Whats your favourite set of rules?

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

We see a lot of peoples terrain and army projects here, most of which put me to shame, but not so often do we see rules or tactics discussions for the myriad of different rules systems available for us to use our toy soldiers with.

So, what are people playing? What are your favourite rules? Do you prefer skirmish or large battle games? What scale is everyone playing in?

I really like the Hail Caesar rules for large battles, and was working on a large Romand and Briton/Gaul force in 1/72. I still am, I suppose, but the model count and the lack of opponents has pushed the project onto a perpetual back-burner, and I've been playing a bit of Saga (and a lot of other things besides) since.

But I'm looking at getting into a larger sort of game using my Saga figures, so I'm perusing rules like ADLG, FoG, Sword and Spear, the Rampant games, Impetus, DBx, etc. So, what do people think of all the various systems out there? Which ones do they like and which ones do they not, and why?

Personally, coming from a Fantasy gaming background, I really like the idea of modding Kings of War to allow historical battles. For those who've not played it, it's a really neat, concise wargame from Mantic Games and well worth a look.

[Argonor]

I'll play anything, as long as I like the way tha rules work, and I can assemble a playable force for it (or, as often is the case, two playable forces, as I seem to be the only one around here constantly delving into new gaming area).

I like the SAGA (grand skirmish), and the Blood Eagle (small skirmish) rules, but apart from that I haven't found much in the way of historical medieval rules that I like, sadly.

I haven't tried any other of the early medieval/dark age sets, such as Dux Britanniarium, or Dux Bellorum (although I have, and once intended to play, Brytenwalda, but the project kind of stalled... something with a vacation, and the space used for playing needing to be cleared, I cannot recall the specific details...)

I have tried the 'Rampant' rules, but they are not my cup of tea - they seem rather popular, though.

I play quite a bit God of Battles (fantasy 'massed' battle game) with proxy armies, and I am toying with the thought to try some Kings of War, also.

That, and a lot of skirmish rulesets set in other periods/genres, but they are probably not for here.

Oh, and I play almost exclusively with 28mm minis, although I have purchased 15mm minis for a couple of God of Battles armies, and own a plethora of 1/71 plastics covering a wide range of historical periods.

[Harry Faversham]

I've got hooked on 'One Hour Wargames' in a big way. We've pushed it up to over twenty units a side, and the rules give a game, as good as owt I've ever played... and you don't get a migraine from doing astrofizzics to push yer toy sowjers about!

[tomrommel1]

I play Lion / Dragon Rampant. Suits me well with my medieval/GoT collection

[julesav]

I've been playing 'ancients' since the late 1970s. I started with 25mm armies for 4th Edition Wargames Research Group rules. In 1979 my family relocated to Wales and I swapped 25mm armies for 15mm ones for ease of transport.

I continued playing WRG rules until 7th Edition killed that for me! Lol!

I played a lot of skirmish games using the original 'white box' Warhammer which I still have and would happily play. For Medieval and Samurai gaming we liked a set called 'Retinue' and had many a decent game with that.

I've played Saga and enjoyed the games I've played so far with borrowed or unpainted troops. But I am struggling to complete forces to field my own armies.

I tried Black Powder, and was seriously unimpressed - so I've not tried Hail Caesar at all. I also tried the ancient/medieval set by Crusader miniatures which seemed promising, but my pals interest fell by the wayside.

Field of Glory Ancients took me right back to the horrors (for me) of 7th Ed WRG. I enjoyed playing DBM but the many amendments and final morphing into DBMM spoiled that for me - of 3 friends with 15mm armies we each have a different version/edition of the DBM rules which led to some baffling games until the penny dropped!

DBA has been my most consistent ancient/medieval gaming outlet for years now. I am currently reworking my DBM armies into 'DBA squared' armies (which also suit the Impetus system, and probably To the Strongest'?) whilst keeping enough single elements to still play ordinary DBM.

I've bought Sword and Spear and 'To the strongest' but not played any games as yet. Playing a bit of Frostgrave with my old 1970s D&D figure collection may morph into some 'Rampant' gaming but hasn't quite so far!

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

I've been playing 'ancients' since the late 1970s. I started with 25mm armies for 4th Edition Wargames Research Group rules. In 1979 my family relocated to Wales and I swapped 25mm armies for 15mm ones for ease of transport.

I continued playing WRG rules until 7th Edition killed that for me! Lol!

I'm not very familiar with the WRG rules, what killed them for you?

I tried Black Powder, and was seriously unimpressed - so I've not tried Hail Caesar at all.

What didn't you like about Black Powder? I haven't read the rules for that game but I understand they're fundamentally the same as HC?

Field of Glory Ancients took me right back to the horrors (for me) of 7th Ed WRG. I enjoyed playing DBM but the many amendments and final morphing into DBMM spoiled that for me - of 3 friends with 15mm armies we each have a different version/edition of the DBM rules which led to some baffling games until the penny dropped!

DBA has been my most consistent ancient/medieval gaming outlet for years now. I am currently reworking my DBM armies into 'DBA squared' armies (which also suit the Impetus system, and probably To the Strongest'?) whilst keeping enough single elements to still play ordinary DBM.

I understand that FoG is the spiritual successor to Warhammer: Ancients? Some people seem to love it but all reports are that it's very numbers heavy, and shares some of the design millstones that Warhammer did.

What I really don't like in a game is any system where deployment consists of lining up two armies directly opposite each other, and then simply clashing in the middle of the table. From what I've seen of DBA, that's pretty much what happens in every game, and it's kind of put me off. Maybe I've just seen unimaginative or unskilled players, but it seems to me that movement consists of shuffling your models forwards and combat consists of rolling dice, and there's very little in the way of challenging or meaningful decisions to make once the first turn has started. It also seems to be the kind of game where the outcome is decided quickly, but for the game to reach it's already foregone conclusion the players must grind through several more turns.

[A Lot of Gaul]

I am primarily a "big battle" Ancients wargamer, and have been since the mid 1970's. In that time, I have played at least one game with each of the following rule sets:

Classic Warfare (TSR, 1975)
Legion (FGU, 1976)
War Game Rules 3000 BC to 1485 AD (WRG, 1980)
The Shock of Impact (TTG, 1981)
Fast Play Rules for Ancient Warfare (Newbury, 1985)
Tactica (Quantum Printing, 1989)
De Bellis Antiquitatis (WRG, 1990)
Ancient Empires (Emperor's Press, 1991)
Alea Iacta Est (Veni Vidi Vici, 1992)
De Bellis Multitudinis (WRG, 1993)
Armati (Quantum Printing, 1994)
Archon (Piquet, 1996)
Classical Hack (LMW Works, 1997)
Phalanx (Alienstar, 1998)
Ancient Warfare (SAGA, 1998)
Warhammer Ancient Battles (GW Historical, 1998)
Warmaster Ancients (GW Historical, 2005)
Field of Glory (Osprey, 2008)
Impetus (Dadi & Piombo, 2008)
Hail Caesar (Warlord Games, 2011)
Civitates Bellantes (Legio Wargames, 2012)

From all of the above, I have enjoyed playing Hail Caesar the most. The rulebook is designed as a 'toolkit' for customizing forces for scenario-based play. HC works best for large, multi-player games between friends in a relaxed, congenial atmosphere. It is definitely NOT designed for 'rules lawyers' or tournament competitions!

Other Ancients rules I have particularly enjoyed include Legion (FGU), Tactica, and Archon (1st ed.). The others either did not appeal to me at all, or else lost their luster after a few games.

I am also looking forward to learning more about the upcoming Swordpoint "big battle" rulebook from Gripping Beast, which is due to be released in November.

Cheers,
Scott

[SteveBurt]

Lion Rampant works really well if you use the boasts and the scenarios.
I agree that without those it can be very bland.

Saga is superb; everything a skirmish games should be. Lots of interesting tactical choices.

For battles, I'd recommend 'To the Strongest'. Very streamlined, and lots of interesting decisions.

[Erik]

For me it really depends on what I want out of my game. When planning scenarios I always turn to Hail Caesar and Lions Rampant depending on the size of the game. These rules work really well and are easy to mold around your ideas for a scenario. The randomness in both these rule mechanisms means that they are ill suited stand of games where you play the same opponent over and over again.

For this I haven’t found the perfect rule set yet, but I did try Impetus at Tactica this year and really liked it, so that decently on the to-do list.

I would finally like to say the in my humble opinion my best ever medieval gaming experience was with Perfect Captains "A Crown of Paper" and "A coat of steel". The campaign rules in "A Crown of Paper" quickly lets you set up a game based on your movements on the campaign map (20-30 minutes tops) and you can use this for a standalone game or continue on the map after the battle. The tabletop rules “A coat of steel” are very heavy going and actually not that much fun, but really gives a medieval fell to the game which in my opinion goes a long way.

Cheers
Erik

[fred]

Black Powder vs Hail Caesar is interesting. I've played loads of HC and really enjoyed the games - we mainly used Fantasy armies, but with very few additions to the rules. But BP doesn't work for me - it seems far to light and vague to actually be called a set of rules. The movement rates are also huge which seem to mean that units shoot around the battle field (even on a big table).

With Saga, we have played a number of big battle Saga games - basically several players aside, each with their own 4-6pt army, all players on a side activate at the same time. This really seems to turn the small Saga skirmish into something that feels like a battle (the ex-WAB players like the look and feel of this). You may want to limit some the range of some of the battle board abilities, as they can allow a bit of ganging up - but we don't normally bother.

[julesav]

7th Ed WRG Ancients were a 'revolutionary' change from the preceding 6 editions which had been 'evolutionary' changes. The paradigm shift was simply too great for me at the time (I'd probably cope with it better now, if I could find anyone to play!) - this was magnified by some rather dodgy 'tuition' from a club member who claimed to know the rules well.

Black Powder and Hail Caesar use a command dice roll mechanism to 'activate' units. With bad dice rolling (which I am legendary for!) your army becomes comatose.

I think FoG is far more 8th Ed WRG than a variant of WAB. It has separate combat modifiers entirely for combats where someone charged, for ongoing combats and for combats involving skirmishers - that was rather too much detail for me. I'm sure that it's a good system once you've got past the rather steep learning curve - for me playing occasionally in a very rural area I was never able to beat that curve!

I love the Warhammer system, but I think it suits skirmish gaming far better than mass battles. I'm not keen on a system where a melee requires 24 to hit rolls, then 12 'save' rolls, then 6 'to wound rolls' - then the same again when the opposition fights back. That's 84 die rolls to resolve a combat! This means I'm not keen on 'War & Conquest' either.

DBA certainly initially appears as you describe it. However, there are a lot of command decisions to be made in each player turn and I have found that it is surprisingly 'tactical'. Armies historically reliant on skirmishing stand far greater chance in DBA than they do in WAB for instance. DBA plays (in 15mm) on a 2ft square, most games take about an hour once you're used to the system. Armies cost £15 to £50 so I can afford multiple armies. DBA had the best campaign system I've ever used, with minimal record keeping necessary. With experienced players and a day long club meeting we have played very successful multi-year (simulated time) campaigns with 6 players/nations. Sadly DBA v3.0 lost these campaign rules to make room for more informative army lists. :-(

[levied troop]

I'd second that view of DBA, with the option of expanding the armies up to DBM it's been my standard ruleset for this period.

Don't think it works as well for more limited armies, such as the predominant bill & bow forces for WotR and I've broken up my bases for this army and plan to use them them solely for 'big skirmish' - still looking for a decent set of rules for this.

Lion Rampant's ok for quick, easy, games and I've enjoyed the games I've had with this.

[Charlie_]

This is a very interesting thread for me.... I love reading about all these rulesets I've never played before, some the current thing, some from way before my time.

And I really like hearing what people like and don't like about them....

I'm very curious about these old WRG rules. I was watching a youtube video of an old wargaming TV show from the 70s - Battleground, I think it was cool? I was very curious as to what rules they were using... Someone in the comment pointed out it was WRG, and had a link to a PDF of the rules, which I gave a look over. Fascinating - many concepts which I more or less recognise from more 'modern' wargames, but some things which seemed totally insane! Not necessarily a bad thing, I might add..
For example, how players had to write down orders for divisions (withing a 10 minute time limit!) and pass them to an umpire, who would interpret them. If the orders aren't clear enough, their army might be confused and do nothing, advance in the wrong direction, etc, apparently at the umpire's discretion.... Crazy!
The technicalities of the rules seem a bit too crunchy even for me, but I really like this roleplay aspect to it. I don't think I'd ever want to actually attempt to learn such rulesets, but I can imagine that if you were experienced with it enough and had a good, impartial umpire, it could lead to a really great, realistic game for commanding large armies.

Anyway, I'd love to hear more on what people think of these old, dated rulesets, what they liked and didn't like about them back in the day, how they compare to modern rulesets (for better or worse).... What is it about certain rulesets or certain editions of them that give them certain reputations?

[Patrice]

What?

...Um, I always play my own ruleset (very RPG-inspired) Argad! (always unfinished...) with people who like it.

[FierceKitty]

What?

...Um, I always play my own ruleset (very RPG-inspired) Argad! (always unfinished...) with people who like it.

Likewise, save that the ruleset is called Hep!. Big battles.