"Warrior VS DBM" Topic

I have played DBM a few times and I have played DBA a few times.

Warrior is unknown to me and I don't even see an entry here on TMP.

Can someone that has played Warrior compare and contrast it to DBM for me?

Thanks,
GG

It's a rewriting of the old WRG 7th Edition rules.

I'd say it's more complex to play than DBM, and it involves lots of record keeping.
Stand based (no single figures)
Stands are organised into units, for which you have to keep track of fatigue.
It has march and tactical moves, like DBM.
Lots of totting up of factors and rolling +/- dice to see how many casualties you inflict, and checking to see how many Casualties per Figure you caused.
If you like tactical detail, and don't mind the extra complexity, it is OK.
Personally, I'd say it's too much like hard work.

I watched a game recently being played by two veterans, and while they seemed to enjoy it, it looked needlessly complex and required numerous chart consultation, chits all over the board, etc. Way too complicated for guys wacking each other with swords for my taste. The big complaint is that it has a very steep learning curve, esp as there are lots of rules exceptions, etc. Once mastered, it might be a fun and somewhat realistic experience, but I plan on sticking to DBM.

I quit playing the old WRG rules back at the 5th edition. There are factors for armor, formation, morale and weaponry. If your little warrior has more than one weapon, then there is more than one weapon factor. Is the little fellow using his shield? Has he girded his loins? What phase is the moon in? No thanks.

I'm currently testing Might of Arms, similar to WRG except playable. The rest of the time, DBA.

My understanding of Warrior is that it is a more user friendly re-write of WRG7th.I think a rewrite is a good thing,since trying to learn the old rules made one very cranky,and at conventions they always had to sequester the 7th players while they gamed,and throw them raw meat once in a while,because they were quite beastly when playing.

What you should try is Terry Gore's Ancient Warfare/Medieval Warfare. As a veteran of many Armati, DBx, Classical Hack and Might Of Arms games, I will tell you that these two rulesets (same system) are fantastic.
Extremely well-supported on the Yahoo group site by the author, they seem to be growing steadily as evidenced by the tournament attendance (Cold "Snow" Wars 2003 notwithstanding). Check them out.

I (for some reason) had assumed the Terry Gore rules and Warrior were one and the same, at least in philosophy. What are the Gore rules like?

The Terry Gore (SAGA Publishing) rules are not as simple as DBA/DBM but easier than Warrior/7th Edition. There does indeed seem to be a groundswell for SAGA rules, but I think Warhammer AB for 25/28mm is the best, and DBA for 15mm. Warrior/7th edition are beyond what a "game" should be. Its the Advanced Squad Leader of miniature games. Thats not a good thing in my book.

Do Warrior or the SAGA rules use the "elemement matching" close combat pairing system?

By this I mean that each element MUST line up with one and only one enemy element and they "duel it out"?

I will be frank, I find this abstraction hard to deal with in a miniatures game. :-(

GG

I'm sure Ed will say try Warrior Kings from Two Hour Wargames. Those are pretty good rules too. He must be sick today.

I had the SAGA rules both sets and found them to be lacking, the Kill ratio was too small and the fights last way too long. Warrior is just nutty. Oh and yes, SAGA's rules also require you to line up base to base elements and to turn and face, this is why I dumped them also, the author can support a game all he wants but when its nothing more than glorified DBM forget it, might as well play DBM.

Ancient Warfare reminded me of a cross between DBM & Warrior, why can't anyone come up with an original idea for ancients, all they do is steal from one old outdated sytem and combine with another old outdated system to make a NEW and IMPROVED GAME,

Well, there's nothing stopping you from coming up with the next big idea and revealing it to an amazed world if it's so easy ;-)

Well, Mr. E. Guard certainly seems a bit upset. --Having waded thru many (but not all) Ancients rules over the last 20+ years, I can point to several watershed innovations in these rules over the years.

Much original thought seemed to occur in the late 80's and early '90s, when element-based rules started appearing, such as "Legion" and Phil Barker's "De Bellis Antiquitatis" (DBA). New and different ideas came out of Arty Conliffe's "Tactica" and, later, "Armati". None of those simply "stole" from previous rule-sets.

One may or may not like some or all of these rules, but, I believe, they were all quite original. I applaud their designers for accomplishing things I could not.

//Paul in Seattle

Well... I won't fib in saying I prefer Warrior. Although based on WRG 7th, I would say that the rules have been clarrified to such an extent that they should be called 8th edition if we must compare the two. Frankly, WRG ancients rules suck to read no matter what they are! ;-)

Warrior is an evolution rather than a revolution from WRG 7th. The Warrior owners bought out the rights to 7th edition and some of the army lists. Warrior is also supported by online sources; especially the Warrior list group on Yahoo.

Saying one rules system is better than another is really just a biased opinion and should be taken as such. For some, complexity of rules is a problem. For others, it just adds realism (or conjectured realism as no one really knows if one weapon was inherently superior to another or if the training of the soldier was the real factor).

I love Warrior but I also like other rules systems. Each rules system has its flaws as well. In an earlier post, someone mentioned not liking lining up element by element. Keep in mind that all wargames are a simulation and lining up just aids in gameplay. I would agree that battles are never so neat and tidy!

So, you as the gamer must make the decision for yourself as to the complexity of the rules you wish to play. DBM has its good points but frankly, I wish there was a mechanism to carry over one combat to the next. I find it silly to believe that an element of knights can just continue to bang away the entire battle and not accumulate any damage from previous combats. I do like the way troops are classed in DBM for the most part. But Macedonian Companions should not be classed as knights in my opinion. But hey, against a historical opponent I would agree.

To me, the ideal blend of simulation, game play and complexity is found in the Might of Arms rules set. But even MOA has some small issues (dismounting knights for one). We played these rules in my area and found them enjoyable and "realistic" but did come to the conclusion that games became more predictable.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, in my experience, many gamers lack historical tactical and strategic knowledge or don't adapt as situations change in a given game. Many of these folks will decry that the rules are at fault rather than their gamesmanship. I lost a lot of games before I became a better player. I took the rules complexity as a challenge rather than an issue. I have found that many that have abbandoned WRG 7th have also found that they are no more successful in DBM or other rules sets. I am not saying this as a generalization of why people choose a less complex rules system. What I am saying is that rules sets are often blamed for poor performance when not warranted. I know gamers that have a hard time winning with DBA :^)

It's actually quite ironic that the rules arguing that was part of WRG 7th has for the most part left with Warrior and its superior to 7th index and clarrity of language. I find that DBM seems to have the same if not more rules arguements and "lawyering" now ;-) DBM is suppossed to be less complex yet the language it is written in and the arguements about rules seem to discredit it for an example of a simple rules set.

I agree that the learning curve is longer. But to be honest, I don't think it is that long. I will help to play another experience player but I think this is true of any rules set. Give them a shot; I think you will enjoy them.

I for one will continue to play Warrior as my preferred set.
I enjoy its complexity. There are no more rules interpretations or new editions that will come out. Clarrifications are updated regularly and are free. Most of the clarrifications have to do with expanding a rules section rather than amending a rule. What are coming out are new and improved lists that have brought a big boost in the excitement of my fellow Warrior gamers.

Good to all. No matter what rules you play, just keep playing!

Chris from Texas

Well... I won't fib in saying I prefer Warrior. Although based on WRG 7th, I would say that the rules have been clarrified to such an extent that they should be called 8th edition if we must compare the two. Frankly, WRG ancients rules suck to read no matter what they are! ;-)

Warrior is an evolution rather than a revolution from WRG 7th. The Warrior owners bought out the rights to 7th edition and some of the army lists. Warrior is also supported by online sources; especially the Warrior list group on Yahoo.

Saying one rules system is better than another is really just a biased opinion and should be taken as such. For some, complexity of rules is a problem. For others, it just adds realism (or conjectured realism as no one really knows if one weapon was inherently superior to another or if the training of the soldier was the real factor).

I love Warrior but I also like other rules systems. Each rules system has its flaws as well. In an earlier post, someone mentioned not liking lining up element by element. Keep in mind that all wargames are a simulation and lining up just aids in gameplay. I would agree that battles are never so neat and tidy!

So, you as the gamer must make the decision for yourself as to the complexity of the rules you wish to play. DBM has its good points but frankly, I wish there was a mechanism to carry over one combat to the next. I find it silly to believe that an element of knights can just continue to bang away the entire battle and not accumulate any damage from previous combats. I do like the way troops are classed in DBM for the most part. But Macedonian Companions should not be classed as knights in my opinion. But hey, against a historical opponent I would agree.

To me, the ideal blend of simulation, game play and complexity is found in the Might of Arms rules set. But even MOA has some small issues (dismounting knights for one). We played these rules in my area and found them enjoyable and "realistic" but did come to the conclusion that games became more predictable.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, in my experience, many gamers lack historical tactical and strategic knowledge or don't adapt as situations change in a given game. Many of these folks will decry that the rules are at fault rather than their gamesmanship. I lost a lot of games before I became a better player. I took the rules complexity as a challenge rather than an issue. I have found that many that have abbandoned WRG 7th have also found that they are no more successful in DBM or other rules sets. I am not saying this as a generalization of why people choose a less complex rules system. What I am saying is that rules sets are often blamed for poor performance when not warranted. I know gamers that have a hard time winning with DBA :^)

It's actually quite ironic that the rules arguing that was part of WRG 7th has for the most part left with Warrior and its superior to 7th index and clarrity of language. I find that DBM seems to have the same if not more rules arguements and "lawyering" now ;-) DBM is suppossed to be less complex yet the language it is written in and the arguements about rules seem to discredit it for an example of a simple rules set.

I agree that the learning curve is longer. But to be honest, I don't think it is that long. It will help to play another experience player but I think this is true of any rules set. Give them a shot; I think you will enjoy them.

I for one will continue to play Warrior as my preferred set.
I enjoy its complexity. There are no more rules interpretations or new editions that will come out. Clarrifications are updated regularly and are free. Most of the clarrifications have to do with expanding a rules section rather than amending a rule. What are coming out are new and improved lists that have brought a big boost in the excitement of my fellow Warrior gamers.

Good to all. No matter what rules you play, just keep playing!

Chris from Texas

Sorry for the double post!

Oh... here is the email address to join the Yahoo Group
for Warrior -

WarriorRules-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Or the Web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

I've been doing ancients for 20-25 years with a variety of rule sets. Old WRG 5, 6, Shock of Impact, Tactica, come to mind. I tried Ancient Empires, and Armati but they did not excite me enough to continue with them. I gave up on WRG anything. But Might of Arms is easy to play, produces viable results, focuses on a single command level (is properly but not overly abstracted), fun, multiplayer and scenario capable, extensible (you can add stuff to it without destroying it), and is my choice.

The only bad stuff I hear about it comes from folks who looked at the rules and bad mouthed it without playing it. The game is complete. The Army lists are included in the rule book, and the rules are well playtested, very good physical quality, and the writing is clear and very well illustrated. All for about $15 for a 108 page glossy perfect bound book. The cheat sheet that comes with it is all you really need for play.

I've run MOA events at many conventions and was always able to finish an 8 player (4 per side) in less than 4 hours. No, I'm not the author, I don't own the company, and don't sell the rules.

Gawd! What a choice: DBM or Warrior. My recommendation, put you ancient figures away and play American Civil War. At least Johnny Reb III and Fire and Fury are fun games.

I would agree with the comment that they both DBM and Warrior appear to be too much like Squad Leader. If you recall, Squad Leader tends to be a hobby in and of itself where the gamers are forced to digest tons of minutia just to play the game; and the people who play it are seldom seen playing anything else. Ditto with DBM and Warrior.

The DBM gamers in particular seem to vanish into their own little black hole where they can debate the arcane subjects like how many pips can dance on the head of a pin, and only emerge to make digs at the WAB players.

I would second the suggestion that you look into Ancient/Medieval Warfare. They really are streamlined versions of the WRG rules which incorporate a number of subtle and state of the art rules mechanisms. There is nothing to be gained by dwelling on throwbacks like WRG 7th and DBM.

With respect to the element matching, Ancient/Medieval Warfare has it, but it is nowhere near as arcane as in DBM (where it tends to dominate a lot of rules arguments).

Basically, one unit can charge any other unit within charge range (which is variable). There is no obscure movement rules and the like requiring the player to move his units so the elements match up. The player who moved first then adjusts the the elements to match before the combat is fought. Yes, this is a rather gratuitous and unnecessary game mechanic, but it only matters in the first round. After that, the adjoining elements are included in the combat.

What's this, Zarquon, jumping into a DBM v Warrior debate just to criticise both of them?
In spite of your assertions, the only ranting about rules you don't like on here seems to come from you.

Me and some of my DBM friends?
What are you on? I play many sets of ancient rules (including both WAB and DBM, plus some others)
You said that "You have to understand that the DBM players as a group tend to be a bunch of effete snobs who would rather spend their time arguing about how many pips can dance on the head of a blade, than playing a real game."
Which frankly is just deranged. Why do you have such a huge grudge? Whay are you so sensitive?
Maybe the problem isn't DBM players....

I didn't defend DBM, nor did I attack WAB.
As it happens, I play and enjoy both games. That doesn't mean I'm a 'DBM player' or a 'WAB player'
There are some sets of rules I don't like, but unlike you I don't feel compelled to rant on and on and on about it at length at every opportunity. Like a member of some strange cult, in fact.

Actually WWRG jsut about single handedly (so to speak) CREATED ancient wargaming.

People reading this should remember that Zarquon is a chap who thinks his own articles are not worth reading - so why would he think anyone else's are any better?

7th edition was a fine set in its day - I enjoyed playing it but it was complicated, and some of it's assumptions were jsut a little to "Exact" for me - whereas I enjoy the high level of abstraction of DBM.

So if you prefer detail go for 7th/Warrior, if you prefer abstraction go for DBM.

If you like the look of somethign else go for it!

But hte best advice is probably go to your local club/group, and get whatever they play!!

Actually, I said it was a waste of time and effort to write for the Slingshot because the Society of Ancients is nothing but a DBMers gaming society that has no interest in any other rules. Tarzan is one of those closed minded DBM fanatics.

I am the dissenting VOICE. I play none of them. I also do not go to conventions (anymore). If you want to play ancients and medievals (at least away from conventions/tournaments) that don't care how the figures line up, and don't care how many gang up on one poor sod, and you want a skirmish feel and look to your large massed battles (I'm talking about individually based minis that represent companies but "fight" like the individual soldiers they are visually), then play our rules sometime. They are available from TMP manufacturers directory; just look under "Larsen, Merlin Douglas" for the e-book version, that has the complete rules but not (as yet) all of the armies lists; or, if you want a hardcopy that includes ALL the armies lists, the previous edition is available if you contact "Russo, Rocky" (he still has copies of the last print run I believe) - also in TMP directory.

MtM

Zarquon said "Tarzan is one of those closed minded DBM fanatics."

Funny, Tarzan stated why he prefered DBM but gave positive reasons why other players may prefer Warrior. Tarzan does not seem like a fanatic with a closed mind to me.

The only closed minded fanatic round here appears to be Zarquon who seems to have made it his role in life to repeatedly peddle inaccuracies about the SoA at every opportunity in a Cato-esque manner.

Additionally to take Tarzan's comment of:

"So if you prefer detail go for 7th/Warrior, if you prefer abstraction go for DBM.

If you like the look of somethign else go for it!

But hte best advice is probably go to your local club/group, and get whatever they play!!"

and then describe him as a "closed minded DBM fanatic" is, frankly, childishly silly. I'd suggest that in fact Tarazan's advice is very sound - find the game that suits you best as there is no "right" set of rules as everyone's tastes and expectations are different. If possible try out a number of rule sets and then go for the one you think you'll gete most enjoyment out of.

In my wargaming experience, anything written by Phil Barker is impossible to understand, at least by me. I used to game with a group of english teachers, and we were always pulling out the WRG rules to argue one point of 7th edition rules or annother. Barkereese, the language of WRG & DBM is hard enough to understand in its own right. Depending on how you read it, one rule can mean something completely different depending on what part of the sentence you place your emphasis on, hence armies marching backwards into battle forcing their enemy to abandon their prepared fortifications, without which they have no chance of winning. I have not yet seen the Warior rules, so I cannot say if they are in deed an improvement on the old WRG 7th edition or not, but in my experience with complex games, there are too many rules to remember and keep track of. Furthermoore the more complex they are the longer it takes to play the game. And I do not have the time or the space to dedicate to overly long games. I am also good at writing my own rules. I have been doing that for almost as long as I have been wargaming. I would say more about that, but it is a different subject.

Romans are red,Carthaginians are blue,If you roll a one,my six will beat you.

I remewmber play testing a set of rules by a fellow named Graeme Durkin called " Simplicimus Maximus" They were easy to learn,fun, not over simplified, and used DBx basing. I've since lost his Email, which is a paity,I'd like to get in touch with him. Units were 24 figures for haevies, 12 for light, etc. in multiple bases. He used an iniaitive dice system. where you decided to concentrate on offensive or defensive actions.units took 3 hits before losing stands, 1 stand per hit at 50% losses the unit routed off the table. we plyed a game of several hundred figures per side in about 4 hours to a conclusion. A very fun set of rules.

Let's see both Julian (Richard Lee) and Mr. Gaukroger are also well known closed minded DBM fanatics whose writings are frequently found in the Slingshot (the publication of the DBM Player's Society). It is not surprising that they come to the defense of one of their own. Particularly one whose posts are seldom on point and are based entirely upon invective. And yes, it would be a waste of time to write an article about any other game for either one of them.

Julian has admitted not playing any other set of rules than DBM and the same is probably true for Mr. Gaukroger as well. Perhaps it would be easier to take them more seriously if they had any significant experience with games other than DBM.

I fear Zarquon (real name not given)is wrong.

Zarquon said that I am a closed mind DBM fanatic and that I had "admitted not playing any other set of rules than DBM". No, the main set of commercial rules I play for ancients is DBA. (DBA is NOT the same set of rules as DBM.)

I have also tried Armati, WRG 6th Edition, DBM, Alea Iacta Est amongst others. These are all rules that can all give good games, and I am sure will suit many wargamers of differing tastes to myself. However, the one I particularly like is DBA.

As well as commercial rules I write and play my own skirmish and naval rules.

Zarquon flattered me by saying that my writings are frequently found in Slingshot. Alas, no. I have had 2 articles published, both about rules that I have written. I have contributed to "Guardroom" (the readers' letters section) but not very often. I praised the SoA Open Day one year.

As I have stated in a lot of my postings, I have not played WAB. On the other hand I do not have any particular bias against it. If I had a suitable opportunity I would probably try it. I would be interested to see whether it could represent battles of 200 to 3,000 per side well.

Zarquon, are you suffering from health problems that make it difficult to relate to the real world? If so, tell us and we will all be most sympathetic.

Zarquon also attacked the Society of Ancients. He said "Slingshot (the publication of the DBM Player's Society)".

The SoA is an organisation of people interested in wargaming the ancient and medieval periods. It neither recomends rules nor has an official rule set. Articles in Slingshot cover many subjects, including many sets of rules. On a recent thread, a lot of wargamers, including some SoA members, have made that point at great length.

Well I started on WRG 4th back in 1971, saw various attempts to do a better set including Donnington and Shock of impact.

I liked DBM when it first came out but lost interest as the rules were refined (about v2.0 - 2.1). Of couse in DBM an armies actions are controlled by rolling dice abd everything goes along fairly happily until combats start happening and then you find your die rolls are not enough to do everything that you want to. Fair enough until you start to think of the difference that luck makes to the game, a common advice to DBM newbies is "roll lots of 6's". Well the game will be short for you if you roll lots of 1's!

In WRG 7th (which Warrior is based on) a descicion was made to emphasise the effects of fatigue on the troops (in DBM the troops are either at 100% or dead). However it did get silly (IMHO) as when during a play test game a friend and myself brought up two units of light horse who each threw their javelins, both units became tired and were effectively useless for the rest of the game. We effectively stopped playing after that.

I am mostly playing Warhammer Ancient Battles these days, which is a good fun game and is a nice thing to play for a 2-4 game and is also played a lot at the local clubs.

I have also written my own set which you can download and try on the net.

http://www.3vwargames.co.uk/alea.zip

No better argument for NOT getting back into ancients than the above.

Oh dear poor Zarquon is becoming even more detached from reality. It now seems that in "Zarquon-world" that saying (if I may quote from my earlier posting) "find the game that suits you best as there is no "right" set of rules as everyone's tastes and expectations are different. If possible try out a number of rule sets and then go for the one you think you'll gete most enjoyment out of." means you are a "closed minded DBm fanatic". I'll not even comment on the usual idiotic comment on the SoA.