Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: gibby64 on April 03, 2025, 03:02:49 PM
-
It's finally here!! The hardback second edition! I had the joy of helping with photography and proofreading for this project. I congratulate Daniel on this fantastic achievement and urge everyone to pick up a copy when it comes out around October.
-
Nice cover art. Very much looking forward to this release.
-
Great news. Thought LR Second Edition was great. Really like the higher production and having a hard back copy of these rules.
-
We had another recent thread on this.
It looks like Dan has chimed in on why this is happening (when several of us thought it wasn’t) :
-
This is excellent news! I love the original version (even if I do not get to play often), and the added content sounds great. I will definitely be buying this!
-
Looking forward to this. I wonder, is the campaign system 1 vs. 1, or multiplayer? Having the luxury of 6-7 players showing up regularly, a one vs. one wouldn't be as useful.
We've been playing XR! and Lion Rampant lately, but haven't ventured into Dragon Rampant, yet. I have told everyone to hold off buying the blue book and wait till the 2nd Edition comes out.
Mike Demana
-
I will watch out for the first reviews here. Is it known if there will be translations available at some point of time? It is a bit more difficult to find gaming partners otherwise due to people prefering to read and understand rules by themselves. I translated Ravenfeast into German, so that my brothers have it easier to get into the rules.
-
I think everyone is REALLY going to like the new magic in the game! Dan did a great job expanding it out.
-
Cool- I've never played Dragon Rampant but I'm always curious about rule systems. I've heard/read many people play this system, but don't know much about it. Will check it out.
I feel like the barbarian/warrior on the cover pays a bit of homage to the guy on the cover of the 3rd and 4th edition Warhammer Fantasy rulebooks.
-
I feel like the barbarian/warrior on the cover pays a bit of homage to the guy on the cover of the 3rd and 4th edition Warhammer Fantasy rulebooks.
3rd edition. I think it is definitely the case. They can't be too obvious, GW won't got for that, but several hints are there. Of course, we keep the red dragon from DR 1st edition.
-
Another Osprey rules set that I'm now an edition behind on. Time flies.
-
Another Osprey rules set that I'm now an edition behind on. Time flies.
Not yet you're not. You'll only be an edition behind in October! lol
-
can anyone point to a online depiction of actual game play that might explain some of the nuances of this particular game system?
-
There are a number of reviews, blogs and, indeed, youtube videos with examples of play - there is even a Youtube video entitled 'Dragon Rampant how to play'.
Was this thread your first (and only) port of call, or had you just missed those when searching?
Either way, a quick search should give you everything you need. Of the various sets of rules that use this system I think it works better, as a concept, with Dragon Rampant but that might just be me.
-
most of the reviews i looked at in the pastwere just a bit too general and more about selling the sizzle ( which tends to be a constant lately). i’ll admit hating watching videos most of the time. it’s been a while since i last looked.
-
most of the reviews i looked at in the pastwere just a bit too general and more about selling the sizzle ( which tends to be a constant lately). i’ll admit hating watching videos most of the time. it’s been a while since i last looked.
For fairly balanced reviews (considering features liked and not enjoyed so much) I would recommend this review from our very own Easy E:
http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2016/12/review-dragon-rampant-osprey-wargame.html?m=1
(It's probably worth reading the Lion Rampant review first. It's linked to in the review above)
He’s pretty good about reviewing the majority of Osprey’s offerings as well as other games too.
EDIT: He's also got a review of the Lion Rampant 2nd Edition hardback, which may be good for anyone thinking about what the DR jump from blue- to hard- back might be. https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/04/review-lion-rampant-second-edition.html
Note - I don't personally know Easy E, but I do appreciate his review format.
-
If you want to watch a YouTube battle report, Graham's Wargame Vault is a big fan of Lion Rampant. Here's his channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@grahamswargamevault2635
Mike Demana
-
Yeah, Easy E is a good bloke on several levels.
I only got to play Dragon Rampant for the first time about a year ago, I played the very, very similar Lion Rampant and Xenos Rampant a few times before that though. Wrote a rules review and a battle report of my test game of Dragon Rampant:
https://tabletopstories.net/language/en/2024/02/dragon-rampant-review-and-test-game/ (https://tabletopstories.net/language/en/2024/02/dragon-rampant-review-and-test-game/)
I don't have to sell anything related to these rules and I don't get free review copies or stuff like that. :)
As for the second edition of DR- yup, the cover illustration looks very good. Glad they stick to the same format as they've done with Lion Rampant 2. They just tidy up some things, add some bits, and most of all add scenarios. The basic scenarios from DR already were pretty good.
The funny thing is how the second edition of LR, whilst having a higher page count, costs less than Xenos Rampant. So I'm curious of Dragon Rampant will also be hit with that "fantasy sci-fi tax" or if it'll be along the lines of LR2 cost-wise. :D
-
Will definitely be picking up a copy!
-
Having followed the Rampant games for a while (despite never having played them - too many shinies) I FINALLY got to try it with a demo of TMWWBK and quite liked it, and that's got me looking at LR2E again to use when we want something less accessory-y than Saga, and the same is true for DR2E. Exciting times - especially if there are 12 different scenarios that we can just use in addition to the ones from games of the same engine.
-
I like SAGA but it never feels historical to me... It's a good fantasy game with different skins for the forces. But it has a core of mythic bits to it.
The Rampant series on the other hand give games which feel more like traditional 'no mystical random stuff'. Because of this I find DR the least appealing of the series as it tries to add some of that in. In the end it is still fairly low variation stuff and so it works but just has a different feel to me...
-
I finally watched some of the how to play videos and read some reviews, still wonder how well it rewards maneuver. Is there an imperative to guard flanks?
-
I like SAGA but it never feels historical to me... It's a good fantasy game with different skins for the forces. But it has a core of mythic bits to it.
The Rampant series on the other hand give games which feel more like traditional 'no mystical random stuff'. Because of this I find DR the least appealing of the series as it tries to add some of that in. In the end it is still fairly low variation stuff and so it works but just has a different feel to me...
Oh, absolutely. I really enjoy Saga but I'd never suggest it's trying to simulate anything even lightly - it's some dudes around a campfire recounting their last cattle raid. I don't know that I think of the Rampant games as particularly historical either - they're also not expressly trying to simulate anything, but the game is much more readable at a glance.
Re: flanks and maneuver - not overly, though there is some incentive to claim space around your units. It's very much also a story of small fights. I think they're pretty comparable in terms of being set up to tell a heroic tale with some period aesthetics rather than being detailed simulations.
-
Even small fights still very much had to concern themselves with attacks on the flank or rear, even gladiators in one on one combat worried about attacks against the unshielded or blind spots.
If there is no maneuvering to wrest an advantage from position, you really aren’t playing much of game. You might as well each compare a card drawn from a pack like in the children’s game of War
-
Even small fights still very much had to concern themselves with attacks on the flank or rear, even gladiators in one on one combat worried about attacks against the unshielded or blind spots.
If there is no maneuvering to wrest an advantage from position, you really aren’t playing much of game. You might as well each compare a card drawn from a pack like in the children’s game of War
I fear you may have misunderstood the scale of the game entirely. This is not a 'grand battle' scale game where you are manoevring battalions and corps d'armee around according to Frederick the Great's drill manual, the figures are very small bands of men forming a warband of no more than a few dozen in total. The figures have a 360° visual arc and there are no 'rank and flank' artificial modifiers to make things easier for the tactically impaired. The tactics you use in the game are to try to bring as much to bear on a target unit as possible while minimising the chances of an opponent doing the same to you. Manouevre and concentration of force are all part of the game - if you can attack one unit then attack the same unit again with a different one of yours you stand a good chance of forcing a courage check - a bad result (by your opponent) will cause a retreat or rout and you'll have weakened his warband.
In real life there was little or no advantage to attacking a flank - the only advantage was the same as in these rules - you're forcing an opponent to fight 2 forces without a rest or respite, which (aside from the casualties) is likely to have a detrimental effect on that units will to fight.
If you want to play 'those' sorts of games that impose artificial and unrealistic modifiers because that's how Warhammer did it, then go right ahead - I'm sure there's a good set out there for you. These rules, however, make you work (and think) for each victory.
-
In LR2 they introduced optional flank rules so they may well port them over to DR2 as well.
-
I fear you may have misunderstood the scale of the game entirely. This is not a 'grand battle' scale game where you are manoevring battalions and corps d'armee around according to Frederick the Great's drill manual, the figures are very small bands of men forming a warband of no more than a few dozen in total. The figures have a 360° visual arc and there are no 'rank and flank' artificial modifiers to make things easier for the tactically impaired. The tactics you use in the game are to try to bring as much to bear on a target unit as possible while minimising the chances of an opponent doing the same to you. Manouevre and concentration of force are all part of the game - if you can attack one unit then attack the same unit again with a different one of yours you stand a good chance of forcing a courage check - a bad result (by your opponent) will cause a retreat or rout and you'll have weakened his warband.
In real life there was little or no advantage to attacking a flank - the only advantage was the same as in these rules - you're forcing an opponent to fight 2 forces without a rest or respite, which (aside from the casualties) is likely to have a detrimental effect on that units will to fight.
If you want to play 'those' sorts of games that impose artificial and unrealistic modifiers because that's how Warhammer did it, then go right ahead - I'm sure there's a good set out there for you. These rules, however, make you work (and think) for each victory.
I would hesitate to bring the word realism into the discussion at all, because LR/DR gives flavour at best but certainly not realism - you can't even attack an enemy with two units at once, you can only send them in one at a time - as if the larger force in history wouldn't mob its outnumbered enemy from all sides.
Add to that some other artificial gameplay-dependent rules (even friendly units must have 3" between one another at all times?!) etc then you have a game that makes you think about how to win, but does so with its own "artificial and unrealistic modifiers" same as you say Warhammer does (another game that makes you work and think for each victory.)
I'd also add that concern for flanks and blind spots is very much NOT unrealistic and artificial in medieval warfare, but that's a whole other topic.
-
Well Gibby, I wasn't actually discussing 'realism' in LR/DR, but I take your point - in medieval battles there was a concern for flanks in the units of 2-300 men, but I never mentioned those - I mentioned small bands of men, an entire force being a warband of only a few dozen at most. In terms of scale, an entire LR/DR warband would only be a tiny fraction of one unit out of an entire army - you might as well be discussing manouevring 12 men as if they were an entire corps d'armee - it doesn't work as a comparison. As to your other points, I believe you are just repeating what I said; LR/DR doesn't play like most 'rank and flank' games; you need to learn an entirely new set of tactics.
-
Even a few men still have a flank and rear un-shielded/blind spots they are concerned about protecting or keeping from being exposed. If you are outnumbered, your opponent is going to try to take advantage of that, and sometimes even just two men are reduced to fighting back to back for that reason. It’s not just a concern for big rank and file battalions, nor is it quite the same effect as hitting one man with two from the front, if one is attacking a unshielded blind side or from the rear, it is not artificial to understand that the defender cannot dodge attacks or defend his blind points as efficiently as he can against threats from his front, he might not even have a riposte for the blind attack at all. Watch how even footballers look for gaps in the line to infiltrate and exploit and try to get behind a defender.
I don't think your statement that flanks and rear areas have no application in small skirmishes is very plausible. This might be a rather fun game, but it doesn't smack much of plausibility or versimilitude. It probably isn't the game for me.
-
you can't even attack an enemy with two units at once, you can only send them in one at a time - as if the larger force in history wouldn't mob its outnumbered enemy from all sides.
You can attack one unit with two or more units in the same move. For the sake of simplicity each attack is dealt with separately.
-
but does the fact that there are two give any sort of amplification to the units' attacks, or is it basically the same odds of success adjudicated sequentially?
-
No. Why should it? 12 men attack 12 men, the survivors are then attacked by another 12 men - why should there be any sort of amplification? If you are reduced below half strength by casualties there are modifiers to your stats and to your courage value meaning the survivors are far more likely to run away.
There is very little facing in LR/DR - the units move around in a loose, unformed unit; no straight lines with ranks behind - the only times that happens is when using the 'shieldwall' or 'wall of spears' rules.
-
Because it’s really an attack of 24 men on 12? Yes, it is sort of Igo ugo for the game but it represents the possibility of simultaneous attacks. Sequential moves and attacks are only because it is not practical or very difficult mechanically to have simultaneous actions.
-
I am being rapidly convinced that maneuver has very little to do with outcomes in this game. it might provide an illusion of having an effect, but from the few videos I have now watched, I can’t see any real reason to it. Is there a qrf or roster of unit traits/ special abilities that might give me some tactical nuances that might be derived from position?
-
If Unit A is attacked by Unit B and Unit A takes casualties then Unit A will be at a disadvantage if also charged by Unit C (because Unit A may have fallen under half strength, but will still be at a disadvantage if it has to take a morale check even if above half strength).
But if Unit A takes no casualties and Unit C then charges in then Unit A is at no disadvantage and it will be like the attack by Unit B never happened.
That's the way the rules work, like it or hate it. Is it realistic (there's that damned word again)? No. But do you get an enjoyable game? Yes. If you hate it then no biggie, just move on to a set of rules you do like and have fun with them instead of wasting your time reading threads about rules you don't play and don't like.
-
The rules clearly state there is no facing in the game.
At the scale the encounters are aimed at (skirmishes) it is assumed that members of each unit are looking about them and that if charged to the rear that someone would see it, yell out to their mates, and they'd turn to face.
That's what it says, that's its rationale, and you just have to decide whether that's something you can cope with or not.
-
Yep, I am growing convinced, it’s probably not the game for me because verisimilitude is rather important even in fantasy games. Maybe with a lot of house rules, which is why I am still hoping to see how some of these mentioned special traits or optional rules such as flanks/shield walls and optional rules work regarding facing (and possibly even some sort of group moves. ) As it stands right now, I don’t see it doing anything much to justify buying in to it but I remain curious and ever hopeful. Anyone have a trait listing?
-
In DR there are no traits that affect facing.
In LR2 they introduced flanks and flank attacks for units in Shieldwall formation, but that only affects those units and other units NOT in Shieldwall have no flank or rear because it's assumed that a unit is a higgledy-piggledy group and not in any kind of formation.
Whether this gets imported into DR2 or not remains to be seen (I have a feeling it will) but, as it currently stands, there is nothing in DR that affects or influences formations for one simple reason - there are no formations.
Remember, DR (and LR for that matter) are skirmish games, not mass battle games. If formations and group moves is what you are after then look for games that already have those because, otherwise, what's the point? It's obviously not for you. We all do the odd tweak to games (e.g. as mentioned elsewhere, originally there was a rule that no unit, friendly or enemy, could get within 3" without charging. As a club, we promptly knocked that on the head for friendly units. Indeed, in LR2, that was brought in as an option), but if you have to do a major overhaul to a set of rules (such as you are proposing) then why bother? Why not just find a game that's closer to what you are looking for?
-
Dice Roller, no need to take umbrage at my questions…I am indeed trying on the game to see if it does or could do what i want before i spend my money. Isn’t that the whole point of these forums?
Yes, i am finding that it probably doesn't meet my taste and that it makes assumptions that are not plausible to my sense of verisimilitude, (but not that it couldn’t) but your tone is showing your irritation with my attempts to get a better handle on the game. Really not necessary. If you and the designer think formations are not essential to depict plausible skirmish combat, i am quite glad to know it before i plunk down my pewter. Clearly formations and facing do enter into someone’s mind if just because of the mentioned LR rules
about shield walls and flank attacks.
So again, anyone got a qrs or point to a list of unit traits/stats that help me understand some of the nuances of the game?
-
The traits are optional, and the stats are a reasonably lengthy string. Some of the stats are the numbers needed on two dice to perform an action (so knights will attack - charge - on 5+ but move on a 7+, for example, whereas skirmishers move on 5+ but attack on 7+, and so on).
Manoeuvre is important in several regards. First, there's a big difference between attacking and defending. Some units (e.g. "Bellicose Foot" - wild warriors of some sort) hit very hard when they charge but are highly vulnerable when they're attacked. Others - e.g. heavy spearmen - are much more comfortable defending (and can form up to be better protected too). So positioning and manoeuvre matter for securing defensible positions or allowing advantageous attacks.
Second, some units are compelled to charge when in range. So they can be pinned or lured into inconvenient attacks.
Compounding that is the role of terrain. Certain units are hugely disadvantaged in rough ground, so weaker units can take advantage of that, especially if the units are impetuous types (mounted knights, for example), and use terrain as a great leveller.
Also, certain sorts of terrain give protection both against shooting and hand-to-hand attacks (though not necessarily from every angle). So manoeuvre matters to get units into defensible positions.
As to realism, the game is - by design - "cinematic" rather than simulationist, but it does do somethings in quite a realistic way, I think. The way in which bands of men clash and then retreat strikes me as the sort of thing you see in street brawls (the Song of Blades and Heroes ruleset does this very well for individual-centred skirmishes). Units don't typically get locked in combat but instead fight in a series of clashes. I suspect that's what a lot of small-scale medieval combat was like.
-
Thank you, Hobgoblin, that’s a good taste of the sort of details I wanted to learn about.
-
I see no umbrage taken, Awf, but you do seem to have a very different set of rules in mind; more like a smaller scale version of mass battle rules? Perhaps asking around any wargamers you know might turn up someone that has a copy you could have a look at? To my knowledge, there aren't any listings of traits/abilities from any of the books that are available seperately.
-
The lack of local players who play it is why i have been resorting to questions here. The local con had someone playing it a few years back but i was involved in something else and didn’t get to make a close look as i would have liked.
As for what i want, i want something that fills the niche between SoBH with individually maneuvering figures, of 8-10 a side and a bigger massed battle game where each stands represent 100-200 soldiers, even if you have 12-24 of those stands per side. i want something that represents a combat between 30-100 men per side in maneuver elements, groupings or units of 5-12 men, with a minimum of 5 maneuver elements per player. Call it a fireteam or squad for games of a single reinforced platoon or company against another.
Currently I use Fistful of Lead: BB (or SoBH where a fig instead represents 3-5 grunts). but i am always looking for something that might be more fun/realistic/
popular with a fresh spin on the subject.
Ideally scalable back and forth to individual heroes or larger groups for role playing and resolving out slightly bigger fights than the typical gaming party of 3-5 players and their supporting NPCs normally get involved in…such as when the protagonists find themselves swept up in a Battle of Stanford Bridge-type scenario or a larger Viking raid descends on the town they are in.
-
Hmm, yes - I see where you're coming from now. The scale of the game would certainly seem to fit, as would the games design process (either use an army from a long list or build units plus traits that fit your idea of the unit type) and the use of reduced-scale units to represent fewer but tougher fighters (or one big one in the case of Dragon Rampant).
The only sticking point I can see is that you might want a more orderly arrangement of figures into frontage and ranks rather than the 6 or 12 figure mobs that are usual, which would certainly be an option - the number of figures that fight or shoot is dependant on the numbers in a unit, not on their frontage. Lion Rampant 2, of course, has the optional rule of facing and flanks but the rules there might not be quite enough for you - if this comes over into Dragon Rampant 2 then I'd say go for it - shop around and see if you can get a bit of discount somewhere, or wait a little bit and see if the price comes down. In the meanwhile you could try looking at the 1st edition for a flavour - with 2nd edition out it might be a cheap option?
-
I am being rapidly convinced that maneuver has very little to do with outcomes in this game.
I had this problem with the original DR - it seemed to me to really be decided by deployment (is my rock unit opposite their scissors unit) and whether your activation rolls succeed. I couldn't really see very much room for tactics beyond throwing the right unit against the right unit - and then only if they deployed in a position to be able to do so.
Maybe I just needed to play on larger tables or with better scenarios lol
-
I had this problem with the original DR - it seemed to me to really be decided by deployment (is my rock unit opposite their scissors unit) and whether your activation rolls succeed. I couldn't really see very much room for tactics beyond throwing the right unit against the right unit - and then only if they deployed in a position to be able to do so.
Maybe I just needed to play on larger tables or with better scenarios lol
I recall DR/LR really clicking for us the first time we played it with proper depth (a 4' deep table rather than a 3'ish dining table). But I think it's the interactions with terrain (and Wild Charges) that give the game a bit of extra tactical oomph. It's definitely towards the lighter end of things, but there's tremendous satisfaction to be had when you manage to lure your opponent's high-falutin' Elite Cavalry into a forest ambush with your Ravenous Hordes!
We've also found that the game plays best (unsurprisingly, perhaps!) with just the 24 recommended points on each side.
-
We've also found that the game plays best (unsurprisingly, perhaps!) with just the 24 recommended points on each side.
Do you not find that vastly limits the 'fantasy' element so that you're either largely playing LR, or you have only a handful of units?
Will be interesting to see if 2nd ed addresses this somehow.
-
Do you not find that vastly limits the 'fantasy' element so that you're either largely playing LR, or you have only a handful of units?
Will be interesting to see if 2nd ed addresses this somehow.
I tend to favour low fantasy; before Dragon Rampant, came out, we used Lion Rampant for fantasy battles (in line with the fantasy armies listed in that ruleset). The big change for us with DR was the Strength Points concept (though I think we'd actually anticipated that by just tracking hits on groups of ogres or the like). And of course there were the new unit types: Greater Warbeasts and Lesser Warbeasts.
So, yes, our DR games have been more or less LR games. I just found some old roster sheets in my rulebook: they tend to have maybe one or two fantasy rules per side. Venomous is a favourite, along with Spellcaster and Shiny Armour (used mainly with Bellicose Foot, I think).
-
LR has optional flank rules. This does change the game quite a bit where plodding foot can get shot to pieces from flanking archers.
The game really shines in the scenarios and boasts. You can potentially win the game without winning the battle.
It’s a fun light game that works for getting almost any fantasy or pre gunpowder figure on the table. It is not a game about a battle line facing off against another until it breaks. If you want that then Midgard would be a better choice at a similar figure count.
-
I certainly shall be getting DR2 when it comes out later in the year. Just saving up to buy B&B 2nd when it comes out in a few days.
-
Maybe I just needed to play on larger tables or with better scenarios lol
I have found that a good scenario is key to a good game, whether LR, DR or Pikeman's Lament. And whether you take one from the rule book or design one yourself.
-
Having had a read of your post, I think scale wise DR would fit, also Heroes in units can die during battle, and with a test for activation has some scope for Solo play.
As I'm looking at it for a GoT as it has undead units. I would also add that a Viking in the Sun LR standalone ruleset also has a version of Greek Fire for rules for that explodey green stuff used against the High Sparrow and a Fleet of ships.
Other options maybe Never Mind the Billhooks, Andy Callan referenced LR as one of the inspiration in its design, and there is now a fantasy version and the rules has a card drawing technic so need the cards too also playable solo. Has some logistics, and there is a nevermind the boothooks you may want. Ship combat occurs in GoT, and has logistics, arrows can run out...
Barons War maybe more the 30 guys a side are getting a Fantasy Version, a logistic consideration here is mounts can only charge once or twice then there tired or injured/dead and you'd have to dismount.
There were also articles in Miniature Wargames 395 for GoT adaption from Middle Earth Strategy Battle Games, Wargame soldiers Strategy 74 for modelling advise, and more covers all points overview in Wargames Illustrated 386 for Wargaming games of thrones.
You may find that with DR as the base using elements from LR and Nevermind the Billhooks may get you what you want, as for charging, unless 1 big block of guys, multiple units assulting the same target would hit in waves anyway they didn't have a means of co-ordinating by someone firing off a very pistol fired off to all charge, or at 0100 exatly etc, CnC beng what it was back in the day. If anything the hitting together if not in one combined mass is unrealistic. The nuance of LR/DR imo is the activation and the units that do better on attack/defence with glass cannon cavalry, and how you use/cover your skirmishers and cavalry. not quite the rock/scissors as someone else mentioned though there is an element of that.
Is there a particular setting you want it for? As Midgard may more fit also as another option.