Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Gracchus Armisurplus on 31 August 2016, 01:40:46 AM
-
We see a lot of peoples terrain and army projects here, most of which put me to shame, but not so often do we see rules or tactics discussions for the myriad of different rules systems available for us to use our toy soldiers with.
So, what are people playing? What are your favourite rules? Do you prefer skirmish or large battle games? What scale is everyone playing in?
I really like the Hail Caesar rules for large battles, and was working on a large Romand and Briton/Gaul force in 1/72. I still am, I suppose, but the model count and the lack of opponents has pushed the project onto a perpetual back-burner, and I've been playing a bit of Saga (and a lot of other things besides) since.
But I'm looking at getting into a larger sort of game using my Saga figures, so I'm perusing rules like ADLG, FoG, Sword and Spear, the Rampant games, Impetus, DBx, etc. So, what do people think of all the various systems out there? Which ones do they like and which ones do they not, and why?
Personally, coming from a Fantasy gaming background, I really like the idea of modding Kings of War to allow historical battles. For those who've not played it, it's a really neat, concise wargame from Mantic Games and well worth a look.
-
I'll play anything, as long as I like the way tha rules work, and I can assemble a playable force for it (or, as often is the case, two playable forces, as I seem to be the only one around here constantly delving into new gaming area).
I like the SAGA (grand skirmish), and the Blood Eagle (small skirmish) rules, but apart from that I haven't found much in the way of historical medieval rules that I like, sadly.
I haven't tried any other of the early medieval/dark age sets, such as Dux Britanniarium, or Dux Bellorum (although I have, and once intended to play, Brytenwalda, but the project kind of stalled... something with a vacation, and the space used for playing needing to be cleared, I cannot recall the specific details...)
I have tried the 'Rampant' rules, but they are not my cup of tea - they seem rather popular, though.
I play quite a bit God of Battles (fantasy 'massed' battle game) with proxy armies, and I am toying with the thought to try some Kings of War, also.
That, and a lot of skirmish rulesets set in other periods/genres, but they are probably not for here.
Oh, and I play almost exclusively with 28mm minis, although I have purchased 15mm minis for a couple of God of Battles armies, and own a plethora of 1/71 plastics covering a wide range of historical periods.
-
I've got hooked on 'One Hour Wargames' in a big way. We've pushed it up to over twenty units a side, and the rules give a game, as good as owt I've ever played... and you don't get a migraine from doing astrofizzics to push yer toy sowjers about!
:-*
-
I play Lion / Dragon Rampant. Suits me well with my medieval/GoT collection
-
I've been playing 'ancients' since the late 1970s. I started with 25mm armies for 4th Edition Wargames Research Group rules. In 1979 my family relocated to Wales and I swapped 25mm armies for 15mm ones for ease of transport.
I continued playing WRG rules until 7th Edition killed that for me! Lol!
I played a lot of skirmish games using the original 'white box' Warhammer which I still have and would happily play. For Medieval and Samurai gaming we liked a set called 'Retinue' and had many a decent game with that.
I've played Saga and enjoyed the games I've played so far with borrowed or unpainted troops. But I am struggling to complete forces to field my own armies.
I tried Black Powder, and was seriously unimpressed - so I've not tried Hail Caesar at all. I also tried the ancient/medieval set by Crusader miniatures which seemed promising, but my pals interest fell by the wayside.
Field of Glory Ancients took me right back to the horrors (for me) of 7th Ed WRG. I enjoyed playing DBM but the many amendments and final morphing into DBMM spoiled that for me - of 3 friends with 15mm armies we each have a different version/edition of the DBM rules which led to some baffling games until the penny dropped!
DBA has been my most consistent ancient/medieval gaming outlet for years now. I am currently reworking my DBM armies into 'DBA squared' armies (which also suit the Impetus system, and probably To the Strongest'?) whilst keeping enough single elements to still play ordinary DBM.
I've bought Sword and Spear and 'To the strongest' but not played any games as yet. Playing a bit of Frostgrave with my old 1970s D&D figure collection may morph into some 'Rampant' gaming but hasn't quite so far!
-
I've been playing 'ancients' since the late 1970s. I started with 25mm armies for 4th Edition Wargames Research Group rules. In 1979 my family relocated to Wales and I swapped 25mm armies for 15mm ones for ease of transport.
I continued playing WRG rules until 7th Edition killed that for me! Lol!
I'm not very familiar with the WRG rules, what killed them for you?
I tried Black Powder, and was seriously unimpressed - so I've not tried Hail Caesar at all.
What didn't you like about Black Powder? I haven't read the rules for that game but I understand they're fundamentally the same as HC?
Field of Glory Ancients took me right back to the horrors (for me) of 7th Ed WRG. I enjoyed playing DBM but the many amendments and final morphing into DBMM spoiled that for me - of 3 friends with 15mm armies we each have a different version/edition of the DBM rules which led to some baffling games until the penny dropped!
DBA has been my most consistent ancient/medieval gaming outlet for years now. I am currently reworking my DBM armies into 'DBA squared' armies (which also suit the Impetus system, and probably To the Strongest'?) whilst keeping enough single elements to still play ordinary DBM.
I understand that FoG is the spiritual successor to Warhammer: Ancients? Some people seem to love it but all reports are that it's very numbers heavy, and shares some of the design millstones that Warhammer did.
What I really don't like in a game is any system where deployment consists of lining up two armies directly opposite each other, and then simply clashing in the middle of the table. From what I've seen of DBA, that's pretty much what happens in every game, and it's kind of put me off. Maybe I've just seen unimaginative or unskilled players, but it seems to me that movement consists of shuffling your models forwards and combat consists of rolling dice, and there's very little in the way of challenging or meaningful decisions to make once the first turn has started. It also seems to be the kind of game where the outcome is decided quickly, but for the game to reach it's already foregone conclusion the players must grind through several more turns.
-
I am primarily a "big battle" Ancients wargamer, and have been since the mid 1970's. In that time, I have played at least one game with each of the following rule sets:
Classic Warfare (TSR, 1975)
Legion (FGU, 1976)
War Game Rules 3000 BC to 1485 AD (WRG, 1980)
The Shock of Impact (TTG, 1981)
Fast Play Rules for Ancient Warfare (Newbury, 1985)
Tactica (Quantum Printing, 1989)
De Bellis Antiquitatis (WRG, 1990)
Ancient Empires (Emperor's Press, 1991)
Alea Iacta Est (Veni Vidi Vici, 1992)
De Bellis Multitudinis (WRG, 1993)
Armati (Quantum Printing, 1994)
Archon (Piquet, 1996)
Classical Hack (LMW Works, 1997)
Phalanx (Alienstar, 1998)
Ancient Warfare (SAGA, 1998)
Warhammer Ancient Battles (GW Historical, 1998)
Warmaster Ancients (GW Historical, 2005)
Field of Glory (Osprey, 2008)
Impetus (Dadi & Piombo, 2008)
Hail Caesar (Warlord Games, 2011)
Civitates Bellantes (Legio Wargames, 2012)
From all of the above, I have enjoyed playing Hail Caesar the most. The rulebook is designed as a 'toolkit' for customizing forces for scenario-based play. HC works best for large, multi-player games between friends in a relaxed, congenial atmosphere. It is definitely NOT designed for 'rules lawyers' or tournament competitions!
Other Ancients rules I have particularly enjoyed include Legion (FGU), Tactica, and Archon (1st ed.). The others either did not appeal to me at all, or else lost their luster after a few games.
I am also looking forward to learning more about the upcoming Swordpoint "big battle" rulebook from Gripping Beast, which is due to be released in November.
Cheers,
Scott
-
Lion Rampant works really well if you use the boasts and the scenarios.
I agree that without those it can be very bland.
Saga is superb; everything a skirmish games should be. Lots of interesting tactical choices.
For battles, I'd recommend 'To the Strongest'. Very streamlined, and lots of interesting decisions.
-
For me it really depends on what I want out of my game. When planning scenarios I always turn to Hail Caesar and Lions Rampant depending on the size of the game. These rules work really well and are easy to mold around your ideas for a scenario. The randomness in both these rule mechanisms means that they are ill suited stand of games where you play the same opponent over and over again.
For this I haven’t found the perfect rule set yet, but I did try Impetus at Tactica this year and really liked it, so that decently on the to-do list.
I would finally like to say the in my humble opinion my best ever medieval gaming experience was with Perfect Captains "A Crown of Paper" and "A coat of steel". The campaign rules in "A Crown of Paper" quickly lets you set up a game based on your movements on the campaign map (20-30 minutes tops) and you can use this for a standalone game or continue on the map after the battle. The tabletop rules “A coat of steel” are very heavy going and actually not that much fun, but really gives a medieval fell to the game which in my opinion goes a long way.
Cheers
Erik
-
Black Powder vs Hail Caesar is interesting. I've played loads of HC and really enjoyed the games - we mainly used Fantasy armies, but with very few additions to the rules. But BP doesn't work for me - it seems far to light and vague to actually be called a set of rules. The movement rates are also huge which seem to mean that units shoot around the battle field (even on a big table).
With Saga, we have played a number of big battle Saga games - basically several players aside, each with their own 4-6pt army, all players on a side activate at the same time. This really seems to turn the small Saga skirmish into something that feels like a battle (the ex-WAB players like the look and feel of this). You may want to limit some the range of some of the battle board abilities, as they can allow a bit of ganging up - but we don't normally bother.
-
7th Ed WRG Ancients were a 'revolutionary' change from the preceding 6 editions which had been 'evolutionary' changes. The paradigm shift was simply too great for me at the time (I'd probably cope with it better now, if I could find anyone to play!) - this was magnified by some rather dodgy 'tuition' from a club member who claimed to know the rules well.
Black Powder and Hail Caesar use a command dice roll mechanism to 'activate' units. With bad dice rolling (which I am legendary for!) your army becomes comatose.
I think FoG is far more 8th Ed WRG than a variant of WAB. It has separate combat modifiers entirely for combats where someone charged, for ongoing combats and for combats involving skirmishers - that was rather too much detail for me. I'm sure that it's a good system once you've got past the rather steep learning curve - for me playing occasionally in a very rural area I was never able to beat that curve!
I love the Warhammer system, but I think it suits skirmish gaming far better than mass battles. I'm not keen on a system where a melee requires 24 to hit rolls, then 12 'save' rolls, then 6 'to wound rolls' - then the same again when the opposition fights back. That's 84 die rolls to resolve a combat! This means I'm not keen on 'War & Conquest' either.
DBA certainly initially appears as you describe it. However, there are a lot of command decisions to be made in each player turn and I have found that it is surprisingly 'tactical'. Armies historically reliant on skirmishing stand far greater chance in DBA than they do in WAB for instance. DBA plays (in 15mm) on a 2ft square, most games take about an hour once you're used to the system. Armies cost £15 to £50 so I can afford multiple armies. DBA had the best campaign system I've ever used, with minimal record keeping necessary. With experienced players and a day long club meeting we have played very successful multi-year (simulated time) campaigns with 6 players/nations. Sadly DBA v3.0 lost these campaign rules to make room for more informative army lists. :-(
-
I'd second that view of DBA, with the option of expanding the armies up to DBM it's been my standard ruleset for this period.
Don't think it works as well for more limited armies, such as the predominant bill & bow forces for WotR and I've broken up my bases for this army and plan to use them them solely for 'big skirmish' - still looking for a decent set of rules for this.
Lion Rampant's ok for quick, easy, games and I've enjoyed the games I've had with this.
-
This is a very interesting thread for me.... I love reading about all these rulesets I've never played before, some the current thing, some from way before my time.
And I really like hearing what people like and don't like about them....
I'm very curious about these old WRG rules. I was watching a youtube video of an old wargaming TV show from the 70s - Battleground, I think it was cool? I was very curious as to what rules they were using... Someone in the comment pointed out it was WRG, and had a link to a PDF of the rules, which I gave a look over. Fascinating - many concepts which I more or less recognise from more 'modern' wargames, but some things which seemed totally insane! Not necessarily a bad thing, I might add..
For example, how players had to write down orders for divisions (withing a 10 minute time limit!) and pass them to an umpire, who would interpret them. If the orders aren't clear enough, their army might be confused and do nothing, advance in the wrong direction, etc, apparently at the umpire's discretion.... Crazy!
The technicalities of the rules seem a bit too crunchy even for me, but I really like this roleplay aspect to it. I don't think I'd ever want to actually attempt to learn such rulesets, but I can imagine that if you were experienced with it enough and had a good, impartial umpire, it could lead to a really great, realistic game for commanding large armies.
Anyway, I'd love to hear more on what people think of these old, dated rulesets, what they liked and didn't like about them back in the day, how they compare to modern rulesets (for better or worse).... What is it about certain rulesets or certain editions of them that give them certain reputations?
-
What?
...Um, I always play my own ruleset (very RPG-inspired) Argad! (always unfinished...) with people who like it. :D
-
What?
...Um, I always play my own ruleset (very RPG-inspired) Argad! (always unfinished...) with people who like it. :D
Likewise, save that the ruleset is called Hep!. Big battles.
-
I am also looking forward to learning more about the upcoming Swordpoint "big battle" rulebook from Gripping Beast, which is due to be released in November.
Yeah, I can't wait to see 'under the hood' of Swordpoint. I like what I've heard so far, but who knows how it will work in practice?
-
Our group plays Armati 2 for ancients, medieval and renaissance.
Our group is lucky enough to include Chris Leach, who is a co-author of many rule sets published by Arti Conliffe. I daresay Chris has been a driving force for many of these rule sets, including Shako 2 and Armati 2.
Cheers,
Thomas
-
Wrgmr1 - I only have first edition Armati. We have tried playing it but we always seem to divert back to DBA.
Charlie_ I cannot ever recall playing WRG Ancients with written orders and I played with some of the 'leading lights' of the Society of Ancients at the time (Mid to late 1970s at South London Warlords). As far as I can remember I played 4th Ed onwards, so maybe written orders predate that?
Some of my pals are very keen on WAB. But they play Crusades era, so the games suffer from lack of published 'official' army lists - leading to an entirely 'Religious Orders' force on one side, with a Muslim war elephant in the line up for the 'Saracens'! It always strikes me that WAB is a game of what happens in the middle 2" (only) of a DBA board.
Every game system involves certain abstractions and it's purely a matter of taste as to what ones you can accept and those that are 'deal breakers'.
-
I have to echo other comments that this thread is definitely interesting and opens ones eyes to the various rule sets out there.
I've tried Saga and couldn't get on it with too well mainly due to the battle board mechanic and "creative" history with some of the factions.
I'm currently reading through both Deus Vult, which seems overly complex, and Lion Rampant, which seems quite basic. I dont quite have the model count for a crusader force for DV yet but can comfortably play LR with them. However, I'm now working on a Arab force to compliment the Crusaders. Given I'm likely to play the rule sets with my 6 year old, I'll probably settle on LR.
Does anyone know of a rule set that sits in between DV and LR in terms of complexity?
-
If you are specifically interested in the Crusades, Shattered Lances, by Brendan Moyle is very good.
Outpost Wargames Services stock them in the UK
-
Does anyone know of a rule set that sits in between DV and LR in terms of complexity?
Basic Impetus?
Is there any way of trimming down Deus Vult?
We have played quite a bit of Lion Rampant and enjoyed the games for what they are: small, fast games without any sort of pretense of simulation.
-
Impetus has been our goto game for several years with several forays into Hail Caesar. We particularily like the big, no-BS basing and simple maneuver. In the past we tried the control freak napoleonic maneuver style of gaming with WRG, FOG & ADLG, but it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth as someone always turns into rules lawyer.
-
Does anyone know of a rule set that sits in between DV and LR in terms of complexity?
There's 'Soldiers of God,' which is Warwick Kinrade's card-driven Crusades set. From what I can gather of Deus Vult, it would be more straightforward while still giving a good 'period feel.' There's also 'Ironbow' by Perfect Captain, which has the virtue of being free (the authors ask that you make a donation to charity). Ironbow's a bit more complex, but, as it's free, you can have a look at it and see if it's your thing. You can download it from the 'Perfect Captain' website.
Both these sets have the virtue of having a 'raid' scale of game, so you can get started with relatively few figures.
-
I like big rank and file. Really enjoyed WAB 2.0, loved playing the game with my Vikings and my Roman armies especially. I'm looking forward to seeing Swordpoint.
-
For big battles: Armies of Arcana all the way. Lots of tactical flexibility and options and I have never played or found anything better. Lots of simultaneous combat and that is important because I despise turn based games where you just have to stand there an take it
For larger warbands: Saga, though I don't mind Lion Rampant.
For small warbands: it is a tie for me between the Ganesha Games rules and Blood Eagle.
I have plenty of minis for large scale battles, but I prefer the skirmish games these days due to time constraints.
-
Thank you for the replies, I will take a look at some online reviews of the mentioned games.
Related, today I received an email from Mantic for KoW Historical- another to keep an eye on!
-
Let's see;
For big battles I would highly recommend 'To the Strongest' by Simon Miller. You can comfortably play a satisfying game with hundreds of miniatures in an afternoon.
Mantic have just published a historical version of Kings of War for medium sized battles. If it plays like the fantasy version, then it could be well worth a look.
And then we are into skirmish, except that we are not. Saga and Lion Rampant are excellent games but not, in my mind, skirmish games. They are what I would describe as 'small unit action' games.
Of the two I would run with Lion Rampant as it is fast and furious, whereas the issues with the battle board mentioned above can make Saga a bit unwieldy.
As for true skirmish, i.e. individual figures, no units, then I would naturally plump for my own rules, Blood Eagle lol
-
I'd be interesting in hearing people saying EXACTLY what they like in medieval era wargame rules.
Since I've been browsing this forum for the last year, I've come to learn a lot about the state of wargaming these days, and what people like and don't like (I was out of the hobby for a long time until this time last year). It seems to me that most people like games that a fun, fast and not too overly complex. Skirmish seems to be the most popular form of game. When it comes to big battles, it seems everyone likes smooth, streamlined rules without individual model placement / casualty removal. The old Warhammer Ancients system and its derivatives have massively fallen out of favour (I grew up on Warhammer Fantasy myself, so am most familiar with that sort of system but am entirely aware of its many weak spots). Nobody seems to like I-go-you-go turn systems.
Im working on my own ruleset myself. It's not for commercial purposes - just for me and my gaming group, and if anyone else is interested in it then it's a bonus. I've thought long and hard about what I want and don't want in a game. I perhaps go against the grain, because I want a large-scale mass battle game with ranked up units, WITH individual models and casualty removal. Am I the only one who still wants that???? But at the same time, my ruleset doesn't use I-go-you-go, has what I think is a quite neat unit activation system and turn sequence, and is almost completely cut of unnecessary 'special rules' for different units and such.... Making room for what I'd like to think are some elegant, hopefully quick to grasp rules that focus on the flow of battle and realistic troop movements rather than looking up unit stats and abilities all the time. I think most importantly, I want people to look at a game and at a glance be able to see what is happening, the strengths of both armies, and how the players have successfully (or unsuccessfully) manoeuvred their troops...
But considering that it's for individually based models in both ranked-up and open-formation units, a la Warhammer, I dunno if anyone else would ever be interested in it!
-
I perhaps go against the grain, because I want a large-scale mass battle game with ranked up units, WITH individual models and casualty removal. Am I the only one who still wants that????
Not if War and Conquest and Clash of Empires players are anything to go by, IIRC. (And I think Warhammer Historical closing down very soon after releasing WAB2 might've left a sour taste in many mouths)
My first wargaming experiences were of Warhammer, but I didn't grow up with it and all the nitpicking mechanics soon annoyed me. I tried WAB2 some time after that, thinking it was power creep and special rule spam that spoiled the fantasy game for me.
Nope, turned out it was the basic Warhammer engine itself. Fiddling about with individual models in so many ways - who's in range; who can shoot; who's hit; who can attack; how many attacks does the champion get; does the champion attack with a different strength or initiative or whatever; how many dice; who's hit; who saves; who has to be pulled out of the back rank; how many are left in the back to arbitrarily count as a rank to add up all the ranks to add a single pip towards combat resolution... well, you get the idea with that. It quickly did my head in, in what was supposed to be a mass combat game dealing with whole armies, or at least sizeable chunks of them.
It didn't help that my brand new WAB army were anglo-saxons from the Shieldwall book. Casualty removal (and unit reassembly) is even less fun when you have to pick models out of a tangle of spears in the middle of a mixed thegn/ceorl unit. ;D
I quickly found I preferred more streamlined games, and elements - unit bases or multibases - for anything bigger than a 'big skirmish' or platoon sized game. (Heck, I'm multibasing some Dragon Rampant units anyway) GW actually helped me with that too, through Warmaster and especially Epic, which also gave me a liking for command & control, and resource management mechanics. And there's little things like Hail Caesar's approach to mixed thegn/ceorl units, where the unit plays at thegn-strength until it's shaken. ;) Just lets you get on with the game, IMO. Pity I never got around to using it.
I've sold and posted both my WAB2 and HC books in the last couple of days, and it'll probably be a looong time before I get back into medieval gaming; so after all that ranting, I don't really have a horse in this race. :D But I have been glancing at Sword and Spear with interest. Slightly disappointed that it didn't get more attention in this thread. Can I ask if anyone has tried it, and what they did or didn't like about it?
-
Warhammer and the rules that derived from it are painful. Treating each model as an individual, working out which models can attack, who they can attack, what modifiers they get, etc, and doing this multiple times for a single combat phase is just like pulling teeth.
But then you look at GWs War of the Ring system and you've got a great, streamlined game that still uses individual models.
I have several things I want when I look at a game. Do the rules produce sensible results on the tabletop? For instance, in Warhammer you'd often find the most effective formation, especially for weaker troops, was a long column. Where in reality, a formation that exposed it's flanks like that would be easy meat. Do the rules present meaningful choice at every turn? Like how do I allocate my SAGA dice this turn, or how am I going to spend my Might/Will/Fate in Lord of the Rings? Are the rules as simple as possible, while retaining factional diversity? Again SAGA is a great example of using dead simple core mechanics that you can write out on a single page, while simultaneously making every faction feel different.
If a game can strike a balance between those three key elements, then I'm happy with it. But I find too often a game will focus too heavily on one aspect and ignore the others. Like a game that strives for historical accuracy but becomes boring and complicated as a result, or a game that is fun and challenging but loses any kind of 'historical' (and I use the term loosely) credibility.
-
But I have been glancing at Sword and Spear with interest. Slightly disappointed that it didn't get more attention in this thread. Can I ask if anyone has tried it, and what they did or didn't like about it?
I really liked Sword and Spear, though we didn't play much of it here before moving on to 'To the Strongest.' As far as game design goes, it's really good. There are loads of decisions to make in the command phase in how you allocate command dice. The games we played were all really enjoyable and swung back and forth. As it's a generic set, there will always be some periods that it won't work well for, it worked fine for our Arabs vs. Turks Crusades, but maybe wouldn't for other periods. IIRC we found the ability of commanders to rally units in combat too powerful, but that's easily remedied.
IMO, the best thing about the game is how orders work. The system is very abstracted but if you don't mind this, then as a game there is a lot there in terms of decisions to make every turn, and planning for future turns etc. I'd thoroughly recommend playing S+S if you get the opportunity, because it's one of those games that you might just absolutely love. There's a battle report here from our Crusades-era game which describes some of the mechanics:
https://wargamesasp.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/sword-and-spear-and-some-bows/ (https://wargamesasp.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/sword-and-spear-and-some-bows/)
-
This has been a fascinating thread to read through. It shows that rule preferences are such a personal thing and that the quest for an "ultimate set of rules" is doomed to failure! lol
I'm using various rules at the moment, depending on the size/period of the game.
For smaller battles Lion Rampant, any thing from Anglo-Norman to Wars of the Roses. At the Tring Club we have also had some successful larger battles with 72 points a side, in 3 commands. We have played these size games with 2 players and 6 players and they were great fun for everyone.
For larger battles in the Crusades it's Soldiers of God. A great set of rules which everyone I've played with has enjoyed. We have also experimented with these rules for the same era in Eastern Europe with Mongols and Russians and have been happy with the results.
I haven't dug them out for a while, but for large battle Wars of the Roses we were using Warmaster Medieval. I've been looking at Hail Caesar and will be trying a game next month.
Saga was quite popular at the club until I introduced them to Lion Rampant, now it is very rare to see a Saga game being played. I tried it but personally I didn't like it. To me it always felt more like a fantasy set of rules rather than a historical one, with invisible ambushers, magic bows and teleporting units.
Also, we are wargaming butterflies at our club and I think Saga required too much investment in time and money. To play the game well you really need to know your own battleboard backwards, and those of your opponents. That requires a degree of dedication (obsession?) that I remember seeing in the more successful players when I was involved in national wargames competitions back in the 1980s, most of us could not be that bothered as we seldom play the same rules in 2 successive weeks. The need to invest over £100 just in rule books and dice before the cost of armies put me off as well.
-
The only thing I didn't like about it is that the games table is spoilt by the presence of a lot of dice. And these have to be on-table because they refer directly to the unit they are with and how they can activate and fight. Most of those dice are removed straightaway during the phasing player's turn but some stay on as reaction type dice. I prefer my games table to be uncluttered with such paraphernalia so I have quite a low threshold about how many counters and such things should be on-table, so many may think that the number of dice isn't so bad.
Ahhhh.... dice and counters.
A lot of people I've seen seem to really dislike rolling any number of dice over five! Personally I have no problem with rolling a hand full of dice, and don't think others should either : ) Quickly rolling 20 dice, picking out the 1s and 2s, or whatever.. easy. BUT then I do agree that having to roll again, and then some re-rolls, and then the other player has to roll loads..... Just to determine how many have been shot by arrows... That is daft! I think just a 2-roll system, say roll to hit and then roll to save, with most 'handfuls' being up to a dozen dice at most (with occasionally more for huge units of archers or whatever) is just right.
But counters... I really dislike cluttering the table up with counters (be they dice or whatever) and find that is a BIG turn-off for me when looking at rule system.
I even find having well-made casualty markers quite annoying, or at least having to count them up and giving them some important meaning, rather than just having them scattered about randomly as scenery.
-
I think just a 2-roll system, say roll to hit and then roll to save, with most 'handfuls' being up to a dozen dice at most (with occasionally more for huge units of archers or whatever) is just right.
I heartily agree on that, and it is one of the features I like about God of Battles - and although being a fantasy rule set, it can easily be played without the 'fantastic' and very random elements, which we often do. Rerolls do occur, though, when using 'Miracles' (magic).
But too many dice rolls to determine the outcome of combat is to me a killer that slows down the action and hampers the pace of the game. Probably one of the reasons I never really got into WFB. That, and the IGOUGO turn sequence. I know, SAGA also has that feature, to some extent, but a player turn rarely takes half an hour with endless rules discussions and flipping through rules and supplements lol
-
Blood Eagle is probably my favourite set of rules at the moment. (Totally nothing to do with it being a really small number of figures, no sir. ;) )
I've heard a lot of people be sceptical about the IGOUGO form of the rules, but with such a small number of dudes I think it makes sense that everyone just gets to act without much impediment. Although the inclusion of a Blood Bowl/Open Combat-esque turn-over system would be nice. I might have to houserule that and see how it works in my next game.
I'm big on narrative play, campaigns and individual heroism, so small-scale skirmish is perfect for what I want out of a tabletop game.
-
Blood Eagle...
I've heard a lot of people be sceptical about the IGOUGO form of the rules, but with such a small number of dudes I think it makes sense that everyone just gets to act without much impediment.
Which is normally referred to as Alternate Activation, as opposed to IGOUGO where one side moves/fights (in each phase, if any) with everything before the other gets to do anything (save rolling saves).
I prefer Alternate Activation over IGOUGO any time - IMO gives much more tense games. When Warzone first came out, I loved it, and promptly got me a small army painted, whereas 40K and WFB never really inspired me to get a force painted up, even though I own several editions of both rules.
-
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with IGOUGO formats.
When turns take a long time with no interaction from the inactive player, that's bad. And when a player can take decisive action without the inactive player having a chance to respond, then that's bad too. And these are problems you're more likely to see with IGOUGO formats, but they're not integral to the format.
For instance in SAGA, my opponents turn only takes minutes. And when it's his turn, I still have to decide whether or not to trade offence for defence in combat, whether or not to use any SAGA abilities I have loaded on my board, and how to spend my opponents fatigue.
-
Which is normally referred to as Alternate Activation, as opposed to IGOUGO where one side moves/fights (in each phase, if any) with everything before the other gets to do anything (save rolling saves).
I prefer Alternate Activation over IGOUGO any time - IMO gives much more tense games. When Warzone first came out, I loved it, and promptly got me a small army painted, whereas 40K and WFB never really inspired me to get a force painted up, even though I own several editions of both rules.
Me too, I had 3 or 4 factions for 1st Edition Warzone. Sadly long gone now, I didn't really like the reboots, so I sold them. I've still got my Chronopia stuff!
-
Sword & Spear is a very good set of rules; the activation system means both players are involved all the time.
The combat system is simple and effective, and there is lots of interesting decision making.
There are a couple of things which we didn't like so much:
1. The occasional time when one player gets all the activations, and the other has to sit there and do nothing
2. Light troops only get to shoot & evade if they have an action dice; this makes them very vulnerable (especially as they have so few hits). Some sort of auto-activation for lights would make them better.
We've also moved on to 'To the Strongest' for ancients battles. This also has a nice activation system, lots of interesting decisions, is more streamlined, and runs very fast (the grid and the cards speed things up a lot - it's amazing how long some people roll dice, which then end up cocked).
-
Our gaming group has spent the last couple of years thrashing out a set of home brew rules for big fantasy games - and a few interesting things have come out of this process - along with a lot of sweat, frustration, but not blood!
When people say they really like a certain mechanism or part of a game - they often don't mean this. They really tend to mean they like how a bunch of stuff comes together, but tend to identify that by a particular mechanic. This makes it really hard to take bits from different games and mash them together to make a new game, as you end up going down a number of dead ends lead by something that initially seemed really important, but ultimately turns out that it isn't.
Everyone has certain game effects / mechanisms that they really can't stand - its trying to avoid these as they tend to be deal breakers, and once someone has spotted something they hate, its really hard to get them to see past it as they keep coming back to this 'thing'.
IGOUGO - this is interesting as we started with random activation (like Bolt Action's dice in a bag), and alternating activations (like Epic) but we ended up going back to IGOUGO as this seems to work better for big multi-player games (at least with my group!). Perhaps because people actually seem to like to have some down time on the other player's turn to have a chat, make a drink etc. Or perhaps some of my group just have really short attention spans!
But the key drivers for IGOUGO where around speed of play - we can have several players on one side all executing their moves simultaneously - there is also no analysis paralysis which happens a lot when playing with alternating activations as you need to decide which activation is the best choice each time. Also for quite a lot of rule mechanisms we found IGOUGO was better for determining durations and other factors.
Buckets of dice - I tend to prefer rolling a good number of dice at once, it tends to even out results to be a bit more average/predictable. In Kings of War 10 - 20 d6 per attack is not uncommon, sometimes up to 60 dice for rear charges or hordes in the flank. One thing to speed this up is to have dice in 10s of different colours. We have found multiple dice slow things down massively - not least for a few players who can never seem to tell a d8 from a d10. One of our group hates Frostgrave for the opposed d20s - he feels this is just a total lottery - the rest of us seem more able to see it as an indicator that combat can be really dangerous, or someone will just miss you. But this does indicate the problem of single dice rolls, which can give very spiky results.
Anyway enough rambling.
-
Our local group really loves To the Strongest. I'm actually so satisfied with it, I am done looking at other rules.
That is not to say if I am at a convention and a game I signed up to play has a different set of rules, I wouldn't play the game. Try anything once.
-
Having tried many sets over the years my favourites at the moment are:
a) To The Strongest
b) Lion Rampant.
As posted on another thread, about to try out Dux Britanniarvm, a rule system I hear good things about.
-
Which is normally referred to as Alternate Activation, as opposed to IGOUGO where one side moves/fights (in each phase, if any) with everything before the other gets to do anything (save rolling saves).
Not that we're not on the same page, or that it changes anything; but on the face of it, don't 'alternate activation' and 'IGOUGO' mean the same thing? :P I wonder if 'unit activation' or 'army activation' would be clearer. Probably not.
Who was asking about a game that was inbetween the complexity of Deus Vult and Lion Rampant?
Well, I'd recommend Dux Bellorum. It does focus on the dark ages rather than high medieval period, but you can jimmy some medieval knights out of it (give them Imposing Cavalry).
That was another one I looked at for me anglo-saxons, but never got around to. I think I'll keep it though - less space and weight.
Thanks to all for the opinions on Sword and Spear. Much appreciated. But I gather I should divert some attention to To The Strongest?
-
don't 'alternate activation' and 'IGOUGO' mean the same thing?
No, they don't mean the same thing. IGOUGO means that one player has his complete turn, then the other player. Alternate activation means that one player activates a figure or unit, then the other player, until all figures or units have been activated.
-
Does anyone have any opinions on L'art de la guerre? It seems fairly popular locally.
-
No, they don't mean the same thing. IGOUGO means that one player has his complete turn, then the other player. Alternate activation means that one player activates a figure or unit, then the other player, until all figures or units have been activated.
Not that we're not on the same page.... but on the face of it...
I know the definitions, it just mildly amuses me the terms used basically amount to the same thing. Isn't playing one figure or unit before turning over to the other player, 'you go, then I go'? Can't movement of your whole army, then movement of your opponent's army, be described as 'alternate activation'? ;)
-
The confusion regarding the terms aside I generally prefer alternate (unit) activation games.
The IGOUGO games I like best are those without phases though, I much prefer to finish a model or units entire activation in one go, movement, shooting and all.
-
I do like the "I go you go". Like I said I liked WAB 2.0. It was what Warhammer should be. I also like Clash of Empires. Not a fan at all of Hail Caesar. WAB at least for me was easy to organize a tournament style event with lots of my buddies and we would come together and play and have a good time and all of us had grown up playing old War Hammer Fantasy, so it was very easy for us to pick up. And the WAB 2.0 rules, at least for me made lots of sense and played well mechanically unlike the broken mess that Warhammer Fantasy had become. I do miss it, and so do many of my buddies, some of us still get together play it. Most though have moved on and we are still looking for that game to bring us back together. Some moved on to HC, but HC does not play well in my opinion as a competitive game and definitely not in tournament sense. I really do like Clash, but no one I know plays it, nor can you find it locally. My hope is that Gripping Beast can put its weight behind something that can get our old nationwide group back together once again, but I doubt it will happen as the fractures are too large.
-
I must admit I'm a bit confused about people stopping playing WAB just because GW stopped making new books. If you all liked WAB so much, why didn't you just continue to play it?
We have been playing Warmaster and Epic for many many years after GW stopped supporting them.
-
In regards to Hail Caesar, which I have been curious about but never actually played, I decided to buy the rulebook the other day to give it a good read through. My thoughts....
1 - It is DEFINITELY not for competitive play. It is for friendly games with your mates, the more the merrier, and an umpire is recommended. Personally, I really like this, but I imagine lots of players don't. If you play to win at all costs this is not the game for you.
2 - It looks like it works much better for BIG battles, on a huge table, with each army consisting of several divisions each of several units, and each commanded by a different player. Doesn't look very appealing with just a few units a side.
3 - With both the above points in mind, it seems to lend itself really well to interesting scenarios, and all the battle reports I've seen of it (mostly from the rulebook itself and the Perry Bros facebook page) are evidence of this. Definitely has made me realise how note every massed battle has to be two armies lining up across a field against each other.
So is it the game for me? I don't think so, and I am going to continue with my own home-brew rules. But it sure does look like a cool game. When my collection gets big enough, I'll definitely be interested in trying it out and will no doubt love it.
I'm also waiting with great interest for Swordpoint, even if its just to see if it has any nice ideas I could borrow!. I will probably at least grab the digital rulebook for a read-through. I saw a demo game of it being played at both Salute and Partizan this year, and was planning to have a go but never got round to it at either. Did have a little chat with the guy though, and the table and armies looked fantastic!
-
HC works for medium sized games too. Me and my mate played it loads a few years ago, with just 1 player a side, with 3-4 divisions a side with several units per division. We were playing with 10mm figures, so dropped the distances a bit and were able to play on 6'x4' table.
The command roll mechanism does mean that you need a few commands per player, otherwise you can sit around doing nothing for too long.
-
HC is definitely not for competitive gamers. It's easy to break the system by looking for and exploiting loopholes in the rules, and some situations depend on a gentlemens agreement rather than an interpretation of the rules. As such, gamer used to much tighter rules and playing in a more competitive nature probably won't enjoy HC as much.
-
Hail caesar definitely shines in larger games. The game creates lots of difficult decision points as units rout and commander s fail their rolls to give orders. The one thing we really noticed is that the game rewards the historical use of reserves and second lines since units can just evaporate on bad melee result leaving gaping holes in your battle line.
-
I must admit I'm a bit confused about people stopping playing WAB just because GW stopped making new books. If you all liked WAB so much, why didn't you just continue to play it?
We have been playing Warmaster and Epic for many many years after GW stopped supporting them.
That's the way its been here in the U.S. I'ld still play, but I have like only a couple of people that will play it now, everyone else moved on to other things and rule systems. That's the way it goes. I can't explain their reasoning. They all seemed to enjoy it when we played....
-
I enjoy Hail Caesar (as well as it's siblings), Saga and Lion Rampant. In the past I have been disinclined towards card-based rules however since playing a couple of different systems that use cards I have come around. I just recently bought To The Strongest! and look forward to trying it.
-
That's the way its been here in the U.S. I'ld still play, but I have like only a couple of people that will play it now, everyone else moved on to other things and rule systems. That's the way it goes. I can't explain their reasoning. They all seemed to enjoy it when we played....
That's a shame. While its obviously harder to get new players interested in an OOP game, for those who have invested in it, it should still be perfectly playable. But much the same happened with WHFB.
-
I wonder how many WAB players came to it through WFB? The main side of GW is notorious for fostering an attitude of abandoning 'dead' games and editions, once support is withdrawn. (I.e. stopping the conveyor belt of new products that you 'have' to buy) Not that it's exclusive to (ex)GW players, but still...
-
I wonder how many WAB players came to it through WFB? The main side of GW is notorious for fostering an attitude of abandoning 'dead' games and editions, once support is withdrawn. (I.e. stopping the conveyor belt of new products that you 'have' to buy) Not that it's exclusive to (ex)GW players, but still...
Perhaps it's just the fact that as soon as you hear a game you play is going OOP, you naturally feel inclined to have a look around at other alternatives, whereas before when everyone you knew happily played the same game you didn't feel the need to? And then you suddenly realise there are lots of people playing other games, many of which are claimed to be better than the one you play, and perhaps some which are now just being released or undergoing a surge in popularity due to the death of your own game.... and you don't look back.
Looking back at old GW games, I've go to say the only ones I'd feel any desire to play now are Mordheim (which I did play back in the day) and Warmaster (which I've never played). And for Mordheim, I have absolutely zero attachment to the ruleset anymore, and would happily adapt it to different rules... it's just the setting I loved, and which still looks great to this day! With historical games such as WAB, the exclusive settting isn't really a thing is it? So if you've lost any devotion the the actual ruleset, what do you have to keep you playing it?
-
... I've go to say the only ones I'd feel any desire to play now are Mordheim ...
I have recently had a unrge to build a Mordheim table, paint up a few warbands and bully some friends into playing it. lol