|chriscoz||15 Mar 2004 10:02 a.m. PST|
Armati 2 made its long awaited debut at Cold Wars. Although we used the older version of the rules for the tounament, alot of downtime was spent reviewing the changes and how the new point structure changes the effectiveness of different armies.
The first big change I see is the evade rule. Now light troops can evade forward as long as the net is further away from the enemy.
Some army lists have "heavier" terrain in their core. Terrain is also cheaper.
Also since a core + 30 point army is now roughly a core +75 point army becasue the troop values changed. Each list I looked at closely (the armies I own of course, Dacians, WotR and 'Chin) have significantly more effective combinations without any additional painting.
The rules were always clear by wargame standards, are now even clearer. There is a great deal redundancy and cross referencign which will make looking ups something quickly very easy.
|Rich Bliss||15 Mar 2004 10:34 a.m. PST|
Would you recommend these rules to a non-tournament gamer that already owns Armati?
|MachewR||15 Mar 2004 11:03 a.m. PST|
Or just a non-tournament player?
|chriscoz||15 Mar 2004 11:21 a.m. PST|
1. They are clearer than before and I always felt that the old rules were very clear. There are enough changes to the rules and rebalancing to the army lists (although no repainting shoudl be needed from what I've seen so far) to make it worth while for an Armati-1 owner.
The command/control and divison system is very clean. It provides many hard decisions at set up and key points in the game, but the mechanics are very simple. I've sued them for scenarios, tournamants double-sized games and usually pick up games.
2. As you pick up new opponents they will be the only lists around.
3. There are more lists and the authors attempted to make them more balanced. Also making it worth picking up for the experieinced Armati player.
I am primarily not a tournament player. We are using Armati (now Armati 2) for a ancient Roman era campaign at our club on Long Island. And we play alot of pick-up games and double Armati games. I go to cons and like to test (and embarass)myself against really good players becasue I learn how to play better and losing at Armati is still fun.
|YogiBearMinis ||15 Mar 2004 1:47 p.m. PST|
How about the rules' applicability to Renaissance. I had heard some say the first edition made decent Renaissance rules.
|Lucius||15 Mar 2004 2:09 p.m. PST|
I really enjoyed the Renaissance Spanish/Dutch match using version one. Hopefully version 2 is as good.
It really de-mystified the Renaissance for me, and made it accessible.
| Condottiere ||15 Mar 2004 2:23 p.m. PST|
"How about the rules' applicability to Renaissance. I had heard some say the first edition made decent Renaissance rules."
Renaissance era removed from Armati 2. Vague promises of a Renaissance rulebook, but don't hold your breath. Similar promises were made with Tactica. Combine this with the length of time it took to issue Armati 2, I suspect that we'll be waiting for a long time indeed.
|Mr Elmo||15 Mar 2004 4:11 p.m. PST|
@ Rich and MachewR:
I fully and whole heartedly recommend Armati as a set of ancient rules inside or outside tournaments. Having seen the following:
DBA, DBM, WAB (and generics), Vis Bellica, Warmaster Ancients, and Tactica....
Armati is the best. DBA is in very close second place but this is because you only need 50 figures.
People will no doubt argue but IMNSHO Aramti is the most "real" or about as real as one can get given we are playing with toy soldiers.
|Ivan DBA||15 Mar 2004 5:46 p.m. PST|
I'm a DBA fanatic, but if you don't like DBA, I would recommend Armati over just about anything else, except maybe Warmaster Ancients. (Does anyone actually play that though?)
|Mike OBrien||15 Mar 2004 7:03 p.m. PST|
Armati 2nd edition covers pre-gunpowder armies. The Gunpowder version will be out "soon". If you pay attention to the armati yahoo group the next rules set is being worked on as we speak. Why the need for another set of rules? Because the differences between the Gunpowder armies and the earlier armies are large enough to force a difference in rules and Tercios were poorly handled in the old set (according to the experts). You get more bang for the buck (more army lists) in 2nd edition due to the changeover. It should still be cheaper than DBM in comparison to buying DBM and the army lists.
|chriscoz||16 Mar 2004 6:37 a.m. PST|
Rob Wolsky, who devloped Armati 2 with Arty, is working on the renaisance book. I can't vouch for the timing butit is in the works and I would guess within 12-15 months.
With Ancients and Medieval games, my group often doubles the points and use two commanders per side with Armati. It works real well and causes some great arguements among allies.
|John Leahy||16 Mar 2004 1:40 p.m. PST|
Hey Ivan. i have played a few games of 'Ancient Master'. I REALLY like the Initiative sequence of play (and CnC). I am less excited about how Cav performs in the rules. We were playing Punic War games. My Cav were frontally attacking Romans with great success. The Cav mounting issue needs to be fixed. The army lists are somewhat limited. The game HAS potential. But some bugs need to be worked out first. i would also like to see a sample of the army creation formula to design all the armies I would like to use.
|Mr Elmo||16 Mar 2004 4:18 p.m. PST|
"i would also like to see a sample of the army creation formula to design all the armies I would like to use"
What do you mean by this? Something along the lines of the Ignazio formula?
|John Leahy||16 Mar 2004 4:21 p.m. PST|
Well, Brumbaer has to be using something to determine his lists. If that's it then yes.
|fredrik||17 Mar 2004 1:43 a.m. PST|
I have never played Armati, but the group is looking for a good ancients ruleset and this looks very interesting. May I ask a few "newbie" questions though?
1. It is my understanding that Armati II uses a points system for generating armylists, is that correct?
2. Would it be possible to use armies based for DBA/M or is rebasing necessesary?
3. It is my understanding that the great Arty Conliffe is somehow involved in this game, is that correct? I just love his other rules and play both Spearhead and Shako regularly.
4. Is there an "official" website or other resource where one can go and read up on the game rather than pester you nice folks with all these questions? :-)
|Ivan DBA||17 Mar 2004 3:22 a.m. PST|
I haven't looked at the rules in awhile, but if I recall they use the same basing conventions as DBX.
Yes, they are written by Arty Conliffe.
I am drawing a complete blank about the points system, but according to the first post on this thread, it certainly exists.
No idea about any groups, sorry!
|Deserter||17 Mar 2004 4:04 a.m. PST|
2. No rebasing.
|chriscoz||17 Mar 2004 5:10 a.m. PST|
In addion to the Armati website there is a very active and helpful Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARMATI/
|Mr Elmo||17 Mar 2004 7:22 a.m. PST|
In the Files section of the gw-warmaster yahoo group, in the following folder:
Files - Rules - House Rules
There is a file:
Which details the Ignazio formula.
|fredrik||17 Mar 2004 11:28 a.m. PST|
Thanks for the help guys!
|chriscoz||17 Mar 2004 1:07 p.m. PST|
The points system for Armati--how each army is created with core armies and the cost of bonus troops, is available at the Armati website and at the Yahoo Group. Its quite the formula, but it produced a terrific game.
|John Leahy||17 Mar 2004 6:47 p.m. PST|
Thanks JL. I'll check it out since I lurk there.
|Evil Steve||18 Mar 2004 10:12 a.m. PST|
I've read your posts and there's one thing I still don't get- do you like Armati as a set of rules or not?
Just kidding- see you next Friday.
|Beagle||03 Dec 2017 7:46 a.m. PST|
What is the difference between Advanced Armati and Armati 2nd Edition?
|Panthros||14 Jan 2018 1:40 a.m. PST|
2nd Edition combines the rules from Armati and Advanced. I learned ancients with Armati. I cannot recommend it enough.