going? By definition they are open flatish areas. In the early 19th century the ground even after ploughing was quite flat. I suppose an area of boggy ground could rate as rough though.

Cam

No problem with with an area being called rough or rocky ground and defining its characteristics as being difficult for or impassable to cavalry. But please don't call it a field.

Alan

Sorry it was something I have previously suggested - I forget people don't memorise everthing I write (although it would help people!).

I was suggesting using a "bug" in the rules that Fields are not actually defined anywhere. Since you have to define them, it is easy for an organiser to just make them rough ground for cavalry but not infantry. Rocky ground may be a more apt label. That creates an anti-cavalry terrain without actually changing or adding anything to the rules.

Note if you play fields are Rough ground, then they will be anti-cavalry. But infantry will also slog their way through them which may slow the game. I just wanted a terrain type that keeps cavalry out, but does not then bog the game down (like having to winkle enemy inf out of deep woods).

Cam

Very interesting and well articulated post Cam.

Just wanted to pick up one point - your last paragraph. In the real world there is cultivated ground and uncultivated ground i.e. wild ground left largely to nature. All cultivated ground is more friendly to human and equine movement than uncultivated ground. Fields are cultivated ground that are friendly towards human and equine movement (the only thing more friendly is tracks, roads etc.). I don't understand why cavalry should have the penalty of cultivated ground being treated as rough and not infantry? There is no relationship here to reality. In fact horses can cope with movement in a field far better than humans. Observation of humans and horses in fields will confirm this.

My take:

1) Inf not halving in combat when not in open. Agree.

2) No intermingling commands, and must be in command range, when deploying. Agree.

3) If two units from different commands charge the same enemy they require a DISC test. Agree

But I think this should just be worded if cavalry and infantry both want to charge the same target (I don't have a problem with two infantry from different commands charging, but I am not sure I want the French Dragoon in the Peninsular core to be really good at combined arms).

4) I'm with Stupid. Agree

5) Off table reserves start on table or turn 1. Disagree.

I like the concept of waiting for reserves - it is a core bit of Lasalle. I think the problem is Organic cavalry are too powerful relative to Reserve cavalry or Organic infantry. Making all cavalry effectively Organic makes the problem worse for me.

I think all cavalry should be Reserve. That then makes an all infantry force viable since you get them on table at the start and have a period of the game where you don't have to worry about having to sit in square. We have been having some good games up here will one or both sides being all infantry. The only exception is probably forces with a lot of Irregular cavalry (Spanish, Cossacks) since they are pretty useless coming on late - they are really just speedbumps.

6) Defender wins in a Draw. Disagree.

At the moment the attacker holds all the cards - if they want to play cautiously they can get the draw and there is not much the defender can do about it. But if you make the Attacker have to win, the Defender then has the incentive to play negatively - use as much bad terrain as possible, hide behind rivers, hope for mud, endlessly delay by falling back or formation changes to halve the enemy. Not losing is the same as winning.

I would hate to play a comp where the winner had 4 draws (wining by drawing as defender) beating some other player who had 3 wins and a loss.

I think the best way keeping the attack/defend model is the 100+ points system that was used in DBM comps. Effectively players are ranked by their number of wins. Draws only count as a way of separating players with the same number of wins. So a guy who has 1 win and 3 losses finishes ahead of a player with 4 draws. This gives a big incentive to try to win - getting a draw is nearly as bad as a loss, so the attacker may as well have a go. This also means after the first round, the corner sitters who like draws tend to play each other and let the aggressive players duke it out.

Otherwise I would suggest no attacker/defender - both sides get their full attacking force and both have an objective marker.

7) We play 25mmm on 8x5 tables and it does create more room. But this is another reason I don't like the Attacker-Must-Win approach - there is a lot of real estate the attacker has to cross to pin down the defender.

Other points - I think the organiser needs to go through the tips and optional rules and work out which to use. Some are pretty important changes to the game (like the French not getting certain allies as Organic) or good ideas (revised Send in the Guard).

I would also like to see Fields defined and personally treated as rough ground for cavalry but not for infantry (so it provides a place for infantry to play safely without pesky cavalry ruining their day).

Cam

Paul - could you not hijack EVERY thread and at least try to stay OT ;)

Hi Alan....yes Jp was right, I played a French Empire army with Stephen to give him a run through against the Ruskies! the Russian Guard force is really tough and in a tourney very keen....its the first time I have tried Russians and to be honest the overwhelming guns and on table Cav support makes them a tough cookie...

I'm not sure whats the best French force against them, I like the 1813 conscripts against the Austrians, but against the Russians I need to have a good look at the Army builder to sort them out ....probably use some irregular Battalions to screen the guns and then hope that I can get some good tactical generals for the french:)

Last night game was good....its the first time I've seen a small french Dragoon regiment break a Russian square (without a tactical plus general! ...well done stephen!)

playing Lasalle last night proved to me its an exciting game ....I will try and get to Maelstrom, but if not I will be at the Triples for the Hougomont Demo ...looking forward to a chat and a few beers.

Cheers Paul

Paul

Thanks to an off-forum nudge from James I see now that your reference is to the Tips download.

"The Guard army wins if it breaks the enemy morale and either
(A) pursues, or (B) holds the objective at game’s end."

Assuming that the above applies to both attaking and defending I now see why this would be another tough army in a competition if the Tips were in effect. Have a Guard army, opt to defend and you already posses the objective at the start.

Trev opted not to use the Tips for Marengo. Just as well as I might have been torn between the sneaky Spanish and the mighty Russian Guards for which army to use!

I think Paul is talking about the new send in the Guards rules from the tips section.

Paul

Is this a trick question :-)

To win as either attacker or defender undee the Send in the Guards rule you have to win decisively. This means breaking the enemy and then having a higher pursuit score. Taking the objective or not has nothing to with the level of victory although its loss may have been the cause of the opponent breaking if you were the attacker.

Perhaps I misunderstood your question?

Will you be popping in to spectate and chat at Marengo?

Right then you lads ....can any of you answer this for me...I played with a Russian Guard army and I was the attacker (Core plus one choice) ...under the rules I had to break the enemy and capture the objective to win.....what would have happened if I was the defender?

on a side note a very powerfull atacking army with 10 guns,8 guard battalions and two large Guard units....if I had used the cuirassiers it would have got me another 5 guns.

in my opinion for a tourney way too powerful ....cest la guerre!