"Warmaster Ancients-Pro's and Cons, please!" Topic

Gents;

I've recetnly seen a lot of support for these rules from players. The reviews I've read are a bit of a mixed bag. Positives-Command and Control; Negatives-Bad Army lists, Knights chasing off light horse, skirmisher issues. Would you all mind giving me your honest opinions of your experiences with Warmaster Ancients? Pros and Cons. Thanks in advance.

Dave
miniwars.com

In no particular order, and based on limited playing:
Pros:
Straightforward set of rules
Command and control system
Simple, coherent combat system
Fast resolution – you will complete a decent sized game in an evening
Command and control system

Cons:
Little differentiation of troop types. If you believe that the 1stC BC pila was superior to the 2ndC AD pila, then this is not your set of rules
Army lists – relatively limited in the book, but there is plenty of material out there to build or improve upon them
Skirmisher-Light Horse issues – I didn't come across serious problems, but I have heard others muttering about this

There has been a lot of grouching about Skirmishers I agree, but like advocate I have not come across the problem myself. I have noticed there is not a lot of 'riules issue discussion' on the Yahoo group other than this issue.

More 'vague' pros and cons;

Pro
– armies form, a battle line, and the rules encourage this – the tabletop thus 'looks' right. There is nothing to stop a player dashing a unit off out of the line, but they will come 'tumbling back pretty soon'

– Rules not written in the usual Warhammer way – they are in something approaching order, and are cross-referenced. (By no means ALWAYS the case).

Cons

- Very abstract – a level of abstraction closer to DBA than DBM.
- Some of the army lists do not appear to have been thought through very well.

Pat

pros

Plays fast( unless your opponant is Dave Simpson)
easy to learn
rules written in English.
Combat is quick and clean. No charts, tables or stacks of modifiers.

Cons

No movement restrictions, heavy infantry seem to dance around the table with few limitations.

Can be frustating watching your force do nothing.

Lack of period feel or army differentiation. Heavy Infantry function the same, if you want Hoplites to be different to Legionairies or Vikings, you may find this frustrating.

Lack of period feel or army differentiation. Heavy Infantry function the same, if you want Hoplites to be different to Legionairies or Vikings, you may find this frustrating.

Same can be said of DBx games as well. Does a Swiss "blade" fight the same as a Roman "blade"? Clearly not.

John
Yes it's true of other rule sets, and in particular DBX – but it's still true that many people will take this as a 'downside' to DBX, Warmaster, and any other set of rules that takes this approach.
To be honest, any set of rules that has to cover 3000 years of history (or more) is going to do a lot of this sort of thing. It might be possible to differentiate between the Swiss and Romans in your example, but do we have the data to distinguish (for example) between Gallic and Galwegian warbands? I prefer the basic rules to be basic, and I'll add specific period chrome on myself; but not everyone is happy with that option.

"Little differentiation of troop types. If you believe that the 1stC BC pila was superior to the 2ndC AD pila, then this is not your set of rules"

This may be true but were they equally as effective against the opponents they faced in each period? Putting that much variation in would need hundreds of lists or variables.

It strikes me that this isn't much of an issue till you get to the "My Vikings should be able to whip your Sea People" type of arguement.

I guess what I am looking for, is if there is anything in the rules that just does not pass the 'smell test'. That would leave you scratching, saying to yourself, 'That just doesn't seem right!' I can live with abstraction, since my interests are more from an army command level as opposed to a tactical role-playing skirmish type of game.

The only time I've heard of problems with skirmishers is when there's a great mis-match driven by army composition. If you're on the bad end, you're forced to take all the skirmishers you can, and manuever your force around in "skirmish-busting" task groups.

That said, I haven't personally been on the receiving end of such a mismatch — the only one I've heard of is Late Romans vs. Huns, where the Huns have a significant advantage in Skirmish Cavalry.

To me, the greatest con would be the pricing, if paid full retail, and the relatively few army lists included for a game so vast in scope.

Other than that, all the past observations are a bit subjective, as many games have many players with different styles and tastes.

The level of abstraction, for example, works for the size of the games intended and the need to play the game in a reasonable time. The "generlization" of units is typical fare when compared to other games, as it has been pointed out by John.

Finally, a pet peeve of mine is the Movement issues, also pointed out before. But it has been so since Warmaster's original release… I just couldn't justify a unit of Elf cavalry to keep going on and on and on, pulverizing orcs like they were mere gingerbread men. I tweaked a bit, and all of my regular opponents liked the idea (just two command rolls per unit and the need to rally after the onslaught came to a pause).

All in all it's a fantastic game, with really great things about it and a few tweakable "faults"… but hey! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm with Javier, the go-cart mobility is an issue that is pretty ahistorical. It's better than the original ruleset though.

There's nothing wrong with the skirmisher rules in my opinion, one can develop effective counter tactics with some experience and the right force mix. But a horde of Hun skirmish cavalry will and should be hard to come to grips with unless terrain helps you.

The other complaint I hear is that there is a lot of dice rolling. Personally, I think that's okay since it tends to even out the bad rolls. But you may be rolling 30+ d6s at a time, followed by saves, etc..

WMA is an excellent game to play, it's lots of fun and I think a really great value for money even though the book is pricey. But I think there are games that are better historical simulations if that is what you are after (e.g. Vis Bellica see our thoughts in a recent AAR TMP link

sorry for the typo, this link should be to the VB AAR if you are interested

TMP link

Having played a dozen or more games only, I find it very much a line up, charge in a mass, and kill enough enemy in a bound to end the game. To me, very unsatisying, rather like a big meal that does not fill you up. Some of the mechanics are good, but it seems a dice rolling exercise.

The complaints about the movement system seem wierd, perhaps people are thinking about Vanilla Warmaster.

A specific unit can only take 3 commands per turn, combat can only go 2 rounds per turn.

This is a significant change from the original, where there was no limit.

Thanks for catching that, Coyote. I knew there was something wrong with that particular criticism, but I haven't played WMA recently enough to have caught it.

(Nothing to do with the game — more to do with my opponents, who are scalists.)

"(Nothing to do with the game — more to do with my opponents, who are scalists.)"

Curious…what do you mean by this? By the way, I enjoyed your AAR using VB. I have the rules, so will re-read them again.

The Coyote correctly notes that limits on the number of moves were brought in for WMA. But a cavalry unit that receives 3 successful orders then wins combat could conceivably move 110cm in a single turn (3 moves of 30cm plus a 20cm advance or even a 30cm pursuit). It still seems a lot to me, but that's just my opinion. It's still a fun game.

We use WMA for our LOTR campaign, and while the review is not 100% positive, I find that splitting units into commands under specified leaders makes for a more interesting game.

napnuts.blogspot.com (scroll down to WOTR games)

>> But a cavalry unit that receives 3 successful orders then wins combat could conceivably move 110cm in a single turn

Given the command ratings of most armies, the modifiers to the rolls etc that isn't really all that likely.

It is possible but a lot less likey than it was with original Warmaster where Elven generals would routinely walk blocks of cavalry around the board on a whim.

To my mind the three command limit and the two rounds of comand have saved the game and I've actually finishing packing up all the Warmaster armies as I will only be playing the Ancients variant.

That said, WMA has been my entry into Ancients gaming so I'm coming into the debate with a different context than most of you I think.

>> We use WMA for our LOTR campaign

You mean WOTR right :-)

I was trying to see where you had Lord of the Rings games on your site.

I have SEEN cavlry unit ALMOST manage the holy 110cm move – they passed tow command rolls, charged and won. But the thing people miss with this is that in WMA aunit in that position is almost always dead meat… it was 'out of command ' and, facing the wrong way, was not able to react on initiative. Result – death at hands of enemy.

At first we went 'hmmm that smells – no unit is simply gonna sit there – this system does not work!' but then realised that we had done something with a unit that was very silly. A tumble dryer is not MEANT to explode into a thousand pieces, but if you drop it out a 10th story window it will. That does not mean Tumble Dryers do not work. Any cavalry unit that goes haring off into the distance leaving the infantry behind is asking for it.

Pat

I see mention of an October release for "Warmaster Ancient Armies" which I expect is a companion book with new armies. Not sure if this is a broader selection of ancients or perhaps pushes WMA past the current 1066 end point.

Bob in Edmonton

it's a broader selection of armies… some quite odd. Has anyone else heard the clamour for Merotics?

pat

"Having played a dozen or more games only, I find it very much a line up, charge in a mass, and kill enough enemy in a bound to end the game."

Well that can happen, though I like them a lot. The salvation of Ancients for me personally. Hadn't played for years until WMA came along.

Far more enjoyment than WAB if you like Command and Control, rather than just chucking dice.

As for the above comment, well sad to say there were an awful lot of ancients battles that were really like that. Cannae didn't happen every week!

For example, I think boiled down to basics Gaugamela fits that number very nicely and nobody says Alexander was rubbish!

[…]more to do with my opponents, who are scalists.

In this sense, "scalist" is somebody who doesn't like playing with certain scales. My friends will play pretty much any game — so long as it's 28mm, and 1 model = 1 combatant. 10mm blocks of troops turn them off, for no good reason.

Hence, "scalist". (I don't hold it against them. I can't see going larger than 40mm, or smaller than 5.)

I enjoyed your AAR using VB.

Uh … thanks?

Either I'm not making the right connection with the abbreviations, you're confusing me with someone else, or The Bug has put my name on something really cool that I'd like to claim. ;)

Ha! Re-read the thread.

It looks like the praise should go to DColtman.

I played WM a few times and just can't get into it. All games are matter of personal taset and for me WM just totally lacks any character or feel. In essence most troops seem to fight the same and I don't, for instance, see much point point in having more than one cavalry and one infantry heavy army for it. In particular, for the period I'm keen on, there's not a lot separating Imperial Roman Legions from their earlier Republican counterparts (except the former are hampered by their armour for movement which in the end seems to imply they'll be worse not better than Republicans).

Not for me at all but I can see why a lot of people do like it, the command and control is good. It's just not a game I can be bothered to waste time playing.

I'm also with Javier about movement. The very flexible rally move was a real problem in the game I played (I should say I did only play once).

Also, it was a multiplayer game, and the fact that only one person was active at a time, made it a bit slow relative to games where both players on a side move simultaneously.

Simon

The C&C is good, but I tend to think Mr Solo has the key comment – a certain level of abstraction is good for different troop/weapon types in this period, but these rules may be a bit too far.

Put another way, there is hardly any of the "paper/scissors/stone" element that makes the DBx rules interesting, and so the choice of armies, or the rationale to collect lots of them, or give them a different "feel" whilst playing is largely missing.

tim
madaxeman.com

it's a broader selection of armies… some quite odd. Has anyone else heard the clamour for Merotics?

pat

———> No I have never heard of Merotics.. but I have heard of the Theban Meroitic kingdom established formally in 207 BC (as I recall) down the Nile. Basically these were the later Kushites allied with Egyptian rebels after the battle of Raphia, so in effect they are a combined Ptolemaic aka successor Kushite/Nubian army.
So Pre-Islamic Sudan is also descriptive.
I concur that the demand is even less keen for 10mm Meroitics than 28mm ones….:)
JeffJ

wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meroitic

or for even more info:
numibia.net/nubia/meroe.htm

It is true that WMA plays at a relatively high level of abstraction, but that does not exclude differences in army character.

The basic distinctions I see are between infantry hord armies, smaller elite infantry armies, light cavalry armies and heavy cavalry armies.

Each of these armies plays differently and requires its own strategies and tactics. Additional variety is provided by quality and number of commanders and specialized troop types.

Of course there will be less differences between say a Saxon and a Viking army, but this to me is as it should be historically.

Personally I think they're an excellent set of rules. They do abstract some elements, such as movement rates, but the overall 'feel' is great. They are, for me, far more enjoyable than DBX.
I also find the statement that only two types of armies are needed a bit confusing. Even a brief look at the army lists shows a wide variety of troop types, with plenty of options to upgrade or downgrade units.
For example, I'm always using the bodyguard and elite options presented in the rules, but I use the conscript and militia options far more. I always like the look on my opponents face when he realises that my superbly painted Palatine Legion is actually a paper tiger and it's the scruffy veterans he should have been worried about. It's nice to have that option without having to re-write the rules.

I agree about the variety of troops available in the game. If there is a drawback to the rules it's that the difference between troop types is not immediately apparent. Only after playing do you get a sense of how small changes in armor or attacks can have dramatic effects on play style.

Why don't you try Might of Arms? It's a pretty straight-forward rules system, and has 150 army lists in it covering biblical up through 1400-1450. It uses fatigue points (same basic thing as wounds) to force morale checks to remove stands. The best part is that the rules are only $15 USD USD plus shipping. Our group uses them, although I must say that I never heard of them until I joined my current gaming group.

Maybe because the CnC rules are nothing like Warmaster. Perhaps piquet would be a closer match. I think MOA is a good set. But pretty different from WMA.

Thanks,

John

One of the things that gets me about WMA is the use of only three stands per unit.

I have experimented with using 2, 4, and 6 stands per unit, and I have found that the rules still work… In fact, I think that they can work better.

It would require altering a LOT of army lists…

So far, what I have found is that in a Polybian Roman Army, having the Hastati and Princeps in units of 4 and the Triarii in units of 2 has worked well.

In a Macedonian Army, having the Phalanx in units of 4 also seemed to work well.

I would love to try out a Gallic army with the Warriors in units of 6 (or maybe 5), or a Hun army with variations in their unit sizes…

One of the biggest "Pros" to the game is the way that the troops look… I really like the 10mm massed look of the game. I kind of wish that I could afford to do 15mm armies mounted on 30x60 stands… THAT would look good too.

Still.. I have not been able to play it enough to really have a feel for what the game can really offer. I am still working on finishing my two armies as well (Macedonian and Polybian Roman). I may throw a Parthian Army and make myself some Camillan Princeps so that I can morph the Macedonians into either Seleucids or Pyrrhic (I would need some elephants for that)…

I also think that the game is decent for getting new blood involved in ancients or historical miniatures… It is a pity that I did not see more WMA at Historicon this last year though… I was thinking that there would have been a LOT more of it that there was…