Help support TMP


"L'art De La Guerre" Topic


l'Art de la Guerre

14 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the ADLG (l'Art de la Guerre) Rules Board



35 hits since 3 Jan 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

BombAlleySAM Inactive Member01 Apr 2015 3:04 a.m. PST

Has anyone used this new rule-set from France yet? Any thoughts?

Maxshadow Inactive Member01 Apr 2015 3:34 a.m. PST

This was a discussion here and TMP link
and Madaxeman did some match reports link

warhorse01 Apr 2015 5:05 a.m. PST

It's not new. It's been around 10 years, and is on its third edition if I recall correctly.

TamsinP Supporting Member of TMP01 Apr 2015 5:17 a.m. PST

I've played a handful of games, so here are my thoughts (I usually play FoG):

Pros –
*the army size is relatively small (about a quarter the size of a typical 800 point FoG army) which makes it convenient to carry for after-work games
*small table size means you get into contact quicker
*you don't need buckets of dice
*command pips make for some challenging decisions

Cons -
*although individual terrain pieces are smaller than for FoG, they can fill the smaller table quite badly, especially if both players select maximum terrain. Heck, even if one player selects maximum terrain and the other minimum it can be very crowded.
*some cheesiness exists eg, you can move units before declaring charges allowing you to position a unit with a corner behind the enemy base you intend to charge to prevent it evading
*single-die roll for combat (with modifiers) makes the results rather too dependent on luck
*some rules aren't in the place you expect them to be which can make checking things a bit more difficult

It may just be that I haven't played it enough, but my POV is that it's good for a pick-up game where you don't want to be carrying lots of figures. Overall, I still prefer Fog but YMMV.

HANS GRUBER01 Apr 2015 5:37 a.m. PST

PROS;
Many more competitive armies.
Very 25/28mm friendly.

CONS:
Poorly organized.
Flank attack rules are hard to get a handle on.

In my dozen or so games I haven't found terrain to be excessive.
And I don't think it has any more cheese than FogAM.

There is a ADLG-US group with over a hundred members.

sebastosfig01 Apr 2015 10:25 a.m. PST

I've played them for 7 years now.
So I have more experience, though I might look a bit biased

Pros:
-Fast game with a quick decision
-Pips for command, modified by the value of the generals
-Many armies are competitive, heck, some good players win with improbable armies
-When melee starts, you will have a decision rapidly
-Elite and mediocre units are rather well represented, ie mediocre troops have little chance of winning big, though they might win, and Elite troop are not killers. They will often win, but not always. And they will take a long time to die.
- manoeuvering is essential to win

Cons
-French translation: the French way of organizing things is not the Anglo-Saxons one(I'm French, but I have more an Anglo-Saxon way of thinking)
-might look a bit random, with luck having a good part. True. But it was the case with DBM, and FOG is also a game of skills, because of the numbers of tests to do. I prefer the simpler solution, and you can have rerolls too if you want, to mitigate the dice.

In-between
-Cheesiness? Well, I've seen a lot, and I mean a lot of cheese in DBM games. The level of cheese in ADLG is fine to me. THough, yes there is some. But then, it is aimed at competition.

-Terrain is important, true, but you have to pick the pieces carefully, ie choose a road for instance ;) if you have a horse army. In fact, I've played in worse terrain in 650points FOG games. I've played ADLG games on almost barren tables… Try attacking the Huns with your Thracians in the steppes… Even with the maximum number of elements, I felt naked. I think it depends on how you want your army to fight.


The question is: do you want a "detailled" game with lots of minis? Then take FOG. I like it too, and won't say no to a game if I have the minis.
If you want a quicker game with a bit of abstraction, then go for ADLG. I don't DBMM so can't comment on that.

Do I sound too biased?

DeRuyter01 Apr 2015 10:32 a.m. PST

I dunno which is worse French translation or Barkerese?

After one complete game played I'd say ADG is more like DBX than FOG and the learning curve compared to FOG is not nearly as steep.

More importantly I could play 3-4 games of ADG to conclusion in a tournament day whereas with FOG I would struggle with that and have a headache at the end of it!

monger Inactive Member01 Apr 2015 10:40 a.m. PST

Played dbm and (toyed with FoG). I prefer ADLG over both. Of course I am also a huge DBA fan as well. ADLG is great for battles with more variety and bigger size than DBA; a good alternative to the DBM/FoG rules.

sebastosfig01 Apr 2015 10:41 a.m. PST

A friend of mine told me that comparing fog and adlg would be like comparing a whisky and a beer. You can't because sometimes you prefer a whisky, and sometimes a beer is all you crave for. ;)

cytaylor Supporting Member of TMP01 Apr 2015 5:21 p.m. PST

I've played many games over the last few months and like them very much. The rule book also includes all of the myriad army lists. There is a good index to reference things. A standard 200 point army will have between 18 and 24 units. Units are one stand wide, similar to dbx, but foot units are 2 stands deep, pikes 3 or 4. Depending on the army, around 60 to 90 figures are what's needed, about half the size of a dbm or fog army. Cavalry can evade and disengage from foot, so there are interesting tactical possibilities. I think the melee procedures are simpler and superior to dbm. One criticism is that there could be more variety in troop capabilities. I don't find the terrain getting in the way, as most ends up around the edges. Overall a good system.

Khusrau03 Apr 2015 4:10 a.m. PST

Thanks Sebastofig, I play DBMM2 and enjoy it, but it is good to get a view of other rules.

jameshammyhamilton03 Apr 2015 3:20 p.m. PST

I am curious about ADLG, really must check it out.

I loved DBM, like FoG, wanted to like DBMM but ended up hating it, tried Impetus and hated it, Sword and Spear has promise but didn't grab me.

If ADLG is sort of a DBA+ I am not sure it will be for me but I figure it is still worth a try.

HANS GRUBER03 Apr 2015 5:44 p.m. PST

Yes, I think it is fair to call ADLG DBA+, except it has things that DBx never had – like evades and casualties. Standard 200 point armies have about twice as many elements as DBA.

Drusilla199805 Apr 2015 8:29 a.m. PST

If you like DBA, DBM, FoG, you'll like ADLG, si9mply because the units are stands, though, in the case of infantry, they are two DBX stands deep.

I currently play DBMM 2, but I also enjoy playing ADLG, which gives a very entertaining game, with armies about 50% the size of DBMM.

The fact that units have resiliency, taking multiple hits, adds a depth to the game, that is obviously not in the DBX games.

Give ADLG a try, you will find the rules play well.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.