Big Al

Activity

  • Hi Ken

    1) Disorder in hand to hand combat occurs as a result of the break test. Generally, it is the loser of the combat that takes a break test. I say generally because if the combat ends in a draw, either or both combatants could end up taking the test. If either combatant is shaken at the end of a drawn combat – Only a drawn combat – then they…[Read more]

  • Big Al replied to the topic Epic Waterloo – rules in the forum Black Powder 1 month ago

    I think it was a mistake making changes to the main book. It means that two people playing the game may have a different understanding of the rules because they are different. Neither would be wrong, just one would be misled. The mini rulebook (which I would never read because The print is too small) should be the same as the large format…[Read more]

  • Big Al replied to the topic About Face in the forum Black Powder 1 month, 1 week ago

    Don’t worry about disagreeing, Garry. I know the rules fairly well, but some bits slip through and that change is one of them. It was always a bone of contention in v1 and my suggestion wasn’t far off the change that is in V2. I’d still suggest some movement reduction in the turn around, to be honest, but if the rules state otherwise…..

  • Big Al replied to the topic About Face in the forum Black Powder 1 month, 1 week ago

    Technically, it is a formation change, so should take a full move, as does a Turn to Face. However, Some feel that that is a bit steep considering that a man just turns around on the spot (even ancient pikemen just pointed their stick at the sky and was able to do that pretty quick) and suggest that it takes only half a move. It is a change of…[Read more]

  • I don’t know, to be honest, because I am not doing Naps in another scale. I do have the ACW version and that has some from the Glory Hallelujah supplement, including a couple of scenarios.

    However, it shouldn’t matter because the rules haven’t really changed. The game is still the same, just a different scale. So, you just play it as you alway…[Read more]

  • Yes, but it isn’t that big a deal compared to the risk factor that I mentioned caused by ignoring the unit.

    Remember the rule about only being allowed to contact the quarter that your unit starts its turn in. If the majority of the unit is in your flank quarter, it can only contact that quarter if it charges, regardless of how far away it is a…[Read more]

  • Look, as I have said before, all Unclear Target does is excuse you from shooting at the closest target. As you know a unit is forced to shoot at the nearest target. If that is considered an Unclear Target (and remember that your opponent and you can agree the condition) then you can target the next closest instead. However, there is a risk…[Read more]

  • Quote “My only remaining question is on the Unclear Targets again.  When a unit is partially in your FoF to the flank, what determines “less than half” ?

    Finally, I’m not sure if the last comments are directed to me but I can assure you that “not reading the rules” is not my problem – I have read every line of these rules so many times it is ma…[Read more]

  • That is certainly true! There are way too many who just watch video tutorials or learn by playing with someone who has done that. Misinterpretations are one thing, but not reading the rules and then declaring something as being the rules is something else.

  • Fair enough, Garry! I just thought it worth adding.

  • Further to what Garry has said, the centrepoint of the unit frontage is generally used if your units are based a little differently. If you have, say, six bases each consisting of four figures, you will probably find that you do not have a central figure. So, using the unit’s front centre makes more sense. If, like me, you have six bases c…[Read more]

  • It might be to represent a smaller unit when dismounted. You know, horse holders will mean a small unit when dismounted while the extra stand when mounted makes it a standard unit. If so, it is just aesthetic because there isn’t any rule for having horse holders.

  • No, you hadn’t misinterpreted it. You were right the first time. Free moves only apply if an order is failed. That is the reason why it says “Even”. Admittedly, the wording could be different, but that issue was clarified by the author on the old Yahoo Group forum.

  • Yes, right now you can’t see why you would bring a unit on in March Column, but as I said earlier, the other advantage to being in Column is that the unit gets a free move if the order you roll for fails. On paper, it isn’t going to fail with the +1 modifier (I prefer to call it a -1 to the roll result), but in the heat of battle, the die rol…[Read more]

  • Regarding movement, I don’t think that you can compare the troops and their training to the modern day practices that you experienced. A standard unit is not a small squad but consists of something like 500 to 750 men. Getting them to move more quickly and all in step would be difficult. Then there is also the fitness. You guys were kept fit w…[Read more]

  • Hi there

    To answer your first question, the rules were written to be used for scenario games. Points are not necessary and were not intended. However, there was a basic points system in the original book. It was very basic and there were no army lists. The author of Glory Hallelujah has provided some pointed armies for those who want to use them…[Read more]

  • All of that is in the main rulebook for Mixed Formations. Clash of Eagles has just repeated it.

  • Beat me to it, Garry!

  • Big Al replied to the topic BP2 – re-rolls in the forum Black Powder 7 months ago

    Yes, I tend not to play the new command rules, but stick to the V1 option. I have played the new way and it works, but all your General is doing is bestowing a reroll. You can use him to issue orders, but he has to join the brigade and eplace the brigade commander for that turn. He can only do that if the brigade commander hasn’t issued any o…[Read more]

  • Load More