First impressions are;
They read well - much better than DBM where apostrophy position could change the meaning of a rule.
Like the diagrams in 4.06 I can see why they are not in 5.01 but It might be an idea to creat a document with all of them in for us testers.
The concept of ++ - + is fine but it takes some sinking in, and the tables are a little daunting.
I think I like the idea of Impact and Melee rounds but am a little worried that game turns may stretch out in to long winded affairs especially when you throw in 'Complex Move Tests' 'ZOI Charges' 'Shooting' 'Death Throws' and 'Cohesion Tests' - I hope i'm wrong.
The rules come over as more 'Fight' than 'Battle' centred. By that I mean there seems to be an emphasis on Armour and Weapon types, which appears to be done pretty well, but it does not appear to provide the sweep of Battle that DBM tries to convey.
Having said that AoW realy does appear to ditch the 'Death by Geometry' of DBM.
Terrain set up seems drawn out - It may be quicker after I've tried it.
The army lists are a real a pain! There are far too many permutations for any give line of data and no points cost given in the lists. One other thing; I dont normally go in for acronyms, but given the complexity of the data being conveyed it might be worth introducing some sort of standard notation to define a troop type, eg; Indian Cavalry Cav/Av/U/U/-/LS/- before we all go off and invent different ones of our own!
I hope this does not come over as too negative, on balance there are many more good things than bad. I really look forward to trying these rules and only then will I be able to comment on them properly.
Thanks
