Aurelian - Upcoming Rules

[Phil Robinson]

If the campaign system is on a par with Longstreet these will be very tempting,

http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/2015/03/introducing-aurelian/

[Mad Doc Morris]

That sounds very promising. Thanks for the heads up!

Having just read "Blücher", I'm eager to give it a go. Sam Mustafa clearly knows what he's talking about, and he has the ability to transform his period knowledge into a very readable (and most likely: playable) format. So, as a Roman nut with a special interest in the 3rd century AD it's fair to say: I'm pretty excited!

[Byblos]

Iiiiiiiirk ... Elephants in a 3rd Century Sassanid's army  

Maybe in the Far East , but not facing roman soldiers in Mesopotamia ...

[Mad Doc Morris]

Now that a few sample pages and documents are up on Sam Mustafa's site, it's become pretty clear that "Aurelian" will be a PDF-only release. Apart from the cards, that is.
I do wonder if and when the partnership with Plastic Soldier Company for this was dropped? Had high hopes for a boardgame variant, especially given the emphasis on using unit cards. I know, never judge a book by its cover, yet the game could definitely do with a proper – and, admittedly, more professional – design. For example, what's up with all those compressed WordArt-style graphics?

That said, still looking forward to this release.

[Sir Tobi]

You may call me old school, but I actually think it is rather refreshing to part from that always perfect sleek design that has grabbed our hobby publications and turned them into an equivalent of adverts from the soap-industry. A step back towards the normal is the right approach in my oppinion and I actually think the layout is visually pleasing.

By the way, out of real interest, what do you mean by compressed WordArt style graphics? The symbols on the cards? The unit depictions?

[Mad Doc Morris]

Ultimately it's down to taste, of course. And I concur that pretty pictures and professional layout are sometimes used to cover up worthless rules.
But the alternative to "perfectly sleek design" isn't necessarily an amateurish look. At least basic advice on design is easy to come by nowadays. Nobody has to type-write his rules anymore, and for me that doesn't even hold some sort of nostalgia. Design is not about fancy artworks and fonts or artsy, cluttered up layouts. It's about coherency, an engaging style to support the content and draw people's attention. Although I'm very interested in these rules, the lazy layout is off-putting (to me!).

For reference, take a look at sample chapter 2: most of the symbols shown there appear compressed or distorted, some are even pixelated or cut off (e.g. the laurels framing the page numbers). And let’s not talk about consistent design instead of random (WordArt-style) symbols.
As soon as you ask people to actually pay more than a symbolic price (I know, authors earn nothing already), you really should take care of such things. It’s not that hard to get it right, that is better looking than your average DIY invitation card.

[moiterei_1984]

Having just skimmed through the sample pages, I've to agree with the Doc. While Sam Mustafas rules generally are well worth their money on their own, I personally prefer my books/ rules to be a little more 'interesting' to look at.

[Golgotha]

I am certainly interested just hope it will not cost very much.

[Sir Tobi]

Well, I think the price will be very reasonable.

As for the graphics, I have so many of those much-praised coffeetable-picturebooks in my shelf that just gather dusk that I'm very happy about a good ruleset regardless of its design - I'll play with miniatures and the rules are easy to memorize, so I'm planning to be in touch with the books graphic for a very short time but with its contents for a quite long time.

As for the contents, the rules are great. I had the honour to be a playtester, and I really love them. One of the greatest ideas for me is the concept of fatigue: In near all wargames I know the unit fights/dices the same wether it has just started battle or stood hours in the midths of the fray. Here, dices are substituted by cards, and high cards leave the game for one reason or another. Thus after a while combats are fought not with 6 and 5, but with 4 and 3... This mechanism really feels right but is very smooth and uncomplicated in its implementation.

[Sir Tobi]

In addition, there are a number of really nice little details. For example, civilized armies can bring their own historian that gives them a victory point (important for campaigns) even if they loose - learning from Ceasar, they work their rethoric magic and turn a blunderous defeat into a dead of glory that just missed total success by a few inches...

A lot emphasis is placed on the fog of war - you can never be sure of your cunning plan, there is always the chance of things going terribly wrong - and instead of micromanaging exact positions of units you have to improvise and be happy to salvage at least some part of your strategy.

For me that game really hits the mark.

[Argonor]

A lot emphasis is placed on the fog of war - you can never be sure of your cunning plan, there is always the chance of things going terribly wrong - and instead of micromanaging exact positions of units you have to improvise and be happy to salvage at least some part of your strategy.

Isn't that just another way of saying that even if your tactics suck, you may still win?

I prefer games that reward the overall better player (on the table, that is, mathematically min-maxing of armies holds absolutely no value to me), not the one most favoured by the dice.

[Mad Doc Morris]

As for the graphics, I have so many of those much-praised coffeetable-picturebooks in my shelf that just gather dusk that I'm very happy about a good ruleset regardless of its design - I'll play with miniatures and the rules are easy to memorize, so I'm planning to be in touch with the books graphic for a very short time but with its contents for a quite long time.

As for the contents, the rules are great. I had the honour to be a playtester, and I really love them.

It's hard to argue with a playtester, who's used the rules in raw format anyway. I was talking about gathering interest among the uninitiated, and a pleasing layout is definitely a bonus here.

The more since the rules are (were?) advertised as being playable with unit cards. While this may not appeal to veteran wargamers, it's an option emphasised since "Blücher" at least, and personally I think it's a great way to draw new gamers who don't already own a vast collection of suitable and preferably painted minis into massed battle games.
Still, the rules have to compete against said 'coffee table books', and if they look crude (as do the unit cards as well), they're a lot harder to sell.

It's not style over content, it's about mutual support of style and content.

[delbruck]

I am more interested in the rules than the graphics, although I have to admit I am a little concerned when the most powerful Sarmatian unit are Amazons 

[Sir Tobi]

Isn't that just another way of saying that even if your tactics suck, you may still win?

I prefer games that reward the overall better player (on the table, that is, mathematically min-maxing of armies holds absolutely no value to me), not the one most favoured by the dice.

No, quite the opposite. It is another way of saying if you have only moderate tactics, you can't win. You have to be thoughtfull as well as flexible to cope with all the unforseen events.

Also: No one is favored by the dice, because there aren't any  . It's all cards, and everyone has the same numbers.

[Sir Tobi]

@ Mad Doc Morris: I guess then it's just up to you if you want to let the graphics deter you from that (i.m.O. great) game

@ Delbruck: They come with a wink and are strictly optional. Besides, they are great fun to convert/paint