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.

are there any good rulesets for 6mm ancients out there? a ruleset that actually treats armies diffrent were not all spearmen are the same etc?

Well, any element-based game should be playable with 6mm minis and few hiccups, like Hail Caesar, Warmaster Ancients, those historical fanlists for KoW that I think should still be up on the Mantic forum.There's a historical version of a new 6mm fantasy game - Lords and Lands - coming out, but since the fantasy release is taking it's time I can't say too much what it's like. Some demo vids up on the author's youtube channel here, and look for the FB group.

I guess a pertinent question might be, what have you been playing that's put you off the too-generic approach?

 Vermis wrote:
Well, any element-based game should be playable with 6mm minis and few hiccups, like Hail Caesar, Warmaster Ancients, those historical fanlists for KoW that I think should still be up on the Mantic forum.There's a historical version of a new 6mm fantasy game - Lords and Lands - coming out, but since the fantasy release is taking it's time I can't say too much what it's like. Some demo vids up on the author's youtube channel here, and look for the FB group.

I guess a pertinent question might be, what have you been playing that's put you off the too-generic approach?

i havent played any of historical rulesets yet, that is just the thing i kept reading in years old posts.
and it just seems a bit akward, but that could just be cause i havent played em. even if they are generic are there any diffrences in say a roman army fighting a macedonian army? or a british celt one fighting an egyptian one? all im worried about is if there is enough diffrence in the rules to warrant having diffrent armies

Essentially, a guy with a spear and a shield is a guy with a spear and a shield, with variations in training and experience.

What made ancient armies different (and interesting) were the different approaches to utilizing equipment, tactics, formations and command.

Any ancient ruleset that makes even the slightest claims to appealing to history will try to model that.

I think you should look at reviews of different rules to see how the mechanics of the game appeal to you and to understand what the reviewers think not only of how fun the game is, but also whether or not the rules reflect what they believe are the key points of ancient warfare.

Good luck and have fun.

atlervetok wrote:
i havent played any of historical rulesets yet, that is just the thing i kept reading in years old posts.
and it just seems a bit akward, but that could just be cause i havent played em. even if they are generic are there any diffrences in say a roman army fighting a macedonian army? or a british celt one fighting an egyptian one? all im worried about is if there is enough diffrence in the rules to warrant having diffrent armies

You might want to steer clear of DBA, then. But overall...

n815e wrote:Essentially, a guy with a spear and a shield is a guy with a spear and a shield, with variations in training and experience.

What made ancient armies different (and interesting) were the different approaches to utilizing equipment, tactics, formations and command.

Yup, that. It's like the second line in your OP: spearmen are similar, but armies are treated differently. It's not quite the same as something like Warhammer, where there are (were) somewhat different playstyles between armies, but also a lot of difference in the varied statlines and the large number of very specific special rules; like, for instance, the difference between a black orc and a high elf swordmaster. Which leads to the next point, which is that most historical mass battle games are element-based, barring Warhammer Ancient Battles and it's couple of successors, and statlines deal with the overall effect of the whole unit (potentially representing hundreds of men) as opposed to 'a' spearman, or 'an' archer, etc.

Just looking at spearmen, using one of your examples - Romans vs. Macedonians - and the Warmaster Ancients book, Republican Romans have spearmen in the form of legion principes, and Macedonians in the form of hoplites. Both have the same basic statline - attacks, hits, armour, unit size - but the legion troops are a mainstay of the Republican Roman army, with a minimum requirement of four units per army and the maniple special rule which provides a bonus from units supporting from behind. Hoplites aren't an essential part of the Macedonian list (that role goes to the pike phalanges) representing conquered or mercenary greeks. They have the unreliable rule and no min/max unit requirements, and are cheaper in points cost than the Roman principes.
That's just scratching the surface of those two armies alone.

Warmaster Ancients is OOP and not altogether easy to get your hands on; but Hail Caesar is basically Warmaster 3.1. Far from the only option though. I still have to check out some of those other options myself (as mentioned), but I hear good things about e.g. Sword and Spear, Impetus, and In Death Ground. Not sure if any of those meet your specific wants, but there should be plenty of downloads and descriptions to check, and honestly, the 'genericness' of any given unit choice isn't as much of a turn-off as if might initially appear. I know - I was there, once.

 Vermis wrote:

atlervetok wrote:
i havent played any of historical rulesets yet, that is just the thing i kept reading in years old posts.
and it just seems a bit akward, but that could just be cause i havent played em. even if they are generic are there any diffrences in say a roman army fighting a macedonian army? or a british celt one fighting an egyptian one? all im worried about is if there is enough diffrence in the rules to warrant having diffrent armies

You might want to steer clear of DBA, then. But overall...

...

In DBA a Roman Army is different to an Egyptian Army. It won't be as different as a Roman Army versus an Egyptian Army in WRG Ancients, or DBMM, or FoG, or IDK about Hail Caesar, etc.

DBA is a fast play set of rules.

Aye, but isn't every army strictly composed of twelve elements, and each element given a generic, statless 'type' like blade, pike, cavalry etc., regardless of whether you're using romans, egyptians, or whatever?

I'm just going by what I've gathered online and from a reading of the HoTT fantasy rules; and as I said, genericness isn't a huge stumbling block, and it's a valid approach to a game. But I settled on other fantasy rules because HoTT was just a tad too generic for my tastes, and I suspect it might be a bit of a turn-off for Atlervetoc's ancients ambitions too.

Oh, by the way. Might just pick it up meself to have a good dig in it.

Yes, that is true about the number of elements. However some greater degree of abstraction is necessary to make the rules simpler than more in-depth rulesets like WRG Ancients or DBMM.

You can download the v1.0 free, and the WADBAG, to read through DBA. It has been and remains a very popular and successful game.

HOTT is based on DBA, of course. It doesn't have the restriction of element numbers. The list system is based on points.

Noted, ta.

I asked the author of Lords and Lands: the historic version should be released about the end of the month, possibly early November.