Warlord: Advance Guard

[terrement]

These rules were queried a few years back, and pretty much crickets for replies.

https://quicksounds.com/sound/3074/crickets-silence

I suspect the crickets will still be out there with this re-query, but the advert for the rules sounded interesting.  I was wondering whether anyone knows anything about the quality of the rules themselves as well as any backstory as to why they "failed to launch."

The second question is important to me independent of this particular rule set.  I'm in a discussion with a publisher about what sort of things either the publisher or the game author need to address in order to maximize their possibility of success, especially in a crowded market and limited "play money" in the gamer's budget which drives how much they will spend on what.  They will be launching a new set in the near future, but I'm concerned about their approach thus far in preps and marketing plans.

I've seen a lot of rules come (and go), launch and fizzle, launch and seem to gain traction but quickly fade, launch, succeed, but quickly find themselves up against other new and solid competitors.  So I have a number of comments, questions and suggestions to pass along to them, but trying to see if I've missed any.

Thanks.

[fred]

Personally its not so much the cost of rules that stops me - it is finding time to play them! I own far more sets of rules than I play. But there is a limited number of gaming opportunities - even though I game most weeks - we often need/want to play the same rules a few weeks in a row to get the mechanics straight.

I think there is also a difference in rules sales, rules play and online discussion. I’m sure there are plenty of sets of rules that get played quite happily at gamer’s homes were no-one but the two players are aware that the game has happened.

[has.been]

My two pence worth of comment:-

1) Low entry cost. It might be the best set of rules ever, but if it costs a lot
    I will not consider it. More likely to buy cheap & amend them.
2) I want a fun game, so if it involves masses of rules...not interested.
3) I want a QRS included. WRG managed it back in the 1960s. I get
    annoyed with authors/publishers who say either it can't be done, or
    they won't do it. & by the way, put it on the back page, so that when
    I get friends around to play my new rules I can provide each with a
    copy QRS.  If the game is good my mates will then buy their own copy.
    Publisher/author WILL sell more copies.
4) Pretty pictures are nice, but if you have butchered  your rules to fit them
     in then I think you have failed.
5) Most of us are smart enough to deal with the occasional glitch, but to
     have a set that is supposed to have gone through serious playtesting
     riddled with errors, typos and missing useful things (logical layout, QRS,
     index etc.) is not good enough. 


Whining over, at least for the moment.

[SJWi]

As someone with multiple sets of rules I can certainly say what makes me buy and play a set and what annoys me.

 Cost isn't a huge issue for me. I pay £100s to amass the armies so say £30+ for a really good ruleset is OK. That said I wouldn't stump up £50 for rules by an author I've never heard of. U-tube reviews and explanation can help.

 Please, please play test them thoroughly and proof-read them. If possible ask lots of different groups to test not just the authors coterie of friends. I've lost track of the rules I've ditched because they appear poorly written or inadequately tested.
 
As I've got older and my eyesight deteriorates a decent print size makes all the difference. I don't look back on the dense word count and font used in the 1970s/80s with any nostalgia!

 I too like a QRS. Either with the rules or available as Download. Some form of online support is very helpful, but I guess that depends on the social skills of the author!

Make sure the rules "do what they say on the tin". I recently bought a set of Napoleonic rules only to find they only cover 1813-15. Naughty!

 

[Byrthnoth]

I think for mass battle, ‘Sumeria to Bosworth’ type of rules, it’s hard to stand out and get traction because there are already several well-known options out there, and most gamers will find that at least one set of rules is  good enough for their purposes. It’s extra difficult because these long timescale rules have to trade off between keeping things relatively simple and offering period flavour. Things feel generic if a hoplite is the same as a Saxon huscarl, but also it seems like nobody has time for a million different troop grades and equipment options bogging down the rules.

I don’t know the story with Warlord Advance Guard (hadn’t heard of it before now), but nothing from the description of it makes it seem particularly compelling — see here — there’s no obvious hook or anything that would make me say “I need to play this instead of Hail Caesar/ADLG/DBA/whatever”. It might be a great game, but to me it doesn’t stand out in any clear way — fast play, no need to re-base, command and control, etc — these are the same pitches made by pretty much any rules in the last decade.

[Olivero]

My 2 cents for what is's worth (regarding ancients rulesets only)..... I own these rules (and many more) but have not played them.

The Warlord: Advance Guard rules are not only the (proposedly) lighter/faster follow-up/entry rules to the two volume "Warlord" rules, they are written by the same author of the older Newbury Fast Play rules. Older gamers might rise an eybrow here as those earlier rules were (as I have heard) anything but fast (to be fair these rules had been published as a faster/lighter version of the even older rules Warfare through the ages).

As far as I can recall I only noticed the rules had been published seeing a) an add on a wargaming website once and b) checking for the promised Warlord army lists on the publishers website (don't remember what came first).

The rules have (as do the "original" Warlord books) a highly professional appearance. Quality softcover books, professional layout, pictures (but not too many), an index and whatnot. I surely found nothing to complain here. But the rulebook does look just a little dry (in my point of view), maybe due to the well-meant "cross-referencing" all over the place (sorry to say: a little like a manual ot legal textbook). In no way I want to citicize the rules themselfes or the effort that had been put into them (and I am certain that had been a lot - actually I am quite sorry they seemed to fly below the radar.)

So what do I make of that? Subjective thoughts of mine:

- The rules come from author with a.... mixed reputation
- They got little advertizing (as far as I can tell)
- Poor name - I mean, just search the internet for wargame AND rules AND warlord - chances are you will not find these rules but rules from a ceartin publisher
- NO army lists. The Warlord rules only had some "introductory" lists included and I don't know some 12 or so seperate army lists were announced but only the first volume did appear. The Advance Guard rules were advertized with "Accompanying comprehensive Army Lists - nearly 300 lists for the period." and that was what I bought them for. I did not want a light Warlord rules set I wanted the promised army lists for the rules I had. Neither materialized (of course I have the old Newbury Rules Army Lists ;-)
- So you need army lists, and many of them if you choose to publish a 3000 bce - 1500 ce rules book. Almost all major rule systems today have them: DBA, DBMM, Art de la Guerre, Impetus, Hail Caesar, Mortem et Gloriam, To the Strongest, Fields of Glory (and as far as I know they were a huge success from the publishers point of view but version 2 ruined them I know) and Warhammer Ancient Battles had them, Swordpoint tries as does Triumph!.
- I don't see any mass batlle system without comprehensive army lists lasting for a long time AND being widely played/bought except some that are "different". Lion Rampant comes to mind, not mass battle but large skirmish, medieval, but very successful. Neil Thomas Ancient and Medieval Wargaming. Unique because of the brevity of the rules and a strong reputation of the author (the rules themselves added to that I recon). Might be others.

If you get all this right you can make people aware of what you have on offer. Then comes one more thing (at least one more):
- they need to be pretty damn good rules. All major rules I am aware of (DBA, DBMM, Art de la Guerre, Impetus, Hail Caesar, Mortem et Gloriam, To the Strongest, Lion Rampant etc.) keep people playing because they are fantastic rules. If you want to succeed I recon the rules need to be better than any of those or at least offer something novel/unique (Infamy, Infamy!) or, better, still both.

One last thought: Scale. People will play and by rules if others they know do. If a rules system does not "favour" one scale (although most "offer" playability with different ones) the potential interest-group might get divided and not reach critical mass. What I believe are (might really only be my own perception) 25/28mm rules: Impetus, Hail Caesar, To the Strongest, Warhammer Ancient Battles, Swordpoint. 15/18mm rules:  DBA, DBMM, Art de la Guerre, Mortem et Gloriam, Triumph!. So choose your scale and offer something better than the competition. If you choose a different (smaller) scale you avoid named competition but I can't recall any rules system aimed for those that is as widely known as the ones written for 15mm-28mm scale. Strenght & Honour are - well, we will see...