"DBA and Ancient Warmaster" Topic

Anyone have any theories as to why there appears to be such enthusiasm for Ancient Warmaster? I play modified Big Battle DBA with lots of 10mm figures on 60mm bases and the mass effect looks great while the game moves quickly. So is there something in the Warmaster mechanics that makes it a better system? I'm not knocking Warmaster…I've never played them nor even read them. I'm just curious and want to be sure I'm not missing something. Is it just an initial rush of enthusiasm for a new set of rules or do they take mass ancient wargaming to a higher level?

Initial rush of enthusiasm? Some of it probably is.

Wargaming on a higher level? Debatable. Certainly they're a pretty competent set of rules. "Higer level" is such a loaded term that it will probably spontaneously combust at some point here, followed immediately by a viscious argument over whether DBA is an "accurate simulation of ancient warfare."

They're certainly written in a style that's less… dense. And there are multiple illustrations and diagrams.

I think it's because the rules creators(and for Blitzkrieg Commander for that matter) have hit upon a good idea for command and control. It's simple, effective, and does create some planning and execution problems for players. Nothing like trying a big flanking move, blowing your command roll, then seeing several of your units all alone out there by themselves while the rest of the army hangs back! Add to that the fact that many of the people who are getting into it enjoyed the fantasy version and you have a winning product. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the game works well, looks good, and had a built in audience, which are three things that are critical for any game's success.

Lack of Barkerese perhaps? :-)

Its a good transition product for people familiar with Warmaster Fantasy to get into Ancients. I know that I have wnted to get into Ancients for some time (as have a few others in the area) but have been quite put off by the quality of DBx rulesets. They look cheap, they are difficult to read (both in terms of language and layout) and, at least here, are quite expensive.

Warmaster Ancients is a professional product with illustrations to qualify and explain the rules. Its properly typeset so its easty to read and navigate and its filled with some rather compelling looking painted figs.

Its going to be much easier for me to get people interested in playing WMA than it would be to play DBx

Warmaster is written in English.

So, for those that have seen it…what are the differences between Warmaster Fantasy and Warmaster Ancients? I almost bought the Fantasy version, but backed off due to the cost. I thought the flowing command and control system would simulate steppe warfare better than DBA does with its light horse…

Mike Demana

Look and feel is definitely important. I can pick up a copy of Warmaster Ancients, read it, and explain it to my friends. I haven't been able to finish digesting the DBx rules.

Not to say that DBx are bad games. I suspect that if I had someone teach eiterh to me, it would be just fine. The problem is that I don't have that option — if I'm going to play a new game, I'm the one who's doing all the teaching. (I'm the adventurous one in my group.)

eiterh = a very badly typed version of "either"

The two games reach towards slightly different markets. A lot of the things DBA abstracts into the PIP and combat resolution system are "spelled out" in Warmaster.

Warmaster adds a lot of detail to the battle, since you have leader figures giving orders, "fist full of dice" combat resolution, etc. That's not to say it's complicated. Well, more complicated than an opposed dice roll, but still pretty simple.

Warmaster has concrete "units" of 3 stands, so it a way it's "zoomed in" from DBA a little bit. Warmaster units can be brigaded in groups of up to 4, but there's no exact equivalent to DBA's "group" rules.

Both games have variable restrictions on the player's ability to do things.

DBA uses the simple PIP abstraction to capture command, disorder, delays, and other concepts into a simple "friction" roll. Very elegant, simple and powerful, but you know at the beginning of your turn how much you'll be able to do.

In Warmaster, you pick a leader and get him to start issuing "commands" (really just moving units). He tests on every command, and once he fails, he can't issue any more. So you don't know how much you'll be able to do in a turn until the turn is over.

I've played (and enjoyed) a lot of DBA, and I'm looking forward to trying Warmaster, since the games I've watched seemed exciting.

DBA is definitely a "find someone to teach you" sort of game. The Fanaticus page is an invaluable online resource for learning DBA.

— So, for those that have seen it…

I posted a quick review and it was followed upo in this topic but Rick J's much more thourough review

TMP link

Basically the rules are better suited to Ancients, have fixed some of the issues in fantasy with cav and high leadership and since you can use any line of figs you want (I'm using Baccus 6mm) its cheaper to play

— I've played (and enjoyed) a lot of DBA, and I'm looking forward to trying Warmaster, since the games I've watched seemed exciting.

The one thing I do truly like about Warmaster is this variability. We played a Fantasy game last week in which I took an early turn mauling but was able to almost pull off a win thanks in no small part by my opponents inability to move troops at critical times.

I've played em both. Definatly prefer Warmaster Ancients. I'm building my armies, here in the US, using Baccus as well. They just look magnificent on the table. (not a sock puppet, just really like his figures)

There are a lot of ways in which DBx is too abstract (for some, like me) – for instance the complete lack of *shooting* rather handicaps the ability to model many ancient and medieval armies in an interesting and viable manner. WMA kicks up the details just a bit, manages to keep things abstract enough to flow fast, and has a more interesting command system. Bingo. No knock on DBx, but the appeal is definitely there for those who thought DBx was just not "enough" in some ways, while still shirking from the more detailed rules.

Any WA at Historicon? I'd like to see a game. Is it good for tournament play or only scenario games? Can a person pick up the rules and play the game without a 35 additional page commentary on the meaning of the rules?

Is GW going to make figures for the game? How much conversion does one need to do if he has 1000's of figures in 15mm based for DBA?

How many figures are needed for an "army?" 50 -100 -500 ball park.

To answer two of your questions, I don't believe that GW intend to manufacture historical figures. Also, WMA's appendix suggests that DBA figures based on a 40mm frontage can be used as-is.

Cheers,

Skeptic

WAB is good for tournaments or scenarios. Someone on the old GW specialists game site posted scenarios for Trebbia, Cannae and Stamford Bridge.

I don't know if anyone will have some WMA at Historicon but I do know that there will be a Fall-In! 05 WMA tournament.

Specifics aren't set yet (time, size, etc) but they will be soon.

I may be running a WMA game at Fall-In! 05 as well, if I can decide on the scenario and get the armies painted by then. Or maybe I'll GM a simple pitched battle game so people can see how it plays as a pickup or tournament game.

I'd like to see/play/run a WMA Hattin game in the future.

I'd like to see more army lists, especially Medievals.

Is there a good yahoo group for WMA? I am looking for someone to do Magnesia at Cold Wars with the rules.
VR
James Mattes

James

link

Best regards

Stephen

Cool Just joined! Gald I got the right group.
VR
James Mattes

I think the ideas and approach of both games is broadly similar. They differ in details.

DBX is more deterministic. You really must use the proper unit type against a certain enemy to have a chance to win in a kind of rock/paper/scissors manner. The pip system might limit you, but you can still do something with a single pip. The overall setup is fairly rigid. You need a good setup from the start and once both armies collide you start to figure where gaps appear, where you can press your advantage etc.

WMA is more free-flowing. Units are less r/p/s, they depend more on scores, being stronger or weaker and have some special ability. Setup is somewhat less rigid. The major difference here is that WMA goes for an action/reaction system. You can try to press your advantage, but there is always the risk of a counter-charge against which you must use your reserves, the enemy can bring up reserves etc.
The command system is fairly random. It is perfectly possible for your army to sit completely idle if your roll really bad.

I must say I like both DBM and WMA, but I find WMA has the "fun factor" with a system based on maneuver and command, while DBM is more mathematical/chess-like.

DBM=Chess
WMA=Go

I also prefer Go

Also, I have no proofs that WMA is remotely like Go.

The only thing that has kept me from trying WMA is that it uses a different basing convention than DBA (& almost every other game out there). The C&C systems sounds fun, though.

Mike_Monaco, if you don't believe what I already wrote, leaf through the WMA appendix. You can keep your DBA bases and *still* play WMA.

Skeptic

WMA=Go

o_O

That comparison is one of the more strained that I've seen in a while.

WMA has more figures then DBA.
Go has more pieces then Chess.

WMA is played with a variable number of units, DBA always 12.
Go is played with a variable number of pieces
Chess is always 16

WMA is played on a bigger board, 6x4 minimum, compared to the 2x2 of DBA
Go is played on a bigger board, 19x19 compared to 9x9 (this is counting lines)

WMA is weighted to the middle game, maneuvering and countering attacks. DBA is more about deployment (according to some)
Go is about capturing territory in the middle game, chess is about opening moves.

There are way more DBA tournaments then WMA in North America
There are way more Chess tournaments then Go in North America.

Finally, I like WMA more then DBA, I like Go more then Chess.

Nice one.

But it's hard to imagine any wargame as being like Go since the number of pieces in wargames typically decrease as the game progresses.

…the number of pieces in wargames typically decrease as the game progresses.

You've not played an Undead army in Warmaster have you :-)

As a matter of fact I DO have a 15mm Undead army I use for Warmaster:

link

I just don't make the magic roll as often as I would hope to. :(

I like the army lists in WMA better than the one in DBA. There are more variables/choices. DBA though requires fewer armies. I'm planning on fleshing out my DBA armies into WMA ones.

I also like the horse archers actually being used as, well, archers. DBA treats them as light cavalry. What use is a hun army that can't shoot.

Both DBA and WMA have their good points.

"I almost bought the Fantasy version, but backed off due to the cost."

They're free. Check the Games Workshop site.

"So, for those that have seen it…what are the differences between Warmaster Fantasy and Warmaster Ancients?"

In Warmaster Fantasy you keep on fighting a combat until it is resolved. In Ancients, you fight two rounds of combat and if it is not resolved, you carry over to the next turn.

Then there are the army lists. Some units in Ancients do not fight at all well.

"WMA has more figures then DBA."

Ain't that an understatement. I played a Warmaster Ancients game last week between Saxons and Normans. I originally was going to use 3000 points per side when I realized that I did not have enough figures. I only have two Tactica sized armies mounted for both armies.

I scaled back the battle to 1700 points, and I barely had enough Saxons (about 300 figures).

Other differences:
In WMA a unit can move a maximum of 3 times.
WMA has skirmishers, who can shoot all round and evade as a charge action
You can shoot at chargers in WMA (if I recall correctly, you cannot in the fantasy version)
Evade is available as an initiative action.
Special rules for Phalanx, Elephants, Scythed chariots, Roman Maniples and the like

One concern that I have for WMA is the "Superunits" and how to stop them. Put Alexander with the Companions and attack. I don't see how they can be stopped. That is going to be one very powerful unit in melee. However, they do lose a stand just like everybody else when they take 3 hits though, so that's good. Once they lose a stand they're easier to deal with, so maybe it's not so bad.

There is a discussion going on the wma list re this. The general view is that putting your general in with a combat unit is a serious risk. remember, if the phalanx fluff thier attacks and lose the combat, you have a good chance of losing alexander and the game at the same time.

My issue with Companions is the other way. Against a persian army, it looks to me they will just keep getting driven back by shooting. Its gonna require some thought.

You don't get many superunits in WMA, and they are none of them THAT super. There is nothing that compares to a unit of Barbarians with heavy throwing spears and a front rank of characters like in WAB.

Comparing the systems – I adore DBA's elegant simplicity. WMA sacrifices some of this elegance for more fun. I respect both games but they are apples and oranges. Never managed to get into DBM.

Pat

PHALANX? Meant Companions of course.

Pat

Does the Ancient version model the different weapons of the units? The fantasy one did not if I remember correctly. (resulting in very little differences b/w the various infantry) With a more detailed game I definatly want the differences—at least b/w pike and sword—to be in there.
Also, how many units are typically on a side? Say, if one wanted to start an army, a small one, how many bases should they fill?

"You can shoot at chargers in WMA (if I recall correctly, you cannot in the fantasy version)
Evade is available as an initiative action."

Both of these are definitely in the rules for Warmaster Fantasy…

Not much – the classes of formed infantry for instance are extra heavy, heavy, medium, then peasants, tribal warriors and phalanx. You may not like it if you prefer more detail.

a 1k army (about as small as you can get) will have about 12-20 units in it, 3 stands to a unit.

My Britons;
9 warband units 315
3 Chariots 240
1 Cavalry 60
1 Fanatics 50
3 skirmishers 90
General, (Caractacus) 125
2 Leaders 120

Thats approx 400 10mm figures.

My late romans are smaller, My EIR Romans a lot smaller, my Normans way too small.

Dundurn, I think there are quite a lot of similarities between the 2 systems.

Warmaster rules have a very nicely illustrated rulebook.
I quite liked the unit activation rules with Warmaster, but I didn't much like the initiative movement, and the way one can move through gaps, rally back etc is much less restricted than in DBA, which means that some very odd things can happen in combat. I'm not saying that DBA doesn't have it's warts, though.

I've personally decided that since I already play a lot of DBA big battle and am very familiar with the rules, that I will mainly stick with DBA. But I expect I will play some more Warmaster with other people.

Does the Ancient version model the different weapons of the units? The fantasy one did not if I remember correctly.

For some, they do — the Dogs of War list deploys Pikemen like cavalry, with the short end facing the enemy.