A diversion into ancient rules testing using original DBA as a basis

Introduction

For the last 14 years I have been developing and playtesting my rules based on Bill Banks Ancients and Warrior Kings - Ancient Battlelines Clash. In a bit of a rules funk so for something a little different, I try my hand at developing rules based on DBA and Armati. By the end they morphed into a newer version of my own rules,

Background

There are three main rules that have influenced the creation of these rules: DBA, Armati 2 and my own ABC rules.

DBA

I have always admired how great DBA is as a tight small simple ruleset.  But I find when I play it I find it just ordinary.  But I try again every now and then.  I have always been particularly intrigued by the forerunner to DBA, DBSA.  DBSA was written for a Society of Ancients event while Phil was working on DBA version 1 as a more comprehensive ruleset (the Slingshot magazine 148 has Phil Barker explaining the development of DBSA and DBA).  DBSA has no shooting, has chariots as a distinct troop type and simpler quick kill rules.  I have used DBSA as a basis for attempting to craft a ruleset I liked but never managed it (I do seem to add in shooting all the time though).

Armati 2

I think Armati 2 is my favourite ancient miniature wargaming ruleset.  I play this occasionally with another friend over the last 20 years.  It really seems to capture how I envisage an ancient battle unfolds, and has a lot of tactical decision-making required.  I have tried solo playing it and it is just not the same.  When I add some solo elements, it morphs into a different feel.  Which is why I created my own rules - Ancient Battlelines Clash.

Ancient Battlelines Clash

Ancients Battlelines Clash has been my go to rules since developing them in 2012.  Originally aiming to play battles on a 2’x2’ in under 30 minutes. However, I seem to have lost my way in the last 5-6 years and constantly tinker with them, changing mechanisms, outcomes etc.  Not necessarily for the better.  And still going at it.  Ah well.

Deja vu

While looking at Google for the location of DBSA it put up a blog post of mine where I see went through a lot of this 3 years ago in the blog post: https://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com/2023/04/600000-views-and-13-years.html

I do vaguely remember all of this.  I am glad I wrote a post about it or would have forgotten how much time I did spend on DBSA/Armati (and Phalanx!). I did look over all the rules I wrote at that time when relooking at DBSA a month ago but did not realise I had actually played them a few times.

Rules development

Looking for rules with about 6 units a side and playing on an 8x8 grid (about half a standard DBA board). The smaller board is good as it helps test out the rules and it very fast. I started with DBSA and De Bellis Minimus (rules to play DBA on a 1'x1' board with 6 elements a side ) as a foundation.  But then changed lots :-)

• No d6=1 treated as a 0
• Used 1d3 for PIPs (aim to go to +1/-1 for command difference later)
• Change unit labels (e.g. Ax = MI, Light Horse = LC)
• Changed the 2d6 opposed roll combat  to 1d6
• Added in a grid
• Overlap are only when no enemy in your ZOC
• Melee happens in a square and a recoil result in separating into respective originating squares.
• Flee became move 1 entire square back (called this retreat later)
• Added in distance shooting
• Resisting adding in a point system
• Changed combat outcomes, in DBA terms: <½ is always destroyed but added LC/LI retreat (former flee) result to ½ and > ½ 
• Added in a minor movement restrictions to tidy up grid movement
• Added in mandatory/impetuous charging for Heavy Cavalry, Warbands and a few others
• Clarified shooting results  - all shooting results in either retreat (instead of a recoil) or destroyed
• Resisting adding in a point system but did add in that LI (aka Psiloi) are only worth ½ a victory point.  And later I did read a similar suggestion on fanacticus.org so it is not just me!

The following add in reactions to enemy actions to make it a bit more solo friendly.  I did not add them to the first few games (could not help myself and did later on). These move the game along at a pace, add some unpredictability and I use them in my own ABC rules. They do remove the need to spend dice pips for enemy movement as a lot is reactive:

• If shot at in ZOC of enemy and no result target charges shooter
• If Bow shot a mandatory charger and no result then target charges Bow
• If enemy moves into charge distance of a mandatory charger then should the charger immediately charge?

A question in the back of my mind is should maybe only bound or non-bounding fires rather than both?  Bowfire can be powerful but units do start close together.  I played both until I added in reactions, where a unit fires when activated and a target missile unit will return fire anyway.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to the rules after playtesting. not fully tested and (spoiler) replaced with other rules.

ABCD rules August 2026 v0.1a.pdf

This is the end of these rules. Pre-empting the end of this post, I have morphed these rules to include reactions to actions, more streamlining and tweaking to play on larger grids, and modified a lot more too!

Playing the rules

I used an 8x8 (20cmx20cm) grid with 6mm forces set up next to my computer..  This way it took up very little space and was quite accessible.

Sumer Vs Akkad

I played about 6-8 games of this, with different setups.  I seem to have taken no pictures of any of the games.  But it did help with some clarifications.

Marathon

8x8 board 

Setup (in Algebraic Notation)

Greeks (move first)

Phalanx (c2), Spear (d2), Spear (e2), Phalanx* (f2)

Persians

Light Infantry (c7), Bowx2* (d7), Bowx2 (e7), Light Infantry (f7)

Optional: replace LI (f7) with Medium Cavalry (f7)

Optional: replace Bowx2 (e7) with Bow (e7) and LI (g7)

* = General

Marathon with cavalry

I did do a couple of games with the cavalry option, just to see what it was like.

Side quest

And then got caught up doing a whole bunch of 6 elements a side army lists based on DBA 1.1 army lists.  I thought as the rules have a basis in early DBA should test them with the early lists.  I started with the first army (Sumerian and Akkadian), picked the first enemy (Early Syrian) and played the game with the army being the first player, enemy the second.  Work down the list to find the next unplayed army and work across to find the next unplayed enemy.  I also have a simple programmed opponent I can use to decide on army tactics that helps with deployment and the first few moves. I managed three games before I realised I prefer some reactions to enemy moves. 

Akkadian (1/1 Vs Early Syrian  1/4b) 

1  Sumerian & Akkadian: 2 Ch 3 Sp 1 LI    (Mounted: Left Flank)

4b  Early Syrian: 1 WB 2 Ax 3 LI    (Missile: Staged retreat)

Two terrain pieces, 1 steep hill (Syrian side), 1 gentle hill (Akkadian side)

The Akkadians did win but it was a close thing. Both Akkadian chariots were routed, along with their Light infantry.  The Syrians being in the difficult going really helped with slowing down the speed of victory.

Egyptian Vs Nubian

2  Old & Middle Kingdom Egyptian: 2 Sp 3 Bw 1 LI    (Missile: Flank)

3  Nubian: 2 Wb 2 Bw 2 LI    (Missile: Defensive)

1 steep hill

The Egyptians did well charging straight ahead and routing a warband and then a Bow unit. However, a bit of manoeuvring by the Nubians saw a Bow unit overwhelmed and then the General unit trapped and killed.  Nubians win!

Libyan Vs Hyskos (with some changes in the rules)

Was to be: 

4a  Early Libyan: 1 Wb 5 LI

8a  Hyksos: 3 LCh 1 Sp 2 LI

And this is where I had a change of heart.  While the rules I have created are great, they are really two player.  They are solo friendly in as far as you are playing both sides and fairly easy to do so.  I miss the reactions that provided uncertainty for each side and so the tactical situation constantly changed.  My original intent was to create a set of very solo-friendly rules (ABC) but I do like how these feel, just need to add in some reactions (I did allude to this earlier). Anyway, I added my normal reactions I seem to put into most of my rules:

• Possibly charge after being shot at

• Shoot at an enemy if they move into range

• Impetuously charge if an enemy comes into range.

This is all done the moment the situation occurs.  No IGOYGO  This does also mean the rolling PIPs for moves needs to go (a fair amount of movement is now involuntary) and back to activating groups with a roll (basically a 2+, 3+ for single units).

I did also take the opportunity to go for point based armies rather than 6 a side, and medium cavalry will Quick Kill infantry (like Armati).

So now:

4a  Early Libyan: 2 Wb 4 LI     (Missile: Right Flank)

8a  Hyksos: 3 LCh 1 Sp 1 LI    (Missile: Defensive (Right Oblique)

There is a steep hill on the Libyan right flank.  I forgot a deployment photo but here is the end state with a decisive win for the Hyksos as the chariots routed the Libyan light infantry and the Warbands bounced and routed off the Hyksos Spearmen. Most of the remaining elements in the picture are Hyksos.

Worked well.

End note

This is also where I remembered I should really be replaying historical battles as that is what I actually enjoy.  I have had the Battle of Adrianople, 378 AD, set up with 15mm forces on my 10x10 grid for over 4 months as I detoured into testing these rules using 6mm on a 8x8 grid.  While the 8x8 grid with pre-generated armies are great for campaign games (although I am thinking Dominion the the Spear may still be my rules of choice for them), I am going to go and see if my motivation can get me back to playing the historical games.  These DBA rules are not very different now from the ABC rules, with the combat mechanism being the main change.  I like them at the moment, let us see how long they survive further playing! Spoiler - did not survive but did morph into other similar rules.

Post-script

I then went down a rabbit hole of generic-ish 3x3 rules for ancients, SF skirmish and WW2 and maybe even other stuff (may be worthy of another post!).  And then I thought “could I apply these to larger sized ancient games?” (have been here before - scaling up and down).  Currently deciding between continuing with the 10x10 grid I have been using for the last couple of years; or looking to do a 15x15 grid (i.e. 2’x2’ table split into 40mm squares) to match my 15mm ancient figures.  Really, I just need to stop thinking and play a few games on different sized boards to see what I currently enjoy!

Spoiler - the generic-ush 3x3 rules were once again a dead end.  I have been down this rabbit hole about 3 times in the last 6 years, never successfully.  At least I am consistent. I ten went to a 1d6 alternative to Dominion of the Spear ;like games (again, have been here before) and expanded to a 6x6 grid and then hopefully a 10x10 grid. But that belongs in another post. It did take me about eight weeks to do this one, so I may try for a shorter time until the next one :-)

An an aside

Just to show I am not just thinking about gaming but also playing, I did get a chance to play a WW2 game with my18yo son on a table tennis table with my 20mm kit.  It was actually setup ready to go for 3 weeks until we could both find a few hours free to play the game.

Summary

Got a new combat mechanism I like, and should be transferable to more Armati-like games. Otherwise the rules are still my own Ancient Battlelines Clash at the core.  Got in some games as well. Still in a bit of a gaming funk but believe I may be ready to get back to playing some historical games on a 10x10 or larger grid.

Battle of Ctesiphon, 363 AD using Ancients Battlelines Clash

Introduction

This is game 76 in play testing my ancient rules by replaying historical battles.   This current significant revision goes back to ABC version 2.5 from years ago (the one I played the most) It also combines the missile and melee table and units rout more easily than the original ABC. It is on a grid and still has reactions to enemy moves/combat results, so it solo friendly once again. I did away with disorder (so no markers on the table) and played about 20 games like that.  They were too fast!  So I made two changes: 1) every unit has 2 “hits” 2) a unit charged by a shock unit (mainly cavalry, and warbands Vs infantry) may be destroyed outright rather than hit. ABC is designed to finish in less than 30 minutes on a 2’x2’ or smaller table; currently using a 10x10 grid on 40cmx40cm table.

Battle of Ctesiphon, 363 AD

Battle of Julian’s invasion of Sassanian Persia fought outside the Persian capital.

Scenario source: Bill Banks Ancients.

Link(s):

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ctesiphon_(363)

Troops

Romans, Julian

1 Leader

1 HC, Heavy Cavalry

1 MC, Medium Cavalry

1 LC, Light Cavalry

2 HI, Elite Heavy Infantry

1 LI, Light Infantry

1 BW, Bowmen

Breakpoint: 2

Sassanids, Merena

1 Leader

1 CAT, Cataphracts

1 ELE, Elephant

1 HC, Heavy Cavalry

1 LC, Light Cavalry

2 MI, Medium Infantry

1 BW, Bowmen

Breakpoint: 2.5

Deployment

Deployment, Romans on the left

Romans, Julian (left to right)

LC HC* LI HI+ HI+ BW MC

Sassanids, Merena (left to right)

EL BW KN* MI MI HC LC

* = leader; + = elite

Game

Julian advances obliquely with the centre infantry advancing and the left flank also advancing.  The Persian Heavy Cavalry opposing Julian charges Julian (Heavy Cavalry must do a mandatory change if enemy in range).  The Persian Heavy Cavalry is depleted and in the next round of combat they rout.  Julian advances into the vacated spot.

Julian forces opposing cavalry to charge

The Persian advance their centre and left flank.

Persians advance

The Roman right flank is weak and so continues to hold back.  The Roman infantry is slightly worse than the Cataphracts but otherwise they could take on any other Persian unit. The Roman’s split their centre infantry with the leftmost one advancing to attack the weak Persian infantry.  The rightmost stands to receive the charge of the Cataphracts in a later turn.

Julian and his heavy cavalry attack the Persian infantry but the latter stand fast and the Roman Heavy Cavalry is depleted.

Julian attacking the Persian infantry

The Persian cataphracts charge into the elite Roman heavy infantry.  The cataphracts are slightly better and plough right through the Romans (roll a 6).  The Persian left flank continues to advance.

Persian cataphracts attacking the Roman infantry

The remaining Roman heavy infantry charges the Persian infantry but they remain locked in melee. Julian’s Heavy Cavalry routs their opposing Persian infantry and advances into the other Persian infantry. Amazingly the Persian infantry survives its round of melee (rolled a 6).

Persian infantry attacked from two sides

The Cataphracts attack the Roman bowmen (the bowmen can turn to face) that shoot and force the Cataphracts to stand off (i.e. no melee).

Bowmen Vs the Cataphracts in a standoff

The Persian left flank advances.  The Persian bowmen are in range of the roman bowmen that turn to face the Persians (the Roman bowmen are not in melee with the cataphracts so turn to face the missiles).  Mutual shooting occurs that see the Persian bowmen depleted.  Next turn the Roman bowmen are depleted by shooting.

Bowmen shooting at each other

The Roman light infantry advance to the Persian bowmen and the latter turn to face.  Mutual missiles fly and the already depleted Persian bowmen are routed.

Roman light infantry about to rout the Persian bows

The Roman heavy infantry take out the medium infantry.

Persian medium infantry routed

The Persians have only two non-light units left and flee.  The Romans have won!

End

Verdict

The Persian need to be aggressive on their left flank to win.  I think they should have withdrawn the centre so it would last an extra turn and give the left flank a chance to break the army.

A great outing for the 2 hits variation.  I do like that the game lasts longer.  I feel there is a bit more tactics, or a least a more interesting narrative from the longer game.  It is not much longer in time to play.  For now, this version of rules gets a big tick.  Of course, I said that about the last few versions as well 😊  At least I am still happy with using 1d6 for all resolutions that has been there since the beginning!

Battle of Argentoratum, 357 AD using Ancients Battlelines Clash

Introduction

This is game 75 in play testing my ancient rules by replaying historical battles.  My last few games was using a revision of my own Ancient Battlelines Clash rules and I do like them.  This current significant revision goes back to ABC version 2.5 from years ago (the one I played the most) and does away with disorder, so no markers on the table.  It also combines the missile and melee table and units rout more easily than the original ABC. It is on a grid and still has reactions to enemy moves/combat results, so it solo friendly once again. I have played this version about 10 times already with Chariot period armies and it has worked fine, just some minor tweaks and clarifications added. ABC is designed to finish in less than 30 minutes on a 2’x2’ or smaller table; currently using a 10x10 grid on 40cmx40cm table.

Battle of Argentoratum, 357 AD

Julian repels a Gothic barbarian invasion.

Scenario source: Bill Banks Ancients, Peter Sides Ancient Historical Battles Volume 1.

Link(s):

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Strasbourg

Troops

Julian (Rome)

*p

1 LDR, 1 KN (Cataphracts), 1 LC, 2 HI (Legions) with one elite, 2 MI (Auxilia) with 1 elite.

Breakpoint: 2.5

Chnodomar, Chief of the Allemani

1 LDR, 6WB (Warbands)

Breakpoint: 3

Scenario

Map: Open with a wood in Chnodomar right flank deployment zone (1/3 in from deployment edge) and 2BW wide.

Special rules: None.

Deployment

Julian (Rome): MI MI+ (1BW gap) HI+ HI (1BW gap) KN* LC

Chnodomar, Chief of the Allemani: WB (1BW gap) WB WB* WB WB (1BW gap) WB (in the woods).

BW=basewidth or 1 square

Game

The warbands advance, except the unit in the woods that was going a bit slow.  Julian responds by advancing centre and right flank.  The Auxilia at the woods also is being a bit slow (i.e. failed to activate).

First moves

The warbands continue to advance, except the unit in the woods that is still finding it slow going.  The Auxilia move right to protect the centre.  The Cataphracts charge the warband while the light cavalry also advances for support if required.  The Cataphracts, unsurprisingly, rout the warbands and advance.

The Cataphracts making short work of that flank

The warbands advance into the legions. One routs, the other is still in melee.  In the subsequent melee (in the Roman turn) the remaining Legions unit routs.

Warbands Vs Legions

Julian and his Cataphracts move to assist in the now collapsed centre.

Some warbands charge the Auxilia but they stand fast.

Warbands Vs Auxilia with the Cataphracts closing in

An Auxilia is subsequently destroyed and the Cataphracts hit the warbands, the latter routing

Cataphracts Vs a warband

The Romans have reached their breakpoint and flee the battle.  It was a close game.  Could have easily see defeat for the Goths.

End

Verdict

A short simple, straightforward game.  Fairly equal sides could easily see one or the other win.  In this case, history was not repeated.  I did play one more turn that saw another Roman unit routed, definitely a Goth win this time.  It took me a week to get around to playing this after setting it up (other things got priority).  It was fairly quick, I should have just played it earlier!  And no changes to the rules.

Battle of Mursa, 351 AD using Ancients Battlelines Clash

Introduction

This is game 74 in play testing my ancient rules by replaying historical battles.  My last few games was using a revision of my own Ancient Battlelines Clash rules and I do like them.  I felt I had strayed a bit too far from what I was really looking for.  This current revision goes back to ABC version 2.5 from years ago (the one I played the most) and then updates it with all the learnings from the last year on.  It differs from ABC 2.5, but similar to recent versions, as does away with disorder, so no markers on the table.  It combines the missile and melee table and units rout more easily than the original ABC. It is on a grid and still has reactions to enemy moves/combat results (unlike recent versions), so it solo friendly once again. I have played this version about ten times already with Chariot period armies and it has worked fine, just some minor tweaks and clarifications added. ABC is designed to finish in less than 30 minutes on a 2’x2’ or smaller table; currently using a 10x10 grid on 40cmx40cm table.

Battle of Mursa, 351 AD

The Eastern Roman Empire vs. Western Roman Empire.

Scenario source: Peter Sides Ancient Historical Battles Volume 2.

Link(s):

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mursa_Major

Troops

Romans (Constantius)

1 LDR, 2 KN (Cataphracts), 1 MC, 1 LC, 1 HI (legions), 2 MI (Auxilia), 1 LA.

Breakpoint: 3

Romans (Magnentius)

1 LDR, 3 MC, 2 LC, 2 HI (legions), 2 MI (Auxilia), 1 LA.

Breakpoint: 3.5

Scenario

Map: A hill 2BW (basewidths) wide on Magentius right flank to Constantius baseline.  On hill aligned with Magnentius deployment is a 1BW stadium (town).

Special rules: Ambush is known to Constantius

Deployment

Constantius on the left, Magnentius on the right.

Deployment (left to right):

Romans (Constantius):

KN MC HI HI MI KN* LC.  1 MI and 1 LA in front of the Stadium.

Romans (Magnentius):

LC MC MC MI HI MI MC* LC.  1 HI in stadium, LA in front of battleline HI.

Game

Constantius advances the right flank cavalry to the right to attack that flank.

The centre advances to provide support for both flanks.  The left flank advances.  The archers and Auxilia advance to hopefully engage with the infantry in the “ambush”.  Missiles fail to dislodge the stadium infantry.

Constantius advances

The Magnentius light archers in the centre fires on the Auxilia and it is routed.  This leaves a hole in Constantius’s centre.

Light archers routs the Constantius medium infantry

Magnentius advances his right flank as the Light Cavalry may be able to rout the knights and Magnentius has a better chance against the directly opposing Medium Cavalry.  The Light Cavalry rout and Magnentius (and cavalry) is locked in melee with the opposing cavalry.

Magnentius right flank cavalry attack

The Magnentius Light archers move to fire at the Constantius Legions but fail to do anything.  But the Legions is at least prevented from advancing.

The Magnentius centre advances and the left flank Light Cavalry moves in front of the heavier cavalry to protect the latter.

Magnentius centre and left flank manoeuvring

Constantius charges in to Magnentius left flank hoping to disrupt it enough that can turn to face the remaining opposition as required. 

Constantius right flank cavalry charges in

Constantius Light Cavalry routed but Magnentius Medium Cavalry is routed.

Constantius centre Legions charges the Light archers.  Anything but a 1 (that will rout the Legions).  Rolled a 1.  Constantius Legions routed.  This is bad.

The Legions charges the Light archers but is routed

Magnentius Medium Cavalry Vs Constantius Medium Cavalry is indecisive but the Cataphracts flank attack Magnentius Medium Cavalry, and his cavalry is routed.

Cataphracts flanking Magnentius

Stadium missile firing inconclusive.

The centre Light archers must turn to face the Cataphracts, does so but is routed in a subsequent melee after the missiles fail to do anything (not surprising Vs Cataphracts).

Light archers Vs Cataphracts

The Cataphracts then proceed to rout the Legions, the Auxilia but then is routed themselves by the Magnentius Light Cavalry.

Cataphracts Vs Legions

Cataphracts Vs Auxilia

Cataphracts Vs Light Cavalry (the Light Cavalry wins!)

Both sides have reached their army breakpoint but Magnentius has lost more and so Constantius wins!

End

Verdict

I did not think Constantius was going to win this one – there was too much facing him, although “point-wise” they were about equal. The Cataphracts ruled the field in this one.  The rules are also working quite well. My hope was realised that the playtest games (with ancient middle east armies) would also translate fine into these later period games.  No issues or clarifications required.  A few more games and I may even put them onto the ABC webpage.