| hwarang | 11 Oct 2009 7:23 a.m. PST |
just had a look at the rules… they are here, BTW:
PDF link (big thanks to WRG to make their rulwes available that way. the greatness of Mrs. and Mr. Barker and company shows once again.) they look fun. extremely so. really makes me want to get some of those old Airfix molds of romans (yes, just that. no silly "Middle Imperial" or whatever) and "britons"(cheesyness deluxe) and have them duke it out. does anyopne among the esteemed Old Grumblers remeber those rules and can say how they fared? they dont look too intimidating and about 2 hrs for the standard 800 pt game sounds good too. what are peoples opininons? thanks a lot! |
| Connard Sage | 11 Oct 2009 7:47 a.m. PST |
2 hours once you know the damn things inside out and back to front. Otherwise add another couple of hours. More if your opponent is the argumentative type. |
TKindred  | 11 Oct 2009 7:52 a.m. PST |
Just remember that they are written in Barkerese. Once you are fluent, and have memorized everything, including the use of generalities where specificity would have been better, then, as Connard Sage commented, you are good to go. There was a time when they were the rules D'Jour and some still play them. I just had a lot of difficulty with them, from a comprehension standpoint..  |
 x42brown | 11 Oct 2009 8:00 a.m. PST |
Although I have a copy purchased at that time I did not get to play them much (an overwhelming personality had us all playing Napoleonics). It was second edition that I first really got into WRG and they played well for enjoyment and 2hrs was reasonable for a good game (can't remember the points values of the armies). Third edition is still my favoured rules set. x42 |
| Rudysnelson | 11 Oct 2009 8:51 a.m. PST |
I always played 4th and 5th edition which are still some of my favorite games. I never played this version. |
| John the OFM | 11 Oct 2009 9:02 a.m. PST |
You have to remember the context in which they were written. According to the lays as sung by ancient bards, Phil just threw them together for a fun game at a convention. Play them with that in mind, and not as if the ship will sink if the sacred chickens don't play by the God's Intent. After the 1st ed, He looked upon His works and saw that they were good. Now, to fix things so Byzantines and Britons can get guaranteed wins… |
| hwarang | 11 Oct 2009 9:04 a.m. PST |
yes, they read like a fun game.
also the style of writing is much less of a chalenge than in DBx. onme gets the impression that the oddities of PB's language might be a reaction to players urging him for über-clear writing. but the context, according to the rules booklet, involved over 2 years of research and playtesting. maybe i should try 3rd edition insted. the point values in 1st edition make zero sense. |
| hwarang | 11 Oct 2009 11:08 a.m. PST |
seems like the 3rd edition is also online… great. |
| reddrabs | 11 Oct 2009 11:35 a.m. PST |
I enjoyed them – sorry for those for whom Mr Featherstone's missives are the bible/koran/etc. but they were a huge leap forward. |
| Grizwald | 11 Oct 2009 11:54 a.m. PST |
"seems like the 3rd edition is also online… great." As is 4th Edition:
link Together with the "Dover Amendments" (as played by the late Charles Grant):
link |
| Cyrus the Great | 11 Oct 2009 12:36 p.m. PST |
I wouldn't bother, but ymmv. |
| hwarang | 11 Oct 2009 2:10 p.m. PST |
yes, but 1st, 2nd and 3rd come in a handy pdf… |
| Grizwald | 11 Oct 2009 2:23 p.m. PST |
"yes, but 1st, 2nd and 3rd come in a handy pdf…" PDF is just another format. Makes no difference if you're going to print them out for actual play. (Would you believe, some people still use old fashioned books! ) |
| Connard Sage | 11 Oct 2009 2:36 p.m. PST |
Looking at the PDFs and the way the hard copies have been scanned and randomly formatted, one might believe that Mrs Barker's computer skills are on a par with her husbands literary efforts. |
| RockyRusso | 11 Oct 2009 3:00 p.m. PST |
Hi The way Phil told me the story a couple decades ago was the convention tournaments were driving everyone crazy. Simply, every convention tourny was owned by the host club and the system was in failrue as people hated re-basing and feeling abused by the host club. Phil was asked to write a set as he wasn't affiliated with any of the host clubs but respected by many. He was given two weeks to do the deed. When we talked about this in 81, he said that he hated the constant revisions as much as everyone else. And he hated the "biblical fundimentalist" attitude that had evolved (grin) out of that. In retrospect, he would have said NO or done something different, but observed that HE was just as trapped as everyone else. My friend Scotty and I had been given a similar task by Paramount and Heritage to come up with star trek rules to release with the first ST movie AND the figures being comissioned. And they gave us two weeks as well. I remember how difficult it was for us in a system where all we had to do was not contradict the movie !!! Sheesh. In our case, we did have a larger generic set of SF rules designed to work with any media SF universe….and all we had to do was slice out everything that WASN'T trek! Still was a nightmare. Long way of saying, I admire Phil and those first rules. It ain't as easy as his detractors seem to see it. Rocky |
| Sundance | 11 Oct 2009 4:15 p.m. PST |
Books, Mike! Whoever heard of such a thing?! |
| korsun0 | 11 Oct 2009 7:10 p.m. PST |
I liked 4th,5th and 6th and gave up wargaming for a long long time when 7th, DBA and DBM came out and everyone stopped playing 5th and 6th…… |
| Madmike1 | 11 Oct 2009 7:12 p.m. PST |
umm, I still have a mint condition copy of the second edition. I guess a first edition in the same condition would be way more valuable than a Gutenberg bible. |
| Cyrus the Great | 11 Oct 2009 7:46 p.m. PST |
he said that he hated the constant revisions as much as everyone else. Especially the laborious chore of revising them to allow the armies he currently fancied, that edition, to win. |
| x42brown | 11 Oct 2009 8:06 p.m. PST |
Madmike1
Are you sure my first edition (I got for Worthing) is barely used and in better condition than my well thumbed 3rd edition. x42 |
| hwarang | 12 Oct 2009 1:24 a.m. PST |
of course, i prefer books too. but those would be a bit hard to get in print copies.
pdf is much better for me as my skills at printing out anything else at the right size are abysmal. having skimmed the 3rd edition rules… i now doubt they could play as fast (well, medium fast would be enough for me – but even that i doubt now..) as i hoped. those reaction tests and the list of modifiers that go with it sure are intimidating… |
| colin knight | 12 Oct 2009 1:37 a.m. PST |
We have recently gone back to 6th edition. difficult to interperet mind you but fine once you master them. The hard fact is many rule systems that followed were dumded down but I think we lost something with that. Games have been going well and are More realistic and use lots of skill. The reason we stopped using them was they went out of fashion and not because they were not enjoyable. I love how WAB has brought many people back to ancients however. with regards to DBM- a change for the sake of sake of change. |
| jameshammyhamilton | 12 Oct 2009 1:46 a.m. PST |
There were 42 people in the 6th Edition tournament at Derby the other weekend. It was the biggest single period among the mass of Ancients players. |
| colin knight | 12 Oct 2009 2:05 a.m. PST |
Glad to hear it still being used. I would challenge people to have a game with others who know the rules well and you will be surprised how realistic and fun they are. They really stretch your tactics, forward thinking and cunning. Lists can be amended with agreement. An example would be many Libyans being LMI warbands instead of LI. This is quite reasonable I believe and the same applies to Midianites ect. This gives lots of fun option in Biblical period and which I intend to fight in period(did that rarely before WAB somehow) Also the rules(may be bad for some wallets though) allow a greater number of chariots and elephants on adding to visual effect. |
| colin knight | 12 Oct 2009 2:23 a.m. PST |
Just joined the yahoo WRG 6th group. |
| Big Red | 12 Oct 2009 12:21 p.m. PST |
We played a game of 4th Edition this summer and had a good time. Earlier editions are not written in the same language as 6th or 7th or later WRG publications. The reaction tests and modifiers are much easier to use after a couple of games since many of them do not apply and it becomes easier to ignore the irrelevant ones. Orders (before 6th ) edition however are a much sticker problem. TMP link |
| Aloysius the Gaul | 12 Oct 2009 4:48 p.m. PST |
6th edition realistic? with wedges of Kn insterspersed between "battalions" of pikes to stop infantry from countercharging is realistic?? Sorry – the unit concept was screwed. Orders that specified that you could counterchard "X" troops but not "y" if they were 81 paces away but not closer, etc….. Troops that had to have a thrown weapon because sword on its own is so useless even though we know they didn't have any thrown weapon. Casualty tables that tell you how many "men" a voley of arrows or slingstones kill even tho we have no idea whether it is true or not…. sorry – there is little in 6th fits my definition of realistic. |
