"Neil Thomas Ancient and Medieval Wargaming rules?" Topic

Just won tghis item at e-bay and it arrived this morning. I have read his introduction book and also own his Napoleonic book.

The rules (4 sets in the book) look similar to his core style of rule writing. I just wondered if anyone has actually used the rules over a couple of games and have any observations to offer.

I don't actually have an ancient army but I was thinking of getting some Dark Age stuff for the Dux Bellorum rules that I have and would be happy to get a coupe of Wars of Roses armies because of my interest in that period.

As an 'outsider' to the period I probably would have gone for packed bases or something in the basing style of Impetus but am wondering whether the standard WRG basing with magnetic bases to put into sabots might be a more flexible way of going – anyway, I am losing focus, it is the Neil Thomas game that this post is intending to explore. Thanks in advance.

Hi Norm,

I use WRG basing for all my Ancient and Medieval games…just because. Singles in a sabot work fine. you could play the game with a single chunky base like Impetus but would have to keep a roster or some way of recording stand losses.

I've played the classical armies. For the most part the game works well. There are a few curiosities like Macedonian companions have less armor than Roman Equites, Hoplites fight exactly the same as Phalangites stuff like that.

There is more to the game than the simple rules let on. you really do have to play to understand this one. Some of the odd rules were put in for game balance for sure. The rule about Javelins being the only unit to get defensive fire was to ensure that they would get off at least one shot.

Can't speak to how well they work with DA or WotR since I have not played either.

John

Try the Yahoo Group for Neil's Rules………. AMW

Thanks, after just quickly browsing through, I noticed some subtle touches like javelin armed cavalry being able to 'fire' mid move, so I suspect there is a fair bit of subtle activity going on 'under the bonnet' here.

My knowledge of the period is lacking in several areas, so some of the 'curiosities' might not even occur to me. I am more familiar with 1066 and WotR, so I will take a deeper look at them tonight.

edit … ah, hadn't thought of Yahoo, thanks, I am guessing there will be a bit of tweeking being done there as the rules seem easy to 'build upon', that will interest me. Thanks.

Yes – my local group regularly play NT Ancients (AKA 'AMW')

(recent AMW Cannae game)

Although we have some issues and potential tweaks, we like the simplicity of the game … it can accomodate a number of players and seems to take up round about a normal social evening's wargaming …

Basing is 'WRG standard' … however what is important is the ability of each unit to lose 4 stands (well … the removal of the last stand is the removal of the unit) – so any system that permitted that would work.

There is a Yahoo Group, I believe …

Phil
EDIT … some duplication in my responses – I was typing while the other replies came in !

I haven't played AMW (though lots of people at the Guildford club have and like it) but I've played a lot of Neil's 19th Century rules with 2 bases to a unit and just used markes to indicate a stand loss – works fine.

Mike

I have played the rules several times (Greeks vs Persians). The rules play very well, I believe we added a few house rules to them. They seem extremely simple, but there are some very interesting nuance to them. One battle I recall, the Greeks fought like you would think (tough nuts to crack), the Persians bombarded them with missile fire and caused some lack of cohesian. The Greeks started to really carve the Persians up once they got into melee and the Persians lost more casualties to morale. Ultimately, Persian envelopment of the flanks by cavalry spelled doom for ther Greeks.

I have just noticed that I have previously owned this book – not sure why I sold it (I don't even remember owning or selling it), as I kept the Napoleonic one that he did.

I am still just browsing through my purchase and in doing so have looked at the 1066 Saxon Army. I was interested and pleased to see that he has an optional rule to allow a cavalry unit due to the arguable evidence of the Snorri Saga.

I was not pleased because I want to use cavalry but rather because it suggests the rules are deeper than the superficial which can come with a 'simple' tag.

I did a 1066 boardgame design some years ago and had this variant in my own game and so I appreciate its inclusion here.