Musing: Is Black Powder the Age of Sigmar for Historicals?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Land_Stander**

I've had a chance to look at the Black Powder rules very briefly from a friend. While Black Powder certainly covers a wide period of history, it seems a little plain as a result. I didn't get to have a detailed look, but does anyone else feel like Black Powder is more of a rules to encourage you to buy and paint models for 1700-1900 warfare? Can someone give me perhaps their more experienced insight?

**Kilkrazy**

I haven't read them.

Obviously there must be some concern about the fact that the military art changed significantly between 1700 and 1900, not just in terms of equipment but also army organisation and tactics, and there are major differences depending on the theatre of war.

The Miniatures Page wrote:

Schogun 04 Nov 2009 5:49 a.m. PST
In WI 265, there is a conversation with Rick Priestly about the development of the rules. Two quotes explain a lot:

"So it's really a make-it-up-as-you-go adaptation of the Warmaster system into 28mm."

"The truth is that Black Powder is a slight parody in so much as it's a book about gaming presented as a set of wargaming rules. That was the idea anyway."

Warmaster Historical is okay, pretty good fun, more of a game than a simulation. I get the impression that Rick Priestly likes to write fairly old school rules that present a fun game without worrying about modern mechanics.

(IDK what Antares is like.)

Warmaster Historical certainly has more depth than AoS. You have flanking, formations, and command and control to worry about.

**durecellrabbit**

Not really sure what you mean by Age of Sigmar for historicals. I play Black Power quite frequently from Napoleonics to Sudan and the Boer War. The ruleset's biggest strength is it can play large battles quickly and with the potential for three moves (If you ace a command test) a lot can happen in a single turn. I do feel the game doesn't handle the later part of the period as well as it does Napoleonics but there are supplement rules and it's easy enough to make your own changes.

**Da Boss**

Could you explain a little better what you mean by the "AoS of historical gaming"? I find it hard to figure out what you mean.

**judgedoug**

Da Boss wrote:
Could you explain a little better what you mean by the "AoS of historical gaming"? I find it hard to figure out what you mean.

It's just a troll snipe at both Black Powder and Age of Sigmar. The two are not comparable at all. The highlight of this thread is that a mod posted in it without locking the thread in the first place.

**Easy E**

Well AoS is 4 pages and Black Powder is 200+ so if your only criteria is page count, than the answer is NO.

Black Powder is basically the way Rick and his buddies like to game. Rick just took the time to write it all down for us if we want to play the same way. That is pretty much the philosophy of the rules. It is a very "retro" style in that sense.

**judgedoug**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I haven't read them.

Uh..

Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously there must be some concern about the fact that the military art changed significantly between 1700 and 1900, not just in terms of equipment but also army organisation and tactics, and there are major differences depending on the theatre of war.

Correct, all covered in the ruleset and it's various supplements.

But you are right, the more generalized and catch-all a system is, the greater chance of it being ahistorical and bland.

Probably the worst offender is DBA/DBM, which has a bland and featureless ruleset, written for hyper balanced pick up and play tournament games which allows the mixing of all periods of ancient, classical, and medieval warfare. Now, that's a ruleset that throws any historical accuracy out the window (plus it's also not very fun)

I feel like I've fallen for a prank OP and a prank response...

**Land_Stander**

judgedoug wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
Could you explain a little better what you mean by the "AoS of historical gaming"? I find it hard to figure out what you mean.

It's just a troll snipe at both Black Powder and Age of Sigmar. The two are not comparable at all. The highlight of this thread is that a mod posted in it without locking the thread in the first place.

To answer everyone's question, and to deny that it is a "troll snipe" I mean that is Black Powder a rule set that lacks substance and is created for the sole purpose of encouraging people to buy models like AOS is.

I've heard that the rules before do okay for Napoleonics, but it makes me wonder why they would create a rule set that covers such a diverse period of conflicts other than to sell models.

I get the supplements idea that Kilkrazy mentioned, They probably should have just made two separate rule books, one covering the 1700s up to the End of Napoleonics, then another book covering the rest of the conflicts in the 1800s, perhaps even dabbling into WW1. That way they could have focused the rules a bit more?

**infinite_array**

Land_Stander wrote:

To answer everyone's question, and to deny that it is a "troll snipe" I mean that is Black Powder a rule set that lacks substance and is created for the sole purpose of encouraging people to buy models like AOS is.

I've heard that the rules before do okay for Napoleonics, but it makes me wonder why they would create a rule set that covers such a diverse period of conflicts other than to sell models.

No, it's a set of rules that Priestly used to play with the Perry twins and others for the collections they already had.

Some highlights from an interview back in 2010:

WI: This unique approach to basing is both daring and enduring I think, it’s a really welcome aspect of the rules that you don’t have to change the basing on your existing models, an approach that gives an instant appeal to the rules. How did that idea come about?

Rick: It’s because when we play round at John’s he has one basing convention, and we have to cope with that, and when we play round at the Perrys’, it’s another basing convention and sometimes we’ll be using armies from Dave Andrews or Ali Morrison or Tim Adcock’s collection. They are all based in whatever fashion they felt like basing them, so we had to be quite adaptable. It’s really just the footprint of the unit that counts rather than the actual number of figures in it or the way it’s based. There are some things that you do have to bear in mind with variable basing of course. If a unit has got very large bases, it could cover a very broad frontage, which makes its shooting relatively ineffective, because it’s spreading its shots over, say, two feet instead of one foot – we have rules to adapt around that kind of thing. On the whole it’s a game you can play with no bases at all, if you wish, or any style of basing your figures happen to be on.

WI: And that element of casualness with regard to basing, coupled with the lack of a formal points system, helps to add to the friendly aura of the rules.

Rick: It’s interesting because wargaming does tend to split into two camps. There are people who really enjoy the competitive side of wargaming and their social lives become that. And they’re not necessarily hard-nosed, brutal, crazed guys. Most tournament players I have played against have been charming, friendly and helpful. But they have a certain mind set, which is that “I’m here to play a game” and they expect their opponents to have the same mind set. Whereas, I think when we are playing round at Alan Perry’s house, for example, we bring a different mind set to it and I think it’s more typical of the other type of gamer, which is where you actually get together with your friends, specifically to have a social evening in which you’ll push toy soldiers over a table top and create something that’s a piece of theatre. You’re playing as much as you’re gaming. The conversation, and the drink, and the food are all equally important. I love going round to the Perrys’ because just handling the toy soldiers gives me a chance to look at them and admire them; it’s a fantastic thing. They both like the tables to have a strong aesthetic quality; I think Alan Perry’s table tops are the most beautiful wargames table tops I have ever seen. It’s just so appealing when playing games.

WI: One of the most striking features for any gamer reading the back cover of the book will be the claim that the rules cover an ambitious 200 years of military history; from 1701 to 1899. Is it really possible to cater for the wars of Marlborough and the Boer Wars in one rule set?

Rick: It’s a problem, but it’s a problem you overcome with specific rules. The way the game is portrayed, it’s quite a big sweep, so you can cope with any type of battle. You’ve got armies moving in battalions, a squadron of cavalry or batteries of artillery all in formal lines. And that’s pretty much the case from the beginning of the 18th century right through until… probably the Franco-Prussian war, to be honest! We took it to 1900 because the Perrys make some Boer War figures, so we did a Boer War game and we found that it worked quite well. We had to adapt some of the formation rules and we had to make changes. But we do that for every period. So, if we were going to play a game based on the Spanish Succession, at the very beginning of the period covered, we would have different rules for manoeuvring the units and formations; these things were less developed in that period.

Napoleonic armies have special rules that allow them to adapt their formations and move in mixed formations. You can tailor the rule set to the period quite easily.
The adaptions are all described in the rule book. They are covered as a series of mechanics and the idea is that whatever period you wish to represent using these rules, you can adopt the mechanic we describe or you can invent your own.

There are different ideas and some work better for games that represent big battles and some work better for games that represent small battles. So it really is a tool kit because that’s what we do… Because we make it up as we go along, applying experience and judgements.

**Manchu**

Land_Stander wrote:
is Black Powder a rule set that lacks substance and is created for the sole purpose of encouraging people to buy models

This is wrong and indeed so very far wrong that you can rest assured that you currently don't have even the faintest inkling of the rule set. Hail Caesar, Pike & Shotte, and Black Powder are designed to play largish battles in a streamlined way.

Land_Stander wrote:
like AOS is

Completely debatable - but this is not the place for that debate. Thanks!

**Da Boss**

What I like about the games is the fact that they are relatively streamlined but also very flexible. The way they cover such a large expanse of time in an easy to process way is a big part of the appeal. My (long planned and little worked upon) historical project is to detail the conflicts of my home region from the dark ages until just prior to the Napoleonic era. I was struggling with the scope of the project and found it a bit intimidating trying to figure out what systems would be best for each period. Finding Priestly's trio of rule sets was a bit of a godsend - attractively presented, easy playing and with an approach that left the basing of figures to me. It being done by a big name in miniature wargaming is also a bit of a plus for a noob like me.

I have since branched out a bit, but Priestly's schema for mass battle historicals gave me the impetus and confidence to actually start working on my project.

So in that sense, they sold some minis, I guess. But unlike AoS, they were from a variety of manufacturers, so Rick et al only really benefited from the book sales.

**Kilkrazy**

judgedoug wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I haven't read them.

Uh..

Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously there must be some concern about the fact that the military art changed significantly between 1700 and 1900, not just in terms of equipment but also army organisation and tactics, and there are major differences depending on the theatre of war.

Correct, all covered in the ruleset and it's various supplements.

But you are right, the more generalized and catch-all a system is, the greater chance of it being ahistorical and bland.

Probably the worst offender is DBA/DBM, which has a bland and featureless ruleset, written for hyper balanced pick up and play tournament games which allows the mixing of all periods of ancient, classical, and medieval warfare. Now, that's a ruleset that throws any historical accuracy out the window (plus it's also not very fun)

I feel like I've fallen for a prank OP and a prank response...

Thanks for actually contributing some content.

DBX for all its (in your opinion) faults is one of the most popular and successful Ancient/Mediaeval rulesets ever.

Now to get back to the topic...

**Manchu**

Da Boss wrote:
gave me the impetus and confidence

Very good point about confidence - historicals gaming can be really intimidating, not least of all because it is hard to remember what being a new player is actually like. WLG's rules are really approachable in this light, although they can still be a bit confusing if you are coming to them with no other background than something like 40k or WM/H. But it is a damn site friendlier to new players than some comb-bound MS Word doc. Richard Clarke has an editorial in the latest issue of WS&S that questions whether all the fluff, pictures, and examples of play are really necessary. I think they certainly are!

**Big P**

Black Powder, the main book, is very bland in terms of periid feel for the specific periods it covers, as to be expected when covering such a diverse period of warfare.

We have used it alot and find the additional period specfic books add the 'meat' to the bare bones so to speak and find these give a far better period game for the specific periid.

**Manchu**

The Black Powder corebook really won me over when I read a caption under a picture of some marching Hanoverians to the effect of, give 'em hell Jerry!

**TheCustomLime**

Da Boss wrote:
Could you explain a little better what you mean by the "AoS of historical gaming"? I find it hard to figure out what you mean.

Maybe in the rulebook somewhere Europe exploded and Napoleon becomes god?

**Land_Stander**

Thanks Infinite Array (especially) and others for your input. I guess I fall closer to the hardcore type of "I'm here to play the game" than the "Look at me, playing with toys and enjoying snacks!" side of things. Maybe the Black Powder rules wouldn't be my cup of tea coming in from my background (Though I still think Bolt Action is really good for it's thematic feel).

**Manchu**

Land_Stander wrote:
I guess I fall closer to the hardcore type of "I'm here to play the game" than the "Look at me, playing with toys and enjoying snacks!" side of things.

WTF???

Granted I don't know anything about you but I somewhat doubt you (or any of us) will ever be as "hardcore" of a gamer as Rick Priestley.

**Easy E**

I think he is referring to the way Rick approaches games. There is no doubt Rick is "hardcore" in the sense that he is a serious and professional gamer. However, his mindset approach to it is more about "getting a game with friends" than "Let's skip the chit-chat and game!" side of things. This is something that seems pretty clear to me in his rules-writing style.

He wants to make and play good games, but he doesn't loose sight of the fact that the goal of the game is to get together with your buddies and push toy soldiers around for fun.

His style is all about the 'Gentleman Gamer" style. That style is very British, a bit Retro, and more focused on the total picture of gaming as story-telling, visual aesthetic, a close-run thing, between friends, and at someone's house who is the host.

.... or I could just be making stuff up.

**Maniac_nmt**

Frankly, the general concept of line up and trade shots really did not change for hundreds of years. It was one of the glaring problems in WW1 as weapons had advanced so much that you took horrendous casualties as a result. Tactics and mindset for a large chunk of it was still mired in fighting Napoleon.

So a similar core set of rules could cover many large scale engagements with blocks of various size units moving about and shooting at each other. A few tweaks and off you go for various sub set periods.

Hail Caesar is an update to the old Warmaster Ancients book. You can pit any sort of army up against any other, not unlike WMA. The rules work in terms of blocks of guys/horse/chariots. Will they capture all nuances? No. After all, a Norman combined arms army would utterly murder a Greek hoplite force. Iron/steel crossbow bolts would shred bronze defences and a highly mobile cavalry would hit the flanks and roll up the line with no problem. However, as gamers we still like to play those sorts of things without abject annihilation being the name of the game.

**Manchu**

One hesitates to put words in another poster's mouth ... or post? ... but there is a distinction often drawn among wargamers, and in fact I have invoked it many times on these boards, Kilkrazy has even done so in this very thread, and that's between game and simulation. You may recall, at least according to my theory, that the point of a game is to see who wins while the point of a simulation is to see what happens. I think HC, P&S, and BP strike a very good balance on this game-simulation spectrum. The thrust of the rules is pretty obviously "gameplay" rather than "reenactment." But there's really no listbuilding mini-game, which I wager is at the heart of OP's complaint. Funny enough, the listbuilding mechanic is the lever companies like GW and PP have traditionally used to sell their miniature lines. HC/P&S/BP, Battlegroup, and even AoS are designed from a different point of view, to allow people to use what they already have and to collect whatever they want going forward, so the charge here is ironic as well as misguided.

Also, if one approach is the way gentlemen do it, you have to wonder how to characterize the other approach ...

**Kilkrazy**

List building is uncommon in historical games because as far as possible designers and players have always been trying to discover the most historically realistic and accurate troop types and numbers for an army. This is attempted using archaeological evidence if nothing else exists.

When people talk about an army list for WRG Ancients or De Bellis Antiquitatis, for instance, it means there is a pretty standard selection of troops with perhaps a number of options.

For example, an Early Imperial Roman army always includes lots of legionnaries and auxiliaries, and not much cavalry, because that is how Roman armies of the time were set up. They might also have employed local mercenaries or allies, so there is a bit of flexibility.

If you don't like that style of army, there are hundreds of others from which to pick. But the concept of customising your army in detail, like in 40K or AoS, doesn't really exist in historical games.

That doesn't prevent historical players from playing unhistorical match-ups, of course.

**Manchu**

It has been creeping into historicals through Flames of War and Bolt Action (not to mention Osprey's blue series, etc etc). In fact, I just read a reveiw of Team Yankee in WS&S describing it as "more game than simulation." That obviously covers more ground than points-based listbuilding but it just as obviously includes it.

**Big P**

Points based army lists originated with historical games... the difference is using it to sell a range of figures i guess.

As for 1700 to 1900 military tactics and doctrine 'not changing much'... I will just go and weep into my book on Seven Years Tunic Buttons...

**Kilkrazy**

Manchu wrote:
It has been creeping into historicals through Flames of War and Bolt Action (not to mention Osprey's blue series, etc etc). In fact, I just read a reveiw of Team Yankee in WS&S describing it as "more game than simulation." That obviously covers more ground than points-based listbuilding but it just as obviously includes it.

Are we talking about army list selection or points or game versus simulation or all the above as a combination of the characteristics of Black Powder? I would argue it is pretty much standard of historical games that in any particular period your selection of units, weapons and even tactics, is limited to what was historically available.

For example, a Union army in the ACW might like to equip itself with all repeating breech-loading rifles, and gladly pay the necessary points cost, but these were in very short supply so there would be a rule to prevent this.

Of course you can always ignore rules and play with all breechloaders, which would be fun, however at this point you are going into alternate history.

Skirmish games usually have more flexibility, and to some extent FoW, Bolt Action and the Osprey Wargames books are skirmish/mass skirmish. Your ACW skirmish could be about a squad of Berdan's Sharpshooters, all carrying breechloaders and expert marksmen, a tiny part of the total Union army.

If you play a mass battle game of ACW or Ancients, though, the army under your command represents a very large proportion of the entire nation's forces, so they are a lot more averaged out, if you see what I mean.

**Da Boss**

I think that the point of simulation vs. game is much more "live" in Historicals than it is in Sci Fi and Fantasy for self evident reasons.

At the same time, a lot of what we think we know about ancient warfare particularly is conjecture. There is little enough hard evidence about quite a lot of it. So there's room for flexibility there.

I think every historical gamer has to fall somewhere on the simulationist/gamer spectrum. Coming from a Fant/Sci background, I'm probably more of the gamer side of things in how I look at the actual playing of the game, but how I go about planning and painting my armies tends toward the simulation end of things.

I mean, one reason my project is stalled is that I'm spending time (fruitlessly) trying to figure out what colours should be used for the various factions I want to use, and checking into what sorts of weapons were used before I assemble the models and so on. The fact that the BP/PS/HC books give me some background on this in an easy to access format is a really good thing for me and is helping me to plan out what I want to do. (I think I will eventually have to bite the bullet and start painting though- especially as our lovely moderation/admin team have bitten the bullet and split the fora in the way I asked! Thanks guys, btw!)

**Manchu**

@Kilkrazy

The game-simulation spectrum can apply to any scale of rule set; for example, I agree with your characterization of Warmaster as more on the game end, which I think definitely carries over to Black Powder. Separately, the mechanic of listbuilding (especially points-based) is just one possible characteristic of rule sets that lean toward game and away from simulation. By contrast, on the simulation side of the spectrum, there is usually a scenario that calls for forces to more-or-less accurately represent those which were historically present. Black Powder, in its core book and expansions, has a little of both.

@DaBoss

I know what you mean ... my ECW project never got off the ground, partially because I could not figure out how to paint the miniatures quickly enough (i.e., when the fires of enthusiasm were burning high) even with the great introductory material from the P&S rulebook. So I have sort of circled back, picking up Osprey books here and there, and it will get done eventually ... or not, like everything! But as to your point about Fantasy and Sci Fi falling more on the game side of things, I really agree and I think that is largely because of the way the big name product lines in these genres have heretofore been sold. Perhaps AoS will help change this?

**Da Boss**

Aye. I've got to say, the "project" nature of Historicals has been an eye opener for me. I've sort of accepted that I want to all the various sides in a series of historical conflicts, and make my own themed terrain for it. So really, I don't have to worry about much other than ensuring that I give myself a fair game when I demo it with people. The PUG, the tournament game - two of my main modes of interaction with the gaming side of the hobby til now, they just don't feature.

What's weird about that is suddenly, I only have to please myself. I can do whatever I want to do, and the only question anyone else has to ever ask is "Hey, do I want to play a game or not?"

I get that that is what AoS is trying to do as well. I don't like it, in that context, because (and this is probably just a learned prejudice) the mechanics of list building help to tell me some of the story of the world, you know? Like whether something is Core, Special or Rare actually imparts setting information to me and allows me to understand and picture the setting more clearly. In historicals, that is no as important because a huge part of the engagement is doing your ameteur historian research into "your" conflict and figuring that stuff out yourself. With a made up setting, that's a bit harder to do.

Ironically, I would have been happier with this approach in the old setting, as it was more established and "historical" in how it was put together. Since AoS setting is vaguer and more "anything goes" , it's harder for me to connect with.

Anyway, that's a big digression.

I think part of the danger for me anyway with historicals is that there is actually just so much information out there. I'm enjoying the research so much I keep slowing myself down when it comes to the project. And each story and time period is linked so clearly to the next. What started for me as a purely dark ages concept has gradually branched out into this sort of overly ambitious project, probably the most ambitious project I've ever tried to do. Plus, I have to paint an assload of Celts. Stripes and checks man. What were they thinking, those tartan wearing bastards.

Some days, after work, it's just easier to sit down and paint another 3 gribblies from a board game and chill out

**Manchu**

This is actually why I really like LotR/Hobbit SBG; I have a strong enough sense of it as a setting that battles can feel very "historical" but "ahistorical" conflicts don't bother me nearly as much (for example, I just wouldn't play WW2-era Japanese fighting Finns or similar) so I can also enjoy the more "gamey" aspects of list building ... although list building in that game is way more relaxed than what you find in WHFB et al. I can undertsand why not having those strict parameters could make the setting feel more abstract; I think the WHFB setting was exploded into abstraction to help support a less demanding listbuilding mechanic.

Of course, anyone who plays historicals will have to discover for themselves what kind of tolerance they have for ahistorical or un-historical content in the wargaming.

**Da Boss**

I think you're right about that and I do see a lot of people going all out with that sort of freedom - look at Bottle's excellent plog for example.

I also feel the same about LOTR, which is my favourite Fantasy game in a lot of ways.

With historicals, I think what really kills me is when there's conflicting information on how something was, so I know I'm going to have to decide which source I like best and go with it, and it's going to niggle at me forever that it might have been wrong.

There's also the fact that a lot of "iconic" stuff from history like horned helmets on vikings or chariots for Irish celts is probably ahistorical despite being popular and cool. I know I'm going to build some chariots despite there being very little evidence outside of myths and oral history that they were ever used, and the country mostly being a forested bog ringed by mountains and hills.