"How good is WAB" Topic

How good is WAB. Are the rules good, does the rule book follow GW have lots of pics. I have heard about them but have never seen them.

Yes to the first but obviously a matter of taste

The presentation of the ruels are very good lots of eye candy and the period list books have some good introduction material on the period, armies and modelling.

The additional benefit is they are not tied to a specific range of 1 manufacturers figures so the worlds your oyster on choice.

I like them and use them for the majority of my ancients gaming. I think the big advantage to them is the supplements that tend to focus on the period in question. Within those the rules can be excellent. They are easy to house rule too.

I'm not fond of how the rules treat characters, for example, so I just count characters as having the special rules they have (general, ASB, priest or whatever) and count them as a normal model of the unit they are with, with one extra attack, like a champion. The only other stat that is different is the Leadership value which the character retains if it is important.

I like them a lot. They provide a fun game with enough "realism" that I feel like I had a battle, and the special rules within each period make the system work for whatever era in which you are fighting.

WAB are my favorite rules. I play other rules also, like DBA, DBM, Armati and Tactica. All those other rules offer some different perspective on Ancient/Medieval warfare, but WAB is most fun. Just like Pictors said, it's easy to modify WAB rules to suit your personal perspective in case you want it.

I just started my first WAB army. Since I never had been exposed to any of the GW rules it took me a while to understand a few things but I am slowly getting the hang of it. I have only actually played three games but I enjoyed them.

Justin, does that mean you are refunding money to the people who bought TDIC from you?

I like WAB a lot. You will find that most people who will react to your question will have a positive opinion as well as experience with the game. Most negative opinions I have encountered appear to be from people who heard about the game, saw it once of confuse it with Warhammer Fantasy or 40K. A good example of such a discussion you will find here

TMP link

where you will also encounter my op on the game. WAB has entertained me a lot, has made me start several armies in 28mm (Gaul, EIR, Carthage, Viking and Arthurian) as well as in 20mm (Samurai) and is still not boring me so far.

IMO the historical component is more present than you would expect in a game that is relatively uncomplicated fun. It has more depth than you´d say at a first glance, but you won´t deduce that from all the colour and the eye-candy in the rulebooks and the supplements. I for me think that the eyecandy is inspiring, but then I like to paint and build. Should you encounter the "this is all a devious GW plot to sell stuff"-line I like to point out that WAB not only does not have an official miniature line, but GW does not make historical figures at all.

When you´re looking for a thorough en detailed realistic simulaton of ancient warfare, WAB is not for you (and I won´t be your opponent ;o) but when you want a fun game with a strong historical flavour and lots of tactical variety you´ll be hard pressed to find something better.

Pijlie
I have to defend those who don't choose WAB here. I have played several games of WAB (with the Biblical, Shieldwall and the El Cid supplements) and I have to say it doesn't work for me. Characters are too overpowering, some troop types (eg Vikings) too heavily stylised. In terms of command-control it's fairly easy to control lots of units doing different things across the whole battlefield. Basically I don't get it as a game.
I'm fully aware that there is a big community who enjoy the rules, and I've no objection to that; also that there are many who would disagree with my preferences; but I have tried WAB and these rules weren't for me.

I'm not a seasoned WABbite, but the thing I like about WAB is that it lets you put a lot of figures on the table and watch units grind down under missile and melee attacks. That's in stark contrast to my other favorite ancients game DBA. :-)

Units are generally blocks of 16-24 figures arrayed 4 deep by however many wide. Figures are removed as they are killed, and units lose combat effectiveness as they get whittled down.

You roll a lot of dice in WAB. Each front rank figure gets to roll (at least) one d6 in a melee, and often times the second rank can fight too. So you're generally rolling a dozen or so dice per side to see who hits, then rolling hits to see if they hit hard enough to wound, then rolling to see if the opponent's armor blocks the wound.

You generally have full control of your units when on the advance, but they can panic and fall back for various reasons, requiring rally rolls to regain control of them. You generally

WAB is squarely in the "fun game that is informed by history" camp, which is another thing I like about it. The way period flavor is added to the game is through special rules that "break" the basic rules. For examples, warbands sometimes charge on their own, some units automatically rally after falling back, some can make more advanced battlefield maneuvers due to training, etc.

WAB is a toy soldier game, it is not a simulation. Gamer's who must perceive they are recreating 'reality' need not apply. Command Control and other fictitious and fabricated 'neccessities' of other games do not apply. It is a retro game based on old style miniatures play.

It is fun, and simple at it's core. In the game business a game that is simple to play but difficult to master is a top game. WAB succeeds in that. That's why it is popular.

The game paints history in big swipes so periods and armies have a flavor of realism, it is not pin-point work. But color and drama is more important than recreations of historical battles or even balanced and fair cross period competition. Player do find ways to enjoy both using WAB.

But the most appealing part of WAB is that it attracts those who want to have cool miniature armies, want to display them, and wnat to play with them in a fun and varigated gaming environment. It's always more of an exhibition than a competition. I like to win, but I enjoy a good game win or lose to a like minded opponent.

Chances are that if you have these same ideas, then you will find something abotu WAB you like.
JeffJ

I am not a GW Warhammer kind of guy but I have to admit, it is a pretty darned good game.

It models history pretty well. The game is pretty fun. The game is pretty well thought out.

Since it has some historical value added to it, you can say that it is a sort of a historical simulation. You can take any army and you best fight with it like its historical counterpart or be prepared to lose and lose again.

One of the slams of WHFB is that there is too much fluff. In WAB suppliments, the fluff is a welcome and good thing. The two that I have are Fall of the West and Age of Arthur. Both are choke full of historical information. Even if you don't play the game, these suppliments are quite valueable for scenario design or informational purposes.

I do agree with Pictor about how characters are handled being a bit much. You can always tone that down though without too much trouble.

If you are interested in a fast fun game that can be played in an evening, go for it.

I think that JJartist summed it up pretty well. The guys in my group who love WAB are more concerned about how the game looks than the realism aspect of it. WAB gives you a chance to put a lot of figs on the board and play a fast, fun game, but if you're looking for command & control, morale rules with a lot of modifiers, etc…, then you better go a different route.

"command & control, morale rules with a lot of modifiers, etc…"

Not that these reproduce history any better.

I completely disagree with my learned colleague Jeff on the simulation vs. game issue. However, I expect that ifs he is honest with us, he is merely being conciliatory in order to forestall all those who wail that WAB is not historical.

For all their claims, self-professed "simulations" are not guaranteed to reproduce history any better than a well-designed game. The closest I have ever seen one come is through causing the participants to drop due to fatigue.

Allen

Some more second-hand evidence to back up Allen:

From what I've heard (though not experienced personally) large (5,000+ pts) WAB games with multiple players per side get very close to real battles in the way they flow. Of course you need a huge table to play that way!

That's why I'm focusing on "Dark Ages" for WAB – the ratio of men to figures is low since the armies were smaller.

Got me back into ancients after a long lay-off.

WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB

"WAB WAB WAB WAB WAB"

Sung no doubt to the tune of SPAM SPAM SPAM etc.
JeffJ

"However, I expect that if he is honest with us, he is merely being conciliatory in order to forestall all those who wail that WAB is not historical."

-------> To be honest.. I don't give a click about those who wail and gnash their teeth…. I'm just saying that if modeling somebody's invented command and control structure for ancient armies is their cup of tea, then WAB ain't it.

It does amuse me that the most popular command and control games use a D6 to determine everything, include how the units move, and then some of those same players rail that WAB is ahistorical because one uses 'buckets o' dice'.
(whicih is often held up as a slam that WAB is for kiddies who don't want to pour over a long table of modifiers -flip it over to get the other modifiers), "adult's game".

Game mechanics are just a method to get one to what one wants in their games, in some games players want the random factor make them simulate "real movement" (anybody ever see a DBX army slide back and forth, now that's realism). In WAB, players tend to like to get into combat mostly under control and then duke it out with the dice. But it's not all luck, the better players tend to win.

Still as stated in a very tight setting with motivated players, a historical battle game can be set up in WAB and often comes out quite well, especially when the multi-player dynamic is added in.

I just want people to remember that there is "NO cannibalism in the British Navy, and what little there is, is well under control".

JeffJ

WAB is a great game for pushing around a lot of lead, drinking beer, and having a laugh as your elephant goes mad and starts stamping on everyone in its path. Though the basic rules are fairly simple, it takes a bit to learn how to use your troops well, especially against a variety of enemies. I've found the WAB crowd (at least in California) to be very laid back and friendly, though there can be some good natured smack talk during competitions. If you're looking for detailed simulations or hard core competitors, this is probably not the game for you. However, if just you're looking for a fun game and an excuse to show off your lead, this might work for you.

Here are some game photos if you are interested:
link

As for the amount of pictures and fluff found in the era specific books depends on when they were produced – the early books were al ittle more bare bones, but the newers ones have a good amount of eye candy.

Chris

"It does amuse me that the most popular command and control games use a D6 to determine everything, include how the units move, and then some of those same players rail that WAB is ahistorical because one uses 'buckets o' dice'."

Or a couple of D6. Eaxactly.

A player who wishes to achieve an historical game with WAB can easily do so. A player who wishes to achieve ahistorical results withh any other ancients rules can easily do so.

The same can be said for any other system. A player who has knowledge of the period and wishes to play a realistic game is seldom prevented from doing so. A player who wishes to twist the rules in order to win at all costs can create amazing perversions of history.

Allen

'If you're looking for detailed simulations or hard core competitors, this is probably not the game for you.'

I'd dispute that, especially the part about hard core competitors.

I love buckets o dice games and I love enjoyable games that are informed by history and I love games that are easy to pick up and easy to play. WAB fails on the last account for me – far to clunky a system. Rolling 3 (or more sequences of dice) to get a "no result" is not good games design. Add several more dice rolls if you have some of "special" modification (and there seem to be very few troops in WAB that don't) and the fun is soon being swamped by repetitive, dull mechanics.

It's not for me.

Doug

Advocate wrote: Pijlie
I have to defend those who don't choose WAB here. I have played several games of WAB

except exceptions, of course ;0) You are actually the first critic of WAB I encounter that has played the game himself. Most people simply toss it into the same bin as WHFB, assumed they are even aware of the difference.

And your remarks are true btw. Command & Control are rudimentary and characters are overpowering in combat. But these problems are easily fixed if you´d want to. Skip the character´s personal stats and add an C&C system.

I´m not fond of dice myself. Personally I think using pre-written orders and/or runners or messengers on horseback to carry orders is a fun system. They move in the movement phase and carry written orders outside the General´s command radius that come into effect the turn after they arrive next to the sub-commander. We used this a lot in large Fire & Fury games where C&C is a lot more important (and fun) to simulate. Throwing dice for PIPs felt always a bit bland to me.

As Allen said, WAB is a game where what you put in is what you get out. If you want historical, you get historical. It is also fun to play, which is a key factor.

I understand that some armies (like the aforementioned vikings) do have very powerful characters and this can spoil the game (in my opinion). For me, its about tactics not how many characters you can throw at your opponent, WFB stylee. Got a problem with characters? Agree with your opponent to take fewer of them.

As for the command and control, it's there. The command is in moving your units without being able to measure how far your enemy is away. Is that in charge range or are you just out? The control is in when your units start to panic or lose combat.

It works for me and works well IMHO. I have fun too.

Guy

Pijlie,

I'm a bit curious that you referred to my post as one of confusion, especially when we posted back and forth for more clarification on WAB. You yourself responded there in reference to my supposed confusing WAB with WFB:

"A friend of mine describes WAB as "the game WHF was supposed to be, without the monsters and the magic". It´s a similar, but different game."

Perhaps I am confused as that reads, along with our discussion, exactly like WFB married a first cousin and had WAB. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, knowing that you read what I wanted in a ruleset. However you stopped. You never mentioned just how limited WAB heroes/champions/characters/priests are? Is it without magic or is there an element of fantasy? As I said magic-lite does not equal magic free and I was hoping for further response albeit while making clear it was not my cup of tea.

Maybe because its early and perhaps that's causing me to be a little punchy, but when I entertained your introduction of WAB into the above thread my first reaction was not to point out the confused masses that think WAB is anything but WFB-lite. :)

"From what I've heard (though not experienced personally) large (5,000+ pts) WAB games with multiple players per side get very close to real battles in the way they flow. Of course you need a huge table to play that way!"

I'm planning on trying this theory out by using 10mm figures to get to the critical mass of figures and units. It's on the back burner, but someday the (Late) Legions will roll out in 1:20.

'No difference between Julius Caesar and Varus'

I disagree. If I roll a double 6 to rally my best troops, I am clearly Pompey. If I decide to march formed troops into a wood I am Varus.

I like that my General is Me, not someone else's idea of who I should be.

Pat

'I like that my General is Me, not someone else's idea of who I should be.'

Agreed.

I guess they are okay if you are more interested in fun than "real." Troops can break fairly easily, but they may rally just as fast. A lot of the games I have played in literally go down to the last turn to determine a winner. You may be winning on turn five and on turn six your center or flank has collapsed, only to have most of them rally on turn eight. Personally, I don't care for the gimicky parts of the rules.

Humm, I just don't see it.

We have different ways of looking at the game my friend. I see it as do a few others on here it seems. You get what you put in.

A single figure (all that remains of a full unit) tests for leadership exactly as a full strength unit. No worries that 99.9% of the unit is no longer there.

For panic tests, not for combat resoultion.

All generals (for the same army) are exactly the same, no difference between Julius Caesar and Varus!

With the current Roman list, yes. You can hardly blame Varus, he was led into an ambush by a trusted ally Arminius. If you want variety in your Generals, look at Age of Arthur.

And a general comes along and completely replaces the leadership values of the units around him (behold you are no longer scummy peasants you feel like palace guard)

They still fight and die like peasants.

As you might notice its the morale system in WAB that lets it down, and ranks lets not forget the ranks.!

The morale system works OK, I don't need a degree in Rocket Science to understand it. And I think rank bonus is in ideal mechanism to show the degradation of a unit due to casuaties. A depleted unit is far more likely to lose combat and break.

But for a fun game, yep WAB does it for me.!

Well at least we agree on something. :-)

Guy

"You never mentioned just how limited WAB heroes/champions/characters/priests are? Is it without magic or is there an element of fantasy? As I said magic-lite does not equal magic free and I was hoping for further response albeit while making clear it was not my cup of tea."

I responded to those exact issues on the other thread, Iowa. The simple answer is that heroes champions and characters are not limited at all in most armies, but if you bring a lot then you can prepare to be dogpiled by the guy with the bigger army with virtually no characters (which is how I have always played). And you WILL lose, unless some huge dice rolling luck happens along. Priests are generally one per army, if I remember correctly.

Again, there is absolutely no "magic-lite" in the game (read my post on the other thread). You are completely misinformed or have built up a preconceived notion that apparently nothing will sway. If it's not your cup of tea then that's cool. I just wish you would stop claiming things about the game that simply aren't true.

Sorry to have missed your question Iowa, but there have been some answers in the meantime I see. Just one thing:

"The simple answer is that heroes champions and characters are not limited at all in most armies, "

Most armies also limit characters to 25% point value of the army. A character tends to cost between 60 and 150 points, so in a 2000 point army you can have three or four at most. This does not make the game more interesting, since a lot of characters tend to have overpowered combat abilities.

Rallying is not as easy as it seems. While Break tests are usually made using a number of bonuses (Leadership plus Army general nearby, Ranks, Standard nearby etc) rally is made by using just Leadership.

There is no magic in WAB. At all. No monsters either, barring elephants, but then they are historical and still exist.

'If you're looking for detailed simulations or hard core competitors, this is probably not the game for you.'

"I'd dispute that, especially the part about hard core competitors."

Maybe it's the regional crowds then. Most people in my area play hard against other experienced players, but they are usually very gracious with new players, even at convention competitions. I've seen veterans advise noobs when they are making a bad move and let them take it back. Though everyone likes to win, the majority of people I've met are satified if the game was at least an entertaining battle, rather than feeling the need to win at all costs.

"Rolling 3 (or more sequences of dice) to get a "no result" is not good games design. Add several more dice rolls if you have some of "special" modification (and there seem to be very few troops in WAB that don't) and the fun is soon being swamped by repetitive, dull mechanics."

Hi Doug, I think there is some misinformation here. There are three die rolls. Some special rules allow for a "To Hit" reroll, indicating a better first strike capability. I'm afraid the first part of your second sentence doesn't make sense to me, I don't know what the "several more dice rolls" you are adding means.

Actually, I find this mechanism very adaptable to modifications.For example, when writing rules for South American Indians using poisoned weapons against Conquistadors, the "To Wound" die roll is not used, as poisoned weapons are capable of auto-wounding the struck figure. That's less clunky than adding more and more modifiers in a list isn't it?

But ultimately, to each their own.

Ralph

I wonder what Chinookdvr is thinking now…….

I think the only way to assess the rules is to have a go at playing them. There are plenty of sets of rules out there which are popular but which I dont like whether too complex or simple, too gimicky or boring, too slow or too fast. You really need to have a game.

Ask friends or pop into a local gamers club or shop where they play and join in. Then you can decide for yourself.

Nazrat,

You did not respond to those issues in the other thread prior to my bringing up the subject in this one. In the absence of answers to my exact question about limitations and given what had been said and given its ugly cousin WFB, is it not reasonable to assume that absence of address means absence of limits and the presence of magic-lite? Any exercise in reason would make this deduction. Finally however, questions have been answered as far as heroes/champions, as they never were addressed prior. I still stand with trepidation over the use of fear in association with a purchased character and equipment purchases and have asked the questions more precisely in the other thread.

Pijlie, thanks for your added comments.

Good enough. I was just trying to answer the question for you, as it was a reasonable one considering your WFB experience.

Hero-hammer is an often raised issue when discussing WAB. It's not as important as some make it out to be, OTOH in an unrestricted game the characters can be overly important in some army lists.

Still the norm is somewhere in the middle. Characters are more important than in most other rules sets. They are the key component of command and control in the game. Players that do not watch where their generals are, will tend to lose. However, in most cases, WAB characters do not have the unit killing abilities of WFB characters, with the exception of maybe chariot and elephant mounted characters (which are actually units- and in a slightly different league).

Some armies in WAB are characterized by magical/mystical/social elements which could simply be called "additional effects" if WAB wasn't built on a WFB foundation. Yese there are some "magical weapons" in some lists. Usually these are relegated to optional.

WAB is often more open ended to allow players to add in or leave out such detail as they need to make the game fit for them. Tournament players tend to want the rules to be all encompassing, and consistent.

I've seen some real good variants of WAB for those who want more Command Control. I've seen players drop all characters and simply force the model to be part of a unit, drop the magical mystery tour dudes entirely. Give the unit with the General and ASB their special rules,and make them immortal models like regular leaders and standards. In this version units become slightly more important, and players who dislike challenges and personal combat rules are able to focus on those things they like.

As for the multiple dice rolling mechanics, either you can get past that or you can't. I would never force anybody to like it if they don't. OTOH when I play their games with cocked up and multi-farious lists of modifiers, I simply either decide not to play, or I accept it. There's no good in complaining that I love their game, except I hate rulers.. can we just get rid of the rulers???

I remember one negative comment about WAB. A player said he could not play the game because it has "no target prioritation rules". Well, that's his pet-peive, and he is welcome to it. I explained to him that Jervis wrote that such rules are often more ambiguous and prone to misinterpretation than others so he felt it wasn't in the spirit of the game. That seemed enough for me, even though I am an advocate for more strict firing arcs in the game. I was not (am not) insulted at all that WAB lacks this key feature that keeps away a possible player.

I'd prefer playing a game against somebody who is enjoying themselves, than complaining they are only playing because this is the only game in town, and railing about every issue.
JeffJ

I'm afraid the first part of your second sentence doesn't make sense to me, I don't know what the "several more dice rolls" you are adding means.

Ralph

I'm going from memory and it's quite a long time since I played the game (because I didn't like it ) so I'll have to go and check the rules to remind myself what I mean. I like plenty about the concept of WAB; the system, after all, is not far off a Featherstone-esque approach which is what I started on, and the attractive presentation is great. I just think that a simple system is spoiled by endless modifications and add-ons. However, since you may have already found a flaw in my memory, I'd better go and re-read them and make sure I know what I think I know…!

Doug

Some of the issues in WFB are not issues in WAB, due specifically to the lack of magic and monsters. When a WFB 5e (the edition WAB is based on) character could be equipped with a Ward save on top of his armor, have a weapon that raised his attacks or strength, or ignored the opponent's armor, and could fly and cause terror due to being mounted on a DRAGON, not only were half the points in the "army" vested in a single model, but more often than not the rest of the points could stay home. If your opponent didn't have a similar monstrosity, he lost. Plain and simple.

WAB does not have that problem, in general. There are a handful of specific cases where a little too much Hollywood has snuck in, but in general the special rules are there is represent the differences and evolution in warfare as it diverges from the basic assumptions of the core rules.

Are skirmish cavalry archers annoying? You bet, but it isn't magic. Will the countercharge of a couple berserkers take the sting out of your charge at those Danes? You bet, but rabid, foaming madmen with sharp steel can have that effect on anyone, and at least they aren't Night Goblin Fanatics…

I have never played WAB.

I do not intent to play WAB.

I own the rules and several supplements. I've read them all several times.

When WAB first came out I scooped it up. I thought it might have the potential to be a fun game. Besides, I really enjoy reading rules and comparing mechanics, learning about the author's take on historical events, etc. However, what I found is that it is WHFB in disguise. (I have played that and own several version of the rules).

Honestly, I'm not really spoiling for a fight here, but I must take exception to those who say that experienced gamers can't tell whether they would enjoy the game or analyize the histoicity of the rules without playing a game. What in the world does playing the game have to do with anything…other than getting the enjoyment out of playing. Does playing a game tell you whethe the lists are historically accurate? Doe playing the game tell you if the author has done ihis home work?

Playing the game tells you whether the rules are well written and understandable. Playing gives and inidication of the fun factor. Playing is a very , very poor substitute for research and analysis.

Furthemore, whith so many games on the market, people have to decide to play or not play without making investments in armies and countless expensive supplelments.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest…

The main factors of the game that keeps me from playing are:

Individual figure basing. From antiquity to well into the 19th century, formations were linear and depended on line holding and the support of line on the falnks for survival. Linear combat, IMHO, is best represented by mutifigure stands.

Small units. With a few notable exceptions (like Romans and Greeks) there weren't "unit" as such, only masses.

Characters, Muicians and Standards. If there were a Napoleonic version of WAB, would the British get the benefit of two standards in each battalion? Yikes, I can't even begin to express my disappointment when I saw this carry over from WHFB. I could, in the name of fun, overlook all the game's faults…except this one.

I wish I had the time to play every rule set I come across. I wish I had time and money to buy, paint and base figures for every game. I don't. So I'll do my best in the culling process and give this game a pass.

"Playing is a very , very poor substitute for research and analysis."

So when I want to know if a restaurant serves good food, ordering a meal there should be the last thing on my mind? Instead I should carefully read the cook´s recipes?

I might add that I am a very experienced sampler of restaurant´s foods….

'Target Prioritisation' rears its head with us frequently. Too many players miss that rule, and so expect to be able to shoot everything at one unit.

Just a shame the rule is so easy to 'get around' especially with Skirmishers.

Pat

I think this thread has gone off tack, the original question was are the rules good not whether they are historical. The second part was eye candy and presentation

So yes the rules are good but I stand by the fact that I would try before I buy. Secondly the books are well put together and are improving all the time and the support on the net is good for this system.

As with any set of rules with points systems there are limitations. If I choose to fight with Greeks against Persians in a 200 point army are they historical in terms of numbers, no as you may have more figures but the disparity in numbers of troops cannot be represented in a figure per figure ratio.

This becomes more apparent for those fighting out of period e.g. Saxons (fielding an amry of 7-10k troops at best) fighting persians where they could field 100,000 troops.

In this instance it is a case of what if Hitler had a boxing match with the Keystone cops but only allowing 1 of the cops to fight…but that is another thread ;0)

Touche Justin, we put on a demo of Hastings and didnt think of points either.

They do help you structure your army and help in gaming and tourneys though I suppose.

I like the use of scenarios in the ge of Arthur supplement where objectives are often more the point of the game rather than a points match game

"So when I want to know if a restaurant serves good food, ordering a meal there should be the last thing on my mind? Instead I should carefully read the cook´s recipes"

That's not what I said. Play test has value. However, one doesn't necessarily have to play a game to understand the mechanics, historical accuracy, how it represents command and control, evaluate production quality, the book binding, the price, and a host of other characteristics that determine whether a the rules are "any good". There are many jugments about a game that can be made without playing and are not be invalid simply becasue someone choose not to play.

"I think this thread has gone off tack, the original question was are the rules good not whether they are historical."

When evaluating a set of rules that presents itself as "Historical" then how accurately the rules represent the intended period most certainly is the question. More so when asked in this historcal gaming forum. Personally I think that WAB is WHFB warmed over (for the reasons already stated). It's WHFB with historical ficures.

When I read accounts of historical battles, I read about long lines of troops facing off against each other. When I look at the battle maps I see long opposing lines arrayed on the field. WAB doesn't support my vision of ancient warfare. I've never read of a battle lost for the lack of a musician of a shaman. There are heroic tales, of course, but they are the stuff of legend, not history.

For ancients and medieval mass combat gaming I think there are much better choices. Warmaster, DBx, and others that try to provide a sense of the scale of the battles and the linear tactics that they portray come to mind immeadiatly.

"However I was forced into trying WAB as my existing game system (DBM) became drab and boring. I was amazed to discover how interesting and fun WAB is."

I know that DBM can become repetative. However, one must consider that the reason that we use the same set of rules to cover such a wide span of military history is that land warfare remained relatively unchanged until the middle of the 19th century. Troops lined up opposing each other and on a signal went for it. All the planning and special tactics, feints, and slight of hand had to be planned before the battle was joined. The ability of a commander to change the overall plan after the whistle blew was non-existant. It wasn't until the advent of rapid communication, rapid fire weapons, and other technological advances forced the opening of ranks that linear warfare gave way to open order small units acting semi-idependantly within the scope of a larger, overseeing and controlling force.

A historical game is, by definition, going to represent the tactics of the period. So, if lining up and pre-planning your strategy does appeal to you, then perhaps you are not happy with the period, rather than the rules.

I have no doubt that WAB is a ton of fun (after all, WHFB is). However when the question "Are they any good" is asked and it's asked in a historical gaming forum. It deserves as complete an answer as possible.

My answer is still the same. If you are looking for an easy game that is fun, that you can play with a bunch of neat looking historical figures, then WAB might be for you. However, if you are looking to refight Zama and deal with the command and control problems of the era, and you want you battle field to reflect what you read and those maps you see in the history books, then there are better choices.

I like having scenarios, but an explicit system of point values allows for a phenomenon that was, when I was a sprout wandering the halls of the annual minis-heavy convention, pretty much absent. This phenomonon is so seductive that the advent of games that support it changed the face of such conventions.

I speak of course of the concept and practice of "casual play".

The *perception* that historical miniatures have very specific and typically vast miniatures needs, and are only dragged out a couple times a year due to space and time constraints, has done nothing to endear such games to the new hobbyists.

"Painted only" snobbery doesn't help any, but that's a different issue from the rules being used.

The perception that heraculean efforts are required before any "historical" play can begin, and that those efforts will only apply to a single conflict, is a large part of what made the later games popular. That early flexible systems also tended to be fantasy related also helps explain why historicals got "left behind" for many years. Three hundred Greeks, or forty High Elves AND A DRAGON? One game a year at the traditional convention with the same guy you played against last year, or three games on any given Saturday afternoon, often with short notice, no one cares if Frank didn't show this time or Mike forgot his bolt throwers, so who's up for a game?

That's an easy choice for a beginner, and it stays an easy choice. Bring that choice back to historical topics, as WAB does (not to mention FoW and any number of more recent skirmish-scale games), and the rising popularity is no surprise. Now the historicals crowd can get in on the Casual Play phenom, and its not like point values and flexible forcelists keep you from playing scenarios.