"WRG ?Edition?" Topic

I know the 7th is the last one, but was it the best?

By best, I mean, the easiest and most fun to play without needing a lawyer to clarify the rules…

Thanks for your help!

I always liked 5th ed best. Even though I played in about 2 tournaments per year, I was never top caliber. So, I never distilled them down to the neck-vein throbbing minutae.
I liked it because you had to roll 3 morale dce before you charged. Your results could be anywhere from "Run away! Run away!" to "Charge impetuously!" In 7th and Warrior, you can just decide you want to go impetuous. I prefer the chance factor.

My greatest triumphs were also during 5th.

6th just struck me as same-old same-old, but different. Not better, just different.

With 7th ed, it was like Phil Barker slapped his forehead and cried "Eureka! This is a simulation!" Well, it wasn't. No wargame can be. He also kept changing things, so you could have 7, 7.1, 7.2, etc. There were enough changes to trap the unwary, but not to make it any better. (He continued the endless tinkering with DBM.) The game never improved, unless your opponents army got screwed, and yours got better.
Warrior is 7th ed, but "written gooder".

So, in my opinon, the earlier the edition, the fewer headaches, the better as a game. Despite PB's insistance that he writes clearly, he does not.

I like the 6th ed myself. In the 7th he added a fatigue factor that wasn't part of the 6th. Some people like that feature but most I know say it isn't worth the extra hassle.

I liked 5th and 6th. Unlike John I think 6th could have used a bit of polishing rather going to the "Big Battle" rules that became WRG 7th.

I'm not sure but 6th may have had the shortest time of print before being replaced by a complete new edition.

7th edition was different from the previous ones. 1st – 6th edition tended to be old style with improvements as the editions advanced. 7th edition seemed to be the author suddenly decided to make use of some of the newer game mechanics that had been invented in the previous 20 years.

I liked the 5th Edition best, but went to the 6th when the rest of the club did. 7th was tried and universaly rejected, thus killing ancients here for many years except for the occasional game of 6th. We now do Warmaster Ancients a lot, but somehow it's just not the same feel.

5th

You will never find out which is best and so many players have very firm views on their favourite edition.

Depending on your style of play and opponents in your area try 5th, 6th and 7th and find which one you prefer as they all give different games.

Not much help I know but Ancient players are fussy people (and no I don't game Ancients as I like a working heart…all other ancient gamers in my club have had heart problems !!)

I'll play devils advocate and say DBA. I'm a little to young
to remember pre 6th.

6th was fin, but involved a lot of thinking and counting.
7th didn't remove much of that, and introduced the "Let's wait till the other guy gets fatigued" syndrome whihc never really satisfied.

5th for me.

5th for me – with a small 'tweak' – rolling a D20 to decide whether the 'spare' casualties in any combat resulted in removing another figure or not – it removed the need to keep a record of casualties and speeded things up.

Always hated 6th Ed. First army to get a unit impetuous won the game regardless in my experience. 7th Ed. seemed very fresh when it first arrived but the competion gamers managed to wreck it… :( I still enjoy the Gush WRG Renaissance rules which I believe were based on 5th Edition.

7th was rubbish, others like it and it was used as the base for some other rules. It really wasn't the 7th version of a set of rules as it was very different, it should have been called something unrelated to the other 6 sets.

5th edition was one I played a lot. 7th was so different , it should have had a different name.

I remember being told that the secret to winning with 5th was tied to how well you knew page 20. Played a lot more 6th edition games, played 7th once.

Only version I ever played was the 5th. It's too complicated for me these days. Where are my meds?

I have listened to people say that 7th was rubbish, but the explanations never make much sense to me. I started WRG Ancients with 4th edition, and to me, 7th was a great leap forward. Fatigue added a lot of realism, and organising troops into elements was a huge improvement. Warrior is a teriffic game; it's basically a rationalised and cleaned up version of 7th edition.

I took up "ancient" gaming about 10 years ago. 7 Years ago I delveloped a heart problem. Now I see the corolation between the two. And my doctor told me to quit smoking. He should have made me quit ancients. Darn it …

I saw two Warrior players at a recent convention. They both were asleep at the table with their armies arrayed on the table. You don't think they both had heart attacks do you?

Mike B

I'm not sure but 6th may have had the shortest time of print before being replaced by a complete new edition.

Not so. 1st Edition 1969, 2nd 1969, 3rd 1971, 4th 1973, 5th 1976, 6th 1980, 7th 1986. So 6th lasted longer than any previous version. Most versions (possibly all except the short-lived 1st) had amendment sheets before being superseded.

I started WRG rules with 3rd Edition, and 5th was my favourite. Didn't like 7th at all, and quit playing Ancients until DBA then DBM appeared.

Judging from this scientific poll, I'd have to say 5th seems to be the one folks really like. *shrug*

In the UK 6th seems to be the most popular of the old sets. There are several tournaments every year that can get up to 30 players. Not at all bad for a ruleset published nearly 30 years ago.

Personally I far prefered 5th or 6th. I think I played more 6th than anything else before 7th turned me off ancients completely then DBA brought me back and DBM hooked me good and propper.

I'm still using 5th and I've got heart trouble!.

I remeber reading notes on 15mm (I think?) play in the back of the 3rd edition that look to me now like the Genesis of DBA- wow…

Many thanks guys…It appears I should start from the 5th. Much appreciated your inputs! Ioannis.

I've liked different WRG sets & derivatives, but I have a question – why a WRG set in particular?

I'm with Nikator on this. 7th was a breath of fresh air compared to the rest. Not that difficult to play and without the endless morale charts of the previous editions. Not sure I understand the 7th/Warrior bashing i hear on this forum all the time. Much better than anything that has followed it especially that tripe called DBM….Warror will certainly be my rules of choice. If I had to choose another ancient set it would be MOA.

Stosstrupen

For me 7th was the killer blow that turned me off Ancients wargaming for the best part of 10 years. I was far from alone in being in that boat.

I liked the innovations in 7th, which included some simpler mechanisms facilitated by a more complex sequence of play. The problem was understanding the text and remembering all the steps (problem solved with a flowchart). I didn't care much for the way Fatigue worked, and it remained based on details of equipment and tactical formation. Warrior is a clean up of and improvement on 7th, and a good game with tactical intricacy that is both interesting and a challenge.

However, I get the same kind of tactical nuances and more fun from Field of Glory, very different rules but having a sequence of play and mechanisms that add depth but with less overhead. I loved DBM but too many revisions led me to fall by the wayside and focus on a later period in DBR. Although DBMM is a worthy successor to DBM that resolves many issues, I prefer FoG at this point.

, which doesn't reatin thprefer Field However, Field of Glory offers a – some mechanisms were simpler, thoand a more complex interactive sequence of play. The problem was following all the steps and it wa

7th was diferent in some ways from the continuum of development 1st through 6th and never caught on. 6th is still alive and well and generating competitions for die hard supporters.

Barker's thoughts then went sideways into DBA and then DBM

It's arguable whether 5th or 6th was "the Best"

The 3rd was my favourite. I think it went down hill from then but I can't get any opposition to plat 3rd these days so 5th is it.

x42

6th Edition. If I had unlimited wargames funds I'd go out and buy a 25mm Byzantine army and join in the thriving 25mm 6th edition tournament circuit.

If only…….

In general I prefer 5th Edition but 6th is playable.

The biggest things I remember about the 6th edition were the change to the base sizes for 15mm to allow the figs to actually fit as the original 15mm were overtaken by scale creep so that close order infantry wouldn't fit and regular loose order were now based at the same width as close, just deeper.

7th edition saw the disappearance of anything resembling a scale of the number of figs on the table to men, a big failing in my view. When the number of figs don't mean anything more than one per stand could be considered a waste of money and might as well play with counters.

And the renovations seemed to replace one set of things to slow down the game with another set.

As far as fun mechanics, remember signals? Get your general somewhat near the opposing and then start sending signals. See if the opponent had used any of the same ones and now had troops doing the wrong thing.

Remember the joy/terror of challenging the opposing general to single combat and winning/losing?

Units lost on flank marches?

And not forcing units to line up in neat blocks to resolve combat? Cantabrian circles and wedges and other formations?

Oh well, c'est la guerre.

5th edition for me

could not get my head round 7th at all

My favourite is 9th edition, otherwise known as DBMM.

"Remember the joy/terror of challenging the opposing general to single combat and winning/losing?"

Har har! I seem to remember being an overconfident Roman Consul and challenging the Gaulish chieftain Fornicatorix to a 1v1 duel and losing. I believe the negative morale factor that we took from that ended up being the decisive factor in the ensuing Roman disaster. I don't remember what edition it was but we needed a calculator…

I remember a 6th edition game at my local club where a Viking army fought Sassanids. The Viking general challenged the Sassanid to a duel and won. As a result the Viking army broke before the first move started :D

The Sassanid general's bodyguard cataphracts charged to recover his body, killed the viking general and all but a couple of me of his one figure bodyguard (carrying the raven banner). The Viking bodyguard routed over a low rise (the whole viking army was deployed behind a long low hill) pursued by the Sassanids. The Vikings had to test for something like: general dead, sacred standard retreating, friends routing, enemy uphill, surprise sighting etc. The first unit to test were some Huscarl who only rolled a 14 or so on three dice so broke. After that things got much worde for the Vikings.

Those were the days….

Third edition most definitely. It was a nice easy to play set. But for us it also came with the Charlie Tarbox addition. We would ask Charlie and he would call Phil.

Rich