20 years ago, I wrote BattlestorM, a fantasy tabletop game for Ral Partha.  Today, I'm working on a game I call Blood of Ancients. Blood of Ancients is contracted to be published by Military Miniature and my editor wanted to begin the layout/beautifying process. 

Before that happens, I thought it would be a good idea to reach out to playtesters and groups who enjoy ancients, but from groups where I have no opportunity to answer questions during game play or while you're reading rules. A potential playtester/commenter, strongly recommended the Pendraken group as both friendly and very sharp. 

Comments are welcomed here, but also in the actual Google document which I will link below.  The game assumes 28mm figures and a hex-based grid for play.  That said, the game also works without hexes with any scale including (of course) 10mm.  In brief, if you are using 10mm figures each stand of figures has the same value as 1 28mm figure. Whether using stands or individually based figures, each stand/figure represents about 50 men. Each hex represents 4 inches of movement.  I already believe that I might need more verbiage in the rules regarding conversion, but maybe not?  You tell me. 

Blood of Ancients

I see you found us.

Thanks for the recommendation!  I'm looking forward to reading feedback from the group.

Wuz 'e lookin ?

Welcome to the forum, everwill!

Having read the rules through a couple of times I'll give first thoughts.

Firstly, the caveats - I don't like 28's and above for anything other than skirmish, don't like hexes, do like rules that aim to reflect the historical.

Those things said, the rules are well written, easy to understand (for an old grognard like me, at least) and will, I'm sure, achieve your stated aim of giving a fun game with an Ancients flavour.

There are a few typo's (e.g. "the" instead of "there" in the shooting modifiers section ) and at least one grammatical error - it's "adjacent to" not "adjacent with" you get it right in some places but not others. Find and replace?

Bailiwick - Medieval term in an Ancients game grates for me. YMMV.

Others of my age may understand if I say,"I'll give it five but I won't buy it." 

Quote from: Ithoriel on 08 June 2022, 12:31:21 PMOthers of my age may understand if I say,"I'll give it five but I won't buy it." 

No doubt in a Brummy accent. 

Indeed, "Oi'll give it foive!"

I've sent a lot of stuff to you on FB, by the way.

QuoteWelcome to the forum, everwill!

Having read the rules through a couple of times I'll give first thoughts.

Firstly, the caveats - I don't like 28's and above for anything other than skirmish, don't like hexes, do like rules that aim to reflect the historical.

Those things said, the rules are well written, easy to understand (for an old grognard like me, at least) and will, I'm sure, achieve your stated aim of giving a fun game with an Ancients flavour.

There are a few typo's (e.g. "the" instead of "there" in the shooting modifiers section ) and at least one grammatical error - it's "adjacent to" not "adjacent with" you get it right in some places but not others. Find and replace?

Bailiwick - Medieval term in an Ancients game grates for me. YMMV.

Others of my age may understand if I say,"I'll give it five but I won't buy it." 

Firstly, and mostly I appreciate your feedback.  Google docs has a nifty "post-it note"/comment feature that allows you to highlight text and make a comment.  Especially on typo's this is VERY handy.  I'm more than happy to lose bailiwick.  I selected that word primarily because it's more archaic than command.  If you have a better term I'm all ears. 

The rules were written presuming 28mm's since that's what I have in my collection.  I only learned of Pendraken very recently and were it not for painting and basing duties, I would instantly switch to 10mm.  That hurdle in mind I still might make the switch. 

One of things that probably needs more fluff is the explanation of how to play without hexes and with other scales.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 08 June 2022, 01:05:06 PMI've sent a lot of stuff to you on FB, by the way.

Received and I sent you replies via FB.  If you take the time to comment, I'll take the time to reply.  I did incorporate some of your suggestions.

Skim read them. They look interesting but the need to use hexes is off putting.

QuoteNo doubt in a Brummy accent. 

Tsk! Black country, if you please.

Will, you may note that few posts fail to go off the rails within ten minutes. On the other hand, nobody's insulted you yet, which may be a record.

QuoteI'm more than happy to lose bailiwick.  I selected that word primarily because it's more archaic than command.  If you have a better term I'm all ears. 

OK, they are your rules, if you are happy with bailiwick don't let me put you off.


That said, using an archaic term for flavour is something I would do myself so +1 internets for that!

However using an archaic terms from another era is jarring, IMNSHO.

Given it's in a section about Command & Control I think Command would be a perfectly reasonable word to use. Personally I might go with Imperium but it's a bit Romano-centric and not something people are familiar with.

If you want something with an air of the old-fashioned how about Within the Ambit, or Out of the Ambit, of the leader?

Perhaps others better qualified can take this ball and run with it?

Thanks for the feedback. Your reply very much appreciated. And you've educated me just a bit today.  I knew the word imperium but until a few moments ago, I didn't know the second meaning which  dictionary.com provides below.

• command; supreme power.
• area of dominion; sphere of control or monopoly; empire.
• a nation having or exerting supreme power; superpower.
• Law. the right to command the force of the state in order to enforce the law.

I would love to use imperium rather than bailiwick, but I feel pretty certain that as it's used to describe a nation or emperor, rather than a general. 

I like ambit as a word, but I think an ambit is more a sphere of influence rather than an area of command.  So, I think I'm left with either command or imperium, neither is a perfect choice. I'd love for you or some clever gamer to come up with something better.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 08 June 2022, 03:14:58 PMWill, you may note that few posts fail to go off the rails within ten minutes. On the other hand, nobody's insulted you yet, which may be a record.

My feelings would be a little hurt if that didn't happen. 

Just reading through it, as I'm looking for an ancients-medieval set that isn't single D6 combat resolution and isn't element based.
-1 for 28mm based
-1 for hex grids but +1/2 for suggesting inches instead.
+2 for using D10s instead of single D6s Yay!!
Missing word under Scale
"It's important for all figures on the same [] to be the same scale"


+1 You actually mention a figure ratio of sorts, 100 bases or single 28mm figures = 4000 men but later go on to say 1 Troop is 50 men.

+2 The Contested Ground and provoked attacks rules are very interesting. I am convinced by logic that charges are not the only way combat occured in the ancients era, I reckon many times units just walk to within c30m of each other, start throwing insults, banging shields, throw rocks/javelins,/darts, then odd clumps of braver men jaunt forward and swing swords at each other or whatever then fall back again and repeat ad-infinitum until one lot walks away overrawed or both get their gander up or an officer actually intervenes and they actually run at each other.
The Contested Ground idea seems to cover this. And I'm not sure any other rules allows 'none-charge walking into combat'.

For games without hexes I'm getting the idea of a 4" across base diorama with dead bodies and broken weapons that you place between two units engaged in the Contested Ground to denote they are thus engaged. I'm sure 3d printing would be a cheap way of making the several numbers you'd need for a game.


+2 you've got Bracing to receive a charge as an option, yay - especially important for foot being charged by mounted.
-1 I'm no longer a fan of players getting to move ALL their units each turn
-1 I'm not a fan of buckets of dice for combat, which is implied by the combat rules
+1 it seems play is by alternate units rather than by alternate sides, is that right?
-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.
-1 turning a unit to flank if charged. Most units in ancient era are 500-1000 men strong in 4-10 ranks deep, wheeling about quickly in response to a nearby flank charge would be nigh on impossible. Even if there is now some thought that trained units could pivot about their middle. However, the men on the end files could turn quickly to present some kind of weapons, perhaps this is what you mean? But it shouldn't be as effective as meeting the whole unit head on.

The word ambit is going to get parodied as armpit and people are going to start using wrist-to-elbow lengths as command radii 

Field of View is perhaps an alternative? Eye of the General? Meh, you'd want a single word. There's probably a German word for it with 30 syllables....

Overall, some good ideas there.

Firstly, thanks sultanbev for the comments.  I take them to heart and appreciate it. I corrected the typo (thank you for that) and I will craft a full response when time permits, but I want to address this. 

Quoteit seems play is by alternate units rather than by alternate sides, is that right?

Well, yes ... and no.  And after I explain it a bit here, please let me know if the rules fell down or if you just read them a little quickly. 

It is a game of phases and all movement occurs in the Movement Phase.  During the Movement Phase, the proactive player moves all of his troops then reactive players moves all his troops.  Simple enough ... but not that simple. 

During the proactive player's movement, he moves each of his units unit-by-unit. And any/all of those units may end up charging or interacting with the opponent.  If a proactive unit charges the opponent, the opponent can react. 

And that can happen with each unit when the reactive player moves his army.  So, it's a blend of unit-by-unit movemement and one-side then the other-side movement.

As for

QuoteI'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). 

But the reason I don't have this in there is because this Blood of Ancients introduces some new concepts and I think players only want so many new concepts at a time when they are learning a new game.  For this reason, as I've told others, I'm trying to keep this first rule book as dead simple as possible.

From there I'll add complications until it's just as unplayable as Advanced Squad Leader. 

I've gone through the core document and added some comments and thoughts, hopefully they're of some help. 

It's mostly reasonably clear, but I think there are some improvements that could be made to where the information appears in the rules. I found it quite jarring that there seemed to be a lot of key information in the glossary which really could do with their own sections, e.g. terrain, inspiration, bracing. These should all have their own section in the main rules or in their relevant subsection, as should any internet information when first introduced. 

To my mind a glossary should be a summary of the rules, not a place to introduce new information.

I don't seem to be able to comment on the Ego... doc, but echo previous comments about the use of bailiwick, stick with something like command as you've not been using archaic terms elsewhere, and it obscures the clarity a bit.

I'd also be inclined towards including some or all the leader rules in the core set, since they provide a lot of the flavour. You could easily add a line saying you might want to skip bits of these in your first few games until more comfortable, but I'd be more inclined towards a core set of command rules that can then be expanded with extra actions rather than two different sets. I don't think the rules linking command to rating are overly complex to the point of needing to be "advanced rules".

In fact the leadership rules probably are what will make it break it. Reading through the core rules I wasn't overly keen to try them, but those command and hero actions add a lot more flavour and depth, and command and control are such central parts of what a wargame is. I might be tempted to try out some of the rules at some point, though I've very little hobby time these days so no promises!

I do like the idea of the provoking attack, that's a great concept to include. I was initially a little unsure about the strength/disruption/casualty removal but on further reading it has the potential to be an elegant way to manage losses and for those of us who multi base shouldn't be too difficult to track with markers or dice!

Matthew,

Thank you for the read through and Google comments. They were most helpful and I've added a credit for you as an advisor. I've commented in the document on your comments and made changes to the document based upon your valuable suggestions. 

That said, you mentioned how jarring you found the Glossary.  The way I use the Glossary is a unique stylistic decision I made to solve a problem I see.  I'm not 100% confident that I made the right choice. But, if I may, I'll flesh out why I made this decision to see if you find the logic in this unusual choice. 

Firstly, let me frame the argument with some assumptions that are derived from my personal experience.  My friends/play testers are well-educated fellows.  They are lawyers, tech workers, historians, retired military and former intelligence officers.  They have played this game many times. In addition, we play a lot of different systems and they pick those systems up quickly. 

In addition to playing this game regularly with locals/friends, I've demonstrated this game at gaming conventions.  I don't want to speak too harshly of the general gaming public, but frankly many of the players I've worked with at conventions don't have the capacity to take on new rules and concepts in the way that my circle of friends do. Some of them are only barely aware of ancient history, much less ancients gaming.

I can tell from the few comments that I've already received from this forum that most Pendrakenites are cut from the same cloth as my circle of gamer friends. That said, when I step outside of that circle I am, frankly, shocked by the lack of intelligence I find.  In other words, I am convinced that you and I and my gamer friends are definitely in the minority.  As poorly as I seem to regard the garden-variety common miniature gamer, I should mention that I find him to be a cut above the public at large. 

So, I am with some difficulty, trying to keep Blood of Ancients as absolutely dead simple as possible, while presenting what I think is the important/fun part of an ancients battle.  Contrast this with years ago when I wrote BattlestorM. In BattlestorM, I tried to present a complete game along with scenarios, army lists and more in the core rules.

When I did the convention tour for BattlestorM, I became convinced that the buying public doesn't want a complete game.  They want a simple game and the opportunity to buy more and more and more rules ... until the game becomes so complicated that it's unplayable. When that happens, it's time to release the new "simplified" second edition rules to start the process again.

So, a strict adherence to simplicity in the core rules is one of my bounds.

My experience is also framed by the fact that I play a lot of different tabletop battle games from a lot of eras.  If you read a lot of rules, you end up seeing the same terms used over and over and you end up seeing a lot of permutations of a few gaming conventions. Many times, I've read a ruleset and decided to play a game before I've committed the system to memory and before I fully understand the system. 

From my experience when you don't quite understand a system, what you want is exactly the format I've presented.  Namely, I want a clear and concise explanation of the turn sequence and a glossary and/or index. That's because I'll start playing right out of the book.  If I need to know a rule when I'm playing, it's important to be able to look it up instantly. On the other hand, if I think I know a term, the definition of that term just gets in the way when I'm trying to learn the sequence of play. 

In my experience, so few games provide a glossary (or index) and no one (so far as I know) has used the glossary as I have here.  So, yes that use of the glossary will be jarring (at first) precisely because it's different.

On the other hand, many times when we were playing a new game, play has ground to a halt while one or more players scour the rules for a specific definition. Is that in this section or that?  And, as you may well know, you can't just substitute your own convention or practice for a rule, because that might break the way a particular game plays. 

So here's the skeleton that I've opted for:

• A concise description of game sequence interspersed with terms denoted with capitalized letters to indicate that more rules might be found in the Glossary.
• A Glossary with definitions and some core rules
• A Quick Reference with a summation of all rules

Now, as I type this up, I'm forced to walk through this in my mind and it's caused me to ponder moving the Quick Reference from the rear of the book to the start of the book.  Afterall, when I'm thinking about playing a game, that's what I always read first. 

Adherence to the conventions that have gone before is the opposite of jarring. It's comfortable. On the other hand, maybe the way it always has been done is not the best way to do it.  And there is the crux of the stylistic choice that you've put your finger on and why I am not 100% sure I've made the best choice with my use of the Glossary.

To get very specific, I wrote this sentence: "(Routed Units have more Disruptions than their current Strength.)"  That's a very simple sentence to read ... unless you want to unravel it.   Because every capitalized word in that sentence has a specific reserved meaning in the game. 

Regarding this sentence you write:

QuoteI think routing should have it's own section header, for such an important piece of information I missed it and had to look back. I'd avoid having such vital information in brackets as it makes it seem like a minor aside.

The reason I originally had this sentence in parentheses was because this sentence is an explanatory sentence that belongs in the Glossary according to my own novel stylistic rules. But because I thought this was vital information and that it might be overlooked, I violated my own stylesheet by inserting it here outside the Glossary.  I put it in parentheses to indicate that this sentence is already in the Glossary and thus can be skipped but it shouldn't be skipped because it's important thus it's here ...   

In other words, I'm stuck in a logic loop.  In need to just make a decision.  So, I changed this to read: "As explained in the Glossary, Routed Units are Units that have more Disruptions than their current Strength." 

Take a look at link to your comment to see a perfect great example of where I'm struggling with my own choices.