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.

 Manchu wrote:
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 ...

I think you are onto something Manchu.

BTW: I mostly refer to it as the "Gentlemanly Way" (A term Priestley himself uses or eludes to in the Black Powder rulebook IIRC) in the sense that it organized around a nuclear social group where the main objective is simulation, as you put it. The game is the fulcrum of a larger social interaction.

The other method I typically refer to as the "Gamecentric Model" the focus is on getting to the decisive action of the game itself and determining the outcome.

Let me be clear, neither way is better than the other in my mind. I know which I prefer, and I have an opinion for the style that Mr. Priestley generally writes too. So, I have said my piece and really don't want to go down that rabbit hole too far.

On Topic- Isn't every miniature war games rule set an excuse to buy/sell models? Especially one made by a company that sells said models? If it isn't, they might be doing it wrong.

I disagree that there is a fundamental divide between enjoying a social evening of war games and enjoying a social evening of war simulation games. People can enjoy social interaction while pursuing a hopefully more simulationist type of game.

(To a greater or lesser degree we are all deluling ourselves about how accurate our games/simulations are.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree that there is a fundamental divide between enjoying a social evening of war games and enjoying a social evening of war simulation games. People can enjoy social interaction while pursuing a hopefully more simulationist type of game.

(To a greater or lesser degree we are all deluling ourselves about how accurate our games/simulations are.)

Fair enough. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole any further as it is not needed here.

Let's instead discuss what were the "goals" of the Black Powder rules and if it succeeded or failed at achieving its goals? Naturally, such a discussion may be subjective in nature as i do not recall any Designer's Notes in the Black Powder rules themselves. I may have to go back and look closer.

 Da Boss wrote:
probably ahistorical despite being popular and cool

Like Ancient Irish with their attack hounds? I'm guilty of that one!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People can enjoy social interaction while pursuing a hopefully more simulationist type of game.

I'm not sure if I posted anything to give the impression that I think otherwise but if so it was not my intention. But I do think there is a tremendous amount of truth to this:

 Easy E wrote:
[...] organized around a nuclear social group where the main objective is simulation, as you put it. The game is the fulcrum of a larger social interaction.

Except insofar as it necessarily implicates the game-simulation spectrum. There is a style of gaming where socializing is more prominent as opposed to a style where getting games played is more prominent. I'd say that's a different spectrum; although there is some correlation between rule sets that emphasize gameplay with events that emphasize getting games played (i.e., certain rule sets are more appropriate than others for tournament gaming).

I just wanna know where the mountains are in Ireland... cos I aint seen any. Got some feckin big hills though people like to call mountains... As for all trees and bogs... it aint.

No game of toy soldiers is a simulation of warfare. All are games, but some have a higher degree of historical content, or to use another buzzword I dislike, 'realism'.

The best a game can achieve, in my view, is to produce a period of fun and enjoyment for thise involved and offer a degree of period 'feel' for those players, but of course based on their preconceptions of the specific historical period they are playing.

If a game is fun, if it reflects the time period and the way the armies fought, and offers the players the feel and challenges of that period too, then its done its job. If it misses one of those, then its likely to not last long as a game system in our group.

Its a hard challenge to met for a games designer, and to build in an ability to play vast games fast, as Blackpowder does, adds further difficulties. I got a little bored of 'basic' Blackpowder as a system, but have rediscovered it as the period specific supplements have built those missing factors of period feel onto it.

On the topic of list building(or lack of it) as someone who really enjoys it, i found that i get the same sort of enjoyment doing research trying to figure out what regiments i was going to paint my Austrians for black powder as.
Though i have lost most my info since getting a new laptop. >.>

Big P wrote:
I just wanna know where the mountains are in Ireland... cos I aint seen any. Got some feckin big hills though people like to call mountains... As for all trees and bogs... it aint.

*rolls eyes*
Sure, technically none of our hills are tall enough to be classified as mountains, but I didn't want to bore readers here with a long digression into the technicalities of Irish Geography. And in any case, the height is not the important thing when it comes to ease of traversal, but rather the slope. And Irish hills do have very steep slopes, rising suddenly out of the landscape. But cheers for the smartarse comment.

Also, my comment about trees and bogs was again a simplification for ease of communication. But I'm talking about the dark ages here, when a pretty damn large part of the country was forested, and those forests trapped water creating boggy ground. There were of course areas which were not, but whatevs. And Ireland is undeniably a boggy country compared to many, even if it's not all bog.

You know that this sort of snarky nitpicking is one of the things that puts people off historical gaming, right?

Ye need to learn to take a bit of jokey ribbing too... Life will be easier. Not everything is there to offend peoples sensibilities, so my apologies if you took offence at a mountain being called a hill. If that comment puts people off historical gaming they must be delicate souls though... Never expose them to the Napoleonics forum on TMP!

Climbed some of those hills... and they are bloody steep. Also plenty of glacier induced sheer drops. Also stunning landscapes, the Wicklow Mountains are a favourite haunt of mine. Love exploring the abandoned villages and the like. Truly beautiful countryside. Though was in West Cork last weekend and the rolling landscape is also a stunner... and the hedgerows are almost bocage like!

But if ye cant take a tongue in cheek comment and think that's nitpicking... we wont discuss German tank colours!

Then Im a real bore...

Could be worse though, could be Napoleonics.

Black Powder is for Napoleonics.

Big P wrote:
Ye need to learn to take a bit of jokey ribbing too... Life will be easier. Not everything is there to offend peoples sensibilities, so my apologies if you took offence at a mountain being called a hill. If that comment puts people off historical gaming they must be delicate souls though... Never expose them to the Napoleonics forum on TMP!

Climbed some of those hills... and they are bloody steep. Also plenty of glacier induced sheer drops. Also stunning landscapes, the Wicklow Mountains are a favourite haunt of mine. Love exploring the abandoned villages and the like. Truly beautiful countryside. Though was in West Cork last weekend and the rolling landscape is also a stunner... and the hedgerows are almost bocage like!

But if ye cant take a tongue in cheek comment and think that's nitpicking... we wont discuss German tank colours!

Then Im a real bore...

Could be worse though, could be Napoleonics.

Hey, sorry that I took your comment the wrong way - tone is hard to read on the internet. An emoticon sometimes helps!

I'm from Wexford originally, worked for a summer in the Wicklow hills ( ) out behind Glendalough. Lovely place, but the midges get out of hand! West Cork is gorgeous, the mountain road from Kenmare to Skibbereen is something else. Ireland is pretty lucky for having such a wide range of geologies and landscapes on such a small island - when I get a train in Germany there's some beautiful rolling landscape and intact forest often rolling past the window, but the variance in landscape for the distance travelled is not too much compared to home. Look at the Wexford Pale where I come from compared to the massive expanse of Mayo.

Anyhow. Off topic stuff here. Though for me, recreating the ecology and landscape of Dark Ages Wexford is a major interest (I'm an ecologist by training) so I've done a lot of looking into what sort of forest cover and wetland habitat was in the area back then. Finding tree minis to represent Sallie groves has been a weirdly difficult challenge - most wargaming trees are spreading oaks, not thickets of dense, skinny willow.

(I really need to get moving on this project, don't I. Sigh! When I finish painting the minis from Descent.)

Was down at Skibbereen over Easter! Was staying in a 'Pod' near Drimoleague. We had torrential rain in the morning and brilliant sunshine in the afternoon... Cant beat it!

I think Ireland is one of the most beautiful countries to travel in, even when its raining... Which it does an awful lot!

I know the midges at Glendalough very well, fortunately we tend to keep our walks up around St. Kevin's way most of the time. Took a spin up there when we had some snow this year, was glorious in the snow and mist... Like something out of Lord of the Rings!

Look forward to seeing what ye do with terrain for an Irish Dark Age setting... Our only foray so far into Irish based games has been 20th century conflicts of the War of Independence and the Civil War. Quite fancy using the new 'Blood Eagles' rules to do some skirmish games set in Ireland.

Simulation is a funny word. It means different things to different people. Sets of rules focus on what the authors feel are the aspects of warfare that adhere to their ideas.
Even the same author may write different sets of rules to focus on different aspects.

Black Powder and its sisters fit into my concept of simulation at the level of play it is supposed to represent.
The commander of a force of the size depicted in Black Powder is concerned with the disposition of units, perhaps their formations, their moral, their abilities in relation to the rest of the force and the enemy.
The game "simulates" (as much as any game can simulate) the leadership problems of the battlefield.

I prefer games to focus on morale and leadership as simulation than on minutiae of data and adherence to procedure that I feel does not necessarily simulate anything. That's my personal preference.
In this sense, Black Powder is very much a modern set of rules, rather than the "old school" style of rules that we used to play 20-30 years ago.

Black Powder is a set of rules to play with toy soldiers, the same as everything else we play with. It is a "serious" set of rules in that it aims to provide a fun evening playing a game that models combat in a certain way. It gives plausible results and provides players with the same types of decisions and frustrations that commanders in the field at their level would face.
If the model used doesn't match your own notions, then that is fine. That doesn't make it any less of a simulation.

The main rulebook is vanilla on purpose. It's a tool kit, it expects the players to know the history and use the kit to make the rules fit into their chosen time period. The supplements are there for those who do not want to do that kind of work or want help at a starting point. They are not the last word on a period and they take their own assumptions that may not coincide with your own.

Rick Priestly was a historical wargamer before he designed fantasy and sci-fi rulesets and that has always been where his personal interests lay.

 Manchu wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
[...] organized around a nuclear social group where the main objective is simulation, as you put it. The game is the fulcrum of a larger social interaction.

Except insofar as it necessarily implicates the game-simulation spectrum. There is a style of gaming where socializing is more prominent as opposed to a style where getting games played is more prominent. I'd say that's a different spectrum; although there is some correlation between rule sets that emphasize gameplay with events that emphasize getting games played (i.e., certain rule sets are more appropriate than others for tournament gaming).

I feel like we need a Matrix soon to keep this all straight!

On one access would be Simulation vs game and on the other would be social vs. completion and then we could map rules onto the matrix!

Kind of like effort vs. impact matrixes:

Good idea, Easy E - just use a chart that is legible in both worksafe and 2012/classic Dakka themes.

Big P wrote:
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...

It was meant that if one block of rules is sufficient to cover bronze age war up to the renisance 'cause a block of sharp sticks fought another block of sharp sticks' is right, then yeah, big line o guys vs big line o guys is perfectly fine.

A core rule set can be used to cover the basics and allow for tweaks, custom unit tweaks, period specific rules, and so forth.

Or is Ancient cavalry really up for tackling a mailed, stirrup backed (which pretty radically changed what you could do with cavalry) couched lance charge?

I'm not overly familiar with BP, but Hail Caesar would essentially suffer the same criticism (as would WAB, WMA, Saga, others). Those other systems work reasonably well to capture enough of the flavor that you can tweak the rest if you want or not if you don't.

I will say some form of points is useful for scenario balancing. We play Ronin a bit, and I've done several successful scenarios for it. My points aren't exact matches, but having values has enabled me to balance things better than if there had been none. HC at least has books for that if you want to use them. The other way to handle it is through victory conditions other than kill the other guy. The over matched force has to have some way they can 'win' that isn't impossible, or it is no fun in playing.

So, HC and even Bolt Action both talk about using custom scenarios. I like hidden objectives for each team. Muskets and Tomahawks has the fun bit of sub plots for each player's 'leader figure' which can alter the outcome of the game and is something to explore.

Yep... Id say any rules that try and cover 1000+ years of warfare in one go will have issues.

My personal preference is for rules designed to fit a specific period from the ground up. That, for me, gives me a system that I seem to enjoy more as it, hopefully, reflects the tactical and doctrinal influences of the period.

You don't need points at all for any game. Scenarios with set objectives or based on historical actions are just as much, if not more, fun to play out. Also using points doesn't have to rule out the use of scenarios or objective based play either. All three can feature in the same game happily.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

Big P wrote:
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...

It was meant that if one block of rules is sufficient to cover bronze age war up to the renisance 'cause a block of sharp sticks fought another block of sharp sticks' is right, then yeah, big line o guys vs big line o guys is perfectly fine.

A core rule set can be used to cover the basics and allow for tweaks, custom unit tweaks, period specific rules, and so forth.

Or is Ancient cavalry really up for tackling a mailed, stirrup backed (which pretty radically changed what you could do with cavalry) couched lance charge?
... ...

Probably not, but when would they ever fight each other? If by time travelling it could be arranged, the ancient armies were often much larger and better organised than mediaeval European knight armies. The extra amount of resources that goes into a knight makes him a more expensive (economically or points wise) unit than an Alexandrian cavalryman.

If you want a game where an Alexandrian army of 350 BC can have a fight with a feudal English army of 1250 AD, you have to make some compromises with realism. The amount of compromise depends on how detailed you want to make your rules.

In WRG Ancients, Alexanders cavalry are Heavy Cavalry, Lance, Shield. English feudal knights are HC, L, Sh until they get full mail when they become Extra Heavy Knights. No account is given to having stirrups, but it could be.

In "reality", Alexander would probably try to get the knights to charge his pike phalanx, where they are unlikely to make much of an impact.

There are some things that don't change, like the marching rate of infantry and cavalry, and the range of man-portable weapons, until you get into very modern times. That means you can have a set of core rules with specialist books covering the parts of warfare that do change dramatically from one era to another, or else, different books using common concepts of organisation and modifications for different periods.

Lots of rules have been organised this way. WRG Ancients was also used for the basis of WRG Renaissance and WRG Napoleonic. Most of Baccus 6mm's Polemos rules use similar mechanics from Seven Years War to Napoleonic. Field of Glory has been adapted to Field of Renaissance and Field of Napoleonic.

What matters is how well the variant books or supplements reflect the changed circumstances of warfare, such as improvements in equipment and tactics.

Obviously all this is irrelevant to AoS because a set of fantasy rules can include anything the designer wants, the wilder the better, really.

AoS obviously is written to sell the new kits. GW are in the model sales business. You could play the rules with non-GW figures if you wanted, and the look and feel would be different.

Warlord Games produce historical kits. Obviously they would like you to buy their kits for use with Black Powder, however anyone else's historical figures will do just as well. You will also find that figures based for Black Powder will usually be playable with rival historical rules like Field of Napoleonics or Fire & Fury.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

Big P wrote:
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...

It was meant that if one block of rules is sufficient to cover bronze age war up to the renisance 'cause a block of sharp sticks fought another block of sharp sticks' is right, then yeah, big line o guys vs big line o guys is perfectly fine.

A core rule set can be used to cover the basics and allow for tweaks, custom unit tweaks, period specific rules, and so forth.

Or is Ancient cavalry really up for tackling a mailed, stirrup backed (which pretty radically changed what you could do with cavalry) couched lance charge?
... ...

Probably not, but when would they ever fight each other? If by time travelling it could be arranged, the ancient armies were often much larger and better organised than mediaeval European knight armies. The extra amount of resources that goes into a knight makes him a more expensive (economically or points wise) unit than an Alexandrian cavalryman.

If you want a game where an Alexandrian army of 350 BC can have a fight with a feudal English army of 1250 AD, you have to make some compromises with realism. The amount of compromise depends on how detailed you want to make your rules.

In WRG Ancients, Alexanders cavalry are Heavy Cavalry, Lance, Shield. English feudal knights are HC, L, Sh until they get full mail when they become Extra Heavy Knights. No account is given to having stirrups, but it could be.

In "reality", Alexander would probably try to get the knights to charge his pike phalanx, where they are unlikely to make much of an impact.

There are some things that don't change, like the marching rate of infantry and cavalry, and the range of man-portable weapons, until you get into very modern times. That means you can have a set of core rules with specialist books covering the parts of warfare that do change dramatically from one era to another, or else, different books using common concepts of organisation and modifications for different periods.

Lots of rules have been organised this way. WRG Ancients was also used for the basis of WRG Renaissance and WRG Napoleonic. Most of Baccus 6mm's Polemos rules use similar mechanics from Seven Years War to Napoleonic. Field of Glory has been adapted to Field of Renaissance and Field of Napoleonic.

What matters is how well the variant books or supplements reflect the changed circumstances of warfare, such as improvements in equipment and tactics.

Obviously all this is irrelevant to AoS because a set of fantasy rules can include anything the designer wants, the wilder the better, really.

AoS obviously is written to sell the new kits. GW are in the model sales business. You could play the rules with non-GW figures if you wanted, and the look and feel would be different.

Warlord Games produce historical kits. Obviously they would like you to buy their kits for use with Black Powder, however anyone else's historical figures will do just as well. You will also find that figures based for Black Powder will usually be playable with rival historical rules like Field of Napoleonics or Fire & Fury.

Well, I would disagree on better training/skill in all cases. A non Spartan Hoplite army wouldn't have been too different from the generic training the Saxon Fyrd had, as an example. Professional armies were rare, even in ancient times. Perhaps in some instances for limited armies that is true, but the Knightly orders or Norman armies tended to be highly trained and skilled armies at the core with more poorly trained add-ons as necessary to make up bodies. Regardless,

This is more or less my point, we allow for these glossings so that we can play Romans vs Normans or only need to learn one rule set so we can play Roman vs Briton and Norman vs Saxon using the same rules to make life easier. Seriously, the historical group I play with has to many rules and we often forget which rule comes from which game. WMA does just fine covering the basics with a few tweaks based on lists or special abilities. We can still talk the meat of history, but the simpler game makes for better/smoother play.

 Land_Stander wrote:
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?

Not really. At least, not any more than any other game. But if you aren't interested in buying and painting models for 1700-1900 warfare, you probably shouldn't buy a miniature game for 1700-1900 warfare. Maybe a game that covers a time period you are interested in would be better. Or a completely different hobby, if you don't really like miniatures.

Black Powder is a great system for playing large games smoothly. I've even had the pleasure of re-fighting Waterloo at 28mm using this ruleset.

It focuses on the morale, leadership and manouver elements of war and makes you feel more like a general issuing orders rather than a gamer trying to exploit a quarter inch miscalculation here or there to "win".

 feeder wrote:
Black Powder is a great system for playing large games smoothly. I've even had the pleasure of re-fighting Waterloo at 28mm using this ruleset.

It focuses on the morale, leadership and manouver elements of war and makes you feel more like a general issuing orders rather than a gamer trying to exploit a quarter inch miscalculation here or there to "win".

We also did 28mm Waterloo. ~5400 figures and Black Powder still worked well.

 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 . . . . is created for the sole purpose of encouraging people to buy models like AOS is.

What's wrong with a company that makes miniatures publishing a set of rules that encourages people to buy their product? Do you think Privateer Press, Wizards of the Coast, etc. are all up to no good?

Your probably meant to criticize the rules for encouraging people to buy lots of models. While there's nothing wrong with that, it shows you don't know much about Black Powder.

If you knew anything about Black Powder you'd understand that units are simply assigned a size (tiny, small, standard, and large) and each of these sizes can contain as many, or as few, miniatures as you like. The units can also be on any base size you like. The photos in the book show large numbers of figures, but that's because the author and his friends have been playing for 40 years and many of them are in the wargames business (like the Perry brothers).

The same goes for AoS. You need fewer models to play a game of AoS then you do of WFB. Do you also complain about the fact that WFB requires you to buy models?

Really, why don't you learn something about the subject you're speaking on before you open your mouth and embarrass yourself?

Bede19025 wrote:

 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 . . . . is created for the sole purpose of encouraging people to buy models like AOS is.

What's wrong with a company that makes miniatures publishing a set of rules that encourages people to buy their product? Do you think Privateer Press, Wizards of the Coast, etc. are all up to no good?

Your probably meant to criticize the rules for encouraging people to buy lots of models. While there's nothing wrong with that, it shows you don't know much about Black Powder.

If you knew anything about Black Powder you'd understand that units are simply assigned a size (tiny, small, standard, and large) and each of these sizes can contain as many, or as few, miniatures as you like. The units can also be on any base size you like. The photos in the book show large numbers of figures, but that's because the author and his friends have been playing for 40 years and many of them are in the wargames business (like the Perry brothers).

The same goes for AoS. You need fewer models to play a game of AoS then you do of WFB. Do you also complain about the fact that WFB requires you to buy models?

Really, why don't you learn something about the subject you're speaking on before you open your mouth and embarrass yourself?

This has never made sense to me either, yes, miniature companies want you to buy their minis, in other news grass is green, water is wet, the earth is round, and the Michael Bay Transformer movies are garbage. Slightly unrelated point, a few people I have known were complaining about X-Wing/Star Trek Attack Wing events requiring you to use the FF/Wiz Kids miniatures. This should not surprise anyone over the age of 14.

The Warlord historical games include rules for many options that they don't sell models for.

I do have a problem with comoanies like Battlefront, which produce historical rules but don't include the option for units that they don't make models for.

 n815e wrote:
The Warlord historical games include rules for many options that they don't sell models for.

I do have a problem with comoanies like Battlefront, which produce historical rules but don't include the option for units that they don't make models for.

And what troop types do Battlefront 's WW2 rules not cover?

There's no question that they make probably the most comprehensive range of 15mm miniatures including obscure troops/vehicles.

What other companies make rules and figures for Hungarians? Or Romanians? Or Greeks? Or Goum rifle platoons for the French?(Look it up).

Another one who has no idea what he's talking about.

Except that I do.
Compare actual TO&E to the rules and you find "substitutions" of one type of kit for something they make.

Why do you feel personally attacked by someone pointing it out?

So you're upset that they don't make wire teams? Or the quartermater's truck?

If not, why don't you point out the troop types that should be I the rules but you think are left out of the to&e because BF doesn't make a model for it.

You obviously know it is the case, I don't understand why you feel slighted by it.

It's okay if you are fine with it, but don't pretend it isn't true.

It's probably nigh on impossible for one company to produce all the different troops that fought in WW2, or Napoleonic, for that matter. But one of the advantages of historicals is that you usually are not reliant on one single company.

To relate this to the topic, if you want to play AoS of course you can d/l the basic rules and war scrolls for free. You can buy historical renaissance figures for use as Empire troops, or find alternative Dwarves and Elves, etc.

However, GW specifically design big models like the Magnadroth and the big Chaos guy (forgot his name) which are usually very difficult if not impossible to convert from alternatives, and cannot be found elsewhere. (I think you probably can convert toy dinosaurs into Seraphone big monsters.) Therefore you won't be able to play the game in full without buying the GW model kits, and that is the specific purpose of AoS.

From that angle, Black Powder is a standalone rulebook that can be used with any range of historical figures and it isn't the equivalent of AoS.

Thats the beauty of historical, such choice of models from so many companies.

I cant think of a single army i own that doesnt have figures from atleast two or three companies.

My WW2 Germans use figures from 9 different makers for figures, likely double that for vehicles.

That choice, to use with whatever system you like, is one of the great strengths of historical gaming. It can also be a weakness if you dont like the effort of rooting around and finding what you need, but i enjoy that rooting and foraging!