simplification?

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:28 am

What would be the impact of simplifying the CMT table/system by making "drilled" a modifier on the test dice roll. You then lose the multicolourd table, and only have to make exceptions for a handful of maneuvers that undrilled troosp just cant do.

And maybe do the same with unit grade - ie make it a modifier - (instead of the re-roll 1's thingy) as well?

And would it be better from a presentation POV to call it just a Maneuver Test rather than a Complex Maneuver Test ?

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:20 pm

Quite major - currently the main difference between drilled and undrilled is what they can do. Most things that undrilled consder complex are simple for drilled, and most things drilled consider complex undrilled consider impossible.

I would like to see it called something different CMT is to similar to CT.

My suggestion would be Order Test (OT)
Maneuvers would then require simple orders (no test required) or complex orders (need to pass an OT), likewise shock troups would need to pass an OT not to charge, and other disrupted or misile troups would need to pass an OT to charge.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:03 pm

I quite like manouvre test. After all we don't want to tell people its complex when it isn't...the test and rule is simple after all.

Re-rolls is a nice method as its fun and easy. I think people are enjoying these a lot - it created a great deal of fun and excitement at Usk. Re-rolling your 6-6 as poor is such an emotionaly rollercoaster....

Si

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:59 pm

shall wrote:I quite like manouvre test. After all we don't want to tell people its complex when it isn't...the test and rule is simple after all.
Si

The only problem I have with "manouvre test" is that it is used for other things - it is odd to have to pass a maneuver test to stop knights charging.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:13 pm

True enough.

Si

plewis66 · Post by **plewis66** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:22 pm

Also, from a beginers perspective, tables are good. Much, much preferable to: 'if a or b, then x unless c or d with e, or f, then, y, except g in h or i. Otherwise z.'

yech.

neilhammond · Post by **neilhammond** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:54 pm

plewis66 wrote:Also, from a beginers perspective, tables are good. Much, much preferable to: 'if a or b, then x unless c or d with e, or f, then, y, except g in h or i. Otherwise z.'

Ah, you've been reading DBMM then (or possibly DBR 2.0)....

plewis66 · Post by **plewis66** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:29 pm

I just read through what I was abut to post, below, and just want to say up front that it's not intended as a rant or a flame. Well not against anyone here...maybe it is little bit of a rant against DBM, born out of intense frustration with the ruleset.

Here we go:

neilhammond wrote:
plewis66 wrote:Also, from a beginers perspective, tables are good. Much, much preferable to: 'if a or b, then x unless c or d with e, or f, then, y, except g in h or i. Otherwise z.'
Ah, you've been reading DBMM then (or possibly DBR 2.0)....

No, just DBM. I think a few 'old-hands' are under the impression that DBMM is somehow worse at this kind of thing than DBM. I wonder how much of that is just familiarity with DBM. I've skimmed DBMM once, and it really didn't seem any worse than DBM to me.

To bring this into context, I started to get into historical wargaming last October. I had read the DBM rules many times prior to that, over the period of about a year, but never felt I had enough of a grasp to actually have a go myself, with a couple of wargaming mates.

In October we attended a club, and even then we felt it necessary to watch three or four games before feeling confident to have a go at doubles, with a couple of very experienced, patient and helpful individuals as partners.

With AoW, I read the rules for four days, then we had our first game. I 'umpired', and Syd and Graham played against each other. Neither of them had read the rules, and it still went quite well for a first attempt. We've now played three battles and afew small skirmishes to clear up points of rule, all entirely on our own, and we feel totally comfortable that we are not making too many gross errors.

Before receiving our AoW rules, we tried a game of DBM on our own (thi is after two 'mentored' games), and just gave up after about four bounds, because we couldn't interpret the language used in the rules well enough to extract any sense from them whatsoever.

I suspect I'll never play DBM again (I've even stopped going to the club until we're allowed to play AoW there), and I would recon that at least 80% of the reason for my total adoption of AoW is the clarity of the rules. And a large portion of that clarity comes from the tables, so please, please, don't get rid of any of them!

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:23 am

I suspect I'll never play DBM again (I've even stopped going to the club until we're allowed to play AoW there), and I would recon that at least 80% of the reason for my total adoption of AoW is the clarity of the rules. And a large portion of that clarity comes from the tables, so please, please, don't get rid of any of them!

How about the 12th for a game at the club? I spoke to JD last weeken and he has no issues with us playing at the club now.

Hammy

plewis66 · Post by **plewis66** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:15 am

Excellent! That would be great.

Cheers!

plewis66 · Post by **plewis66** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:53 pm

hammy wrote:
I suspect I'll never play DBM again (I've even stopped going to the club until we're allowed to play AoW there), and I would recon that at least 80% of the reason for my total adoption of AoW is the clarity of the rules. And a large portion of that clarity comes from the tables, so please, please, don't get rid of any of them!
How about the 12th for a game at the club? I spoke to JD last weeken and he has no issues with us playing at the club now.

Hammy

BTW, what version of the rules are you playing off? We've still got 4.04, but I'm guessing you're on 4.06. I seem to recall the differences are not huge, though...?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:10 pm

plewis66 wrote:
hammy wrote: How about the 12th for a game at the club? I spoke to JD last weeken and he has no issues with us playing at the club now.

Hammy
BTW, what version of the rules are you playing off? We've still got 4.04, but I'm guessing you're on 4.06. I seem to recall the differences are not huge, though...?

Good question.

I am happy to play 4.04 if you want. After all this is mainly aimed as a game to let you confirm that what you think you have learned is correct.

I suspect that we may well see a major update in the next couple of weeks so if we get a new set before the game we will use that, if not 4.04 is fine.

Hammy