I now have my copy of Clash of Arms as well, but I am not as enthused as
I
might have been. I think it all looks pretty good, but it is so close
to
Warhammer that it really feels like the same thing. Playing it,
therefore,
seems a little bit like learning a bunch of new details and nuances only
for
the sake of being able to play a game "not Warhammer." I am OK with
this, I
just would have liked it if the competition was about fun and exciting
rules
differences and not which company seems the least indifferent to their
customers.
------> I too feel that CoE is mostly a WAB rules variant. It is WAB 2.+
for a crowd that wanted reforms that are different (tangential but
sometimes parallel) from the official WAB 2 effort. So far having only
read through the rules is not enough to formulate a complete review or
endorsement.
There are likes and dislikes in this WAB variant... just as there are
likes and dislikes in WAB 2 itself.
Comparatively I feel that CoE has the edge in our SoCal community
because it will be supported by Brick and Mortar gaming establishments,
since they can at least order it for their customers (not that this will
enhance their bottom line all that much for this crowd, but at least it
is better than WAB 2's alienating market plan.
Of the actual rule nuances there are plenty of those. CoE goes a bit
further in reigning in characters and elephants and skirmishers than
even WAB 2 does. Some special formations are trivialized a bit more-
such as cavalry wedges. Others however are enhanced. For example,
scythed chariots are more logically presented in CoE than they ever were
in WAB.
I prefer CoE's cavalry counter charge rules to WAB 2's clunky methods---
if such a rule is really even needed.
CoE at least offers a solution to the resolution of multiple unit
combats... it's not as grandiose a solution as I would want, but it's at
least an acknowledgement that multi-units in WAB differential like
systems can be broken.... a system that has been broke since WAB went
into competition mode.
CoE enhances Romans quite a bit.... much more than WAB 2. This may be a
good thing or bad... I doubt the Caledonians can beat the EIR in either
system.... but in CoE... it's more stacked in the Roman's favor.
Against phalanxes, there are some weird things like almost certain pila
disruption... something that never really occurred at Pydna or the
classic battles... but is part of the Connelly diagram myth. The
splitting of pila fire into the pre-combat shooting is a wash- as it
always has been mathematically in WAB. The secondary swordsmen rules
has always been a idea that I liked- so much I added to my own Caesarean
lists long ago- so I cannot complain about that.. adding in half the
second rank, and numerous support options ala WAB HatPW??? Well time
will tell if any tournamentors for CoE need show up with anything other
than EIR with a nice unit of allied Sarmatians or cataphracts supported
by flaming bowmen.
I think the streamlining of CoE works well in most cases, getting rid of
T values makes sense to me. Limiting the role of characters is ok too.
It is yet to ne seen how out of the box armies like Indians will faire
in the system-- given that the author has planted his oar on the side of
the less effectiveness for Indian bows, along with less effectiveness
for elephants, one cannot reckon the result in one's head.
I count the wedge rules among the unneeded stream linings, but if the
rules represent a set scale , then simply remove the wedge entirely-- as
at a certain view such formations meld into one another, since any
squadron wedge will have at best 5-6 models at this scale- which is an
impossible way to play given the unit minimums and 5 models or less
shatterings.
But for the most part those are my current thoughts.... CoE is just a
WAB variant... I may like it better... I don't know yet.
JJ
Post message: WABlist@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: WABlist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: WABlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: WABlist-owner@yahoo.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.yahoo.com/community/WABlist
No comments:
Post a Comment