Of Armies and Hordes (Ganesha Games)

[DivisMal]

Thanks, Hobgoblin!

That is the one set of rules I’ve been waiting for since years. Big fan of Andrea‘s games here, too. SoBH is still my favorite ruleset and the changes sound all very reasonable.

I got 10mm Goblins & Orcs and Empire ready to duke it out!

[fred]

Good idea on marking out the areas, Pendrake. Is oAaH played on a grid (like To the Stongest) or is it a more abstract set of areas?

While there are many good things about grids for miniature games, the can be seen as more board game like, which can make players not want to play them.

[blacksoilbill]

Very interested in seeing some game reports for these rules: they do sound interesting and I've got 15mm fantasy on the painting table at the moment.

[Hobgoblin]

Good idea on marking out the areas, Pendrake.

Indeed; I just picked up a bag of wooden discs from The Works for exactly this purpose (wouldn't have thought of it without Pendrake's post).

Is oAaH played on a grid (like To the Stongest) or is it a more abstract set of areas?

It doesn't use a grid; you could use a very large grid (e.g. six-inch hex tiles), but it's designed for irregular areas. The only difference from a conventional table, I think, would be that open terrain is somehow broken up into areas large enough to accommodate 32 miniatures/elements with a bit of a space.

[Hobgoblin]

All set up for our debut game ...

[Andrew_McGuire]

What a pity they've included an unbeatable army:

"From goblins to wlves to orcs to trolls and dwarves and humans and halflings and undead, we got you covered."

[Tibson]

I'm pretty disappointed in how the rules are written.  Large, obvious gaps are in the RaW.  For example the interaction of facing and movement isn't explained.  There is discussion on things like roads and how you should use bridges or milestones to break them up, but it doesn't make sense as the rules also seem to indicate they simply make movement from one area to another easier if a road runs between them and you're in column.

It seems like there is a good game underneath, but it feels like the rules review was done by people who were "in the know" already.   The faq is supposed to be out in a week or so and will hopefully clean up a lot of my confusion.

[Hobgoblin]

Well, we played our first game this afternoon. I think we got a few things wrong along the way, but it was a lot of fun. I'm very much looking forward to the next game. My son enjoyed it too, although he confessed to being a bit distracted by this project.

We divided the table into 21 or 22 areas. Next time, we'll probably make the areas slightly smaller and include more (Pendrake's method will make this easier; the dividers I put down were quite thick, which reduced the number of areas on the table). But the 'smaller' table (i.e fewer areas) worked well for the time we had available.

Each of us had eight units for c. 1,500 points per side. Both armies were drawn mainly from the orc list, with goblin wolfriders added to one and a mountain giant to the other. Each had a hero general. One had three 8-strong rabble units, 8 black orcs, 8 archers, 6 wolfrider archers and a ballista. The other had 6 elite orc warriors, 10 rabble, 6 pikemen, 3 general's bodyguards, 8 heavy orc warriors, 5 hobgoblin steppe raiders and a mountain giant. These armies had too many troops in the Limited category (I put them together pretty quickly), but that seemed to balance out fine.

The game's got a very different feel from any miniatures game I've played before. It does share a sense of 'grand strategy' with Avalon Hill wargames like Samurai. I can imagine Of Armies & Hordes working very well with very large armies indeed; because of the reaction system, you're unlikely to ever be unable to activate a unit for long.

Two things were familiar from other Ganesha games: the one-to-three-dice activation system (with reactions, like ASoBH) and the constant risk/reward decision-making. This included not just activation rolls, but decisions on formations, positioning of commanders, whether to lead from the front with your general (mine died gloriously in his final charge) and whether to 'push' units. We didn't do any 'pushing' in our game, but I can see in retrospect how important it could be - and the associated risks (fatigue and exhaustion).

Terrain is much more interesting than in most wargames. For one thing, it's more characterful. On our table, we had a village populated by ratmen (as those were the most suitable figures to hand), with which my son's orcs forged an alliance. This enabled him to send the ratmen on raids into the surrounding areas. Also, rough and very rough terrain raise the stakes considerably in the risk/reward gambles, as you need more actions to enter those areas. So, if the dice go against you, there's considerable temptation to 'push' troops forward at the expense of poorer combat outcomes. And there's also a constant temptation to risk turnovers or reactions to get the activations you need.

Despite the typical one-area-a-turn movement, it's a fast and dynamic game. Attacks always end in retreats for one side, and reactions provide the opportunity for second moves. My son managed to get his black orcs right across the table and behind my lines midway into our game, and his general led the wolfriders onto a hill on my side of the table early on (generals on hills boost troops in the surrounding areas).

There are lots of interesting wrinkles in combat. Skirmishers and other missile troops can move, shoot and fall back if they have the activations (and skirmishers get assistance in achieving those). Formations are quite significant; flanking is abstracted but interesting. Weaker units can get destroyed fairly easily; tough ones, like my son's black orcs with the Drilled, Resilient and Steadfast traits, have a lot of staying power.

I liked the way the giant worked. He was hard to kill (and indeed was routed rather than slain) and dangerous, and felt different from infantry units (unlike, e.g., Dragon Rampant, where a giant is usually a one-man infantry unit). I'm keen to see how dragons and other beasties play out.

All in all, I loved it. It's a nice, fresh experience, and it plays quickly and involves loads of decision-making. From a miniatures perspective, it offers the opportunity to get just about everything you have in a given scale on the table at once. We used round-based, square-based and multi-based figures today, and it all worked seamlessly. And because of the implicit figure scale (one model representing scores if not hundreds of creatures), four models is a perfectly viable unit. That's great for painting up new units on a whim. I've got a group of four Lund orc archers underway at the moment for just that reason.

[Hobgoblin]

I'm pretty disappointed in how the rules are written.  Large, obvious gaps are in the RaW.  For example the interaction of facing and movement isn't explained. 

I wonder if that's missing or if it just doesn't apply as in other games. My assumption was that facing only really matters for the positioning of miniatures (and the subsequent resolution of combat). I presumed that a unit could move in any direction when activated. The rules say that units can change facing as desired at the end of a move. Flanking and rear attacks, as I read it, depend on available activations, not from which direction you approach. But I could be wrong. If I'm reading it correctly, the emphasis on compass points, etc., might be a bit misleading.

There is discussion on things like roads and how you should use bridges or milestones to break them up, but it doesn't make sense as the rules also seem to indicate they simply make movement from one area to another easier if a road runs between them and you're in column.

I think the roads bit is quite coherent. Roads are in sections, I assume, to avoid units 'teleporting' from one end of the table to the other. As I read it, roads do these things:

1. They allow units that can't otherwise move through certain terrain types to do so (e.g cavalry through a wood).

2. They allow large units to move through rough areas that would otherwise break them up or deplete them (because of stacking limits). So a 16-stand-strong goblin horde can get through rough going in one piece if it uses a road.

3. They allow free 'pushes' - so that a unit of goblin rabble will make better progress along a road than it otherwise would, even in open country, while incurring fewer reactions.

These benefits come at the expense of being in column (and thus less effective in combat).

[Tibson]

Hobgoblin, sounds like your experience reading through and trying them was better than mine.  I had every intention of setting up a couple of small armies last night and running them into each other but  couldn't ponder through some of the things you were able to intuit from the rules.  I got onto the facebook page and asked some questions that clarified some of my confusion. 

But for example on the roads, do they run between/along areas or through them?  I assumed they ran through areas, but I'm thinking that's not right?  His example maps don't show any so I wasn't sure.  If they are between, do you pay to move into a road section assuming you're in column?  I guess you would probably?  What about if you're just crossing over one?   I assume it doesn't actually count unless you're trying to use it?  IIf roads run along areas, which area does an attacking unit occupy if they win the combat but aren't in column?  I'm a picture guy, so even a few pictures and examples would go a long way to explain.

It's possible it's just me trying to read too much into it, but it doesn't seem like I should have to think this hard or try to guess what the author meant

[Hobgoblin]

Hobgoblin, sounds like your experience reading through and trying them was better than mine.  I had every intention of setting up a couple of small armies last night and running them into each other but  couldn't ponder through some of the things you were able to intuit from the rules.  I got onto the facebook page and asked some questions that clarified some of my confusion. 

We didn't use any roads, so that may have helped!

But for example on the roads, do they run between/along areas or through them?  I assumed they ran through areas, but I'm thinking that's not right? 

I think it is right (and the default assumption) but needn't always be the case. From my reading of the rules, they can do both:

Roads are clear terrain for all troops. Roads may cross other areas. For example, you can have a road going through a forest.

My take on it is that roads are areas in themselves, so they could run between areas, but they can also cross them. And it seems that if you enter an area containing a road and you're in column formation, you can move directly onto the road:

When a unit moves in an area, if the unit is in Column it may use the road. If the unit does not want to adopt a Column formation, it is
considered to walk through the other part of the area.

So I think you pay to enter the area, but can move directly onto the road through it if you're in the appropriate formation.

If they are between, do you pay to move into a road section assuming you're in column?  I guess you would probably? 

Yes, I think so. But of course, you could move to the other end of that road section, so you'd probably travel a visible amount on the table. But I think most roads will run through areas rather than between them.

What about if you're just crossing over one?   I assume it doesn't actually count unless you're trying to use it?

I'd agree. I reckon the default assumption is that roads run through areas, so this situation hasn't been addressed. But I think a logical inference would be that roads can be freely crossed perpendicularly if they happen to run between areas. I think the implicit figure scale means that roads are probably oversized on the table and aren't significant unless you're planning to use them.

  If roads run along areas, which area does an attacking unit occupy if they win the combat but aren't in column?  I'm a picture guy, so even a few pictures and examples would go a long way to explain.

Again, I think the default assumption is that roads run through areas. But if they don't, I'd presume that the winner would stay in the adjacent area (or on the road) and the loser would be driven off the road into the other adjacent area. So, if you assume that roads don't count unless you're using them, you get the same result as if the defender were in the section occupied by the attacker.

It's possible it's just me trying to read too much into it, but it doesn't seem like I should have to think this hard or try to guess what the author meant

I think it's just that default assumption again: that roads will generally run through terrain. But obviously, there are situations where you might want them running between (forest on one side, hillside on the other or whatever). If you always have them running through, there are no problems at all (in the forest/hillside situation, you could have the road running along the edge of the forest but inside it.

Equally, though, if you assume that the road would just be a line on a 'true-scale' map of the board, you can ignore it unless you're trying to use it.

That's all just my inference, though; I'll ask for clarification on the Yahoo group.

[DivisMal]

Hi all,
I bought the rules after Hobgoblin‘s first impression, and am still in the process of reading them. But, man, are they packed with innovative stuff!

I haven’t been so hyped by mass-battle rules for ages...being nicely reminded of discovering Fantasy Warriors in the 80s.

The roads and stacking limit make terrain really interesting. For the first time I can remember is it possible to have dense forest, with roads for horses and stage coaches going through it, and it reads easy and meaningful. Dungeons and ruins...neutral villages, which you can raid or try to ally to!

Can’t wait to try them out.

[Hobgoblin]

The roads and stacking limit make terrain really interesting. For the first time I can remember is it possible to have dense forest, with roads for horses and stage coaches going through it, and it reads easy and meaningful. Dungeons and ruins...neutral villages, which you can raid or try to ally to!

Yes, there's loads of great stuff in there. I like the suggestion that you can also map out or randomly generate dungeons on a side-table - so that you could have a "side-quest" going on while battle rages (that could be done with SoBH, as well as with 4AD, as the text suggests). Imagine the potential for that: hobbits with a ring of power creeping towards a fiery chamber, perhaps?.

The chances that ruins will contain treasure guarded by monsters is another great little twist. And there's lots more, including burial grounds as a source of undead troops; enchanted forests that pose threats but can also boost magic-users; and holy and unholy ground. I can't think of a mass-battle fantasy game that's integrated the fantastic so fully with the core game.

Andrea has posted the undead army list here. It's free, and it might be worth a look for anyone considering the game. It has about 120 (!) different options. Note that you have to actively enter 0 to get it for free - that flummoxed me at first.

[ganesha games]

Thank you for the batrep and I am glad that you saw what my intent was in writing these rules.

 I wanted them to be innovative and frankly to do away with the parts that always irk me: measuring, people worrying about angles of impact etc -- in other words, stuff that does not make you feel like a general. A general should see the battle from a distance, "painted in broad strokes" and not worry for the minutiae that are taken care of his chain of command.

The area mechanism was my attempt to do that and reinvent the wheel. I can say that some of my local testers were naysayers at first and now have been converted and they have even printed battle mats with subtle area boundaries. They wouldn't paly games with inches now. Tape measurers are cool for skirmish games, but not army level big battles.

Yes as you guessed the game was designed in a (maybe simplistic) way to make sure that a battle with a ton of figures was possible and playable in under 2 hours. Not everything on the table will move, but that's part of the fog of war.

about the roads: a road can move across multiple areas, and of course in that case you have the advantage of using a road as long as you FOLLOW the road in column. Meaning that you can move along the road and  as long as you stay in column, you will be able to perform road movement. Nobody forces you to do so: you could step into an area that has a road and decide to move on the rough side of the terrain (and with good reason, as the opponent may have placed lurkers at crossroads for example).

My second design idea was to put as much fantastical elements as possible. I did not want to play with "ancient Romans with pointed ears", so to say. The troops and the world should come alive and be colorful and different. Since we simplified movement with areas, and I am forcing the player to do a "paradigm shift" about terrain, at least I am making that terrain count.

This year I want to put out a FAQ document and at least 10-12 armies, unfortunately the process is slow because doing the layout of those profiles takes a full day or more. I have another designer helping me but it will still take time and he's doing it as a volunteer :-)

Printed copies will come at the end of the month. I will print a few spiral bound hardbacks (they will come signed and retail for around 21-22 euros, full color, 6x9 inches on heavy paper and ultra heavy hardback covers) and paperbacks that will be available on Amazon (about 17-18 euros, I still do not know exactly) after a few days.

[Askellad]

Impatient to try it!

Can we see areas in battlefield with a pic or a scheme?