AOW and 7th

[shall]

I don't want to get emboriled directly in some of the initial impressions people are creating. But as somebody who played 4th/5th and 6th a lot, but almost no 7th, I would be keen to hear views from those with experience of 7th on two fronts:

Having played the game does AOW feel:
Very similar...........................................................very different.........to 7th edition

When you first saw the rules did they appear
Very similar...........................................................very different..........to 7th edition

I have my own view from pkaying all of 1 7th comp - the first IWF where I learned the rules on the plane in the main on the way there - god bless my magnetic aincients set which had the Virgin air hostesses fascinated.

I am hoping that with some additional insight on the above, we may in due course be able to make the best job of allowing AOW its own presence without too much comparison with any single previous ruleset. All comments on the topic of similarities and disimilratities most helpful.

Cheers

Si

[plewis66]

7th what? Warhammer? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't know any other 7th.

[nikgaukroger]

Not play tested yet but I'll give you my feedback on what I thought when I first read the rules - I did play 7th a long time ago.

One thing I think it is worth bearing in mind is that we will always tend to try and link something new to something we already know so you will always have comparison of AoW to other rule sets.

My first impression was that AoW was in many ways quite similar to WRG 7th for a number of reasons:

1) There are units made up of elements which are the same size as 7th.
2) Basic troop types initially appear to map back to the old categories - LF, MF and HF are LI, MI and HI - and even when you look deeper this is still the case - MF, Armoured = LHI; HF, Protected = MI; Catafracts are SHC and there are different grades on knights which map back to HK, EHK.
3) For troop grades like A, B,C and D (I think most people forget there was an E class in 7th as well) plus Drilled and Undrilled are going to be seen as Regular and Irregular even if that dates bacl to the start of WRG.
4) The missiles and melee PoA's are mostly described by an equipment term e.g. lancers, light spear, longbow, etc. which makes it look like the old L, JLS, LB, etc. weapon ratings. It is only later that you see they are functional dexcriptions and there are no weapon factors associated with them.
5) The CT looks like the 7th edition Waver Test.
6) The displacement of bases to show disruption is very 7th.
7) Having a phase to declare charges - OK, not unique to 7th by any means but for a DBM player that is what you are most likely to refer back to.

To the above I'd like to add that my first impression of the combat system was that it was a sort of Warmatser/WAB style system.

Hope that helps.

[nikgaukroger]

7th what? Warhammer? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't know any other 7th.

He means WRG 7th Edition - the most likely comparison players who have come down the WRG route will make. It ended up with a bad rep for being a poor game that gave players headaches so it is no good PR for AoW to be compared too much with it.

Mind you I felt that it was a better game than people tend to remember.

Of course if your wargaming history isn't the WRG path the question is a bit moot.

[jre]

I confess that my first impression was that AoW was WRG 7th without the bookkeeping and the big weapon factor table. Of course it was helped in that I was going from fifteen years old memories. For me it was the army list what first brought home the resemblance, for the same reasons Nik lists above.

In use the resemblance is slight, but I think there is a similar philosophy, with a much cleaner execution.

I liked 7th a lot, just because I did not mind tables and bookkeeping, and I was young with lots of free time back then.

Jos?©

[hammy]

There are definite areas where 7th and AoW are similar from a superficial POV but there are also very large differences in feel.

Units / BG's - Both games have them (but then so do almost every set of ancients rules)
Declared charges - OK both games again
Unit state degrading - Yes
Missile troops can shoot - Yes although hardly unusual

Places where the rules differ
Two distinct close combat phases: AoW, yes. 7th no
Long lists of modifiers to tests: AoW, no. 7th yes
Tests primarily driven as a result of combat outcome: AoW, yes. 7th, no.
Base removal: AoW, yes. 7th no (or at least I don't remember it)
Recording combat and shooting fatigue: AoW, no. 7th yes (and this was a pain IMO)

My memories of 7th (and 6th for that matter) mainly revolve around playing the factors for morale tests. Things like:
Trying to arrange for infantry to charge mounted, ideally from behind their flank, with surprise etc.
Making sure that when you charged you were impetuous to get the +2 in melee
Mixed grade units with the front rank B HC and the rear D MC led by ally generals
Loads and loads of cheese.

So far AoW has been a pleasure to play, it is straightforwards and clean(ish)

Yes AoW borrows from 7th but it also borrows from WAB, Armati and several other rules. Granted there isn't much in AoW that is a totally new idea but IMO the implementation of the mix is good. There will be people who delcare AoW to be just 8th edition and there is not much that can be done about that other than to get them to at least try and play a game.

Hammy

[shall]

It seems to me then you are saying:

Some common terminlogy - so far this is deliberate to keep familiarity with some know things. But this can muddle the impressions - is it a mistake?

Basic mechanisms of charge, fight, test exist as they do in 7th but with very different methods. Well they exist in almost all such games dating back to before WRG starteed writing Ancient rules. Try to find me a napoloenic rule set that doesn't have a charge declaration. movement shooting fighting sequence. Even at this level we have made a radical change with the IMPACT - MOVE - MELEE idea IMO.

Some mechanism are familiar topics but done in a far more appealing way - no long tables, no heavy recording, no fagtiue factors

A few new ways of doing things:
rerolls for quality/skill
separate Impact phase before any movement - so you know the resultof charges and then can decide tofollow up or not
POA system jumps straight to what matters and keeps even fights even - asa gaint 5-5 fights with blads in DBM unresolvable

But in th main what seems to be cuasing the buzz is that the car is bolted together very well and therefore runs very nicely thank you as a vehicle. This is always harder to prove to sombody who hasn't test drove the car. It is about balance between mechanisms and making them function together in a way that makes you makes lots of decisions and keep the excitement alive. This something the author team have laboured 100s of hours over to get something that is highly historical and fast moving and fun at the same time.

If any of the abve helps crystallise thoughts and you chaps fancing fronting some such points on the open forum go ahead. I had best stay of such things in the main for now.

Si

Si

[nikgaukroger]

I think my summary so far would be that if you've come to AoW through a route that included WRG 6th/7th or similar your first impression will be that AoW looks quite a bit like them, however, once you start playing you find that they are quite different - and enjoyable

IMO you have a marketing issue here - 7th is a bad memory for a lot of those who have come down the WRG route and you need to get them past that and into the reality of AoW quickly.

[shall]

I wonder if that fact that Terry and I are not 7th players at might be used to better effect.

If anything, any original ideas for rules on my side came more from Napoleonics I worked on few years ago. This is where I did the POA concept first. Terry and I were also working on a WW2 set - which is where the idea of using bases to show states comes from in fact. I didn't even recall any such thing in 7th to be honest. Next influence is 6th, then 5th, then 4th, but never 7th in fact.......and then a general philopsohy of, if anyone has had a good idea but not made it work, then lets make a working model from the junk! Voila! I expect Richard and Terry have similar inlfuences.

One possible issue may be JD and Iain being seen as very big 7th edition proponents and in the narrow "public" eye. One person at Usk did say to me - "well they never liked DBM so its back to 7th then". But if this is just a few people we are going to get such hidden sniper fire anywhere go.

Anyway some explanation that the three authors are, if anything, people who enjoyed 4th/5th/6th and DBM, plus Napoleonics and WW2 might give some comfort.....I don't think Terry ever played 7th and I played about 10 games in total and didn't like it. 9th in the first IWF - out of not that many (25). I remember getting crushed by Elephants riding roller skates!
Si

[rbodleyscott]

Anyway some explanation that the three authors are, if anything, people who enjoyed 4th/5th/6th and DBM, plus Napoleonics and WW2 might give some comfort.....I don't think Terry ever played 7th and I played about 10 games in total and didn't like it. 9th in the first IWF - out of not that many (25). I remember getting crushed by Elephants riding roller skates!
Si

They only say 7th because it is the last "conventional" rules they remember.

AoW is no more similar to 7th than it is to 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd or 2nd. And, of course, it bears only a superficial similarity to any of these.

It might be worth pointing out that DBM only exists because I was sick of 7th, but was unhappy that I could not use all my figures playing DBA. Phil initiated DBA, but it was me that initiated DBM, not Phil. That being the case, why would I want to go back to 7th?

Moreover, DBA only exists in published form because Phil presented me with 8th edition (a "radical development of 7th edition" in DBMM mode) to play-test. I was so horrified that (with the assistance of my club) I instead encouraged him to develop the extremely rudimentary prototype of DBA to distract him from 8th. It worked. The rest is history.

[shall]

So perhaps such communcal history's are worth getting out there. Maybe we should put it on the open forum as authors. Its quite ineresting.

I think Nik ha a pint that 7th was a bad experience for lots of people, so this p[erhaps the fear. If they know that non of the 3 main authors liked 7th it might help. Kind of a don't worry - if it was like 7th we wouldn't be playing it ourslves.
As long as JD and Iain both feel AOW is muhc better than 7th as a game we are hme.

Needs some thought on the how to but I think we should put something up in due course. Or we could just allow our beta testersto quote us on public forums a bit...

Si

[rbodleyscott]

So perhaps such communcal history's are worth getting out there. Maybe we should put it on the open forum as authors. Its quite ineresting.

Risky. Phil's memory of events may well differ.

For example, he usually tries to blame me for the Barkerese in DBM. However, as Nik has pointed out, the term "Barkerese" long predates my involvement.

As far as I know, he remains unaware of the the 8th/DBA conspiracy.

[nikgaukroger]

Much as I would like to take credit I believe it was Duncan who first pointed out that Barkerese predated DBM

[rbodleyscott]

Much as I would like to take credit I believe it was Duncan who first pointed out that Barkerese predated DBM

So it was.

[neilhammond]

Some common terminlogy - so far this is deliberate to keep familiarity with some know things. But this can muddle the impressions - is it a mistake? ....snip...
Si

There is superficially some similarity to 7th edition at first reading for all of the reasons mentioned above. But once you play a game or two it becomes very clear that there is little connection between the two sets. I'm interested to learn that you and Terry didn't play 7th, I assumed you were 7th players from some of the terminology in the rules.

I'm not sure it's worth going to a great deal of effort to reword things so that the perceived 7th edition connection is erased. If you do that people will relate the rules to some other set - WAB being the favourite given the quantity of combat dice that can be thrown in a large melee, death rolls, units, etc.

Neil

[donm]

Was it not 7th that first introduced the idea of elements of figures and the removal of casualties by full elements. Previously we had all had odd figures falling about the place. This was a major change at the time, is it this that everyone is remembering, rather than a good set of rules.

Don M

[rbodleyscott]

Was it not 7th that first introduced the idea of elements of figures and the removal of casualties by full elements. Previously we had all had odd figures falling about the place. This was a major change at the time, is it this that everyone is remembering, rather than a good set of rules.

7th had elements, but no casualty removal. Instead it had fatigue points which had to be recorded on paper. Except that you could never be sure that your opponent had recorded his correctly. (Unless you recorded them too).

[neilhammond]

7th had elements, but no casualty removal. Instead it had fatigue points which had to be recorded on paper. Except that you could never be sure that your opponent had recorded his correctly. (Unless you recorded them too).

Surely your not suggesting....

No, no. That just wouldn't happen. Next you'll tell me that Father Christmas doesn't exist. Or that American beer is the best beer in the world.

[shall]

Thanks Neil,

We stuck to some logical names that are in common with 7th - perhaps mistakenly. At the end of the day its hard not to called troops with armour........er..armoured. I did suggest we could go for wigglys, yigglys and zigglys instead of LF/MF/HF so we were truly differentiated But AOW had no 7th in its conception in fact.

Feel free to mention the fact that Terry and I never played 7th on the open forums - it may surprise a few others as well.

From what I know 7th seemed to have a real love it or hate it feel for players, so I guess the love its will like some of the philosphical similarities and the hate its are looking for reassurance that it isn't back to something they will find too complex and dislike.

Si

[neilhammond]

We stuck to some logical names that are in common with 7th - perhaps mistakenly. At the end of the day its hard not to called troops with armour........er..armoured. I did suggest we could go for wigglys, yigglys and zigglys instead of LF/MF/HF so we were truly differentiated But AOW had no 7th in its conception in fact.

Just don't go for Light Medium Infanrty (LMI or "limmies" in Oz) or Light Heavy Infantry (LHI). Or Skythian or Cantabrian formations or Irreg A Wedges. Or fatigue points.