Differences between WAB2 and Swordpoint2?

[Tim Haslam]

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

[Atheling]

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.

[Tim Haslam]

Good idea!

[craigjonwoodfield]

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.

[Atheling]

EDITED 

[Johnp4000]

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.

[wmyers]

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?

[craigjonwoodfield]

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.

[Cubs]

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.

[jcspqr]

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.

[Atheling]

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.

[Gibby]

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.

[Cubs]

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!

[Atheling]

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 

[WorkShy]

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.