Feedback/Playesters wanted for Ancients Rules

[everwill]

-1 it takes more than a move to turn a unit about face 180* (4MP of a 3MP movement rate for foot). Ordering the files to about face and the unit then move off in the opposite direction, albeit with different men at the new front, would be quick.

You know on second read, I realized that this comment is brilliant.  I've played with a lot of picky people and no one has caught this.  I've added a comment here, and when I am able I will change this graphic to reflect your point.

[mmcv]

as should any internet information when first introduced.

I think I meant important rather than internet here. Typing on the phone while settling a restless baby are not a great combination!

Regarding the glossary... I do really like it when rules provide a solid rule summary at the end as it is invaluable for being able to look rules up quickly without having to flick through lots of information. I also agree that I like to give the rules a couple of read-throughs then try it out on the table and work out the details as they go rather than having every element clear in their head first. I'll often read the introduction then have a glance at the QRS first to get some context of what I'm reading in the rules, so having the QRS upfront might help, but equally most people expect it at the back and so flip to there instinctively. If ease of understanding is your goal, then perhaps taking a novel approach to presentation is counterproductive? As people will be used to a certain "formula" for how rules go and diverging from that can make it harder to follow for the casual reader.

I'm not at all opposed to new approaches to doing things, but there is maybe a balance to be struck. You could have a really high level overview at the start of the book on the play sequence going through a standard turn/game, then the next bit has the separate sections going into each of those in more detail with one or two lines (maybe as asides) explaining what the Capitalised words mean, then have the larger bit at the end going into more details on each concept word by word. So starting very broad then drilling in deeper with each section. That way people can read as deep or shallow as they wish on first play throughs.

I really can't speak for the broader community as I've not done any conventions or clubs, but I know I find it a little frustrating when a concept is mentioned in passing without any clear indication of what it is or where it is described. Inspiration being one of those as the leader actions seem like quite a key concept to the game mechanics around controlling what happens on the battlefield. It is possible some of this could be solved with how the rules are laid out. You could introduce the concept of a boxed off section on the page to explain some of these concepts a bit more as well as having the summary in the glossary. That way you don't take away from the main flow of the text but have a section on the page explaining a little more about what the term means for those who want it.

I do get where you're coming from with wanting to simplify it as much as possible, but you risk going too far the other way by hiding away a lot of the key concepts so people skim through it and just shrug it off as nothing new. Drawing attention to what makes your rules stand out from the run of the mill ancient set will be an important selling point. To my mind some of the key concepts are around the leader actions, the contested ground/provoking and disorder/routing system, as well as perhaps the use of d10s and the <= result. I think you could take a bit more time to explain and expand on those to help those new gamers grasp the new concepts with more detailed asides and examples of play.

I guess a bigger question is who is your key audience? Casual gamers? Clubs? Tournament players? As that'll influence the approach somewhat. If you want mass appeal I think you need to have a few big ticket concepts that people can talk about as being unique in your system and that pops up in reviews and posts and conversations and videos and really push them. Youtube playthroughs are very useful if you have the resources to do one as can explain a lot more through showing in action.

I may have more thoughts later, just putting this down while on lunch.

[everwill]

There is a third consideration here, which I didn't mention earlier, primarily because my post was so lengthy to begin with.  As you may be able to tell, these rules have been around for a bit and have had a number of revisions and even at points, based on game play or harsh (but good) criticism, some structural changes. 

The problem is that those changes cause cascading edits. By that I mean you have change the rule, then you have change the rules that are affected by the rule, then you have to change the rules that are changed by those changes.  This causes the poor writer to have to go through the text over and over again.  For example, your comment here was not about what you (or I) first thought it was. 

In a previous iteration of the rules the Morale Phase was a subcomponent of the Melee Phase.  One of my players, a lawyer by trade, wisely suggested that the Morale Phase needs its own phase in the rules.  This was not a change in play, as we were playing that way already, but it wasn't really reflected in the rules.  I added the Morale Phase, but the sentence you commented on was inadvertently left in the Melee Phase of the rules. I moved that sentence and then I couldn't help but expand that text a bit as well. 

If you have a glossary you have all the terms in one place so that when you edit the rule you don't have to search through the document to make edits. That also makes it much harder to leave orphans, artifacts and inconsistencies in the rules. 

But the reason I'm bringing to Pendraken by the way is so I can get outside comments. And your feedback has been invaluable.  For example, I am going to expand and fluff the overview to highlight what makes the game different and to describe the feel of the game.  I'm doing this exactly because of your previous comment.  It's also the reason that I'm moving you up from Advisor to Contributor in the Credits. 

I guess a bigger question is who is your key audience? Casual gamers? Clubs? Tournament players?

At the risk of offending some, tournament play is of zero interest to me and I don't understand why people do it.  It brings out all those things which I hate most about miniature wargames: pettiness, arguments, competitiveness to the point of breaking the fun in the game. 

I think my target in this book is the average player who goes to a gaming convention.  He may or may not know history or like ancients, but he does like games. He's not interested in a bunch of rules, but he wants to have some agency and some fun. If the game has any legs with those gamers, my goal is to add a lot more rules and flavor. 

For example, I have a lot more information for Ego of Ancients (command and control), but I've stopped editing my supplemental material until I have the base rules in concrete.  It's enough to keep this book in compliance.  It's way too much work to keep all of the supplemental works in compliance with the latest edit. 

[sultanbev]

You know on second read, I realized that this comment is brilliant.  I've played with a lot of picky people and no one has caught this.  I've added a comment here, and when I am able I will change this graphic to reflect your point.

Thanks, it comes from a game where I wasn't allowed to turn round and run off with a block of spearmen facing crossbow armed infantry in rough terrain.
Note that people will use this to "walk backwards" 1MP at a time, by spending 1MP to turn round, move 1MP, then turn around again for another 1MP - which is not necessarily wrong - an ordered fallback if you like - but you have to be certain that is the intention.

[everwill]

Note that people will use this to "walk backwards" 1MP at a time, by spending 1MP to turn round, move 1MP, then turn around again for another 1MP - which is not necessarily wrong - an ordered fallback if you like - but you have to be certain that is the intention.

As they should.  I'd love to add you to our contributor list for this little gem, but I'll need to know what name you'd like to use.

[sultanbev]

As they should.  I'd love to add you to our contributor list for this little gem, but I'll need to know what name you'd like to use.

Mark Bevis

Quote
"As for
    Quote
    I'm no longer a fan of players getting to move ALL their units each turn

, you may be a little surprised to know that I agree with you.  Furthermore, I like to roll movement (so you don't know exactly how far a unit will move each turn). "

We've been using a Fire & Fury derivate for Napoleonics & now later 19th century warfare for decades, so rolling for each unit is normal to me. The beauty of the F&F system is that the movement roll is in effect the morale roll. We've taken the combat results from the 2nd edition regimental F&F, and it's working a treat.

I did try writing a set of ancients using the F&F system, with an added overlay card system to generate random who goes next, but allowing multiple activations, which kinda worked, but was a bit meh. Maybe most ancient battles were a bit meh a lot of the time.

Bare in mind we use 1:20 figure ratio in 15mm for 19th century, so an 800 man battalion will have 20 stands, so we like lots of figures in our units. Even with 28mm we use 1 figure = 30 men, so that 800 man battalion would be (rounded down) 24 figures.
I do have a Syrian Saracen army in 20mm plastics at 1:20, with some Egyptians, and on the unfinished shelf is a 12-13th C Georgian army, Seljuks and Mongols, but lack of time, enthusiasm and failing rules sets has put me off finishing it.

And now I want to do it all in 10mm eek!

[everwill]

BTW, Blood of Ancients only allows you to automatically move all of your units if they are all fresh. Any unit that has taken a disruption hit) must roll a morale check to move closer to the enemy.