Did a review of those new rules on my blog, which can be found here:
https://nickthelemming.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/review-age-of-hannibal/
Bottom line - now I have to decide how much money I want to spend on yet more Punic Wars figures...
If you're in the market for some simple, quick, but still atmospheric rules for the Punic Wars and similar conflicts, you can't go wrong giving them a try. There are a lot of ancients rules out there, but these ones really stood out to me.
The link didn't open for me :(
This should be the correct link. (https://nickthelemming.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/review-age-of-hannibal/)
Thanks, should be fixed now.
Quote from: Steve J on 10 December 2018, 04:47:31 PM
The link didn't open for me :(
Perhaps you're not worthy? :P
Most definitely unworthy :D
Bought my copy and was surprised, and pleased , to see how much support material there was to go with the rules including free scenarios, a Punic War scenario book, free paper buildings , a very reasonably priced downloadable paper city walls, towers and gates and discussion of the rules on a number of the Little Wars TV videos.
There is also a TV version from Little Wars TV for those who don't like words ... http://www.littlewarstv.com/age-of-hannibal1.html (http://www.littlewarstv.com/age-of-hannibal1.html)
This is a good set of rules
Hi
Just one word of warning - the rules claim that they can be played with units on any similar sized bases - I would take that with a very large pinch of salt. I have used the rules 3 times with friends (based on scenarios from the rules) and with figures based for Impetus and To the Strongest! which means they are all 8cm frontage with various depths depending on unit type. The rules 'recommend' and the author uses 4cm square bases for all unit types (with 6mm figures). I would suggest that the rules, as written, cannot be played properly unless units are based all the same on square bases. I suspect that little or no playtesting was done with units other than those based as the authors. The fact that our units have twice the frontage of those 'recommended' also brings up issues with movement distances and ranges.
That said, bearing in mind they are a 'fast play' set of rules they have some simple and interesting mechanisms and I suspect give a good game if your figures are based as above. For me the problems that came up during play due to the fact that our bases were not square (and not around 4cm to 2" square) means that I will not be using them again.
Just my tuppence worth.
Cheers Paul
Hence the joy of starting from scratch with 6mm figures and 40mm square bases.
Quote from: Leman on 02 January 2019, 10:48:15 AM
Hence the joy of starting from scratch with 6mm figures and 40mm square bases.
It's like you saw my order to Baccus and Minibits...
Obviously if you're using 80mm bases, you're going to have to take into consideration ranges and table size. My own Sword and Spear based figures (on 80mm bases) are too big for these rules unless I go for a massive table. There's always the option to count each stand as two units, but that does get a bit messy when one is killed off.
I think using 80mm width is the problem here, you'll need to double the table size and in order to squeeze a scenario in. Had a similar issue when playing a Bloody Big Battles scenario with troops on a 60mm frontage, the rules worked better with smaller bases (30mm sq for BBB). For Age of Hannibal, those with 40x20mm basing (Warmaster Ancients?) will be able to get a better feel of these rules.
I also played a Warmaster Ancients game last night (Romans v Britons), first time for a few years, rules still pay well and proved easy to remember all the key points.
I play BBB with a mix of single and double sized bases as this speeds game play. Column formation still works with a single base in the lead. My 10mm armies tend to follow the one inch square pattern, but my 6mm are now on 30x20 so they can also be used with the 1871 rules. Going beyond 30mm frontage does make the use of double size bases a little less practical.
Hi
The point I was trying to make was that the rules clearly state:
"All that matters for game-play is that the opposing armies are based in like fashion." (Highlighted as per the rules).
Well all my, and my friends, ancient forces are "based in like fashion" and the rules simply do not work without an awful lot of 'fudging', rather too much for me.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: T13A on 04 January 2019, 09:26:51 AM
Hi
The point I was trying to make was that the rules clearly state:
"All that matters for game-play is that the opposing armies are based in like fashion." (Highlighted as per the rules).
Well all my, and my friends, ancient forces are "based in like fashion" and the rules simply do not work without an awful lot of 'fudging', rather too much for me.
Cheers Paul
That's still the case, it's just that you need a larger table of you have larger bases. You can still use the rules as written.
Or alternatively use a different set of ancient rules.
Hi Nick
You can only use the rules 'as written' if your bases are square.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: T13A on 04 January 2019, 02:20:18 PM
Hi Nick
You can only use the rules 'as written' if your bases are square.
Cheers Paul
The rules suggest using square bases, but I'm racking my brain trying to think of any situation where you can't have bases that aren't square, or where they explicitly say that you need to have square bases.
Hi Nick
'Suggesting' that you use square bases is at variance with stating (and highlighting) in the rules that "All that matters is that the opposing armies are based in like fashion".
Examples of where the rules do not work unless the bases are square:
Page 8 Movement (first column): "They may change facing (right, left or about face) at a cost of half their movement rate....."
Imagine a simple line of heavy infantry units, all facing in the same direction and side base to side base that I want to turn 90 degrees to the flank so that I can move them off in column and get the extra 2" movement bonus. This works fine if the bases are square (the footprint would not change and the units would be where they started), but imagine doing the same with my heavy infantry which are based 8cm frontage x 3cm deep. Exactly where would the units at the back of the column end up?
Making contact (page 9, first column)
When units contact, the attacking unit always conforms to the defender (ie. regardlees of where an attacking unit touches the defending unit, the attcking unit is placed 'square up' to the defending unit). Again no great problem with 4cm square bases. But having a line of units on larger frontage bases caused all sorts of problems and anomolies to the attackers line in the three large games we had with the rules.
Flank and Rear Attacks (page 9, second column)
"When attacking, units with enough movement may "wrap around" an enemy unit's exposed flank". Again no problem with square bases - the flanking unit has exactly the same frontage as the side of the defending unit. However using my heavy infantry as an example again, in the same situation the flanking unit would have a frontage of 8cm against the side of the defending unit which is only 3cm leaving 5cm not touching anybody unless there are other units immediatly behind the defending unit which in itself throws up all sorts of problems with the way the rules work.
Under the same rule, the defending unit may turn to face the attacker to its flank - again no problem with square based units, but just try it with units on rectangular bases with other units positioned closeby - it just does not work.
Retreat (page10, 2nd column)
"Units forced to retreat due to double demoralization fall back a single base depth". Yet again fine if all the units are based exactly the same. But what if your bases have different depths depending on troop type? Mine range from 2cm depth (skirmishers) to 6cm depth for cavalry units. S again this causes all sorts of problems.
As you say the rules do not explicitly say that you need to have square bases, but they should.
Again this is all based on playing 3 large games with the rules.
Cheers Paul
... and this is why I dislike rules that have different base widths and depths for different troop types and I now have most of my miniatures on square bases.
....and bizarrely this is why I dislike rules that unambiguously state that "All that matters for game-play is that the opposing armies are based in like fashion" and when you actually play them that is patently not the case. :o
Cheers Paul
I'd send them back, mate, as a dissatisfied customer. Think of all the HotT you could have been playing instead of fretting over another set of rules.
Those are some fair points Paul, at least concerning columns (hasn't come up in any of my games yet), but easily dealt with - if you're using rectangular bases, assign an invisible rear element to square them up.