SPQR - Have Warlord Games got it all wrong?

Warlord Games have recently published, and with some fanfare and public anticipation, a set of skirmish level rules for the Ancient period. This is something that I and clearly quite a few others have been wanting for years; the likes of Lion Rampant are great but are still focused on too large a system. SPQR promises much smaller actions with fast and furious combat etc etc etc. In broad terms Warlord Games have done this, at least at first glance. The rule book is large, almost two hundred pages, but the basic game rules themselves take up just twelve. Then there are some advanced rules, hero traits etc that take up about the same again. The rest of the book is given over to lengthy sections that discuss the dozen or so nations/factions/armies that the rules have stats for. And now the problems seem to rise and they have created some serious discussion and division on the forum boards and Facebook page.

Combat involves the rolling of seriously large numbers of dice in many situations, the balance of the various abilities and lethality of such die rolls against the in-game purchase cost of the characters and soldiers has been called into question. It seems that Roman Legionaries, expensive but skilled as one might imagine, are no match for an opposing force of many cheaper barbarian models. An entire force can be wiped out following a single attack give the number of dice involved and the various bonuses. Many and various other issues have been raised and added to the threads increasing the general feeling and look of confusion and even dissatisfaction.

The discussions have been so loud as to attract the attention of the author, who has had to issue not just an FAQ sheet (not unusual) but a second sheet that updates and changes central rules. Has this solved the problems? No, not really. The waters just seem to muddier now and the general impression is that the rules were not suitably play tested or checked before release, a cardinal sin in such a hobby. The on-line discussions still rage and almost every aspect of the rules are now open to scrutiny. However, I am beginning to think that the problems are actually centred around our own expectations of the rules and our not realising that they are not what we think.

Simply put, I think these rules are not meant for us old-guard wargamers and the historical detail and depth we have come to expect and, perhaps perversely, have come to need.
When you look at how the stats for each unit type are presented it suggests a certain...Warhammery-ness...? Then consider how the text reads, particularly in the introduction and early sections. The choice of language and narration seems very much aimed at younger readers or, at least those very new to wargames and not just the period. The information given for each of the armies goes into a lot of socio-cultural details and I was immediately put in mind of the Warhammer army books and their backstories for each faction. Should it perhaps then be such a surprise that we semi-professional moaners and gamers feel certain things are missing or not fitting our preconceptions?

If I am right then quite a bit of the blame has to still be laid at Warlords door. If they are producing a game, especially in the light of the many brilliant sets of rules published by them and others in the last five or so years, that it is obviously going to be of huge public interest shouldn't they have been more up front about its raison-detre? Of course I may be wrong. I am building a small force for the rules and I am working with my best friend to create further forces and games. Perhaps we will love it as is, hate it or, create a few house rules to tweek things. Whatever happens I hope that Warlord Games manages to ride out this period of public confusion and that the rules find themselves a place within the hobby.