"WAB, FoG, or Crusader rules?" Topic

I'm starting backwards- I have most of the figures now I am looking for rules.
I want to game in 28mm with about 100 figures per army. They are single based right now but I could mount them on magnetic cards for whatever the ruleset dictates.
Something appropriate for Imperial Romans, Crusades and War of Roses.
Anyones opinions on pros and cons of these rulesets?
Thanks in advance!

I would first try to find out what the other players in your area are playing.

To be honest FoG really needs more figures than you are talking about, I would have thought that a normal 25mm army would be in the 150-200 figure range (counting cavalry as 2) WAB is I think slightly smaller but still over 100 figures per army.

You may want to look at Impetus or Basic Impetus as it does work with less figures.

The options you mention are not compatible with your figure count.
Obviously you should check with whom you are going to play with in the first instance, but I'll assume you have your mind set on the game.

Try AWr 3.1 if you accept the absence of you-go-I-go turn sequence for a moderately complex game. Latest version is now 2 yers old and free.

link

For half that figure count ABC would be best,.
For both games there are no markers nor bookeeping of any kind.

J

100 per side is enough for a 1000 point WAB army in some cases. 1000 points is small, but can give a game.

Armies you could get in 100 figures for more than 1000 points would be Crusaders with lots of Knights, or Normans.

Your problem would be the opposition – unless your armies are fighting each other (Not uncommon at all for Romans, less so for crusaders) a 1000 Point Barbarian army would have a lot more than 100 figures, as would a decent Arab period force.

Push your number of figures to 200 a side and you are approaching the right numbers for a decent WAB force. My Big WAB Barbarian Warband is just a hair over 200

For FOG and Crusader of course, the rules are element based so you could cheat by only putting one figure per base.

May I make a left-field suggestion? we play Lord of the Rings rules with Saxons and Vikings, simply by using existing troop types from the book that are a good match.

Pat

mmh, this is what you could deploy with a 300pts army for Impetus

1 Fair General – 20pts
6 Units of Knights – 174pts (with 4 figures per Unit, a total of 24 figures)
3 Units of Foot Sergeants – 63pts (with 8 figures per Unit: 24 figures)
2 Units Crossbowmen – 24pts (with 6-7 figure per base: 12-14 figures).

Total:
24 mounted figures
36-38 foot

Adding 2 more generals and 5-6 Units (a Unit of Military Order Knight costs 45pts, just in case) you can easily reach 500pts, but honestly 300pts works fine for 28mm if you want to play on a 120x180cm board.

Another vote for Basic Impetus.

We tried it for the first time at club this week and really enjoyed it.

Given your number of figures, this system should be ideal for 28mm troops (8-10 figures per element on average – much fewer for cavalry)

8-10 figures per element on average

Isn't Basic Impetus really just Quadruple DBA? ie 120mm frontages? That would make for 16 figures per heavy infantry unit and you're in the 200 figure range again.

if you use DBx bases the ideal is to "quadruple" them for a Unit. Actually I suggest just to double (ignoring the depth).
If you use big bases Unit you will save a lot of figures!!
Above all for 28mm figures.

Saltflats2 has his figures individual based and can choose between the big base system (see how 28mm could look link or use slotta bases.

WAB is very flexible with respect to points and army size/number of figures.

I've had great WAB games at 750, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 3000 points plus.

WAB without a doubt!

One option I have seen is 400pt Field of Glory armies. I made up a couple and they don't seem to bad. WAB 1000pt-ish and I think the games would be similar feeling: small but still with some depth.

Some people are suggesting 400pt with 1/2 price commanders and 1/2 BG minimums. I making my lists, I thought the existing prices and minima were OK.

I like WAB for small, medium and large games. I've played in plenty of games where we have used 100 or less figures a side and they have always been enjoyable.

If you have around 100 Early Imperial Romans that will give you a WAB game of around 1500 points. Regular Legionaries in WAB are 16 points each, Veteran Legionaries are 20 points each. Depending on your troop selections you could even push it close to 2000 points.

Your best bet would be to try and play a game of each, as the rules you have mentioned do play differently. I know people who Love WAB and those that hate it. Likewise FOG, I don't know anyone who plays the Crusader rules.

WAB is also pretty fun at the smaller end – 500 to 750pts (which is basically 500pts with a few characters added), at least for Dark Ages settings. I suspect that Imperial Romans v. Gauls would be good at this size too, playing "Cohort against a tribe" sized engagements at around 1:20 men.

You can easily get by with 50-60 figures, especially if you have a unit of cavalry or some tough infantry.

I would certainly recommend that you give Arcane Warfare a try – a very good set of rules, suitable for a range of different sized armies, and FREE!

I have been playing them for a long time now and can heartily recommend them.

My favorite is WAB and with 100 figures and the armies you are talking about you can do about a 1000 pt game as has been stated and have a good time. You will no doubt over time want to do more have larger games. But as others have already advised check out your local groups to see where the interests are. Or if no one in you group/area is gaming any other periods then perhaps you are the one to introduce a new game.

Of the three, WAB is your best bet. Basic Impetus and Sane Max's LOTR SBG suggestion for historical figures are also strong contenders. There really is a soft spot when it comes to available rules from 60 to 120 figures in 28mm that plays well on table no more than 4 ft. deep. Two fantasy rulesets that may work (without magic and monsters) are Douglas Niles' BattleSystem ($5 PDF download) or Nick Lund's Fantasy Warriors (free from Mirliton's website).

From your original choice with that amount of figures you'd probably be looking at WAB – however I'd seriously think of trying out Impetus – you can try the free version first. At my club we all really like both the basic and the full version.

I did a review of it at …
wargamesjournal.com

I own or have read all of the games mentioned so here is a comparison.

WAB is highly recognizable. I suspect that you could get an opponent pretty easily if you have a GW store near you. Those Fantasy gamer tyoes are almost certainly going to give it a go. The game is easy to understand and moves along quickly. As mentioned, you generally need 150-200 figures per side but there is a "border reaver" option that is made for 500 point armies that will give a quick game with smaller units. The supplements are a strength of the game. There is a lot of historical information in these and you can learn quite a bit from them. Even if you don't like WAB, the supplements are worth a read.

Basing: You have singles. This would be your path of least resistance for start up time and cost.

FoG is a complex game (not to be confused with complicated). Its collection of many simple mechanics make it so. The game itself seems solid enough and models Ancient warfare quite well. Some might say too well. The mechanics allow for the slow grind that is often associated with the ancient periods. The figure requirement is quite large…again around 150-200 figures per side. However, as mentioned before, you can cut the minimum and maximums in half on the army lists and have a half sized battle. The game mechanics have some similarities to WAB with the throwing of multiple dice to hit and a saving throw (known as a death roll). There is also a cohesion check to determine if you lose morale status.

Basing: It uses WRG basing. I would recommend 80mm frontage as figures have grown over the years and you can't fit 4 figures on a 60mm front anymore. This will leave enough room for upto 4 infantry or 3 cavalry.

Crusader miniatures rules uses 40-50mm sq with 2-5 figures on each depending on class. Each stand can take 2-4 hits before it is eliminated. You activate one unit at a time and perform movement shooting and combat before moving to the next unit. If one of your units is routed as a result, play immediatly switches to the opponent. So, you should save any risky moves for the end. Combat is done by rolling 1-2 d10 per stand in contact. If the stand is greater than or equal to the target number, you hit. Target numbers are modified by combat skill, armor of the target, weapons based on situation, terrain. The final combat resolution is similar to WAB with a comparison of casualties modified by rank bonus, morale state and so forth.

Basing: This is the foundry system basing with upto 4 infantry or 2 cavalry per stand. Generally it is 40mm square for infantry and 50mm square for cavalry.

Impetus is freely down loadable so it would do you well to have a look. Movement is similar to crusader in that you move and fight with a unit before moving onto the next. Combat is based on D6. You roll a certain amount based on unit type. For every 6 or double 5's you roll, record 1 hit. These drive down the unit's combat value. This is the number you need to save against damage. The amount you fail by is the amount of reduction to the combat value.

Basing: I would use 100mm by 50mm frontage for Impetus. This way, you can fit 4 cavalry or 8-10 infantry per stand. You generally need 8-11 stands per army in basic impetus.

Arcane Battle composer is the dark horse of the group. Generally, it is similar in over all concept to DBA. However, there are no combat factors. That's right. Each uit has a 0 combat factor but then there are modifiers for terrain, flanking, overlapping, deep pike formations and so forth to make the difference in combat. A unit will either recoil or die. A table tells you how much you need to beat the opponent's die roll by to kill the opponent. Example: A Edge weapon unit (legionares) need to beat a pike unit by only 2 to kill the pike unit. But, the pike you will likely have another pike unit behind it making them harder to beat. This is a game that is well worth a look. It should provide a fast fun game.

Basing: Essentially WRG as mentioned above.

acarhj:
Fair ABC description, but I would like to point out another major difference towards other games: combat is always fought after *both* sides have moved. This is extremely important (more so on larger games with 3+ commanders per side) because mastering the INI system is often the key to win.

Also I've just checked the rules: for 28mm the recommended frontage is 80mm not 60, so this meets one earlier comment.

Oh. Forgot to mention that. The person with the initiative choses how combat flows in acombat round, resolving whichever combat he wants first. If he loses the combat, the other player selects the next combat and keeps going unless he loses a combat. And so forth. This, BTW, is the feature I was most impressed with the game.

WAB !

Medieval Warfare by Terry Gore.

Medieval Warfare by Terry Gore.

I second!

Don't you just love it when someone asks for opinions about a, b or c rule sets, and someone responds with, "z"? ;-)

Cheers,
Scott

Thanks for the input!

<Don't you just love it when someone asks for opinions about a, b or c rule sets, and someone responds with, "z"? ;-)>

Just tryin to be helpful, and if we assume (I know , I know – when I assume I am making a Muse out of an As) that what he really wants is the best game for these figures, other suggestions do no harm.

Pat

And besides…"Z" is clearly the best answer in this question.

("Z" = "Medieval Warfare" by Terry Gore)

Why Medieval Warfare? vs. something I know like DBx or FoG in terms of mechanisms, sequence of play, tactical structures? (assuming 100 figures is not the limit) It has had a strong following for a long while and I'm interested in the comparison.

Here are a couple links to MW topics. Let me know if you have any specific questions about it:

theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=136807

theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=133728

and from Amazon.com:

"Product Description
The medieval period was a time of feudalism and fanaticism, to causes religious or secular, fought by men who threw their lives into the maelstrom of bloody hand-to-hand combat, enduring horrendous wounds and deprivations of all kinds. Generals, be they high born kings or ambitious mercenaries, were revered and blindly followed because they were good fighters or simply spoke well. Men fought for God, wealth and honor, not necessarily in that order. A man had to fulfill his feudal obligations or he was sure he would go to hell.

These rules are intended to give an intense, exciting and mentally challenging game to those who enjoy a test of wills. Players must make many tactical decisions each turn and these will have more of an effect on the outcome of the game than the luck of the dice. Each turn tactical decisions will be made by the player. Some are simple; to charge or to defend. Others are not; whether to fire an intensive arrow barrage and run low of missiles, or to hold back and trust your accuracy will be enough to blunt the enemy charge. Which units you choose to move each turn may give away your strategy, or perhaps deceive your opponent into committing his reserves. Good tactics will win the game for you. You will find that it is important to weaken an enemy before simply charging in with your heaviest troops. Rarely will a reckless charge be rewarded with success.

Above all, you should find each game enjoyable and stimulating. Hopefully, you will gain some knowledge of the difficulties of command in the Medieval period. "

I would go with FoG from the list that you gave.

Arcane Battle Composer (if I have the name right) has its points, but like my preferred system, you will be at a stretch to get new opponents.

From the looks of Historicon, FoG is likely to have a rather large impact here in the USA.

I am rushing to get several more units finished so that I can do a side-by-side comparison of Hoplon and FoG (and have some LotR armies ready to play with as well).

saltflats2,

For the sake of comparison, more information on the Field of Glory rules may be found at the main FoG web site: fieldofglory.com

Wargames Journal has recently published an in-depth review of FoG: PDF link

The entry for FoG at BoardGameGeek.com has a great deal of information, including links to three additional in-depth reviews in the Forum: boardgamegeek.com/game/31542

For even more information, you might want to check out the official FoG discussion forum: link

Or if you prefer Yahoo discussion groups, the main one for FoG is located here: link

Hope this helps with your decision. Good gaming to you!

Cheers,
Scott

"From the looks of Historicon, FoG is likely to have a rather large impact here in the USA."

Nostradomus' Historicon no doubt.. through the fog of the future comes histus and napoleron.. maybe the impact will be like a comet, an extinction event?

whooosh there goes the skin being seared off my body by scalding steam….

Fog shrouds the globe…. for centuries…. lizards discover wargaming and create a new set of rules…

hissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssstus

Nostradomus'

damn mispelled Nastradumphart…
OFM will be on my six..

First, you are not starting backwards. You are doing it exactly right. Make the rules conform to your figures, not the other way around! Figures rule!

With that in mind, try them all. Play several games of each and see which set of rules you like. After all a Roman legionary looks the same regardless of whether you are playing WAB, FOG, or the Crusader Rules. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.

I would note that some of these rules have very different design philosophies. WAB and FOG are on different ends of the spectrum. FOG does not concern itself with army organization or historical tactics; you are looking at the battlefield from 10,000 in the air where units and tactical formations cannot be distinguished. WAB puts you on the ground where you are very concerned with army organization and tactics. Different styles which will appeal to different people.

"With that in mind, try them all. Play several games of each and see which set of rules you like. After all a Roman legionary looks the same regardless of whether you are playing WAB, FOG, or the Crusader Rules. They each have their advantages and disadvantages."

An excellent observation. I agree 100%!

"I would note that some of these rules have very different design philosophies. WAB and FOG are on different ends of the spectrum."

Again, a point well taken.

"FOG does not concern itself with army organization or historical tactics; you are looking at the battlefield from 10,000 in the air where units and tactical formations cannot be distinguished."

Here I have to disagree a bit. Army organization and the use of historical tactics are in fact quite important in FoG, albeit on the grand tactical level. OTOH, it would be quite accurate to say that small-unit tactics (e.g. the movement of individual maniples within a Roman legion) fall well below the representational level found in FoG.

Cheers,
Scott

I also think that it would be wrong in WAB to equate their "attention to the individual soldier's abilities" with an attention to tactics.

The rules seem to deal with individual soldiers, being used in some cases to model skirmishes.

Yet, those same rules also are used to model engagements that are said to simulate thousands of individuals.

That makes them rather contradict themselves as the same things are not important at either end of the spectrum…

Oh… But WAB has no scale… That is what we like to call a rationalization, a confabulation or taken another way, it is a Fallacy of Composition.

It does not follow that because the individual causes operate in a specific manner that they will continue to operate in the same manner when it is no longer individuals but groups of individuals.

The rules may provide a basis to push miniatures around a table, but personally, I would rather do so within a framework of rules that uses the body of knowledge that we have about ancients gaming as a basis for the rules, and which has a scale upon which to base the specific mechanics.

Otherwise, how do you know that one mechanic necessarily follows from another, or that one necessarily belongs with another (Such as the rear rank support rules. If they are individuals, then these rules would not apply until you had groups of at least 50 to several hundred men in support of each other in a unit. As below this number it is too easy for combats to become smaller groups or even individuals. Yet, the ground scale tends to support individuals)…

Anyway, I guess that can be rationalized away if you like the system.