Slitherine

Hi all, just to give context, these are literally first impressions after one read
through the rules and no games played. I've only really played DBM and
even that only for the last 4 years or so.

I've heard comments that it's a simple ruleset to "get", I'm not getting
the simplicity at all. Certainly it's initially easier to read than DBM
but in terms of visualising the army I'm getting constantly tripped up
by ++ in this phase vs X, - in that phase vs Y, single rank or double
rank, lose a dice per 3 bases if Z and add a dice per base for each half
element in a rear rank only if....etc...

I don't see the epic nature of DBM 15mm in this set, this could be because
I've not seen it in action of course. What I mean by this is the "god view"
of two 15mm armies on table with the pressure of the battle showing in
troops being pushed back in places and pressing on in others. Everything
feels very compact and, until talking about it after the read, I was thinking
that everything had to be in two ranks leading to very narrow armies.

The army lists are a pain to use, take Szekeler as an example, not only are
there several boxes for attributes (bow,spear,swordsmen) but many of the
boxes are multi-entry, Lh or Cv, armoured or unarmoured, average or superior.
I'm not arguing against the options being available, that's a matter for the
army list author but at first attempt it was a case of throwing away the old:
irrCvS at 9ap and bringing in the new: undrilled Cv as superior at X plus
armour (or not), plus swordsmen, plus light spear (oh and this costs for mounted
only?), plus bow. Not sure there's an easier way to represent this, these
are just first impressions afterall. Wrapping the armour and morale into
a grading (S/O/I) removed much of this complexity for DBM.

Cohesion is (on first read) horrible, having to remember where each unit is
on its cohesion ladder so that the right factors are used in all the various
phases and events. In practice this may prove to be less of an issue but as
I read it currently this is going to mean introduction of some of the counters
and tokens I've seen on other tables and remove some of the simplicity.

I like the battle groups concept and how generals are treated, I've often
used troops in this way under DBM (probably incorrectly:) so it "feels" right.

Straight off the bat the contact rules seemed improved, though the "gamer" in
me is already wondering if it's possible to use angled lines to minimise the
chance of rolling for cohesion drops. I like the impetuous only if near the
enemy change as well.

Deployment seems an improvement though I've not tried to "game" it yet to
see how much of an advantage can be extracted from army list manipulation.
Leeds will be a great chance to try out a couple of ideas on this theme.

Pictures and diagrams throughout the rules will help give the right impressions,
not just explaining how a particular rule works but also how the battles will
ultimately appear.

Looking forward to leeds to see how things play.

Cheers,
Gary Buckley

Thanks Gary

Such initial impression are really important to us now we are moving into packaging mode from the rule development mode.

Simon

Re-reading the post it comes across quite negative, more time is spent on the points of issue (in order to explain why they're issues) than on positives. I'm in that "looking forward to a refreshing change" mode that's common on the DBM circuit ATM, so have been quite keen to get my hands on AoW.

Clearly there are aspects that are new and will be cumbersome until they're learnt (much like learning to speak DBM!).
Learning how the game works is part of the fun.

Don't worry about sounding negative.

I think I can speak for all of us in saying that we are very confident of the rules and mechanisms and how well they play now.

What we need to do is package and repackage until we get a version that is great to read and learn for the new players and experienced ones alike.

So don't worry about being candid and apprearing hard hitting...its what we need and indeed expect from everyone.

Keep it coming ..we are listening and now moving into a full on packaging mode.

Thanks

Si

garyb wrote:Cohesion is (on first read) horrible, having to remember where each unit is
on its cohesion ladder so that the right factors are used in all the various
phases and events. In practice this may prove to be less of an issue but as
I read it currently this is going to mean introduction of some of the counters
and tokens I've seen on other tables and remove some of the simplicity.

Hi Gary,

It is a bit overwhelming on first read, but I've played 4 games now and the concepts settle down after 2 - 3 games.

The cohesion isn't too bad once you get a system worked out. I use "markers" in the form of a single figure mounted on a coin - 1 pence base = disrupted, 2 pence "base" = fragmented. I also flock the 1p and 2p bases differently so there is a visual indication as well. It's easy enough to place a marker by the unit when it become disrupted / fragmented (I don't bother with rout as the figures get turned around and it becomes self evident). When shooting or fighting it's then pretty obvious what the state of cohension is.

Neil

I use coloured pebbles for cohesion markers - but I love the sound of Neil's flocked coins! With the pebbles you actually get a superb 'God view' of an army starting to crumbles - especially if it is your opponent'....

Wow! This is that 'not a peasant now' moment.