6.01 vs 5.02 - packaging ideas only!

[shall]

Chaps

Don't get too hung up on digging the detail from 6.01. There is very little content change (only some new WIP) and we have sent this out for 1 specific reason...

To ask you all if you think the idea of packaging it with intro rules and full rules works. We are trying to see if it would make it more accesible to the new player or not. Ideally we want AOW to do this and pull people into the game and hobby, while at the same time keeping the integrity of the rules for us Pros.

Could you put into this strea just your overall feeling on that basis:

6.01 is much worse/worse/same/better/much better than 5.02 as a way of packaging an presenting the overall rule book + the odd comment

is the kind of thing we want if possible....

Cheers

Si

[sagji]

I think the new layout is slightly worse.

What I think worked
Smaller core rules - good for a beginner.
Simple and obvious references to the advanced rules - but need to add page nos.

What I think didn't work.
Calling the advanced sections "full ... rules" when they only contain the advanced rules.
Having the rules split into two parts - this makes it difficult to find a rule as you are having to hunt through 2 seperate sections.
Having the guidlines for new players after the advanced rules instead of between the basic and advanced rules.
Too much left in the basis rules - there is no need for camps or death rolls, and even generals, wagons and artillery could be removed. Possibly even the impact phase and inter bound could be removed although this has a huge effect.

What I don't want to happen is to have different rules in the basic and advanced rules, or for the advanced rules to be treated as optional rules. The two setup rules are OK here because there is no real overlap.

[plewis66]

Slightly worse.

I'd prefer to see the rules all integrated, so there is only one section on movement, one on shooting, etc. Then, rather than have an outline of the advanced rules in grey boxes, put the actual rules themselves in those boxes. This way, everything is in one place. Having two places to look in the book for rules on combat, for example, is not good, no matter how good the contents list.

The beginner can choose to ignore anything in a box, and having the advanced rules visible all the time means that there will be more temptation for beginners to have a go at trying some of them. In the introduction, it could perhaps be suggested that advanced rules are added 'piecemeal' in friendlies, to give beginners a shallower learning curve. There is the problem that this makes the advanced rule look almost like optional rules (which I agree would be A Bad Thing'), so maybe call them 'Tournament Rules', to indicate that they should all be used in tournament?

Also, I think there are a few things that could slip from the beginner into the advanced rules - can't remember what off the top of my head, sorry...though I personally think death rolls and generals are critical to introduce to beginners.

With these changes, I'd have uprated my assessment to 'hugely better'...and bear in mind, I already liked 4.04!

[donm]

Simon,

Don't seem to have been sent a copy.

Don M

[arnimlueck]

For me this packaging in "beginners" and "expert" rules separated in the book is worse.
Why? because i try to learn the full rules as quickly as possible.

I do realise that my opinion here is the one of a wargamer with some years of playing. So I want to make a proposal that contains some simplified beginners rules but maintains the book itself as a "lecture book" for the full ruleset. Avoiding that I have to read at several different positions in the book to understand e.g. Terrain Setting.

I propose:
for each chapter where you want to give a simplified approach to facilitate the beginners way into the game you give a (maby boxed) chapter with the simplified rule. So NOT giving a grey box to tease readers what comes later in the book but do your chapters with the full rules and highlight the 'quick-start' in a first section.

E.g. Chapter X
Section 1 - Quickstart for beginners
Section 2 - full rules

With this flip around I want to avoid having to read the chapter X and the related full rules for chapter X section. This should create a good compromise between getting started and providing a book that is a good reference tool for gamers.

I even remember an edition of an old role playing game I have which did it by excluding the 'quick start rules' into an extra four pages (so just one folded piece of paper) which came extra to the main rulebook. I do not know how this piece has survived in my bookshelf but I like the idea to get rid of the starting help at a point in time. But this might be a cost factor to avoid...

[nikgaukroger]

Just been trying to sort some rules out and am finding the 6.01 layout a real pain to work with. The splitting of rules between "basic" and "full" means having bits you want in at least 2 places which isn't making life easy when you've moved byonf the basic level.

I like Phil Lewis' idea of boxing out the "advanced" stuff but having it in the right place if you want to go down the split rules path. I'd also make the difference between the two bigger as others have commented.

[rogerg]

Version 6.01 is much worse than version 5. I still contend that the best way into any subject is to read the text through. Footnotes, side notes and similar, supposedly useful aids, all get in the way. Pictures and diagrams are good. They give a check on what you are reading, without breaking the flow.

Millions of people read novels with complex plots. Far fewer read instruction booklets. One train of thought is enough for most of us. (Well, maybe not women, but with a few charming exceptions I think AoW can discount this group.)

When you are learning the rules, getting more information than you need is a handicap. Trying to follow two games in one is really confusing.

After a few games, when you know the basic system, trying to find the bit you want is easier if the book is shorter.

If you are willing to release an unrestricted copy to me I would love to try doing a cut and paste (maybe just cut) job on it to test my theory.

As a secondary point, the categorisation is not good. 'Drilled' is not a troop type. It is a qualifier of a troop type. 'Charges' and 'second moves' should not be in the movement table. They are ways to utilise movement, not movements in themselves.

Roger

[sagji]

How about having the full rules (much like 5.01) but with an introductory rule with lots cut out.


The introductory rules would have
Simplified setup
Movement, including CMT and table.
Melee including CT.
Quality re-rolls

It wouldn't have
Generals
Routing - units removed
Interbound - no rally or routing or generals
Impact
Shooting
evade
interception
death rolls

[plewis66]

FWIW, I think the split of basic/advanced is about right. I don't think it would be a good idea to make the basic and advanced rules be virtually two different games.

[spike]

I like the new format which was sent out at the beginning of march with one exception, and one other point -

My exception shows the new format has a backwards step, from the previous version and should be reversed in my opinion for the following reason.

The full victory and defeat conditions should not be hidden away on page 59, but they should be stated on page 13/14 where the brief note only is shown. How you win is without exception the single most important concept in any game, far more so than those described on page 5 (of the revised format). The full rules should therefore be on the early pages in the rules, not hidden at the back.

My other point is-

The format to make the rules easier for beginners only has 1 problem I can foresee, which is that you will end up having to refer to 2 pages widely dispersed locations, to get the full rules, Therefore you will need to cross-reference both sections fully to ensure that the relevant rules can be connected together. I would find this annoying after a while and would probably find a ways of producing a version which lumps all the bits together in the same place for my own convenience a hassle I could do without.

So from my point of view there a other alternatives

You could reformat the ???basic rules??? together with the ???full rules??? in their entirety in the ???full rules section???, so the whole thing ends up being bigger, with more pages so it ends up costing more to produce and it bloats up in to what some will call ???war and peace??? in comparison to those of another rules writer ??“ who??™s name I will not mention here!

Alternatively you could produce 2 versions, a simple booklet of 20 pages or so for the beginners and then the complete rules as a separate thing entirely. However I am aware of both the cost implications and the logistics issues in printing this make this way seem to be less attractive to you as publishers.


Well that??™s my input on this


Stephen Clarke

[malekithau]

I have not seen 6.01 yet but I favour having the rules laid out ala 5.01 and if we need intro rules why not have an AOW lite that is available for download? This would act as an entry point to beginners and a sales tool for established gamers.

John O

[abivor]

I'm neutral on whether there should be beginner and advanced versions of the rules. I do however feel it is very important to have all the rules on a particular subject in one place. Colour block them, use fonts or use whatever method going to differentiate them, but (for example) how to do shooting should be all in the section marked how to do shooting.