| Lolbat | 16 Jun 2007 7:17 a.m. PST |
Bob Barnetson has posted a review of the Crusader Historical Miniature Rules on TGN link |
| rddfxx | 16 Jun 2007 7:50 a.m. PST |
Fair-minded, excellent review with which I mostly agree, especially about the need for editing -- there are too many incomplete concepts running around the rulesbook. In some cases, the reader can construct the complete rule by sifting through the pieces scattered here and there, in other cases, the relevant text is simply missing. On the positive side, overall I like the rules, and I have no trouble filling in the missing pieces myself or via the Yahoo group. Where I disagree with the reviewer concerns the color photos in the booklet. They are great, among the sharpest I've ever seen in a ruleset, and generally better than most of the Warhammer Ancient Battles series. I don't really care if the photos are mostly not used to illustrate the rules. |
| rddfxx | 16 Jun 2007 7:51 a.m. PST |
I don't really care if the photos are mostly not used to illustrate the rules mechanics. |
| No Name02 | 16 Jun 2007 8:16 a.m. PST |
But surely if a photo can help illustrate how the rules works, thats a bonus? |
PigmentedMiniatures  | 16 Jun 2007 8:18 a.m. PST |
A very well done review thanks for sharing it. |
| NoLongerAMember | 16 Jun 2007 9:00 a.m. PST |
Having read his review, the point he is making is that there is a whole central section of photos as eye candy, but the rules are very light on extra army lists or examples of play etc, which he felt would have been a better usage. |
| Lolbat | 16 Jun 2007 9:07 a.m. PST |
>> But surely if a photo can help illustrate how the rules works, thats a bonus? He does mention in the review that if the photos had done that then it would have been okay and there are examples of them doing it (which as you say is good). I think Bob's issue with the pictures is that there are many of them and not too many army lists or larger play examples. Two things that would be more critical to the rules. They are pretty darned nice photos though and really do show off Mark's minis really well, |
| rddfxx | 16 Jun 2007 9:56 a.m. PST |
Agree photos could have been used to better effect, but they are such good photos I'm glad to have them. |
| hurcheon | 16 Jun 2007 10:03 a.m. PST |
It would have been nice if the other painters of figs had been creditted. SOme looked like Darrell Hindley's work but, if so, I didn't see his name in there |
| Knob | 16 Jun 2007 10:16 a.m. PST |
I've played the game three times now and can confirm the layout is a bit dodgy. That said, the rule mechanics are well done and I enjoy them far more than I do WAB. I have played WAB since it's release but have switched to Crusader. The only thing lacking now is a decent set of army lists. Ofcourse, WAB didn't have an army list when they released either.  |
| Lolbat | 16 Jun 2007 10:30 a.m. PST |
>> Of course, WAB didn't have an army list when they released either. Very true. The problem is that they now have a huge number of them. WMA also shipped with a fairly comprehensive list of armies as well. |
| Lolbat | 16 Jun 2007 10:31 a.m. PST |
Mark has also written me to suggest that there are a few errors in the review and I am hoping that we will have some corrections/updates to the review fairly soon. |
| Knob | 16 Jun 2007 11:05 a.m. PST |
With or without an army list, Crusader's mechanics are solid and much better than WAB imo. Less dicey too. :) |
| Knob | 16 Jun 2007 11:15 a.m. PST |
"Very true. The problem is that they now have a huge number of them. WMA also shipped with a fairly comprehensive list of armies as well." True and when WAB came out, WRG, DBM, Armati all had huge army lists. People will play a game because it's good, not because it has army list. Crusader is good. Army list will come. |
| Mousy Tung | 16 Jun 2007 1:07 p.m. PST |
I have Warmaster Ancients and like it. Do you all think I would like Crusader's rules just as much or more? |
| Lolbat | 16 Jun 2007 6:20 p.m. PST |
After some discussion Bob I made a change to the conclusion of the review. The implication (unintentional in this case) was that a new version of the rules was planned. This isn't the case and the conclusion has been reworded so that it isn't factually incorrect and giving the reader the mistaken impression that there is a new version of the rules coming. My apologies to Mark for the error. |
| No Name02 | 17 Jun 2007 12:24 a.m. PST |
but the rules are very light on extra army lists Best thing is to design your rules to use other peoples lists, like mine do! 3vwargames.co.uk/rules2.htm |
| Midpoint | 15 Jul 2007 2:37 a.m. PST |
This is a stand basd game. Is the number of stands per unit fixed or do you 'pay' per stand you have in your unit? Any news on further army lists? |
