Slitherine

I think that any similarity between AoW and 7th edition WRG is slight. In 1st-7th you removed figures from shooting or combat (not elements) so each unit had to have some singly and doubly based figures (making movement more fiddly). Each figure represented 20 men so all casualties had to be recorded and every time to you got to 20 you removed a figure - lots of record keeping!! The WRG reaction test was more fiddly than AOW's CRT and took longer. In one edition (may have been 5th or 6th) you had to give each unit standing orders at the beginning (hold, advance etc) and they'd carry on doing this until a general changed orders. 7th (I think) intoduced fatigue, so if you charged you accumulated fatigue points. There was also wedges - 1 figure in front rank, 2 in second, 3 in third that had extra combat factors that escape my aged brain.

WRG gave a reasonably historic feel to a battle but made for slow paced games requiring a lot of book-keeping. I've played Don Featherstone rules, WRG 3rd, 5th, 6th & 7th, DBA, DBM, DBR, Shieldbearer (briefly) Warhammer Fantasy and WAB and can homestly say that I prefer Art of War - it's fast paced and gives a historic feel to the battle AND IT'S FUN!!! A bit like playing ACW Fire & Fury.

Hi

I've also played 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, DBA, DBM and DBR. I also love Fire & Fury - a great ruleset IMHO. If AoW is as much fun this is a great recommendation and I'll certainly give it a go!

regards

Stephen

clivevaughan wrote:
. I've played Don Featherstone rules, WRG 3rd, 5th, 6th & 7th, DBA, DBM, DBR, Shieldbearer (briefly) Warhammer Fantasy and WAB and can homestly say

Wow, that??s what I call a valid opinion . I??m glad to hear that. I??ve recently started with historic games and feel that I??ve recovered the illussion with which I started Warhammer seven years ago.

clivevaughan wrote:I think that any similarity between AoW and 7th edition WRG is slight. In 1st-7th you removed figures from shooting or combat

I've tried to block the horrible memories out, but IIRC you did not remove figures in 7th. You took fatigue points.

larrydunn wrote:you did not remove figures in 7th. You took fatigue points.

Yeah
I remember. My Samurai charged evading enemies until they died of fatigue

horrible rules set

I played many rules and each had some good elements and some bad.

WRG 6th edition was a heroic system. I loved that feeling of having a good charge test and getting impetus.
But it was a bad simulation of ancient battles. Do anybody remember these 6 fig Macedon wedges mixed within the phalanx to force eneny infantry to hold.

Tactica was easy to play with all the D6, but I missed the possibility of having unhistorical battles.
In addition after a while I knew excatly in whcih round a unit would break. No excitement anymore, no surprise.

DBM was the best simulation of historical battles (still not perfect ) but it was unheroic.
And when player started to deploy their troops in a convex line with many angles, deep pike formations were useless.
In addition to that I sometimes have the feeling that the majority of players who like to play mounted armies try to change the rules in favour of their armies. (Hussite warwagon, Pikes couldn??t kill cavalry anymore etc)

Let??s hope AOW combines the best element of all prior rules

What we are hoping - that it is the way all the bits hang together that gives the game a really good overall feel. So AOW its a mix of creativity of mechanisms (POAs/CMTs) but as much an exercise in system craftsmanship (if I can be so bold) in welding them together in a really effective way...or thus we hope.

So far so good in terms of feedback

Si

clivevaughan wrote: WRG gave a reasonably historic feel to a battle but made for slow paced games requiring a lot of book-keeping. I've played Don Featherstone rules, WRG 3rd, 5th, 6th & 7th, DBA, DBM, DBR, Shieldbearer (briefly) Warhammer Fantasy and WAB and can homestly say that I prefer Art of War - it's fast paced and gives a historic feel to the battle AND IT'S FUN!!! A bit like playing ACW Fire & Fury.

I also played most of these rules (starting with WRG 5th)... But one thing most of these rules have in common (even the more recent WAB) is the lack of command and control rules. Addressing this issue is now (at last) a priority for most designers... I also agree that Firy & Fury is a good example of easy to play/realism ballance. By the way F&F has another fresh notion which is still lacking in most rules: the notion that there is an intermediate state between full attack capacity and retreat/rout. A state for troops and groups which have lost their "?©lan", are not in a position to take serious offensive actions, but can still seriously hold their line in defence.

I too am a fairly long in the tooth gamer though I only started with 5th ed so I imagine the description for anyone who played 3rd Ed is more likely to be "no tooth gamer" I too have played many different sets 6th/7th ed, DBA, the horrid DBM, Strategos I/II, Warrior, Vis Bellica, Armati, Tactica, WAB, Ancient Empires etc ad nauseam

I enjoyed playing F&F so AOW is sounding better all the time. I have barely dragged out my ancients since DBM destroyed my club playing some warrior recently and fair amount of Vis Bellica. AOW is looking increasingly like the renaissance to the dark ages DBM created.

I would like to see a few more example armies - not necessarily lists - just games armies in particular Punic War era.

Looking forward to playing immensely.

John O

killerhobbit wrote:

larrydunn wrote:you did not remove figures in 7th. You took fatigue points.

Yeah
I remember. My Samurai charged evading enemies until they died of fatigue

horrible rules set

I thought they were a damed good set at the time - I wouldn't play them now, but they were a damned sight better than 6th with it's artificial accuracy (who says a volley of arrows must always kill between 4 and 24 men??)

But of course 6th were better than 5th, with it's tin swords......I dont' remember quite so much about 4th and 3rd, although fanatics geting +2 at initial contact and -1 thereafter rings a bell........

Basically, IMO, every successful ruleset has been an improvement on those that went previously.

In addition to WRG's various products I played the Herocs and Ros set for 6mm games and quite liked them (but no-one else had them), Newbury and something else that I forget the title of from Athena I think - none of these later were significantly better than the WRG sets of the time (IMO of course), often they weer palpably worse, and in any case there were no opponents.

AoW has a limited playtest group so all we're getting here is the propaganda of course!!

DBMM had a wider "open" playtest group and years (literally) of testing, and plenty of naysayers making their comments public.

Possibly there will be 2 good sets in general play - and that would be a good thing too.

malekithau wrote:I imagine the description for anyone who played 3rd Ed is more likely to be "no tooth gamer"

My dentist would agree. I do think we tend to forget how innovative and interesting the earlier generations of WRG were at the time. What seems like old hat now really wasn't then.

Still, I too am excited about this rules set. I have great hopes of it expanding the hobby thanks to getting out in a normal publishing distribution net.

lentulus wrote:Still, I too am excited about this rules set. I have great hopes of it expanding the hobby thanks to getting out in a normal publishing distribution net.

With the added bonus of being written in comprehensible prose!

Cheers,
Scott K.

lentulus wrote:

malekithau wrote:I imagine the description for anyone who played 3rd Ed is more likely to be "no tooth gamer"

My dentist would agree. I do think we tend to forget how innovative and interesting the earlier generations of WRG were at the time. What seems like old hat now really wasn't then.

Well I started ancients wargaming with 3rd edition in 1974 but I still have all my teeth and most of my hair. The fact that I was 11 at the time of my first game does make the teeth and hair thing a bit easier.

To me all versions of WRG from 3rd to 6th felt like evolutionary changes. 7th was fairly revolutionary and combined with changes in personal circumstances turned me off ancients. DBA brought me back, DBM completely took me in and for the last 8 or 9 years I have been an avid DBM player.

DBMM is to me an evolutionary change from DBM. I have played several games during the development and it is not to my taste. The changes between DBM and DBMM are ones that move the game away from what I want.

Art of War has taken a step back from the rigid base to base alignment required to make DBx to work, borrowed ideas from several other sets, introduced some fresh ideas and headed off in a different direction. I think it is significant that at my local club we have almost as many ex Warhammer Ancient Battles players looking at playing AoW as we do DBM players.

On Monday there were four games of AoW, one of Horse Foot and Guns, two of Flames of War and one Warhammer 40K. Several members brought their new copies of DBMM along but nobody was playing it.

Hammy

Today I got the new rules

Warlord by Trevor Halsall

Just came out and at first look looks somehow similar to warhammer or the WRG 6th edition.

I will read them in the next days, but it seem that its again a complex rules set with many pages

so maybe AoW should be easy to play in a short time.
New rules should stay simple and battles should be no longer than 4 hours

killerhobbit wrote:so maybe AoW should be easy to play in a short time.
New rules should stay simple and battles should be no longer than 4 hours

In my experience it takes about four or five games to get up to speed with AoW although most players are happy with how to run their army after a game or so.

Once players are up to speed games are taking between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 hours.

Hammy