Angus Konstam

Angus' Rant on Ancient Rules

This is where I launch into a curmudgeonly rant - you can just ignore it and click on the pretty pictures up above!

I actually used to play Ancient wargames - as a student I had a colourful but singularly unsuccessful 15mm Republican Roman Army, of the Punic Wars period.

In those days we used WRG 5th or 6th Edition, which I quite enjoyed. To me the rot set in with 7th Edition, which produced a faster game, but it was like a firework display, with things going off in all directions. That wasn't ancient warfare - it was entertainment. Then came DBA. As a system for tiny armies on little terrain tiles it was quite entertaining. However, it was inevitable that wargamers would try to expand it into something bigger, and so DBM was born - probably the worst set of wargame rules known to man!

However, DBM serves a useful purpose, as it attracts all those wargamers who use shitty-looking 15mm figures and are happy to fight over minimal terrain. That keeps them out of my hair. To me DBM, or more recently DBR (the dreary Renaissance variant) are an aberration, producing games with no flavour or historic value. If that was the only wargaming option available to me, then I'd sooner go down the pub.

The whole DBM craze also encouraged competition gaming - one of the true curses of the wargaming world. The people who go in for this kind of thing spend their lives poring over army lists, trying to squeeze an extra factor out of a tabletop battle. However, most would never dream of reading the history of the army they use, or about the period it operated in. I've even seen gamers with their own inscribed brass measuring sticks, with which they measure everything down to fractions of a millimetre. This isn't wargaming - its a malaise.

More recently Warhammer Ancient Battles (WAB) has proved popular in the Edinburgh club. I still don't like the rules - they have all the firework display qualities of WRG 7th edition, but without the historical appeal. However, people often like rolling dice by the bucket-load, and they seem to be enjoying themselves, so perhaps I shouldn't knock the rules too much. I'll also admit that WAB has encouraged wargamers to "rediscover" 25mm or 28mm figures, and so Warhammer has played a major part in the resurgence of the one true figure scale. However, the same people produced Warhammer English Civil War. I played a few games, and vowed never to do so again. The real problem with the Warhammer system is that it is essentially a vehicle designed for fantasy gaming. It hasn't been thought out from the ground up with historical games in mind. Some people say that by using Warhammer to fight anything from Ancients to the Second World War we're encouraging newcomers into the hobby. Well, that's a bit like encouraging children to "express themselves" rather than to learn to read and write properly - ultimately its a hiding to nothing...

A new departure is Field of Glory - the set produced by Osprey Publishing & Slitherine Software. My initial skim of the rules showed that it had a lot of promise. Unfortunately I'm not really an Ancients player any more, so I'll leave the playtesting to others. It also seems a little too "in depth" for me, what with its bolt-ons and supplements. After all, this is only one of many periods I indulge in. However, any system which is both playable and historical gets my vote.

A recent welcome addition is Impetus, produced by the Italian wargaming magazine Dadi&Piombo. That has potential too, and at first glance it looks like a far slicker product than WAB. For a start, you don't have a cluster-*** of extra rules covering everything from Viking banners to Indian soothsayers.

Lordy, I sound like a grumpy old man. Well, I suppose I am. The thing is, to me, wargaming is about history, about social intercourse with friends, aesthetic tabletop spectacles and enjoying yourself. I've still to find a DMB or DBR player who actually looks as if they're having a good time!

Rant Over!