Lasalle seems to get it right

I purchased a new set of rules the other night: Lasalle, the first set in Sam Mustafa's HONOUR series. So, why a Napoleonics game? Do I think I am going to make enough Napoleonic wooden soldiers to use these rules? No. Believe it or not, I have a lot of painted 6mm Napoleonic troops sitting around unused. Although it would mean re-basing, as I currently have each base equal to a battalion and the Lasalle rules are petit-tactical (each unit of 4 to 6 bases is a battalion), this is really the level of game I wish to play. Both Polemos and De Bellis Napoleonicis never really cut it for me.

I admit I have not completed reading the rules, much less played even a single game, but these rules look like they got at least one thing right: the turn sequence for an IGO UGO game. The traditional sequence of an IGO UGO game is as follows:

1. Side A moves
2. Side A fires
3. Side B checks morale
4. Side A and B melees
5. Side A and B checks morale
6. Side B moves
7. Side B fires
8. Side A checks morale
9. Side A and B melees
10. Side A and B checks morale

This sequence produces what Wally Simon of the old PW Review magazine used to call "Gotcha' Gaming". It is called that because the side whose turn it is will gauge whether they have sufficient movement to move in and strike - the "Gotcha'"! If they cannot, they might back off a little to ensure the enemy, in their next turn, doesn't get a chance to play Gotcha' on you. Eventually, someone will have to close in without being able to fire, allowing their opponent to strike first. (Hence the term "Gotcha'!")

People have tried various ways to fix this (as few people really want to go back to written orders and simultaneous movement). One sequence I did was:

1. Side A moves
2. Side B fires
3. etc.
4. Side B moves
5. Side A fires
6. etc.

This was a little more acceptable in that the temporal displacement - the amount of perceived time that passed on one side while the other side was "stuck" in time - was not as bad. By this I mean that if your unit could move 6" and the firing range was 12" you could attack a unit 18" away without any reaction whatsoever from the other side. This sequence cut that lack of reaction by your opponent down to a 6" move.

I have also seen sequences where the melee comes first, before the movement, but never remember a set of rules that pulled the re-sequencing off. I just remember it being "novel". Well, Sam Mustafa, the author of Lasalle, seems to have pulled it off. Here is his sequence:

1. Side A performs Reactions, including Shooting
2. Side A defends in Melees
3. Side A Moves, including Charges
4. Side B performs Reactions, including Shooting
5. Side B defends in Melees
6. Side B Moves, including Charges

So, because firing is first, it is a reaction to your opponent's moving into your range. This makes it like the altered sequence shown above. Temporal displacement is lessened by limiting to just their move. Other reactions include changing formation (such as forming square in reaction to a cavalry charge) and falling back (including breaking contact). It is interesting that this takes away completely the need to have the non-active player (i.e. Side B when it is Side A's turn or vice versa) take actions like you see in other rules. For example, how many rulesets have a "Forming a Hasty Square" rule whereby the non-active player changes to square during the active player's turn? Or a "Evade" rules whereby the non-active player retreats from contact? Or a "Counter-charge" rule? Or firing during your opponent's turn?

By moving the melee resolution to earlier in the sequence, but putting a reaction phase before it, you remove all of those disruptions to a player's turn. Simply move your troops with the intent of where they should be, assuming no reaction from the opponent, then play it out later. If, however, your opponent does wish to react to your move, he does so in his turn, not yours.

That is not to say that they Lasalle rules are completely free of no non-active player actions in the active player's turn; I have found at least one (Cavalry Breakthrough), but at least it is greatly reduced.

As I read more I will probably write more impressions about these rules. These rules promise to have supplements/modules for different periods, but I have no doubt that an AWI module won't be in the making anytime soon. So, I may look to make my own if these rules turn out to warrant merit.