"WRG 6th and Impetus" Topic

Had many great "realistic" games with WRG 6th until it became less colourful etc compared with Warhammer ancients etc.
Do these 2 rule sets share anything in general feel etc. IMHO WRG 6th was about skill in army makeup and setting up army to gain best advantage. There did seem more skill(WRG) involved rather luck. Perhaps I have just fond memories of early wargaming when everything was fresh???

Ah yes, WRG 6th, now those were the good old days. I'd spend hours on my list.

Then 7th came out and we all switched, then DBM/A and we switched again. The Warrior rules were next… which was really just 7th plus stuff. I gave up.

I'm doing Saga now though. Great fun.

I think WRG 6th are a great set of rules, the very fact that they are still played today speaks volumes. They weren't perfect, no set ever will be but if WRG 7th, DBMM and Field of Glory are "progress" you can keep it IMO. I think we've gone backwards in terms of both realism and fun.

Impetus are OK, they can be a little frustrating in the morale aspect, the results can seem very harsh and prone to the vagaries of chance. This can be greatly mollified by the 3 re rolls you are allowed to buy when making up your army list.

Hail Caesar are worth a look but they seem to be a set for people with lots of 28mm figures, a big table and the time to play scenario battles. I'm not convinced they are as good for "pick up" games on a club night but I'd need to play them more.

I think Saga are great too, I'm looking forward to beating the Irish on St Patrick's Day with my Norse Gaels.

Thank you, I think the "runtime error" thing with messages is back BTW.

With 6th ed you could tell how a game would progress and the outcome for about 80% of the time once armies had deployed.

7th ed had complex combat and troop-state mechanisms married to simple morale and command systems. It could have been improved by making the combat much simpler and making the orders system meaningful.

Both rewarded skill, you could tell by the fact the same people ended up the top end of competition results.

Take care

David B Brown

Impetus is much more fun game than either 6th or 7th because it is far less fiddley to play and less stressful as well. The permutations of melee outcomes covers a much greater range than the WRG sets. It means in practice that you go into melees with a hunch about the outcome but never certainty.

How I see it is WRG is more like chess and Impetus is more like backgammon. A good chess player will never beat a great chess player but in backgammon anyone can beat anyone (and that is true for armies as well.) The skill shows up over larger number of games. But if you can't stand the dice gods running the show far any particular game Impetus isn't for you.

I remember having some great 6th edition games they were a good set of rules for their time…certainly enjoyable. Things have changed for the better though I think some good rule systems out there now. Like Marcus my first choice is Impetus but we're lucky to have such a selection these days.

I think the "runtime error" thing with messages is back BTW.

I don't think it ever went away.

Do these 2 rule sets share anything in general feel etc.

From what I have seen I would say they are totally different.

I'd say Field of Glory is closer in spirit to WRG 6th than Impetus. It certainly reminds me of a streamlined 6th edition.

I don't know about 6th – I played WRG Ancients all the way from 2nd to 5th – I survived the days when 1 point Syrian irregular E class archers sat on hill sides in ranks eight deep – destroying enemy encroaching within their beaten fire zone with the efficiency of a missile battery. I still bear the scars of the famous Rhomphaia debate fought over the pages of Military Modelling. The phrase 'hostile Huns within 150 paces'still gives me the jitters.

The WRG rules were hugely influential and much copied in their day – and it would a strange thing indeed if some aspects of the game play didn't influence the design of the original Warhammer. But by the time we got round to producing Warhammer Ancients (based on 4th edition Warhammer)the genes were pretty dilute. However, the games are similar in overall concept – they facilitate similar sized games and a similar head-to-head approach. That's probably about it.

Many of the weapon bonuses and the way different weapons are treated in respect of range or opponent are ultimately derived from the way WRG treated those weapons. That may not have been unique to WRG at the time – of course. There are possibly some aspects of the way units manoeuvre and the way terrain is handled that derive – in concept at least – from the way these things were done in WRG Ancients (2-5th).

Some of the rules in very early Warhammer were actually drawn from similar mechanics in Tony Bath's Ancient rules that were published in Donald Featherstone's first Wargames book – a version of which was used as the official Society Of Ancients rules prior to the adoption of WRG rules. For example, the split move (Move/Missile/Move) – which mutated into the double 'March' move in Warhammer 4th and WAB. The combat dice roll mechanic in Warhammer is closer to the Tony Bath rules – but this was a fairly common mechanic in its day and was also used by contemporary role-playing games (contemporary to the development of Warhammer that is)- so it's hardly a specific instance.

I still have a soft spot for the WRG Ancient rules – they were a huge part of my growing up with wargames – together with the reference books pioneered by Phil Barker we really have a lot to thank the WRG team for.

Good points, Rick …

The main similarity, I think, between pre-DBx WRG and Impetus is the articulation of armies into (a relatively small number of) units as opposed to elements …

I think there is a strong affection shared by many of us for cohorts that look like cohorts (and so on …) …

Of course, the DB systems have 'units' – just the units are much smaller physical entities, the elements (so the army articulates into commands, then ad hoc groups, then elements) … I own up that I find this arrangement more convincing in the DBA/HottT variants than the 'cast of thousands' DBM/MM …

I am currently working on a (Basic) Impetus (with adaptations) version of Montaperti for the Society of Ancients BattleDay. I was quite impressed with how the simple combat and cohesion systems depicted Medieval combat in the Lance & Longbow Society game at Vapnartak – and it is working well for 13th Cent. Italy also.

I generally prefer unit to unit combat (as in Armati, Impetus etc.) to knocking off figures or elements anyway …

Phil
Ancients on the Move

By the way … (excuse the plug): the BattleDay is in Bletchley on the 29th and is open to all … follow the link above for more details –

OK, who sells Impetus in the US?

Out here in Darkest Arkansas, I can't even find DBA players.

Good point Rick about Weapon Differentiation/Bonus; It seems still to effect almost all Ancients games (Except now Phil calls it Troop Organization…), once you couple it to a points system, people will look for the advantaged types/armies.

Take a look at Might of Arms, seriously. Less confusion than the WRG rules IMO.
Takes of the best of WRG and makes the games easier to learn for newer players.

Have been working on the playtest of MOA 2 but admit to slacking due to having a new job that keeps me quite busy.

You will have to find the rules on the used marketplace though. Not sure, but I believe they are next to impossible to find at any online or offline retailers?

My favorite overall rules set to date. We stopped playing when Warrior came out. Should have stuck to them as any issues we had were easily fixed with one or two house rules (mainly heavy armouredinfantry with bow being quite the unstoppable force and being able to dismount the mounted to add to this troop type) . We had a limit on dismounting such troop types or forcing their point values to retain from the mounted state.

I have played WRG 6 through Warrior, FoG, Warmaster, DBM, Tactica, Armati (I &II), DBA and have read and fiddled with Impetus, Ancient/Medieval Warfare, Shock of Impact, Ancient Empires and some others I forget. Might of Arms is still is my favorite of all of these sets. I do like DBA for beer and pretzels. Impetus is okay too. Will admit to liking the more complicated sets as well. But if I were going to game with new gamers and have the best blend of what I like in the genre, Might of Arms is still it.

I would certainly not call 6th edition 'realistic'. Just because it says that unit A inflicted 27 casualties and its opponent only 25 that does not make it 'realistic'. It makes it detailed but that is a different thing.

IMO what a set of Ancients rules needs is a combat system where you can quickly and cleanly work out which side won a fight, here different troops don't all behave in much the same way and where there is some player involvement from a decisions standpoint in the combat. IMO no set of rules on the market manages all three of these.

WRG 6th fails on the quickly and to be honest is not great in the decision front. Impetus fails for me on the troop differentiation and also on combat decisions. FoG is a bit fiddly unless you know it well and also fails on combat decisions.

Where DBM was/is a great game is in the involvement of players in the combat process. While that is actually something that was largely out of the control of a historical commander it involved the players and is I think a significant part of the appeal of DBx. Personally I am burned out on DBx and have tried various other systems but none of them have really grabbed me with anything like the intensity DBM did.

Hmm, Ancientsgamer, you seem to know a lot! I bought Shock of Impact, WRG 7th and Armati as well as DBM many years ago (1990s). I ended up playing DBM by default but loved some of the rules in the other sets.

I have been absent from the gaming scene for over a decade (historicals) but am back in it with SAGA, British Grenadier, Muskets and Tomahawks, and Koenig's Krieg….but I really want to play a Seluecid army like I did back in the day (mid '90s) but not with DBM or DBMM.

A friend has Hail Caesar and it seems promising but the model requirement seems daunting. However, now that I am a big boy and make money and have more control over my time (retired Army) I am willing to do whatever it takes in miniature investments, as long as the game is realistic.

What I mean by realistic is that I always win, no matter what army I play, lol.

Anyway, if you can recommend a rule set that brings skirmishers into play the way the were really used, how all the various arms were used…..how the franks throwing axe could impact a charge…..allowing various formations as well as allowing different tactics to play out realistically.

I know no one is old enough to remember how they fought back then but I am looking for something that is representative of the way it was (as close as miniatures allow), not anything streamlined for fast play and easy results.

But again, I have to win all the time, every time!

After 7th died and we all moved on from ancient gaming we later (a decate later) got a hankering to play again. We moved up from 15mm to 25/28mm and played MoA for a while and then moved on to Armati and finally Impetus. I found MoA to be a bit dull and uninspiring to play. Armati 2 was good but too predictable. Impetus fit our bill but it took a while to appreciate the game. Hail Caesar looks interesting but it can too late for us to seriously consider.

I always loved the idea of Shock of Impact. I read over the rules many times and studied the army lists. The game looked impractible to play but the basic ideas were brilliant.

I used to have some wonderful games with WRG 6th and the battles seemed realistic in terms of how I imagined battles took place. The lists were great giving novice explanation of army types etc. They were really helpful in deciding what figures to get etc. I appreciate many finer points can debated but it was a "game" to enjoy.
Now perhaps I am just looking back at youth and all the new development in emerging ranges eg Perrys, Foundry, etc etc. Plus I gamed 15mm back then (Essex, Chariot etc.)
Warhamer of course did wonders to promote ancient gaming and Chariot Wars was genius. Clash of Empires is enjoyable but still don't remember such tense and enjoyable games as WRG 6th.
I am drawn to Impetus firstly because of unit visual appeal, size and cost collecting an army. It certainly get good reviews and Basic is FREE! As I have only played 2 games I may have it wrong but it gave some sense of army setting up and battle like WRG. I may be novice and have that wrong. Impetus like WRG 6th has most lists available. Other systems keep you waiting for months and years to get that list you want. That is not good.

After 7th died and we all moved on…

Hahaha…yes I remember that very well, the end of a 2 day comp my headache had reached it's crescendo no more tables, numbers and weapons charts for me. Played DBA a few times then also moved over to Armati which we played in or group for over ten years. In the end with Armarti it became so predictable you could pick exactly where the battle would be won or lost and in how many turns….still it did have a few very good elements that made us persist with it for so long.

Arty Conliffe writes incredible rules. Not always the most interesting system but always the rules themselves are complete and fully thought out. There was almost nothing we encountered in our play of Armati 2 that hadn't been fully documented in the rules. That is worth the price of gold in gaming as I get older. Who needs headaches anymore? Like you most of us have given up on headache inducing rules Tarty.

Yes Arty is solid when it comes to writing rules I agree Marcus B, we had some incredible Armati games over the years, very large multi player historical refights…Armati does this sort of thing exceptionally well I think.