Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of Myths, Gods and Empires => Topic started by: Tim Haslam on October 27, 2022, 10:04:47 PM
-
Hi,
Just having a browse tonight.
I’m wondering what are the differences between these two rule sets?
I know they share the same author.
Thanks
-
Tim,
Why not ask this question on the Swordpoint forum? Martin looks in there a lot and will be able ti give you a very comprehensive answer.
-
Good idea!
-
Not really the same author - WAB 2.0 was a minor reboot of the original rules, developed by Priestly, Johnson and the Perrys.
They are very similar. Swordpoint is the the worst of the two, but I wouldn't recommend either set.
-
EDITED :)
-
Swordpoint is far more linear in nature, and gives advantages to maintaining the line and supporting your units and combat can be drawn out. WAB 2 is a more standard game and I think quicker to play and learn. The combat mechanisms are very different between the two systems.
-
Not really the same author - WAB 2.0 was a minor reboot of the original rules, developed by Priestly, Johnson and the Perrys.
They are very similar. Swordpoint is the the worst of the two, but I wouldn't recommend either set.
What would you recommend for the same era, individual based figures, similar type of 1 to 1 game?
-
I assume by era you mean broadly ancients/medieval. I am not sure what you mean by 1 to 1.
ADLG gives a pretty good game, particularly with 'average' d6. Multiple maneuver elements gives it a flexibility that most other games don't have. MeG is a very good system, but complex and not well suited to 28mm. For the medieval period and smaller games, Lion Rampant is probably one of the best games on the market. The new rules have plenty of scope to be expanded to the ancient period. Hail Ceasar has a lot of strengths (and many flaws) but is good fun, well suited to multi-player, and the best and most logical successor to WAB in my view.
I played WAB for many years, and IIRC my name is inside the cover of the 2.0 rules, though I am not claiming any great (or small) influence on it. But it's flaws eventually eroded my interest in playing it. The great strength of WAB was the supplements, which were lost in 2.0 (not to mention the sub-standard nature of many of the new lists).
My group played Swordpoint only 2 or 3 times before giving up on it.
-
Clash of Empires is a game that was brought out specifically to fill the WAB void and was designed to be very similar, but with some of the more annoying wrinkles ironed out.
-
COE was basically WAB with every special rule imaginable added in.As a rule set it was fine, but not a material improvement or change from WAB. Where it was let down was it’s rather bland army list engine.
-
ADLG gives a pretty good game, particularly with 'average' d6. Multiple maneuver elements gives it a flexibility that most other games don't have. MeG is a very good system, but complex and not well suited to 28mm. For the medieval period and smaller games, Lion Rampant is probably one of the best games on the market. The new rules have plenty of scope to be expanded to the ancient period. Hail Ceasar has a lot of strengths (and many flaws) but is good fun, well suited to multi-player, and the best and most logical successor to WAB in my view.
The problem I find with ADLG (apart from the acronym sounding like a newly invented attention deficit disorder- that's a joke- I am a have ADHD myself) is that the armies just don't have the numbers to make the game look like a real battle. WAB and Swordpoint do not suffer from this major failing. Of course, we all have our own personal perspective on what "looks right" and I am certainly not presenting a didactic formula here; I'm sure you were not doing so either :)
Clash of Empires is a game that was brought out specifically to fill the WAB void and was designed to be very similar, but with some of the more annoying wrinkles ironed out.
COE was basically WAB with every special rule imaginable added in.As a rule set it was fine, but not a material improvement or change from WAB. Where it was let down was it’s rather bland army list engine.
I think one of the main reasons why no one managed to find a solid replacement for WAB with the the knock on effect reducing the population of of a large (global) community of wargamers, was simply that not one of the companies who tried to reimagine WAB had the economic reach of GW.
Also, the number of different WAB restoration rulesets which were to followed on from WAB's demise just confused the issue. Too many rulesets with variations on how to improve WAB.
-
The only WAB "successor" I've played is War & Conquest, which I did enjoy (but then I also like the WAB/Warhammer basic engine). WAC seemed to make it more likely that melees between medium/heavy infantry would be sustained a bit longer so you could end up with that battle line thing going on. That said, I think we only got it to the table twice.
I own Clash of Empires but have never played it.
-
COE was basically WAB with every special rule imaginable added in.As a rule set it was fine, but not a material improvement or change from WAB. Where it was let down was it’s rather bland army list engine.
I just like it because a few of my figures made it into the army books and I get a mention in the acknowledgements!
-
I just like it because a few of my figures made it into the army books and I get a mention in the acknowledgements!
Coming to think of it, me too :D
-
The problem I find with ADLG ... is that the armies just don't have the numbers to make the game look like a real battle. WAB and Swordpoint do not suffer from this major failing. Of course, we all have our own personal perspective on what "looks right" and I am certainly not presenting a didactic formula here; I'm sure you were not doing so either :)
This has always been my issue with DBA/DBM etc and ADLG just seems to continue that trend. I don't see the point of a "big battle" wargame where the total number of minis is less than a 100 and each unit often only has a handful of figures. I want to see the mass effect from many hundreds of minis. I've been creating a late roman force where each cavalry unit has 12 minis and each infantry unit has 24. Frankly, I'm regretting not going for 24 and 48. Bigger is better!
Having bought copies of Swordpoint, Comitatus, Dux Bellorum and Hail Ceasar in the last few months, I still tend toward WAB being better than most of them. It's not the core ruleset per se, but mainly due to the supplements like Age of Arthur, Shieldwall etc (though some other are a bit ropey tbh). I think Swordpoint may well actually be a better ruleset and Hail Ceasar seems fine but both just somehow lacks the character that WAB's supplements give it.
-
Thanks guys.
We can wrap this up now.
I’ve managed to hear what I think was necessary from my question.
lol
-
This has always been my issue with DBA/DBM etc and ADLG just seems to continue that trend. I don't see the point of a "big battle" wargame where the total number of minis is less than a 100 and each unit often only has a handful of figures. I want to see the mass effect from many hundreds of minis. I've been creating a late roman force where each cavalry unit has 12 minis and each infantry unit has 24. Frankly, I'm regretting not going for 24 and 48. Bigger is better!
Having bought copies of Swordpoint, Comitatus, Dux Bellorum and Hail Ceasar in the last few months, I still tend toward WAB being better than most of them. It's not the core ruleset per se, but mainly due to the supplements like Age of Arthur, Shieldwall etc (though some other are a bit ropey tbh). I think Swordpoint may well actually be a better ruleset and Hail Ceasar seems fine but both just somehow lacks the character that WAB's supplements give it.
I think you raise a very good point about flavour and character. Each of the WAB supplements had their own style and personality. When other rule systems fail to take this into account whilst not a flaw per sa it does lead to the effective release/publishing of quite generic army lists/guides.
This subject is very pertinent to a conversation I was having last night with a good mate at the Edinburgh club I used to game with often (WAB). Vanilla lists, whilst probably the most, dare I say it, realistic, I feel are literally variations on the exact same theme.
I do of course realise that many will disagree with me and hope to hear from them in this thread :)
-
The problem I find with ADLG ... is that the armies just don't have the numbers to make the game look like a real battle. WAB and Swordpoint do not suffer from this major failing. Of course, we all have our own personal perspective on what "looks right" and I am certainly not presenting a didactic formula here; I'm sure you were not doing so either :)
I just looked at one of my old hoplite WAB lists - 143 figures. My 200 point ADLG hoplite list - 170 figures. Admittedly we still use ADLG 2nd edition unit sizes for 28mm - 80mm frontage vs 60mm in 3rd edition. But even then my ADLG list would be around 120 figures.
In terms of units - 9 vs 26. Again, in ADLG most of of those units will maneuver as a block, but there could be a dozen different combats in any given turn, rather than half as many in a game of WAB (and Swordpoint, from what little I recall).
I would argue that WAB 'feels' and 'looks' like a smaller scale game than something like ADLG.
-
I just looked at one of my old hoplite WAB lists - 143 figures. My 200 point ADLG hoplite list - 170 figures. Admittedly we still use ADLG 2nd edition unit sizes for 28mm - 80mm frontage vs 60mm in 3rd edition. But even then my ADLG list would be around 120 figures.
In terms of units - 9 vs 26. Again, in ADLG most of of those units will maneuver as a block, but there could be a dozen different combats in any given turn, rather than half as many in a game of WAB (and Swordpoint, from what little I recall).
I'm sorry but I simply don't agree; I have seen no evidence of ALDG armies looking the part on the tabletop. The element's are too small to represent units, at least with my idea of aesthetic on the tabletop, even with multiple elements of the same troop type in a "unit" they still look like gaming pieces and not wargames units to me. These images of a 28mm battle taken from the (famous and very funny Madaxemen Website- I was as random as possible in choosing the images though I of course recognise a degree of observation bias, which of course, works both ways):
(https://www.madaxeman.com/images/gamereportimages/PAW_2020/IMGP2966.JPG)
(https://www.madaxeman.com/images/gamereportimages/PAW_2020/IMGP2967.JPG)
(https://www.madaxeman.com/images/gamereportimages/PAW_2020/IMGP2969.JPG)
I would argue that WAB 'feels' and 'looks' like a smaller scale game than something like ADLG.
So have you dropped that argument for Swordpoint? Swordpoint tends to have more miniatures in any given army than that of the averageWAB army.
WAB:
(https://ancientbattles.com/seleucid_games/SyrianWars/8th_scenario/AoA2_test_03.jpg)
(https://ancientbattles.com/seleucid_games/SyrianWars/8th_scenario/AoA2_test_04.jpg)
Swordpoint:
(https://scontent.flba3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/307532428_2155124687981599_5316817798646919674_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=wm0U0mePV5UAX8XXEkw&_nc_ht=scontent.flba3-2.fna&oh=00_AfCSfNA8vt91QAnODOiyImItv6LvBEFWd0lkTpRh6az4zA&oe=636F6C31)
(https://scontent.flba3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/273990930_10158666820496985_6074546222453394369_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=TBEXGL5au8IAX9SlvmZ&tn=iNFGFKFFMDfVzRKq&_nc_ht=scontent.flba3-2.fna&oh=00_AfCaZNXYtjd_-B1sSwG6GK_RRCbrO6VbzbTM5jyr1WrWQQ&oe=636FF1C0)
-
I just looked at one of my old hoplite WAB lists - 143 figures. My 200 point ADLG hoplite list - 170 figures. Admittedly we still use ADLG 2nd edition unit sizes for 28mm - 80mm frontage vs 60mm in 3rd edition. But even then my ADLG list would be around 120 figures.
In terms of units - 9 vs 26. Again, in ADLG most of of those units will maneuver as a block, but there could be a dozen different combats in any given turn, rather than half as many in a game of WAB (and Swordpoint, from what little I recall).
I would argue that WAB 'feels' and 'looks' like a smaller scale game than something like ADLG.
I think this just shows the difference in aesthetics. From my perspective a game with "only" 170 figures just feels far too small scale. Might aswell be using counters if you can't get that real shieldwall type effect.
I'm constructing my late Roman type army. It's currently 9 units of infantry, each with 24 figures (8x3), and 9 units of cavalry at 12 figures (6x2), so 324 figures. Frankly, it just feels a bit "skinny" on the table with only 18 elements. My target was 12 of each, for 432 figures, and my concern now is it still won't feel enough to give that "big battle" effect. I've come from playing modded Total War games so I'm used to seeing thousands on the battlefield.
I can easily understand why many like ADLG for competition purposes since you can get multiple games done quickly in an evening. I'm, however, not really interested in competitive gaming or when we finish a game. It can be left on the table for weeks if it requires it.
-
I think this just shows the difference in aesthetics. From my perspective a game with "only" 170 figures just feels far too small scale. Might aswell be using counters if you can't get that real shieldwall type effect.
Absolutely is does. I know Tim (who originally asked about the "Differences between WAB2 and Swordpoint2?") quite well and know his preference for the massed battle effect
I'm constructing my late Roman type army. It's currently 9 units of infantry, each with 24 figures (8x3), and 9 units of cavalry at 12 figures (6x2), so 324 figures. Frankly, it just feels a bit "skinny" on the table with only 18 elements. My target was 12 of each, for 432 figures, and my concern now is it still won't feel enough to give that "big battle" effect. I've come from playing modded Total War games so I'm used to seeing thousands on the battlefield.
I can easily understand why many like ADLG for competition purposes since you can get multiple games done quickly in an evening. I'm, however, not really interested in competitive gaming or when we finish a game. It can be left on the table for weeks if it requires it.
This is hauntingly familiar as I'm prepping a large Late Roman army for the Analogue Hobbies Painting Challenge at the moment.... great minds :D
In an effort to remain OT, back to the original question..... what are the differences between WAB V.2 and Swordpoint?
OK, I would say the main difference is the "Line of Battle" concept in Swordpoint, which prevents uber units from smashing through the battle line (and spoiling the game). The uber tooled up unit, like in many competition style games, can often blast through a battle line and this was very true of WAB, even with many things ironed out as in WAB V.2.
As long as they comply to certain parameters, up to three units in Swordpoint can divide up the combat results. Also, the line of battle is fluid; sometime some units will be pushed back, or pursue forward and drop out of the requisite brackets of the Line of Battle and lose the benefits.
I have generalised a great deal here Tim, but it's well worth buying the rules (Now in their second edition) as they have moved WAB on to the point where SP is a separate entity but has it's origins in the games of WAB we used to love playing.
-
I always had the impression that ADLG used fewer figures than DBM, from watching a competition once the table looked sparse, although the armies deploying in one line facing each other made a lot of empty space on the table ,Infantry units 12 figures, cavalry 4 figures didn't really create a mass battle look, pike blocks looked very flimsy, more like a large skirmish than a major battle. With WAB it depended on who you played with but my group preferred fewer but big units especially for Infantry but I used to focus on the game rather than worry what it was representing!
-
I always had the impression that ADLG used fewer figures than DBM, from watching a competition once the table looked sparse, although the armies deploying in one line facing each other made a lot of empty space on the table ,Infantry units 12 figures, cavalry 4 figures didn't really create a mass battle look, pike blocks looked very flimsy, more like a large skirmish than a major battle. With WAB it depended on who you played with but my group preferred fewer but big units especially for Infantry but I used to focus on the game rather than worry what it was representing!
I think I've pressed the issue too vehemently. I'm not averse to any wargames rules. It's 100% each to their own and rightly so.
What I do want in my games/collections is units that I feel are a fair representation of what I feel any given unit might have looked like. It's more about the feel of a unit but aesthetics definitely com into it.
If aesthetics failed to come into it, I would not have gone to the trouble of planning out how to fit 24 miniatures in active battle poses on these bases ;)
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnt3Gn_Ve1UkGCm7qHvS3dMEU1kzHlBtA7s3sYEm_iY8IJi23ELNkaV66CyoppBwPB2BrTG9B6Z_DPOFOukp-4lNKg68Cce63-dIqdgCIx3tVhZUvDqWHpDl6RrrcT5vKfEohOgVQAA-cb19i5_oFXH3P013Ggr1UVqnfXnRCnugvDfKpoEyQV3v1_FQ/s1300/P1020659-1.jpg)
-
Atheling,
It might be a throw back memory for me , I remember under WRG 6th edition, 24 figures was always thought of as a good representation of a Roman cohort. and I always have liked that figure ever since. Of course when I faced two warbands of 48 figures it did feel slightly underwhelming!
-
Atheling,
It might be a throw back memory for me , I remember under WRG 6th edition, 24 figures was always thought of as a good representation of a Roman cohort. and I always have liked that figure ever since. Of course when I faced two warbands of 48 figures it did feel slightly underwhelming!
lol
WRG 6th.... if it wasn't for that set of rules, I doubt I would ever have got into the hobby.
-
In 6th edition WRG 1 figure represents 20 men.
Hence a Roman cohort is 24 figures.
And agreed it’s where we all see 24 as the perfect number for our infantry units!
-
So have you dropped that argument for Swordpoint? Swordpoint tends to have more miniatures in any given army than that of the averageWAB army.
No, just been too long since I played, and I don't have any army lists to look at. My opinion is that it is a really mediocre game, however many miniatures might be on the table top.
-
No, just been too long since I played, and I don't have any army lists to look at. My opinion is that it is a really mediocre game, however many miniatures might be on the table top.
I think we ought to make an attempt to stay OT. We have hijacked enough of this thread. Bad manners and all that.
-
Back on topic, I found Swordpoint shooting/melee slower than WAB2, as you have to score a certain number of hits to remove a base, and odd hits don't carry over. One good thing about Swordpoint are the supplements, far better than the usual vanilla lists, I assume they copied the idea from WAB, whose supplements were generally very popular especially the dark age ones with I think Atheling's favourite , 'the age of Arthur'.
-
Back on topic, I found Swordpoint shooting/melee slower than WAB2, as you have to score a certain number of hits to remove a base, and odd hits don't carry over. One good thing about Swordpoint are the supplements, far better than the usual vanilla lists, I assume they copied the idea from WAB, whose supplements were generally very popular especially the dark age ones with I think Atheling's favourite , 'the age of Arthur'.
Indeed 'tis John. The original Swordpoint books such as Chariot Army Lists, Dark Age Armies, Classical Army Lists and Medieval Army Lists were just meant to tide people over so they wouldn't miss out on using their favourite armies.
New more specific in focus supplements such as To the End of the Earth, Ghengis Khan, Hundred Years War and Charlemagne are much more detailed without stepping away too much from the general balance of all the in period lists. I did speak to one tournament organiser who had banned some of the specific focus rules from To the Ends of the Earth because he thought they unbalanced tournament play- more power to the imbalance I say!
-
I am very sad that I could not play WAB before they killed it.