"WRG 6th - better than 5th ?" Topic

I've never gone beyond WRG 5th, should I bother ?

I know e.g chariots are too powerul in 5th, and a few other little "problems" but does 6th actually offer me much that's better ?

Ta.

I enjoyed 6th edition much more than 5th (or 7th) but I honestly only played a little of 5th before 6th became all the rage. There were things about 7th I liked but bows became too powerful and other little things made me nostolgic for 6th.

It's been many years since I've played either. The group here started Ancients when the 5th first came out, & made the change to 6th. We tried 7th for a year, but finally gave up. We now do Big Battle DBA for most of our ancients games.
We found 6th O.K. Orders were more precise & dividing the battlefield made sense. Each edition always has to have a new way of setting out terrain. The Barkerese was about the same, but if you struggle through it you'll end up with an enjoyable game. All up, I'd say we prefer 6th to 5th, but its been too long ago to remember details.

The problem with 6th is that you checked morale for light infantry but this is an easy fix. I also heard it was all about armor and everything became a slugfest without much subtlety.

7th was more of a maneuver game and you had some a-historical movement abilities that seem too liberal. Also, as stated earlier, shooting is much too powerful. With the Warrior edition, shooting became even more powerful as crossbows were now allowed two full ranks of figures. Record keeping was introduced with this edition; so while in a tournment you didn't have issues with people hiding stands for winning/losing calculations, it became tedious. Also, didn't care much for the fatigue rules in general as it took too long to recover (basically couln't recover until 16 bounds and under darkness). So, you can get tired but you can't recover no matter how long you stay out of action. I did enjoy 7th but came to realize after not playing for some time that it had a huge learning curve and some a-historical things did creep up. Having said this, I do like some of the mechanisms but I think the ones I liked came from earlier editions.

I play FoG now and it is more subtle in many ways. Manuever is much more historical (although light cavarly probably moves a little too much, FoG R has reduced movement by 1") While in some ways the learning curve is much less, you have to get your ++ Points of Advantage to ensure a quick unit victory, otherwise it becomes a scrum that can last a while (but this is probably very historical IMO) At first I didn't like all of the dice rolling but rolling by element seems to take care of things like which stand should be effected by terrain and other combat mechanisms. Shooting is more subtle in its effect too as stand removal is more rare but disruption of morale/disorder being the effect. Shooting is therefore usually an attrition mechanism that takes more time to effect. If you are going to try anything, I would try FoG. But hey, 6th is free to download now :-)

I've played 6th exclusively so couldn't tell you.

I like 5th better, but I don't remember why.

Also, didn't care much for the fatigue rules in general as it took too long to recover (basically couln't recover until 16 bounds and under darkness). So, you can get tired but you can't recover no matter how long you stay out of action

Well, that was a Good Thing s far as I was concerned.
It certainly took away the punch from the Companion Cavalry making it's third or fourth consecutive charge.

"Here, you guys fight. I'm done."

I was a great fan of WRG 5th. It is a different system than 5th. Almost a transition system to 7th.

I forget now whether the USA 'Warrior' is based on 6th or 7th. A cleaned up set of rules regardless.

I preferred 6th to 5th, probably because that's what everybody was playing when I moved to L.A. I had 5th for about 5 or 6 years, and had only played a dozen or so games.

6th still has a tourney presence in the UK.

I think that should say something about them as a system given the DBx paradigm shift.

not seen 5th though, ever – they must date to about 1983, which is seriously nostalgia gaming.

I think 4th was better than either, at least it wasn't pretentious.

I found out long after 5th lost favor that the groups I played with were doing it "wrong". We tended to field units that came close representing tactical formations we could document. 20 to 24 figure Roman cohorts (400 to 480 men) and larger blocks for hoplites or German/Gaul/Goth spear masses. Then I saw some write ups where we "should" have been running around with dozens of units of 8 to 12 figures. I think in some groups they were optimizing for morale tests to get more "units".

And remember, the 4th edition included a Fantasy army section as well!

6th has much much better orders rules than 5th, and is a lot more streamlined to play. Contrary to the comments above, which seem to be from someone who hasn't actually played 6th, its a very subtle game indeed, and its far from just about armour. My worst drubbing ever for my Late Romans was from a load of Numidian cavalry armed with tunic and sharp sticks only.

The army lists also changed between 5th and 6th, of course. Much more comprehensive, and lots of them to choose from. All from the days before you paid £20.00 GBP for a list supplement!

There are indeed international tournaments for 6th, and a thriving Yahoo group, and the rules themselves are still available after 30 years or more.

If you don't like the overly competitive play/rules lawyering that seems to be a feature of the DBM crowd, then give them a go. Its a really friendly community of gamers who get a lot of fun from the period.

Warrior is based on 7th not 6th.

TomT

Was it 5th that had "flinch points"?

Flinch points were fom the 1750-1850 WRG set of 1971

John Boehm and I played all editions as they were released originally starting with Tony Bath's rules in the 1960's.
4th (with the Nebraska amendments were the best, we set up a command control system to force armies to operate a little more historically).
WRG lost us with the 7th Edition.
Ancient Warfare (Terry Gore) comes pretty close to the est of WRG.
I actually favored Newberry fast Play.

Newbury 'fast play' rules must the the most mis-named ever.
They were very slow and fiddly to play.

Haven't managed to get a game of 6th since moving to Oregon from the UK (ex Reading and Bun Shop gamer) in 2009 – but here goes….

Changes from 5th to 6th -

Light troops no longer so brave/suicidal – get a -3 for occasion 1 or charge tests – so they skirmish more unless high morale class

-1 for each 1/2 casualty per figure from shooting instead of each 2 per figure so archers way more effective in 6th

Orders reduced from paragraphs to cover every eventuality to simple Action Letter, Primary Sector Letter, Shooting Priority – if appropriate, and move Quick or Warily

Extra weapon/armour classes added to allow for Medievals / Eastern armies – 2HCT (Halberd, Bill, Naginata), HG (Handgun) and Bombards added, SHI, SHK, EHK

Option to base Regular LMI / LHI on close bases – 15mm wide but retaining original depth – and move at same speed as MI / HI but retain terrain-crossing abilities; makes regular Peltasts and LMI archer blocks (e.g. Sudanese Ghulams in Fatimid / Ayyubid lists, Byzantine and English archers) really nasty.

What's not to like?

I loved 6th edition, its been years since I've played a game.

cheers

If not 7th in its day, 3rd or 4th for me.

FoG, DBA, Armati, AMW and Lost Battles, now, depending on the circumstances and available players. All good in their own ways.