*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 05:42:15 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686609
  • Total Topics: 118113
  • Online Today: 646
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online
Users: 8
Guests: 625
Total: 633

Recent

Author Topic: Warlord Ancient rules  (Read 2365 times)

Offline Phil Portway

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1059
Warlord Ancient rules
« on: April 22, 2014, 11:19:17 PM »
If it isn't enjoyable, it isn't gaming!

Offline emosbur

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 522
    • A COVA DO TRASNO
Re: Warlord Ancient rules
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2014, 06:59:11 PM »
Several months ago I was very tempted in buying those rules. Trevor Halsall is an old rule writer, I got two sets from him. They have a very different system from present rulesets (WRG style). I think that this new book is more "modern". I would like to take a look at it too.

Emilio.

Offline philhendry

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 414
    • My Wargaming Website
Re: Warlord Ancient rules
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2014, 05:29:56 PM »
I had a long hard look at it. It's very '1980s' in style, despite the modern presentation. In my opinion, it's overly complex. Most of the complexity appears to be there only to be complex - in that very 1980s way, the author assumes that more detail equates to a better game. I think we're beginning to discover - via the likes of Rich Clarke's 'Lardy' rules (and others) - that you can have games which are both more fun to play and a better simulation, simply by being 'clever' about learning which parts of combat actually matter and only modelling those explicitly in the rules. I didn't waste my money on a set.

Offline Phil Portway

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Warlord Ancient rules
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2014, 12:01:38 AM »
I had a long hard look at it. It's very '1980s' in style, despite the modern presentation. In my opinion, it's overly complex. Most of the complexity appears to be there only to be complex - in that very 1980s way, the author assumes that more detail equates to a better game. I think we're beginning to discover - via the likes of Rich Clarke's 'Lardy' rules (and others) - that you can have games which are both more fun to play and a better simulation, simply by being 'clever' about learning which parts of combat actually matter and only modelling those explicitly in the rules. I didn't waste my money on a set.
Thanks for that Phil, I think I know where you are coming from. I tried Trevors Napoleonic set and got caught up in little bits of details that Shako did not have. I will try Crusader and War and Conquest of which I quite like now I am reading them. I will give Crusader a bash first.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3359 Views
Last post February 17, 2013, 10:46:15 AM
by Gibby
7 Replies
2662 Views
Last post February 27, 2014, 07:23:54 PM
by Matt1066
2 Replies
1973 Views
Last post June 25, 2014, 09:53:50 PM
by Polkovnik
0 Replies
1675 Views
Last post June 22, 2016, 11:27:59 AM
by Lurkio
17 Replies
3222 Views
Last post May 09, 2022, 10:41:33 AM
by markdienekes