"Warrior and WRG 7th differences" Topic

Fluter,

If you are looking for the aspects of building an army you might want to look at Medieval Warfare by Terry Gore.

Medieval Warfare is also another set of rules you might want to look at. Fluter, you're just going to have to bite the bullet and order one or two sets. I own and have played WRG 7th, Medieval Warfare, DBA, Armati, Shattered Lances, Piquet Archon, Might of Arms, Shock of Impact (I haven't given DBM a try.) All these games have good things going for them. Its been a long search for a set I really like. In my opinion, I like Shattered Lances best for Dark Ages/Medieval for all the reasons I've given above in previous posts. If Shattered Lances didn't exist I'd being trying Warrior or Medieval Warfare or doing some really serious tweaking of Armati.

I saw the army lists on the saga site and it seems to be just like DBA (HC, LC Foot etc…). That is what MW offers right?

I'm thinking of buying either revenge, warrior, WRG 7th or SL. Or mabe two out of those sets. Now I didn't find a lot of info on revenge and how they define their troops. From the comments here and elsewhere I can see that people say it's detailed so is it like Warrior or the george gush rules and to a higher degree of complication?

I have a very old edition of WRG and from what I see it leans towards DBA in the sense of troop definitions. In the warrior and George gush rules I see the troops having specific weapons but in WRG it's just EHC, EHK, HI etc.. but didn't specify about the detailed weapons and shields that the troops carry so that seems to simplify the armys a bit. Is WRG 7th also like that? So warrior has changed the armies to be more complicated like the george gush rules? Thanks.

Can you explain to me how or by how much more complicated is revenge to warrior? Like the composite bows you mentioned, how were they unique in Revenge?

I thought Brendan's suggestion of Revenge rules as a bit of tongue and cheek humour. I've seen them but they don't look that interesting to me. However I might be wrong. Take a look at this

TMP link

So you are saying that he meant that Revenge is simple? According to the link you gave Brendan also said that it was kind of complexed (6 types of armour and many types of weapon) Since you have it, do you think that It matches my preference?

and about medieval warfare, according to the army lists on the official site, the units just seem to be more generic like LC and HC. Is that what Medieval warfare is like?

Strictly for comparison purposes, consider Norman knights (milites):

In Medieval Warfare (Gore) these are Veteran Irregular Heavy Cavalry equipped with lance and shield.

In WRG 7th, these are Irregular B, Heavy Cavalry (or Heavy Knights) equipped with lance and shield. I presume that Warrior is practically identical. They can fight in wedge.

In Revenge, these are "Noble" Horse, Armour Class 3, potentially equipped with light lance, sword and/or mace, and shield.

In Shattered Lances, these are Audacious Light Chevaliers (lances etc are implicit to the chevalier category).

In DBA,these are Kn

In DBM, these are Irreg Knight(Fast)

In Tactica, these are Heavy Cavalry with a Fighting Value of 5-6, weapons are simply 'various', they get a +3 morale and may fight in 2 ranks during the first charge of the game.

I can't recall the Armati classification.

Of these rules, only Shattered Lances, Revenge and Medieval Warfare purport to be 'specific' medieval sets.

Chthonic regards

B

Thanks for the info.

In WRG, aren't there even more armour types than 6? And how detailed would say medieval warfare is? Is it just Heavy, medium, light or is there much more like in WRG with the EH, SH, etc..?

In WRG, aren't there even more armour types than 6? And how detailed would say medieval warfare is? Is it just Heavy, medium, light or is there much more like in WRG with the EH, SH, etc..?

In WRG, you have light, medium, heavy, extra-heavy and super-heavy categories, with light-medium and light-heavy rounding off the combinations.

In MW, you get extra categories also, such as Fully Mailed Cavalry.

As a small correction to the above, Norman milites are also rated as Initiative 6 in SL.

Chthonic regards

B

How is the Warhammer Historical series? Is that just a port from the fantasy game?

I think we need to define what you are trying to do with your rules better. Every rules system is a compromise on some level. What you have to define is what 'YOU' want in a game. Once you think you have defined what you want then the rules search begins. Here are some examples of what you might ask yourself (not comprehensive by any means!)

1. Do I want unit combat (Medieval Warware, Warrior, Might of Arms, Armati etc.), skirmish combat (Pig Wars, Revenge, WAB etc.) or abstracted combat (DBM, DBA, etc.? Also, what figure ratio do you want 1:1, 1:100, 1:1000 etc.

2. Assuming you want unit combat, it seems that you want detail. Rules authors try to lump armor and weapon classes to abreviate combat results; you don't have to. For instance, some of my fellow local gamers did a campaign and added armor classes that allowed light cavarly to be uparmored without loss of mobility. You are free to modify any rules as long as your opponent agrees. The reason to go with rules as written is that it allows you to play opponents from other areas in competitions on an equal playing field.

3. It sounds like you want detail as far as weaponry and armor differences go. Skirmish rules tend to do this the best but are too cumbersome for large battles.

Please don't assume that a set of rules will not work for both ancients and medievals. I can categorically say that Warrior will and has. I have seen some comments say that Warrior doesn't work with medieval combat as well because it doesn't specifically say it does. Well, this is dead wrong. My group plays the rules extensively with medieval armies and the results seem believable.

Might of Arms is a great set of rules but it is not as detailed in troop classification as Warrior. Also, dismounted heavy knights rule the battlefield and skew the game every time. (you would have to play to truly understand this). I happen to like Might of Arms but it is too predictable to my eyes. It borrows a lot from WRG 6th edition as does Medieval Tactica and Medieval Warfare do.

Warrior seems to have the best blend of detail AND playability to my mind but this may be just me. The army list specific rules add to the flavor of each army as I mentioned in previous posts as well. If having multiple armor classes, separating combat and missle firing, tactical response charges and evading (available in certain situations), combat by unit/body and army specific rules appeal to you then I would buy Warrior as one of your first purchases. If you aren't sure, play with other players first to see (hopefully in a game demo format).

What I have learned is that I want rules that do what I mentioned previously for ancients and medievals because I love the periods. If I were only gaming casually, I would probably play a more abstracted game and not worry about playing in more detail. For instance, we are trying to decide on Napoleonic rules and I am debating on how involved I want to be. I know I want unit formations and this probably means playing a battalion based game rather than a brigade level game.

Chris
San Antonio, Texas

Fluter –

Warhammer Historical works perfectly well and I play it far more than other medieval systems at this point.

However, Chris hits it spot on. We need to know what you want out of a game before we can offer anything particulary useful to you.

I can recommend Warhammer's Age of Chivalry to you til I'm blue in the face, but perhaps that's not for you. My guess is that you, like me when I started examining medieval systems, do not really know what you want yet out of a game. That's pretty normal!

The real test of a ruleset, for me as a beginner, was not playing it initially. I prefer to watch it played.

Wargaming is a unique pursuit – it's almost like oral history or a play. Yes – you can read a play and get a sense of its themes and flow, but you really need to see it
acted out before you to fully appreciate it.

I watched DBM, DBA, Armati, and Medieval Tacitca and several other games – I bought the rules for all of them (not really that costly) and then played a few games. I didn't find any of those fit my taste in the long run. Then – in 1996, I walked into a shop near Leicester and played a Warhammer demo. I was immediately hooked.

I'd really encourage you to try as many systems as you can. Hit a convention and watch the games, find a couple you like, buy the rules and try them out. When you hit a ruleset you like, you'll know it.

Then go with it. It's better than blowing a few hundred on a ruleset, army books, and models you don't end up using just because someone convinced you they had the best system.

John

@ancientsgamer
I think we need to define what you are trying to do with your rules better. Every rules system is a compromise on some level.

I agree completely. A lot depends on the issues that Chris has raised- the scale of the battle etc.

Please don't assume that a set of rules will not work for both ancients and medievals. I can categorically say that Warrior will and has. …

Much more debatable methinks.
Warrior- like many ancients sets that have been extrapolated to cover the medieval era- fails the simple 'birds-eye test'. The tabletop does not look like a medieval battle.

You don't organise and deploy your army as medieval commanders do, with multiple lines of combatants (e.g. the French at Poitiers or the Teutonic knights at Tannenburg). You deploy 'more like' a classical battle-line, because troop classifications and organisations draw much more on Hellenistic drill manuals and Romano-Byzantine warfare, than they do on 'medieval warfare'.

Now this may well be irrelevant to Fluter, and he may well find that Warrior suits his preferences. I'm okay with that. Nonetheless, I have not yet been convinced that there is any 'generic set' that covers 'medieval' warfare nearly as well as it does 'classical'.

Chthonic ruminations

B