"Aurelian - First Impressions" Topic

On the release of "Longstreet" and "Blucher" I did a ‘First Impression' of them on the appropriate boards, which people liked, so I thought I'd post one on "Aurelian" as well.

As with the other two this is on a read through only and not intended to be a forensic study of the rules and the playing thereof.

It's hard not to look at the new rules in terms of Sam Mustafa's last two sets mentioned above but if you are not into ACW or Napoleonic's that may not mean much.

Although you can see ideas from both these rules in "Aurelian" of the two, its game play heritage is really "Longstreet". Not that it's some weird concoction that's moved ACW methods into the Ancients era rather that they are both card driven with the add-on of "Aurelian" having no dice of any kind involved in playing the game.

As before, "card driven" means you control your army with the game deck, the cards do not decide completely what you can do and when you can do it, as in some card, or even dice based games do.

It's not often I've been able to spot the central idea of a rule set from the get go but here's my shot at this one!

The idea behind "Aurelian" appears to be to produce a game where you attempt to win, while or shortly before, your own army collapses under the effort of doing so.

This at a base level sounds like a pretty good premise for a period of warfare where everything relied on human endurance in one form or another.

To this end, the game system provided by the cards sees the ability to move, shoot, fight and rally gradually slip away from the player as the game progresses.

The Action cards (a faction deck – Roman, Germanic, Sassanid and Sarmatian – plus common cards) are multi-purpose, having a rally value and a text description, which can enable a combat, shooting or movement bonus and a simple number value. There are also cards which, in addition, can be played to disrupt the enemy at some point.

The number and the rally value on the cards are perhaps the most important to the overall concept. As there are no dice rolls, the number value is played to shoot, fight and initiate movement.

The player's place cards on table for their number value and these plus the usual type of attack/defence modifiers produce a winner, or cause shooting hits. However the attacker/shooter must then remove the highest card played for the rest of the game and any others used are set aside to reform the deck when the current one is used up.

This removal applies to cards played to influence events and those played to rally units. To make things worse, when a broken unit leaves the field, a number of these Action cards associated with it go too. As you might expect the better the unit the more cards go with it!

So, the overall deck is constantly shrinking with the best cards going first. It's a very nice way of showing the army decline as the day drags on. You might win quickly but if it goes against you, it gets harder and harder to achieve victory.

A feature I think would be very hard to produce in a dice based game without a deal of effort.

As to the Armies themselves. Those looking for old school WRG descriptions of many types and many weapons need not apply. Indeed hard line players of newer rules might also baulk as you only get Infantry and Cavalry who fight in close order and the same who don't, that plus Elephants is all!

Obviously armour, troop class and fighting ability etc broaden the individual choice for points based games and give the unit its identity. Army lists for the four factions are included.

These classifications suit the period the rules are set in (Mid-3rd Century) and to be honest would cover most other periods – start the debate on how many categories there should be in any given Ancients rules now.

The only things I would think you would have a problem fitting in would be Pikes and Chariots but in fairness there weren't many of those in the 270's AD which is the original design period.

There is a Campaign section in the Advanced rules. Like "Longstreet" this is not map based but a series of linked games with post battle attrition. To be honest this is a little bit of a disappointment given the depth of the one in "Longstreet" with its accompanying cards and table layouts but there again those cards and rules gave a cost that's a fair bit more than "Aurelian" does so ………..

There are a range of game aides and cards available on the "Honor" website for free download, including pictorial unit cards for those not having, or not wanting, to play with miniatures.

The rules are pdf download only and include a printer friendly version. The Action cards for the game are available as a DIY production via the downloads, or professionally made via a third party Print on Demand service.

Overall I'm a happy buyer and looking forward to the field tests.

Are the armies in the Appendix the only army cards available? Or did more come with the main rules?

At the moment it just those four.

The rules were written with "The Crisis" of the Roman Empire in the mid 3rd Century in mind, as the author didn't want to do those type of rules that start around 1400BC and end in 1400AD on the basis that a man with a sword is a man with a sword.

That said with the possible exception of those I mention it would be pretty easy to fit most troop types from other armies and periods.

The "Longstreet" campaign I thought was the best piece of toy soldiering I've ever seen:) Hard to match that!

As a die-hard dice player for… I don't know, thirty years…? the cards took me a while to get used to. But I've come to ADORE how the management of your cards really does simulate the overall stress on command and control that an army experiences in war. If you throw every effort into the fight to start, throwing in your reserves and shouting yourself hoarse and forcing your troops to give their best total effort… well, if you don't win on that push, your army will be worn and tired, and will have a hard time being as effective.

I also really loved how the cards in-hand, differentiated by faction, eliminate the need for special rules in a big book or army list somewhere. The Roman faction has plenty of pilum and can form the tortoise and do all of those "Roman-y" things simply through the cards!

I love those aspects of the card-driven games.

Thanks for the first thoughts, Traj!

Hmm. So, here's a simple question. If my front line of infantry starts the battle off and has a long, hard, slogging match (typical of the period), how do you represent the effect of throwing in a fresh second line, or a fresh flanking force of cavalry?

In other words: if the main game mechanic is a deck of cards which is a finite exhaustible resource that manages the whole army – but is diminished by the actions of any part of that army – how do you model the real-life impact of fresh forces, when by virtue of the deck-exhaustion mechanic they can never be "fresh" once other parts of the army start to exhaust the deck?

You husband some 'good' cards for use when your opponent is weakened and then use them. Same as you would hold back reserves, with the same problem of knowing when to let them loose.

Hmm, no, that's not the same at all. What you are saying is that in order for the reserves to be effective (be able to use high cards), the front line has to be less effective (refrain from using those high cards). Not only is there no logical connection between the two, but it sets up a situation where you are have to actively contribute to the the defeat of your front line (playing lesser cards than your enemy) in order to eventually make your reserve more effective.

Now if you just want to say "hey, it makes for a more enjoyable resource management game" that's one thing (and a perfectly valid thing), but to say it actually models army behavior is quite a stretch.

At any rate, I'm more curious than intentionally confrontational. I really just want to make sure I understand what is going on with the core deck mechanic, so I can make a judgement on whether it's worth the investment to investigate. I'll keep my eyes open on the ensuing commentary.

Have you considered asking these questions on the Honor Forum? Wouldn't that be the logical place? Presumably that's where the author and all the playtesters are, if you really wanted answers.

Hm… I guess I see it this way:

By using your highest value cards in combat, you are basically simulating your senior officers ordering your men to fight to the death, your junior officers giving their most inspiring speeches, your men giving that vital, heroic push.

In the case you gave…

The long slog isn't really a factor, as that doesn't drain cards.

Where you drain cards is when you then throw your men in and they begin to fight. Slowly but surely the best cards that you use start to disappear from the deck, if you choose to use them. So if, early in the fight, you throw a first line in and use your best cards (representing your officers shouting and pushing the best they can, your men fighting with every ounce of their strength, and so on) you might have a better chance to win…

But then, as the fight goes on, you start to lose that ability. Your men, especially in that second, "fresh" force start to see the dead lying about them, the screams of the wounded start to grate on their nerves, the officers start to run out of effective ways to motivate, especially as they see the failures of the forces before them…

So in your case, if you threw one part of the force in and used all of your best cards (i.e. your men gave the best efforts a man can ask for, your officers motivated their men as best as they could and perfectly managed the combats) and you still didn't win, and now you have another unblooded force coming up to fight… well, no, they might NOT be able to put forth the same sort of effort (i.e. play the highest cards) because the SAW a valiant attack press forward and fail, they SEE the dead lying thick on the ground and the broken men fleeing, the officers around them are starting to doubt that a win is possible… and this is reflected in that you don't have the top cards anymore.

I think the method is actually incredibly subtle and yet works wonderfully, creating a bit of a feeling of the army as a vast, living thing which DOES grind down as you ask more of it.

Of course, you can still win plenty of battles even after you've exhausted your best cards if you use smart tactics at the appropriate times and all of that… you know, the usual stuff that wins a war-game… the value of the cards is just one aspect of the game. But the ability to have your men put forth that ULTIMATE effort in terms of sheer fighting ability does get worn away, either through their own wounding and death, or seeing the destruction of elements around them.

Having played several games like this, I can say that it works well. It appeals to the gamer within me who enjoys when a game has a natural flow and "story" to it, rather than it just being a set of dice rolls with an army in which all the elements are independent of each other and the various nebulous frictions of combat aren't really a factor.

I hope that explains it well… I am not sure if the idea I have in my head is easy to translate to writing:)

Interesting, and thank you for the write up!

Okay, I'll be the curmudgeon here.

I don't mind using cards in some fashion in games. I've written rules that do that. BUT, I'm not interested in any rules that remove dice from the game.

Dice are my friends. Sometimes we get along famously. Sometimes we argue. Sometimes they disappoint me, but like family, we stick together.

So, no dice, no purchase. If I don't get to rattle those bones, then I'll stick with what I have,

Best of luck with the game (and I absolutely mean that), but it's obviously not for me.

respects,

Having different decks for the various nationalities, so that each army has a character and qualities very much of its own, is a really clever idea and one that I look forward to exploring.

I think CAT raises a fair point on reserves but given that players in pretty much all Ancient rules I've played have perfect knowledge of where their second lines are and those of the enemy.

Are able to commit them at the twinkle of an eye and make flanking moves against the enemy with perfect certainty as to the likely hood of interception and exactly what force is likely to do the blocking, the relative freshness of second line units really isn't an issue for me.

The overall degradation of the forces in Aurelian is something I've not seen before so I'm keen to give it ago in the hope that along with the challenge it might put the brakes on the total unreality of the above by giving players more to worry about !

One quick change of tack on my OP.

On consideration I think I'm wrong about Pikes and Chariots being hard to include.

Pikes can be treated like any other massed infantry with in game adjustments to penalise them for fighting in difficult terrain and changes in direction, easily done in the rules as they stand.

Units hit in the flank are already in for a bad day so they would be no different if that occurred.

Depending on your beliefs you could increase their defence factor when fighting frontally and reduce their opponents accordingly.

Chariots, if heavy, could share attributes with cataphracts but with increased vunverablity to shooting and if light could be seen as slower horse archers. All depending on if you see the heavy variant as an impact weapon and the light as a shooting platform, of course.

@Lord Ashram – thank you for taking the time to write up your views, which I think were very well expressed. I know that it can be hard to encapsulate what that all important but ephemeral "feel" of a game is.

@Trajanus – fair point on balancing the unrealistic nature of some scenario types – we have all seen the "just line them all up across the table" games, and I could see where Aurelian-style resource management would make that default scenario more interesting, and make more sense. No matter the period, I try to design scenarios that specifically avoid that, however, thus my questions.

If you think about it as a scenario design problem, here are two interesting (or at least more concrete) questions:

First, in the not uncommon situation where you have Roman-Germanic allied forces on the same side, can you give the two parts of the army different decks, so they each have their own "national" decks?

Second, in the case of late arriving forces (e.g. Adrianople), is it likewise possible to assign the "fresh" force its own deck?

I suppose these both boil down to: can you play with multiple decks per side, and if so does the number of decks have to be equal?

These might be questions that can't be answered yet … I realize everyone just got the game!

TK, I see you in a whole new light.

Henceforth you will be known as "Las Vegas Tim"! :o)

CAT, taken in order:

The rules allow the Roman player to have Foederati which are run under the normal Roman deck with the caveat that where an Action card specifically gives a modifier to Romans, they do not receive it. However, if it said something like "active units" they would also benefit, along with the Romans themselves.

Additional forces, or maybe even an Allied army? I personally would use an extra deck. It follows what happens in multi player "Longstreet" where each command has its own deck and I think it would better represent the new arrivals who would not have been effected by events to date. Giving one side a boost and the other a problem!

Trajanus,

Fine by me. Every great commander was a gambler, so f the shoe fits.

As I said, I hope Sam makes a ton of money off of these rules, but without the element of chance brought in with dice, then they aren't for me. It's more like MTG with miniatures as far as I'm concerned.

But this is just my personal preference, and if others like the system, then great!

There is an element of chance. You (secretly) play a card in the combat phase and add the value to your basic combat factor. The choice on how you play your cards is yours, but will affect fatigue of the army and what other actions you can take in the game.

In both Maurice and Longstreet, Sam has taken a boring stand-up slugfest scenario and made it interesting by the mechanic of card-management. It looks like he's done the same with Aurelian. He doesn't explore more complicated scenarios or multi-commander situations, very much. As mentioned above, this can be accomplished with multiple hands – one for each sub-force. What I'm saying is that I think the card mechanic is brilliant and worthy of much more exploration.

If a card system does not completely dominate the sequence of a game, that's to say a player is completely unable to move, shoot or fight without the card that specifically says he can and must sit there like a bump on a log while his opponent does as he likes, then I find there are far more game possibilities than one that only uses dice.

I really can't imagine a way you could reproduce the grinding down of a force as these rules do using dice alone.

That said I'm keeping an open mind until I get some games under my belt to see how the combination of no dice and cards works. I like Longstreet very much but I'm hoping this combo moves things on from there, where at times it can feel you are 'playing the rules', just that little bit more than you should.

Trajanus says

I really can't imagine a way you could reproduce the grinding down of a force as these rules do using dice alone.

Yaquinto games used a system in one of their ACW period games (I can't remember which one just now) that helped replicate this. Each regiment had "X" number of fatigue points. It was replicated by boxes on the regiment's roster sheet. Once you got within a certain distance from the enemy, you lost one box each turn.When you took hits, you lost double boxes. A unit that remained stationary under cover could gain back a box each turn, as could a unit that rallied, even if it was still within sight of the enemy.

Eventually, your troops started to run out of steam and had to disengage or risk losing outright.

"File Leader" also has an interesting casualty system, (It's an ECW period rules set). When a unit takes casualties from fire, it has the choice of removing a casualty, or backing the stand up 1". After 2" the stand becomes disordered. After 3" you start to lose minis, as that's as far as you can back up.

Lots of different ways to simulate it.

Btw, the element of chance is still there, in that it is chance that determines what cards you have in your hand at any time. Still VERY much chance, same as dice.

Well … some chance, yes – same as dice, no.

Dice return a random number within a constant range every time, with no player control over what that number is. They are player-neutral, which is the whole point.

Playing a card from your hand, drawn from a diminishing deck of selected plays, returns a *chosen* number from within a *changing* range, with significant player control over what that number is – that control is not just in the concrete sense of "I'm picking EXACTLY this number this time", but also in what cards have been discarded, thus shaping the future possible random range (card draws into hand). Not only is there a lot of direct and indirect player control, but "card counting" will probably become a very important element of play for both sides, as both player and opponent can forecast what numbers are left.

Where dice are simple, single-instance, player-neutral tools, the card draw is a complex, continuous, player-deterministic system. It's effect is very, very different, and will doubtless have a significant impact on play – as intended I'm sure! I don't think its effect should be underestimated from a realistic gaming point of view. You will have to "play the system" or your play will be sub-par – as opposed to using dice for number generation, which are entirely removed from player control and the necessity of planning.

This is a long-hand explanation of what people probably mean when they say "I prefer dice" – it means they want the system neutral and want to put their energy into planning other elements of the game. BUT – on the other hand, people who want to play a "game within a game" with these sorts of systems, from a purely gamist perspective, will probably be happy with it … although my experience is that gamist gimmicks can have a short-lived life span, as the next new thing comes along (applicable across various gaming types).

I used to prefer mechanics-heavy systems, but I find that I now strongly prefer rules where the systems disappear as much as possible from view, leaving as little as possible between my perspective as a player and enacting the battle on the tabletop. Having to manage mini-games within the game breaks my perspective.

Valid points as always CAT but not all card games are the same.

Reason I mention that is I have already noted that Aurelain is a lot less deterministic than Longstreet including the fact players will be hard put to card count when having to use their decks for several different purposes in the game.

In Longstreet they are only used as enhancements to your plans or distractions to the enemy and it's not hard to know the deck make up and the chances of what's gone or yet to come. So yes you can card count if you have the ability as there a lot of cards but very limited numbers of each type.

Having those uses just mentioned and a requirement for the amount of moving, shooting, rallying and combat rolled up into just the cards will change that quite a bit, as will a greatly increased removal rate.

Also the game does not solely rely on drawing to hand. In a lot of instances players can opt to play the top card off their deck, sight unseen, thereby putting more chance back into the mix. Something you can't do in Longstreet, incidentally.

As always it's our old friend personal preference. For me these two card games add interest and involvement to their respective periods. In a perfect world I'd get that from historical content.

If I might refer to another rule set I know you like – Regimental Fire and Fury – as an example. I'd rather play Longstreet as I find it more involving.

It's no more historic, some might say less so, but there are loads of things involving the movement of troops, formation changes, distances, frontages shooting, combat out comes and command in RF&F that just as 'out there' in their own way and contribute to a game that to me feels like a dice throwing contest, rather than an involving representation.

Now I could say the same about other rules in both periods but the point is I'd rather play something 'wrong' I find involving, than something I find 'wrong' that I don't.

Dice or card driven makes no difference where that criteria is concerned. Give me a game that knows its history and includes decisions at the appropriate level and I'm your man. Where I genuinely know the period, if that's not there I'd rather be entertained playing that game within a game! :o)

@CATenWolde,

but "card counting" will probably become a very important element of play for both sides, as both player and opponent can forecast what numbers are left.

From my reading you would have to possess an eidetic memory and genuine psychic ability to do this. If you have those, you are wasting your time here and should be playing Blackjack in casinos.

I'm more curious than intentionally confrontational. I really just want to make sure I understand what is going on with the core deck mechanic, so I can make a judgement on whether it's worth the investment to investigate.

These might be questions that can't be answered yet … I realize everyone just got the game!

CAT, have you asked any of these questions in the Honor Forum yet? Surely that is the place to ask them, if you actually want answers.

Okay, it seems I "overplayed my hand" :) about the card counting, based on experience with other seemingly similar games (like Longstreet). That wasn't the main point – which was just ruminating on the differences between dice and deck randomization. Gawd … I've been pondering this since the heady days of the First Piquet Wars … ;)

@Garth – no, obviously not. I'm really just foraging, since it happens to be a period I'm actively involved in at the moment, but haven't bought the rules. I frankly suffer from forum fatigue, and at any rate it seems to smack slightly of bad form to drop in on an author's forum and bomb away with perhaps critical questions when I haven't even bought into the game.

I really should just fade back into the woodwork and wait for further impressions to form, as it's so easy to seem negative when trying to ask system questions like this, and I don't want to get in the way of the boys having their fun.

Cheers,

Christopher

it seems to smack slightly of bad form to drop in on an author's forum and bomb away with perhaps critical questions when I haven't even bought into the game.

If they're honest and sincere questions because you are a potential customer and genuinely want to learn, then it's not bad form. That's what forums (fora?) are for.

There are, however, also numerous cases of people not really asking "questions" but rather simply being passive-aggressive in order to criticize things they haven't seen. In those cases, yes, TMP has traditionally been the correct forum for that! It gives new meaning to the concept of "blind review."

@CATenWolde,

Actually I hadn't seen you posting much until lately. Either I've missed the threads where you've been posting or welcome back. I really liked your 10mm figure posts.

CAT having been active alongside you in the Piquet Wars under another identity. I can say anyone who sees you as a negative force can stick their views where the sun don't shine!

I might add that was along time ago and if card driven games hadn't changed a lot since those days we wouldn't be having this conversation!

Might be worth dropping 26 Euros on Aurelian just to see how much things have altered over the years.

I don't think he's a negative force (as ominous and vaguely attractive as that sounds).

If a person has genuine questions, it's not "bad form" to post those questions directly to the faces of the people who can answer them.

My temper is frayed, having just come from the Flames of War boards, in which lots of people have "questions" about the new game that are actually, "I have decided I hate this thing that I've never seen and would never buy anyway." I just don't get that.

"I have decided I hate this thing that I've never seen and would never buy anyway."

Don't you just love those people?

Aurelian review:

link

Well played Nick the Lemming.

Good review of the games structure and detail as per the rules.

Looking forward to our first bash this week to experience game play first hand and seeing how reality measures up.

Thanks for the goodwill guys – have fun with the game and report back!

Cheers,

Christopher

Thanks for the review, Nick!

Aurelian review:

link

So does this mean the role of a commander in ancient times was to manage a hand of cards?

How well does it replicate command decisions of the period?

So does this mean the role of a commander in ancient times was to manage a hand of cards?

No, as I understand it his job was to roll sixes.

/\

Hah!

I would say it replicates command decisions of the period in that you have to decide when and where to dedicate troops, how to effectively use skirmishers, when cavalry would be most dangerous, sense when a unit is too battered to effectively continue, how to fight on advantageous ground, knowing when to order your Romans to hurl their pila or when your Persian light cavalry should pepper your enemy with bowfire… all of the usual stuff, no?

BTW, is TMP broken? I clicked on Hagenthedwarf, whose name I didn't recognize, and saw that he has been a member here for five years, but only has TWO total posts, including the one above? Is that possibly accurate? Or are the info pages not quite working?

Managing a hand of cards is a mechanic, just the same as rolling buckets of dice and looking up twenty different tables to check how many plus or minus points to add to a die roll.

Both methods exist purely to represent various process and actions in real life. The decisions are built (or not) into the game play itself, cards or dice represent the activity required to carry out activity, or have activity acted out against you.

No one thinks that real Romans operated with cards or dice as their way of making decisions, although looking at some of those it does make you wonder.

I always thought Julius Caesar was the first wargamer.

"Alea iacta est"

I would say it replicates command decisions of the period in that you have to decide when and where to dedicate troops, how to effectively use skirmishers, when cavalry would be most dangerous, sense when a unit is too battered to effectively continue, how to fight on advantageous ground, knowing when to order your Romans to hurl their pila or when your Persian light cavalry should pepper your enemy with bowfire… all of the usual stuff, no?

Not the impression I am getting through the review process and that is my point. I am reading about the technicalities of play but have no impression of how it might be representing what you mention.

ut only has TWO total posts, including the one above? Is that possibly accurate? Or are the info pages not quite working?

Not quite working. I do not post a lot but more than two in five years.

Managing a hand of cards is a mechanic, just the same as rolling buckets of dice and looking up twenty different tables to check how many plus or minus points to add to a die roll.

Both methods exist purely to represent various process and actions in real life. The decisions are built (or not) into the game play itself, cards or dice represent the activity required to carry out activity, or have activity acted out against you.

It is the '(or not)' that worries me. I have tried a number of recently published rules that seem to be popular but although they have clever mechanisms I wonder what the point is because the decisions that are made do not really reflect what I imagine the commanders were actually doing.

I wonder what the point is because the decisions that are made do not really reflect what I imagine the commanders were actually doing.

And what would that be?

Not a "wise guy" response, purely asked to illicit your view, in order to see if things can/do match up.

Without it I'd just be guessing what you see as needing to be represented.

And not really good timing for the query!

Of course we have to set aside recruiting, training, vittling, awarding medals and so forth. Key ingredients on the big day:
Deployment of troops
Encouraging morale
Fighting for example

Classically a Greek general deployed his troops facing the enemy on good ground, placed himself in the front rank and showed how to fight … and quite possibly die. Epaminondas showed how arranging your troops before the battle could be done to advantage. Alexander took this a step further by commanding a reserve to be committed at a critical point. By the time of Hannibal and Scipio there seems to have been a system of officer control but what were the commanders doing other than more complex versions of those three core activities?