Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been trying to settle on a ruleset for 10-15mm ancients and have narrowed it down to two options (Warmaster Ancients and Field of Glory). I was wondered which of the above people prefer? (asuming you have played or read them) and any reasons for the decision.

Sorry, I don't play either, but a bunch of guys locally have been playing FoG and they really seem to like it.

I believe that they had been previously using DBM, and they like the FoG rules much better.

WMA is fun, and because I'm a GW fanboy. Haven't tried FoG, but it's getting a lot of play down here. I had also looked at Impetvs; looked cool but haven't had a chance to try it. DBM is a classic, or you could go totally old school and do some WRG.

Both worth trying. But I would still vote DBA/M.

I have all those rules.

DBA is good because it uses very small armies and plays quickly. It's also cheap. It's bad because of the difficult way it's written -- this can be remedied by downloading the WADBAG rules companion from the fanaticus.rog site.

DBM/M is two sets of rules (DBM and DBMM) available separately. DBM is a big battle development of DBA, and DBMM is a development of DBM. They are more complicated to play.

Warmaster Ancients is a more gamey set of rules than FoG. It's easier to pick up than FoG but has less detail and arguably less realism.

One thing about all these rules is they more or less share the same base sizes for 10/15mm figures so an army based up for one rules can be used for the others without much trouble. Warmaster is the least compatible but not too bad.

My personal preference is FoG because I like the detail and the way it plays compared to WMA. That's not to say I dislike WMA, I'll play it but I won't bother making armies for it.

The best advice is to find some people already playing these rules and have a few games with them to see what you like.

I have played WMA and FoG (as well as WAB, DBA, DBM, WRG 3-6th editions, my own rules and others).

I think FoG is like WMA but with extra bits added. However the extra bits make the game boring rather than improving things. Therefore I vote WMA for a quick fun game.

Its also a lot cheaper, I calculated that it would cost £140 to buy the FoG rules and supplements and there are more to come. I suppose thats because they are not selling figures, they have to make money out of you some other way.

I second Killkrazy. DBA and other Wargames Research Group products are excellent games, especially if you don't like worrying about details like how the rigging of chariots affects their movement or the position of individual pieces of scale mail on your general. It is also very simple to adapt to a larger play area by increasing the gound scale. Personally, I think elements of N-scale dudes based on those chariot bases GW turns out would look wicked sick.

Ive played both as well as Dbx games. FOG was designed at the ground level as a tourrnament sytem. It is very complex and difficult to learn. DBx is as well but mainly due to wording (it reads like an academic text)

WMA is awsome, real easy to play and learn. The system is so great its been adapted for other time periods. I cant say enough good things about it.

If your into GW games I would look at Warhammer Ancients...
Mick

shakespear wrote:FOG was designed at the ground level as a tourrnament sytem. It is very complex and difficult to learn.

This is an opinion and not a fair one.

FoG is complex but is not difficult. Once you play through the rules a handful of times (2-3 games and our group could hum along quickly without consulting rules)

FOG does have a strong tournament aspect to it. deploying terrain is a bit tedious, but as a group we just lay it out the way we want it and get playing. FoG is complex, but in a way that allows gray areas to be defined by clearly written rules. The system reflects ancient tactics without too much or too little detail.

Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

Both are good rules.

To be fair, FoG is more complex than WM however there are plenty of players who play both. FoG is very well explained.

The base sizes are compatible in the 10/15mm scale.

+1 Kilkrazy
Very good rundown.

I loves me some DBA.