"Anybody try WARRIOR:Rules for Ancient & Medieval Period" Topic

[WARRIOR:Rules for Ancient & Medieval Period This is the long awaited revised and made readable WRG 7.0 Ancient Rules.]

Has anybody tried this rules set out yet?

How does it compair to DBX/WAB?

Are the Basing rules compatiable with DBX?
(tell you the truth this is a biggie for me, I just bought
a bunch of nice pre-cut bases)

BTW
I've got to say as someone that hasn't played any Min. since
WRG 6th, the schism between the DBX and WAB camps is as deep as anything I've seen since the MAC/PC "wars" of the 80's.

Do you guys allow intermarrige? What if my dad is a DBXer and my mom is a WAB, where would I go to buy bread ;-)
Kinda fun to read this stuff as a disinterested party.
(as long as no bones are broken)

I'm pretty sure WRG WAS the basis for basing the DBx family. It was a very difficult game to master back in the 80's. WRG was the pioneer for "points", extra weapons,troop types,banners,leaders,ally generals and troops allowed under said generals,you name. GW got those ideas from WRG.I'm going into 28mm, DBx basing is out of the question so I'm going to try Vis Bellica.

I believe that there is a discussion group for these rules at www.groups.yahoo.com

I have been playing Warrior for over a year and like it MUCH more than DBX - there is more historical simulation and less "rock paper scissors". BTW they are a continuation of the old WRG 6 rules, and the basing is almost identical to DBX (their roots all came from the same place - WRG rulesets).

The writers are very responsive to any questions you might have - just go to the Warrior Rules discussion group at Yahoo.

We give it two thumbs up here....

The Addresses are:

fourhorsemenenterprises.com

link

Actually, they are a cleaning up of 7th edition, a very different puppy. Basically, they have translated it into English.

They have also grabbed the bull by the horns regarding the current crop ov oversized "25mm" figures, and introduced a "30mm" basing scheme on their webpage. This makes WAB and Warrior completely compatible. If only DBX would follow that lead. Anyway, my Redoubt Trojans fit very nicely on these bases, and I can play both WAB and Warrior with absolutely no artificial tinkering.

I have alerted the Warrior Yahoo group to this topic, so missionaries should be showing up soon.

Warriors has been around for several years. It is very popular in the Kansas-Missouri area where they did most of the playtesting. Since Jake from Silver Eagle has moved to the East Coast, he is playing often in that region as well.
They have been conducting Warrior tournaments was quite a while now in the USA.

In regards to old WRG, I began with FOURTH edition in 1977 and it and Fifth are still some of the best at representing weapons vs defensive Armor vs troop types. It is great for seeing the blood flow (counting hits). About the time of Fifth edition is when they changed from 30mm width to 40mm width for 15mm castings. It was difficult to get 4 castings on a base or even 3 mounted. This is when the DBx basing began to become standard.

Mr Barker should have considered changing the name with WRG Sixth edition as it was toyally different than the prior editions. At least they did change the name when the DBA/DBM came out.

As said above, Warrior is a revision of 7th edition WRG, and esp. revised for clarity and such. The army lists books are heavily revised and updated. It is growing in popularity, with quite a turnout at Historicon this last year (which was mostly 25mm players, but my understanding from one of the authors is that Warrior is evenly split between 15mm and 25mm players). (BTW, The Four Horsemen bought the rights to the WRG series from Barker, so you could say it is an "official" revision.)

Yettie, your question about DBX basing compatibility: yes, completely.

I own the rules, and have purchased the army lists. However, I have not played them yet, for two reasons.

First, they are a set of rules which really need to be taught. One does not simply pick up the rulebook and start playing. The rules do require a fair amount of time and effort to learn. Where they are being played (e.g. Kansas City, there are gamers who are teaching the rules to other gamers.)

Second, no one locally is playing them, at least not at the local clubs and conventions. This means that there are no prospective teachers. It also means that there are no prospective gamers to play with.

But I do applaud their efforts to make the newer larger compatible figures usable with their rules.

A question based on the above.

Does this means you can base Warrior armies to be EITHER campatible with DBx, or (using the 28mm+ basing on the website) WAB?

Warrior has now replaced WRG7th in Australia. DBx is still played as well. one of the advantages of Warrior is that it also offers a FastWarrior game, which is played over 1.5 to 2 hours with predetermined army lists (286 or so separate armies included in the Rules). We have a tournament for FastWarrior here in Newcastle in a few weeks, with seven games over 2 days.

Note to Editor - could this Ruleset be added to the Ancient and Medieval rules set listings.

Warrior's usual basing scheme is for 15mm or 25mm. These are exactly the same as DBX. These 25mm based figures can be used to play with WAB, with adjustments. It is do-able.

If you use the optional "30mm" basing scheme on the 4 Horsemen website, you are then compatible with WAB in the suggested, BUT NOT COMPULSORY WAB basing scheme. the element length is now 80mm, versus the old 25mm standard of 60mm. (Yeah, I know. I've lost you. :^)) Thus, WAB cavalry, based on 25mm frontage, will fit 3 on an 80mm element. Cataphracts (SHC) in Warrior will put 4 on an element. At least they will fit now. This will give you a minor discrepancy, but line up 1:1 when fighting WAB. Warrior LC have 2 on an element, so will have a 40mm frontage. This may cause troubles.

Infantry will be a better fit. 4 close order infantry will fit on an 80mm element, perfect for WAB. 3 irregular LMI (WAB light infantry) will fit on 80mm vs 75mm for WAB. Skirmishers will fit 2 on 80mm, which is not a real problem.

The problem will be with Warrior tournaments. I have never heard of a "30mm" basing bracket. But if you want to be able to play Warrior and WAB, it works out. DBM does not have a "30mm" scheme that I am aware of, but I have not touched DBM in years, so they could for all I know.

[A question based on the above.

Does this means you can base Warrior armies to be EITHER campatible with DBx, or (using the 28mm+ basing on the website) WAB?]

This shows my ignorance I'm afraid...I have yet to play WAB
(I ordered a set today)In this light is it possiable to base(15mm) for DBX and play WAB as well?

BTW is Warrior just a revised WRG 7th or is it a distinct rule set?

With what I have heard I may well give WARIOR a try.

Warrior is the next step in the development of the WRG Ancients game system, which IMHO is the best tabletop simulation of Ancient and Medieval warfare ever to have been produced, for any scale, and for all styles of play.

While the game engine is essentially the same as WRG 7th, the Warrior rules clear up many ambiguities, provide many more diagrams and a comprehensive system of cross references, all of which serve to make the rules accessible and understandable, even for those who do not have access to a veteran gaming community. In short, the best has been preserved, and the worst avoided, with overall a significant improvement in playability and appreciation of the historicity implicit in the system.

Basing is the same as WRG and, for the most part, DBX.

There are actually numerous "cells" of Warrior gamers all across the US, Australia and, increasingly, the UK. By which I don't mean to slight Warrior gamers in other countries ... but this is the situs of most of the action these days. For additional information, go to fourhorsemenenterprises.com

Warrior has drawn greater numbers of gamers in the major US historical miniatures Con's in recent years than DBX, and is drawing back into the hobby a number of "old timers" who for whatever reason never jumped onto the DBX band wagon. (Nothing against DBX, but I find Warrior to be more rewarding.)

All of which I welcome, as an old board gamer who got into Ancient miniatures 18 years ago and never looked back (yes ... I taught myself WRG 7th without instruction), and an interested party in FHE. All I can say is, "give it a try ... you won't be disappointed."

I cringe whenever I hear a gamer claim that their favorite rules are a "simulation." Warrior is definitely one of the more complex rules out there. Complexity does not make it a simulation, it makes it -- complex.

I think the 30mm basing is a great idea.My armies are based for Warhammer.My sons and I play Armati D B A and Days of Knights all with 80mm frontage. If the 30mm thing catches on we may even play in the cons.There were a hell of a lot of guys playing Warrior at Historicon last year, but I think they were using the old basing. If they switch to 30mm base we might try Warrior also.