"How good is WAB" Topic

Lowtardog: "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."

Another issue might be that a player might not be really interested in painting historically accurate numbers of lower quality infantry, but might instead want to go in for packign boatloads of Immortals, cavalry, chariots, elephants, Zarahustrian priests or whatever fancy stuff the list allows – but trying to do some minimising of the number of models for the Greeks and maximising the numbers for Persians, the ratio in numbers of models could get quite high.

That said, what historical battles would be taken as benchmarks for counting the ratio, as it could vary from battle to battle. And then there are battles like Thermophylai where the Persians could only bring a portion of their troops to bear.

Griefbringer

"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 agree, there are different choices. Some players have to use 10mm or 6mm blobs to represent these blocks. Ancient armies may have fought in mostly linear arrangements, but those arrangements are made up of mostly small square or rectangular blocks of troops. This is where I see the scale of WAB, it works best as a tactical game, no it is not a perfect grand tactical game. It is an adequate grand tactical game if the game is large enough, with multiple players.
However once the armies are lined up they tend to have accomplished most of the pre-planning and have to plow forward, which satisfies most of the complaints about command and control. Also, in WAB keeping one's battlline in cohesion is an important tactic, so that often solves linear issues. WAB usually hurts players who deploy in depth, because reserves tend to get caught up in routs, special rules allow for the cohesion of manipular legions (a non-linear formation) which also fought in small blocks.
Units in WAB maneuver individually a bit easier than "reality", because it is a game. Games that simulate reality in great detail are not all that fun, they are more exercises in moving troops in accordance to the maps in the book.

In small tournaments of 2000 pts or so, the favored unit size is often 6 wide by 4 deep, which is an adequate visual representation of a phalanx block or maniple.

People tend to want to pass off WAB as a 'skirmish game', it isn't really that at all, but it works best at a smaller scale.
It's more like "PanzerBlitz" than "Stalingrad" if one knows those old Avalon Hill games. One can argue that both have merit-- which one is your favorite? Some say they need to take Moskow and feel like they are in charge of logistics, rebuilding the rail lines, everything, some are happy that the counters have an actual silhouette of a tiger tank on it, and it matters.

WAB armies do not slide back and forth in crazy ways that I have seen Pip games do their 'historical maneuvers, so those pip games have never appealed to me.

What it ultimately comes down to for me is does the game give me the control over my figures enough to give me the feeling it was my decisions that ultimately made a difference. In most cases WAB give me that feeling. Sometimes the dice stink and that cause one to lose, them's the breaks, but more often than not I feel in control enough that I can overcome bad dice with good moves, and that's the bottom line for me.
JeffJ

"Japanese Samurai should have been the finest warriors going (well at least to the Japanese) but the Mongols stuffed them, why because the Mongols fought battles, not a series of individual combats with honour and glory."

and

"Persians were going great guns with their firepower based armies until they came up against the Greeks. Then the get into combat and fight hand-to-hand brigade was found superior. Until the Crusaders came up against the Arabs (just as the Romans had done) and tried to win against an enemy that refused to stand and fight."

Huh? Brigades? Persians…firepower based? Saladin didn't stand and fight?

The Mongols won because the Japanese were horse archers and the Mongols had massed foot archers. They simply shot the Japanese off their horses. It had nothing to do with "individual combat", it had everything to do with two completely different tactical approaches….but that's for another thread…

"Ancient armies may have fought in mostly linear arrangements, but those arrangements are made up of mostly small square or rectangular blocks of troops."

Nope, sorry, this just isn't true. The Greeks, includin Alexander and his successors (and later the Romans who copied the Greeks and later some of the medieval Europeans who copied the Romans) were sucessful because they were the exception to the rule and beat up on everyone else. Of course there were the instances where the mods kicked their butts…accidents will happen.

A historical wargame for ancient armies should, in my opinion, model the norm. However some model Greco-Romans and then try to jam everyone into that mold. The only satisfactory solution to dealing with varied armies, geographic conditions, and cultural differences in one set of rules (for ME) is to back off from the detail and deal with the period at a higher level of abstraction.

I might tend to agree that WAB might model (if you get rid of the the standard/shaman/musician/character stupidity) Greco-Roman armies…but an Eygptian army is not the same thing and niether is a Mongol horde…or is the Empire and Orks…I loose track sometimes…

But seriously, if you want to go an paint some historical looking minis and have a fun game followed by a few beers at the pub…go have fun with your WAB. But *that* wasn't the question. The question, as trollingly vague as it is, asks "Is WAB any good". The question is asked on the Ancients boards where the context is *historical* gaming. Thus is deserves a proper answer and discussion including its merits as a game representing history.

As an "entry" game into the historical gaming community, I'd say that WAB is *not* a good choice. I think that historical gaming entails much, much more than pushing lead around that looks somewhat historical. The hobby is very deep and beginners should have the opportunity to get in as deep (or as shallow) as they like.

Face it, 28mm figures are *expensive* and painting a 28mm WAB army can be a formitiable task. Not everyone has the disposable income to create such and army. The rule book and a chosen supplement can cost, what, $80? Yikes! For many folks just the books would comsume their gaming budget for some time.

Beside the game itself, historcal gaming tends to lead people to read and research the armies they have a desire to play. This, naturally, leads to broader historical reading and interests. So what happens when an individual has invested heavily in a game system that they might discover really doesn't fit their historical research? Of course there are those who are 'casual' gamers and are satisfied with the abbreviated history lessons in the supplements. There is *nothing* wrong with this. For many periods, I too am a 'casual' gamer. However, I'm an experiences historical gamer. With experience comes the realization that it is wise to defer to the people who have their favorite periods and have superior knowledge. Gamers should not be offended when taken to task after regurgitating "history" from a single source, especially a supplent designed to promote its game system.

I think there are games that offer an easier, much less expensive and simpler entry into the hobby of historical war gaming. But that is provided, of course, that that is what is really what's desired. If the desire is really to continue with the rules that one may already know from fantasy gaming and just paint some pretty Romans, then go for it and have a blast! It all really comes down to what the individual want get out of the experience and how deep;y they want to get involved with history.

I see your point Ray and would say try out the crusader Ancients rules, good value £5-£7.50 and plenty of eye candy

Another vote for "Crusader" rules over WAB…

I'm unfamiliar with those rules. Is there a webpage or a review somehere? I'm in the US. Are they available here?

As I have said before, even if I don't end up playing a game, I still enjoy collecting and reading rules. To me, it's not unlike reading books or articles on the same subject by different authors. Do so provides different perspectives and meaning.

I knew it would eventually come down to cost being the most egregious factor, it always seems to be the burning issue behind the arguments. :)

Yes if you don't want to spend any money then WAB may not be a "good" ruleset. I suggest Hat or Svezda and darts at five paces. Now that's a good and cheap pastime.

"Nope, sorry, this just isn't true."
Ok, well put argument, I'm convinced, and will return to reading Aelian and Asclepiodotus, maybe I missed something.
JeffJ

""Nope, sorry, this just isn't true."
Ok, well put argument, I'm convinced, and will return to reading Aelian and Asclepiodotus, maybe I missed something."

Nice…do you *always* quote out of context or should I feel special? You left out the the important point, that the rules push every army into that Greco-Roman, Phalanx-Maniple, mold. Can we please address the point and avoid the personal attacks?

Cost is always a factor. This is especially true when discussing the merits of an *entry* set of rules. It's certainly going to be a factor for a beginner when you are talking about the rules plus a supplement plus an army costing about $300…compared to Warmaster at <$100 or DBA at <$50. WAB, with such a high "buy-in" cost, is going to be difficult to walk away from to take up another game system.

In the past I have suggested 1:72 scale plastics and DBA as an entry level game to foster interest in ancients and medieval war games.

Now, you wouldn't be suggesting that those folks who play war games with <<shudder>> plastic figures are any less of a war gamer than someone who plays with 28mm Perrys would you? (See how that "out of context" thing works?)

Now, can we return to discussing the pros and cons of WAB as an entry level historical war game? To restate my opinion:

1. It's expensive
2. It's not particulary historical – TO ME!
3. There are better entry level games available
4. Historical gaming is more than historical figures – TO ME!

One of the factors that we haven't yet discussed is what is being played locally and the availabiulity of opponents. It's going to be very difficult with WAB if you have to paint TWO armies. If the local club are DBM'ers then DBA might be the way to go (by the way, several ancients rules use the "WRG" basing common in the DBx series of games). Warmaster might the local favorite or, in fact it might be WAB. Or it might a variety of game rules.

I would recommend seeking out the local players and asking to play with them. I've yet to see anyone refused. Especially if you show respect for what it is that they have adopted and what they know.

"Totally untrue. Each culture has its own way of doing things and usually thats fine until they meet another culture that does it differently"

You make a valued point here, but my reading of what Ray was referring to was quite different. The factors that governed battle; time and distance, motion (the manipulation of time and distance), and communication were practically identical throughout the period. These factors were all limiting factors in the pursuit of bringing superior destructive factors to bear while minimizing risk to self. The things you speak of are paradigm shifts within these limitations. These shifts were manifestations of cultural, economic or technological disparity. This is why the period is wargamed as such a vast expanse of time. To use your example of the Japanese getting "stuffed"; the disparity seen here with their Mongol foe is more or less the same one could see between later era forces and early era forces. There are many historical opponents that were less "fair" a match for the leading adversary of the day than would be most arbitrarily matched opponents within the period.

This being said I add the caveat that I prefer historically matched opponents for flavor and personal taste.

"On price I spend around £20-30 per person for a meal out."

"I knew it would eventually come down to cost being the most egregious factor, it always seems to be the burning issue behind the arguments."

"Yes if you don't want to spend any money then WAB may not be a "good" ruleset. I suggest Hat or Svezda and darts at five paces. Now that's a good and cheap pastime"

As anyone who knows me will state I am a cheap bastid. This does not stop me from spending a ton of money for value; reference: my AWI project that I'm doing mostly in Perry's. Neither of these truths should in any way impede on my right to be annoyed by a marketing practice specifically tailored to require me to spend more money to receive full value. This being said I also cannot fault a company in total for doing so as this is what makes them the green. I can take issue with it and not have arguments against the ruleset dismissed as a display of economic choice or fanged comments to suggest economic disadvantage. My portfolio is just fine, but my preference to exercise fiscal discipline in no way shapes the validity of the argument. Just as your choice to purchase the rules or buy an expensive meal to reference said cost will not result in me stating you like to throw money away regardless of value thereby rendering your arguments mute as they are only a justification for your personal game of money toss.

"Can we please address the point and avoid the personal attacks?"

----> I love it.. personal attacks… that's rich.
I've made my point.
JeffJ

compared to Justin, with his £300.00 GBP shoes and his wolf's nipple-chips and Flamingo noses Diet, i am a poverty stricken prole. (actually I am a prole compared to Jade Goodie, but that's by the by)

I am on average wage for the UK, my wife worketh not and I have a house and three kids to play for.

That I have 17 WAB armies would indicate to Ray Rangel that I am a mad spend-thrift. I prefer to see it as evidence I am willing to pay to enjoy my hobby. WAB is not expensive. It's an expensive wargame, but an expensive Hobby? .

Pat

"Then they come up against someone who fights differently and the better system wins, not always to the side that has the most troops!"

Couldn't agree more, what they do is as what I stated, "…bringing superior destructive factors to bear while minimizing risk to self." Those factors being any number of things, not just numbers.

I just don't believe those Barclay boys grasp the ROI that 10,000 would have on somebody's wargaming venture…somebody show them a cheap bottle of claret and some Perry figs!

I am a smoker, and spend approx £2k a year on it.

Now THAT's expensive, but doubles as my pension-plan.

And Justin only gets to see me in Harrogate, but I am a stranger there too. Me live Leeds. Me eat Pie. Mushy Pea I no eat, has vitamin, vitamin cause cancer.

Pat

Ray says:

"For ancients and medieval mass combat gaming I think there are much better choices. Warmaster, DBx,…….."

and

"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…….."

Oh, you are so right Ray. Nothing screams out "Zama" like watching 12 elements play DBA!

I'm also amused at how you consider Jeff's comments as a personal attack, but when you tar us for our devotion to the "standard/shaman/musician/character stupidity" you are making an insightful, well thought out point. Thanks for that.

Finally:

"I've never read of a battle lost for the lack of a musician of a shaman."

Jeez Ray, you just don't get it.

Ralph

Justin,
Whatever you do, do not add the spouse. I have a lifelong friend who recently married and I literally have to lobby for 6 months with her to give him freetime. We've even had to go to using code such as "interactive historical discussions" and such to get past the censors. My own experience forming the hypothesis and his experience making it law, its also a fiscal unfitness (is that a word?) at its worst, even when you marry money. :)

RayRangel…..here's a link!!!

TMP link

Cheers Andy

"Oh, you are so right Ray. Nothing screams out "Zama" like watching 12 elements play DBA!"

Ok, you can put the venom away. DBA is a game system. There is absolutely nothing preventing someone from playing a large, scenario based game using DBA. Furthemore, using the 12 element armies is an excellent way to learn about the mechanics, have some club fun, and ease, inexpensively into the historical gaming hobby.

"I'm also amused at how you consider Jeff's comments as a personal attack, but when you tar us for our devotion to the "standard/shaman/musician/character stupidity" you are making an insightful, well thought out point. Thanks for that."

That's a comment about the rules, not any particular individual on this forum. I think those are stupid rules in a supposedly historical game. I stand by that remark. Trying to denigrate or belittle someone by taking their comments out of context and intentionaly ignoring the point they were trying to make is a personal attack and does nothing to further the discussion.

and

""I've never read of a battle lost for the lack of a musician of a shaman."

Jeez Ray, you just don't get it."

Sorry, but I haven't. perhaps you could explain what the relationship between those particular rules and accounts of historical battles might be. It is a reamrkable coincindence that the same sort of rules are in WHFB, is not? Perhaps you're right though…perhaps I just don't "get it".

At any rate, if you or anyone else would like to continue the discussion about hte relative merits of WAB as an entry level ancients game, let's continue the discussion. Howeve, if we're going into the "trading personal attacks" thread death spiral, I'd rather not continue.

I'll let Plutarch describe it:

"20 The Romans, when they attacked the Macedonian phalanx, were unable to force a passage, and Salvius, the commander of the Pelignians, snatched the standard of his company and hurled it in among the enemy.
2 Then the Pelignians, since among the Italians it is an unnatural and flagrant thing to abandon a standard, rushed on towards the place where it was, and dreadful losses were inflicted and suffered on both sides.
3 For the Romans tried to thrust aside the long spears of their enemies with their swords, or to crowd them back with their shields, or to seize and put them by with their very hands;
4 while the Macedonians, holding them firmly advanced with both hands, and piercing those who fell upon them, armour and all, since neither shield nor breastplate could resist the force of the Macedonian long spear, hurled headlong back the Pelignians and Marrucinians, who, with no consideration but with animal fury rushed upon the strokes that met them, and a certain death.

link

I agree with Ralph, some of WAB's reliance on symbolic items makes it a different game than what folks often expect from a simulation-- that's why it isn't a simulation. Most of the OTT things can be edited out by players who wish a more basic game. WAB isn't history it is just inspired by history. I feel that players that know little about the history can and will glean some of it from the MRB and supplements. And most of those supplements owe a lot to WRG and the past researchers who have enriched our hobby.

Most players just have fun with it, and they live with those ideas that some find offensive, or simply strip them out. My attempts to defend processes here are just identify that there is a basis for these effects, whether or not the game makes them more or less important than reality.

I do agree that many of the concepts are OTT in WAB, but I live with it because folks are having fun. A shaman may be silly to someone who does not play WAB, I just see it as a game peice that I have to come up with the correct game tactics to deal with.

Now to continue the thread as to whether WAB is a good "entry level" miniatures game, is somewhat more focused from the topic as started.

I would answer that as yes, and no. A player can buy the ruleset on eBay. It has Roman and Warband armies in the original version, and the latest print has a few more armies that match up as historical opponents. Players can use any scale of miniature they like, and can base models any way they wish. So it is affordable.

A new player could purchase plastic figures from many of the excellent 1/72nd scale lines out now… which like the 15mm and 28mm field have never been better.

A plastic Roman and German or Gaul host big enough to start WAB won't break the bank. A new player can then base the figures on balsa strips and try out the mechanics. If one likes the rules one can then start to fix up and paint their miniatures…

One of WAB's pluses for beginners is that one can get together with a group and pool units, so the burden is not on one person to make everything, and it is an excellent multi-player game for those who like team play, because each player is in control of pushing the units he or she likes around the table.

One of WAB's sour points is that there are many rules that are best learned by coached play, as some of the conversational style leaves gaps. Many players find it hard to restrain themselves in games when there are grey areas.
Players that have never seen or played WFB versions are often confused.

I'd say this is WAB's biggest problem as an entry level game, since many of the basic mechanics can be easily misconstrued in isolation, and they are written by folks that partly assumed that players would be familiar with WFB.

I am amused by those who say that WAB is a fantasy game grafted onto ancients. When I played WFB I always felt it was the exact opposite, that WFB was an ancient game disguised by monsters and heroes, much like my original favorite miniature game Chainmail way long ago.

I would say WAB is the best beginner's game for those who have a background in WFB, and that is where many players come from. It's a toy soldier game, that's why every model makes a difference.
JeffJ

I would say WAB allows you put on figures and have fun allowing you to get apesonal feeling for each army/priod component. e.g a spearman is not just plain old spearman. For example he could be an Assyrian or a Hittite.

If you know a bit of history and are honest you can use these rules well to reflect in part history. For example if 3 skirmishers route 10 knights you have to think hard as with any rule set. IMHO a rule set that overly simulates real history would bore most of to death.

Besides we learn every other month how little we really how ancient battles were really fought.

Thank all for returning to the topic at hand. That said--I've never disputed that WAB is fun or that, with house rules, it can be more historical. Obviously, a lot of people are enjoying the heck out of it.

The question is whether WAB is as good an entry level game as others.

Sure, one can buy only the core rule book and some 1:72 figures and go at it on the cheap. However, the core book only has a few army lists and they may not be what sparks the interest of a neophyte. The 1:72nd scale figures aren't really going to be compatible with the other players unless they too have done the same thing. Pooling figures is a good idea, of course that goes for any game. When I was learning how to play DBM, I borrowed many an element while mine were on the painting table.

Again, I think that Warmaster or DBA/DBM are better games for beginners. A 1000pt ready made army from Magister Militum and the Warmaster rulebook and the new player is almost ready to go. 10mm figures are much faster to paint and much less demanding in the amount of detail than 28mm so a beginner can enjoy fielding an army that looks as good as many of others he will see. DBA (perhaps later graduating to Big Battle DBA or DBM or one of many ancients games that use WRG basing) is also good for the same reasons. There tones of ready made 15mm DBA armies out there. They are so inexpensive that a newbie can buy and paint both sides easily. The low figure count and 15mm figure size also means that painting doesn't take very long so games can be underway in short order.

BTW, for something that is inexpensive and looks fantastic on that table, check out hte pix of DBA 6mm armies on the Baccus website! DBM or BBDBA with 6mm miniatures looks truely awesome!

To see how impressive a host can be, check out the pix of this Warmaster army in 10mm. Of course, this guy is over the top with the amount of detail on these figures (I certainly won't be doing half what he's done with mine!).

TMP link

I generally have found that those who dislike WAB are those who have never played it, or have only played one or two games.

Quite frankly, I tend to reserve judgement on a set of rules until I have played them several times.

I have played a number of WAB games and for me WAB is my second favorite set of rules. I actually tend to prefer the SAGA rules. That being said, there is not a lot of difference between the SAGA rules and WAB -- and that statement will drive the SAGA players absolutely nuts. But the SAGA rules have more in common with WAB than they do with DBx.

In fact the stuff that drives me nuts in the SAGA rules, namely figuring out close combat, also happens to be the one area where WAB really shines. People may complain about the multiple die rolls, but it is an extremely fast and efficient way of handling combat. And the results are not dramatically different from the SAGA rules.

I primarily play dark ages. I generally have found that the rules yield credible results and the armies play as one would expect their historical counterparts to operate. Outside of that, I don't understand what gamers mean by realism. "Realism" is such a subjective term and it really depends upon our own sate of mind.

Ray says:

"Perhaps you're right though…perhaps I just don't "get it"."

Standards and Musicians in WAB indicate that that you have invested in a command structure for your unit and this gives some advantage in combat. Remember, that there is no ground scale or troop scale in WAB. The model holding the drum or standard is is not an individual. It is a representation to your opponent that the unit he is facing has this added benefit. You are not required to take Leaders, Standards or musicians, such is the flexibility of this game system.

As to your statement:

"I've never read of a battle lost for the lack of a musician of a shaman"

Neither, have I Ray, but then again, I have never read of a battle lost for the lack of good dice throwing either. These are both abstractions we wargamers all deal with.

Now let me tell you a bit about my area of interest. It takes place 17 centuries after Zama in Mesoamerica. I suggest you should look up Ross Hassig's excellent "Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control". He gives excellent examples of how different standards, worn by officers, dealt with the command and control issues within the Aztec army. He also explains how drums, pipes and conch trumpets signalled coordinated attacks between units, signalled relief caracoling within the Aztec units and, of course, indicated withdrawls and feigned retreats.

BTW, you'd be interested to find out that the shamen/priest rules of WAB are pretty good at modelling the behavior of Mesoamerican Warriors Priests. For example, the Huipatoos, or Zapotec priests, were known to wear skin suits of recently flayed sacrificial victims. For this reason they cause Fear as described in the WAB book. Before combat, Huipatoos would sacrifice animals and perform augeries to divine the outcome of the battle. WAB has a means for representing this also. Other Meso- and South American nations would bring religious relics (usually consisting of the mummified remains of long deceased Royalty) into battle. These would act as Army Standards that had a military and religious significans for the soldiers fighting under it. In 1438, at the Battle of Cuzco, the Sapa Inca Yupanqui defeated a much larger Chanca army by spearheading his best troops into the Chanca center where the "Huacas" (mummified religious relics and articles) were placed. The loss of these relics totally demoralized the Chanca, who subsequently lost the battle against the smaller force of Inca defenders. Or how about the loss of the Aztec Army Standard, during Cortes' cavalry charge at the Battle of Otumba in 1520? Both Spanish and native accounts indicate that the Spanish Cavalry placed the Aztec Army Standard (cut from the back of the dead Cihuacoatl) upon their lances and waved the standard about, causing the Aztec army to become so disorganized as to eventually flee.

WAB provides a mechanism to model these situations, do other rulesets? Not that I can tell. A glance at my DBR Mixtec and Zapotec army list (Book 1) indicates an upgrade of the C-in-C to a Mixtec Priest. OK. But did Mixtec Priests lead Mixtec armies? Don't think so. The DBR list even indicates that the Zapotec General fought duels in combat. Wow, WAB even has a mechanism (unnecessary IMHO) to fight duels. (Too much Fantasy for my liking there.) These are issues I have to deal with as I attempt to cobble up some WAB lists for Meso-America.

Finally what you percieved as written in venom was actually written in whimsy (the Zama-DBA comment). Perhaps a "smiley" would have helped.

Ralph

I'll warrant that one could take any game system on hte market and rationalize its most bizarre mechanics so that it makes some sort of "sense".

The question is how far I'm willing to go to posund a square peg into a round hole. The question is whether I'm going to choose a rule set that most closely aligns with my prefered scale and understanding of history, or am I going to choose a rule set and then rationalize its mechanics to fit.

My prefered scale is much, much larger than WAB. Units are indistiguishable. The general (player) knows what sort of troops are where, but doesn't know or care that a particular unit (if there is such a thing) is in a particular spot. The general doesn't "invest" in a command structure for a "unit".

However, you are indeed correct in that banners, personalities, and musicians have theri place on the battlefield. In order for that "command structure" to have any tangible effect, though, the scale of the game must be reduced to a skirmish game. If I were to play at that level, there are rules out there for 1:1 scale gaming complete with heroic leaders.

To me, WAB is stuck somewhere in the middle between a skirmish game and a mass battle game. As I said before, there are armies with which this works. Small unit actions by Greeks and Romans are good examples since they did have organized small units with semi-independant leadership. Perhaps the Mezo-American is as well (I have no knowledge of Mezo-American warfare what-so-ever).

Now, back to the use of WAB as an introductory game. I suppose that for the limited armies and scales of battles that I described, WAB would be just fine. But I would no sooner suggest BBDBA for skirmishing, than I would WAB for big massed battles.

Again, there are a lot of factors when making a recommendation. Not the least of which is what people around you (if any) are playing. Even though I pesonally don't think that WAB is best introduction to ancients, if that is what eveyone else is playing, then it might be the best choice.

Since I find I'm repeating myself quite a bit, let me just close with a plea for any beginner and any one helping a beginner, to be aware that there are different good games which have completely different scales, mechanics, and perspectives on history. Please don't walk into the buffet and eat the same thing every time. No matter what game you choose to begin with, keep your eyes and minds open and take every opportunity you can to play the many games that are out there.

"I'll warrant that one could take any game system on hte market and rationalize its most bizarre mechanics so that it makes some sort of "sense"."

------> Like the one that has no missile ranges for archers? That folks that play it justify that range factored into the scale of the game? That's a clever rationalization.

People seem to cry and moan that if somebody was to try WAB they will be turned into zombies and never look at another ruleset again….. like it's the Zvengali ruleset that mezmerizes players with color pictures and light history and fluff. That's bunk. I know more players in my area that won't play WAB than do play it.. that's their choice.

I don't need to evangelize my games. People see it happening and they want to get involved, I do not need to hypnotize them. Yes I see lots of kids and folks shaking their heads that buying and building an army will set them back in the purse…as they buy a new GW Chaos Jugernugget and 16 packs of Magic the Guttering cards.

It's funny but way back when WAB was new, I used to tell everybody how much it was like Tactica- my favorite ancients game (that nobody plays)… I wish WAB had more rules like Tactica in it… but alas it doesn't.

Since WAB has been out there have been rumors that Tactica two was coming out- for five years now.. and it woudl solve the main issue with Tactica- that you needed full armies to play, and the lists are too inflexible so games tend to become dull after a few playings.

Flexibility and dullness is not WAB, and that's why it's a good game… whether or not it turns people into zombies.
JeffJ

I used to play the heck out of WHFB, and all the while was lobbying for the same players to use WRG 6th.. Then 7th, then DBA (Then I quit playing WHFB, and concentrated solely upon Historical games using 15mm figures, but would have continued lobbying to use DBM/DBF)

I watched a group of WAB games today at Conquest SF, and probably made some contacts to play Ancients too…

In following this thread… I was acutely aware of many of the topics in it as I watched the game. One of the players admitted that they were not the best rules for historical minis, but that so many people have been burned out on DBM that it has made playing anything but WAB difficult.

I watched most of the battles turn into distinctly unhistorical fireworks displays of units dancing all over the table… Elephants chasing skirmishers across a table in two turns, missile fire from across the table (indicating what would appear to be a realtively small figure-man ratio and a ground scale that was close to the figure scale… But, if that were the case, then the number of archers would not really be enough to do the amount of damage that was being done by the missile fire… The abstraction there just felt wrong to me…

The players had fun… I enjoyed watching some armies being pushed around the table… But, I had more fun the day before watching Might of Arms, or the couple of DBA games I got to play….

And, after having tried several other games… I would rather play them than WAB (Hoplon particularly)…

I don't think that the game is very good as an intro to ancients either, as it costs a bundle to do the armies in 25/28mm scale (Old Glory of course is an option for cheaper 28mm, but that is still about 2x to 3x the cost of 15mm armies of similar size), and the space required is considerable as well.

justin,

I had considered the fact that you can play WAB in 15mm, but the fact that I don'y consider it a very good game for Historicals still remains.

Justin, "…If you want to play WAB in 15mm (or 6mm) scale, do so. I amazes me how people are not prepared to think 'out of the box'…"

Remember Justin many are players who have been spoon fed the GW system and rigid mechanics and allowable army lists. Many gamers do not view this segment as one who uses thinking outside the box, so some regard them as not having this as a strong sttribute of this group.

I do play WAB in 6mm, and as Justin pointed out, the effect is fantastic. 2 Baccus 4 man strips fit beautifully on a 20mm x 20mm base (i.e. same basing as a single 25/28mm). Proper basing (i.e., give about 6-7mm space between ranks) on the stand gives a frontage of 3 ft per man with 6 ft between ranks, which is by all accounts historically accurate.

A 20 stand unit of legionaires in a block 5 stands wide by 4 stands deep, which is pretty standard for a WAB EIR unit, renders 160 men arrayed in 8 ranks of 20 men each. Which just happens to be the dimensions of 2 x 80 man centuries arrayed side by side and fighting as a single maniple. Again, this jibes very well with history – imagine that!

For a 2500 pt game I get 120 stands of EIR legionairies, 20 stands of auxiliaries, 5 stands (6 horsemen per) of Roman Cavalry. Which equates to a small vexillation of 2 cohorts of legionaires, a century of auxiliaries, and a turma of cavalry. Which again is fairly accurate for the majority of the small scale actions that occured along the Roman frontier.

Played in 6mm (okay, 7-8mm – sorry Peter!) 1:1 WAB scale is close to 1/220. Ranges for javelins, short bows and composite bows are fairly accurate, but ranges for long bow and slings could probably be extended up to double. Other wise, missle ranges are pretty much spot on with history.

I know that the good folks at GW dismiss 6mm as "tokens" (their actual term in the WAB rule set). But I will wind up this ramble with the following, sure to be controversial, statement:

WAB, when played in 6mm, IS THE MOST HISTORICALLY ACCURATE ANCIENTS GAME CURRENTLY AVAILABLE!

<< Quickly runs for cover :-) >>

Mike

Mike

I have entertained WAB at 6mm… only to prove what streetgang6 points out.. I'm sure it is visually impressive…. and yes sometimes I knock small figures.. that is mostly because I can't see them anymore, not because
I haven't painted my fair share of Scruby 10mm Napoleonics.. now lost to history (rats).
If I had the time I'd do an army up…. but wedges might look a bit silly at that scale and would need some simple revisions.
I'd like to see photos.
JeffJ

"Remember Justin many are players who have been spoon fed the GW system and rigid mechanics and allowable army lists….."

Rudy this is the sort of nonsense, prevalant on the TMP, all WAB players have to deal with.

Let me get this straight, when I play WAB I'm being spoon fed by a large evil corporation, am playing with rigid game mechanics and am stuck with an army list someone else made up.

But when I play DBA I'm not spoon fed at all, I'm playing with extremely flexible game mechanics, and, because, I substituted 1 psiloi element for 1 light horse element, I am using my own personalized army list.

Thanks for explaining that for me. :^)

Seriously, drop in at Fall-In's WAB tournament and take a peak at the armies present. You will see some duplicate armies, but within them, you will find a greater diversity than in most rule systems I can think of.

See you there.

Ralph

I recently started playing WAB, since I loathe the DB systems with a passion. The great thing about WAB to my mind are the excellent period source books. the draw back is the horrible YG, IG rules system and the reliance on equipment variation while limiting actual troop qualities. I got so frustrated with it I have adapted the Fantasy Warriors system to play the HYW instead. The games now have an excellent command and order system, play faster than WAB while still retaining the buckets of dice so many of us love, and are generally a lot more fun. Obviously this is all a matter of personal taste but I urge anyone so inclined to down load the FW rules from Mirliton, dump the fantasy stuff and start gaming historicals with them. I have put up the rule changes and army lists on the FW Yahoo site if anyone fancies looking at them.

A friend who had only ever gamed WAB before thought the FW variation was far superior.

[The question is how far I'm willing to go to posund a square peg into a round hole. The question is whether I'm going to choose a rule set that most closely aligns with my prefered scale and understanding of history, or am I going to choose a rule set and then rationalize its mechanics to fit.]

I agree. But I thought this thread was about WAB and not DBM.

[I watched a group of WAB games today at Conquest SF, and probably made some contacts to play Ancients too…]

That's the problem. You watched, but did not play. A lot of the complaints from WAB come from those who have never played it. I take the criticisms from those who have played the rules much more seriously.

Even though you made some contacts, I doubt you will find many converts to Hoplon. Telling a WAB player that they should try a different set of rules because WAB is sooo bad is not exactly the way to make friends and influence people. During some of my games, I have had DBM players come by and tell me why they dislike WAB; my usual response is "go away."

As far as historical accuracy, I have seen DBx tournaments where you have Normans fighting New Kingdom Egyptians. People who play such games don't get to talk about historical accuracy.

I have played a lot of WAB. Heck, I've won a few tournaments, the trophies are in my garage right now. WAB is a lot of fun to play. With some effort, you can even make the games come out sort of historically. You get a lot of very pretty figs on the table and most of the people who play are fine fellows.

Historically accurate? Uh, well….Simulation? Er…..It's not those things, wasn't meant to be and doesn't need to be. One need only look at JJARTIST's posts to understand why. The WAB folks feel that command control problems didn't exist in ancient times and do not need to be modeled. Well, maybe. I do not agree, but that's hardly the point.

Want an accurate simulation? Play Warrior. Want a bunch of fun with toy soldiers? Play WAB. It is a really, really good GAME. Don't expect it to be more and you'll have a lot of fun.

I really want a roman army using those nice, NICE foundry figs.

Of course the new samurai book looks awsome

Nikator, You hit the nail on the head. The best thing about WAB is that it is a FUN game to play. And the people that I've played against at Historicon, Cold Wars and Fall In were fun to play against. This is to me the best thing about playing WAB the people you get to play against.

"The WAB folks feel that command control problems didn't exist in ancient times and do not need to be modeled."

------> Not true at all.. in my case I don't need such command and control rules in my tabletop games.. that's for simulations which I don't play in miniature.
JeffJ

"Not true at all.. in my case I don't need such command and control rules in my tabletop games.. that's for simulations which I don't play in miniature."

I find this statement a little dishonest. You may not desire their presence in your table top games, but it isn't a question of need, implying a handicap in the presence of absence of. Saying that any rules that model these REAL limiting factors of the period as a simulation only is incredibly vile, those are in fact wargames. It's like me saying that the absence of this in WAB and its optional magic items makes WAB merely another fantasy game and does not belong within a historical classification on the merit of the packaged historical fluff alone. I do not say such a thing, in fact I consider it another "flavor" for the period without 86'ing it as fantasy alone.

"….in WAB and its optional magic items……"

Example?

Ralph

"I find this statement a little dishonest. You may not desire their presence in your table top games, but it isn't a question of need, implying a handicap in the presence of absence of."

------> Gibberish?

Justin,
Roll modifiers for morale alone are things that I personally do not consider as accurately representing the command limits of the period.

Definition of morale as it pertains to the situation at hand: "the mental and emotional condition (as of enthusiasm, confidence, or loyalty) of an individual or group with regard to the function or tasks at hand."

Morale is of itself a limiting factor on the battlefield influenced by a number of factors, one of which is the field leadership or charisma of a particular general. This may have effect on, but does not define the functional limits of command and control that exist independent of morale.

I believe we've discussed ad nauseam our definitions of C&C as well as the scope of battle throughout the period. Our points of contention are both reached honestly without casting too many aspersions based upon misconceptions and are an ongoing discussion throughout wargaming regardless of period.

Ralph,
The optional magic items I refer to were mentioned in the other post where I was inviting discussion on rules that fit a certain number of criteria. As some are plausible based on myth and legend I suppose one could state them more as magic-lite items as some people prefer to soften the blow with the word "mythical".

TMP link

Erik,

I HAVE played Warhammer… Probably before ANYONE in the US as I was in the UK and was introduced to it by Brian Ansell about a year before its release.

I played Fantasy WAB for a while, because I so hated the game system we had been using in the US, and even pointed up my Byzantines, Romans, Gauls, Huns and LIR to use with Warhammer… It just didn't do it for me… and I went back to WRG6th, which I had preferred. I found that DBx was even better, but it still lacked elements that I preferred…

Some of the WAB players at Conquest even admitted to preferring Warrior to WAB, only it was so hard to find opponents for anything but WAB right now, which was not always the case.

As far as playing Hoplon… It hasn't been all that hard to convince them. Had I any copies of the rules with me at Conquest I would have been able to sell two copies on the spot. Not everyone who plays some games think that they are the best to be playing. They just happen to have a much more flexible attitude than I. I will play WRG6th, I will play Warrior, I would probably even play DBM(M) if I had the right army (there are some armies I will not play with in DBM(M)), but I just don't like playing WAB… Given that, and the fact that none of my armies are based for it (most of my 25mm figures are mounted on 15mm frontages, 4 to a base/element – in other words… For Hoplon/Warrior/DBx), it is unlikely that i could play it even if I wanted to. (I also have no pair of opposing armies with the same basing standards)…

Iowa,

Have you decided anything in regards to Hoplon?

Judas,
I will be giving Hoplon a look, just got through with another round of orders, so it will probably be a couple weeks. Just ordered MoA last week so I'm hoping to playtest the two at the same time.

How good is WAB you ask?

WAB is like having sex with Paris Hilton. Either you love it, or she's just too skinny. But it is always fun.

Caesar

Iowa Grognard says:

"The optional magic items I refer to were mentioned in the other post where I was inviting discussion on rules that fit a certain number of criteria. As some are plausible based on myth and legend I suppose one could state them more as magic-lite items as some people prefer to soften the blow with the word "mythical"."

Now who is not being honest? Someone mentions some items on a single supplements "optional rules section" which he thinks are more mythical than historical and you turn that into "….WAB and its optional magic items".

Sarissas wielding Carthagenians? Greek staff slingers? Wow you are right!! That's WAB magic!

BTW, did you not latch on to the fact that some of the comments you took to heart in that other thread were just plain wrong? Probably not since they backed up your misconceptions.

Ralph

As Justin spract:
"DBM roll dice for how many moves you are allowed to make.

Piquet pick cards for moves you can make.

Warmaster, roll dice to see if you can move"

-----> These are the apparently "historical" methods of command and control in ancient games. I do not like to comment on other games, especially games that I don't care for. I simply don;t play them, I don't go on a DBM thread and talk down their game, I don't complain about Warrior which seems to be a fine game, and I don't know enough about Hoplon so I don't comment on them.
WAB players don't need to defend WAB by attacking other games.

I find it amusing that folks have to pop their cherries by attacking WAB.. what is the thrill?

Is it a thrill to have folks that play WAB say things like they don't care about command and control? That they don't need to roll dice to see if they move (except in some cases), that they don't need to turn over cards to make the game more historical?

WAB is a stand alone toy soldier game.. that's it… it's played on tables, with edges, and the toy soldiers are the focus. You use dice and rulers and inches to play the game. Folks that have played for a short time don't need the rulebook to figure out most game actions.
If that's not your cup of tea then so what?
JeffJ

And the command and control is left to the player, which is just as satisfactory a way of modelling it as arbitrary, simplistic mechanisms.

If you think that a WAB player is in total control of his tabletop army, you simply don;t know how the game is played.

Allen

I'd say WAB is quite a decent game, it has some flaws but while I will play the occasional game of DBX, I never warmed up to them either.

I rank WAB among the "Ok, I guess" rulesets, but it lacks the inspired mechanics of a game like Warmaster, which is in my own completely subjective opinion, the better game. It's a mix of completely unhistorical, very shrewdly historical and fun that plays reasonably fast and looks nice in 10mm.