Tried out the John Lamshead rules today.
Four of us played (two games, two Egyptians V two Assyrians.
Westbury Assyrian V me as Egyptian, the other game was
Flatpack Assyrian V Donkeymilkman as Egyptian.
First attempt for any of us, though I had read the rules.
As I have seen commented elsewhere, there is a certain sameness for troops.
A Nubian Archer gets more 'evade' cards than an Assyrian heavy Infantryman,
but the Assyrian gets more armour cards.
So shoot at an unarmoured target, he 'evades' with 3 cards. If you hit him
he only gets 1 card for his armour.
Shoot at an armoured target, he 'evades' with 1 card, but gets 3 cards for armour.
In other words it don't matter, you have to beat 4 cards to get him.
I know you can tweak the stats, e.g. make a figure 'Dead Shot', 'Strong Arm' but
the bulk of your troops are going to be battlefield similar.
That aside, I did enjoy drawing cards even though I was the worst player (3 out of 8
casualties when we stopped). It also encouraged me to paint a few Hinchcliffe figures
& get them onto the table.
Would I play again? Probably, though I would take Mr Lambshead's advice & go for a
scenario driven game.
I leave it to the others to add their own opinions.