Warlord Ancient rules

[Phil Portway]

any one played these, by Trevor Halsall

www.caliverbooks.com/bookview.php?ea0cd9fc8b91634d12f75809c149a15c&id=12265

[emosbur]

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.

[philhendry]

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.

[Phil Portway]

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.