"my thoughts on ancients 1st edition" Topic

I got the chance to play a game of the 1969 edition of a game that spawned the standard basing system, of the 1:20 figure ratio.

It was imperial Rome vs Dacia.
And how much fun it was.

I lost (my opponent being the eldest of the grognards)
But I had fun.

Here are my thoughts:

Orders- written orders were weird, but once I realized there was an umpire (not necessary as I understand) they were fun. The signals were fun, and writing out orders made the game much more tactical. Sending messengers to units that were too far away to order was annoying, and slow… but it functioned

Morale- this got to be cumbersome. Every little thing could force a control test… a unit of falxmen broke on first contact. I had an entire army route before I did any real damage. It felt genuine, but got old fast. (Maybe because I was losing?)

Combat- this was neat. All of the factors adding up to determine death, it felt genuine too. It was slow, and crunchy, but it was fun… often times battle fell on the random factor though… just enough to edge out that figure… it felt as though two sides were grinding against one another, smashing up and cutting away… it was physically wearing (kidding of course)

Movement : not as strict as I thought it would be. Grabbing up flanks was easy, and very satisfying. Nothing much to say here, pretty standard stuff…for wargaming that is

Ranged weapons – my one problem with the system… range felt like it had too much power… I was losing men left and right from archers, ballistas, and javelins. (My opponent may have been toting a little too much artillery though) ultimately the final route was forced by archers… if the set up had been more historical, I feel it wouldn't have been such an issue

Verdict?

Play this game. It takes a lot of troops, a lot of time, and 3 people (sometimes) but it is so worth it. The rules have less barkerese than one would expect, and run rather naturally. They flow pretty well, and don't feel clunky or outdated. Best part? Their free from Phil barkers website.
Print them off and give them a go. I'm sold on them, they are now my go to set of rules… I'm going to house rule some things… but I had so much fun, I'm debasing, and getting new Gauls to play this game.

Give me your comments on the game below!
Thanks guys.
and thanks tmp for having this particular forum!

Nice report!

There are days I miss it.

The rules have less barkerese than one would expect, and run rather naturally.

The reason for that is simple. They were written in 1969. He didn't then feel the need to answer the plaintive whines of everybody who sniveled that his favorite army was getting a rough time in the rules, and "It's just not FAIR!!!!!"

I just think that it's too bad that Phil Barker listened to these complainers, and never just let his rules stand as they were.
He should have long ago said "Shut up and go away! Figure it our for yourself!"

Instead, we were treated to the infamous "Thursday Night WRG Rules and Amendments Seminars", where "I got a letter from Phil!" was countered with "What's the date on the postmark?"

I wasn't expecting to get so many replies!
I knew I was outmatched going in…. that's how history worked… and when I play a historical game I expect it to work… I don't know HISTORICALLY.

I like these rules a lot, and am trying to get a small revival with my gaming group. I have a friend who loves them too.

We want to start a club at the school, for WRG 1st-6th gaming.

Thanks for looking at the post!

I still have a love of the Third Edition and play a slightly modified version whenever I can find an opponent willing to give me a game.

x42

Like your take on the rules. I think a lot of the rules take some getting used to. I don't care for written orders. I like Might of Arms simply because it is a streamlined version of WRG, No casualty removal. No order writing. Morale is simplified. Works well.

I get tempted by the early WRG versions. I played once or twice with 5th, and a few more times with 6th. To play them decently really requires single figures for casualty removal, of which I have none. And, like Who asked this joker, I am not fond of written orders, although I do not mind the 6th Ed version of rules and I seem to remember standing orders did not exist in 1st, which is good as I really don't like them either!

6th did my head in but over the years I have grown fond of the rules and do read them from time to time. You writeup does tempt me to give them a go but I am hoping I get better!

I think you may have stirred up quite a few (dare I say) happy memories, aapch45.

My first exposure was with WRG 5th.

I can vaguely remember that fifteen boxes of Airfix Ancient Britons used to translate itself into something like a Panzer Corps of thirty chariots which could charge uphill and rout two or three units of Trajanic Roman fully-formed legionaries armed with pila. Happy days.

As John pointed out, in our club we too had an "I've just received a missive from Phil" segment. The portent was in the letter – chariots might now be considered skirmishing units in the 6th edition.

I disbanded my chariot units, thought about elephants and Carthage, but left that alone.

I will be forever grateful however for the absolute fun (and discussion) that Phil Barker's rules have provided us.

My first ever miniatures game was 5th edition ancients,run at a convention, and I was 13 years old.I had no clue as to what was going on,but was completely fascinated.

They were game rules, very little centered in historical context in my opinion. While the complaints were rife, many were legitimate.

I didn't play earlier editions. My first exposure was 6th edition.

Most of the problems I heard are for various versions and unique to each edition. One can moan that changes were made but many were necessary.

Checking for morale with skirmish light infantry routs was a favorite and ahistorical part of the rules. But then we get the other extreme with 7th edition and maneuver was really taken too far and ahistorically easy (at least for regular troops)

I have heard that 4th or 5th were decent sets. 6th is full of the run-on sentences and had a lot of Phil letters to amend rules. Same thing with 7th edition. Essentially the rules probably got over complicated. Then we got DBA and eventually DBM. Both of these started simple enough and then have gotten out of hand too with revisions, etc. Frankly, I don't think DBM added much at all. Much better to do a Big Battle DBA with some minor modifications.

FoG was an attempt to unify the WRG and DBM camps. In many ways it has succeeded. The problems have been with what I feel was a disastrous release of the V2 revisions. The play test process was not a holistic exercise either. It was about, here are the rules, go play them, find holes and let us know. Most if not all decisions were already made and I don't see where input was used to alter some of the direction of the rules from the play tester standpoint. FoG has had a big miscue in the V2 release that I don't see attempts at fixing. The electronic release was a huge mistake as the majority of the player base didn't own a tablet device and most prefer a written set anyway due to many factors. The written version is a print on demand with quality going the wrong direction. It is full boat retail in pricing (many FoG books were purchased through Amazon at a significant discount). Player base has decreased by at least 50% from what we see here in the Gulf South. Having said this, I don't think anything has supplanted it.

We are still at a point where rules are probably more complicated than they need to be. There are exceptions to be sure but these don't dominate in the gaming community from my observations.

Take a look outside of the WRG camp and you see at least several rules sets that are probably revisions to WRG 6th in many ways but attempt to streamline and lower the complexity level. Examples include Might of Arms, Tactica, Medieval/Ancient Warfare (Terry Gore), and others I am sure.
While I will agree that some older versions of rules are good, I don't fall into the camp that everything was great either.

When we had less choice, it made the decision simpler. More choices satisfy more people but also fractionalize each genre. Try to get Napoleonics players to settle on one rules set as an example :-)

John, I think you have missed the very important point that these rules quickly became a competition standard, and so there was a real push to 'close loopholes' – and that's when the rules grew from something that played well between sportsmen and could be written pretty loosely (I reckon Polemos is at the same stage), to a set that worked to be rules-lawyers proof. That's when the very tight (but concise) writing, known as Barkerese, became necessary. The same thing happened with Army Lists. When people are reasonable – it's fine, but when someone shows up with an absolutely optimal troop mix based on something that may have been at a parade in 169AD.. that's when army lists become necessary.

No I did not miss the point at all. I WAS one of those competitive tournament players, and saw what happened to a perfectly fine set of rules once THOSE PEOPLE got hold of them.

What was needed was a good dose of Father Robando in high school theology class when he replied to the "Father, what if…" questions with "Shut up. You can go to Hell for thinking that way."

That's when the very tight (but concise) writing, known as Barkerese, became necessary.

I would argue if he ever did acheive that "tight (but concise)" level. He DID acheive comedy.
The Phil himself observed in an old print copy of Slingshot that it was like patching cracks in mud walls. The patch would shrink and then leave him with two cracks.
The whole procedure was counter productive, encouraging bad behavior. It encouraged looking for loopholes that were not really there, and seeing what mischief could be done.
I was there.

And I am NOT arguing against army lists. I have argued in the past that 90% of all Ancient ranges were manufactured because with WRG rules it was possible and common to see Hittites play Seljuk Turks.
Without ginning up such a market, these ranges and figures would not be made. What manufacturer in his right mind would make figures he could not sell? WRG gave him that market.

Without WRG rules, all we would have would be Romans.

What I see in more modern games like FOG, are rules that are unnecessary , and add nothing to the game.

Keeping track of the different grades on what not on troops requires a ton of book keeping, that a general wouldn't know. He could get a good look and say " oh my left contingent is falling apart, I need to send in the reliefs" he didn't have game mechanics that told him when his troops needed to run.
but then again I love roleplaying as my general, and making historical decisions.

The newer games like FOG, and all of the later wrg stuff is great for tourny gaming… which I'm not into. I don't like being limited to a "fair match"
That's not to say I don't like the systems, I tend to find FOG a rather enjoyable game, given I have a good opponent.

I prefer my rules to be light, and my games to feel real.
maybe measuring the ability of weapons vs a type of troop isn't historical… but sub out the weapon type for the troop type and it makes sense.
So instead of javelin armed swordsmen getting 4 factors vs MI just make it IRR MI gets 4 factors against all MI. It makes for a much more enjoyable game.

I don't like army lists either. Instead of looking at numbers and what they mean, I prefer to learn the history behind my army, and make decisions based on the real history.

Army lists are great for tournaments, and fair games, but not for a campaign.. which is what I like to run.

No general in history ever said "looks like the Persians are invading, grab up all the peltasts so we can skirmish them to death. (A jest of course)" instead it was more like "the Persians are invading? Raise all the men that will fight, we leave tomorrow."

Maybe its because I'm a history major…. but army lists just rub me wrong.

I'm glad I have gotten so much feedback from you guys!

You would love Newberry Fast(sic) Play Ancient rules from the early 80s. More grades and classifications than you can shake a stick at!

The newbury rules seem almost more geared to roleplaying in the ancient period…

I am afraid to even read them.

You are right to fear them. You could go blind trying to read that font size.

Lord and Martyrs. 69. I was 13. No SF or fantasy figures – now when did Minifigs bring theirs out?

I started with 4th and – radically! ACW which was the "new" alternative to Napolionics.

First metal figures were aimed at providing officers and specialists for your airfix kits – and now we have those plastic kits with added metal specialists and officers.

Which newbury rules?