Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: beefcake on 16 February 2019, 01:24:17 AM
-
Well I'm keen to give this a look at (https://gumroad.com/l/PMnQZ). I really like Song of Blades and heroes as it is a quick game that I can play with my kids (and Sellwords and Spellslingers) and now with a mass battle game I can bring out the armies of minis I have and give them a go as well rather than just skirmish level stuff. Just a PDF for now but a printed copy is due out late Feb. More info below the picture.
(https://static-2.gumroad.com/res/gumroad/7073609508854/asset_previews/38c30676be33e6d3ef23c0c4d7bc2d93/retina/OAAH_cover_preview_20large.jpg)
Of Armies and Hordes is an army level wargame using area movement and abstract maneuvering to simplify play while retaining all the tactical choices and variables required by the genre.
The rules are designed for fast, relaxed play among friends, not competitions. Bookkeeping is minimal. A typical large game requires two hours, including setup.
Combat is dramatic. Battle-lines clash into each other. Something happens on the table every turn. Troops die quickly.
The rules are non-scale specific.You can use any figures in any scale. Use any models you already own, or build dedicated armies.
Basing is flexible. Use any system you like. You can even mix basing systems. As long as you can count the units (either the heads of models or the number of stands), you can play.
Table size is flexible. As long as you can identify enough areas of the battlefield to provide a good game, you can play on a small kitchen table or on a huge wargaming table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules are written for fantasy games. It is possible to play ancient and medieval battles by removing the fantastical elements, but the rules have little pretension of historical accuracy.
There is no SOLO system but the rules are simple enough that a player may play solo by controlling both sides.
There are NO ARMY lists in the main file, but there is a spreadsheet with over 600 ready-made profiles, and you can create your own. From goblins to wlves to orcs to trolls and dwarves and humans and halflings and undead, we got you covered. By keeping the point system separate from the core rulebook, we will not need new editions as the game evolves and new troops are added.
We will publish free PDFs of army lists (the same that are in the spreadsheet, plus more that we will add). We plan to collect all army lists in a print book in 2020.
We will update the spreadsheet with new troops as they are created.
-
Aha! These rules have been long awaited! Just bought 'em.
We've had a bit of an SBH/MDRG renaissance recently. The rules are simple, but they've got plenty of depth beneath the surface. As an example, I recently played MDRG back to back with GW's Kill Team and noted that the Ganesha engine gives five potential outcomes from one opposed roll while Kill Team gives three potential outcomes from four or five successive rolls. So I've got high hopes for this game.
If only airport wifi were a bit faster ...
-
lol
I'm keen to hear your review of the rules. I'll probably get the PDF at least (well after my next payday I reckon).
-
This is the only 21st century fantasy battle system that I have anticipated with any degree of fervor. Will follow the thread and am likely to pick it up.
-
Looks interesting. Is it very much the SoBH mechanism (a couple of stats and lots of special rules) or is it something different? Any game reports out there?
-
I've been reading through the rules. They contain a fair bit of the SoBH engine but are very different in lots of ways (much more so than, say, OGAM). The stats are different, for starters.
Most strikingly, movement is by area; the table is divided into areas, which are used for movement. Control of advantageous areas (hilltops, defensive positions, villages, etc.) is clearly an important feature of the game. I'm playing around now with a small 'table' using outdoor dungeon tiles (each tile being an 'area').
Secondly, SoBH activations aren't used for shooting or melee, which happen automatically, but for movement (though only fast units can move more than one area at a time), changing formations and entering/exiting areas of difficult terrain (there are various types).
Combat isn't the same; yes, there's a die + modifier for each figure, but units have separate attack and defence values. So you can have hard-hitting troops that are lightly armoured (Dacians with falx or any number of fantastical analogues) and weak but heavily armoured troops.
Morale rules are similar but different (as all combats end in retreat).
There are Saga-ish fatigue/exhaustion rules; you can push units to do more than usual, but they pay a temporary price.
Units can adopt closed or open formations, march in column, form squares or operate as hordes. There are rules for flanking and rear attacks (generally, the formations with those vulnerabilities are also best placed at exploiting them.
One (great) thing about the game is that it's completely basing-agnostic. Units are composed of 'stands', which could be individual figures or HotT-style elements or anything in between. You could also use KoW or Impetus block, counting heads and recording casualties with dice or on paper. I'll be using units that consist of both multi-based elements and individual figures.
It's also entirely scale-agnostic, and can be played on tables of radically different size. A 'stand' might be a single 28mm figure or an element of 10 or more smaller-scale figures. But you can also use individually bases at smaller scales, multi-bases at biggers scales and mix and match as you see fit. All this is very good indeed.
There are interesting rules for assassins hidden in units, HotT-style lurkers and adventuring parties that might even explore dungeons in mid-battle.
In line with the above, terrain features have a lot of character. Enchanted forests, dungeon entrances, inhabited villages and the like look like they will add a lot of flavour.
I'd say that there's an assumed (largeish) figure scale. The biggest unit allowed is 16 stands, which will be 16 figures for most people playing in 28mm. But the unwritten assumption seems to be that one figure represents scores if not hundreds.
I haven't got to the magic rules yet - all I've read so far is movement, shooting, melee and morale. But my first impression of the game is very favourable. I really like Andrea's games - from SobH to MDRG and OGAM to Rogue Stars and Battlesworn - so that may be no surprise. This looks quite a bit different, though. I'm itching to play it, but given our return from Italy scant hours ago, I think that will wait until tomorrow. All in all, it looks very different to anything I've played before - but there are echoes of lots of games I like: SoBH, Saga, HotT and those marvellous Avalon Hill card-and-counter wargames.
Much more tomorrow!
-
Thanks for the overview, Hobgoblin.
As with others, I have been waiting for these rules for a long time, and in a few more clicks I'll have a copy :D
-
Thanks Hobgoblin a very useful write up.
The bit I’m struggling with is the area movement - how are the areas defined on the table? I am used to setting up a table as mainly open ground (the base cloth) and then putting large bases down as area terrain (trees, villages, scrub etc). So I can see how a wood can be easily defined as an area, but less sure about an open area?
-
This sounds very interesting - thanks for flagging it up. Keep the reviews coming .
-
Thanks Hobgoblin a very useful write up.
The bit I’m struggling with is the area movement - how are the areas defined on the table? I am used to setting up a table as mainly open ground (the base cloth) and then putting large bases down as area terrain (trees, villages, scrub etc). So I can see how a wood can be easily defined as an area, but less sure about an open area?
The rules recommend dividing the table up using chalk on cloth. They also illustrate some examples with hex tiles, which would obviously work very well for this. Another way of doing it would just be to place terrain so that the table is 'naturally' broken up into segments.
One feature of the rules is that open terrain can accommodate more troops. So there's an in-built bent towards the open areas being bigger.
I'm going to attempt a run-through with the kids tomorrow using these tiles as the 'areas':
-
That movement mechanic sounds... weird.
Something that I would have to test before I know whether or not I can enjoy it... o_O
-
I kind of like that movement technique. It saves a lot of measuring.
-
The thing is, it's a movement mechanism shared by a huge number of wargames - perhaps even the majority. It's just not common in miniature wargames.
I have very fond memories of Avalon Hill's Samurai, which used that mechanic.
The impression that I get from the rules so far is that terrain is going to be much more important than in most fantasy wargames, with the 'areas' playing a big part in this. I suspect there'll be a bit of trial and error in getting the sizes right, but that suspicion might be misplaced: the difficulty of movement through rough and very rough areas might provide a balancing mechanism.
-
I've been reading through the rules.
Thanks very much for the info!
-
The bit I’m struggling with is the area movement - how are the areas defined on the table? I am used to setting up a table as mainly open ground (the base cloth) and then putting large bases down as area terrain (trees, villages, scrub etc). So I can see how a wood can be easily defined as an area, but less sure about an open area?
I get the idea that you are wondering how to divide up an expanse of open table cloth into several areas?
The rules recommend dividing the table up using chalk on cloth. They also illustrate some examples with hex tiles, which would obviously work very well for this. Another way of doing it would just be to place terrain so that the table is 'naturally' broken up into segments.
One feature of the rules is that open terrain can accommodate more troops. So there's an in-built bent towards the open areas being bigger.
A simple solution for dividing up Fred’s open table cloth is corner markers that look like boulders. Method: grab a bunch of 25mm plastic figure bases, glue a real pebble or tiny chunk of gravel to it, add sand and flock (just like basing a figure but there is no figure in the way), paint it as desired. The battlefield looks like the Salisbury plain in England. Large Sarsen boulders dotted about left by a receded Glacier. It just so happens the boulders are in a grid, marking the corners of the ‘areas’ required by this game.
In my head it sounds simple to do and it looks pretty good as well.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
All set up for our debut game ...
-
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."
-
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.
-
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 (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=115175.0).
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.
-
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).
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://gum.co/NMTEV). 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.
-
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.
-
Impatient to try it!
Can we see areas in battlefield with a pic or a scheme?
-
How long did it take people to get their PDF? I ordered through Gumroad 2hrs ago, and other than a Paypal receipt - nothing. Not sure if this is an automated system or manual PDF dispatch?
-
I got mine a minute before the PayPal receipt.
-
Hmm! That’s not promising.
I’ve checked various mail folders. There doesn’t seem to be any download link.
-
Impatient to try it!
Can we see areas in battlefield with a pic or a scheme?
There are such examples as separate files when you buy the rules and within the rules themselves.
Personally, I’m not yet 100% sure, how I’ll do it, but the idea is really interesting. Hexes work in any case, too.
-
Hmm! That’s not promising.
I’ve checked various mail folders. There doesn’t seem to be any download link.
Andreas has sorted! Something seems to have gone wrong with the auto sender. But I have the files now. Unfortunately I now need to go to work so can’t read them.
-
I just got the undead one from them and had to download it direct from gumroad.
-
I don't understand how many stands make up a unit. Or do you buy stands with the points, and organize into units as desired? Is it chosen during army list creation? Is it a property of different kinds of units? (I don't think so, didn't see in undead list.)
andy
-
You can have between 2 and 16 stands in a unit; the cost is per stand. So a unit of ten 31-point skeleton infantry costs 310 points.
Units with the Scout trait are limited to two to four stands.
-
Also, units can be split during the game (or forced to split by the stacking limits).
-
I don't understand how many stands make up a unit. Or do you buy stands with the points, and organize into units as desired? Is it chosen during army list creation? Is it a property of different kinds of units? (I don't think so, didn't see in undead list.)
andy
Also keep in mind that basing is really flexible. You can use stands, individually based figures or a mix of the two. As long as it's clear to you and your opponent, each figure or base can represent however many figures/stands as you like. That's one of the advantages that area movement brings to the table.
-
Had a quick read of the rules. Can I check something around activations and combat.
I activate a unit and get two successful activations. There is an enemy unit in an adjacent area. On my first activation I move into the enemy’s area. This leads to a combat. Say I win and the enemy retreats.
Can I then use my second activation to move forward again, and fight another combat?
The reason I ask is that a combat is fought when a units movement ends in an area with an enemy unit. So I’m not sure if I have to do all my moving (for a unit) before combat.
-
I activate a unit and get two successful activations. There is an enemy unit in an adjacent area. On my first activation I move into the enemy’s area. This leads to a combat. Say I win and the enemy retreats.
Can I then use my second activation to move forward again, and fight another combat?
Most units can only move one area a turn, regardless of activations (movement in this game is a bit like attacks in Song of Blades - once only, unless you have a special trait). Only Fast units can move 2 areas, but they can't move through occupied areas unless they are also Flying units. So I think it's implicit in the rules that even Fast units can only initiate one melee a turn (i.e. their movement comes to an end when they enter melee).
The reason I ask is that a combat is fought when a units movement ends in an area with an enemy unit. So I’m not sure if I have to do all my moving (for a unit) before combat.
Yes, I think you do - with the one exception of the 'shooting and running away' rule. If your unit is faster than the one it's fighting, it can move into the area, shoot and then use an additional activation to retreat.
The list of possible uses of actions on p. 51 doesn't include "move, attack, move and attack again" for Fast troops, so I think that rules out the possibility that Fast troops could mount two successive attacks (pursuing a retreating enemy, for example).
-
Thanks p51 is useful. Hadn’t looked at that in detail last night.
And having looked at I agree with you.
-
Set up a table and played a few turns solo last night
Discovered you get a lot of areas even on a 4'x4' board with 10mm figures!
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/N4JNyycP8Gh4lm2R6oNX_J0qFyIOqsmJSFE8X-aROvY4B1v2FSYeVgMtR-Di1M03QBKi_s3Kp65oNaP-ts_JBz6nEOcHaJeOZTBDhKtb9Ud-vUFJ4YKF-Ih6qH5KzgJW2qjDY7iU5HKsF1hjQmXv2N4apNG1TtI9e7Gc47LclMOP4J8pueb4BmQ3PysS92nrfjP9OjJcB6sIw3fosYJvIT3gNfPHIgwg7rJ47Hg-ere_BRx5ZYt1w7tU9IiNLShzCv0HCaasrR0ATO9RdnxfHpgl5iDKo6t2B09u1nQCSraLCyjZZDXeaipqjCkK1WSrI3fbxmLrrwPIU5rNeIRNH8LFoeIGMegPBnYXkjAJHfMrxLoWBoUTj4NyObdiLwo780CQsrEwhtUL-3ucDeVC3flctLVdbMi8fDgscgs5oRfOEIOdUE5yL4PUhwdWw20FdB3UcFSveyiDjaQghYn7dwvsATAQ1H6gkOrtPK35SIawPax2YLWt7Y49Bx084fKdGePwzILaXq3suUE14AEx6hdG7fAXnYEtaa9brmPduO9qLawD-EAwRJGecAgfioo3b_veZeqOWaHi4sPSk6MG9qekOMmLOncoXkl3AxffZwC8S6P3s6Jll2djTnySZWktaN4yKhX3JbBRlIF9ActpdtAidmRxe4T_cvWBwKqAViD5UPOMwh5lleLQX_wU_IJMdxp_c-9UvVIq8WIn_6p5W9bPkA=w1381-h1036-no)
I used hedges to delimit most of the terrain areas - the very open looking areas are actually hills. To me this looks much like any other wargames table - the areas feel pretty natural.
The activation is very good, allowing reactions and unexpected turn ends. Playing solo I definitely should have used counters to mark activations, as after a few turns the order switches quite a lot, so I was loosing track of who had activated or not. I think this is mainly a solo play thing.
Combat is brutal - perhaps too brutal, but I suppose it keeps the game moving. I haven't worked out the best way to use missile troops or flyers (but I only played a few turns) .
Some rules seem rather geared towards 28mm - Cavalry having 2 wounds and 2 attacks feels like it is to do with 28mm cavalry models having such a big foot print. Likewise the chariot rules. These can be tweaked easily enough.
The terrain rules are good, and really interact with the activation, special rules and magic. It feels much more integrated than many rules. The stacking limits of terrain along with needing extra activations to enter, make for some interesting traffic jams, so it feels like terrain has a lot more impact than lots of other rules.
It has the SoBH problem of a very simple stat line (which is good) but then loads of special rules, some of which I think would be better as stats.
-
I had high hopes until I saw the "area movement" comment.
Sigh, looks like I'll give this one a pass. Good luck with it y'all.
-
Discovered you get a lot of areas even on a 4'x4' board with 10mm figures!
Yes: I realised after our first game that our areas were much bigger than need be; they wouldn't have to be more than around 6" by 6" in 28mm (to accommodate two lots of 16 infantry) - and that's only for clear areas; rough terrain can be much smaller if required.
I used hedges to delimit most of the terrain areas - the very open looking areas are actually hills. To me this looks much like any other wargames table - the areas feel pretty natural.
Yup - looks good! I think a more broken-up battlefield actually looks better in many ways; necessity's the mother of invention, and all that.
Some rules seem rather geared towards 28mm - Cavalry having 2 wounds and 2 attacks feels like it is to do with 28mm cavalry models having such a big foot print. Likewise the chariot rules. These can be tweaked easily enough.
The two wounds is just an option for cavalry, though, not a Mounted requirement; our wolf-riders were one-hit wonders!
It has the SoBH problem of a very simple stat line (which is good) but then loads of special rules, some of which I think would be better as stats.
That's interesting. I see this criticism of SoBH quite a lot, but I never quite understand it. That might just be because we've played SoBH and its offshoots so much, but I find that as each character typically has just one or two special rules, they really don't get in the way.
For example, I much prefer knowing that the beastman and the orc are both Q4, C3, but one has Dashing and Forester and the other has Savage and Shooter: Medium than having extra stats to look up. I also think a lot of the SoBH traits are really elegant - like Big (+1 C in close combat, but +1 to the opponent's C when being shot at). That seems better to me than having a close-combat stat and a 'ranged defence' stat, as it's quite intuitive.
Certainly, I find SoBH to be the one rulebook that almost never needs to be consulted during games - much less so than even relatively simple rulesets like Dragon Rampant, where the longer statline seems a bit fiddly by comparison. I'm hoping that OA&H will work out in the same way as SoBH, although some of the traits are initially going to be 'false friends' (i.e. two attacks for Mounted rather than +1 to C).
Anyway, that 10mm set-up looks great!
-
Set up a table and played a few turns solo last night
Discovered you get a lot of areas even on a 4'x4' board with 10mm figures!
I used hedges to delimit most of the terrain areas - the very open looking areas are actually hills. To me this looks much like any other wargames table - the areas feel pretty natural.
The activation is very good, allowing reactions and unexpected turn ends. Playing solo I definitely should have used counters to mark activations, as after a few turns the order switches quite a lot, so I was loosing track of who had activated or not. I think this is mainly a solo play thing.
Combat is brutal - perhaps too brutal, but I suppose it keeps the game moving. I haven't worked out the best way to use missile troops or flyers (but I only played a few turns) .
Some rules seem rather geared towards 28mm - Cavalry having 2 wounds and 2 attacks feels like it is to do with 28mm cavalry models having such a big foot print. Likewise the chariot rules. These can be tweaked easily enough.
The terrain rules are good, and really interact with the activation, special rules and magic. It feels much more integrated than many rules. The stacking limits of terrain along with needing extra activations to enter, make for some interesting traffic jams, so it feels like terrain has a lot more impact than lots of other rules.
It has the SoBH problem of a very simple stat line (which is good) but then loads of special rules, some of which I think would be better as stats.
Your table looks brilliant! I have also thought of hedges and maybe little creeks ans paths to divide my open areas.
In fact, I’d say a tabletop such as yours looks much better than the suspiciously flat grasslands with a couple of hills, we usually encounter. Most tabletop battles seems to be taking place on golf courses!
-
Thanks guys, glad you like the table setup. I’ve updated quite a bit of my terrain recently to make it look better in photos! Using fields and empty area terrain templates for areas does seem to break up the table more than normal.
As to the special rules vs stat line. Hobgoblin, I think the reason you like the special rules, is that you play the stable of games a lot. For those of us who flit between rulesets it’s hard to remember what many similarly named special rules do in different games. It’s not so much the number of special rules per unit, it’s the number in the army that the player needs to know.
-
I had high hopes until I saw the "area movement" comment.
Sigh, looks like I'll give this one a pass. Good luck with it y'all.
I have no problem with the area movement, it's just spaces on a board.
Army list though, are an aberration I can not stand.
-
I like grids, and for some reason they seem less obtrusive to me than the pictures I've seen so far dividing up the battlefield. I play large skirmish fantasy on 4" hexes: https://photos.app.goo.gl/oIMHXNXPBidNH6UE2 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/oIMHXNXPBidNH6UE2)
(I also use 4" hexes for Epic 40,000.)
But this game might be better if I used the 12" Geo-Hex system.
I love being able to pick miniatures up and put them down freely. Feels more like playing with toys.
andy
-
Will the game work with 6mm large-stand armies?
As an example:
https://www.deviantart.com/spielorjh/art/6mm-Army-of-Gondor-726248529
-
Largely yes. You will need to decide what number of figures one of your bases corresponds to (I went with 4 ‘figures’ for a 40x40mm square base and 2 figures for 40x20mm base).
So you will be a bit limited on variance of unit sizes, but that’s not a big problem. You will need to track losses against a stand, again easy enough.
The problem area will be around the different formations which you will need some way of indicating open order vs closed order vs horde.
-
I guess the game is perfectly playable with multi-based units.
Either you define 1 base = 1 stand or you set a base as a number of stands and note the losses.
-
Just preordered the hardback spiralbound one. Comes with a free pdf.
-
I have no problem with the area movement, it's just spaces on a board.
Army list though, are an aberration I can not stand.
I'd generally agree, but ... there are no armies in the book itself here, and the spreadsheet allows you to create any profiles you like.
Also, the 'official' army lists in the spreadsheet and forthcoming PDF are much more extensive than any I've seen for other games (e.g. 100+ troop types for each army). And you're allowed to use troops from any other army list as mercenaries (up to 50%). That gives you a huge amount of leeway to create whatever army you fancy. The mercenary rules mean that troops are cheaper but you lose the game if they're all that you have left at any point.
On top of that, the rules actively encourage you to create your own army lists and troop types. There are simple rules for which troop types are 'personalities' (who can make up no more than a third of your force) and 'limited' (no more than a half, but that half includes any personalities). So you can mix and match the existing profiles into combined lists (without using mercenaries) and create new profiles for anything that's missing.
-
I have no problem with the area movement, it's just spaces on a board.
Army list though, are an aberration I can not stand.
Well they’re probably not what you have in mind (competitive/ min-max / herohammer etc.), but rather extensive lists of example profiles, conveniently put into a single pdf.
It’s rather expected that you create your own army, complete with profiles.
-
Two things make me a bit wary of these rules - that huge list of special rules and the area movement.
Re the movement it is not the movement by areas but the delineation of them. I like for a table to look naturalistic and forcing it into basically a 6" grid is really off putting. One of the aspects of miniatures is the use of the pieces to mark locations - without that does it not just turn into a pretty boardgame? Except it doesn't look pretty as there are a bunch of artificial lines all over the place and everything is in a grid pattern.
The host of special rules are basically a host of exceptions to the very basic rules. I assume all won't be in play at any particular battle but it does create a proverbial headache of what does which to whom. It's one reason I don't like Age of Sigmar - a whole host of exceptions to try and memorise to allow you to know what your army and your opponents actually does.
I would definitely be interested in seeing more battle reports and table set ups though.
-
Two things make me a bit wary of these rules - that huge list of special rules and the area movement.
Re the movement it is not the movement by areas but the delineation of them. I like for a table to look naturalistic and forcing it into basically a 6" grid is really off putting. One of the aspects of miniatures is the use of the pieces to mark locations - without that does it not just turn into a pretty boardgame? Except it doesn't look pretty as there are a bunch of artificial lines all over the place and everything is in a grid pattern.
The host of special rules are basically a host of exceptions to the very basic rules. I assume all won't be in play at any particular battle but it does create a proverbial headache of what does which to whom. It's one reason I don't like Age of Sigmar - a whole host of exceptions to try and memorise to allow you to know what your army and your opponents actually does.
I would definitely be interested in seeing more battle reports and table set ups though.
Well, the host of special rules is something the author did already in his SoBH rules. IMO this is very elegant, because in contrast to what I originally thought, the mechanics already give a very satisfying battle. Then come the special rules, and for me it’s actually easier to remember just one or two rules per model than memorize a long profile with many digits.
The tabletop...well, it states specifically that the sections can be of different sizes. I don’t know how it’ll look, however, as I haven’t tried it myself yet.
-
Re the movement it is not the movement by areas but the delineation of them. I like for a table to look naturalistic and forcing it into basically a 6" grid is really off putting. One of the aspects of miniatures is the use of the pieces to mark locations - without that does it not just turn into a pretty boardgame? Except it doesn't look pretty as there are a bunch of artificial lines all over the place and everything is in a grid pattern.
It's worth pointing out that the game doesn't requite a grid, as the areas can be irregularly shaped and sized; indeed, that's what the author recommends. You do need some way of separating one area from another, but you don't need actual lines or anything. Because movement's by area, the areas only need to be vaguely indicated. So, a little thought's needed, but the battlefield doesn't have to be particularly artificial-looking - or artificial-looking at all with sufficient planning. We found that invisible lines between one rock/bush/tree and another were often all that was needed.
For example, there are at least eight areas visible in this photo (of a very hasty set-up), but it's hardly a grid:
(http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=115142.0;attach=93482;image)
The host of special rules are basically a host of exceptions to the very basic rules. I assume all won't be in play at any particular battle but it does create a proverbial headache of what does which to whom. It's one reason I don't like Age of Sigmar - a whole host of exceptions to try and memorise to allow you to know what your army and your opponents actually does.
As fred and I were discussing above, there seems to be a marmite aspect to this. All the Ganesha games use this system, just about, but I always find them to be the best rulesets for never having to open the book at the table. I think the main reason for this is that the traits tend to be simple in themselves, so you don't need to look them up.
As an example, the traits we used in our game (all from the official lists) included these:
Fast - can move two areas instead of one.
Savage - counts as if it caused an extra kill when determining the winner of a melee.
Resilient - saving throw of 5 or 6 for each kill.
Extra lives - effectively hit points.
Mounted - double dice in close combat; can't move through certain areas.
Rabble - the unit takes double casualties.
And so on.
What distinguishes the Ganesha-style traits from the Age of Sigmar ones is that they're all generic and all fairly common. All armies are likely to have some Fast, Mounted and Resilient troops; lots will have Rabble and Savage. So the effects of each trait are well known and easily applied. That's not the case with Age of Sigmar, where each "scroll" seems to contain lots of unit-specific traits.
The same applies to Song of Blades, etc,: if you know a character's Big (and you should be able to tell just by looking at the miniature), you just tally up the modifier in combat (+1 to shoot at it, +1 for it to hit). The elegance of the system rests on the traits being simple and intuitive, and well integrated with the other mechanics.
-
Army list though, are an aberration I can not stand.
I'm not sure how you can play a fantasy game without Army Lists. You need something to define the stats of the various units, especially in a fantasy game where there is almost unlimited choice. The OAAH lists provide huge numbers of example units - I don't think anyone would want to field them all at once!
The army building rules are simple, with a total points cost and a few broad limits around the types of units.
Re the movement it is not the movement by areas but the delineation of them. I like for a table to look naturalistic and forcing it into basically a 6" grid is really off putting. One of the aspects of miniatures is the use of the pieces to mark locations - without that does it not just turn into a pretty boardgame? Except it doesn't look pretty as there are a bunch of artificial lines all over the place and everything is in a grid pattern.
There is no need to play on squares or hexes, or any other regular grid. I'll show this example again of my very quick table setup, with some 40 areas on it
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/N4JNyycP8Gh4lm2R6oNX_J0qFyIOqsmJSFE8X-aROvY4B1v2FSYeVgMtR-Di1M03QBKi_s3Kp65oNaP-ts_JBz6nEOcHaJeOZTBDhKtb9Ud-vUFJ4YKF-Ih6qH5KzgJW2qjDY7iU5HKsF1hjQmXv2N4apNG1TtI9e7Gc47LclMOP4J8pueb4BmQ3PysS92nrfjP9OjJcB6sIw3fosYJvIT3gNfPHIgwg7rJ47Hg-ere_BRx5ZYt1w7tU9IiNLShzCv0HCaasrR0ATO9RdnxfHpgl5iDKo6t2B09u1nQCSraLCyjZZDXeaipqjCkK1WSrI3fbxmLrrwPIU5rNeIRNH8LFoeIGMegPBnYXkjAJHfMrxLoWBoUTj4NyObdiLwo780CQsrEwhtUL-3ucDeVC3flctLVdbMi8fDgscgs5oRfOEIOdUE5yL4PUhwdWw20FdB3UcFSveyiDjaQghYn7dwvsATAQ1H6gkOrtPK35SIawPax2YLWt7Y49Bx084fKdGePwzILaXq3suUE14AEx6hdG7fAXnYEtaa9brmPduO9qLawD-EAwRJGecAgfioo3b_veZeqOWaHi4sPSk6MG9qekOMmLOncoXkl3AxffZwC8S6P3s6Jll2djTnySZWktaN4yKhX3JbBRlIF9ActpdtAidmRxe4T_cvWBwKqAViD5UPOMwh5lleLQX_wU_IJMdxp_c-9UvVIq8WIn_6p5W9bPkA=w1381-h1036-no)
Special Rules - yes there are a lot. But as Hobgoblin says they are fairly simple, and you don't have huge numbers on an army. I think to a degree this is always going to be the case in a fantasy game, as you have lots of types of units and tropes to represent. Where it becomes hard is remembering them all between different game systems.
-
I'm not sure how you can play a fantasy game without Army Lists.
Very, very easily. They're a hold over from older games that were full of charts and percentage modifiers meant to replicate specific historical battles. To your point, playing a Fantasy game with them makes no sense to me.
I make and decide on the troops I use. I do not want to pick and choose them from a list, limiting my choice, where someone allows me to use my own figures. It doesn't matter how many choices I have (except I can't have more than 50% of those, or 11% of them, or 18% of left handed ones). A cage is a cage no matter how gilded.
They aren't necessary. I do not like army lists.
But these rules use them, and a lot of people really like them, so they will probably enjoy it. That's why there's more than one ruleset out there, because different people like different things.
The area movement I find interesting. I would like to see some AARs to see how it works out in practice. Also, I just like reading AARs. :)
-
I think you've got the wrong impression about army lists for this game.
These rules provide lists, but allow and encourage you to make your own. They provide the system to design your own specifications for a unit.
I for one would be happier starting off with lists that provide most of what I want, then tweaking the things I picture differently, rather than having to stat up every figure in my army.
andy
-
Very, very easily. They're a hold over from older games that were full of charts and percentage modifiers meant to replicate specific historical battles. To your point, playing a Fantasy game with them makes no sense to me.
I make and decide on the troops I use. I do not want to pick and choose them from a list, limiting my choice, where someone allows me to use my own figures. It doesn't matter how many choices I have (except I can't have more than 50% of those, or 11% of them, or 18% of left handed ones). A cage is a cage no matter how gilded.
They aren't necessary. I do not like army lists.
But these rules use them, and a lot of people really like them, so they will probably enjoy it. That's why there's more than one ruleset out there, because different people like different things.
The area movement I find interesting. I would like to see some AARs to see how it works out in practice. Also, I just like reading AARs. :)
Well, I guess, this is just a misunderstanding then. You neither have percentages for troop choices nor these troops in the game (as written above). Army lists (offering examples of troops that fit a certain faction) are offered for free as expansions because many people like them.
-
Yes, the "lists" in this are more like a very extensive bestiary (with many times the entries of the Monster Manual and Fiend Folio put together) than a Warhammer Armies-type thing.
For example, the undead list contains a huge range of undead troop types (from armoured skeleton pikemen to zombie orcs), but there are no restrictions on how you combine these. There's nothing like "0-2 units of 10-16 armoured skeleton pikemen"; you could have all your entire army consisting of any of the unlimited troop types.
And the "Limited" and "Personality" labels are essentially the same as the Personality traits in Song of Blades - just to ensure that some degree of balance is preserved. Of course, you can ignore those limits if you want more of a superheroic battle; it's just a guideline.
So really, it's one of the most open-ended systems available. You can design whatever you want. A useful point of comparison might be with Mayhem. It's a great game, but one that I don't tend to play that much because it takes so much effort to stat up an army. The main reason for that is that you don't get any "baseline" profiles with the rules. So it's tricky to work out what the profile for your reptilian bird-riders or half-orc skirmishers should be. And that's a shame, because Mayhem is a brilliant game. This one gives you all the freedom of Mayhem along with hundreds of sample profiles - hardly a bad thing!
By the way, the free halfling list is up on the Ganesha site.