Report on USK
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:45 am
Apologies for posting this a litte later than I had wished
Regards
JDM
News from the Front by Simon Hall
AoW Testing at Usk
After a very pleasant journey to the Welsh countryside, the team found themselves in a very classy hotel in Usk (must go there more often) for the first public trial of their new AoW rules. A total of 18 players came down for the Saturday and 20 for the Sunday. A big thanks to everyone involved. The team each played one game on the Sunday to get involved in the table-top fun.
The first news is that there was a great range of armies chosen for the event. In action over the weekend we had:
?? Alexandrian Macedonian
?? Early Imp (Principate)
?? Roman Early Visigothic
?? Late (Dominate) Roman
?? Gepid
?? Abbasid Arab
?? Ghaznavid x 2
?? Castilian
?? Lancastrian English
?? Graeco-Indian
?? Moorish
?? Ancient British
The two Ghaznavid armies were quite different with Bruce Brown trying to break the system as much as possible with two Battle Groups each of 4 Elephants on the table (more of these later). The team played 2 games ??“ me lending my Ancient Britons to JD and Terry, and Richard and I teamed up with the Morrish swarm of Bogus.
And there off??¦..
Terrain on the five tables took on average 15 minutes to place and led to a nice variety of tables across the five match ups. This seemed to get a big thumbs up. One game started moving after just 24 minutes, the slowest (with a single playing 11 year old) was up and moving at 33 minutes. After 50 minutes the tables had played 4/2/3/2/3 bounds each and every table was in the thick of action, rolling shooting and combat dice, so perhaps one success is the pace of the game.
Bodley-Scott junior managed a few early accolades ??“ he suffered the first base loss and BG Disrupted in AoW public play ??“ well done Tom. Osprey Publications donated a signed book as a prize for this, with a note saying thanks for helping with AoW??™s development. He was also the first player to destroy an enemy general and went on to win the game.
James Hamilton and Mark Wilkinson threw their Visigoths at Matthew??™s War of the Roses Lancastrians. Matthew??™s Scots allies won the centre almost rescuing a game that at first looked lost and allowed the Lancastrians to cling on for a 20-12 defeat. The Scots general holding it all together with a wey-heh or two. The Abbasids and both Ghaznavids managed big wins.
A clash between the Roman eras gave us the longest battle line I have yet seen engaged. This was a great game - the players said that you could almost feel the battle line wobbling and recovering at different times. Eventually the Early Roman Legionaries managed to break their way through their Late Roman cousins after a huge and exciting tussle that swung several times. The four players on this table commented on how exciting a big smash of Heavy Foot was under the rules.
In fact all five of the games achieved a result with 3 big wins (32/32 or 28/32) and 2 medium wins (20/32).
In the afternoon the games were going even more quickly with every game was in action within 30 minutes. Another excellent set of games with 2 big wins, 2 medium wins and our first draw (a bloody affair with both sides knocking out about 40% of the opposing army, but neither side managing to break the other).
In the evening we gathered for a full debrief in the bar ??“ everyone getting a few Slitherine-sponsored beers down them. All players attended and a few non-players sat in too. The general feedback in the room was very encouraging. General comments seemed to be along the following lines:
?? Very exciting and fun to play
?? Almost ready to go ??“ no major flaws found
?? Much clearer to read than we are used to
?? Makes a foot army fun to use
?? Speed is excellent ??“ simple deployment system is very good
?? No obvious supertroops, most armies playable
?? Rules very well suited to doing historical scenarios
?? Rules make it much more easy for armies to get to grips
?? Most of the dice rolls are exciting and things can turn quickly
In total the team noted about 35 areas to work on (thank you test team), but interestingly non of them is major problem ??“ all tweaks. The team will be working on these over the next 2 or 3 weeks with a view to issuing a further draft of the rules soon. The session finished after about 2 hours of debate and discussion and we all retired for a Chinese in Usk town.
And so to Sunday??¦..
Everyone got off again to a fast start. JD McNeil and Terry Shaw took charge of my Ancient Britons against a Roman army. The first time I looked over, Boedicae was in the thick of the action leading the British warriors in person. Several Roman BGs went over but the Romans eventually forced a 20-12 win ??“ as the footy commentators say ???their quality came through in the second half???.
Matt managed his third 20-12 defeat so he was doing OK for a youngster. He came within a whisker of winning his game against a Late Imperial Roman. This time his Scots allies let him down but his men-at-arms and longbowmen managed to cause a great deal of trouble on one flank ??“ the Roman Auxilia failed to hold them off until they got some legionary support. One epic spell of the game had the Lancastrian c-in-c with a single Battle Group of top notch plated men-at-arms making a last stand in the middle. Never once did the troops or the general bend under the attack of a full legion ??“ eventually going down to a man including the general over the course of about 45 minutes of play. This was a fantastic spell with two Roman generals also in the thick of the fighting. Both sides did the same damage but Matt??™s army collapsed.
Meanwhile Bruce and Tom had a Ghaznavid civil war going on. This was mayhem with Elephants engaged and breaking all over the place. Bruce eventually got the better of the game, and managed to charge 4 bases of Elephants into the enemy camp and a supporting foot unit. Alas the fresh foot unit managed to break his Elephant Battle Group and this led to his army breaking??¦??¦??¦.so near and yet so far! Bruce had designed a very small army and unfortunately had his camp sacked which didn??™t help.
Sunday afternoon??™s game seemed similarly exciting. I was in the thick of a game using the Mooring swarm of Bogus against Damian with a Greaco-Bactrian army. I was on the left and managed to shield my one unit of aggressive Spanish infantry from a mass of Indian bow fire using my javelinmen. As a result I managed to get one good all or nothing charge in. Despite having my general mauled we managed to rout three opposing BGs on the left flank, caused by one unit breaking and causing Damiens Indians to panic. On the right, Richard managed to swarm and annoy the enemy mounted troops sufficiently to allow our foot troops (imitation legionaries) a decent chance to go forward. So we eventually managed to destroy the opposing army with a big envelopment, but only after a few scary moments. I could easily have lost my flank though ??“ especially after the general died ??“ and I had a chest pain. Richard ??“ being a doctor ??“ ignored my suffering and carried on with his flank attack.
Next to us Matt was playing against a Gepid army. Terry had decided to give Matt some help this game so they played as a double team - and lost 32-0. Matt spent a fair bit of the journey home bemoaning the fact that he averaged 12 points a game on his own and 0 with Terry??™s help!!
Anyway great fun had by all. For the team it was excellent to see how people were interpreting the rules and to pick up on all those little things that only a full test can reveal. Overall we felt very encouraged by the reception the rules received, and especially by the amount of fun people were having around the tables.
In total we managed 2 nose bleeds and my chest pains over the 24 games played ??“ must be something to do with the excitement the games were generating. We had a great time and we are looking forward to the next one. For my part I am itching to get involved in the first AoW campaign at some point. And the end results
1 Don McHugh Steve Hacker Abbassid Arab 96
2 Stephen Finn Phil Giles Early Imperial (Principate) Roman 84
2 Bruce Brown Ghaznavid 84
4 Design Team Ancient British 76
5 James Hamilton Martin Wilkinson Early Visigothic 72
5 Thomas Bodley Scott Ghaznavid 72
7 Mike Baldwin Castilian 56
8 Peter Gregory Jon Phipps Alexandrian Macedonian 52
9 Simon Clarke Wayne Charlton Late (Dominate) Roman 48
9 Nigel Phillips Clive Vaughan Gepid 48
11 Damian Ranasinghe Graeco Indian 44
12 Matthew Hall Lancastrian English 36
The winners received some excellent plaques from Slitherine and every tester took home at least one Osprey Publication book signed with a thank you note to the testers from the Directors of Osprey who along with Slitherine sponsored the event
Best to let others speak for themselves, but below are some of the comments received from players at the event.
From James Hamilton
???In my opinion Art of War is as it stands a viable rule set. There are certainly areas where things can be balanced better but the game is perfectly playable. I feel that the design team have been very receptive to comment and even when suggestions are rejected they are politely replied to rather than simply ignored. I found the Saturday evening debrief at Usk especially positive. I am looking forwards to playing more games of Art of War. I am still not sure how long Art of War will hold my attention but at the moment it is looking good.???
From Steve Finn and Phil Giles
??????Many thanks for your comments.
My thoughts, in no particular order, are as follows:
1 There seemed to be lots of situations, which were novel. No problem there as the rules are new. However a great deal of care will have to be taken in getting the principles accurately down in the rules so that players can work out from them what to do when their own novel situations arise. The diagrams used will, in particular, be very important.
2 Phil and I were delighted that we were able to do so well especially with EIR. We tried to be as historical as possible, with auxiliary troops trying to protect the flanks of the legions while the legions themselves did the business. This seemed to work, which means that the rules are clearly doing something right. At the same time the games gave us lots and lots of nervous moments, which is also good. The fun factor is definitely there for the present.
3 The scoring system can see-saw quite quickly. This is probably a good thing. In the game we played against Terry and JD we went down a victory level at the very end because a unit passed a cohesion test. Had our game gone on they would quickly have racked up another two points (at least), which would have changed the result considerably again. This means that there is always hope and that nearly every game will have legs.
4 I do not think that the game is too difficult to get started with. What remains to be seen is how long the learning curve is. Hopefully it will take a considerable length of time before the best options, both of army design and tactics, are all worked out and games become predictable. I have a worry that the game might prove easier to master than dbm. If there is, for example, already a consensus among the designers that say Ghilmen and Legionnaries are the best ones to have and that bow are pretty useless then I fear that there are going to be problems, no matter how points are tweaked.???
From Simon Clarke
???Thanks for organising the event - I did have a lot of fun. I think I've been wargaming long enough to know the humility of losing and still enjoy the game
my critique...
For me competitive wargames are a dichotomy. I do enjoy the challenge to construct an army - collect the figures - and hopefully have something that will give me an edge over my opponent. But, I really do not like the over competitiveness that a lot of wargamers seem to have in abundance. I like to think of the experience as a social event, where good company and sociability are key factors. I am heartened that this 'fun factor' is of consideration to you.
From a rules perspective the weekend was good as it mixed the pools of play testers. I learned a lot and hopefully it was reciprocal. As I've said before I have been sceptical about the rules. Challenging the innovation in the mechanisms. However, I am being won over. Playing the game in a competitive sense I did enjoy it, and can see how they would work in that arena. I'd say that you are about 90% there regarding the game mechanisms. I'd like to see the next revision with the changes that I spoke to various members of the team about. I do think that its worth saying that once the mechanisms are in place there will be 2 other tiers of change. Probably semantics and fine tune will be required, as with all products. To that end, I think more events like the Usk weekend would be good (maybe be an extended group)... It's a pity that its unlikely I will be able to attend Leeds. A few more events (with the rapid feedback associated) will move things on far faster than dispersed groups of play test. I do think that you will need to be realistic about the fact that whatever is published is not going to be 'perfect', to that end its worthy considering support of the product following its release. Websites and FAQs etc -not wishing to teach you to suck eggs
I would be interested in seeing a more 'polished' version - in a production sense. To me the whole thing (rules & presentation) are integrated. I'd like to see the production values, diagrams, photographs etc etc... I think that this would be of equal importance that getting the rules right! I may be in the minority, but that is my opinion. Maybe I'm a 21st century consumer ?! >:-/
Fun factor - 80% ( I'm sorry this is a low score - but I'd like to see a polished version to 'enjoy' reading the rules)
Major Mechanisms - 90% - looking good
Semantics - 75% Ok.. getting there. Need Majors to be settled first
Minor tweaks - too early to say
Overall product -- 82% finished - how about that????
From Nigel Phillips
???We had a great time. I haven't enjoyed a tournament so much for years.
The rules seem to be playable already. You seem to be tidying up the margins rather than dealing with fundamentals. There weren't any glaring loopholes in the games though a determined rules lawyer might find something. The version we played at Usk is already my favourite rule set.
The diagrams when you put them in should make a big difference. The text is already clearer than most of us are used to, but the diagrams will be a big aid to clarity. Do we need eye candy as well? Will pretty pics of figures be illustrating points of the rules?
I'm working at getting used to the army lists. I reiterate the suggestion that an example showing how they're worked out will be helpful.???
From Mike Bladwin
???First of all many thanks for an excellent weekend. There was a great
atmosphere all weekend and your welcome was much appreciated. My overall
observation is to do with the comparative merits of DBM and AoW.
It was noticeable that we were both deploying and coming to grips much
faster than the older system. In one memorable game I was able to ride round
both wings of a hundred years wars army and still charge the enemies rear!
Deployment is rapid and terrain not a problem. I personally like not
being able to guarantee rough/difficult ground because (a) historically some
armies were caught in less than ideal circumstances eg Mongols in SE
Asian forests. and (b) cover laden tables may be a way of gamesmanship but the
same players will surely find other ways of being a pain such as spending an
inordinate amount of time over moves. Combat mechanisms were smooth and decisive. A number of dbm competitors were looking with envy as the resolution wasn??™t buckets of dice and endlessly repeated.
All told an excellent weekend. It was even rumoured that RBS was seen to
smile!????
From Clive Vaughan
???Up until a week ago, Nigel Phillips & I were happily planning to DBM Usk, but Richard needed another AoW pair so asked if we'd like to switch. On the basis that I'd played one exploratory game and Nigel hadn't received his rules at that point we thought "yeah, we're up for it".
Our objective for the weekend was to learn the rules and see if we liked them. We were able to try out some combat situations to see if the rules reflected what we'd expect to happen based on our understanding of history.
How would warband (sorry average undrilled impact foot!!) fare against elephants - a fight we'd expect to lose and we did.
What's it like facing off against bow armed armoured cavalry. Yes they shot us up, disordered us and charged in to finish us off. Great, now can use the historic Sassanid tactic of Clibinarii softening up the target with bowfire for the cataphracts to charge in and finish them off. This does beg the question though as to why the Sassanids felt the need to have cataphracts for this role? Under AoW Tom BS' Ghaznavid mounted bow armed HC were happy to charge in themselves and finish the job - are the rules not reflecting a wariness of bow armed cavalry to charge home, even into disorganised foot?
How would warband fare charging pikes frontally - we'd expect to lose and we did.
Can warband stand up to longbow - yes and can beat them once they've got into hand-to-hand.
In three battles my warband destroyed three battle lines of spearmen - disorder them in the impact phase and then with superior numbers in the melee phase, chop them into little pieces. Very satisfying, but I did wonder if these victories were too easy (Terry you know what I mean)!! I certainly would be wary about fielding Sp. I believe that impact foot should usually defeat spear but the combats ought to last longer.
How would superior protected lance armed cavalry fare against knights? We were crushed and our general killed!
How would warband fare against knights - honours even, we lost a BG but (helped by favourable dice) we destroyed a chivalric BG.
I do like the double rout moves if a pursuing BG remains in contact even if it meant Ghaznavid elephants smashing into my lancers (yes ouch). This surging hole in your line when things go wrong is also a feature of Fire & Fury and feels right historically.
I was impressed by the speed of movement and the frequency & intensity of combat in all four games. I generally roll respectable combat dice but specialise in crap PiP rolls. It was good not to have the frustration of wanting to carry out a plan but not having the PiPs to do so.
None of our four games dissuaded me from the view that light bow armed foot are a bit too good, especially at bullying light horse.
I still believe that there should be a class of general heading up loyal troops (companions/huscarls) eg Alexander, Belisarius etc who should only move in the movement phase but should have extra combat dice to represent the elan of these picked trained troops.
All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed playing the rules and had excellent fun - I'm a convert and will be happy to proselytise AoW especially among the Warhammer players that Peterbourough is infested with.
On behalf of Nigel & I many thanks to the writers and Slitherine - it's so much better when learning the rules to have experts to hand to ask questions (apologies Richard for all the damn fool ones from me!)???
From Bruce Brown
I would also like to add my piece about the weekend.
Firstly I would like to say I had a really great weekend. The contrast to last year's final couple of DBM tournaments was huge. I enjoyed every game (even if I got a little narked at my dice in the last game). The spirit of the games were excellent all round and there was a genuine buzz about the games, participants and spectators. It was good to see some familiar faces and even better to see and play some new ones.
Although there were many rules queries (especially in my second game with Don and Steve) I was pleasantly surprised at how well the games went. The rules are certainly ready for club play, and it really shows how valuable a beta-test tournament can be in ironing out the issues.
I was not surprised that Superior/Bow cavalry armies did so well, but it was nice to see Romans up there as well. With more games and players I am sure we will see a whole range of different armies doing well. I don't think all armies are playable at tournament level, but I would say over 50% of the army lists we've seen are good enough, and the other 50% probably just need some tweaking and game balance to make them competitive.
My highlights of the weekend were:
- Attacking baggage with elephants and then losing them to a 4 man BG of average medium foot light spear.
- Charging a disrupted pike BG in the rear with a light horse BG and routing it at impact.
- Seeing my club mates Stephen and Phil get a win against Terry and JD - long may it last
- Talking about the competition, AoW and what we wanted to play next all the way back in the car.
- Meeting Richard for the second time in 14 years.
A big thank you to Richard for organising the competition - the venue is excellent, the organisation was without incident and I'm just regretting never going to Usk before. A big thank you to JD for all the hard work, prizes and listening to everyone's thoughts and comments. A big thank you to Terry and Simon for having the patience to rule on all those niggly queries, taking all the critisms in good spirit and still finding time to play a game or two. And finally a big thank you to everyone who took part - I thought the whole weekend was worth it.
Regards
JDM
News from the Front by Simon Hall
AoW Testing at Usk
After a very pleasant journey to the Welsh countryside, the team found themselves in a very classy hotel in Usk (must go there more often) for the first public trial of their new AoW rules. A total of 18 players came down for the Saturday and 20 for the Sunday. A big thanks to everyone involved. The team each played one game on the Sunday to get involved in the table-top fun.
The first news is that there was a great range of armies chosen for the event. In action over the weekend we had:
?? Alexandrian Macedonian
?? Early Imp (Principate)
?? Roman Early Visigothic
?? Late (Dominate) Roman
?? Gepid
?? Abbasid Arab
?? Ghaznavid x 2
?? Castilian
?? Lancastrian English
?? Graeco-Indian
?? Moorish
?? Ancient British
The two Ghaznavid armies were quite different with Bruce Brown trying to break the system as much as possible with two Battle Groups each of 4 Elephants on the table (more of these later). The team played 2 games ??“ me lending my Ancient Britons to JD and Terry, and Richard and I teamed up with the Morrish swarm of Bogus.
And there off??¦..
Terrain on the five tables took on average 15 minutes to place and led to a nice variety of tables across the five match ups. This seemed to get a big thumbs up. One game started moving after just 24 minutes, the slowest (with a single playing 11 year old) was up and moving at 33 minutes. After 50 minutes the tables had played 4/2/3/2/3 bounds each and every table was in the thick of action, rolling shooting and combat dice, so perhaps one success is the pace of the game.
Bodley-Scott junior managed a few early accolades ??“ he suffered the first base loss and BG Disrupted in AoW public play ??“ well done Tom. Osprey Publications donated a signed book as a prize for this, with a note saying thanks for helping with AoW??™s development. He was also the first player to destroy an enemy general and went on to win the game.
James Hamilton and Mark Wilkinson threw their Visigoths at Matthew??™s War of the Roses Lancastrians. Matthew??™s Scots allies won the centre almost rescuing a game that at first looked lost and allowed the Lancastrians to cling on for a 20-12 defeat. The Scots general holding it all together with a wey-heh or two. The Abbasids and both Ghaznavids managed big wins.
A clash between the Roman eras gave us the longest battle line I have yet seen engaged. This was a great game - the players said that you could almost feel the battle line wobbling and recovering at different times. Eventually the Early Roman Legionaries managed to break their way through their Late Roman cousins after a huge and exciting tussle that swung several times. The four players on this table commented on how exciting a big smash of Heavy Foot was under the rules.
In fact all five of the games achieved a result with 3 big wins (32/32 or 28/32) and 2 medium wins (20/32).
In the afternoon the games were going even more quickly with every game was in action within 30 minutes. Another excellent set of games with 2 big wins, 2 medium wins and our first draw (a bloody affair with both sides knocking out about 40% of the opposing army, but neither side managing to break the other).
In the evening we gathered for a full debrief in the bar ??“ everyone getting a few Slitherine-sponsored beers down them. All players attended and a few non-players sat in too. The general feedback in the room was very encouraging. General comments seemed to be along the following lines:
?? Very exciting and fun to play
?? Almost ready to go ??“ no major flaws found
?? Much clearer to read than we are used to
?? Makes a foot army fun to use
?? Speed is excellent ??“ simple deployment system is very good
?? No obvious supertroops, most armies playable
?? Rules very well suited to doing historical scenarios
?? Rules make it much more easy for armies to get to grips
?? Most of the dice rolls are exciting and things can turn quickly
In total the team noted about 35 areas to work on (thank you test team), but interestingly non of them is major problem ??“ all tweaks. The team will be working on these over the next 2 or 3 weeks with a view to issuing a further draft of the rules soon. The session finished after about 2 hours of debate and discussion and we all retired for a Chinese in Usk town.
And so to Sunday??¦..
Everyone got off again to a fast start. JD McNeil and Terry Shaw took charge of my Ancient Britons against a Roman army. The first time I looked over, Boedicae was in the thick of the action leading the British warriors in person. Several Roman BGs went over but the Romans eventually forced a 20-12 win ??“ as the footy commentators say ???their quality came through in the second half???.
Matt managed his third 20-12 defeat so he was doing OK for a youngster. He came within a whisker of winning his game against a Late Imperial Roman. This time his Scots allies let him down but his men-at-arms and longbowmen managed to cause a great deal of trouble on one flank ??“ the Roman Auxilia failed to hold them off until they got some legionary support. One epic spell of the game had the Lancastrian c-in-c with a single Battle Group of top notch plated men-at-arms making a last stand in the middle. Never once did the troops or the general bend under the attack of a full legion ??“ eventually going down to a man including the general over the course of about 45 minutes of play. This was a fantastic spell with two Roman generals also in the thick of the fighting. Both sides did the same damage but Matt??™s army collapsed.
Meanwhile Bruce and Tom had a Ghaznavid civil war going on. This was mayhem with Elephants engaged and breaking all over the place. Bruce eventually got the better of the game, and managed to charge 4 bases of Elephants into the enemy camp and a supporting foot unit. Alas the fresh foot unit managed to break his Elephant Battle Group and this led to his army breaking??¦??¦??¦.so near and yet so far! Bruce had designed a very small army and unfortunately had his camp sacked which didn??™t help.
Sunday afternoon??™s game seemed similarly exciting. I was in the thick of a game using the Mooring swarm of Bogus against Damian with a Greaco-Bactrian army. I was on the left and managed to shield my one unit of aggressive Spanish infantry from a mass of Indian bow fire using my javelinmen. As a result I managed to get one good all or nothing charge in. Despite having my general mauled we managed to rout three opposing BGs on the left flank, caused by one unit breaking and causing Damiens Indians to panic. On the right, Richard managed to swarm and annoy the enemy mounted troops sufficiently to allow our foot troops (imitation legionaries) a decent chance to go forward. So we eventually managed to destroy the opposing army with a big envelopment, but only after a few scary moments. I could easily have lost my flank though ??“ especially after the general died ??“ and I had a chest pain. Richard ??“ being a doctor ??“ ignored my suffering and carried on with his flank attack.
Next to us Matt was playing against a Gepid army. Terry had decided to give Matt some help this game so they played as a double team - and lost 32-0. Matt spent a fair bit of the journey home bemoaning the fact that he averaged 12 points a game on his own and 0 with Terry??™s help!!
Anyway great fun had by all. For the team it was excellent to see how people were interpreting the rules and to pick up on all those little things that only a full test can reveal. Overall we felt very encouraged by the reception the rules received, and especially by the amount of fun people were having around the tables.
In total we managed 2 nose bleeds and my chest pains over the 24 games played ??“ must be something to do with the excitement the games were generating. We had a great time and we are looking forward to the next one. For my part I am itching to get involved in the first AoW campaign at some point. And the end results
1 Don McHugh Steve Hacker Abbassid Arab 96
2 Stephen Finn Phil Giles Early Imperial (Principate) Roman 84
2 Bruce Brown Ghaznavid 84
4 Design Team Ancient British 76
5 James Hamilton Martin Wilkinson Early Visigothic 72
5 Thomas Bodley Scott Ghaznavid 72
7 Mike Baldwin Castilian 56
8 Peter Gregory Jon Phipps Alexandrian Macedonian 52
9 Simon Clarke Wayne Charlton Late (Dominate) Roman 48
9 Nigel Phillips Clive Vaughan Gepid 48
11 Damian Ranasinghe Graeco Indian 44
12 Matthew Hall Lancastrian English 36
The winners received some excellent plaques from Slitherine and every tester took home at least one Osprey Publication book signed with a thank you note to the testers from the Directors of Osprey who along with Slitherine sponsored the event
Best to let others speak for themselves, but below are some of the comments received from players at the event.
From James Hamilton
???In my opinion Art of War is as it stands a viable rule set. There are certainly areas where things can be balanced better but the game is perfectly playable. I feel that the design team have been very receptive to comment and even when suggestions are rejected they are politely replied to rather than simply ignored. I found the Saturday evening debrief at Usk especially positive. I am looking forwards to playing more games of Art of War. I am still not sure how long Art of War will hold my attention but at the moment it is looking good.???
From Steve Finn and Phil Giles
??????Many thanks for your comments.
My thoughts, in no particular order, are as follows:
1 There seemed to be lots of situations, which were novel. No problem there as the rules are new. However a great deal of care will have to be taken in getting the principles accurately down in the rules so that players can work out from them what to do when their own novel situations arise. The diagrams used will, in particular, be very important.
2 Phil and I were delighted that we were able to do so well especially with EIR. We tried to be as historical as possible, with auxiliary troops trying to protect the flanks of the legions while the legions themselves did the business. This seemed to work, which means that the rules are clearly doing something right. At the same time the games gave us lots and lots of nervous moments, which is also good. The fun factor is definitely there for the present.
3 The scoring system can see-saw quite quickly. This is probably a good thing. In the game we played against Terry and JD we went down a victory level at the very end because a unit passed a cohesion test. Had our game gone on they would quickly have racked up another two points (at least), which would have changed the result considerably again. This means that there is always hope and that nearly every game will have legs.
4 I do not think that the game is too difficult to get started with. What remains to be seen is how long the learning curve is. Hopefully it will take a considerable length of time before the best options, both of army design and tactics, are all worked out and games become predictable. I have a worry that the game might prove easier to master than dbm. If there is, for example, already a consensus among the designers that say Ghilmen and Legionnaries are the best ones to have and that bow are pretty useless then I fear that there are going to be problems, no matter how points are tweaked.???
From Simon Clarke
???Thanks for organising the event - I did have a lot of fun. I think I've been wargaming long enough to know the humility of losing and still enjoy the game
my critique...
For me competitive wargames are a dichotomy. I do enjoy the challenge to construct an army - collect the figures - and hopefully have something that will give me an edge over my opponent. But, I really do not like the over competitiveness that a lot of wargamers seem to have in abundance. I like to think of the experience as a social event, where good company and sociability are key factors. I am heartened that this 'fun factor' is of consideration to you.
From a rules perspective the weekend was good as it mixed the pools of play testers. I learned a lot and hopefully it was reciprocal. As I've said before I have been sceptical about the rules. Challenging the innovation in the mechanisms. However, I am being won over. Playing the game in a competitive sense I did enjoy it, and can see how they would work in that arena. I'd say that you are about 90% there regarding the game mechanisms. I'd like to see the next revision with the changes that I spoke to various members of the team about. I do think that its worth saying that once the mechanisms are in place there will be 2 other tiers of change. Probably semantics and fine tune will be required, as with all products. To that end, I think more events like the Usk weekend would be good (maybe be an extended group)... It's a pity that its unlikely I will be able to attend Leeds. A few more events (with the rapid feedback associated) will move things on far faster than dispersed groups of play test. I do think that you will need to be realistic about the fact that whatever is published is not going to be 'perfect', to that end its worthy considering support of the product following its release. Websites and FAQs etc -not wishing to teach you to suck eggs
I would be interested in seeing a more 'polished' version - in a production sense. To me the whole thing (rules & presentation) are integrated. I'd like to see the production values, diagrams, photographs etc etc... I think that this would be of equal importance that getting the rules right! I may be in the minority, but that is my opinion. Maybe I'm a 21st century consumer ?! >:-/
Fun factor - 80% ( I'm sorry this is a low score - but I'd like to see a polished version to 'enjoy' reading the rules)
Major Mechanisms - 90% - looking good
Semantics - 75% Ok.. getting there. Need Majors to be settled first
Minor tweaks - too early to say
Overall product -- 82% finished - how about that????
From Nigel Phillips
???We had a great time. I haven't enjoyed a tournament so much for years.
The rules seem to be playable already. You seem to be tidying up the margins rather than dealing with fundamentals. There weren't any glaring loopholes in the games though a determined rules lawyer might find something. The version we played at Usk is already my favourite rule set.
The diagrams when you put them in should make a big difference. The text is already clearer than most of us are used to, but the diagrams will be a big aid to clarity. Do we need eye candy as well? Will pretty pics of figures be illustrating points of the rules?
I'm working at getting used to the army lists. I reiterate the suggestion that an example showing how they're worked out will be helpful.???
From Mike Bladwin
???First of all many thanks for an excellent weekend. There was a great
atmosphere all weekend and your welcome was much appreciated. My overall
observation is to do with the comparative merits of DBM and AoW.
It was noticeable that we were both deploying and coming to grips much
faster than the older system. In one memorable game I was able to ride round
both wings of a hundred years wars army and still charge the enemies rear!
Deployment is rapid and terrain not a problem. I personally like not
being able to guarantee rough/difficult ground because (a) historically some
armies were caught in less than ideal circumstances eg Mongols in SE
Asian forests. and (b) cover laden tables may be a way of gamesmanship but the
same players will surely find other ways of being a pain such as spending an
inordinate amount of time over moves. Combat mechanisms were smooth and decisive. A number of dbm competitors were looking with envy as the resolution wasn??™t buckets of dice and endlessly repeated.
All told an excellent weekend. It was even rumoured that RBS was seen to
smile!????
From Clive Vaughan
???Up until a week ago, Nigel Phillips & I were happily planning to DBM Usk, but Richard needed another AoW pair so asked if we'd like to switch. On the basis that I'd played one exploratory game and Nigel hadn't received his rules at that point we thought "yeah, we're up for it".
Our objective for the weekend was to learn the rules and see if we liked them. We were able to try out some combat situations to see if the rules reflected what we'd expect to happen based on our understanding of history.
How would warband (sorry average undrilled impact foot!!) fare against elephants - a fight we'd expect to lose and we did.
What's it like facing off against bow armed armoured cavalry. Yes they shot us up, disordered us and charged in to finish us off. Great, now can use the historic Sassanid tactic of Clibinarii softening up the target with bowfire for the cataphracts to charge in and finish them off. This does beg the question though as to why the Sassanids felt the need to have cataphracts for this role? Under AoW Tom BS' Ghaznavid mounted bow armed HC were happy to charge in themselves and finish the job - are the rules not reflecting a wariness of bow armed cavalry to charge home, even into disorganised foot?
How would warband fare charging pikes frontally - we'd expect to lose and we did.
Can warband stand up to longbow - yes and can beat them once they've got into hand-to-hand.
In three battles my warband destroyed three battle lines of spearmen - disorder them in the impact phase and then with superior numbers in the melee phase, chop them into little pieces. Very satisfying, but I did wonder if these victories were too easy (Terry you know what I mean)!! I certainly would be wary about fielding Sp. I believe that impact foot should usually defeat spear but the combats ought to last longer.
How would superior protected lance armed cavalry fare against knights? We were crushed and our general killed!
How would warband fare against knights - honours even, we lost a BG but (helped by favourable dice) we destroyed a chivalric BG.
I do like the double rout moves if a pursuing BG remains in contact even if it meant Ghaznavid elephants smashing into my lancers (yes ouch). This surging hole in your line when things go wrong is also a feature of Fire & Fury and feels right historically.
I was impressed by the speed of movement and the frequency & intensity of combat in all four games. I generally roll respectable combat dice but specialise in crap PiP rolls. It was good not to have the frustration of wanting to carry out a plan but not having the PiPs to do so.
None of our four games dissuaded me from the view that light bow armed foot are a bit too good, especially at bullying light horse.
I still believe that there should be a class of general heading up loyal troops (companions/huscarls) eg Alexander, Belisarius etc who should only move in the movement phase but should have extra combat dice to represent the elan of these picked trained troops.
All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed playing the rules and had excellent fun - I'm a convert and will be happy to proselytise AoW especially among the Warhammer players that Peterbourough is infested with.
On behalf of Nigel & I many thanks to the writers and Slitherine - it's so much better when learning the rules to have experts to hand to ask questions (apologies Richard for all the damn fool ones from me!)???
From Bruce Brown
I would also like to add my piece about the weekend.
Firstly I would like to say I had a really great weekend. The contrast to last year's final couple of DBM tournaments was huge. I enjoyed every game (even if I got a little narked at my dice in the last game). The spirit of the games were excellent all round and there was a genuine buzz about the games, participants and spectators. It was good to see some familiar faces and even better to see and play some new ones.
Although there were many rules queries (especially in my second game with Don and Steve) I was pleasantly surprised at how well the games went. The rules are certainly ready for club play, and it really shows how valuable a beta-test tournament can be in ironing out the issues.
I was not surprised that Superior/Bow cavalry armies did so well, but it was nice to see Romans up there as well. With more games and players I am sure we will see a whole range of different armies doing well. I don't think all armies are playable at tournament level, but I would say over 50% of the army lists we've seen are good enough, and the other 50% probably just need some tweaking and game balance to make them competitive.
My highlights of the weekend were:
- Attacking baggage with elephants and then losing them to a 4 man BG of average medium foot light spear.
- Charging a disrupted pike BG in the rear with a light horse BG and routing it at impact.
- Seeing my club mates Stephen and Phil get a win against Terry and JD - long may it last
- Talking about the competition, AoW and what we wanted to play next all the way back in the car.
- Meeting Richard for the second time in 14 years.
A big thank you to Richard for organising the competition - the venue is excellent, the organisation was without incident and I'm just regretting never going to Usk before. A big thank you to JD for all the hard work, prizes and listening to everyone's thoughts and comments. A big thank you to Terry and Simon for having the patience to rule on all those niggly queries, taking all the critisms in good spirit and still finding time to play a game or two. And finally a big thank you to everyone who took part - I thought the whole weekend was worth it.
