| Who asked this joker | 25 Mar 2011 10:55 a.m. PST |
Finished up my review of AMW on my blog today. Enjoy! link John |
| normsmith | 25 Mar 2011 1:13 p.m. PST |
John – thanks for all the work that went into that. for thos liking the system, the author recently covered the napoleonic wars in a similar way. like your blog. Norm |
| Dale Hurtt | 25 Mar 2011 1:18 p.m. PST |
You should write an article for Slingshot so AMW can get in front of the Ancients world again. Dale |
| Who asked this joker | 25 Mar 2011 1:33 p.m. PST |
John – thanks for all the work that went into that. for thos liking the system, the author recently covered the napoleonic wars in a similar way.like your blog. Norm
Come back every month (or there about) and I will have another review of yet another ancients game. Assuming my brain is not complete mush, I may do the same thing with some of my black powder rules.
You should write an article for Slingshot so AMW can get in front of the Ancients world again.Dale Not a lot of depth there in the game to write about. Maybe an extreme version complete with retreats and some of the mods I proposed? Even a points system might not be bad I suppose. |
| Who asked this joker | 25 Mar 2011 1:47 p.m. PST |
Lets try again…this link… link The other link is a page which I deleted. John |
| Dale Hurtt | 25 Mar 2011 2:01 p.m. PST |
Neil proposed a handicapping system for AMW used in tournaments in Slingshot. New army lists would also be welcome, along with their special rules. Actually, that is the one aspect that I am surprised you did not mention as a possible negative to the rules. People complain about the special rules of WAB, and yet AMW does the same thing. Dale |
| Ten Fingered Jack | 25 Mar 2011 2:10 p.m. PST |
I've been using AMW since ForgeWorld killed WAB with WAB2. |
TKindred  | 25 Mar 2011 3:06 p.m. PST |
I stayed with WAB 1.5. Nothing there I didn't like, and so saw no reason to buy the next set. |
| quidveritas | 25 Mar 2011 3:25 p.m. PST |
So what's the difference between AMW and WAB 2.0? And for that matter, how are they alike? mjc |
| religon | 25 Mar 2011 4:00 p.m. PST |
AMW is more similar to Basic Impetus or DBA than WAB. 4 elements make a unit. 8 units make an army. (15mm DBA elements are what most use.) No leadership rules in the game. Morale and unit matchups are the deciding factors much in the manner of DBA. John's excellent review is detailed enough to get a sense. I would take the game's author to task for a failure to clarify key aspects of the game in a more public manner than the magazines he chose. There is a schism on the Yahoo group regarding how units turn. John's interpretation is not shared by all players. One very nice thing is that the book contains a lot of army lists. 40? These are also the most popular armies that people collect in the four periods…Biblical, Classical, Dark Ages, and Medieval. The actual rules are less than 20 pages if memory serves. |
| Who asked this joker | 25 Mar 2011 4:18 p.m. PST |
The actual rules are less than 20 pages if memory serves. Your memory serves. Less than 20 pages is correct. MUCH less. Like 6 pages per rules…plus army lists of course. I wish to make a clarification. I had forgotten to add that their is a Charge sequence before movement. Essentially, charges and defensive shots go first. The other movemen and then other shooting and finally melee. Also, technically, the morale phase is a separate phase at the end of the turn. However, there is no need for that phase as you can just check morale after you lose a stand. Similarly, there is no need for a charge sequence. Just have charages move first and then have the applicable defensive shots. John |
| Dale Hurtt | 25 Mar 2011 6:03 p.m. PST |
There is a schism on the Yahoo group regarding how units turn. John's interpretation is not shared by all players. That may be, but Neil (the author) makes it clear that pivoting is what he intended, as is stated several times in Slingshot. Some players just don't want to accept that. The movement rules don't work, as written, otherwise. Players may like some of the suggestions made to incorporate wheeling, but if they do so, they need to think through changing more than one rule. Of course, Neil always states "do what you want with these rules". So what's the difference between AMW and WAB 2.0? And for that matter, how are they alike? There are numerous mechanical differences between AMW and WAB; they are really nothing alike in that context. My point was that AMW, like WAB, uses special rules that apply to units and army lists, like WAB. It is remembering all those special rules that some complain about with GW and PP products; AMW is not different in that regard. AMW is more similar to Basic Impetus or DBA than WAB. AMW is little like DBA. I can't speak for Basic Impetus. The only real "similarity" is a fixed army size (8 units for AMW versus 12 for DBA) and lack of points. After that, there are no real similarities. Certainly none mechanically. The feel of an AMW army is more like WAB, to me, because of the special rules. A unit might not simply be "Heavy Infantry" with "Medium Armor", but also have special attributes (rules) by unit or army. Granted, the fixed army sizes and lack of points makes some armies better than others, in both AMW and DBA, but the better special rules and combinations of troop, armor, and weapon types makes some armies better than other in both AMW and WAB. Dale |
| Who asked this joker | 25 Mar 2011 6:14 p.m. PST |
Regarding special abilities, WAB has a good many to remember. AMW does not have so many. Most abilities are built right into the unit and affect how many dice a unit gets based on match-up. Others, of course, are the exceptions to the rule such as extra dice for charging. Dale is right. The special rules can be a turn off to some but I did not mention that aspect as there really just aren't so many that you can't keep things straight in your head. John |
finds his bluff is called!
