In the last issue, Terry set forth his thoughts on the three most popular sets of ancients rules on the market currently: WRG 7th, DBM and Armati. He contrasted the features which he liked and disliked about each set in a balanced manner, and his thoughts stimulated me to examine my own regarding the three sets, which I have set down below.

Terry has long been a strong champion for the 7th edition rules, and they still remain his favorite set. While I still enjoy 7th edition, I have shifted to playing DBM and Armati almost exclusively over the past two years. My rationale for this centers around three key variables between the rules sets: time, complexity and period feel.

>Tiime

The issue of time may be the most telling - when our local group used to get together each week to play 7th edition, a game would typically last at least 4 hours, and at the conclusion the time limit (usually when fatigue and an early morning the next day dictated an end), the winner was usually determined by having shaken or routed a larger proportion of the opponents force, BUT THIS PROPORTION RARELY EXCEEDED 10-20%!

Very often, close order foot units never even reach engagement range. In contrast, a hard fought battle using DBM can usually be completed in 2-3 hours, and the winner is clearly known at the end. Armati is even faster - we can often do 2 or even 3 games in a 2-3 hour time span.

This time comparison holds true for most of the tournament games I've played in with the three sets as well. I therefore find myself gravitating toward DBM and ARMATI consistently in order to achieve a sense of conclusion and still get home at a reasonable hour.

Complexity

Complexity is a little bit tougher to define, but DBM and ARMATI are clearly less complex to play than 7th edition. I find I worry less about the nuances of the rules, especially with ARMATI, and more about tactics and my battle plans. I also tend to feel much less mentally fatigued after a game of DBM or ARMATI, which is important to me personally as I have more than my share of mental fatigue at work and don't seek any more from my hobby.

Period

Finally we come to the subject of period feel. One advantage that I clearly see for DBM over 7th edition is the narrowing of the competitiveness gap between "poor" armies and "good" ones, especially when playing within period. For example, the Early Libyans have absolutely no chance whatsoever of beating ANYONE in 7th edition. Against either the Middle Kingdom or New Kingdom Egyptians in DBM, however, while they are not favored, they can at least make a game of it, and have a reasonable chance to win. The same is true of many other historical match ups.

Terry was bothered by the classification system in DBM, which titles skirmishing infantry of any era as "psiloi" -- obviously inappropriate to the Dark Age era. I agree that the naming convention is somewhat contrived, but I guess it bothers me less (I really don't think of my Vikings as blades (ordinary) or blades (inferior) - I think of them as huscarls and bondi and use the combat factors and movement from the rules).

I agree wholeheartedly with several of Terry's other observations. ARMATI's army lists seem somewhat contrived and don't reflect a lot of period flavor for my tastes, and their fixed nature is the achilles heel of these rules. They have a lot of other compensating strengths, including ease and quickness of play variable scales and especially the clearest writing for understanding on the market, and I really enjoy playing ARMATI. Perhaps Any or some enterprising ARMATI fan will come up with a points system and variable lists which retain the existing play balance but allow for greater flexibility and historical feel?

DBM, on the other hand, really does suffer, as Terry pointed out, from a poorly executed terrain system. The basic concept is fantastic - determining attacker and defender, restricting terrain to that reasonably present in the defender s homeland, etc. [my Egyptians are dying for a hill to hide their chariots behind, but alas there ue few in Egypt...].

The interplay between attacker and defender is also a nice touch, but somehow there is enough leeway for unscrupulous players to totally minimize the impact of terrain on many battles. Perhaps, as Terry suggests, a hybrid of the 7th system of dicing for features but only allowing realistic features off the DBM lists could be developed so that general DBM battlefield terrain is mom realistic - Phil may already be working on modifications to this system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have to say that my current rules set of choice is DBM. I feel it offers the best compromise by allowing battles to reach a natural conclusion in a reasonable time period, offering a high level of excitement combined with a low level of mental strain, an excellent set of historical lists [as for Terry I have some reservations about one or two lists, but overall I think they are an outstanding effort] and more than enough period feel to satisfy my desirea ARMATI is a close second, and 7th edition, while still offering a great level of detail and an exciting if mentally taxing (on the rules themselves not the tactics) game is a distant third.

Original Article (Saga 49)