"How do you think of WAB and WAB like games?" Topic

While I'm saying WAB like games, i mean like, War&Conquest, Kings of War, Clash of Empire,etc. Those games use individual bases and "Hit, Wound, Save" system.

Compare with DBx bases games, WAB like games are more like skirmish games. But i have to admit that skirmish games and 28mm are the future trend. So, do you like WAB like games? And why?

So far i'm working on my own rules and i've made great changes for several times. individual bases seems much more better than DBx bases. It's easy to represent a siege, put soldiers on the war or in the house. With DBx bases, i don't think so. But i don't want make another WAB so i need to hear some opinions.

Thank you!
Frank

put soldiers on the war, sorry, wall

Never been a real fan of the "hit-wound-save" system. Right now I'm using Lion Rampant which is individual bases & enjoy it.

I am fine with the "hit, wound, save" system because it allows for more granularity of the odds when so many games only use d6's. For some reason, miniature games are reluctant to use the full range of dice--Piquet does, for example, and some like Fire & Fury substitute a d10 for the d6, but by and large mini games use just the d6.

I don't like the WAB system and find individual basing and the removal of such to be both annoying and aesthetically unpleasing. I do not agree Frank that individual basing is the way of the future. Quite the opposite. There was a lengthy subject months back about how large multi base DBx basing was the way of the future. This is the basing of Impetus and TTS and some other newer game systems. Personally I love the look of Impetus games, the large bases that have a dioramic look and the ease of set up and take down of games. Never going back to single bases or even DBx basing.

I like both WAB and Impetus. I have armies for both. The two systems allow me to play games at pretty much any level I would like.

I am fortunate to have the resources to be able to build both systems, BUT, that doesn't mean you have to choose one or the other. Were I to start over again, I'd build all my forces with individually based minis, and use larger movement trays when required for, say, Impetus. With a little esthetic effort, movement trays, or sabots can br produced to match the basing on the minis that blend everything together nicely.

WAB is still a great system, with much to recommend it. Impetus is a grand system as well, and I also enjoy Lion Rampant & Dux Bellorum. Betweenthose 4 sets,I can play at about any level I would like.

But I do have to add that whoever claims that single-basing and skirmish games are the wave of the future really isn't well versed on the hobby, nor especially it's history.

My thinking is that one should play the role of a certain command level. If that level is that of a general, then individual basing is a bit silly. Abstract anything of too much detail. As an example: a general cares if his left flank is buckling (more appropriate for unit basing), not if Pikeman #4278 just took an arrow to the face (more appropriate for individual basing).

I don't like them simply because I want my games to be rather large – too many sets of rolls for a single event seriously slows everything right down. They might be better for more skirmish level games, but I don't play those…

Takes me back to the days of WRG 3rd edition and such, just no casualty charts and record keeping. Back in 'those days' we based figures in multiples with one base of 'change' – single and/or double bases that allowed you to remove one casualty at a time.

Kind of wish WRG had kept that sort of system, it might have kept the current rot at bay with every rule set seeming to demand its own set of bases with differing numbers of troops, so no ability to try out someone else's rules without ripping up your existing armies.

, YogiBear.

My only problems with WAB was that armies broke up to operate as a series of individual blocks and there was no effective morale system. Easy enough to solve of course.
Figure removal allows for attrition damage rather than the DBx style 100% or 0% effectiveness.
Check out my rules (The Die is Cast) which allows for individual figures or elements depending on the players choice.

I like minis individually based at 28mm scale and 15mm for unit based games. That said, if I'm playing a unit based set of rules in 28mm, I'll use my individually magnetized based minis set on larger metal bases. Hope that made sense.

To add to what Mike from Rellic said, lately for very large battles I've taken to using dice or some marker for wounds – helped with the aftermath.

DBX system is good for command and control, but I'm not the first to note that it's a bit like a chess or checkers game.

I do like Clash of Empires – it's a little "crunchy" until you get into a rhythm, but I do like the extra clarifications that go beyond WAB. I like CoE better than WAB, even though lately my Romans have a hard time winning (the pilum is not the weapon of mass destruction that it is in WAB). Beating the Seleucids lately has been challenging.

Played lots of Warhammer and WAB but always tired of the hit/damage/save slow resolution system. Hate moving figures one by one so everything becomes a mass of guys held down by magnets on a big clumsy base. As noted no battle lines no real breakthoughs no command control (what generals actually do).

DBX solves all this with multi-mounted 60mm bases for (25mm), command control battle lines nice interaction between troop types etc. But it can seem a bit abstract (at first). Not intented for skirmish (for true skirmish try modified Blood and Plunder). Makes for a great medieval battle with a minimal fuss. Attrition as rarely important until a unit (or army broke) and is from a simiulation standpoint a waste of time (but gives players something to keep track of which seems to keep them happy).

Drawback is that its pereieved as a 15mm game – not the wave of the future – its not really and plays great in 25mm but the designer (and some players) are a bit old fashioned in this regard. Rules hard to read (though you might want to give Knights and Knaves a try as an easier intro).

TomT

Kings of War doesn't use figure removal and use big bases that you simply mark hits on.

I am moving to large bases for all my games now – after changing my WAB armies over for To the Strongest….

Mike

I must say I prefer large bases, from an aesthetic perspective. I was going to say that I don't much like games with a "Hit, Wound, Save" system, but then I realised that is what I used in TtS! (just at a unit level rather than a mini level). So I probably do, after all. ;-)

Kings of War makes you keep track of losses on paper or with markers – takes we back to WRG 7th and why I quit playing that system. (KOA also lacks command control, battle lines, interactive turns or melee etc.) I would prefer removing figures to keeping paper/marker records for each hit.

TomT

Kings of War is moving right away from the individual-based figure format. Many players place figures on a single unit base and create diorama style bases. Often with integral casualty counters or dice holders. I think it's a really clean, simple and effective method.

Hit-wound-save works for 40K, but not for Horse and Musket. You mean my AWI Continentals get an armor save?

Hit wound save can work at a unit level in later periods. La Garde take a blast of canister (are hit), but their superb drill (they succeed in making a modified save) enable them to shrug off its effects (no disorder).

I'm trying to imagine how that would work, Simon. Did their superb drill extend to a canister evasion manoeuvre? Was it like an early version of the Time Warp?

'Alors, mes enfants – mark your canister ball! Now… jump! (to the left or right as appropriate).

I have always envisioned the 'Hit..wound..save" system as you hit the target. You roll to see how many "wounds" you caused. Now you roll for the severity of those wounds.

Some wounds are fatal, some are serious and will remove the individual from the unit for medical treatment. others will wound, but not to the extent to require immediate medical assistance, or anything more cursory than a quick bandage, etc.

I don't have any problem with such a system regardless of the era being played.

Hi Henry; nope I mean the battalion is hit by the canister but if they make the save, they shrug it off like the old grognards they were.

In a simple high level system, at the unit it's not essential to record casualties; just whether the unit is in good order, is disordered or is running to the rear.

I personally like individual basing and casualty removal, in ranked up units.

- My games are 'small battles'… As in have individual ranked up units, but I'm not pretending they are representing huge armies of tens of thousands of troops.
- The rules I use (my own) are flexible and I use them for both 'skirmish' and 'mass battle' style games. Any unit can be in open or close formation. Obviously the size of game I am playing, and the sort of terrain layout, will determine whether units are ranked up or not.
- I can arrange my models into all sorts of units, and I'm always mixing them up into different configurations, also changing all the time as I paint up new stuff.
- Though individual casualties does in a way add an extra level of complication to the game, in balance my rules aren't bogged down with rules for different weapons, special abilties, etc.
- The granularity of unit sizes does mean numbers really do matter. I am often having to do head-counts to see which side outnumbers the other and by how much (i.e. by 50%, or 2:1, or 3:1 or more), but I'm happy to do that. It leads to some realistic outcomes I feel.

Obviously I use movement trays / unit bases. I have LOADS of them all painted up so whatever formation I want to put a unit in, I have the right tray handy. Also casualty removal means it leaves some big black squares in the unit… but I've also prepared lots of 'empty' bases to fill the spots left by casualties! They work well and look good.

I like the visual appeal of units losing men, rather than being at full strength until they all vanish… And the effect this has on their fighting capacity. My philosophy behind my games is you should be able to look at the table and see what's happening, what strength the forces are at, etc… Rather than having to ask "how many hits is that unit on?". If one side is giving the other a real beating and their previously nice big unit shave taken heavy casualties, and they are now significantly outnumbered, and their battle line all messed up… I want to see that just by looking at the game.

So yeah, I'm all in favour of individual bases, if the are done right and the rules suit them. I don't mind removing casualties.

As for hit/wound/save…. I admit it's a bit silly. I just have a hit / save system. Attacker rolls to hit, then defender rolls to save these hits. I do like having the defending player being the one to roll to save his troops. But having a third stage in between the two is a bit pointless I think.

My rules did originally start out as a modified WAB, though as time went by I made some drastic changes, and now I think they are entirely different… Though a few things remain that WAB players would find familiar, like the combat result system (casualties + bonuses to determine winner).

Someone did mention not liking how in WAB units all act as individual blocks. I agree entirely, I hate it when games descend into random blocks all over the table doing different things. My rules give significant advantages to lining your units up in a battleline, as in actually touching side-by-side. Basically if you put two units side-by-side they more or less act as one big unit, so you'd be attacking a unit of 50 rather than a unit of 25 with another unit sitting nearby watching the action. So the rules favour tight battlelines rather than random blocks all over the place. Much more aesthetically pleasing.

For all the criticisms levelled against it the Black Powder rules stable does handle support quite well.

I have used my WRG based figures to play WAC and it was fun. Just use a a red d6 to track hits. Once it reaches the number of hits equal to a stand, remove a stand. But yeah, I prefer BBDBA for big battle purposes. I don't feel like I am commanding a battle in WAB inspired rules. I want command and control and units being either combat effective or not.

@Henry Martini

I think Hail Ceaser (I prefer to modify the command and control rules) provides a very fun and fast game that feels like a battle.