LEEDS FEEDBACK

[shall]

First of all thank you to everyone for taking the time to come to Leeds and provide a larger test of the new AOW rules. It was great to get such a varied team of testers together all bursting with enthusiasm to give it a go. We hope you enjoyed it and look forward to the next time.

A special thanks to Bruce for all his hard work organising (he deserved to win for all the ffort put in) and to Thom and the armouries for the fine hosting of the event.

We now need to gather up your feedback. We also need to inform the wider comminity about the test session. To that end could we ask that....

1) you post a para or two 10-20 lines max, into this stream. Could you write this in a form where you would be happy for any or all of it to go into the official Leeds report when posted to the open forum;

2) please post your issues as separate streams on the beta forum for us to address, and when posting check if there is another stream that is similar and add to this where possible - can we suggest that all issues form Leeds titled "LEEDS ISSUE:blah blah blah" so we can all find them easily. Still be as frank as previously. We are pleased we are going well overall but we want to pick out all the issues and iron them out as much as possible.

Thanks to all for your help

Si

[paulcummins]

Four really fun games - the troops acted as I thought they should, the rules didnt throw anything that I thought was silly
In terms of a learning curve - by the end of the first game I think I had the basics - I just needed to look up the modifiers. By the end of the second game I needed to check when things were looking bad and I wawnted to find an escape clause.
The first game lasted about 3 hours the second a bit longer and not reaching conclusion - mainly to us having each destroyed a wing of each others army, and trying to get wodges of infantry in place to attack again, rather than having to look things up etc. Third game lasted an hour and half with a wall of spear grinding me under foot (hardly any refering to tables by this point)
Fourth game lasted about 2 1/2 hours, by which point I would say I had most of the factors memorised - so the game ran very smoothly.

[garyb]

An enjoyable set of games, with each providing a different challenge as my opponents armies varied drastically. The single most enjoyable game I've had in a while (later hungarian vs huns) where I made historical mistakes (nobles outpacing support) and paid for it in historical fashion but was almost able to claw it back before finally collapsing. Without the reliance on pips there was always stuff to do, sure the commanders focus could dramatically change things as BGs could move multiple times but there was constant activity across the board. The terrain setup and deployment stage went quickly and smoothly, I really liked the order of march approach to getting toys on the table. I was constantly trying to get clear tables and my opponents trying to clutter them up and in most cases we ended up with a mixture that allowed for an interesting game.

The DBM 6:1 is not lost, it's now the cohesion test, an unlucky cohesion test can see a once solid looking BG crumble. There is a chance to recover by getting a general into the right place and getting lucky enough to hold on until they can be bolstered so it's not so devastating as in DBM. The counters aren't as big a drawback as I thought, still a shame they're needed though. I did notice that people were using different "systems" for what each counter colour or stack meant, some standardisation on this (perhaps in the tournament rules?) would be good.

[nikgaukroger]

I'll just chip in an observers comment. A friend of mine, Pete Reilly, went along on Saturday to see waht gives with AoW and after a couple of hours watching Hammy's first game and following it on the QFS (with a few questions) he felt that he had the basic game mechanics understood and could probably have had a good stab at a game.

I'd see this as a vote of confidence in the basic mechanisms

He did, however, think that there was a great slice of luck involved in the game - things like needing to test if losing a combat by even only 1 hit which with a poorish CT dice roll can get things going south very quickly. He noted quite a few combats in the games on Saturday which went against the side with the advantages (initial PoA advantage, overlaps, etc.) fairly quickly. Obviously spectating isn't the same as playing but Pete picks rules up very quickly in my experience.

[clivevaughan]

While busy carving scenes of the spectacular triumphs on the temple wall, and executing as impious those suggesting that three battles out of four were lost, Pharaoh has the following observations:
Medium foot needs to avoid open terrain if heavy foot, armoured cavalry and or knights are around so put down plenty of rough or broken terrain - occupy this with bowmen and disrupt enemy by shooting out of it.
Pray to the Gods! A chariot versus cavalry combat was lost due to poor dice. Archers and the chariots had shot at the cavalry and while not disorganising them, had caused the loss of a base (element). The cav charged with an advantage in the impact phasebecause the had javelins. Chariots were not disorganised but lost a base. In the melee rounds both sides scored hits (each chariot base has two combat dice per base to the cavalry's one) but neither became disordered but sadly the chariots kept losing bases until enough had died for the battle group to automatically break. So luck was involved and a combat lost despite factor advantages - but if you want certainty in gaming then play chess! The unexpected happens, so keep a reserve to react to this.
Overall, AoW gives pacy games with lots of troop movement and generals rushing from spot to spot to affect combat outcomes and hearten wavering troops. The battle results seem fair - New Kingdom Egyptians lost to Skythians in open terrain and to two Roman armies (a nation that experienced no difficulty conquering the country). We beat one Roman army by staying in rough terrain (apart from chariots that can shoot bows and evade where necessary) and taking out units in detail. Chariots shooting at cavalry to disorder them and then charging in is effective and probably a historic tactic.

[davidandlynda]

As with the others an enjoyable set of games ,picked the rules up pretty well,even in the lead after Saturday.came down to earth with both sunday games,it was a bit disconcerting facing the two armies ,Sassanid and Republican roman knowing the rules well enough to know that I didn't have a hope in hell of winning especially against the Romans,I also know that I wouldn't choose the Scots in a competitive comp as well
David

[rbodleyscott]

As with the others an enjoyable set of games ,picked the rules up pretty well,even in the lead after Saturday.came down to earth with both sunday games,it was a bit disconcerting facing the two armies ,Sassanid and Republican roman knowing the rules well enough to know that I didn't have a hope in hell of winning especially against the Romans,I also know that I wouldn't choose the Scots in a competitive comp as well
David

Well at least we now know that grading Highlanders as MF, bow*, impact foot, swordsmen doesn't make them a game breaking super troop.

Thanks very much for testing them out for us.

[davidandlynda]

In the right environment ie rough going chasing after medium or light foot they were,they efectively won the first two games ,but agaist mounted in the open even with shooting and even in thye rough agai st the romans they were well beaten
David

[sagji]

Roman order of march
Fortified camp
2*6 Light foot, unprotected, undrilled, sling
4x4 Heavy foot, armoured, superior, impact foot, skilled swordsman
4x4 Heavy foot, armoured, elite, impact foot, skilled swordsman
1x4 Light horse, unprotected, average, javelin, light spear
1x4 Cavalry, protected, superior, undrilled, light spear, swordsman
1x6 light foot, unprotected, undrilled, average bow
1X6 light foot, unprotected, drilled, superior, bow
3 Troup commanders.

Four very enjoyable games. Only three generals - all troup commanders - with an Elite & superior drilled small army worked well, as I never felt short of generals, the main thing that would put me off only 2 generals is the reduction in march moves in the first part of the game. Another thing that worked well was having minimum scouting ability - I was out scouted in every game which gave the enemy the advantage in picking the terrain and deployment but gave me first move. I was never unhappy with the terrain and moving first is very usefull to a HF army. The fortified camp was usefull - in 2 games I had enemy mounted within reach of my camp and they chose not to try and loot it.

[kevinj]

Sadly I was only able to attend the Saturday but I played my first two games and had a thoroughly good time. Overall I was impressed with the pace of the games and the speed with which it was possible to pick up the game's mechanics. Like other correspondents I am concerned with just how quickly things can go from OK to Oh ****! My first game was looking close until a few failed Cohesion tests and suddenly my opponent's army was running away. I think more games will be needed to see if this was just a very rare occurrence or is symptomatic of an underlying problem. I did experience a number of instances where BGs that had obvious advantages lost. Again more games will be needed to see if this appears to be happening too often. I agree with other comments in this area, we need uncertainty but a game gets very frustrating if you do the right thing and lose due to pure luck too often.

[IainMcNeil]

Guys

It sounds like a lot of fun was had and thats pretty important:-) Really sorry Iain and I could not join you

but it has its compensations we are in Sunny San Francisco at The Computer games convention , hoping to pick up an award !!

Looking forward to reading the rest of your reports now the jet lag is out of the way

Regards
JDM

[andy816]

Thanks to Bruce for the organisational efforts and the writing team for being there and helping out with tips and advice. I played 4 very enjoyable games that all played very cleanly. I am a fan of the BG system as it does keep the game clean and essentially argument free. As the weekend developed so did my understanding of the rules and how better to use troop types in AOW. Yes i have some issues with the rules, some are because i can't see the bigger picture yet, some are because i expected something to happen differently, but i think the mechanism that, for me, overly dominated the game was the cohesion test. It is savage if you roll low and on several occasions i was testing BGs two or three times a bound. My impression at the moment is that the CT is an overwhelming influence on the game rather than an important but integral part of the game.

Highlights of my weekend were;
fragmented light Chariots destroying my elephants on an autobreak.
Finding out the hard way that Elephants will always take a CT if shot at unless your opponent completely misses.
Spanish are not terrain troops, they are assault troops who can also fight in terrain.

As requested this is my press release paragraph that can be used on the open forum if you wish:

The key issue that helped improve my understanding of the game is that battle groups (BG) are not units they are a collection of elements of a type that historically fought together. They do not have to maintain rigid formations unlike units in other rules. I like this concept, the ability to place the integral light archers in the front rank of a supporterd spear BG if the tactical situation demanded is a leap forward in the right direction IMO. The BG system allows all the tactical flexibility of the single element system without the problems of geometrical trickery and un-natural usage of troop types.

Cheers

Andy Robinson

[rbodleyscott]

Finding out the hard way that Elephants will always take a CT if shot at unless your opponent completely misses.

Actually they won't. They count as 2 bases per base in the front rank for 1HP3B calculations. Thus if the 2 elephant bases are side by side they count as 4 bases for 1HB3B calculations, so 2 shooting hits are required to trigger a CT.

[andy816]

Finding out the hard way that Elephants will always take a CT if shot at unless your opponent completely misses.

Actually they won't. They count as 2 bases per base in the front rank for 1HP3B calculations. Thus if the 2 elephant bases are side by side they count as 4 bases for 1HB3B calculations, so 2 shooting hits are required to trigger a CT.

Doh Oh well that mistake cost me 3 victory points in one game. I think i might continue using them now

Cheers

Andy Robinson

[hammy]

It was great to see so many people investing time in testing the rules. I had four interesting games which despite none of them being true historical matchups (actually most were nothing like historical matchups) played out from my side of the table in a most believable way.

Will I take a Swiss army to an open competition again? I doubt it. Do I think that Swiss feel right under AoW and would I take them to a period competions? Absolutely (that is if I am not distracted by one of the other really interesting medieval armies out there).

[niksharp]

This was an enjoyable weekend, four good games and a good learning experience as far as the rules went. I had played before coming but had only skipped through the rules. This did not seem to matter, I could get on with the games and felt I had a good grasp of what was happening. It was good having Simon, Terry and RBS there to clarify the few things I did not understand.

The Arab Conquest carried the sword of Islam to three of the four corners of the Armouries, unfortunately Anubis did not recognise that Allah is supposed to win the war of lucky dice! I liked my army and it seemed to stand up well to some of the super troops, mainly due to its good overall morale. I liked the rules as a game. They are easy to pick up and the games were enjoyable. My observations:

Felt like seventh edition with lots of dice (an observation I heard others make as well)
Take an army of 80% plus superior troops if you want to hang around through all those CTs
Even when you think you have an opponent nailed, he can always dice his way out of it
Beware armoured cavalry with bow!

Army highlight - Average Camels beating off Superior Cataphracts in one game and Elite Knights in another
Army Disaster - MF Superior, Drilled, Armoured, Impact Foot, Swordsmen charging severley disorded Mesh Wesh in the flank in the soft sand and being routed two turns later by some fantastic dice from Matt!

Nik

[hammy]

Army Disaster - MF Superior, Drilled, Armoured, Impact Foot, Swordsmen charging severley disorded Mesh Wesh in the flank in the soft sand and being routed two turns later by some fantastic dice from Matt!

Really

You automatically disrupt him at impact, fight the impact at ++ to his -- (flank charge) with twice as many dice (he is severley dissorderd) , if he has to test he is at -1 for impact foot, -1 for disrupted or severly disordered (i thoght these were separate but they arent), - whatever for loosing then in the melee you will be at + with twice the dice and you still lost.....

Did Matt borrow Bruce's magic terrain removing dice?

Hammy

[shall]

niksharp wrote:
Army Disaster - MF Superior, Drilled, Armoured, Impact Foot, Swordsmen charging severley disorded Mesh Wesh in the flank in the soft sand and being routed two turns later by some fantastic dice from Matt!

Really

You automatically disrupt him at impact, fight the impact at ++ to his -- (flank charge) with twice as many dice (he is severley dissorderd) , if he has to test he is at -1 for impact foot, -1 for disrupted or severly disordered (i thoght these were separate but they arent), - whatever for loosing then in the melee you will be at + with twice the dice and you still lost.....

Did Matt borrow Bruce's magic terrain removing dice?

Hammy

I knew there was some sort of funny blue glow coming from those 50mm tall Anubis figures.....

Si

[lawrenceg]

Leeds feedback (not intended for the open forum), based on notes I took at the time. Mostly things we were unsure about and couldn't find in the rules, or didn't feel the rule was explicit enough and mostly too small to justify a separate post as "Issues"

First game - both players beginners.

Deployment - we followed the sequence in the appendix and as designating a flank march does not appear in the sequence I forgot it.

VMD - one of us had to keep referring to the table so it would have been nice to have it on a playsheet. Only an issue for beginners.

Uncertain what to do when skirmishers charged skirmishers whose evade would expose non-skirmishers within possible VMD distance. Did they need a CT to charge? The answer was "no" but shock troops take the possible +2 MU VMD into account when not needing to test not to charge after evaders into disordering terrain.

Is it allowable to step forward into contact with a BG other than the first one you contact? I thought this was clear, but my opponent didn't.

Evaders moving around another BG exposed my BG to an interception. Sequence of evade, charge and intercept needed clarification to confirm that the interceptor must be able to charge even if no-one evaded.

When general lost in CC, do the CT minus for hits in the corresponding close combat matter? I thought not as it was a separate test from the combat itself, but several people thought otherwise.

I hoped my light chariots would be able to break off from elephants, as they can from steady foot. I assume elephants are considered too fast-moving.

My opponent took off a dead element in such a way that a friendly unit was now over 3 mu away from a breaking unit, thus avoiding the CT.

If you cannot do a full move because terrain blocks further movement, do you need to CMT for a short move?

Game 2 - getting the hang of it now

Opponent set up his camp in brush. A bit of a shock after DBM conditioning.

Flank march - the flank march arrival sequence on p79-80 does not say where an unopposed flank march arrives.

Can friendly forces interpenetrate an ambush marker? (came up in two games)

Movement: the +1 for columns in bad terrain is not listed on the playsheet.

A pair of elements were in contact with enemy to front and to their flank so counting as an overlap. Do they get dice versus both targets?

What happens when pursuers path is blocked by friends?


Game 3

Can a very long line be under comand of several generals and still count as a single BL?

Flank march arrival roll adjustments: Do you have to declare these when you roll? It gives away information about the composition of the force, but makes it easier to check that no mistakes or cheating are occurring.

Terrain going classification needs to be on the same playsheet as the movement speeds. May not be an issue with experienced players.

I had (front to rear) LF, chariots, small gap, MF. The LF evaded and their move took them into the chariots. There was no room to place them between the chariots and MF so I thought they would not be able to interpenetrate and would burst through. Umpire ruled that they interpenetrated both units. This needs to be made more explicit in the rules.

Game 4 versus Simon so no need for umpire calls.

A general died. A nearby unit was within 3 mu of the BG the general was attached to, but outside 3 mu of the generals exact location. Simon assured me that the nearby unit still had to CT for loss of a general as the general counted as being anywhere in the BG. This needs to be made expicit. In that case can a general at one end of a BG measure his move from the other end of the BG in the movement or interbound? I've also had generals "teleport" from the unengaged end of a big BG to the engaged end to enter close combat, which seems to be within the scope of the rules.


Playsheets:

The move sequence table on playsheet 1 is not detailed enough to be of any use. Even the one in the rules would benefit from a bit more detail.

I did not use the Autobreak table on the playsheet . I had noted the autobreak values of all my BG on my army list.

Movement table colours. I noted that they do not match the "going" colours on the terrain chart. However, I've only just noticed that they indicate the disorder effect. Rather confusing as the same colours are used in the same table for other purposes. Therefore I failed to link the pink "DISORDERED" to the pink squares in the movement distance part of the chart.

I spent ages on several occasions looking for a chart to tell me how many combat dice I should have. I skipped over Table B on playsheet 2 as the title is not "COMBAT DICE".

CT result on 3 or less. I generally stopped reading after "Drop 2 levels". With its "xxx if ..long list.. otherwise...unless... this paragraph needs to be made more user-friendly. Something like:

No Effect if testing to rally or bolster
Drop 1 level if testing for shooting hits or received only 1 more hit than inflicted in close combat
Drop 2 levels in all other circumstances.

I think the playsheets need work. Also, as others have pointed out, they will end up being used as two double-sided sheets , so you might as well format them for four pages.

Overall impression: (could go on the open forum)

Unprotected MF vulnerable to shooting
Second line needs to be managed well to avoid getting routed through. This was my undoing in two games. The DBM "Zone of death" strikes again!
Good dice rolling got me out of many sticky situations.
All the fighting was in the open, none in terrain.
Felt a bit like DBA with 1 BG = 1 DBA element. Some games that I saw were more like DBA on LSD.

LAwrence Greaves

[warfareeast]

Army Disaster - MF Superior, Drilled, Armoured, Impact Foot, Swordsmen charging severley disorded Mesh Wesh in the flank in the soft sand and being routed two turns later by some fantastic dice from Matt!

Really

You automatically disrupt him at impact, fight the impact at ++ to his -- (flank charge) with twice as many dice (he is severley dissorderd) , if he has to test he is at -1 for impact foot, -1 for disrupted or severly disordered (i thoght these were separate but they arent), - whatever for loosing then in the melee you will be at + with twice the dice and you still lost.....

Did Matt borrow Bruce's magic terrain removing dice?

Hammy

not quite 2 to 1 on the combat dice as Nik was also disordered in the soft sand. I was disrupted in the impact phase but started winning in the melee phase.

my CT were an 11 and a 12, General in the front rank and my combat dice tended to threw 5 and 6s or 1 and 2s (which subsequently became 5 or 6). Nik's CT and combat dice were awful and I did bring some MF bow up for an overlap, who also diced with Anubus on their shoulder! Both Roger Greenwood and Nik suffered to those dice on Sunday. However Saturday they were not so favourable...

Cheers
Matt