Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. steadythebuffs
   Member

   Hi,

   As we only play these rules at our local club we have made a few changes to the main rules. We have tried to minimise the effect on overall play because we still want to get a result in an evening.

   I hope the BBCode works, or rather, I hope my use of it is suceesful!

   These are the changes that we have decided to keep :-

   1. Infantry Versus Cavalry in Rough Going

   Amendment - Infantry do not halve their dice against cavalry in rough going.

   Reason - Using cuirassiers to flush out infantry from e.g. woods just wasn't historical.

   2. Assaulting Cavalry Disruption

   Amendment - Assaulting cavalry units should receive two disruption markers when they decisively lose a combat against other cavalry.

   Reason - This stops players just throwing inferior cavalry units into an assault knowing that, even if they lose the combat e.g. 8-0, both units only get 1 DISR marker. This was suggested by another member and we liked it so have used it.

   3. Attacking Players' Reserves

   Amendment - The attacking players' reserves should have their dice roll adjusted by -1.

   Reason - We found that the defenders' reserves were arriving where the battle was raging and could be thrown in exactly where the gaps were. The attacker meanwhile had to trundle his reserves across the table too late to affect the outcome.

   4. Units Falling Back

   Amendment - A unit that chooses to Fall Back in the Reaction Phase cannot charge in the following Activity Phase. An artillery unit that chooses to Fall Back in the Reaction Phase cannot unlimber in the following Activity Phase.

   Reason - We felt that this was open to too much abuse whereby a player fell units back to avoid the risk of losing it to an assault only to charge it home in his Ativity Phase.

   5. Pursuing Off Table

   Amendment - Units that follow up a successful combat result do not leave the table if the 2BW follow up would force it to. They stop at the table edge.

   Reason - Just plain daft to penalise a player that wins a combat by removing his unit from play.

   6. Interspersing Brigades on Deployment

   Amendment - This is not allowed! When measuring command distance during the game friendly units from another brigade are treated as enemy units i.e. command range cannot be traced to within 1BW of them. The 'I'm with Stupid Rule' is also used.

   Reason - Command & control generally suffered when brigades interspersed on the battlefield.

   Amendments still being tested are :-

   1. Combined Arms Attacks

   Amendment - A player may not assault a defending unit with both infantry AND cavalry in the same Activity Phase.

   Reason - This almost always dictated what happened in our games, so much so that we were deliberately NOT using it so as not to ruin our evenings play.

   Feedback - The games have improved. As an example last night the French infantry attacked and opended a gap only to be forced into square by British cavalry reserves and targeted by Horse artillery. The French cavalry reserve then relieved the pressure and allowed the infantry attack to continue. It looked, and felt, right. The game also played to 19 turns in the evening with it ending in a draw because both sides rolled enough on their break test dice to keep going. Cavalry still halve infantry dice if they do not form squares and if they do use their artillery to blow holes in the square - it works.

   2. Attack Columns Firing

   Amendment - Infantry Attack Columns have a -1 when firing.

   Reason - Attack columns were ganging up on infantry in line, which is fine, but were firing at the same factors. This meant that defending in line was at an overall disadvantage because the firefight was equal but the spread of DISR markers wasn't. This amendment means that attack columns do what they should do - attack - instead of getting involved in prolonged firefights and sharing out the disruption markers.

   Feedback - Again very positive. One suggestion is that this -1 should only count if the unit is going to move in the Activity Phase but this is an added complication.

   We are going to start playing games on 8' x 5' tables so as to allow more manoeuvre as we tend to use a core force with two added brigades and we are finding that a 6' x 4' just isn't big enough. We are also using a variant of the Peter Pig RFCM terrain set up to give a more varied terrain table and extra objectives.

   We are having fun...........

   Thanks, Kevin.

   Posted 1 year ago #

2. cam_millar
   Member

   I like all of those except 4 and untested 2.

   Having used 1805 Austrians with linear tactics large units, you can have 3 enemy columns coming at you when in line. Being able to fall back, then wheel and charge one of the enemy columns next phase is about the only aggressive way of fighting back.

   Cam

   Posted 1 year ago #

3. Max Shadow
   Member

   Interesting Ideas. I'm certainly going to adopt the "No Combined arms attack" one. Thats what spoiled the "Naps Battles" rules for me. It was so easy to achieve and so effective.

   Posted 1 year ago #

4. Prinny
   Member

   I like the look of them,

   But i do wonder about point 3, that may only be affected by the size of table you play on, and horses in march do go very fast across the table. While the defender can pick where they go, they usually have to worry about deploying out of 4 BW so they can not deploy just anywhere.

   Posted 1 year ago #

5. steadythebuffs
   Member

   Hi,

   Thanks for your replies. We know that these changes won't suit everybody but as we aren't going to play in competition then as long as we are happy with them that's fine. I just thought that I'd let you know what were doing.

   The 'No Combined Arms' actually works really well. You can still charge with multiple units of the same type and can still countercharge cavalry into a unit that charged one of your infantry units. This seems to promote historical tactics whereby artillery try to soften up a target, cavalry can try to force infantry into squares which opens them up to attack by infantry or destruction by firepower. One change that is being tested that I forgot to put in came about as a result of not allowing combined arms attacks. We felt that if a hole was created in the line then destruction from cavalry should be very real threat. So we are going to try the following :-

   Infantry Testing to Form Square When Contacted on the Flank

   Amendment - Infantry contacted in the flank by cavalry roll their discipline test to form square with a -1 die roll penalty.

   Reason - These rules are tactical and the base unit is a battalion. The rear of the square is usually formed from the flank companies which are the very ones being directly threatened. This compensates for not allowing combined attacks when cavalry is in the gap and infantry are to your front. This means that forming square has a 50% chance of success with experienced troops and an average commander present, 67% with a good commander, 33% with a bad commander and 17% if you're amateurs with a bad commander. So protect your flanks...

   We are going to try games on larger tables to give more room for manoeuvre to see how that goes.

   I will put up another post with our fledgling terrain rules soon.

   Thanks, Kevin.

   Posted 1 year ago #

6. steadythebuffs
   Member

   Hi,

   One point to note is that we really like these rules and it has 8 players in the club either re-basing everything or painting furiously after 7-8 years of Napoleonic wilderness. It shows that we like them by the fact that we are putting so much effort into them. Sam's rules are excellent but as we tend towards big games with multiple players we wanted to make a few changes to suit us.

   Thanks, Kevin.

   Posted 1 year ago #

7. Max Shadow
   Member

   Have you made any adaptions for higher level commands.

   Posted 1 year ago #

8. steadythebuffs
   Member

   Hi,

   We haven't looked at higher level commands but as we normally do a large Christmas game of some sort with 10-12 players this may be something that we have to look into. I suspect that if Lasalle is used for the Christmas game there'll be two core forces per sides each with 2 extra brigades. I would hope that it would be played on a 12'-16' x 5' table. Quite what, and how to manage it, a Corps commander could influence at that level I'm not sure. Maybe who gets reserves? Should be quite spectacular though....

   Thanks, Kevin.

   Posted 1 year ago #

9. vilcum
   Member

   Does not "6. Interspersing Brigades on Deployment" (a sound adition imho) seem you sufficient to maintain combined attacks in a healthy low profile?

   In my limited experience with this ruleset "1. Combined Arms Attacks" seems a much serious change to qualify as a home rule , quoting you "... to promote historical tactics ...cavalry can try to force infantry into squares which opens them up to attack by infantry or destruction by firepower. " when you normally have 2/3 chance forming a square in reaction (5/6 if you are with a vigorous commander!) in the very last moment -after being charged- it doesn´t seem probable you can force anyone into an square in his own movement phase... with your "Infantry Testing to Form Square When Contacted on the Flank" you are working with that same problem so you realize it exists.

   I remember a proposition (I think it was from cam) forcing an infantry unit to make a DISC test to charge a target conbtacted this turn by friendly cavalry, that one seems preferable as it adds dificulties to coordination but maintains the capability (and the menace to the target)

   Posted 1 year ago #

10. steadythebuffs
    Member

    Hi,

    Yeah we wrestled with all sorts of ideas about combined arms attacks. We looked at the proposition regarding infantry being forced to take a DISC test to charge the same unit as one contacted by cavalry but it suffers from the same issues that you have just highlighted for passing the test to form square. My own personal choice was that infantry and cavalry can charge a unit in the same Activity Phase but have to hit on different flanks of the target unit. We are still testing these changes but we have been surprised by the results so far. No combined attacks is the drastic amendment for sure but I'll be honest the game did seem to have the correct 'feel'. Not a very satisfactory or analytical answer I know but there you are. Our problem is that we can't find any evidence that at this tactical level combined arms attacks were recorded. This is not to say that they never happened but if they did they seem to be as rare as rocking horse sh*t. I know that someone posted that the turns were 20 minutes or half an hour and so these attacks could be discrete within the game turn but I also dispute that. Given 16-22 turns per game then that would give a battle length of anywhere from five and a half to eleven hours which is an awful long time. That and the fact this game represents a key point in the main battle we can assume that it's not an action that lasts 5-10 hours. This would lead to a conclusion that the turn length is somewhat less than 20-30 minutes. We are going to try games on 8'x5' tables as we use a core force plus 2 brigades each side and we're finding that a 6'x4' table is just too small and doesn't allow for much manoeuvre. The point about a -1 to form square if hit in the flank does help and forces one to think about protecting flanks from marauding cavalry.

    Overall the ease with which you could co-ordinate combined arms attacks was too great an issue for us to ignore. These are house rules as we only play at our club and there will be eight or so of us involved. I agree that it's a fundamental change but every game was following the same formulaic pattern in which the attacker chose to have cavalry on the table at the start and the defender selected two walls to defend. We didn't want that.

    On another subject does anyone know if you can attach a file (in this case an MS Word file) to a post? I want to put up our terrain set up suggestions.

    Thanks, Kevin.

    Posted 1 year ago #

11. Peoples_Republic
    Member

    The thing is that even if some of those rules are more relistic which I'm not going to dispute now and what I tried to point out in the other thread was. Lassales is a combined arms game.Whether deliberate or not that's what it focus's on to make Napoelonic warfare more interesting and faster. On a Generalization there was: No cavalry or under 20% cavalry or all cavalry battles. a 40% to 60% cavalry mix is is unusal so Lasalle is focusing on the unusal and thats why there are alot of combined arms and compounded by forces being under a division or a division or a half. That is small battles.

    Personally I don't want to be confused by unoffical rules so when I go to offical tournaments. I get the house rules mixed up with the offical ones.It' ok if those rules havent been covered for senarios hence the night fighting rules. If you play to the house rules alot you will develop a tactic and style to suite those rules. But when u get to a tournment you'll go "what the" because that won't work anymore.Like the combine rules you are doing will give you more time to help an outnumbered infantry battalions so you will spread you forces out more and so on.

    Its my opinion and picking up from what you were saying in the other thread. Your having so much trouble with combined arms because your not keeping your forces together and leaving battalions isolated which is class 101 for napoleonics. Support your battalions with other battalions behind them and keep them together.

    You said "" I know that someone posted that the turns were 20 minutes or half an hour and so these attacks could be discrete within the game turn but I also dispute that. Given 16-22 turns per game then that would give a battle length of anywhere from five and a half to eleven hours which is an awful long time""

    It was me. My games average around 12 turns but that really is an outrageous comment and now I know your Napoleonic knowledge isn't creditable . No one can really say that battles on the whole were less than 5 hours most of the time. Because that is what you are saying 10 to 20 thousand men have a battle result in less than 5 hours usually. Some battles went for 3 days some longer. but it varied enormously. In summer there can be more than 12 hours day light as in waterloo.
    If you have alot of support brigades that is more men. 22 turns isnt going to be enough.
    In other words bigger battles take longer. There are so many varibles like what time of year it was. what was the whether like. Was there 2 cautious generals?.was it a siege situation?
    Another point is. when does a battle start? At recon when they spot one another. when there aproaching ? When they size one anothers deployments?. When there depolying?
    Its unfair of you to say when we fired the cannon on the reaction phase first turn thats when the battle started.thats not when the battle started in reality.

    This s why wise rule makers wont normally say " well they are 20 min turns exactly" for example.

    There were lulls in some battles because of faitage. Sometimes armies in range just stared one another out because of low ammuniton or they were trying to buy time for re inforcments to come.
    Like your not worried about the above in the rules or the fact that gametop players know what the preceice opposition forces are there. what there reserves are. where there coming on in the playing field but you take exception to combined rules. You just dont add up.

    I wasnt going to post on this thread just let it go and it will fissle out.but you were having another go at me saying Im incorrect. And you will confuse new people to the site.

    But whats really bugging me is your really disrespecting Sam plasting main core changes to the book on the website. And you haven't just been saying heres a few house rules .You have been saying in many ways. Our rules are better We know better than you. what you have done is wrong. Your unhistoric.that is basically what you have being saying and being really pushy.Its a game sped up to get a result in a afternoon. I like that the combined arms attacks on battalions is brutal and that it speeds up the game. All rule makers miss a few things or they can't cover everything. BUT You dont have to throw it in there faces.

    It would of been wiser to email him privately find out when hes doing reprint and ask him if you could have an input.

    Posted 1 year ago #

12. vilcum
    Member

    Steadythebuffs @

    Im too concerned with the scissors-paper-stone game “in which the attacker chose to have cavalry on the table at the start and the defender selected two walls to defend” , I think we will see much of these in tournaments (in pur club we play mostly historical or prepared scenarios).

    My private concerns with the total negation of combined arms is also not very analytical but as you point interest in things “feeling” as they feel in the epoch, as I pointed it feels strange to me that infantry sits idle in front of cavalry approaching them, in every report I see infantry took defensives measures as soon as cavalry was detected , in my own limited experiments combined arms threat is the only way of keeping good infantry honest , I will try to find an equilibrium wich likes our group as much as your variations likes yours.

    Even when I don’t share your opinions fully I am very interested on your experiments, keep up the good work

    For the file attachments, I think it is not possible to attach them directly on the forum, you should upload in a site of your convenience and give a link here. You could try attaching it as home rules in a new page in the scenario wiki, there are others who posted there alternative army list , etc

    Posted 1 year ago #

13. steadythebuffs
    Member

    Hi,

    Especially to the lovely and level headed Peoples Republic....

    ...I have actually followed Sam's rules for the forum which is to post house rules etc on the forum after play testing.

    I have never suggested that our rules are better they are just what we prefer to do. Other people have posted suggested changes as well and the only issue Sam has had with them is that they weren't play-tested. This is what we have done after play testing our own house rules. There are a few things that we want to change but that is up to us as it is for other people who have detailed amendments that they have made or changes they want. It doesn't mean that Sam has to listen, comment or otherwise get involved. What is quite clear is that players DO care about the rules - why else would we bother to enter things on the forum?

    You seem confused and for that I unduly apologise. Had I realised that your intellect was such that you were unable to differentiate between the rules in the rulebook and suggestions offered by members of the forum (to be ignored or otherwise by all and sundry) then I wouldn't have disoriented you. Any member of our club that deems to enter a Lasalle competition - at present none intend to but mainly because I don't think there are any in the UK currently - will have no trouble switching between the main rules and our house rules.

    My comment regarding the the length of a game turn was that Lasalle represents a key moment in a larger battle. I understand that key moments can last for a long time e.g. Hougoumont but usually key moments don't last eleven hours.

    The members of our club now using Lasalle have a combined 200-250 years of wargaming experience which includes an awful lot of reading and research. My posts are on behalf of the club and were purely intended to let other forum members who had suggested changes know what we were doing. The changes suggested aren't my changes they the changes that the club wish to do. These are based on the above knowledge. Sam's knowledge is certainly greater than our, even combined knowledge, and this shows in the rules that he has produced. We understand that some mechanisms have been introduced for game play e.g. artillery fall back and that these are ways to represent what actually happened rather than stating that they always limbered up and moved away from a threat. Our games are usually more than a 1 on 1 games and will be on larger tables. If we choose to introduce our own amendments that is up to us. The only reason for posting is that other people have also suggested changes. These are just our suggestions. As far as we're concerned people can use them, ignore them or do whatever they wish. No disrespect to Sam was ever intended as I'm sure it wasn't by other posters of the same nature on this forum.

    Our club has a lot of trouble with combined arms attacks because a large part of the club are competitive competition gamers and so will use any advantages in the rules. We had begun to self regulate ourselves by not deploying interspersed etc but this change was to moderate our own bad habits of not being able to help ourselves and use combined arms all of the time.

    The only piece of the diatribe that has offended is your comment that I have disrespected Sam. All the way through any posts I have stated quite clearly that we think his rules are excellent and that he is responsible for eight of us using our Napoleonic figures again after almost a decade. We have always followed his forum rules and as stated at the top of this post have entered the changes we have made for our own games after play testing. I freely admit that the play testing has a long way to go and that we may find that some of the changes aren't necessary or need modifying for our own use.

    I do not wish to be involved in a tit-for-tat argument or any 'flaming' on this forum. I have responded to the last post (in a overall civil way I hope) but will no longer respond to any posts by that member.

    Lastly, if any posts have offended Sam in any way then I unreservedly apologise as this was never, ever intended.

    Thank you, Kevin.

    Posted 1 year ago #

14. steadythebuffs
    Member

    Hi,

    Typical of a post to arrive after you've just stated 'last post' anyway...

    Mr Vilcum, I understand what you are saying with regards to our approach to combined arms attacks. We have had quite a lot of discussion as to what we want to do. As stated before the main reason for our wanting to change that rule is our own failings. We are wargamers and competition wargamers at that. We are used to looking for every possible advantage. We've tried to wean ourselves off of it but as with all addictions one of us falls off the wagon every now and then and we all follow. We are really just moderating ourselves. Apart from one new member the youngest in our club is approx 45 years old and the old synapses aren't what they used to be and you can't teach an old dog new tricks!

    In most of our research when a combined arms attack happened it was when a flank became exposed or a unit became fragmented and the cavalry could take advantage. Apart from shock cavalry very few would try charging a discplined flank protected infantry regiment. It would be madness and the cavalry arm wasn't usually frittered away as it was a very expensive part of the army. That is not to say that combined arms attacks never happended just that they were rare. We understand Sam's approach to combined arms especially when talking about competitions but our games are usually 4 hours plus long on a Friday night and involve more than two players.

    The terrain rules we use are a big departure from the main Lasalle rules. This is not to say that the terrain rules in the book aren't any good it's just that with multiple players we found that we were rolling several times to find a base table that everyone agreed on. Yet again a failing of the club and not the rules. I have adapted the terrain set up rules in Peter Pig games because we play them all (Bloody Barons, Civil War Battles, Washington's Army, Battle in the Age of War, Regiment of Foote etc) and so we are very familiar with this system. I'm a little uncertain about putting them up onto the forum because they are such a radical departure.

    I have no objection to people not agreeing with our changes. After all we are all different and wouldn't life be boring otherwise.

    Thanks for your input and happy gaming,

    Kevin.

    Posted 1 year ago #

15. vilcum
    Member

    Kevin, allways a pleasure exchanging ideas with educated and experienced people as you probed being.

    I don´t want to insist in the diferences -less after the indecorous aditions- , but would like to add that our group is very similar to yours (about 5 years younger in fact) and we like to "trick" with rules generally too, with lasalle we are doing an effort NOT to "adapt" too much, as we hope it to be to napoleonics the same as Fow to WWII (for the good), a quick and clear ruleset that opens oportunities to play in tournament with outsiders and renew the "old grognards" blood

    Regards,
    Manu

    Posted 1 year ago #

16. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    I have been a member of this forum for about 6 months. Looking at the posts over that time there seems to be a marked split between AB/Tournament and Historical/Table Top Teaser players. I am firmly in the latter category having only played 2 AB games and I have no interest in tournament play.

    Now I am sure there are players that like both styles of play, but the majority of posts clearly show a bias in one direction or the other by the poster. This often seems to lead to backbiting as one group does not seem to understand the other.

    Perhaps Sam could introduce a separate posting category for the two types of game. That way hopefully both camps would be satisfied.

    I can fully understand why the AB/Tournament players don't want lots of rule variations/amendments. On the other hand as I play scenarios I like rule variations very much. Nearly all my games have some scenario specific rules and I am also interested in experimenting with amendments, additions and variations to the core rules. These are easily mutually agreed between two players who are looking for an entertaining game.

    Personally I like Kevin's rule amendment ideas as posted here and am very glad that he took the trouble to share them. I will be trying them out in some of my own games. Anyone who owns a copy of Lasalle is free to use them as is or to amend as much as they like.

    I find some of the hostility and rudeness on this forum very objectionable. Not least because I am sure it puts off some potential contributors from posting anything for fear they will be shot down.

    With respect to the issue of how long an AB battle is Sam had mentioned that it was supposed to represent about 2 hours in an earlier post on this forum.

    Posted 1 year ago #

17. Max Shadow
    Member

    Interesting point Alan. I was wondering why some people got seemed to be upset by others using or suggesting house rules. Now I understand where they are coming from.

    Posted 1 year ago #

18. John de Terre Neuve
    Member

    I agree Max, I believe Alan has it right. I do use the Army Builder, but really only as a guideline to construct armies, I am much more interested in Historical Scenarios either real or imagined. I like to stick to the rules as much as I can, but at the same time scenario specific rules are a lot of fun to think about and to use. That is the great thing about the Scenario-Wiki. I believe that the strength of the Lasalle ruleset design is that it does allow some tinkering, I have especially enjoyed tinkering with a solo variation.

    It will be a real pity if "hostility and rudeness" persist, a lot of us like forums like this one and "La Bricole" as well as various yahoo groups, as they are a refuge from the nastiness of TMP.

    John

    Posted 1 year ago #

19. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    John I am much obliged to you for pointing me in the direction of 'La Bricole'. I had not come across this forum before. Definitely my kind of people. I really liked and identified with the 'La Bricole' Manifesto.

    Posted 1 year ago #

20. John de Terre Neuve
    Member

    No problem Allan, small group very pleasant, the moderator is on vacation for a couple of weeks, so it may be a little quiet. The knowledge base of the group is quite broad. Never a nasty word has been heard said!!

    John

    Posted 1 year ago #

21. Prinny
    Member

    I feel that Alan has hit the nail on the head,

    There are two "groups" that play this game, but I think that the AB/Tourny crowd are the ones wanting to tweak the game play mechanics, while the Historical are tweaking the map / scenario rules.

    By tweak I mean a small(ish) changes as I think we all enjoy this game, that is why we are here and sharing our thoughts on the ruleset.

    As I am in the AB/ Tounry camp what I am looking for with these tweaks is a good way to balance out some of the more gamey aspects of the rules, combined arm attacks and infantry in terrian. Apart from that I think the rule set is awsome for what I am after for my hobby time.

    It is always good that a games forum has people posting on it, as it lets new people know that the game set is a popular one and some debat is good, though at times it does seem to get a bit TMP in here.

    Posted 1 year ago #

22. Peoples_Republic
    Member

    ""The short answer is that something will change - either groups will make their own changes (as some NZ players are thinking for the next tournament at the end of this month), or a consensus change will end up approved by Sam.

    Cam ""

    So I feel its been a bit more than Where doing a few House rules. But to force those major changes on sam and anyone who are happy with them now.

    And there has been many other rude comments to people who don't agree with the combined arms changes.

    In the vein of Your unhistoric. Your Wrong and where right.

    Most people wont go to tournaments were the locals have practiced the house tournament rules and made major changes to the core rule book.

    I dont really think you can make core rule book tournament changes to a serious National tournment till you put out an updated rule book.

    To be fair Alan and others that are new to this post. This has carried on from the combined Arms post. And people who weren't following that post won't understand my reaction. My last post wasn't answered and they have carried on in this new one and I was going to leave them to it.
    But one of my posts in combined arms was referred too. Saying I'm wrong about the varied time lengths of battles. And they know what the average time length of a battle is. No one can say that because it varied greatly.

    what the changes are proposing to do is slow down the game and by telescoping it in to real time. when There is a compressed Time and length scale.

    Posting errata on websites is unfair to people who don't have the internet or go to clubs.
    But there not just tweaks there major changes to the core rules affecting scenairos.

    Posted 1 year ago #

23. Prinny
    Member

    I think Peoples Republic that you dont like what we are looking at and thats fine, but we are trying to come up with some ideas that work for us, to start with thats how that "other" topic was started.

    I think you will find that Steadythebuffs is not from NZ, rather he is from the mother country to lil old NZ.

    So it maybe right that we pinch some of his ideas though, as they do seem to align to what we are looking at here. All we are trying to do is have a space to debate what we would like to do to make the tourny/friendly scene here work so that other people that come in can enjoy they experiance with us. Who knows other countries may decide that the work we do works for them as well and a little players pack and be made.

    Im sure you are right, I am unhistoric, and also wrong on so many levels with my knowledge on Napolionics ( I only like it because of the colours and pretty uuniforms) personally I dont care how long a game turn is, all I want is that the interaction between troops looks/feels right and I get a result that seems right.

    As posted by steadythebuffs those are there just as house rules, and they are interesting to read, Cam and myself are they ones that feel they could be moved to a more competitive arena and we will try some out this weekend at our clubs comp.

    I dont mean to be picking on you Peoples Republic but you do seem to hate the idea of what we are doing and seem to be quiet aggressive in your posting towards this topic. I just dont see how what we are talking about will slow the game down at all, as the the errata point, I think in this day and age most people can get online (how good that connection is may in some countries be better than others "looking at you Telecom" ) so and online errata is fine for any rule set.

    Posted 1 year ago #

24. cam_millar
    Member

    Everyone is free to do what they want.

    In NZ, we have a pretty small group of players. After the 2nd competition here, there seemed to be consensus that some change was desirable for the next competition.

    There is a history for tinkering with rules for NZ competitions. DBR competitions have been pretty popular in NZ, but there was dissatisfaction with the points system. A Kiwipoints system was developed and is now used in competitions, and I suspect widely used in club and home games here. It keeps people happy, and may be one reason DBR has thrived here, but seems to have died elsewhere.

    But all this is about a small group of players in a particular place. What everyone else wants to do will be up to them. My only guess is that we are not alone in our thinking.

    I suspect Sam is unlikely to get violently annoyed if NZ players add some house rules for our competitions. And if he is, well it is a long long way to come down to stop us...

    Will anyone force changes on Sam - from what I can tell of Mr Mustafa, being bullied into making changes he disagrees with is not part of his character. But if we report we have sucessfully used specific house rules in our competitions, he may consider them as new optional rules. Any maybe other people will pick up those rules and use them too.

    Cam

    Posted 1 year ago #

25. muzfish4
    Member

    I am not a much of a wargames competition player.

    That said, I do play in a some semi-regular DBA tournaments where the structure of the game makes it a rather fun day out. I see the real drawcard of these events as a chance to play against people outside my usual circle of opponents and against armies I don’t usually face.

    Most of these competitions have some tweaking to the (very simple) basic rules of DBA – usually around BUAs and/or dismounting in case you’re interested.

    I don’t recall any problem with competitors being disadvantaged or put off by a few local rule modifications.

    I think what Mr Buffs is doing in putting up these ideas for discussion is a good thing and in line with the rules and spirit of this forum.

    I haven’t yet played enough Lasalle to decide if these suggestions will work for me but I do think that discussing ways to make an already very good game better is a positive idea.

    Posted 1 year ago #

26. Peoples_Republic
    Member

    Well Cam u said " Sam will" You seem to be 360 reversing. You don't seem to reading what was said or addressing what I said . Or even knowing what was said in previous posts.I just don't like people comming across as some kind of Authority when there not.It bugs me .I not really worried about combined arms changes because sam has no plans to do a re print let alone do rule modifying in the near future anyway.You do realise all the diagrams in the book with combined attack examples will have to be changed .If your group don't want other opinions dont post on here or say other people are wrong or un historic when its conjecture anyway. but I can't take this seriously any more and don't want to waste any more time on it so just dont say what I saying is wrong in other posts and u can carry on in your own little world.
    Seeya

    Posted 1 year ago #

27. vilcum
    Member

    It is really a pity that a constructive discusion and exchange of ideas degrades in a brawl full of discalification, as it is not the first thread in wich the same member degrades the quality I´m going to made mine the determination made by Steadythebufs

    I do not wish to be involved in a tit-for-tat argument or any 'flaming' on this forum. ... will no longer respond to any posts by that member.

    In a less polite but perhaps more clear to internet users speech, Don´t Feed the Troll.

    Posted 1 year ago #

28. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Couldn't agree more Vilcum. The member in question only joined on 27th August and must have signed up thinking this was TMP!

    Posted 1 year ago #

29. Nick the Lemming
    Member

    I also agree with vilcum. If we want to use houserules, then we will. We aren't forcing anyone else to use them, and it's why there's a forum for optional rules. If he's going to stay around, PR might do well to have a look at what Sam has been saying about optional rules, and the sources for some of the "official" optional rules in the optional rules download.

    Posted 1 year ago #

30. Sam Mustafa
    Le Grand Fromage

    "But whats really bugging me is your really disrespecting Sam plasting main core changes to the book on the website"

    I certainly have no objection to people using the website to posit optional rules or variants, particularly when they come from informed play.

    The criteria I have set for them becoming "official" optional rules has to do with taking time to play, discuss, and share them, to "bug-proof" them. This is particularly important since I'm playing Lasalle a lot less now due to all the playtesting for the new game, so I can't playtest everybody's proposed optional rule.

    " Looking at the posts over that time there seems to be a marked split between AB/Tournament and Historical/Table Top Teaser players. Perhaps Sam could introduce a separate posting category for the two types of game. That way hopefully both camps would be satisfied."

    My intent was that the Scenario Wiki was the place where people could create and discuss their historical scenarios for Lasalle.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.