"Neil Thomas ancient wargame rules - anyone tried them?" Topic

HAS ANYONE PLAYED THE NEIL THOMAS ANCIENT RULES FROM HIS INTRODUCTION TO WARGAMING BOOK. HOW DID YOU FIND THEM? DID YOU MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS? MANY THANKS TERRY.

The answer is no to all your questions. I have to ask though. Why are you yelling?

Cheers.
GeorgeD

I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THESE RULES!!!!!!!

THANKS FOR ASKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have read the rules but found them a bit difficult to follow. I have not seen these rules used in any convention games in the US, nor in any Tournaments.

I like the biblical rules in the ancient & medieval book by Thomas. I like the idea of "biblical" infantry for Sumerians, etc… I haven't played them tho.

I just got the Ancient and Medieval book.The rules look pretty simple.They might be good for convention games.
I like the "Dark Ages infantry"

The group I play with has tried these rules and we had a lot of fun with them. We modified the army size to 12 units a side and used Chinese ancient chariot armies we designed ourselves. the game is very easy to pick up but you have to interpret some of the rules- not for rules lawyers but a gas to play if you are looking for a game that is a lot of fun. We usually play Armati 2 so the units were made up of 4 stands (60mm square per stand).Highly recommended for a convention game or just something different that you can pick up quickly.

Good fun rules, great for introducing kids to historical gaming. Would be good for demonstration and maybe participation games. Not for competitions. Some nice updates in last few issues of slingshot.

I think they would be more widely known if there was some online support for them.

Tried them with Normans v's Saxons. We were not impressed, it just became a dice rolling marathon where it was obvious that the Normans would win in the end, no matter how well the Saxons deployed or manouvered.

This is an elegantly designed game betrayed by a lack of clarity on some key points, like wheeling, and a failure of the author to participate in an online dialog regarding the game he wrote.

I played a few solo tests. It plays better than the more popular FoG. It plays about as well as Impetus. The online support offered by the designer of Impetus makes this a much better choice for gamers.

I am put off by the Thomas' unwillingness to clarify the rules except in Slingshot magazine. His answers to snail-mail letters posted through a Yahoo forum are evasive and confusing.

Life is too short to worry with a game with poor support and expensive, occasional corrections.

While the game is unplayable as written, the mechanics are sublime. If you are a game designer looking for inspiration, it would be a great read.

Here is the Yahoo group for Neil Thomas' Ancient and Medieval rules

link

David

met Niel today as he is putting photos of my Napoleonics

into his new book, mentioned the need for him to go on-line

and respond to the questions posed by his rules…….will

pass this on to him as he only lives round the corner!!

Ged

GJM FIGURINES

I posted a review here…
TMP link

The rules for turning really only work as written if it is a facing change and not a wheel. If you feel that wheeling is the way to go, modify to taste.

There are no generals. No command and control. However, the rules are simple and adding onto them should be non problem.

John

I started the Yahoo group in 2007 as I was really keen on using the rules – most of the battle reports there are mine, and should give a good picture of how the rules play. I was rather disillusioned by Neil's reluctance to give clear answers to rules queries, or even to accept the need for clarifications.

However, the rules remain an excellent "starter" set or the basis for house rule bolt-ons. I recommend them.

Good to hear he is doing a new book

What the rules do very well is transport you back in time to a period when wargame books were readily available on the shelves in bookshops – this is how I got into the hobby in the first place.

It serves to remind that wargaming is fun and that wargame rules and army lists do not have to be complex, highly detailed or cleverly convoluted.

It reminded me of the raw pleasure I got as a teenager, picking up a Don Featherstone or Charles Grant book and just reading and re-reading them over and over – hoorah for that !

> …Neil mentioned the need for him to go on-line
> and respond to the questions posed by his rules…….will
> pass this on to him as he only lives round the corner!!

Really good to hear. This really is too good a set of rules to allow it to languish. (And thanks to John for the Yahoo group. Without this resource, much of the game would have frustrated me.)

Yes, it's a bit frustrating to ask a question about the (very unclear) rules for wheeling and get a reply which says 'These are not rules for Rules Lawyers'.

Yes, I know that, but how is wheeling supposed to work?

I have a copy which I have skim read but didn't see anything exciting. I will have to read them again but the comments regarding the authors support are dissapointingly familiar.

If you have a strong dislike for "saving throws", you might as well not bother with these rules. Every troop type throws a specified no. of hit dice against each enemy unit type, and then the damaged unit gets savings throws for all of the hits caused by the enemy. It's a bit of a dice fest, but it is a pretty simple system that would probably be ideal for a convention game. I don't know how well it would be liked by the more serious-minded ancients gamers.

thank you for your comments
regards terry

Yeah, they're an ok set of ancients rules and a good in to the period.

The author knows his stuff and makes his assumptions quite clear in the chapters.

Worth a read if nothing else.

I found them OK for a few games, but in the end far too simplistic as they stand.The choice was between adding on lots of house rules or moving on to another set – we move on to WAB.

Interesting that there are rules less clear, to me, than DBA and the author who mimics the other author.

Actually, having looked at the rule again, worked out some house amendments and checked the 'official' comments on the Yahoo group, I'm going to give these another go. The mechanism is good – it just requires developing a bit.