This is another installment in my long-running commentary about our hobby. Looking through the latest issue of Slingshot, it is painfully obvious that DBM has completely supplanted WRG 7th system in the U.K. Though less ubiquitous here in the US, the DBM system made incredibly strong inroads into our gaming community--at the expense of WRG 7th, Ancient Empires, and the Hack series, to name just a few.
At the same time, Armati has gained in popularity--I've been gaming it quite a bit myself as Dave Ottney games with that rules set exclusively. It's gotten to the point where I will be helping to fine tune some of Dark Ages Armati lists (which now allow you to 'buy" up to half your army from a number of optional bonus units--a move I strongly applaud). Needless to say, I'm enjoying this aspect of the game and have even remounted my old 6th edition 25mm Caesarean Romans to use with these rules.
Out of the blue comes a letter from Jervis Johnson of Warhammer fame announcing that Games Workshop is thinking of working on a historical rules set for medieval wargaming. So, now I've managed to get involved at looking at them and possibly working on even more army lists.
As I sit here and look at the mountain of work staring me in the face, I'm both excited and perplexed. The question begs to be answered: Why do I dislike DBM to the point of playing just about everything else?
I've always had a penchant for jumping into the fray--those who remember the old rules changes controversies of several years ago and my stand on 7th versus Tactica not too long ago know this is true. So here goes.
It's easy to come out and state a point of view and retreat back into the journalistic ivory tower (us editors do have some privileges), but I will stay out here for a little while and give you my thoughts and personal observations.
The latest Spearpoint makes note of the fact that the membership has dropped in the last year. Saga's subscription base has held relatively constant for the last two years, but I've also noticed a slacking or resubscriptions the last issue or two. I don't want to lay the blame anywhere specifically without corroborating evidence, but I do know that from what I've been hearing from individuals, there are quite a few gamers who have drifted to other periods these last two years.
Is this because of 'ancients burnout' or simply that they are no longer happy with the direction the hobby is going? I don't know. If you can drop me a postcards and tell me what you feel are the pros and cons at this point in time, I can perhaps get a gauge of what is occurring and why.
Jamie Fish in his letter to the editor in the latest Spearpoint (Vol IX, No 2 Nov./Dec. 1995) regrets that DBM seems to be contributing to the dumbing of the hobby. Noting that at Historicon, he had quite a few customers wanting to buy 'blades' for Viking armies. When asked what armament the customer wanted these troops to have, they replied, 'blades.'
He writes, 'The boy hadn't a clue as to what type of troop he was trying to represent. As a matter of fact, he hadn't a clue about history or the makeup of the armies he is playing. This is then accelerated by new systems that use clever generic names that not only hide, but make unnecessary any knowledge of the heritage or the equipment of these troops. Say what you will, the WRG 7th system forced you to know what your troop types were. It forced the gamer to understand the purpose of various types of troops and why they fought the way they fought.'
Exactly.
The superficiality of terms such as blades, psiloi, CV(O), etc relieves an army of its identity. And with that, it also relieves its owner of any understanding of his historical counterpart. While researching some new armies, I felt that even though the DBM army lists are very complete as to research, they are inferior to the older WRG lists in respect to their correct feel or unit identity.
It will be interesting to see if Greg Comardo, a big DBM fan, will disagree with me on this. Or Craig Tyrrell, or Paul Georgian, or Tom Thomas...Can you guys honestly tell me that it sounds more ethnically historical to have a unit of 'LH(S) with psiloi' in support than to have 'Irregular C class Hun LC with JLS, bow, and shield with Irregular C class LI archers' in your army? When researching my lists, I continually had to turn from the better researched DBM lists to the older WRG lists to find out what weapons a troop had or even to find out what it was supposed to represent.
I remember getting quite frustrated after a while and finally getting angry as well. Then, with Jamie's letter, I realized that yes, that was what I didn't like about the nomenclature. It had no historical meaning for me.
What about the fact that lousy die rolls lose the game for you before you get into contact? Hey, you say, all rules have die rolls that can result in your losing. OK, I say, in combat and even in morale--that I can rationalize. But in moving? If I roll three 1s and my opponent rolls three 6s, I'm dead before we even get to test morale or fight.
No thanks, I don't believe die-generated movement is a viable solution to the desire to avoid order writing. At the very least, the rules should allow the use of average dice to even things out a bit.
Terrain generation is another problem. Armati also possesses a rather feeble method of terrain selection. The 7th system has a very good selection of selection and placement. It could be tweaked a bit to make it even better, but it far surpasses Armati's or DBM's current system.
To be stuck in minimal terrain with armies reliant on rough ground to be able to fight effectively all but rules out the use of these armies in any organized tournament play. In DBM, you are even further penalized by not even be able to effectively move in rough areas with troops such as Galwegians who often fought in such areas. No thanks.
A frequent complaint about 7th is that it is too complicated. I'll tell you what. Once WRG runs out of their last printing of them (they will not be reprinted), perhaps an enterprising entrepreneur will purchase the copyright and reintroduce them in a new format, with new lists and aimed at a wider wargaming audience. I'm not holding my breath about this ever occurring, but I for one would heartily welcome such a move.
In the meantime,I'll continue to play 7th and Armati while working on those various army lists. I'll also continue to follow with my own rules to see if they will ever be good enough to see the light of day (presently, they have evolved into an ACW set!). In any event, I hope that this article will spur some active discussion in future issues of Saga.