Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: WallyTWest on 05 January 2017, 10:00:00 PM
-
Quick Post Today- I've spent most of it painting and setting up for my new wargame room (pictures over the next few months).
A Quick Review for anyone on the fence-
I just played a few games of this, and I got to say it's a mixture of disappointment and extreme hopefulness. I see that in the spirit of having lost a large following of Warhammer players in my warhammer players in my local area- and giving away hundreds of dollars of Warhammer miniatures over the last few months. Dragon Rampant represents the possibility of getting those miniatures back to the board and with this regard it does not disappoint.
The layout is disappointing, Rules explanation is far from perfect, scenarios disappoint and require lion rampant in order to satisfy basic battle needs, fantastic abilities are disappointing, spellcasting did not impress me, and the army lists in the back leave a lot to be desired– it's not a perfect product... And the writer seems to know this. Even pokes fun at the concept.
It's a tiny rule set.... And because of that it's the perfect vechicle and it soundly delivers some great gameplay.
Activations are in the tradition of bloodbowl, it plays perfectly well on a 3'x3' area with 4-5 units a side. I am impressed. I am impressed because I bought three copies and handed them out in the hope of providing some light fun in the holidays and now I have four players whom are intent to play with this rules-set in 2017.
These rules are generic, but they are begging for a setting and imaginative group of players to take them to the next level. After playing a few games with my friends Warhammer models that have not been used in years began hopping onto the table- I am depressed that I have not used this kind of system before. The kings of war was satisfying, but this rule set is absolutely friendly to new players and requires a much smaller collection of miniatures to enjoy. It's embarrassing how much good play has been condensed into such a small set of accessible rules. Honestly the biggest choice we faced the whole night was should we keep our models in tight box formations or skirmish them out – we ultimately opted for the old Warhammer four wide style units.
The 12 models required to form a unit is both a strength and great weakness. The 12 model count means you can set up miniatures in four wide and three deep units in the style of fourth edition warhammer or you may choose to go six wide. Choosing to play units like this deeply invokes the feel of ye old warhammer fantasy. The only downside being that once you have committed to a 12 count the 10 count box which is common in the industry makes army building a little bit of a hassle.
Guys, if you have been contemplating this is a purchase I encourage you to experiment with it. This is not a glowing review but it is an optimistic one. Dragon Rampant will be one of my core rule sets heading into 2017.
Any questions that you would like answered, I would be happy to give my opinion on. I will endeavor to post a few pictures of gameplay.
Empire Army (24pts)
–--------------------------------------------
Knights of the Blazing Sun (ECav-6pt) 6 Models
Middenheim Spearmen (HInf-4pt) 12 Models
Middenheim Spearmen (HInf-4pt) 12 Models
Middenheim Crossbow (HMis-4pt) 12 Models
Archers (Sct-2pt) 6 Models
Ogres (LWbst-4pt) 3 Models
How the army played-
Fielding a larger army has its risks, as you can never be certain that every unit will have the opportunity to move or fire. However in this is overcome when multiple units of heavy infantry or laid out in formation – forcing the initiative on your opponent to take ground or destroy units. Six units is considered very top-heavy for the system, but in this respect it played very much as a Warhammer army of the equivalent era might feel. Depending on the mission you either rely on your crossbowmen or Spearman to get the work done – the Knights and ogres quickly advancing and attempting to destroy prominent enemy units.
I was able to challenge a very defensive dwarf army with this collection of miniatures, as well as a very fast-moving undead force. But at no time did I feel over powered or not tactically challenged. I believe there are certain units which would be a no-brainer for a competitive list, but in keeping with the spirit of Warhammer you can have a great experience. Thinking about exchanging one of the infantry units for a wizard in the style of frost grave.
-
It's such a wonderful, simple rule set. I agree it is begging for someone to take it and run with it (a group producing a real quality expansion would get my interest). It's easy to adjust on the fly and there are some things I'd change.
We talked about (but have not yet put into practice) separating fantastic abilities from the core cost of the army --- because some of the perks, while charming, in no way measure up against plopping more models down on the table. Likewise we've discussed some alternatives to allow units to re-roll activation tests when within 12" of the army leader (giving him more of a purpose, etc.).
I will agree that the scenarios are very lack luster, but that seems to be the nature of most games nowadays. Perhaps I'll find some time to take another look. It'd be fun to flesh out the game with a few more units/rules/tweaks. In the few games we played I don't believe we ever used casters...hmmm...
-
Design your own scenarios!! Always better than relying on those in a book...
Design your own army lists!!! That's what Dan wants you to do! it's the whole point of the rules. Play with the figures you've got...
Play with your own ideas/house rules and tweaks. If they don't work, chuck 'em out and try something else!!
And I love the idea of separating magic abilities costs from the troops cost. Field a 24 point army (troop costs and upgrades only), then add an agreed number of magic upgrades each. Brilliant idea!!
It's such a liberating little rule set. I love it!! :D
-
I'm in the process of (theoretically) building a cowardly army of Orcs, Half Orcs and/or Hobgoblins. I'm planning to build bigger units than the 12 models (just for the look of the thing, because Goblinoid hordes should be big!) and either double-casualty them (for each comrade killed, one cowardly Goblinoid runs away) or say that when the casualties get down to 12, the remaining models have fled en masse.
-
I put this together about a year ago when we were playing on/off:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ppho0qppbj09mjk/DragonRoster.pdf?dl=0
Roster sheet, may be of some use --- the stats are re-arranged to make more sense as well.
-
There's no need to have 12 or 6 figure units in Dragon Rampant. A large unit has 12 strength points, a smaller one 6. Large units (most foot) can be any size you want, they still have a strength of 12. I just make sure it's obvious they're not skirmishers and stick to at least 9 figures (for human sized infantry). When 6 strength is lost, remove half the figures. Simple.
I don't have the rules to hand but I'm sure it's in there, near the beginning.
-
I have enjoyed these rules. I never anticipated that I would get into fantasy gaming, but gave these a go as I wanted something easy to play by myself.
They solo play well - I added some simple random terrain cards, random events and random enemy generation (I didn't even pretend that I would be unbiased, so most random events and numberof troops favour the "enemy").
The rules can be customised and tweaked quite easily without breaking them. They can be scaled up or down quite easily.
The points system is not completely balanced and is perhaps the weakest part of the rules. But for solo games this doesn't really matter.
-
The thing that is blowing my mind- about Dragon Rampant and my Wargaming in general- is how much it's changed for myself in these last few years...
Reflection
I used to play GW nearly exclusively, and warhammer fantasy was the glue that held the center of that experience in place- but since 8th edition hit the shelves and its popularity as a gaming system began to wane I really expermented with a number of other rule sets.
Warmachine and Uncharted Seas was my first breath of fresh air. Then Chaos in Carpathia. Deadzone, Strange Aeons, Frostgrave and now it's come full circle- I'm writing up plans doe repurposing my Warhammer figures into a Dragon Rapant army- and somehow I feel more in tune with my origins with 3rd edition warhammer, miniature railroad scenery and rogue trader than ever.
Next Point
Dragon Rampant could really use some nice stat blocks and a "ravaging hordes" stile army list in my opinion... Perhaps I could raid Runequest or Lone Wolf for a suitable setting or alternate armies?
-
I have recently played this one and it's well done! I enjoy Lion Rampant a little bit more but now I am considering building an army of Stormcast Eternals for Dragon Rampant (sold out all my old WHFB Skaven army).
-
@ Jiron
I gave away a number of vintage skaven but kept the skaven Island of Blood starter contents... And I think this is the perfect application for that starter set. You could have the "feel" of skaven and play with a number of diffrent armies with just those skaven.
-
I...have a problem with making DR armies.
I can't seem to stop.
-
(http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x335/WallyTWest/IMG_8402_zpsj6gbj8pp.jpg) (http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/WallyTWest/media/IMG_8402_zpsj6gbj8pp.jpg.html)
Picture of the "repurposed army"- switched out the knights because I broke a shield right before shooting a photo-
-
(http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x335/WallyTWest/IMG_8402_zpsj6gbj8pp.jpg) (http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/WallyTWest/media/IMG_8402_zpsj6gbj8pp.jpg.html)
Picture of the "repurposed army"- switched out the knights because I broke a shield right before shooting a photo-
This is exactly what I have been ranting about for decades. Use your minis designed for whatever games for whatever rulesets you fancy playing. No need to start an entirely new collection just because you pick up a new set of rules. I know, LR/DR actually encourages it, but it should have been a no-brainer all along, really. lol
Personally, I am not a fan of the Rampant rules - I wanted to like them, but my gaming buddies and I just had too many negative experiences where the dice (lots of failed activations) made the game a one-sided affair; not funny for the guy on the receiving end, and no challenge for the opponent.
I know it is not necessarily a problem if you get to play a lot of games, but when you get together maybe only once or twice a month for a single game, it becomes a nuisance, which is why we moved on. I have had a couple of good games, but I think the game needs to get rid of the 'activate, or lose the rest of your turn' rule (and be more like TMWWBK), to be honest. Well, maybe in a later edition... ;)
Every man his cake, though, and if DR keeps peeps in Fantasy gaming (and even serves as an entry drug for the hobby), of course it has a justifiable place in the gaming world :)
-
An obvious fix is re-rolls like in bloodbowl. Even at a point each for one or two rerolls, I think they would be worthwhile. I actualy think that back and forth iniatitive is actualy a hilight of the game.
Edit-
That's actualy a highlight of the game to me, you want to advance your elite infantry units into the fray and just chew through your enemy – but every time you activate an elite unit surrounded by two mobs of foot soldiers they are just going to get hammered on and ripped apart for their efforts. There is this balance between movement, activation and combat that if it was handled a little better could be an incredible highlight to the system. (But it certainly functions as is.)
Edit Edit- but diffrent topic
Dude hit it on the head when he chose 12 miniatures, it just looks right. Every sample army I have looked at seems to have the "correct" model count to what you would expect out of a fantasy battle system (...that wasn't raiding your wallet for cash.) And I can't stop, just played another game of this at my store today and was laughing at how easy and fun it was to have miniatures on a tabletop...
Edit Edit Edit-
The book is ugly
-
So far I've really enjoyed Dragon Rampant, and I've shied away from fantasy for decades.
The rules are generic enough that I can do my own back ground and don't have to buy into the game fluff.
I want to play my idea of Middle Earth, not games workshop!
Plus the armies are small enough to keep my megalomania somewhat in check!
-
I use Dragon Rampant for my GoT setting and it works a treat ( you can have special swords made from Valyrian steel and other things) . you have to do your homework and invent special abilities or things to make it work in your personal fantasy setting. I think that is not a week spot in fact it is the reason I purchased it . It has a wonderful 1980th feeling about it ! Yes I am that old ;)
-
Edit Edit- but diffrent topic
Dude hit it on the head when he chose 12 miniatures, it just looks right. Every sample army I have looked at seems to have the "correct" model count to what you would expect out of a fantasy battle system (...that wasn't raiding your wallet for cash.) And I can't stop, just played another game of this at my store today and was laughing at how easy and fun it was to have miniatures on a tabletop...
DR is different, in that it's counted in Strength Points, not figures. I was never a GW fantasy/fudgehammer fan, but I did acquire some of the figures and beasties to use elsewhere in other games. So now I can have a Horde of Undead shuffling skeletons with clubs and broken weapons, all 24 figures of them, but at 12 SP for the Horde unit. When I take losses I just remove two figures not one.
Better still is the ability to have Reduced units - so a Unit that has 4 Cave Trolls in it for the full 12 SP, may also be fielded as a Reduced unit as a pair of Trolls for 6 SP instead.
Dare I say it, but if you completely sever the old notions derived from GW that units equal the number of figures in a production carton taken off the shelf, you'll discover even more flexibility to how you can use these rules. DR is a very clever toolkit that allows you to design your own 'Codex' for a fantasy race/kingdom/superpower from your own thoughts and ideas ;)
-
And I'd argue there is little in stopping you from paying, say 150% of the cost of a unit to run, perhaps 18 strength points? I haven't played in a while, but I see no reason. It would be fine with me if a 24-strength unit was assembled at twice the cost. Less maneuverable and more loss if it doesn't activate, but harder to stop?
I like the idea of Strength points as well, I ran a Giant a few times as a single Strength 12 "unit".
-
Now that is an intriguing idea - Super-size units. (Great Roster sheet btw)
Discussing DR aspects like this makes me want to break it out onto the games-table, but I have TMWWBK set up on that at the moment. Must resist... but too weak.... o_o
-
Here are some thoughts I posted ages back on Another Forum on the subject:
There's a spell that lets you re-roll a failed activation, and a couple of Leader traits that let you pass a single activation per turn automatically.
Wild Charges do not cost you your turn if the roll fails, so choose your units and position them with care.
Summoner lets you place reserved units up-table and where you need them - you just need to get the summoner there first.
Hatred is very cheap and grants your unit a Wild Charge. Put it on a unit with Wild Charge already, and you pass the activation test automatically.
If you find that bad Activation rolls are wrecking your game, you may consider allowing the first activation to be re-rolled if it fails, or making it an automatic success. Or use one or two lower-level captains like Black Powder and Warmaster, who can give orders and if the roll fails then the unit can't be ordered again and your leader than takes over orders. Basically allow for a coule of fails a turn.
I'm thinking that ending your turn on a failed activation, combined with how tough spells are to cast, stops you spamming Wizardling on multiple units. Nothing like befuddling an enemy before you attack, or giving everyone a powerful ranged attack.
I agree that if it's driving you to distraction, drop the rule.
I also find that allowing another 8-12 points on the Fantasy abilities after you've spent the base 24 points on units and unit variations is a good way to go. DR units are often more expensive than LR units. Also remember that base attacks can represent magical abilities too - a missile unit may be a wizard and his students who can cast a hail of arrows at the enemy.
How does it work in The Men Who Would Be Kings?
-
It was the 'your turn ends on failed activation' that put me off DR. With a couple of bad dice rolls you can end up doing nothing for a couple of turns, and if your opponent gets lots of activations off it can swing the game.
In TMWWBK failing an activation just affects that unit, your turn continues. And all units get a type of activation that they can always pass (move for natives, shoot for regulars).
With DR, with a failed activation, I'd probably mod the game, so that the unit does nothing, and initiative switches to the other side. And so on until both players have activated all their units in a turn.
-
Regarding super-sizing the game, I think there could also be a consideration for the following:
Each "army" consists of several companies, a company consisting of between 12-18 points (decided by players). So an army may consist of three or four companies, each with their own HQ. This means that during a turn the players could either alternate companies (one at a time) or activation rolls are done by company and not army. So imagine Player A has three companies - if he is doing all of his companies in one turn, he would simply roll activations for one company until it failed. That company would then cease and he'd move onto his next company, or something to that effect.
Loads of options to make the game something more fitting. I like the idea of re-roll mechanics as well. Each commander gets 3-5 re-roll tokens or something to that effect.
-
With regards to retools- I love it when they cost points- it forces you to view them a resource and attach an abstract value to them- and I'm ok with it being a high cost- (even 1pt for 1 reroll if the math works out) you have to trade that stability for power.
Some better thought out fantastic abilities would be welcome- some stronger leadership traits- I wish there was a way to "boost" to 18 or 10; I like the idea of very large knight or infantry getting additional toughness- 150% seems to be about right from a math standpoint.
-
Wild Charges do not cost you your turn if the roll fails, so choose your units and position them with care.
That's a very good point. In the games we've played, there tend to be a fair few activation attempts per turn once the opposing forces close, because of all the bellicose foot, warbeasts and elite riders.
I really like the chance of turns ending immediately, as it makes manoeuvring much less predictable. I think it also makes the game faster and more involving. But I'm generally in favour of anything that breaks up the IGO/UGO turn sequence.
I'm thinking that ending your turn on a failed activation, combined with how tough spells are to cast, stops you spamming Wizardling on multiple units. Nothing like befuddling an enemy before you attack, or giving everyone a powerful ranged attack.
Good point!
I agree that if it's driving you to distraction, drop the rule.
I wonder if attitudes to this are determined by where you've come from, gamewise. My memories of Warhammer (for example) are long distant and seemed to involve an awful lot of games that had to be abandoned. But it was a given that you got to move all of your units each turn. I recall trying some alternating activation systems in other games that achieve the same thing.
But since I last played that sort of IGO/UGO game, almost every wargame I've played has been one that involves lots of unpredictability as to how much you can do in a turn (Hordes of the Things and Song of Blades and its kin). I much prefer that approach, and I think the resultant frustrations are a feature, not a bug.
To illustrate the contrast, I remember in Warhammer that it was easy to work out how many shots a defending unit of crossbowmen would get against an advancing enemy unit, even without pre-measuring. You can't do that in Dragon Rampant; you don't know whether your unit or the enemy one will be able to activate each turn, and there's the possibility that one of you might get successive activations to fewer or none.
That strikes me as a good thing - more unpredictability, more "fog of war" and more having to think on the hoof. Preset tactics are still likely to work, but there's that element of the best-laid plans going aft aglae that forces you to adapt and react constantly.
Also, I think a great thing about unpredictable activations is that you don't get all troops advancing at the same rate. That strikes me as a Platonic ideal that would be unlikely to materialise in practice. Instead, I imagine certain units jumping the gun, or holding back, or getting their orders wrong, or just being far more afraid than some of their peers. Dragon Rampant certainly gives you that effect, and you can end up with impetuous units (Bellicose Foot and Beast in particular) having far more activations than their less excitable peers. That strikes me as "realistic", at least as far as you can apply realism to hobgoblin berserkers or frothing-mouth wargs ...
Each to their own, of course! But I reckon unpredictable turns add a great deal of flavour.
I also find that allowing another 8-12 points on the Fantasy abilities after you've spent the base 24 points on units and unit variations is a good way to go. DR units are often more expensive than LR units. Also remember that base attacks can represent magical abilities too - a missile unit may be a wizard and his students who can cast a hail of arrows at the enemy.
[/quote]
Yes, the "Elbows variation" is a really good idea - not least because DR and LR can handle much bigger battles than the standard 24-point affairs.
-
A subtlety of the failed activation ending the turn is that higher activation units will tend to get activated even less. So a 7+ unit is not usually going to be your first choice of unit to attempt to activate since it has a higher chance of failing. This means the 5+ units will end up getting many more goes than those 7+ simply because the turn might end even before the 7+ get a chance to roll. Only when it becomes critical that the 7+ moves does it become the first choice (or when you have activated everything else)
If you allow an auto re-roll for the first unit (or automatic success) you lose this effect. Your 7+ unit suddenly becomes your first choice unit to activate.
-
I much prefer that approach, and I think the resultant frustrations are a feature, not a bug.
It is a bug if it ruins the game for one side too often.
To illustrate the contrast, I remember in Warhammer that it was easy to work out how many shots a defending unit of crossbowmen would get against an advancing enemy unit, even without pre-measuring. You can't do that in Dragon Rampant; you don't know whether your unit or the enemy one will be able to activate each turn, and there's the possibility that one of you might get successive activations to fewer or none.
You don't need the 'end turn' to have that effect - if your crossbowmen or the attackers don't activate, there's stil unpredictabilty - even more so, as they don't get to try again quite as quickly as they might if the turn ends.
Also, I think a great thing about unpredictable activations is that you don't get all troops advancing at the same rate. That strikes me as a Platonic ideal that would be unlikely to materialise in practice. Instead, I imagine certain units jumping the gun, or holding back, or getting their orders wrong, or just being far more afraid than some of their peers. Dragon Rampant certainly gives you that effect, and you can end up with impetuous units (Bellicose Foot and Beast in particular) having far more activations than their less excitable peers. That strikes me as "realistic", at least as far as you can apply realism to hobgoblin berserkers or frothing-mouth wargs ...
Same as above - with different target numbers, poorer troop types are still prone to activate less often.
I haven't purchased TMWWK, but I think that when you look at LR - DR - TMWWBK you see the same ruleset (and, maybe, the mindset of the author) undergo a development. From LR to DR the most interesting change is the 'Strength Points' approach, instead of fixed unit model counts (I don't know if the concept is used for some kind of stuff in TMWWBK, but I think that, for instance Elephants, and maybe vehicles for later periods, might benefit from it), and then the overall inclusion of unit leaders and ditching of the 'end turn on failed activation' rule in TMWWBK.
It is a development I would have preferred to have happened during game design and play-testing BEFORE the actual publishing, but I guess Osprey's production deadline had to be met, and that it as not viable to have as many playtesters as some other game designers have by inviting the whole community to take part.
My overall approach to rules is that I have to be able enjoy playing a game RAW.
I often mod games I like playing if I find that something might be improved; a good example is God of Battles which I really enjoy playing, simply because of the way the game plays, but I would still like to alter some details to allow for more variety in scenario types, - but if I have to mod a ruleset right from the start, just to want to play it, it is a flawed design in my book, and I move on. With the Rampant rules, I even gave them a couple of extra chances, but they failed me over and over.
And, by the way, there is also some unpredictability built into the turn structure of GoB, because of the Alternate Activation sequence, and the use of 'Stratagems', I am not advocating frictionless games, and certainly not IGOUGO (one of the things that always put me off Warhammer was the turn structure where you could spend half the game or more just sitting on your backside while your opponent pondered about how to wheel that particular unit to be in position for that essential charge), I just think the friction should add to the gaming experience, not ruin it, as we have experienced it to do one time too many.
I/we simply not enjoy games where randomness gets the better of tactics time and again.
If it does not do so for you (or if you enjoy it when it does, as your post seems to suggest), so much the better for you, and, by all means, keep enjoying you games - my post was not so much to discourage anyone from playing the game, as to give a second opinion. Every set of rules has its strengths and weaknesses, and we all emphazize different aspects when gaming, thus what is a big issue for some becomes a minor thing to others, and vice versa.
-
...
It is a development I would have preferred to have happened during game design and play-testing BEFORE the actual publishing, but I guess Osprey's production deadline had to be met, and that it as not viable to have as many playtesters as some other game designers have by inviting the whole community to take part.
...
I just want to pick up on this. The rule change from Dragon Rampant to TMWBK is not I believe due to greater play testing. Lion Rampant had been released for a considerable time and many suggestions were incorporated into DR that had come from people playing LR in a fantasy setting.
The difference with TMWBK is that shooting is becoming more dominant so a failed activation becomes more damaging to an army since it gets shot to bits. This is less an issue in LR and DR since ranged attackers are rarer and less deadly. So on a failed activation your troops still get to defend in melee and generally mix it up with the opponent. ie it was an intentional change due to changes in the other rules not from inadequate play testing.
-
It is a bug if it ruins the game for one side too often.
Sure - although I must have played something like 20 games of LR/DR, and all were gripping to the end. I honestly can't recall a game being badly affected by poor rolls - they always seemed to even out. We tend to play a lot of units with Wild Charge, though, which gets the action going pretty intensely once the sides close.
You don't need the 'end turn' to have that effect - if your crossbowmen or the attackers don't activate, there's stil unpredictabilty - even more so, as they don't get to try again quite as quickly as they might if the turn ends.
That's true. For me, I think the key thing is the potential for swings in the initiative, so that one player isn't twiddling his thumbs for a considerable time.
I haven't purchased TMWWK, but I think that when you look at LR - DR - TMWWBK you see the same ruleset (and, maybe, the mindset of the author) undergo a development. From LR to DR the most interesting change is the 'Strength Points' approach, instead of fixed unit model counts (I don't know if the concept is used for some kind of stuff in TMWWBK, but I think that, for instance Elephants, and maybe vehicles for later periods, might benefit from it), and then the overall inclusion of unit leaders and ditching of the 'end turn on failed activation' rule in TMWWBK.
That's a really interesting point. I haven't really been following TMWWBK (I love the Kipling story, but it's a miniature project too far ...).
It is a development I would have preferred to have happened during game design and play-testing BEFORE the actual publishing, but I guess Osprey's production deadline had to be met, and that it as not viable to have as many playtesters as some other game designers have by inviting the whole community to take part.
Given the success of the LR/DR rules, though, I wonder if you've just been extremely unlucky. I once introduced a friend to SoBH. While the game turned out fine, we each had something like four turn-ending activations in a row. The game was vikings vs orcs; we each had a leader and wanted two or three activations to get a group activation going. But each time, despite both leaders being Q3, we got only a single success (not enough for a group activation) and so discarded the single action to try the next time. It was bizarre, and I've never seen it happen before or since (we rationalised it as the chanting of war-cries and the gnashing of shields). But it was entirely unrepresentative of how the game usually runs.
It's worth pointing out, though, that LR was a success in its own right before DR, so the system was widely played and enjoyed before the launch of DR. Many of our DR games are more or less LR games, as we don't tend to go overboard on the fantasy rules.
My overall approach to rules is that I have to be able enjoy playing a game RAW.
Same here! That and "time to table" are the key things for me (the latter being the only point against the excellent Mayhem and Havoc).
I often mod games I like playing if I find that something might be improved; a good example is God of Battles which I really enjoy playing, simply because of the way the game plays, but I would still like to alter some details to allow for more variety in scenario types, - but if I have to mod a ruleset right from the start, just to want to play it, it is a flawed design in my book, and I move on. With the Rampant rules, I even gave them a couple of extra chances, but they failed me over and over.
I haven't tried God of Battles. What tends to put me off games is any kind of proprietary "world"; I like context-free games like DR, SoBH and HotT, where the background is be dictated by the miniatures to hand rather than by any arbitrary constraints. I liked Warhammer much better when the "fluff" was limited to scenario-specific stuff against a background that was only very vaguely defined. So "Blood Gorged" and that kind of thing tends to raise my hackles - no doubt somewhat unfairly! :)
And, by the way, there is also some unpredictability built into the turn structure of GoB, because of the Alternate Activation sequence, and the use of 'Stratagems', I am not advocating frictionless games, and certainly not IGOUGO (one of the things that always put me off Warhammer was the turn structure where you could spend half the game or more just sitting on your backside while your opponent pondered about how to wheel that particular unit to be in position for that essential charge), I just think the friction should add to the gaming experience, not ruin it, as we have experienced it to do one time too many.
Couldn't agree more! And yes, that experience of Warhammer is exactly what I remember (dimly) from games of Third Edition. I think Warhammer was at its best in its first and second editions, where the games were generally skirmishes. And the strength, I think, was really in the scenarios rather than the system. I've played versions of the Ziggurat of Doom with SoBH, and it's a brilliant - and brilliantly simple - scenario.
If it does not do so for you (or if you enjoy it when it does, as your post seems to suggest), so much the better for you, and, by all means, keep enjoying you games - my post was not so much to discourage anyone from playing the game, as to give a second opinion. Every set of rules has its strengths and weaknesses, and we all emphazize different aspects when gaming, thus what is a big issue for some becomes a minor thing to others, and vice versa.
Yes, entirely agreed! I was really posting to provide a third opinion (embracing the unpredictability rather than enjoying it with caveats or not enjoying it at all).
One point I wanted to make on the original post: if you have movement trays set up for ten figures, why not just count a couple of command figures as doubles? That way, you can keep track of the strength points without any bookkeeping. So, if you have a leader and a champion, each is worth two command points, with the eight troopers representing one each. If the unit (somehow!) is reduced to three and still viable, then you can just use the leader and a trooper.
-
I know it is not necessarily a problem if you get to play a lot of games, but when you get together maybe only once or twice a month for a single game, it becomes a nuisance, which is why we moved on. I have had a couple of good games, but I think the game needs to get rid of the 'activate, or lose the rest of your turn' rule (and be more like TMWWBK), to be honest. Well, maybe in a later edition... ;)
I would not expect an later editions of Osprey rules. But why not just change it in your games to be like than. Dan even says his rules are not set in stone. I know some people hate the fail and lose your turn so in that case, allow every unit an activation each turn, or allow a number of failures before you lose your turn. As long a both players agree I don't see the issue with that type of change at all :)
These are really simple mods and although they change that aspect of the game I don't see them effecting everything else. It's not like I expect these rules to be massive competition rules etc. They are for fun and friendly games IMO.
Well just my though.
-
Elbows-I think the "companies" idea is a great one, it allows you to scale up easily and gives the feel of large battles with multiple war leaders.
-
I'm a big fan of DR. They encouraged me to break out of the loft and paint up an Orc army I've had for years :)
My gaming group came up with some house rules: http://vultureswargamingblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/dragon-rampant-harrogate-wargames-club.html (http://vultureswargamingblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/dragon-rampant-harrogate-wargames-club.html)
and also some campaign rules: http://vultureswargamingblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/dragon-rampant-campaign.html (http://vultureswargamingblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/dragon-rampant-campaign.html)
Kind regards to all
Vulture
-
I am playing this with friends, and it is fast becoming a go to. One of my friends busted out his Ral Partha elves last night that were based for WRG, and I grabbed my Grenadier/Chronopia Barbarian army to combat it with. Was good to push around the old painted stuff.
We are also considering modding it to give each side one reroll a turn, because it did seem a bit extreme.
-
I am playing this with friends, and it is fast becoming a go to. One of my friends busted out his Ral Partha elves last night that were based for WRG, and I grabbed my Grenadier/Chronopia Barbarian army to combat it with. Was good to push around the old painted stuff.
We are also considering modding it to give each side one reroll a turn, because it did seem a bit extreme.
My group has a number of house rules, one of them being that the commander always has the 'Commanding Presence' trait. This helps out :)
-
We first mistakenly played DR in "failure switches initiative but but doesn't reset turn" mode (meaning you still had to try and activate all your units before ending turn). When we discovered this was wrong and could test the same unit each time it became your initiative, it became a much better game.
If you really need your forward heavy infantry to lead the charge, why would it be better/more fun to have to cycle through the rest of your units?
That said the rules could be better organized. A flow chart for the whole courage check/retreat timing would help. When things are unclear I often go back to LR. I'm not sure why certain rules are clearer in LR than in DR.
I also like some of the improvements in TMWWBK. I'd like to do a Sword & Planet game with TMWWBK using the idea of reduced figure units for heroes and monsters.
-
Agreed Kamandi, it's a subtlety I missed initially as well, when playing for the first game with a friend of mine, and it was only later as I ran thru a few aspects solo, did I actually read it properly and realise we'd played wrong.
Just got to get my crew around the table to show them how good it is :)
And TMWWBK is a great set of rules also, been busy with that too.
-
Personally, I am not a fan of the Rampant rules - I wanted to like them, but my gaming buddies and I just had too many negative experiences where the dice (lots of failed activations) made the game a one-sided affair; not funny for the guy on the receiving end, and no challenge for the opponent.
I know it is not necessarily a problem if you get to play a lot of games, but when you get together maybe only once or twice a month for a single game, it becomes a nuisance, which is why we moved on. I have had a couple of good games, but I think the game needs to get rid of the 'activate, or lose the rest of your turn' rule (and be more like TMWWBK), to be honest. Well, maybe in a later edition... ;)
I really enjoy playing DR but i understand what you mean. Playing is fun but if you roll badly for activation in DR (or Hail Caesar, Black Powder etc.) and nothing moves then you are not really "playing", you are just "watching" as your opponent moves his troops around the table.
We use extra leader figures to overcome this. In small games you get one leader who gives +1 or +2 to activation rolls to units within 4" and in larger games extra leaders depending on the amount of units on the table.
This works well as although the leader cannot be everywhere to support activation, you move him to where you need him most, which how it should be with command and control.
The leader moves first in your turn and obviously does not need to role to activate himself. We consider these leaders to be older expierienced warriors or shamans who stay out of the fighting (you have your hero types for that). If enemy units move close to him he automatically retreats one move (free move).
-
And I love the idea of separating magic abilities costs from the troops cost. Field a 24 point army (troop costs and upgrades only), then add an agreed number of magic upgrades each. Brilliant idea!!
I'm inclined to agree, but I'm unsure what ratio of "troop points" to "fantastic ability" points would be best. Would 24 troop point army (essentially a Lion Rampant army at that point) work well with 12 points of fantasy abilities added on? More? Less? Obviously you can vary it to suit your tastes for low/high fantasy, but I'm not sure where to start. Conan would probably have very few FPs, Eternal Champion armies would have many.
Anyone who's playtested this (very good) idea got any suggestions on where to start?
-
Playing DR this weekend, so just wanted to return to Kamandi's post above to remind myself to remind the other players ;D
But, I also like the suggestion of a flowchart, and I may dabble with this later.
Quick question to other players: do you use cards for the DR Spells, and perhaps for the DR Quests? If so, does it make the game work/run better?