Slitherine

I've been with AOW since 3.01 and my initial reaction is that 6.01 is a backwards step - sorry.

Essentially you appear to have 2 potential markets. Experienced gamers (us), many of whom are signed up as Beta Testers and those who are inexperienced or new to gaming.

The danger in my view is that 6.01 falls between the two.

For new gamers I think you need to 'sell' the concept of AOW.

E.G. - "Art of War is an exciting game for 2 or more players representing Ancient and Mediaeval warfare. Players take the role of Commander-in Chief and attempt to defeat their opponent's army. Games are played using counters or realistically painted miniatures..." Etc Etc - I'm sure you guys can do a better sales job than me.

You need a hook that is going to persuade someone to pick up the glossy AOW rulebook, admire the production values and superb photos from a quick flick through the rules and part with their hard earned cash.

I mention counters because for this market, they probably won't have or possibly be able to afford painted armies. But you want to get them involved. You could even include cardboard bases for the example Roman and Carthaginian armies with the rules? So they can try them out straight away? I know that counters will offend some but it's a great way to try out different armies without investing in a load of lead which proves to be useless on the table.

I don't think this market is very interested in HG Wells - sorry - sell AOW not miniature wargaming. And there is still too much that explains that AOW is not DBM - I don't think you need to do that for either market.

Please give us the full rules, but in a structured order that makes sense. I like the Glossary and all the complex examples can usefully be moved to Appendices.

When I first started with AOW we ran through a few sample combats. This was advised early in the rules and helped us to get to grips with POAs very quickly. I'm sure this can work for newbies too. We're now up to over a dozen games and rarely have to consult the body of the rules - the reference sheets work fine.

There is a danger that the rules are becoming too bulky. I'd urge you to try and strip out as much unnecessary text as you can. E.g. page 6 - Command ranges are detailed twice.

Short simple sentences are preferable. E.g. 'The following are general movement rules that apply throughout the game:'

Why not: 'Movement rules:'?

Could you have 'Groups' instead of 'Battle Groups'?

AOW is developing into a fun game and you guys have clearly invested a huge amount of time and effort and listened to the feedback positively. I hope this bit helps too.



Pete

petedalby wrote:I've been with AOW since 3.01 and my initial reaction is that 6.01 is a backwards step - sorry.

We are very interested in this type of reaction because we are trying to decide whether to go with the 6.01 format or the 5.01 format.

However, I am not entirely clear from your post what it is that you don't like about the difference between 6.01 and 5.01.

What we specifically want to know is how people feel about dividing the rules into introductory rules and full rules and moving the latter to the end as is done in 6.01.

If any of you like it, why do you like it?

If you don't like it, why don't you like it?

We appreciate that organising the rules in the 6.01 way makes them harder to follow for grognards, but does it make them more attractive and/or easier to get into for beginners? (Sufficiently to justify the extra work for grognards?).

Bear in mind that beginners (hopefully) will be much the larger part of the potential market. This will obviously benefit (rejuvenate?) the hobby if successful.

Apologies if I was unclear.

I don't think this approach is ideal for either group. The introductory rules are still fairly complex and it adds a layer of confusion for experienced gamers.

(note to self - must look up the meaning of grognards.)

I believe you will attract newcomers by the packaging and marketing of the rules. Selling the product rather than miniature wargaming per se. But if they start by using counters for example, they might then be attracted to trying out figures.

Reflect on the layout of the rules - lead them through in a structured way that builds up their understanding of the rules and concepts. I think you've had similar comments from others.

Pete

Having digested this for a few days I think Im with pete here.

Having Advanced and Basic rules is fine in principle, but splitting them up through the book is a halfway house that is helping neither beginners or experts - saying "theres harder stuff later" is either risking being patronising or confusing.

I think part of the issue is that Im not sure what the @basic@ rules are supposed to represent - do you mean to imply/say that you can in theory play a game using just the basic rules, or is it set out this way just to make first impressions / readthru's better?

If its just for improving first readthrus, its not working, and its treating the symptoms rather than addressing the causes - which is that it still reads too much as a " a hardcore wargamer writes..." (especially the use of acronyms and terminology - I cant help think of the more friendly and historically sympathetic term used in Fire and Fury, where troops dont rout or break, they "skedaddle!" - cant we get a few more of these in there??) and - as Pete says there is a lot of "this isnt DBM because..".

If its supposed to be possible to play with just the basic rules, thats actually a very good thing I think - but then the advanced rules can/should then be added later on the relevant page, and promoted as being optional/advanced rules maybe? There are a few similar things in theway Blitzkreig Commander is drafted.

One of my initial reactions was "isn't the font size small!

On the splitting of the rules into a sort of introductory and advanced set I'm not convinced that the basic rules are that much simpler than the full set which begs the question of whether it is worth the effort IMO. Additionally every time I met a box that said there were additional rules I wanted to jump ahead and see what they were - but that maybe just my experienced gamer head there.

There's always the DBA/DBM approach, i.e. attract people with a stand-alone small-scale simple game using the basic mechanisms and when they want more, move them on to the separate big-battle-with-chrome set. This means publishing two books of course....

I'd rather have the layout with the simple and advanced rules colocated. I'd like to see more of the detailed stuff put into the 'advanced' section, but I'd rather see the grey boxes contain the actual advanced rules, rather than just a forward reference.

This would mean that you'd only have to look in one place to get all the rules on particular subject.

I am of the same opinion as Pete and for the same reasons, but I fear it may be because I really liked 5.0 as a wargamer layout (as opposed to the attempt to make a beginner/novice structure in 6). The improvements in 5 made it feel like a close to production copy while now it resembles a GW yearly rules revision. I cannot approach a rulebook like a novice after all this years, so I cannot say if it works or not as such.

I would not discount the use of arcane language however, as, even for novices, it is part of the "joining a secret brotherhood" charm of this and any other hobby. That said, "skedaddle" would be perfect cant material and POA is not. Calling all those things (equipment, weapons and even stakes) "advantages", and then checking who has advantages that apply in a certain situation would be easier. In the end both sides advantages are substracted to determine who has the overall advantage.

The lists could be changed so you buy the basic unit type, its quality level and its training and then add any list allowed "advantages", that would include armor besides weapons/tactics.

Jos?©

I'd just like to add that, contrary to most playtesters, I effectively am a beginner. Oh, I've played Warhammer Fantasy for over 15 years, but that's so simple you can pick it up in a few minutes. As far as historical wargaming that aims at some degree of simulation accuracy, my experience amounts to two games of DBM, and now about 15 of AoW.

From that perspective as a virtual beginner, splitting the rules into simple and advanced is very, very attractive. However, I think it would be better if all the rules for a specific phase were placed together. Then, rather than the grey boxes saying 'there is other stuff elsewhere', they could just contain the other stuff.

I also think, as I've said elsewhere, that more stuff could migrate from the basic to the advanced sections. Personally, I think that the basic rules should give a playable game, but as well as the more advanced concepts, the basic rules should also leave out much of the wordy stuff that is necessary to disambiguate, in order to make the rules fit for competition.

Specifically, I'm thinking about:

• The Restricted Area (p15) - Not sure this is necessary for a playable game, and it adds more stuff to learn.
  
  Formation Changes while charging (p21) - as above
  
  Charging into the flank or rear (pp21) - the simple version could be something as simple as 'If the first point of the enemy contacted is his side or rear edge, or rear corner, the charge is a flank or rear charge'. The rest is a lot of information that provides needed clarity in competition, but isn't needed to get a playable game.
  
  Evade Moves (p22) - This and Moving Through Friendly Troops are, to me, ideal examples of how the basic rules should be.
  
  Conforming/Aligning to enemy in contact (p23) - The second and third bullets need to be in the basic rules, I'm not sure the others do. The way I'd deal with this (as if I know what I'm talking about!) is to make these the first two bullets, then keep the remaining bullets contiguous with them, but put the grey box around just those ones.
  
  Feeding additional bases into an existng melee (p23) - Not really nevessary for a basic game?
  
  Supporting shooting in the Impact Phase (pp33) - As above

Well, that's my two penn'eth. Overall, I think the idea of a basic game is ideal, and I'm quite looking forward to giving it a go, though I'm sure you'll also want genuine, never-played-a-wargame-ever, beginners to try it out as well.

The section describing what equipment you need seems to have vanished.

In 5.01 I noticed it says you need some normal six sided dice, but it does not define the notation "2D6" which is used in some places.

This might cause some uncertainty in a complete beginner.

Once you have mentioned that the game uses normal cubic dice numbered 1 to 6, your tables can simply state "roll 1 die" or "roll 2 dice"

plewis66 wrote:I'd just like to add that, contrary to most playtesters, I effectively am a beginner. Oh, I've played Warhammer Fantasy for over 15 years, but that's so simple you can pick it up in a few minutes. As far as historical wargaming that aims at some degree of simulation accuracy, my experience amounts to two games of DBM, and now about 15 of AoW.

From that perspective as a virtual beginner, splitting the rules into simple and advanced is very, very attractive. However, I think it would be better if all the rules for a specific phase were placed together. Then, rather than the grey boxes saying 'there is other stuff elsewhere', they could just contain the other stuff.

I also think, as I've said elsewhere, that more stuff could migrate from the basic to the advanced sections. Personally, I think that the basic rules should give a playable game, but as well as the more advanced concepts, the basic rules should also leave out much of the wordy stuff that is necessary to disambiguate, in order to make the rules fit for competition.

Specifically, I'm thinking about:

• The Restricted Area (p15) - Not sure this is necessary for a playable game, and it adds more stuff to learn.
  
  Formation Changes while charging (p21) - as above
  
  Charging into the flank or rear (pp21) - the simple version could be something as simple as 'If the first point of the enemy contacted is his side or rear edge, or rear corner, the charge is a flank or rear charge'. The rest is a lot of information that provides needed clarity in competition, but isn't needed to get a playable game.
  
  Evade Moves (p22) - This and Moving Through Friendly Troops are, to me, ideal examples of how the basic rules should be.
  
  Conforming/Aligning to enemy in contact (p23) - The second and third bullets need to be in the basic rules, I'm not sure the others do. The way I'd deal with this (as if I know what I'm talking about!) is to make these the first two bullets, then keep the remaining bullets contiguous with them, but put the grey box around just those ones.
  
  Feeding additional bases into an existng melee (p23) - Not really nevessary for a basic game?
  
  Supporting shooting in the Impact Phase (pp33) - As above

Well, that's my two penn'eth. Overall, I think the idea of a basic game is ideal, and I'm quite looking forward to giving it a go, though I'm sure you'll also want genuine, never-played-a-wargame-ever, beginners to try it out as well.

This POV is interesting in that its the only one so far, not from an experienced gamer. The idea behind 6.01 was to reach out to that group of players. There are a lot more of them than us. Maybe we have not got it quite right but is the idea worth persuing. Maybe too difficult a question for old hands to deal with objectively

Regards
JDM

jdm wrote:

plewis66 wrote:From that perspective as a virtual beginner, splitting the rules into simple and advanced is very, very attractive. However, I think it would be better if all the rules for a specific phase were placed together. Then, rather than the grey boxes saying 'there is other stuff elsewhere', they could just contain the other stuff.

I also think, as I've said elsewhere, that more stuff could migrate from the basic to the advanced sections. Personally, I think that the basic rules should give a playable game, but as well as the more advanced concepts, the basic rules should also leave out much of the wordy stuff that is necessary to disambiguate, in order to make the rules fit for competition.

This POV is interesting in that its the only one so far, not from an experienced gamer. The idea behind 6.01 was to reach out to that group of players. There are a lot more of them than us. Maybe we have not got it quite right but is the idea worth persuing. Maybe too difficult a question for old hands to deal with objectively

Regards
JDM

Well I have to say I agree with Phil on this one. The basic / advanced split is a good idea but having to look in two places for each half of the rules is IMO a bad idea.

I will have a check through my games colection and see if I can find any with split rules to compare with.

Hammy

There seems to be some kind of consensus developing that including both basic/quick and full rulesets would be a good idea, but that quoting forward to the full set in the quick set is a clumsy compromise.

Why not consider a quick set as a pamphlet type insert to the full set book? Presumably you'll be including QR sheets separately as well, so the packaging issues will have to be addressed anyway. Experienced gamers may well not bother to stop off at the quick set to start off with, but who knows if they might not return to it later if they develop an inexplicable craving for simplicity? You would effectively be marketing two games in one, and both might have something to offer (a quick play set for campaign games perhaps?)

Boiling the full set down to a 10 page or so version would be an interesting excercise and would if nothing else help prioritise the different aspects of the rules mechanisms - an important discipline, as the accretion of more and more detail in the rules creates increasingly overwhelming competition fot the reader's powers of concentration and retention, let alone book space. This beta testing forum (most of whom play DBX, I suspect) probably has an abnormally high tolerance of a mass of detail anyway. At some point a newbie forum should be recruited!

What do you think?

Regards to all

AC

Maybe too difficult a question for old hands to deal with objectively

This is spot on JD. Do you have access to a non-wargaming population?

EG local schools? From age 14+ would give you a better 'new perspective'.

This is why I suggested the counters/bases for the example armies. Newcomers will not have access to figures from the start. So how do you get them involved without spending serious dosh on figures?

Pete

petedalby wrote:

Maybe too difficult a question for old hands to deal with objectively

This is spot on JD.
This is why I suggested the counters/bases for the example armies. Newcomers will not have access to figures from the start. So how do you get them involved without spending serious dosh on figures?

Pete

Im not sure its that difficult for us old lags either to spot where the simple/advanced split would be - because we are starting afresh with the rules also. My first few games have very much been "line up, move forwards, wheel a bit, fight, look up rules" - so I have probably been playing a basic set of rules anyway!

It might be about "learning style" - some gamers will be able to read the full rules, suss it out, spot some possible "tricks" and start playing to an advanced usage of the rules - but I find I tend to learn by the mechanics of rules by pushing the troops around the table, then saying "hmmm - maybe I can do that as well?", and gradually learning from "wouldnt it be good now if.... - oh, its in the rules, I can!" and - more frequently "oh, my opponent did THAT???? Wow - gotta try that myself!!"

Because of this I would suspect you could organise a basic/advanced division by having a basic set which does things like restrict units to single moves by wheeling only and allows no turns or formation changes, no intercept charges, only one or two causes/reasons for CMTs (the explain the concept), less causes - and modifiers - for cohesion tests, and maybe less cohesion states (?) even. This woudl allow you to stick figures on the table and shove them around and see them fight very easily, as well as creating a natural "hmm, but I'd like to do this too...." progression to the more advanced rules further down each page. It then also makes it easier for individual clubs and groups of friends to pick and choose their own advanced rules for in-house use... which I am sure if an anathema to some, but is a fact of life as well, so if there is some sort of structure implicit in the rules it would no doubt help.

Cutting down on the formation changing/CMT-related rules in the basic set would be my preference for lightening the basic rules - I'm not sure there is much combat simplification to do as thats fundamental and pretty easy, but maybe there is something there too (shooting into combats perhaps, contacting not in a charge phase maybe?) ?

tim

Maybe, at some point - possibly a burther down the line, it might be worth some of us trying to rope a few non-wargaming mates into having a game, giving them the rules to read through first.

I recon I know at least two people who have never played wargaming ever (never even heard of it till my toy soldiers started turning up at the office) and would be quite happy to give it ago. Also, these are people who, whilst having no gaming experience whatever, are used to reading documents critically (they are virgin gamers, but grognard are software engineers!).

As for whether it's worth persuing, personally I would say an enormous 'YES', and also that really, it's nearly there, it's a matter of layaout more than content at present.

plewis66 wrote:Maybe, at some point - possibly a burther down the line, it might be worth some of us trying to rope a few non-wargaming mates into having a game, giving them the rules to read through first.

Don't leave it too long. Now is when we need to know.

rbodleyscott wrote:

plewis66 wrote:Maybe, at some point - possibly a burther down the line, it might be worth some of us trying to rope a few non-wargaming mates into having a game, giving them the rules to read through first.

Don't leave it too long. Now is when we need to know.

Then how about as a proposal, a few existing playtesters try to rope in a couple of non-table-top-wargaming (of any sort) buddies, give them the rules, lend them a couple of armies, and let them get on with it.

The playtester could act as a point of contact, compiling the questions and notes from their readthrough, and observing/notetaking their first couple of games, making especial point of any times when they players simply couldn't work it out for themselves, or came up with unexpected interpretations.

This would keep the newbies isolated from getting involved in the forum, which would be good from two points: it would avoid contaminating their virginity status, and it would mean that feedback is more organised and easier for the authors to deal with.

If this were to hppen, though, I think it would be worth putting the old diagrams back in, as they really helped (me at least) in learning about combat resolution.

plewis66 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

plewis66 wrote:Maybe, at some point - possibly a burther down the line, it might be worth some of us trying to rope a few non-wargaming mates into having a game, giving them the rules to read through first.

Don't leave it too long. Now is when we need to know.

Then how about as a proposal, a few existing playtesters try to rope in a couple of non-table-top-wargaming (of any sort) buddies, give them the rules, lend them a couple of armies, and let them get on with it.

The playtester could act as a point of contact, compiling the questions and notes from their readthrough, and observing/notetaking their first couple of games, making especial point of any times when they players simply couldn't work it out for themselves, or came up with unexpected interpretations.

This would keep the newbies isolated from getting involved in the forum, which would be good from two points: it would avoid contaminating their virginity status, and it would mean that feedback is more organised and easier for the authors to deal with.

Good idea.

If this were to hppen, though, I think it would be worth putting the old diagrams back in, as they really helped (me at least) in learning about combat resolution.

I don't think there is much chance of the diagrams getting back into the document in the imminent future.

My Thoughts on 6.01

I still find them hard to 'get into'. I find the sequencing difficult to follow and at times confusing. For example under
Movement Mechamisms (Why not just call the section MOVEMENT)

I will try to look at this from a novice point of view
The follwing sequence is used;

Overall Movement and Battle Group Formations - Fair Enough But we have to read three more pages to find out our army can also use battle lines.
It then goes on to describe Restricted areas - although important should it realy be the second item of movement, in the "simple rules"
Move Distances are mixed up wth disorder effects - this would be much clearer if it were split into two tables .
Complex move table and tests are decribed before the basic definition of a Wheel or Expansion.
Moving through freindly troops is sanwiched in between what is essentially combat movement.

This is a detailed analysis of one small part the the rules but I hope it sheds some light on how they may be percived to those who want to 'start playing from the start'. It is unfortunately fairly typical of the whole version.

There is one other point I would like to make about the Idea of 'Core' and 'Full' Rules.

Again I shall use some example;

The Terrain setup in the 'full' rules is no more difficult to get to understand as those in the 'simple' ones. The only real difference is rolling for positon and re-position. Does this realy warrant a duplex system of rules? Why not simply give the Novice the choice of not re-positioning if they just want to get on with the game?

The Cohesion test Table is repeated in the 'Full' rules yet as I can see only has one tiny differencein the passed section. Why bother it only goes to generate more confususion in the lon run when trying to move onto more advanced rules.

There are many examples that can be found of what apear to be unecessary duplication of effort in a worthy but possibly missguided attempt to 'simplfy' things.

From a novice point of veiw it may be better to give them the almost complete set in 'one hit' but make it clear which bits they can ignore to get them started, i.e. by using a simple notation mark or italic font.

This has several advantages
1. It may well enable the rules to flow better when first read.
2. It allows novice players to build up the complexity of their games by choosing which section to use in their own time.
3. It makes them easier to use for the experienced gamer.
4. It will save a shed load of page printing costs!

It should also be bourne in mind that a good deal of Novice players actually start by playing with someone who already plays the rules so will be joining in at a more advance level than you might think.

Please remeber this critisim is of the rule layout not he rule concept - I think it has great potential, dont lets spoil it with an over burdened rule book.