"Warmaster Ancients and "Period Flavor"" Topic

I just picked up Warmaster Ancients and have been reading through the rules. I like what I see so far. One of the criticisms of the game is that it somehow lacks period flavor. I'm not quite sure what folks mean when they say this about WMA. All of the parts that you might expect from an Ancients game are there. Skirmishers, light cavalry, pike phalanxes, evading, disorder (confusion) etc…

So why do some folks find the game without flavor?

Our group likes this set of rules and helped provide the enthusiasm for us to paint seven armies so far! We just did a massive 2,000 points per side battle between Romans and Seleucids which everyone enjoyed and completed it in around three hours, even with a ton of figs on the board. Ancients is one of those areas in gaming that is subject to a lot of interpretations, with the difference being expressed in almost religious zealousness! My advice is to find a set of rules that you like and stick with it as trying to come to some kind of consensus about ancient rules is never going to happen in our lifetimes…

Some related discussions here:
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link

Cheers,
Scott

I think that a lack of period flavor is a weak criticism and probably comes from WAB players who are used to detailing what every single legionary is equipped with (nothing against WAB).

There are some gamey things in the rules, as in all rules. The supplements address these pretty well. The yahoogroup is filled with ideas and Rick Priestly provides a lot of support there and through his website.

I came upon it through a recommendation and wasn't really interested in the game or the scale (6mm). Turns out, I love both.

My friend and I played our first game of WMA a few months ago. It was a 1000 point game recreating the Battle of the Granicus (based loosely on the Peter Sides book). We both thought the rules captured the flavour of ancients, could see the historical issues faced by both sides and why they deployed the way they did. Don't be put off by what you might read. Loads of fun and period feel!

It might be because the core combat mechanic is that units have a fixed number of attacks and saves – neither of which vary* depending on who they are fighting against.

This means there is no flavour in terms of "my spearmen are better for holding off enemy cavalry than my guys with swords" or "bowmen will be more effective at shooting cavalry than infantry". Your good troops are simply your good troops – irrespective of who they are matched up against.

Other than that, the command and control is not to everyone liking but it adds flavour by the bucketload!

* other than for a very few special rules

The game, from my "I haven't played" perspective, seems to capture this sort of warfare at a high level. It is an army game after all so much of the weaponry detail is going to be lost.

On the down side…

Units have the ability to change formation to column. Formation changing did not seem to be a significant feature of Ancient or Medieval warfare. There are some examples of a Phalanx marching onto the field and not being able to deploy quickly enough (Cyanocephala) or getting deployed in the nick of time (Beneventum). In both cases, formation change was a liability. Roman system flexibility is a notable exception.

That's really the only dig I see on the system as well as, perhaps, "my spears aren't better than your cavalry" as Madaxeman says above.