Indeed, I ran from the preliminary day of Book Expo America and grabbed from the Compleat Strategist's shelves one of about ten or so copies of Lords of Men.
It is mine, and at first glance, it seems VERY meaty with loads of info.
That said, does anyone who is days or weeks away from having their mitts on their own copy have any questions about the actual book? I'll be happy to answer within reason.
Vrylakos
I'm very jealous.
How's the artwork? I want all the gory details on the artwork.
Interior artists are Jason Cole, Keith DeCesare, Kelley Hensing, Bradley K. McDevitt, Jeff Menges, Robert Scott, and Grey Thornberry.
R. Scott provides some nice ink-wash looking pieces. I have a feeling he did some work for Faerie Tale's Dark Tales expansion. They're nice and flavorful, with some cool illuminated manuscript decorative touches here and there. Great atmosphere. A particularly nice fae or infernal creature on page 96, and overall all his work is pretty groovy.
K. Hensing does some pencil or charcoal style pieces. A nice one on page 12, though at times the artist's background details are a little too sketchy for me - as in the otherwise great page 35 illo. A nice illo for falconry on page 57, though Hensing's work tends towards the dark due to the seemingly pencil-based medium chosen. A few illustrations by Hensing also feel as if they're playing with thick line weights on figures to go for a "stained glass" type feel, but I'm not sure these are successful. When Hensing's pieces work at their best, though, they are nice and moody.
Keith DeCesare has some nice pieces scattered throughout. In the chapter on Interference, he has what might be my favorite picture in the book - page 39: what appears to be a maga stabbing a dagger into a small circle of arcing magic/energy, which seems to be echoed by a blazing mystic circle that seems to be engulfing a charging knight and his steed. I also like the page 62 illo of the maidens and suitors next to the section on the Rules of Love. I do wish the background figures had as much expressiveness as the foreground's hiding maidens.
Jason Cole, who did Marcus of Criamon in Magi of Hermes, returns with some nice moody pieces (though here and there the pics are a bit mundane and lacking a feeling of focus or emotional content). Page 22 has a nice pic of a creepy mage in the Gandalf mode pushing some item into the hands of a possibly dubious maiden. The closeness of the figures, and the way the mage's hatbrim covers his eyes give this picture a nice frisson of menace and possible duplicity - which is to say, it's an Ars Magica illustration 
B.K. McDevitt does some nice pen and ink plus wash style work. Page 115 I particularly like - a lord looking over his serfs at work. I do note that some of his work in recent books seems to have unusually tall/large females standing next to seated men, and something seems off in the comparative sizes.
Grey Thornberry has some nice solid work. I like the clifftop duel of warriors on page 121 - the use of greys really works well, and something about his style reminds me of Jeff Dee at his best back when he worked for TSR and shortly thereafter. Thornberry seems to have been tasked with the combat section and it's attendant expanded rules, so he also gets to do an axe-swinging warrior, and a mounted archer. Solid stuff, though page 121 has that nice grey graphic element that I like. He also has a nice cyclops versus little warrior with sword and shield illustration.
Jeff Menges has a loose pencil style piece in the hunting section that at first I disliked, but now the looseness is growing on me. He also shows off some architectural and structural chops on the sections on manorial fiefs and siege equipment.
And there endeth the review of art. Sorry, my Bachelor in Fine Arts leaves me a bit too critique-prone. Overall, on par with past supplements, though with a couple of new faces/new styles here and there...
Vrylakos
Can you comment on the "estate management" section? E.g. how it compares with Ordo Nobilis' (virtually nonexistent), or with supplements from other games such as HarnManor or Pendragon's Manors?
Any insight/comment on either (or both) magi as nobles or "court magi" (Hermetic or otherwise)?
(since it's a topic in another thread atm: https://forum.atlas-games.com/t/magi-being-nobles/4768/1)
You will not make me jealous. I am not jealous; I am not.
My play test copy has yet to arrive
Tell me about mass combat.
We have a section called "Running an Establishment" which provides rules for running and maintaining kennels, stables, and mews. It basically incurs a cost per year, has a Capacity, required staff levels, and Living Condition modifiers. On my first skim, I had thought this tied into a larger "covenantish" system for creating a fief, but I was skimming, and totally incorrect.
We do see a partial reprint of the castle info from Covenants, which is then expanded into 3 characteristics for castles: Garrison, Defenses, and Supplies. There's some nice interweaving with other supplements, so that castle Defenses and Supplies are rated according to City & Gild grades. This plays into sieges and mass combat.
However, that said, there does not seem to be some sort of system for "estate management" thought there is a TON of information on what lords do to run estates and so on - famuli, villeins, serfs, and the differences therein and relations to the lord, types of fief, the Church's role in landowning, the year month by month and what each month means for a peasant and lord, etc. etc. Let me look thing over and give a fuller report.
Vrylakos
Re: Mass Combat
This looks quite interesting.
Sections...
Raising an Army: In part this is based on rank for the levying of vassals, though it may be that the wealthy can also hire troops to a limited extent - my brief reading does not shed light on the table which may allude to this aspect. You can also acquire mercenaries through money, and usual amounts of money available for such expenses is defined by rank and virtues (wealthy/poor, or "average" if neither applies). The last way to gain troops is via Affinity - the use of personal authority and charisma by a noble acting as the leader of a region to draw lesser nobles to your force. Affinity is covered earlier in the book, and in the main is based on rank, or being an officer of a lord.
Battles themselves are approached in a way I find fitting to the 5th edition's focus on mechanics in service to story and player enjoyment. The central philosophy as presented by the book is under the section "Heroic Endeavors":
"Battles are played as a series of vignettes each with a player character as the decisive force. The success of the character reflects the success of the wider army."
A battle has 4 steps...
Commanders determine territorial advantage. Terrain is scouted, maps consulted, and Area Lore "deployment rolls" are made to determine who has the superior deployment of troops. The difference between the higher and lower Deployment roll is the "Territorial Advantage" that the winner of the contested roll claims. Magic can be used to add to one's territorial advantage if it messes with the terrain or deployment of troops - the highest magnitude of any spell used to this end is added to their side's deployment roll.
The Weight of Numbers modifier is determined by way of a chart - the ratio of forces can give a a troupe a bonus or penalty to their battlefield events.
The storyguide assigns and plays out a special combat encounter "battlefield event" for each participating player character. After each battlefield event losses are tallied and a new Weight of Numbers modifier is assigned. Each event seems to have a 5 round length.
Once all battlefield events are resolved, Victory is decided, and the narrative outcome of the battle is described.
Battlefield events are interesting. The have echoes of Mystery Initiation scripts and the crunchy bits of Faerie Stories from RoP: Faerie in terms of mechanics.
They are essentially "hero spotlight time!" focusing on the pivotal events in the overall battle.
The battle is defined in stages. Each stage, if I am reading things correctly (and language here and there is a tad unclear) each stage of the battle has a pivotal event, and as time advances, each stage of battle has an increased "Battle Ease Factor".
The troupe decides who is going to be the main actor in a particular stage of battle (others may support, it seems), and that character needs to tailor a Battlefield Event that will let him beat the Battlefield Ease Factor.
The base Event Total you have is:
Stamina + Leadership + Territorial Advantage + Weight of Numbers bonus/penalty
You may need to hit a 9, 12, or 15 Battlefield Ease Factor, depending on the stage of battle you're in.
To make up the difference between the character's Event Total and the needed Battlefield Ease Factor, the player designs the scene by choosing various elements that tilt the odds for or against them. This feels to me a bit like the choice of elements in an initiation script, and also has an indie game vibe I sort of like.
The elements you can choose from:
Give up initiative: +1 (you're assumed to have the initiative normally)
Maneuver type:
Defend: +0
Attack: +1
Take: +3
Run the Gauntlet: +2 (challenging indirect or non-combat endeavors that can impact a battle)
Heroic Gesture: +4 - an act of foolhardy bravery, you win the event even if the main PC dies. If any other PC dies, though, it is lost. It can also be lost if the gesture itself fails without any PC death.
Size: This defines how big the enemy force is you're facing. The size of a "combat group" is impacted by the "Weight of Numbers" modifier.
Lesser: +0
Even +1
Outnumbered: +2
Overwhelmed:+3
I Stand Alone: +4
Enemy:This defines the kind of opponents faced
Inexpensive: +0 (levies)
Standard: +1 (infantry, archers)
Expensive: +2 (knights, sergeants)
Special: +3 (Badass NPC warriors, supernatural foes, or dangerous phenomena such as fire, a collapsing tower, and so on.
Baggage: +4 Attacking the baggage train - this seems like the low hanging fruit, but attacking it earns you 1 xp towards a Bad Reputation.
Once you've constructed the event, you play it out. After it's done, you calculate losses, possibly one side or the other makes a morale check, and then move on to the next event.
A nice list of battlefield events is given, noting the elements they are made of, and Event bonus they provide, as well as describing the event:
Skirmish, Hold the Line, Rescue, Loose, On All Sides, Ransom, Feint, Seize the Colors, A "Heroic" Maneuver, Alone Against Many
The Aftermath of Battle section notes a few things: winning your event gains each victorious PC a confidence, and earns the leader an experience point towards an appropriate reputation.
In any case, my brief overview done, I think I like these rules. Again, they play to the mechanics supporting story idea that I see in 5th Edition. The aren't miniature rules with little relation to the Ars Magica core,and they can handle the effect of magic on the battlefield as there's no change in scale or mechanics when working through the pivotal events of a battle.
I'll go into Siegecraft tomorrow.
There is a section on the sale of magic items to nobles and the Code, but otherwise I have not yet come across any sections dedicated to "magi as active nobility" or court magi. I have not made a comprehensive reading of the book yet... but my gut tells me it isn't there.
As an aside, I do like the section that notes, on page 40-41, what nobles know of magi, what scholarly nobles of note know of magi, and information that House Jerbiton throws into the mix in an effort to disinform the nobility as to the extent of a wizard's power. For example: did you know that silent magic is impossible?
Vrylakos
Well, you're clearly a man of much wisdom and learning - if you say it, it must be so! 
As I recall, and it was quite some time ago when we did this, I believe that the idea is that these rules add colour to either the core rules, if you are using those, or the Covenants rules, if you are using those. They are recapped on page 70.
Hmm. From what you explained, magic affects the Territorial Advantage; and not in a very realistic manner (a high-magnitude spell can just kill an entire mundane army, or be utterly ineffective against some supernatural opponents - so just counting magnitudes certainly is at best a rule of thumb). The Weight of Numbers factor is also probably off for magi - I reckon a capable battlefield magus would be the equivalent of numerous mundane knights. Oh well.
Magic otherwise seems to come to the fore in resolving Events, so I guess this is where the system really handles magic well - as magi would handle events as well as their magic allows them to.
My concerns for versimilitude aside, this seems like an interesting story-based system that promises to lead to very interesting battles. Excellent. I can't help but wonder about adapting it to the core combat system - perhaps treating minor encounters as single-staged battles, with commensurate lower results, and so on. This will allow players greater control over the situations of the combat and the kinds of actions and opponents they face (but will require a more flexible playing group and storyguide).
From reading this I'm getting a feel of things you read in long-lasting stories. For example, you hear so much about the heroes (not good vs. evil, but combatants of earned renown) of the Trojan War. In contrast, when you hear about modern greats - such as from Napoleonic wars, WWII, etc. - you tend to hear about how they were able to use their men well. I really like this idea, especially for an RPG. Very clever!
I am guessing that it may work well to work it two different ways with magic. If the magic works well directly in a calculable way, just use it and adjust the numbers. For example, if I have a PeCo spell with Sight range that will kill and it's adjusted to affect up to 1000 person groups, perhaps it's easiest just to remove several thousand of the enemy and proceed from there. Meanwhile, if the mage focuses in illusions and wants to mess with the environment, then the rules as they seem from what's written above may make it easier to handle.
Can't wait until my copy arrives in a week or two.
Chris
PeIm30, Base 2, Sight +3, Concentration +1, Group +2, Size +2...
Cause 1000 troops to not feel anything of their weapons for as long as the magi concentrates.
Suddenly, 1000 almost unarmed soldiers. :mrgreen:
Use it on their boots for some fun.
Anyway, i agree that weight of numbers tends to be rather irrelevant for magi.
However, from the looks of it, the system seems to be a good attempt at a compromise between "reality in context", playability and "good game". Looks pretty good actually.
From whats written, my only big question sofar is why the hardest to attack opposition is the baggage train?
If I understood correctly, it isn't hardest to attack, it is rather the best option to choose for an encounter that will reach the required ease factor. So players would be tempted to attack the easily-defeated baggage train to resolve the encounter, but doing so will earn them infamy. It's kind of an option for underhanded tactics in battle. Still not sure I actually like it.
[i]Enemy:This defines the kind of opponents faced
Inexpensive: +0 (levies)
Standard: +1 (infantry, archers)
Expensive: +2 (knights, sergeants)
Special: +3 (Badass NPC warriors, supernatural foes, or dangerous phenomena such as fire, a collapsing tower, and so on.
Baggage: +4 Attacking the baggage train - this seems like the low hanging fruit, but attacking it earns you 1 xp towards a Bad Reputation.[/i]
The table goes from easy at +0 and becomes more dangerous for each increase UNTIL you get to the baggage train.
Just as "Maneuver type" and "Size" mods do likewise.
I might have misread somehow of course...
I still prefer to leave them devoid of sight and go around on a kicking spree Not feeling the boots will make for more than one broken ankle there.
Xavi
Book fair is over, so I have more time in front of a PC.
As for magic: the "highest magnitude of spell used" adding to the Deployment Roll is strictly when you're using your magic to gain advantage in that arena of territorial advantage/troop deployment. It's not meant, from my reading, to reflect magic used to actually fight but rather magic used in a possibly more Code-friendly mode to indirectly tilt the odds of battle towards one side or the other using appropriate magic.
I did briefly note that page on the train at... 3:45am (I had to get a book signed my Tim Gunn... I am an obsessive fool!) and now that you point it out, it does mention the two systems for measuring wealth: Corebook style with most of the burden resting on the Virtue Wealthy or Flaw Poor, along with new Social Status Virtues like Landed Noble. Corebook style has value only increased by virtue of stories.
The second system is the Mythic Pound system, where tracking of finances is more of a focus. The sidebar goes on to explain how Covenants can be used to represent the holdings and wealth of a knight and notes on history and how lords increase their wealth via land.