"Might of Arms and Ancient Warfare Rules?" Topic

I quite like the look of these rules. Can anyone who has played both give some indication as to the main differences and any reasons why you (accepting everyone is different) play one as opposed to the other?

Ancient Warfare's casualties seem to be unreal to me, very little death to be sure. I like Might of Arms, very good game and gives a better feel for Ancients and up through the Late Middle Ages. MOA's is also cheaper, Ancient Warfare is expensive for what you get and to get the entire system Ancient Warfare + AW Army Lists, Medieval Warfare + 2 Army List Books=$125.00 thats allot of cash for a game, might as well get Piquet! Might of arms is $15.00 and has all the lists in it, so all you need is the one book to play any time from Ancients to Late Medieval!

I concur on the Might of Arms. Good rules set. I have gone to Warrior Rules though. Even more depth and ability to use formations more. You won't save money with Warrior though. Each era/region has a book to go along with it. However, many army lists have army specific rules to model the army uniquely. The rules for Romans are very interesting. Far Eastern army lists are due next and the Samurai and Mongol lists are promissed to be very interesting as well. Very clearly written and indexed. More detail than MOA but we are trying to cover a few millenia here ;-)

http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com

Chris

Thanks. Which army lists cover Republican Romans and Carthaginians? Cost isn't a major problem. I have already collected a skip load of rules so another 1 or 2 won't hurt.

Empgamer,

The Warrior list (as mentioned by ancients gamer) which would cover republican romans and carthaginians has yet to be relieased. At least, last time I checked, it was scheduled for fall 2004. That would be "classical warrior."

You can play "Fast Warrior" lists for both of those armies using the lists in back of the core rulebook. This is like an overgrown "DBA," using the same rules as full scale warrior.

Classical Warrior army list book is the list for Republican Romans and such. You would use the old WRG 6th or 7th edition lists as they are compatible with Warrior. They will be supplanted by the Warrior lists when done. Here is a run down of the armies in Classical Warrior:

1 Italian Hill Tribes, 2 Skythian, 3 Early Hoplite Greek,
4 Estruscan, 5 Illyrian, 6 Thracian, 7 Lydian, 8 Saitic Egyptian, 9 Campanian, et. Al, 10 Lowland Italian,
11 Early Macedonian, 12 Etrusco-Roman/Tullian,
13 Early Achaemenid Persian, 14 Pre-Mauryan Indian,
15 Early Carthaginian, 16 Syracusan, 17 Late Hoplite Greek,
18 Late Achaemenid Persian, 19 Bithynian, 20 Camillan Roman,
21 Gallic, 22 Alexandrian Macedonian, 23 Alexandrian Imperial, 24 Asiatic Early Successor, 25 Lysimachid,
26 Macedonian Early Successor, 27 Seleucid, 28 Ptolemaic,
29 Samnite, 30 Pyrrhic, 31 Pergamene 263 BC – 129 BC,
32 Galatian, 33 Polybian Roman, 34 Later Carthaginian,
35 Bactrian Greek, 36 Numidian 215 BC – 25 AD,
37 Hellenistic Greek, 38 Later Macedonian, 39 Spanish,
40 Maccabean Jewish 168 BC – 104 BC

These lists are due out by Cold Wars 2005 so figure on March of 2005. Go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/warriorrules

You will se the latest discussions on the rules and lists.

Here is the manufacturer's site: http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/

Chris
San Antonio

I like the Ancient Warfare rules. They capture a lot of the feel of an ancient battle, without the complexity of Warrior.

With the demise of the the WRG rules, there was some debate about the direction ancient miniatures should go, particularly for those who did not like the DBx alternative.

From his own writings, the author of Ancient Warfare, Terry Gore, had some major beefs with the DBx system. However, he thought re-vamping WRG 7th was not the way to go either. He developed his own rules which kept a lot of the flavor of the WRG rules, but made substantial modifications. In particular, he added some "modern" innovations which have been seen in newer rules, like order chits. Also, his turn sequence is innovative and is a nice compromise between the simplicity of an igougo system and the realism of simultaneous movement. (It is really hard to get the latter to work right on the game table.)

The Warrior rules took the second approach. It is basically a cleaned up rewrite of the WRG 7th rules. The authors translated Barkerese into English. But it is basically the same rules which dominated the hobby 20 years ago. This makes it a nice alternative for those gamers who played 20 years ago, bemoaned the demise of the WRG rules, and never really accepted DBx.

Ancient Warfare and Warrior provide alternatives for those gamers who don't like DBx, and are turned off by the exaggerations of WAB.

I have not played MOW, and have no opinion on the rules.

Hmmmmmmm. Thanks for replies. May delay purchasing Warrior for a while then. Will give MOA and AW a thorough running before I buy yet ANOTHER set of rules.

Well, I have played both Warrior and Might of Arms. The flaws with Might of Arms are mostly fixed army lists and the fact that you can dismount knights and have them be costed as their dismounted counterparts rather than full cost.

Dismounted knights KILL everything in MOW; no kidding. If you are playing out of period, dismounted knights mow over every troop type in the game.

Warrior is NOT a rewrite of WRG 7th. It is actually a rewrite of 7.62. And you ask, what's the difference? Plenty as 7.62 changed a lot of things in WRG 7th such as 1.5 ranks of lancers counting in charges, arc of fire, LI have to recall when 40 paces from close or loose formation troops, etc. Lots of mechanics have changed.

Far from being "old-fashioned" the rules simulate a wide spread of history and allow reactions in most cases to what an opponent does in their turn. Movement is grand tactical to tactical allowing reaction to enemy movements. To those that still think Warrior is just a rewrite of WRG 7th; think again. My group is getting converts from DBM and this is happening in lots of other areas as well.

Yes, they are more detailed but the rules make sense and seem more realistic than any I have played. Tournament games resolve in most cases in 3 to 4 hours; on a par with DBM I would say.

I would buy both the Might of Arms and Warrior. In the long run, you will find Warrior to be more satisfactory IMHO but Might of Arms is cheap and has the army lists included. Also, I do have a copy of Medieval Warfare, I find it to be more "old-fashioned" than Warrior Rules. Others that have tried both Warrior and the Warfare systems seem to prefer Warrior based on my unscientific sampling ;-)

Chris
San Antonio

By the way, the Warrior Yahoogroup has more members than either the Warfare group or the Might of Arms groups. Don't know if this means anything but I do know that the Warrior group is growing every week at a steady pace. Can't say the same for the other rules mentioned. DBMM is leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. The last version of DBM seems to have disenchanted others as well. I find both of the DBM versions to abstract too much. If I want abstraction, I will play DBA or big battle DBA for an easy and fun game that doesn't take much time. If I want realistic results with extra detail in an evening or less, I will play Warrior hands down.

Might of Arms is fun too. The problem is that it is too easy to master and certain armies dominate too easily.

Chris
San Antonio

As usual, the best answer probably is to try a number of different rules. Most of the published sets are pretty good, and the most commonly used sets have plenty of support.

Each set of rules tends to have its own strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the strength is a mirror image of the weakness (e.g. Warrior is a more detailed game, but by the same token it has a steeper learning curve.)

I am in the school that one should play with many rules. Personally, I have too much of an investment in my figures to confine myself to one set of rules.

My usual caveat, however, is that someone has to teach me a new set of rules. This is (1) because I am lazy, and (2) if someone knows the rules well enough to teach them, then I have a guaranteed opponent.

I think I agree with this last post ;-)

Almost any rules set benefits from a teacher; DBA and DBM included by the way.

I guess it depends on how much you plan on playing and if you plan on playing for a long while. Beer and Pretzels games such as DBA are a blast if you don't worry about history too much. We played a bunch of games at a garage sale one day to pass the time. Very enjoyable but more of a parlor game if you know what I mean.

If you don't have someone to play against that is familiar with any rules set, your learning curve will be longer. Yes, Warrior has a steeper learning curve but the rules are clearly written and the author responds to questions within minutes usually (assuming you are on U.S. time). I think The MOA author does the same in a timely way.

Here is a list in order of popularity right now:

1. DBA
2. DBM
3. Warhammer Ancients
4. Warrior

Might of Arms, Armati, Warfare and others trail the popularity of the above rules sets (I may get flamed for this opinion but this is based on personal observations at conventions and numbers on the Yahoo groups. Funny enough, this order is from low to high in complexity ;-)

For other periods than ancients, I am trying to come up with one set of rules to play them all. For an area of high interest such as ancients, I decided to go with the more comlex set.

The learning curve is behind me with Warrior and I could not be happier with my decision. If you want Beer and Pretzels then fine. But I suspect you don't.

Find what they are playing in your area or within driving distance at least. Try their preferred set(s), if you are finding something missing, try something more complex or simpler depending on what you find lacking.

Look, any rules set is great as it gets you into the period and the hobby. Everyone has different wants out of a rules set. I have shared with you why I have a bias towards Warrior.

I have played the following:
1. DBA (okay for Beer and Pretzels)
2. DBM (Abstraction is not well balanced to complication of rules; ie there are better rules out there)
3. Warrior (Complex in some ways, a learning curve higher than others, believable outcomes and ability to use just about anything historical, can build army lists like YOU want to a certain extent, very good for in AND out of period inter-play)
4. Might of Arms (very clear, unit combat, cheap with army lists, dismounted knights rule so playing out of period is not balanced)
5. WRG 7th Edition (ever try to read run-on sentences?)
6. Tactica (big units, move straight ahead, roll well period)
7. Armati (better than Tactica but issues with movement. Deploy behind a unit and you will get hosed)

I have read or own the following and didn't like:
1. Ancient Empires (if you think Warrior is complicated, yikes!)
2. Shock of Impact (hmmm, not too bad but detail where its not needed; feint charges?)
3. Tactica
4. WRG 6th Edition (let's bang away and see what happens)
5. Archon (I'll take a card but I REALLY need this one :-)
6. Medieval Warfare (have you seen the combat sequence?)

There are my biases. Good luck and let us know if you have specific questions.

Chris

I have played all of the following at least twice: Warhammer Ancient Battles, DBA, DBM, 6th & 7th Edition WRG, Tactica, Armati, Advanced Armati, Might Of Arms, Universal Soldier, Ancient Hack, & A to Z ancients.
I have read through several others.
What I play now, Archon II (piquet). I had nearly stopped gaming altogether due to the same old, same old sets of rules ( in all eras).

Oh what the heck. I'll buy Warrior as well I think, why not, I have a book case full of other rules :-)

Interesting to see the points of view, esp re Warrior. MOA does seem nice and simple to learn but I suspect I may tire of predicatble outcomes if there is too much of that and the issue around super units (dismounted knights) worries me.

I will probably launch into warrior first, try MOA 2nd and then run AW 3rd. Doubtless I'll learn DBM because quite a few guys at the club play it but I have to say I don't relish learning it because of the way it's written and because of what for my taste is too abstract. Maybe DBMM will improve things???

And here was I thinking that my foray into Ancients would be a relatively simple affair compared to the complexities of the wide variety of Napoleonic rules :-( The numbers of Ancients rules I now posess outweighs the Naps by far.

That is where you are wrong. The Ancients gamers are just as contentious as the Napoleonic gamers, if not worse. We have our own silly arguments about what rules to use and how to base our figures. The only thing you won't hear will be complaints about the color of the facings. In fact, I am getting into Napoleonics because I find the politics of ancients to be rather tiresome.

For a less contentious period, try American Civil War. I think those gamers spend more time playing games than arguing about which rules to use. (If you stick with Johnny Reb and Fire and Fury, you will do just fine.)

Warrior is supported by a very active group of gamers with the blessing of NASAMW. The old WRG 7th players liked their game, so why wouldn't they gravitate to Warrior? Perry Gray and I helped Scott Holder with the Warrior army lists. Warrior has an appeal for all the competitive players who used to like the WRG tourneys but were not enthused by DBM. In fact, until Warrior came out, many gamers continued to hold WRG 7th tourneys at the major East coast cons.

Ancient Warfare and Medieval Warfare I have seen erroneously dismissed as a throwback. This is nonsense. Yes, if you like the hands on playing feel of WAB with much more chrome and period feel, our AW and MW rules may be just what you are looking for. Our games are fun, exciting, mentally challenging and yet finish in 3 hours or less on average. I take umbrage with the statement that the rules are not 'bloody' enough. A conclusion is often reached in two hours or less when 1/3 of an army is broken...plenty of casualties. At least play the game once before reporting on it.

Ancient Warfare and to some extent Classical Hack are tactical level games that work for historical simulations and histoical battles. AW has a tourneys following as well. Might of Arms is more an operational level of command and control. I played all three (along with just about everything else ever out there since Classic Warfare) and The first two are my level. The club I am in (of several I belong to) plays Might of Arms and I am sure Mike Hillsgrove will weigh in here as well. Join the yahoo groups figure out what you want them for and go for it. I do convention and club games based on historical battles and campaigns.
VR
James Mattes

Another strong vote in favor of Might of Arms. I've played MoA, WRG7, DBM, DBA, Armati (regular and advanced flavors), and Tactica, and in my opinion MoA is by far the best ancients set among those.

The drawbacks of fixed army lists and super units (dismounted knights) are easily addressed.

Bob Bryant (MoA's author) often points out that the army lists are there as a guideline. If you have a different opinion, change them. MoA is not dominated by a tournament mentality in which the army list are viewed as the gospel according to St. Game Author.

The dismounted knight play balance problem, I believe, has been adressed by an optional rule to have their points value fixed at their mounted level. I didn't pay much attention to it, as I don't play medieval much. It's probably on the MoA website and it's certainly in the archive of the discussion group.

Doug