ADLG: A Wishlist For Version 5

Now that I've stopped playing ADLG I thought I'd write a "manifesto" of things that I would like to see changed in any future version. Please note I have no idea if a new version is planned and don't want to start any rumours.

Why?

ADLG has reached the stage where it can be considered a mature set of tournament rules, but the pool of UK tournament players hasn't changed markedly since 2018.¹ So, I would like to see changes focused on reducing the barrier(s) to adoption and tournament play.

From a strictly UK perspective, text clarity and improved online support would help both casual players and the large number of occasional tournament players.²

I don't think the small group of frequent tournament players are clamouring for change. They are more than likely confident in their understanding of ADLG's finer points (or they should be).³

However, a new version might combat groupthink where (regional or national) groups develop different interpretations of "how things are played".^{4, 5}

Proposed Changes

[1] Standardise army list boundary dates

This is a plea for consistent use of either after or from when specifying dates. It is important because "after 1150 AD" is not the same as "from 1150 AD" and leads to strange one year gaps in the dates - 2021 blog post

With 300 lists this is a big sub-editing job, but once done it would never have to be repeated.

[2] Rework the table on page 22

This table is too complex for one page and has clearly been around for a long time albeit in different guises. It has a lot of quirks. I would like to see:

• Protection & cohesion moved to separate tables in the shooting section (where they belong really) - 2021 blog post
• A redesign to clearly show the difference between factors & abilities that always apply and those that only affect the first round of combat to aid learning - 2024 blog post.
• Resolve the issue with the shooting factor for Artillery: it is tucked away in the combat factor column and absent from both the shooting factor tables on page 58 and the play sheet - 2021 blog post

The rule book should use space to clarify matters and leave the abbreviated version for the quick reference sheet.

[3] Clarify the interaction of special abilities

• Explain of how furious charge interacts with other abilities - 2025 blog post
• Explain how impact and furious charge differ - 2025 blog comment

These are key concepts in the game and are deserving of a proper explanation.

[4] Assorted minor clarifications

• Clarify how units stop when meeting new enemy when disengaging - 2023 blog post
• Clarify the special case for mounted with a ZoC to their rear - 2023 blog post
• Clarify how group charges work especially when close to an enemy that may or may not evade - 2023 blog post

The above is not an exhaustive list. These are just the major issues that I stumbled across. I'm sure there are others.

[5] Improve online support

Re-examine how the forum and the Technical Board works in the UK (USA?) with a view to curtailing the increasingly common, circular, and frankly off putting, threads on the forum. I would like to see the establishment of a public online wiki:

• This would hold answers to all resolved forum issues so that threads can be closed promptly with a link to an official answer.
• The role of the National Technical Board members should be enhanced making them active moderators. They should look to close all rules threads with a definite answer and a link to the wiki.
• Not every issue in the wiki would automatically lead to an errata or even a clarification. Should they do so then a simple note saying "this issue was added to the Errata/Clarifications on dd/mm/yyyy" should suffice.

A wiki would offer a number of benefits:

• The wiki would fill the gap between editions of the of errata and prevent repetition on the forum.
• It will help new and infrequent players access definitive answers to their questions either directly from the wiki or via a question on the forum.
• The wiki would also avoid people posting a link to a previous thread containing an answer which turns out to be hidden amongst five pages of rambling discussion.
• It would prevent "spawning" where an issue is closed only for a tenuously related issue to prompt further discussions thereby obscuring the answer to the original question.

I think this is least likely to happen because it represents a lot of work and an ongoing commitment on the behalf of the new moderators.

Closing remarks

Some of the above are trivial, but important. Some are trivial, but annoying. Some are far reaching and represent a lot of work. I won't hold my breath.

As I said at the start, I don't think there'll be a new version any time soon, but this is my personal wish list should one be considered.

Feel free to add your own in the comments.

Footnotes

1. The UK BHGS rankings have listed between 175 and 187 players since 2018 - 2025 blog post ↩

2. In August 2025, only 35 of 182 BHGS ranked players (18.8%) attended seven or more events yet they accounted for 44.6% of the total attendance in the preceding twelve months. 33.9% attended only one event - 2025 blog post ↩

3. Having said that, I have noticed one top ten ranked player regularly posting questions on the forum seeking clarification of issues raised in their games. ↩

4. I know of at least one issue where the group of frequent UK tournament players were happily using an interpretation that proved to be wrong. I also have been told "I know that's what the rules say, but it's not how it's played"! ↩

5. I first raised the issue of groupthink in 2022 when discussing the ADLG survey results. Section 2.4 (Answering Questions) showed that players relied on other people just as much as they did the official errata or forum - 2022 blog post ↩