Looking for testers/reviews for a new set of wargame rules!

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

I've been working on a set of wargame rules for ancient/medieval battles that draws from a range of sources, and I'd love for some people to have a look and give me some feedback, both on the technical quality of the writing, the basics of the rules, or anything else. Looking for any kind of feedback, no matter how negative!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Md2Dlz-0wseVpHZzlJV3JWeTg

Cheers!

[Harry Faversham]

I've printed them off. Hopefully, we'll have a go with the rules next week as I'm on holiday.

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

Oh wow, that'd be great, I was only really hoping for people to give the rules a read and give me their thoughts! Um, the unit profiles in the end are only just placeholders, to give you an idea of how the unit profiles would work in a more fleshed out version. You should be able to run a quick game with them, although there's no points values so you'll have to wing it in that regard. I did spot one mistake in there yesterday, the Skirmishers entry has the Shieldwall special rule which is a mistake, and there may be others .

[Phil Portway]

These are very, very similar to Kings of War.

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

These are very, very similar to Kings of War.

Some parts certainly are! The project began as a re-build of KoW for historical games before Mantic announced their own official historical supplement, then I mothballed it for ages until I got stuck on a run of nightshifts at work with nothing to do so I pulled it out and started looking at it as it's own system. I abandoned the KoW turn structure and combat/shooting mechanics, altered several rules I didn't like, smooshed in some SAGA and LotR: SBG, ditched the Troop/Regiment/Horde system, added the command/will mechanic, re-examined the special rules including the titular shieldwall mechanic which basically applies to all formed infantry units, and probably tweaked some other stuff I've forgotten about.

So some parts of the rules will be very close to their KoW roots, while others are totally unrecognisable. I'm not sure how much of a faux pas that is in the wargaming rules world, and I can certainly re-build the most similar parts from the ground up so they achieve the same goals without borrowing the same language, but didn't see the need while creating a beta set of rules that, lets be honest, only my friends and I are ever likely to use. My goal while working on the rules so far has been to make sure the mechanics are consistent and sound over-all. I want players to have to manage their Will resources, make tough decisions about how to crack an enemy shieldwall, when to commit characters to combat, and I don't want to accidentally create overpowered troops by, say, making shooting more effective than it should be, or making cavalry more powerful than they should be.

[Codsticker]

I'm not sure how much of a faux pas that is in the wargaming rules world...

It's not. Some one introduced "savings throw" decades ago and it still get's used so... borrow away!

[Jericho]

Printed out the rules today, going to try it out at the club tonight.

While the basis of KoW is obvious, I do like your Command/Will additions.
Although the Bolstered stat coud use an example for me on how it works in a unit regarding to the maximal amount of dice.

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

Printed out the rules today, going to try it out at the club tonight.

While the basis of KoW is obvious, I do like your Command/Will additions.
Although the Bolstered stat coud use an example for me on how it works in a unit regarding to the maximal amount of dice.

Sure, I'll add one in the next revision. Basically you just add it to your total attacks, after any other modifiers.

I think I'll also spend a good deal of time changing the language of some of the older, more KoW-ish parts of the rules to try and give them more of their own identity Let me know how it goes!

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

Ok, so I've done a revision, and re-worked some of the special rules so they're less carbon-copies of their KoW versions. I've also renamed the Wavered mechanic to Shaken, to further distance the game from KoW.

But the biggest change is that I've replaced the KoW mechanic of doubling and tripling attacks on flank and rear facings respectively, with a system of modifiers. So if a unit is engaged to it's flank, then all enemies attacking that unit (from any facing) will receive +1 to hit. If a unit is engaged to it's rear, the enemies will receive +2, and if it's engaged to a flank and a rear they will receive +3.

The problem is that I don't like this system as much as simply doubling and tripling attacks. It's not as elegant, so I'm kind of torn because while KoW definitely inspired Shieldwall, I don't want it to be a clone but at the same time I really like this particular mechanic. I'm trying to keep the rules as simple and intuitive as possible so I would like to avoid instances where players get to combat and then need to count lots of different modifiers. I'll wrack my brain a bit more and see if I can't come up with something more simple, like maybe units fighting an enemies flank can re-roll misses or a reduction to the defence roll.

[Charlie_]

I'm trying to keep the rules as simple and intuitive as possible so I would like to avoid instances where players get to combat and then need to count lots of different modifiers.

For what it's worth I'd rather add a SIMPLE modifier (which this seems to be) rather than doubling or TRIPLING the ammount of dice I'm rolling.
For example, 10 rolls needing 4+ becoming 10 rolls needing 3+ sounds more appealing to me than doubling it to 20 rolls. (Not sure if that's exactly how it works in your rules, but you get my point I hope).
Though.... I wouldn't really mind either way, that would just be my preference.

I know where you're coming from in being inspired by a ruleset yet wanting to make it different. I have my own rules I'm fine-tuning, they were originally inspired by WAB, and though most things are now vastly different, there are still a few things which are obviously based on elements of the WAB system. And it does make it more appealing (both as the author and probably for people playing it) to try and rename certain rules to keep some distance from the original ruleset that inspired it.

One tip I will give is no matter what you do, you will be unlikely to EVER find people that like absolutely everything about your ruleset, but I'm sure you know this. There will ALWAYS be things in it that turn people off it completely, perhaps unreasonably. Things like "sorry I don't like multi-basing / individual basing", or "that's one too many dice rolls, I'm not interested" or "that particular modifier goes against everything I like in my games".
But as long as you're not planning to make it something commercial, that shouldn't be a problem!

I could give you a long list of things I LIKE and things I DISLIKE about your rules, but I don't think that it would help. (I could also give you a long list of things I THINK people will like about my rules, and a long list of things I KNOW people will dislike about my rules.)

What I will say is I like your presentation, it's a neat and coherent document, looks like a good solid set of rules (I can't really comment on how similar it is to Kings of War). It's not what I'm personally looking for in a ruleset, but I'd happily use it if it was my opponent's preference, and no doubt it would go smoothly and be very enjoyable! Well done!

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

For what it's worth I'd rather add a SIMPLE modifier (which this seems to be) rather than doubling or TRIPLING the ammount of dice I'm rolling.
For example, 10 rolls needing 4+ becoming 10 rolls needing 3+ sounds more appealing to me than doubling it to 20 rolls. (Not sure if that's exactly how it works in your rules, but you get my point I hope).
Though.... I wouldn't really mind either way, that would just be my preference.

Thanks. I think you're right, I'll keep working at it and hopefully come up with a solution I can live with

I know where you're coming from in being inspired by a ruleset yet wanting to make it different. I have my own rules I'm fine-tuning, they were originally inspired by WAB, and though most things are now vastly different, there are still a few things which are obviously based on elements of the WAB system. And it does make it more appealing (both as the author and probably for people playing it) to try and rename certain rules to keep some distance from the original ruleset that inspired it.

Yes, the next revision of the rules will be done with an eye to un-KoWising the rules and adding a more unique identity.

One tip I will give is no matter what you do, you will be unlikely to EVER find people that like absolutely everything about your ruleset, but I'm sure you know this. There will ALWAYS be things in it that turn people off it completely, perhaps unreasonably. Things like "sorry I don't like multi-basing / individual basing", or "that's one too many dice rolls, I'm not interested" or "that particular modifier goes against everything I like in my games".
But as long as you're not planning to make it something commercial, that shouldn't be a problem!

Yeah, I would never attempt to build a set of rules that would be all things to all people, and it's not something I'd consider turning into a commercial product, just something I'd really like to get feedback on!

I could give you a long list of things I LIKE and things I DISLIKE about your rules, but I don't think that it would help. (I could also give you a long list of things I THINK people will like about my rules, and a long list of things I KNOW people will dislike about my rules.)

I'd be interested to know what you like and dislike, and why. I'm totally prepared for some people to not enjoy certain design features or to have different preferences, because I know I certainly do myself! Some game systems I love, and some I just think are nightmares, but at the moment I'm the only one really evaluating the rules so getting ANY kind of outside perspective would be appreciated

What I will say is I like your presentation, it's a neat and coherent document, looks like a good solid set of rules (I can't really comment on how similar it is to Kings of War). It's not what I'm personally looking for in a ruleset, but I'd happily use it if it was my opponent's preference, and no doubt it would go smoothly and be very enjoyable! Well done!

Thanks very much!

[Charlie_]

I'd be interested to know what you like and dislike, and why. I'm totally prepared for some people to not enjoy certain design features or to have different preferences, because I know I certainly do myself! Some game systems I love, and some I just think are nightmares, but at the moment I'm the only one really evaluating the rules so getting ANY kind of outside perspective would be appreciated

I could do that later for you if you want, though bear in mind there may be some things I dislike for no real reason other than "don't like that / not my preference"!

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

I could do that later for you if you want, though bear in mind there may be some things I dislike for no real reason other than "don't like that / not my preference"!

Yeah, I totally get that Cheers, it would be good to get an outsiders opinion

[Jericho]

Well, we played a testgame yesterday and it was fun simple game.
Two identical Late Roman armies consisting of:
1x General
1x Standard Bearer
1x Mounted Hearthguard (Equites Scutarii)
2x Foot Hearthguard (Legionarii)
1x Warriors (Auxiliae)
1x Skirmishers

We both chucked the Standard Bearer in with the skirmishers, so they could harass a flank without command problems, while the Generals stayed close behind the infantry. So we only had to give Will points to the cavalry if need be.

Long story short, while it was fun it all came down to how good you roll the dice. And last night, for a change, I was on fire; my opponent not so much.

That, for us, created some consistency problems.
On my left flank my Cavalry unit got blocked by Foot Hearthguard in the front and in the next turn surrounded by his Mounted Hearthguard in the rear. So that were 36 dice to attack my rear hitting on 5+ and saving on 5+. Well, my lucky throwing after his abysmal throws let that unit survive for another round.

So it's good you aready changed the doubling and tripling of dice to a simpler modifier. These modifiers also give a more real advantage especially if you have bad luck with the dice. (To me, throwing too many dice is just silly; kind of like in Dux Brittaniarum throwing 40 or so dice in one go.)

Maybe also some sort of charge bonus for Cavalry is in order? It looked kind of funny that a group of armorclad horsemen come charging at you only to seemingly stop right in front of the enemy and then engage in cose combat.

Also one thing I found peculiar about you "Shieldwall" rule is that they get a +1 to hit. How can you fight better in a defensive position?

Apart from the speed, the cavalry units don't seem really worth it, while the warriors and hearthguard all have the Shieldwall rule (+1 to hit; +1 to save).
Maybe it would even things out if the cavalry got the +1 to hit and the infantry only the +1 to save?
Or give the cavalry the "Thunderous Charge" rule?

Also I noticed two typo's in the text somewhere.

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

Well, we played a testgame yesterday and it was fun simple game.
Two identical Late Roman armies consisting of:
1x General
1x Standard Bearer
1x Mounted Hearthguard (Equites Scutarii)
2x Foot Hearthguard (Legionarii)
1x Warriors (Auxiliae)
1x Skirmishers

We both chucked the Standard Bearer in with the skirmishers, so they could harass a flank without command problems, while the Generals stayed close behind the infantry. So we only had to give Will points to the cavalry if need be.

Firstly, thanks for giving it a shot! Much appreciated!

Did you spend Will for anything else?

I hadn't anticipated putting Standard Bearers with skirmishers, but it makes a certain amount of sense in a smaller game, to provide some autonomy.

So it's good you aready changed the doubling and tripling of dice to a simpler modifier. These modifiers also give a more real advantage especially if you have bad luck with the dice. (To me, throwing too many dice is just silly; kind of like in Dux Brittaniarum throwing 40 or so dice in one go.)

Yeah, the more I think about it the more I prefer the idea of modifiers.

Maybe also some sort of charge bonus for Cavalry is in order? It looked kind of funny that a group of armorclad horsemen come charging at you only to seemingly stop right in front of the enemy and then engage in cose combat...

...Apart from the speed, the cavalry units don't seem really worth it, while the warriors and hearthguard all have the Shieldwall rule (+1 to hit; +1 to save).
Maybe it would even things out if the cavalry got the +1 to hit and the infantry only the +1 to save?
Or give the cavalry the "Thunderous Charge" rule?

Yeah, the unit profiles are incomplete at this stage. The intent is that players can add whatever special rules they feel are appropriate to get the right feel, at this stage I have nothing at all in the way of points or any kind of balancing mechanism, it all comes down to player discretion. I have re-worked the rules slightly, so that Thunderous Charge is gone, and in it's place is Cavalry Charge and Heavy Cavalry Charge, which add a +1 and +2 modifier respectively.

Also one thing I found peculiar about you "Shieldwall" rule is that they get a +1 to hit. How can you fight better in a defensive position?

The intent with the Shieldwall rule was to provide a distinction between heavily armed and armoured, close order fighting troops and other troops that might fight in close combat but not with the same ability or motivation. I'm not entirely sold that the +1 to hit is a good idea, and I'm thinking that the difference in troop quality and equipment could be adequately represented through unit profiles, so the +1 to hit is definitely in my sights for the next revision.

Also I noticed two typo's in the text somewhere.

Cheers, I try and pick them up as I go, spellchecker is a bit of a pain since there's a lot of words that don't fit into the various language filters and I'm often working on the document in different locations on different networks so simply adding words to the dictionary doesn't always help

Thanks again for trying out the rules! How did you find the size of the game? How long did it take? How were your models based and did you run into any problems that the rules didn't cover? Do you think the rules would handle a larger game easily enough?

I'm thinking about giving Skirmishers some kind of bonus to command rolls so that they don't become a liability out in no-mans-land between the armies, but I don't want them to become super troopers and I'm worried about creating a super unit in skirmishing horse archers...