Sorry to keep bringing it up. I'm not doing this as some sort of prank
> to lead people on. I keep mentioning the new rules in passing because
> this is the WAB list. I sure wish were discussing and cussing the new
> rules right now, and in fact I was expecting a before Christmas release,
> but it appears that is not going to happen.
>
> I have been incorporating the rules into my latest games, but the
> version I have is old now, and there is no telling if any major changes
> have been made to the final version. I like the rest of you eagerly
> await the upgrade, (mostly because I need it to finish the Successors).
> But what is really needed is people having reason to talk about the
> game, rather than just twiddling their thumbs.
>
> It's been a long time since the Siege supplement came out and it's no
> wonder few care anymore about new games. FoG, or Crusader, or other
> rules have siphoned off people who want to game. Of those two I
> preferred Crusader but there are some gaffs with missile fire (kind of
> similar style gaffs that plagued the original internet WAB lists). But
> the Crusader rules are simplified to knock down most of the "spatial"
> issues that are left hanging in WAB (for example units that touch do not
> have to flatly align with an enemy, that's one place where WAB lags,
> since charging and conforming to what the defender's dictates is a big
> advantage for counter-punching).
>
DA QUI INIZIANO I RUMOURS PIU' SPECIFICI

> But luckily I have gotten in some games with a hybrid of WAB 2.0 using
> the rules that are "seeming certainties" and just leaving other things
> alone. But I'd rather not go through details of what is different in
> WAB 2.0 I'd prefer to just share the overview thoughts.
>
> First off, the key changes in WAB 2.0 are based on fixing some of
> anomalies of the WS system. Better troops will now do better in hth,
> this makes the disparity between lousy WS2 troops and elite WS4 troops
> more worthwhile. Elite troops may actually be a good idea in WAB.
>
> The new rules make it possible to rely on less rank bonus. This is great
> because units can spread out more, but units that rely on attrition will
> still max out on ranks.
>
> The skirmishers have been reduced in role by methods I think are sound.
> The LOS rules, spacing, and clear rules about who can shoot are making
> them still effective but no longer as dangerous as before. As I said
> before, they seem to know to get out of the way now.
>
> There are more morale effects rules, units cannot fight down to a nub
> and still roll their way out, there are reductions to leadership. Units
> can not perform free reforms and in close proximity of the enemy,
> reforming is a gamble. But, on the other side of making it harder to
> reform, it is harder to gain a flank attack, so it is a nice trade-off;
> units don't need to reform as much to thwart the flank charge, but flank
> charges are more difficult to line up. So all of those are good things.
>
> There are (of course) things that I'm not as cheery about, but I will
> wait until it's in print (because no doubt they will see those issues
> and correct them so there's no need to make folks tear their hair out).
> Generally WB 2.0 plays way better than before, and I see less issues
> with spatial gaffs, and definite pluses to make it worthwhile wait for
> the upgrade.
>
> So that's my report, not a rant, it would be nice to have it next
> week... but I reckon it's just on the other side of that mountain. But
> the question really is, will there be anybody left that is
> interested....
> JJ