Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: jetengine on November 24, 2018, 07:45:51 PM
-
So some interesting info has recently dropped. The long rumoured 'Fantares' (Fantasy Antares) ruleset will be arriving at the end of January next year under the title of Warlords of Erehwon.
This is what I've found so far....
Warlords of Erehwon transports us to the multifarious fantasy realms of fiction, folklore and myth, placing us at the head of a fighting force of our choosing. Model warbands clash across fantastical tabletops as humans and monsters, the living and the dead, war over the spoils of victory in a universe of heroes, sorcerers and the supernatural.
Our game has been designed with a single objective in mind - to allow us to play fast paced and exciting miniature battles upon a modestly-sized table between rival forces of that we describe as warbands. A warband represents your own band of warriors - courageous humans, blood-thirsty monsters, perhaps even minions that you have raised from beyond the grave to do your bidding.
Your force might typically comprise a few dozen models organised into loose groups of fighters, commonly five to ten strong each, or a single model in the case of chariots, giant monsters and war machines. This gives us our ‘warband’ style game, large enough to provide scope for scenario building, with plenty of opportunity to reward tactical play, but at the same time keeping things manageable in terms of the size of our forces and space required.
Warlord of Erehwon uses ten-sided dice providing for a game with mechanical depth and considerable adaptability. An intuitive universal dice test system means that play proceeds at a good pace once players are familiar with the core mechanics. A host of unique and entertaining attributes ensure that different creatures fight and behave after their own fashion, bringing their own mix of strengths and weaknesses to the fight.
The sequence of game play is determined by a dice-bag draw, and units are activated one at a time in a way that engages and challenges both players. A draw for your warband is an opportunity to launch your attack, or perhaps to set an ambush, maybe to seize a tactically important part of the battlefield, or to cast a spell and turn the tide of battle in your favour. Beware though - for whatever you do there is no guarantee that the next draw might not favour your foe - a Warlord of Erehwon must be prepared for all situations.
Force selector lists are included to represent the following warbands :
Barbarians - Axe-wielding Northmen, heroic chariot-riding Fianna, mounted hordes from the Steppe and even Mammoth riding Neanderthals.
Beastmen - Bestial furry masses in half-animal form, braying, snorting and grunting with mutant might.
Dwarfs - Who do you think you’re calling short? Sturdy axe wielding maniacs with a heady dose of dour and tempers even shorter than they are.
Elves - Touched by magic and faster than a flying arrow, the Sidhe of ancient legend and races of popular fiction - all reside herein.
Gnolls - Creatures of canine descent and dogged determination - fearsome fighters of monstrous appearance and insatiable taste for flesh.
Goblins - Undersized and mean-spirited critters dangerous in numbers. Just don’t turn your back. Not for a minute.
Halflings - Pint sized humanoid creatures in the tradition of ‘the wee folk’. Remarkably accurate with any missile and deceptively innocent in appearance.
Knight - A retinue of medieval style romance and popular fiction complete with armoured knights, brave yeomen, courtly wizards and sturdy peasants.
Olympian - The heroes and warriors of Greek legend together with their rivals and associates from myth and popular culture.
Orcs - Thuggish over-sized monsters, blessed with simple minded brutality, keen on large-unwieldy weapons, not too bright.
Undead - The walking dead, skeleton warriors, zombies and malevolent spirits led by Necromancers, Liches and Wraiths.
Monsters - our selector list provides for all the giants, dragons and other traditional fantasy monsters that can also be included as part of any warband.»
.5 things to start with. Rulebook (£30), Box of Orcs (£20 for 24 minis) , Box of Skeletons (£20 for 24 minis) and two 'Army Box' sets. Both £50, both with a mixture of Metal and Plastic minis (Guessing Warlord will sculpt additional stuff) 91 minis exactly.
The minis are the Wargames Factory Skeletons and Orcs. Though I'm guessing they'll sculpt more stuff for the other kits or use the Northstar stuff maybe ?
Their going to have to do some very clever marketing though to stand out from GW beyond "Ours is more classical and cheaper with a different ruleset"
-
Sounds interesting. I’m working on some rules agnostic barbarians at the moment and I’d be interested in picking up the Wargames Factory Skeletons when they reappear.
-
Any idea what the approach is to square or round bases?
-
Seems that fantasy is alive again. Saga Age of Magic coming, this Erewhon (terrible name pun alert), revival of Lord of the Rings, Osprey Oathmark game, plus a few other smaller name games (so small I fail to remember them). Let's hope Warlord can support their game properly this time - what the heck was that last fantasy game called?
-
Another tired rehash of stereotypical fantasy forces. Couldn't they find even a single original concept, these guys have had what, 30 odd years and still re-inventing the same worn out wheel.
-
I'll keep half an eye on it. But with the aforementioned Middle Earth, KoW (and Vanguard) and Saga supplement I'm pretty well served for fantasy rules atm.
-
My guess this is another quick cash grab to make use of the existing orc and skeleton sprues they acquired. It seems to be a pattern with Warlord Games. They did it with Project Z and Test of Honour prior to this. Both of those games seemed decent enough, but not nearly enough support for them to keep them going.
-
The info in the first post makes it sound like they will be almost a generic set of rules, not necessarily tied to a mini line. If so it might encourage me to use Celtos minis as that game seems to be dead/painfully-slowly-moving-towards-mass-battle.
Any idea what the approach is to square or round bases?
Well there are pics of the boxes out but I can't make out which bases they are using. Given they've mentioned loose units I assume its round or doesn't matter.
http://ttfix.blogspot.com/2018/11/warlord-games-new-fantasy-system.html
Another tired rehash of stereotypical fantasy forces. Couldn't they find even a single original concept, these guys have had what, 30 odd years and still re-inventing the same worn out wheel.
Trouble is, making slight variations of the same sells and generally seems to be a safe(ish) bet.
-
The Orcs look like they'd fit in well with the GW LoTR Orcs and the Oathmark Goblins. I probably dont want 20 of the Warlord Orcs on the table, but 10 or so and the rest for conversion parts for GW and Oathmark is very tempting.
If the skeletons are closer to 28mm then GW's they should sell well and I'll definitely have a use for them.
I dont know if there is a market for another generic (and unsupported ruleset probably) right now, but more options isnt a bad thing.
-
No idea on the scale.
Options is always good as not everyone likes whats out now.
-
Any idea what the approach is to square or round bases?
Whilst I cant confirm, in the Orc youtube video their on squares. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they take a 'we dont care' stance on rounds/squares
My guess this is another quick cash grab to make use of the existing orc and skeleton sprues they acquired. It seems to be a pattern with Warlord Games. They did it with Project Z and Test of Honour prior to this. Both of those games seemed decent enough, but not nearly enough support for them to keep them going.
Yes and no afaict, the orcs and skeletons appear to be the things Kickstarting the game but from what I can tell they'll be making their own stuff to add.
The info in the first post makes it sound like they will be almost a generic set of rules, not necessarily tied to a mini line. If so it might encourage me to use Celtos minis as that game seems to be dead/painfully-slowly-moving-towards-mass-battle.
Trouble is, making slight variations of the same sells and generally seems to be a safe(ish) bet.
Yes from what I've seen its taking the Bolt Action idea of "Everyone makes WW2/Fantasy so we cant copyright it". As for lsck of variety Western Fantasy sells well and as cool as using other cultures fantasy ideals would be they either dont take off or the games get mismanaged.
No idea on the scale.
Options is always good as not everyone likes whats out now.
28mm, possibly true 28mm
-
Seems that fantasy is alive again.... this Erewhon (terrible name pun alert), ...
It has a long association with fantasy, so Warlord aren't to blame for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erewhon
-
So another skirmish ruleset, not a proper massbattle ruleset... and rushed in the launch with the definitely subpar WGF miniatures. Doesn't bode well, think I will give this a pass
-
It has a long association with fantasy, so Warlord aren't to blame for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erewhon
Yes - and Fritz Lieber's Nehwon ("No When") was a play on it, so there's even a link to swords and sorcery.
On generic fantasy wargames: I think there's a strong argument to be made that generic rulesets tend to be better than those that are tied into specific ranges of miniatures or specific backgrounds. Hordes of the Things is a prime example: it's clearly still played a lot (including tournaments) and has had only two editions in 27 years - and only two tiny rules tweaks between those. Think of all the setting-specific games that have completely disappeared in that time. And the likes of Song of Blades and Dragon Rampant are going strong.
Obviously, there are few exceptions (Warhammer, chiefly) where the strength of the IP overwhelms deficiencies in the rules, but robust rules that can be used with any miniatures are surely a good thing. The commercial argument's different, though.
But of course the quality of the rules are everything when it comes to generic games.
Seems odd to reboot gnolls so that they're canine creatures rather than feliform ones (like hyenas)! [/pedant]
-
The Orcs look like they'd fit in well with the GW LoTR Orcs and the Oathmark Goblins............
........If the skeletons are closer to 28mm then GW's they should sell well and I'll definitely have a use for them.
The ex WGF orcs are a perfect match with the GW LotR plastic orcs and Moria Goblins. They are pretty much exact Angus McBride style models (which is originally where much of the design inspiration came from).
The skeletons are small by modern standards, but are very nicely detailed and are the only ones since the original GW Skeleton Horde box that look as if they could feasibly be the "inside" of a standard human figure. Their almost infinite poses and lack of costume/equipment makes them perfect for accessorising dungeons or terrain
.......with the definitely subpar WGF miniatures............
The ex Wargames Factory Orcs and Skeletons are in no way sub-par in the hands of a competent modeller.
In their original moulding format they were superb value, extremely finely detailed and well proportioned models. In terms of scope, pose options and usability nothing released since even comes close.
The real shame is that Warlord have chosen to increase the price by 25% and simultaneously cut the box contents by 33%
-
So another skirmish ruleset, not a proper massbattle ruleset... and rushed in the launch with the definitely subpar WGF miniatures. Doesn't bode well, think I will give this a pass
*eyeroll*
They've owned the minis for nearly 3 years, if thats 'rushed out' then GW are going at 'Ludicrous Speed' for their releases. As for mass battle well its a dying genre. No one has the time or space frankly. But its mass battle in the sense GW or Antares is mass battle unless you mean rank and flank in which case you've got plenty of options.
-
I really like that they are focusing on warband level skirmish. I just can't get on with SAGA so I hope this will appeal more.
I'm not a fan of the orcs but the skellies look promising.
-
The ex WGF orcs are a perfect match with the GW LotR plastic orcs and Moria Goblins. They are pretty much exact Angus McBride style models (which is originally where much of the design inspiration came from).
The skeletons are small by modern standards, but are very nicely detailed and are the only ones since the original GW Skeleton Horde box that look as if they could feasibly be the "inside" of a standard human figure. Their almost infinite poses and lack of costume/equipment makes them perfect for accessorising dungeons or terrain
Thanks robh, just the info I needed :)
I dont think the sculpts are dated but they are old school fantasy in look, which might make people think they are old school in casting/moulding too.
-
Thanks robh, just the info I needed :)
I dont think the sculpts are dated but they are old school fantasy in look, which might make people think they are old school in casting/moulding too.
Whilst I dont know when the Orcs and Skeletons were released EXACTLY, WGF opened in 2007 so at the very utmost their 11 year old sculpts.
-
The orcs are a bit of a heartbreaker, I think. There are two problems with them. First, the arms and hands. They grip the weapons rather awkwardly and also often sit at odd angles to the bodies. Also, there aren't any dedicated shield arms, so you're attaching shields to arms that are designed to be gripping polearms, etc. The paired arms that grip two-handed weapons are nice, though one hand lacks a thumb.
Second, the only bare head has an eyepatch. That strikes me as a very odd design choice, because it's much easier to add an eyepatch to a head than to remove one. So your orcish horde is likely to be much more uniform than you'd like, as a large proportion of its members will have eyepatches over the same eye. A two-eyed head would have worked much better.
Those problems aside, they're rather nice. I think Frostgrave gnoll arms work reasonably well with them; I'm not sure if Oathmark goblin arms do too. I used some spare GW Hobbit wolfrider arms on a couple; those worked really well, but were right-arm only.
If it's any help, I've got some photos of a few here (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=77384.msg951264#msg951264) (along with a Reaper orc and a half-orc based on a Perry man-at-arms).
-
From the little announcement blurb it reads like a serviceable set of rules (but then I'm incredibly lenient when it comes to Fantasy rules sets ;) ). Seems to be basically WG's version of Lion Rampant and spin-offs thereof, but even more straightforward.
The main thing I like is for the Wargames Factory skeletons to return, which are by far my favourite plastic skellies out there. Never had the Orcs in hand, but from what I read here is that they're OK, but ridden with some problems earlier WGF minis are.
Either way, the prices are (as always with the WG re-releases of the WGF stuff) a bit discouraging. It was already annoying with all the Zombies stuff. We're getting close to GBP 1.00 for a plastic figure from 10(?) years ago. No matter if they throw in some rules set specific cards or whatnot in as well. Fantasy pricing is weird.
The factions read nice and classic. Apart from the Olympians, which sound tacky as heck; but somehow I suspect some repackaging and Fantasy-pricing on existing warlord figures there. ;)
The choice of going with a skirmish game is interesting. I suppose it's clever right now that Saga come out with their Fantasy book.
-
I think I'll give the Orcs a go, if nothing else they'll be good for bits for other Orcs :)
-
The real shame is that Warlord have chosen to increase the price by 25% and simultaneously cut the box contents by 33%
The fools!
Why oh why didn't they stick with the pricing structure that worked so well for Wargames Fac...
Oh. Hang on
-
The fools!
Why oh why didn't they stick with the pricing structure that worked so well for Wargames Fac...
Oh. Hang on
Thank you TWD- I was just going to make that point.
-
???
It was not a pricing issue that took Wargames Factory down. Perhaps a bit of research would help you understand.
-
The later plastics boxes did see quite visible price increases too. On the AWI sets IIRC it was just over 50p per figure (at release); similar with the post-apoc Survivors and such.
Of course, the fact that WG re-release all these things along with the rules sets to shift the merchandise means increased prices as well, but the extent to which the figures get priced is a bit of a turn-off. I'm not saying that it's not justified (because I don't know the numbers), all I can say is that it's a bit of a turn-off.
-
can't really understand the 'look dated' comment under the blog link (or that I've seen more generally I think).
while I can understand the overly fiddly criticism (although haven't had the figures myself), they look pretty darn good to me.
the skeletons inparticular I've always liked the look of (got the harryhausen 'argonauts' look to a tee).
like the new packaging for the game too.
-
???
It was not a pricing issue that took Wargames Factory down. Perhaps a bit of research would help you understand.
Perhaps providing some evidence to support your claims instead of a patronising suggestion to "do some research" would help you not look quite so bad.
My recollection of events:
WF opens with much hoo-hah about being "for wargamers" and promises of affordability (and the odd sideswipe at more expensive competitors).
WF releases some very poor (but cheap) soldiers.
WF encounters financial and supply difficulties.
WFs investors and creditors decide that the bloke who got them in to this mess isn't best paced to get them out of it and, to try and protect their investment, take over.
WF founder rages across the internet about the unfairness of it all.
WF find themselves unable to generate sufficient money to continue trading and so sell up to Warlord.
Anything I've missed?
I'd argue that the flawed pricing structure (not helped by terrible models) led to the investor takeover.
I'm aware there's a narrative about a misunderstood genius and champion of wargamers being stabbed in the back by evil(foreign) money men but from my perspective it just looks like poor business decisions leading to proper businessmen doing what businessmen do.
Warlord Games and WF started out at the same time. One with an "aggressive" and much attacked pricing structure, the other "affordable" and "for wargamers".
One is now the largest and most successful historical Wargames manufacturer in the world. The other mainly a punchline.
-
TWD -
I didn't follow the WF story too closely so I really have no idea what happened. I did buy some of their models and yeah, a lot of them are crappy. I bought them based on price. Many still gather dust in boxes so ended up not being a bargain.
But there is no arguing with the end result as you've described in your last 'graph.
On the game at hand, the Orcs and Skellies are pretty good and fiddly as hell. I've only taken time to assemble a few Orcs and but have scavenged many sprues to convert GW LotR orcs. The skeletons are even worse, feet separate from ankles! I've not had the courage to assemble one yet. I'll check it out upon release and if I like it have the figs on hand.
-
Afaik the second version of the Skeletons were much better. Also Warlord may well have recut the sprues as they did with some of the Test of Honour stuff
-
To be fair quality of models generally improved as time went on and the Skeletons are probably the best of the bunch. WF struggled with skin and clothes, so the skellies, lacking both, were win/win.
Incredibly fiddly though.
There was some stuff to admire about what WF tried. They were the first to really tackle using digital sculpts for organic materials (the above mentioned clothes and skin) for instance. At that time GW was only using digital for vehicles. However their attempts showed up the limitations of the tech of the time (and the skills of their sculptors). Now lots of sculptors take advantage of some of the digital skills WF pioneered.
What they lacked IMO was calm business minds to reign in some of the enthusiasm and put them on a sound financial footing. Hence my initial post about Warlord having a better handle on how to price things.
-
Perhaps providing some evidence to support your claims instead of a patronising suggestion to "do some research" would help you not look quite so bad.
My recollection of events:
WF opens with much hoo-hah about being "for wargamers" and promises of affordability (and the odd sideswipe at more expensive competitors).
WF releases some very poor (but cheap) soldiers.
WF encounters financial and supply difficulties.
WFs investors and creditors decide that the bloke who got them in to this mess isn't best paced to get them out of it and, to try and protect their investment, take over.
WF founder rages across the internet about the unfairness of it all.
WF find themselves unable to generate sufficient money to continue trading and so sell up to Warlord.
Anything I've missed?
Actually, you missed quite a bit.
After Reidy raged across the internet, Wargames Factory continued to become one of the best plastic manufacturers in the business. They continued producing the stuff made during the Reidy era and put out new stuff starting, IIRC, with the Apocalypse Survivors.
They then went on to produce (as a contractor) Dreamforge Games` entire HIPS line, Wyrd's entire HIPS line, and Kingdom Death's entire HIPS line. There may be others that I am unaware of. They still produce for Wyrd and Kingdom Death, but less so for Dreamforge (and possibly not at all any longer). What they decided they didn't want to do any longer is produce kits of their own and direct retail them.
That is when Warlord stepped in and purchased some (possibly all) of their in house lines. WGF didn't shit the bed, and Warlord are certainly not the business tycoons you seem to want to make them out to be. They bought an unwanted line, had their names cut onto the bases, and tripled the price. It might be a bit much to say they are screwing their customers, but...they`re screwing their customers...
YMMV of course, but it is kinda hard to read that any other way.
-
Perhaps providing some evidence to support your claims instead of a patronising suggestion to "do some research" would help you not look quite so bad.
My recollection of events:
WF opens with much hoo-hah about being "for wargamers" and promises of affordability (and the odd sideswipe at more expensive competitors).
WF releases some very poor (but cheap) soldiers.
WF encounters financial and supply difficulties.
WFs investors and creditors decide that the bloke who got them in to this mess isn't best paced to get them out of it and, to try and protect their investment, take over.
WF founder rages across the internet about the unfairness of it all.
WF find themselves unable to generate sufficient money to continue trading and so sell up to Warlord.
Anything I've missed?
I'd argue that the flawed pricing structure (not helped by terrible models) led to the investor takeover.
I'm aware there's a narrative about a misunderstood genius and champion of wargamers being stabbed in the back by evil(foreign) money men but from my perspective it just looks like poor business decisions leading to proper businessmen doing what businessmen do.
Warlord Games and WF started out at the same time. One with an "aggressive" and much attacked pricing structure, the other "affordable" and "for wargamers".
One is now the largest and most successful historical Wargames manufacturer in the world. The other mainly a punchline.
You're talking about Defiance Games there, not Wargames Factory. So before you accuse others of looking bad maybe you should get the facts straight yourself.
-
So.....
Any news on the actual game today?
-
I was paid by WGF to paint their figures for marketing purposes for around two years, right up to the point that the 'new' owner shifted gears. I had frequent contact with the members of the US team.
The Chinese owner decided he no longer wanted to do the marketing and development for WGF ranges, and pay relevant staff- and instead went for a quick cash influx from a deal with Warlord. The WGF ranges were doing well but he shifted focus and would rather make stuff for other people (Wyrd, Kingdom Death, etc.) because there is less risk if a product doesn't sell- he's not sitting on product.
My understanding is that the wargames industry was small chips for him anyway (the parent compant makes medical parts). The shift was quick and bewildering for the US personnel working for WGF because the sets were getting better, more detailed, covering bases no one else was, and were selling well.
The orcs were an early release from WGF (Tony Reidy days) and are okay, but they need a lot of work. They fit well with Oathmark. I mixed and matched them together for an entry in the last LPL.
-
Just a little reminder to try and keep this about the original subject matter please. It's all interesting stuff but I imagine most people looking at the thread largely want to find out about the game, the miniatures, etc.
Thank you
-
You're talking about Defiance Games there, not Wargames Factory. So before you accuse others of looking bad maybe you should get the facts straight yourself.
*Checks facts*
The original company that made the skeletons being discussed and acted in the ways described above was called Wargames Factory.
IIRC Defiance games was the company set up by the founder of WF after he was bought out.
So, about this checking facts thing, how's that going for you?
-
Actually, you missed quite a bit.
<Snip>
All of which is very interesting but happened *after* (and was a result of) the initial flawed pricing model that WF launched with.
-
I'm reasonably interested in the skeletons, I believe they were retooled after the original horror story - the ankle bone connects to foot bone days. The prices are off-putting, don't know the politics involved but do know what I am prepared to pay for minis and it comes down to cost quality ratio for me. If the price is higher than average then they have to be better quality than average.
The orcs have an interesting aesthetic but the poses are too wooden for my liking and the hands are something I just do not contemplate, not sure why so many gamers put up with that weird hand/claw monstrosity.
I am really most interested in details on the game though, got loads of minis here waiting for action.
-
I think where the orc minis fell down was the design of making the torsos reversible. I have a bunch and like them. But a more stooped pose would be good or at least something resembling proper anatomy.
-
*Checks facts*
The original company that made the skeletons being discussed and acted in the ways described above was called Wargames Factory.
IIRC Defiance games was the company set up by the founder of WF after he was bought out.
So, about this checking facts thing, how's that going for you?
No, it was Defiance who acted the way you described, so it's going fine for me. Now, I'll follow Elk101's advice.
-
The FB page has updated.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0jhrqYCf/FB-IMG-1543491763281.jpg). Not the greatest quality but you can make all the detail out.
-
No, it was Defiance who acted the way you described, so it's going fine for me. Now, I'll follow Elk101's advice.
*Sigh*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargames_Factory
Let me know if there's any other facts I can check for you
-
I'm just here for the popcorn.
I think the skeletons are good (a real 'Jason and the Argonauts' flavour), but not for that money.
The orcs are okay, great imagery, but the poses are too action-figure for my taste … and not for that money.
The Warlord Games 'buy and burn' wagon keeps a-rollin'.
-
I wish they would decide how they intend spelling Erehwon/Erewhon, even their own advert differs.
-
I'd be interested in picking this one up for a try. AoS didn't it for me, LotR combat system is too simple, Otherworld I've still not had time to get onto, Mordheims too small in model count, Dragon Rampant wasn't enamoured with and Frostgrave too much on the wizards so a pass.
-
My thoughts too...though I do tend to prefer to get into games rather than rulesets. I'd be tempted to try these rules with Celtos minis as that game seems to be dead...though they do claim to still be slowly working towards a mass battle game...no idea why.
-
My thoughts too...though I do tend to prefer to get into games rather than rulesets. ...
That's interesting. I'm not sure if I understand that correctly. Do you mean you prefer to get into a whole "rules and minis to go along with them" rather than using different sets of rules for your existing collection? But that would contradict your later Celtos statement, so I'm not sure I got that right.
-
:D There is a contradiction. Normally I just go in for whole game systems as you say but I love my ancestral Celtic myths and am very disappointed that there isn't a game to scratch that itch.
Celtos should really do the trick but Brigade have done nothing with the rules in the years they have owned the game which is very disappointing. I liked the look of Antares rules but certain elements in the lore, force selection and some of the minis are turn offs but the idea of using the Fantares rules with the Celtos minis does have an appeal.
Hope that kinda clears it up :D
-
Agree with that. I like the general Antares rules engine, so having that in a large fantasy warband option is very useable. It’ll be in the WFB old world for me though! :)
-
Right, got you now. :D Yeah, I heard of this breed of gamer. It's not for me, since I got all the things already, and most "original" sci-fi/fantasy settings I read annoy the heck out of me by trying to be different ("Get off my lawn, new things!"), so these days I prefer rules sets to keep a minimum distance of 200 base widths from any figures range and keep it generic. ;)
-
Normally I just go in for whole game systems as you say but I love my ancestral Celtic myths and am very disappointed that there isn't a game to scratch that itch.
Have you tried Lucid Eye's 'Red Book of the Elf King'? It's meant to be based around the Celtic (specifically Irish) legends, but although I've painted a couple of the figures I haven't played the game.
-
Agree with that. I like the general Antares rules engine, so having that in a large fantasy warband option is very useable. It’ll be in the WFB old world for me though! :)
Good plan sir. I haven't owned a WH Fantasy army for years as I was waiting for GW to update the basic High Elf troopers...guess I'm still waiting :D
Right, got you now. :D Yeah, I heard of this breed of gamer. It's not for me, since I got all the things already, and most "original" sci-fi/fantasy settings I read annoy the heck out of me by trying to be different ("Get off my lawn, new things!"), so these days I prefer rules sets to keep a minimum distance of 200 base widths from any figures range and keep it generic. ;)
:D I know what you mean...their does seem to be some who flock to anything different but to be honest I've seen very few rulesets that can beat the basic logical steps from classic GW. I can definitley see the appeal of a generic set of rules but without a framework of races etc it all feels a bit whishy-washy...I blame my Aspie nature in this regard as I crave order and pre-definied factions supported by fluff that generates a feel for the force in my head and in the head of my opponents. I guess generic lacks this framework and so leaves me somewhat muddled. No idea if that makes sense.
Have you tried Lucid Eye's 'Red Book of the Elf King'? It's meant to be based around the Celtic (specifically Irish) legends, but although I've painted a couple of the figures I haven't played the game.
It did catch my eye but on further inspection does nothing for me. Seems a little loosely based on Gaelic myth with a visual dash of Asterix. Plus the idea that all armies are exactly the same number of minis seems very odd to me.
I think my growing disillusionment with rules systems has been made worse since I've started playing around with writing my own...doh! I guess you can't put the genie back in the bottle :D
-
I’ll just whatever minis I have and what I fancy - no point being tied down, and it’s not as if the Old World can’t accommodate a variety of forces!
-
Update - New Info.
Base style is irrelevant. Squares or rounds both work.
-
Update - New Info.
Base style is irrelevant. Squares or rounds both work.
God bless them.
-
Good plan sir. I haven't owned a WH Fantasy army for years as I was waiting for GW to update the basic High Elf troopers...guess I'm still waiting :D
:D I know what you mean...their does seem to be some who flock to anything different but to be honest I've seen very few rulesets that can beat the basic logical steps from classic GW. I can definitley see the appeal of a generic set of rules but without a framework of races etc it all feels a bit whishy-washy...I blame my Aspie nature in this regard as I crave order and pre-definied factions supported by fluff that generates a feel for the force in my head and in the head of my opponents. I guess generic lacks this framework and so leaves me somewhat muddled. No idea if that makes sense.
It did catch my eye but on further inspection does nothing for me. Seems a little loosely based on Gaelic myth with a visual dash of Asterix. Plus the idea that all armies are exactly the same number of minis seems very odd to me.
I think my growing disillusionment with rules systems has been made worse since I've started playing around with writing my own...doh! I guess you can't put the genie back in the bottle :D
Have you seen oakbound studios the woods game? Not really looked at it myself but they have some not fimir to go with it.
-
Have you tried Lucid Eye's 'Red Book of the Elf King'? It's meant to be based around the Celtic (specifically Irish) legends, but although I've painted a couple of the figures I haven't played the game.
Also, "Erin" from Alternate Armies: https://www.alternative-armies.com/collections/erin-game-of-celtic-myths (https://www.alternative-armies.com/collections/erin-game-of-celtic-myths)
-
Have you seen oakbound studios the woods game? Not really looked at it myself but they have some not fimir to go with it.
Link? I can't seem to find them with my googlefu!
-
http://www.propworkshop.co.uk/oakbound/
-
lol, okay. That's what I found. I couldn't find the minis on there. Yep, I win the Doofus award.
-
Have you seen oakbound studios the woods game?
Also, "Erin" from Alternate Armies
Thanks guys I have indeed seen both of those. From what I have read neither game particularly grabs me though I did buy a pdf of The Woods. Some of the Erin minis do look good but I can't say I like most of them though that may well be because of the paint jobs which do look a bit rough to my mind. The minis in the Woods do seem like a strange collection, a mix of older and medieval mythic creatures that just doesn't quite work for me. The Fimir are cool though.
My trouble is I'm too darn picky ::) Even with the Celtos ranges, which I broadly like, I do struggle to get over the god-awful cricket bat weapons o_o
Maybe if I win the lottery I can get my own range of Celtic-Gaelic minis produced...crosses fingers...;)
-
I've been meaning to get that book for The Woods forever. Really need to get around to that one.
The other thoughts I've been having with regard to Erewhon is an alternative history one, although undecided between which era. Its more or less the same theme in both :)
1: 1486. Tudor brought diabolical allies to the field, Richard III survived Bosworth and its all gone to ruin as York and Lancaster have utterly splintered but now have roaming chaotic forces and the emerging dead to contend with as well. Tudor ostensibly won and holds the crown, but over an ever more fractured and dangerous land.
2: 1647. When Charles was defeated and on the run through the fens, he encountered something strange in the depths. When he and his retinue emerged, they had changed and were accompanied by wild and terrible beasts........ The Kings right is divine, his choice was made. The New Model Army was scattered, the thrones power re-confirmed. However, the allies he brought forth, although terrible in battle, proved uncontrollable and are loose in the land.
#2 needs work on gunpower weapons though - unless its an easy reskin of existing rules in the book to replace bows and crossbows and the like :)
-
I've been meaning to get that book for The Woods forever. Really need to get around to that one.
I think Oakbound are currently working on a 2nd edition for The Woods so you can currently grab the book on the cheap.
Wayland Games are selling the Erehwon book on pre-order with free UK shipping...I've ordered a copy :D
-
I think Oakbound are currently working on a 2nd edition for The Woods so you can currently grab the book on the cheap.
Wayland Games are selling the Erehwon book on pre-order with free UK shipping...I've ordered a copy :D
Oakbound selling it cheap or elsewhere?
*edit* had a look on Oakbound and its all there. BOUGHT. ALL OF IT!
.................still gonna use Warlord rules though :) The Woods stuff is for atmos and ideas.
-
I for one am less hopeful, i've spoken in the past about warlord biting off more than it could chew and it is doing it again, focus on core products and stop trying to compete with GW, part of me thinks its Rick Priestly trying to recapture the success of yesteryear but that flash comes once if even then.e
-
Much as I dislike being negative, I'm starting to get a sort-of Spartan Games vibe from Warlord with how they seem to be coming up with new games all the time.
Still, I am at least somewhat interested in seeing the undead here.
-
The advantage for Warlord here is that its just a ruleset plus a few old WGF minis.
They aren't looking to produce lots of supporting minis.
I can easily see them adding a few bits here and there over the coming years.
-
Have you tried Lucid Eye's 'Red Book of the Elf King'? It's meant to be based around the Celtic (specifically Irish) legends, but although I've painted a couple of the figures I haven't played the game.
I am thoroughly enjoying Red Book of the Elf King, but as Lost Egg says, it's not specifically Celtic; more nordic and quite specialised. The fixed warband sizes work surprisingly well.
However, as regards Celtic myth, have you tried the Osprey 'Of Gods and Mortals' rules? I've collected several Celtic warbands and have the Celts supplement.
-
Much as I dislike being negative, I'm starting to get a sort-of Spartan Games vibe from Warlord with how they seem to be coming up with new games all the time.
It does feel like that but Warlord is reusing a lot of Wargames Factory figures so they have much lower production overhead for most of these games.
I'd be more worried by all these niche comicbook games they are coming out with
-
Funny thing is, Rick said in a couple interviews that Warlord said no to this game and had no interest in fantasy.
I don’t see them overreaching, and I definitely don’t see them trying to overtake GW. They know this business and are doing well. I DO see Rick wanting to release a game that reminds everyone of old WFB at least in scale and style if not rules.
They’ve got some kits to sell and a very fun rule set that works, so why not print a book?
My hope is this gets the Perry Bros sculpting fantasy figs again, and more army/campaign books in the series like BA.
-
Also, I’m wondering if there won’t be crossover with North Star’s Oathmark/Frostgrave line.
-
Funny thing is, Rick said in a couple interviews that Warlord said no to this game and had no interest in fantasy
It’s been tested internally for at least a couple of years so that strikes me as an odd comment
-
https://youtu.be/eFVJLpEgx28
About 10:26
-
If nothing else I will be interested to see the barbarian miniatures - mammoth riding neanderthals sounds intriguing.
-
However, as regards Celtic myth, have you tried the Osprey 'Of Gods and Mortals' rules? I've collected several Celtic warbands and have the Celts supplement.
Aye, I've looked at it but I'm not a fan of the Song mechanics.
I jumped on the Forgotten Worlds KS so will likely use those minis for Erehwon though I will likely get some Celtos minis if the game works for me.
This really is my ideal size of game so I have soo many ideas buzzing around my head at the moment.
-
If nothing else I will be interested to see the barbarian miniatures - mammoth riding neanderthals sounds intriguing.
They'll be the Frostgrave ones, so you already can. I don't see Warlord producing something they already stock and sell.
-
That’s my guess as well.
-
From the list on page 1 and my thoughts on which models they'll recommend:
Barbarians - Frostgrave.
Beastmen - ?
Dwarfs - Oathmark.
Elves - Oathmark.
Gnolls - Frostgrave.
Goblins - Oathmark? seems unlikely, as the Oathmark goblins are the same size as the WGF Orcs.
Halflings - ?
Knight - Perry or Fireforge.
Olympian - Warlords own ancients.
Orcs - WGF orcs.
Undead - WGF skeletons.
Monsters - ?
I'm surprised they havent added an asian faction, so they can sell more WGF samurai.
-
https://youtu.be/eFVJLpEgx28
About 10:26
Didn’t say you were wrong, just that it was odd :)
-
mammoth riding neanderthals sounds intriguing.
That sounds awful hard on the Neanderthals' backs!
andy
-
Didn’t say you were wrong, just that it was odd :)
Wanted to make sure I actually heard it. Sucks getting old.
-
I’d really like this game be more than just a toolbox. Maybe not a rehash of Warhammer, but a world with some background for sure.
-
Nick from Northstar has a post on FB saying some of their models are pictures in the rulebook. So, that kinda confirms that. I really don’t see Warlord starting a whole new genre of models to support the game. Well, not unless it’s HUGE. Weird situation with fantasy models right now outside of Age of Sigmar. Several companys making good stuff, lots of people working on rules for them.
-
http://www.propworkshop.co.uk/oakbound/
thanks for that - picked those up.
-
The free mini you get when ordering the book
-
I wonder if everyone gets one or just those who order from Warlord?
-
Just spotted a few extra nuggets of info on the Erehwon FB page...
Rick Priestley: The infantry units tend to be 5-10, cavalry 3-5, larger monsters like Trolls 1-3, bigger monsters, chariots, and engines on their own. Wizards and Warlord characters usually have a couple of bodyguards - which in the case of wizards can be things like familiars, spirit guides, and such like. Units are generally 'one thing' like archers, spearmen, swordsmen, etc. Small force about six units (nice size for a game).
Rick Priestley: Yes you can use whatever you have so long as they are based individually - round, square, polyhedral, rectangular - doesn't matter - I just assume models are based 'to fit' in the traditional manner. The exact size isn't an issue. Most of our collections were based for Warhammer years ago - or are the modern style round base - we use both together.
Measurement - in inches - can pre-measure - measure edge to edge - nothing very unusual there
Rick Priestley: I don't think terrain will be a problem - I've provided the basics in respect of movement, cover and so on - but when it comes to fitting the rules to your terrain I'd adopted the same kind of 'make sure you agree before the game' approach that I used in the Red Book of the Elf King game - so there is some flexibility to take account of 'really strange' stuff. I have some fairly big bits of terrain myself... including a 2' square 'hill fort' and an improbably vast marsh made by Nigel Stillman that I liberated from GW... all of which we've used.
For those of you familiar with the Beyond the Gates of Antares rules you will be ahead of the crowd, hint hint. This game will be using the same d10 system and order dice system.
Looks like I might have to acquire some Order Dice.
6 units a side of 5-10 minis sounds good so an Oathmark box of minis sounds like a great starting point for an army.
-
Sounds lot like Dragon Rampant regarding the number of models needed. You might even be able to use your DR army for Warlords with few to no modifications.
A couple of characters, a box of infantry and either a box of cavalry or a handful of monsters and you're in business.
-
Warlord have started Pre-orders...
https://store.warlordgames.com/collections/warlords-of-erehwon
Though strangly while the starter bundle includes D10s it doesn't include Order Dice ???
The army boxes mentioned on the store pre-order release don't seem to be available yet. I had a look at the skeleton pre-order and a little confusingly it says...
Skeleton warriors can be armed with swords or spears, others wield bows or crossbows, or ride skeletal steeds or chariots drawn by the same.
I assume the ones in the box can only have swords or spears but could definitely see it being a little confusing.
-
That mini looks like what happens when you sneeze and don't have a tissue.
-
That mini looks like what happens when you sneeze and don't have a tissue.
-
Really cool. The face is great.
-
Sounds lot like Dragon Rampant regarding the number of models needed. You might even be able to use your DR army for Warlords with few to no modifications.
A couple of characters, a box of infantry and either a box of cavalry or a handful of monsters and you're in business.
Yes. I'm already not liking it.
-
The free mini is nicely done...but a bit on the busy side? Anyone else think it would look better sans flames or is it just me?
-
Yes. I'm already not liking it.
Enjoy not playing it! ;)
-
Some of the Erin minis do look good but I can't say I like most of them though that may well be because of the paint jobs which do look a bit rough to my mind.
Erin miniatures vary widely.
The monsters are pretty good although some of them are rather game-setting-specific.
The Milesians, sadly, are a bit weak. Not only are there not many variants, they're small, the faces are indistinct and some of the poses look strange. A couple of the characters are nice exceptions -- I think they're Bob Olleys work. The chariot is quite a fun model.
The Sidhe are also Bob Olley sculpts and, although look a bit 'flat' compared to modern figures paint up really nicely and convert quite well too. Bit of ink work on the faces, washes on the flowing hair and they come out great. Certainly they turn into nice units. Mine are all wearing blue-toned clothing with blonde hair and shining armour. Cross between faeries and Vikings. If -- like me -- you like 'old school' figures, these are a good buy at the price.
The Fomorians are just *brilliant* -- my one and only complaint about them would be there aren't enough of them. They have characterful faces and lots of nice detail to pick out. I found the trick to handling the small number of variations to make Dragon Rampant units was to use many different shades of green amongst the skin-tones; add various reds and browns for the clothing, rusty armour/weapons and they look anciently evil. Some of the heroes are quite big (Norc, for example) and tower over 28mm humans in a suitably menacing way. Cross between Orcs and daemons.
-
This strikes the same note as 'Gates of Antares' for me; more of the same but somehow less so.
Not to slag the effort. It's decent and all, but not interesting or unique to cause me to invest in new figs/new game.
-
@Katie - Thanks...yeah from what I can tell online they are hit & miss as you say.
It's decent and all, but not interesting or unique to cause me to invest in new figs/new game.
Though they are re-releasing a couple of boxes of old WGF plastic minis Warlord have said that they aren't going to be supporting the game with a full range. This is really a rulebook only release for use with whatever minis you have.
-
Erin miniatures vary widely.
The monsters are pretty good although some of them are rather game-setting-specific.
The Milesians, sadly, are a bit weak. Not only are there not many variants, they're small, the faces are indistinct and some of the poses look strange. A couple of the characters are nice exceptions -- I think they're Bob Olleys work. The chariot is quite a fun model.
The Sidhe are also Bob Olley sculpts and, although look a bit 'flat' compared to modern figures paint up really nicely and convert quite well too. Bit of ink work on the faces, washes on the flowing hair and they come out great. Certainly they turn into nice units. Mine are all wearing blue-toned clothing with blonde hair and shining armour. Cross between faeries and Vikings. If -- like me -- you like 'old school' figures, these are a good buy at the price.
The Fomorians are just *brilliant* -- my one and only complaint about them would be there aren't enough of them. They have characterful faces and lots of nice detail to pick out. I found the trick to handling the small number of variations to make Dragon Rampant units was to use many different shades of green amongst the skin-tones; add various reds and browns for the clothing, rusty armour/weapons and they look anciently evil. Some of the heroes are quite big (Norc, for example) and tower over 28mm humans in a suitably menacing way. Cross between Orcs and daemons.
I've fancied picking up some of the Sidhe figures for a while but especially so since I saw Makatishi's paint jobs: https://www.matakishi.net/sidhe.html (https://www.matakishi.net/sidhe.html)
-
They definitely look better with a good paint job.
-
Anyone know if there is a point system in the rules for different forces? i.e. those not in the army lists.
It looks interesting but with the forces as specified it seems not that generic really...
-
No idea. All thats been said is that the army lists included allow players to build armies that cover most bases. I can only assume there is flexibility within each of the lists mentioned.
-
Those lists shown are very basic IMO and don't really cover all the GW Age of Sigmar forces at this point, unless they are VERY open definitions of armies...
So going to see when there are more details around this and not get excited at this point.
-
But wasn't part of the point of GW burning the old world and creating the AoS to move away from generic fantasy...
-
Those lists shown are very basic IMO and don't really cover all the GW Age of Sigmar forces at this point, unless they are VERY open definitions of armies...
So going to see when there are more details around this and not get excited at this point.
TBH, why would they feel the need to cover all of the Age of Sigmar stuff for their own release? I doubt it really feeds into their thought process. Mantic is more likely to be the ones for trying a complete port!
This is just a plain rulebook toolbox rules set for the bolt action engine being used in fantasy gaming. Think people are putting too much of their own expectation onto it and setting themselves up for disappointment
-
The idea is for the basic fantasy stuff, not to particularly replace any game range.
-
It'd be cool if Warlord showed off some sample lists or maybe covered warband selection in a bit of detail prior to the release as I am tempted to put a little force together as a project for Jan.
-
It'd be cool if Warlord showed off some sample lists or maybe covered warband selection in a bit of detail prior to the release as I am tempted to put a little force together as a project for Jan.
They will in time. It’s not out yet!
-
I know I was just hoping they'd show a bit more before the rulebook is released.
-
I know I was just hoping they'd show a bit more before the rulebook is released.
They must likely will after the Xmas period and in the weeks running up
-
Got me fingers crossed :D
-
Well, I still want both Orcs and Skellies from WGF so I guess an extra rulebook doesn't hurt much, does it? Worst case scenario is it's never going to leave the shelves :D
-
They’re still launching Cruel Seas. Guessing we’ll here more after XMas.
I think the one book release is right, but I’m hoping enough books sell that they reconsider....
-
They’re still launching Cruel Seas. Guessing we’ll here more after XMas.
I think the one book release is right, but I’m hoping enough books sell that they reconsider....
Agree. If they sell enough to make it worth the effort, they’ll probably add in stuff in supplement books like the have with Antares.
Ideally - and this is pure “I want” theatre books like the ones for Bolt Action would be tasty, putting scenarios, setting and environment for different areas, plus some lists or specific stuff. That’s nothing I couldn’t homebrew myself, mind, I’m just being lazy :)
-
Ideally - and this is pure “I want” theatre books like the ones for Bolt Action would be tasty, putting scenarios, setting and environment for different areas, plus some lists or specific stuff. That’s nothing I couldn’t homebrew myself, mind, I’m just being lazy :)
If I was trying to think of interesting scenarios, I'd be tempted to start with computer games and such. I still play Panzer Corps (the slightly more polished version of the classic Panzer General) and a good few of the battles on there have a really well thought out narrative, and have the advantage of all the relative sizes, strengths and positions of the units already done for you!
-
Agree. If they sell enough to make it worth the effort, they’ll probably add in stuff in supplement books like the have with Antares.
Ideally - and this is pure “I want” theatre books like the ones for Bolt Action would be tasty, putting scenarios, setting and environment for different areas, plus some lists or specific stuff. That’s nothing I couldn’t homebrew myself, mind, I’m just being lazy :)
Exactly what I’m hoping for. Oh, and I’m hoping it goes so big the Perry’s hump back into Fantasy. 😆
-
If I was trying to think of interesting scenarios, I'd be tempted to start with computer games and such. I still play Panzer Corps (the slightly more polished version of the classic Panzer General) and a good few of the battles on there have a really well thought out narrative, and have the advantage of all the relative sizes, strengths and positions of the units already done for you!
Well, for me when theatre scenarios come in, they are more “it’s furiously freezing, it’s a death snow . storm out there. There’s bastard horrible things shuffling around the woods. What you gonna do about getting a crew out to gather food??” for a snow set theatre, over the orders of battle style scenario - but I expect that may not be the usual fayre.
Suppose I prefer the setting over the details - a good rich environment is enough to get some gaming ideas for the table.
-
Great ideas!
I loved what Warhammer did with the random terrain hazards and such...
I like the battle scrolls part of Age of Sigmar as well. Great idea.
-
My biggest concern is not the rules as such, but that the release will be fubar-ed as per Cruel Seas, and the rule book will be riddled with errors.
-
Does Warlord have a habbit of doing that then?
-
A few more details today as Warlord have started doing updates for each faction on the Erehwon FB page...
Ok we will reveal a little detail about each faction, one per day.
So, today, the Barbarians !!!
Barbarian warriors are the basic unit and come in groups of 5 to 10.
Their weapons are swords or axes, but they have the option to trade for spears or two-handed weapons.
They also have light armor that can be upgraded to medium armor, but what really sets them apart is access to the special "Savage" rule.
Savage is the special rule that defines this army well and allows re-rolls during the first round of combat.
Someone asked about unit options and got this response...
I can tell you that there's mounted barbarians on horses, a mammoth with a crew, chariots, and a few different units on foot.
Nothing massive to go on but hopefully more reveals will highlight more info.
-
Beastmen today...
Today it will be the beastmen!
Naturally robust and violent, the beastmen are predisposed to melee.
Their basic unit, the Beastmen Warriors, is an excellent example with their resistance of 6 and a sword or axe. They can be equipped with light armor and the following weapons; big axe, halberd or long spear. Plus, they can add the savage rule for a little more carnage.
In the choices of units you will find; Beastmen with a variety of equipment, chariots, minotaurs, centaurs, harpies and beast hounds.
I'm hoping they show off some sample warbands soon.
-
So, today, the Barbarians !!! ...................... what really sets them apart is access to the special "Savage" rule........
Today it will be the beastmen!........ they can add the savage rule for a little more carnage......
???
-
I wonder how much special rules will factor in. Special rules and IGOUGO are the two things that have kept me from GW games. I don't mind special rules and attributes chosen from a list, but rules written for armies, groups, or figures turn me off.
So maybe Savage is a trait in a list, and those armies can both use it? That might be OK for me. (Doesn't address the issue of the rule setting on army apart, and then the next one using it, too.)
andy
-
It does feel a bit half-hearted at the moment...
Feels like more of a Dragon Rampant style project (rules only, no attached setting or minis) than a new franchise.
-
???
Hmm...hadn't noticed that...maybe they meant the barbarians stand out from the other humans cos of the rule...?
It does feel a bit half-hearted at the moment...
Feels like more of a Dragon Rampant style project (rules only, no attached setting or minis) than a new franchise.
From what Warlord have said it isn't a new franchise; apart from the old WGF minis they aren't planning on doing any for the game.
No idea if there will be a setting in the book.
The idea is its a ruleset for fantasy warband skirmishes and players provide their own setting and background.
-
???
It looks as if Savage can be purchased for the models. They don’t come with it
-
The idea is its a ruleset for fantasy warband skirmishes and players provide their own setting and background.
Fair enough, that's actually more interesting to me anyhow, I must have misinterpreted the marketing they've been doing!
-
:D That's the impression I got anyway...I could be wrong though...:D
-
All seems a bit underwhelming, like a half-hearted attempt to re-do Warhammer Fantasy but as a skirmish game, as these are more popular than mass battle games these days...
The use of 'not-warhammer' races and unit types (beastmen with minotaurs, chariots and centaurs.....), along with what I consider pointless weapon categorisations (swords, axes..... the ever-present halberd......) is a bit of a turn off.
But then again, if the rules work nicely, can't really complain!
-
All seems a bit underwhelming, like a half-hearted attempt to re-do Warhammer Fantasy but as a skirmish game, as these are more popular than mass battle games these days...
The use of 'not-warhammer' races and unit types (beastmen with minotaurs, chariots and centaurs.....), along with what I consider pointless weapon categorisations (swords, axes..... the ever-present halberd......) is a bit of a turn off.
But then again, if the rules work nicely, can't really complain!
That’s exactly what I like about it. Mordheim for small actions, Warlords for mid range games and WFB for full battle line.
-
While I used to enjoy WFB, the game sizes just got bigger and bigger, too big for my tastes. I remember years ago wishing there was a version of the game with the loose formations and smaller scale of then 40k. A bit late but it does sound like my wish may be granted :D
Two updates today, Dwarfs...
So... the Dwarves!
Typical of modern folklore, they are robust, solid, disciplined and bearded. The typical Dwarf Warrior surpasses even the elite troops of some less fortunate faction. With axes and medium armor as standard equipment, they already offer a solid infantry and with the option of giving them spears, halberds, big axe or even really big axe, it is not the options that are missing. However, what will really make your opponent cry is the addition of heavy armor to your basic infantry.
Add to all that 6 CHOICES of artillery pieces to the best equipped race in technology and you have a strong bearded band. The redheads have not been forgotten ...
There's a unit equiped with handguns
...& Elves...
Well, since it's Friday, I give you a little gift and I give you 2 for the price (free 😁) of 1.
And what better than to accompany the dwarves with their greatest friends ... the elves!
Of course, they are outstanding archers and the quality of their equipment exceeds the norm, but what distinguishes them the most is their incredible arogance that allows them to automatically succeed their first Breaktest.
Elven warriors are clearly fragile, but when equipped with spear, they remain a considerable threat especially supported by archers.
They also have rangers, a mighty cavalry, giant eagles, chariots and two war machines that take advantage of their increased accuracy.
Not a savage rule in sight ;)
There was also a couple of interesting little exchanges...
What about tattoed weirdos who flip around and have cool hair?...Well, I must admit that the list inspire a more a diciplined army, but that is more a question of perception. They don't have something that precise at the moment. Rick Preistley wrote these list with a lot of liberty for the players, so you should feel free to use any list you like and represent it with the models you like.
C'mon I need knightly order! I need an idea of what to buy!... Ok well I will give you a quick idea here
You have a lord, a champion, a court wizard, a priest, units of knights and peasants and a stone thrower. Their more detailed post is comming in 3 or 4 days.
Oooh, can you spill a bit of beans on spears, will there be a movement order to form ranks to get more attacks in?... Nope, spears can be thrown during the close up of hand to hand combat. They also have a Strike Value of 1.
-
Oh great, a strike value of one. That's... good? Is it good?
This feels very mishandled as a release campaign. :?
-
Sounds like an alternative game to Dragon Rampant - one of the rüdeste to bind all games like the one ring. Smaller armies, but no skirmish sounds realistic. I wished a 1000 piece dwarf or Khemri-army could be mine, but I do not have enough time and other figures... so, wait for Lord Ricks new idea, I saw pictures nearly a year ago testing this rules.
-
Now the Gnolls...
The Gnolls ...
They are stout brutes, but that everyone knew.
The base gnoll warrior has a resistance of 7, the equivalent of a human with medium armor!
Their impressive physique allows them to offer strong troops without equipment, which is a good thing because they do not have much. Warriors have only light armor as their only option.
They have robust mages with the same resistance of 7 and an interesting array of units such as scouts and trackers, but have no cavalry. However, do not imagine that they will be slow on the battlefield because they still have 2 units with rapid sprint and a chariot. Their real weakness lies in their poor long-range ability.
Another snippet of info...
I'm starting to wonder, how much lore and fluff is there for Erewhon? Does the rulebook tell the history of the world, does it give descriptions of the races and factions, or list the alliances/enemies between all of them? I know this game is meant to be friendly to interpretation and player input, but all the armies so far have some pretty nice character to them. I'm fascinated. ...You should be, it is totally open, each race is designed for what we would generally see of them, but beyond that... everything depends on you.
-
Goblins this evening...
Goblins now!
These nice little faries with the perfumes of sweet flowers and refined intelect.
They have one of the cheapest leaders, probably due to all the qualities mentioned above.
The Goblin Warrior is not very impressive and not very well equipped, however you will be very impressed by the amount of friends he has brought with him. It's easy when they smell like nice flowers.
They have goblins Whirling dervishes, I'll let you guess what it is, cavalry on wolf's back, carts pulled by wolves, a unit of swarms, trolls and 2 war machines. That's not all there is, but I can't give it all in one go ;)
Have asked if Orcs and Goblins can ally...I assume they can...
-
So Orcs & Goblins...
...alliance is more a matter of setting, which is not included in the book.
Basically then, as long as the setting says its ok, go for it!
Halflings today...
The Halflings, Rick cooked us a nice list.
They are excellent cooks, but not really fighters.
However, if you ransacked one of their garden, you will have to deal with the whole village.
The halflings are all excellent shooter and they all have access to shooting weapons. However, melee capacity is very lacking and they have very little solution for that.
Do not underestimate them, because you will be riddled with arrows before having the opportunity to split their skulls.
They have access to a "chariot", the least expensive wizard, slightly equipped "troops", a poorly equipped militia, fearsome archers, motivated children, a "mounted" unit and two war machines.
If you play Halfling, you will dominate the enemy in numbers and stealth.
-
...Knights now...
The Knights
The typical medieval army!
Knights, peasants and religious fanatics.
If you want to command a great cavalry of noble knights, this is for you!
If you want to lead a hordes of peasants galvanized in battle by a priest, this is also for you.
You have all; the valiant knights in heavy armor on horseback or on foot, men-at-arms, archers, crossbowmen, flagellants and even peasants!
This list contains 16 entries in total, you can even use it to represent a mercenary force.
-
The Halflings, Rick cooked us a nice list.
They are excellent cooks, but not really fighters.
However, if you ransacked one of their garden, you will have to deal with the whole village.
The halflings are all excellent shooter and they all have access to shooting weapons. However, melee capacity is very lacking and they have very little solution for that.
Do not underestimate them, because you will be riddled with arrows before having the opportunity to split their skulls.
They have access to a "chariot", the least expensive wizard, slightly equipped "troops", a poorly equipped militia, fearsome archers, motivated children, a "mounted" unit and two war machines.
If you play Halfling, you will dominate the enemy in numbers and stealth.
Who is writing these? And how do they get posted with so many errors?
-
:D Yeah I know what you mean...I have been resisting the urger to correct them. I just hope its not the same person who proof-read the book...
-
Who is writing these? And how do they get posted with so many errors?
:D Yeah I know what you mean...I have been resisting the urger to correct them. I just hope its not the same person who proof-read the book...
Maybe the same person who proofread Project Z?
-
...was that bad to then?
It is a shame how often simple mistakes get missed in rulebooks, how often proof-reading is ignored or only given the slightest consideration.
-
It’s just someone on the fan page posting on Facebook. RP chips in with some follow up comments. I highly doubt it’s one of the design team, just an office junior.
-
lol, I just clicked to the name Erehwon - nowherE
Sounds like that are trying to make it really generic then.
-
Spotted another little snippet, this time on warband building...
One leader is necessary no more no less. There's a few units that you can take only once in your force (like the wizards and some elite) the rest is up to you.
Sounds pretty flexible which is cool.
-
I figured the person posting the Facebook snippets is not a native English speaker, by the grammar used. I expect (and hope!) the book will be properly proofed.
-
War10rd5 0f 3r3hw0n! - wargames rules for the internet generation.
Spelling aside it think its looking interesting and definitely worth picking up.
-
Here be the Olympians...
The Olympians
If you want to line up some hoplite regiments supported by chariots and lead by a great general, you have a good choice here. With this list, you will also have the opportunity to deploy Amazon archers, centaurs and harpies.
The hoplite is a comparatively ordinary warrior from the point of view of his statistics, and he hardly stands out with his medium armor and long spear.
What makes it a remarkable elite piece are the rules divine intervention and shield wall. One gives him an important defense against shooting and melee and the other gives him the ability to steal your opponent's order dice. These two rules combined make the hoplites incredibly strong and scary on the battlefield.
They do not have a siege engine like almost any other army, but it's nothing you cannot remedy by joining a monster to your forces.
The Crocodile Amazons would work really well for this.
Plus this snippet on monsters...
Sorry no medusa, only a cockatrice and a basilisk with the BALEFUL GLARE special rule.
-
I've also found out the following about Olympians
They don't get an cavalry :'( but they do get peltasts
-
Centaurs are cavalry...just use those rules for your cavalry minis or import a unit from another list.
-
Centaurs are cavalry...just use those rules for your cavalry minis or import a unit from another list.
a fair point
I was thinking of using Warlords ancient Assyrians for the Olympians
-
Sounds good. From what has been said so far I think it will be fairly easy to add to lists as long as your opponent is game. I'm tempted to use the rules for Celtos and in that game there are Dwarf sleds pulled by wolves and winged siren archers for the Orcs but I think they should be easy enough to do. I guess we will just have to wait till the book lands to know for sure.
-
Orcs tonight...
The Orcs!
These bloodthirsty brutes, are the typical example. High strength, reduced shooting accuracy and the option to add some special rules that add a layer to your charge. A unit of Orc warriors who charge is sure to leave a mark.
Even Orc archers can have the "Ferocious Charge" rule, that says a lot.
Their chariots drawn by wild boars are not fast, but hits like a ton of bricks.
If you want to be ferocious on the battlefield, it's the army for you.
In addition to warriors, uou will have at your disposal; trolls, archers, boar riders, chariotss and 2 wars machines.
-
Well the rules may be different but the armies are definitely GW "inspired" *ripoff*
-
Well the rules may be different but the armies are definitely GW "inspired" *ripoff*
::)
-
...but then Rick wrote WH Fantasy so can he rip-off himself?
-
Bahaha. True. Doesn't own the ip of WFB though. Guess I'm just sick of boar mounted orcs. Why not sabre tooth tigers or mammoths?
-
Well apart from the old WGF plastics Warlord have said they won't do a mini range to support the book so I guess they had to go with what is out already and pretty common. No reason why you couldn't tweak the rules though to fit what you want.
-
Mantic more or less copied GW, Scibor and others have made alternate models for GW armies for years so there are probably a lot of people out there with GW style fantasy armies.
From a financial point of view a ruleset that caters to all these people will be likely to sell.
The other route is to go more abstract, either like Dragon Rampant with no lists but generic unit types that you can customize with special rules or Saga: Age of Fantasy with will (according to the back cover of the book) generic lists based on cultures or stereotypes.
I want the skeletons so I might pick up the rulebook too, to see if its any good.
-
No reason why you couldn't tweak the rules though to fit what you want.
I think the idea is more to tweak the models and not the rules, a bit like HOTT where a Horde can be a group of goblins or a group of zombies or whatever you feel it fits in the description
so, if the rules says you have orcs on boars, why not use minis with wolfs or sabretooth tigers instead of it?
In the past I've made a high elf army using japanese monks and an undead army using chinese foot soldiers painted as terracota statues... and went to WH tournaments with them
it's fantasy just play with want you want...
-
Yep, that works too. Personally though I'd prefer to tweak the rules a little to fit the minis bt each to their own.
-
I am curious what I'd use for my orcs/goblins. They are LotR Moria goblins and Uruk Hai scouts, and won't fit quite into goblins (if rules are too silly) or in orcs (because not big brutes). Barbarians?
While there will be a few armies to choose from, it does feel like you'll have to choose one of their armies with special rules. If they build balance into the game by having different army special rules and giving armies access to some things and not others, it may not work well to pick the units closest to your image of a particular collection of figures.
I already have Age of Fantasy from One Page Rules, and there is a point system (available from Patreon support), so I can get what I want. But I'll want to take a look at these. As much as I want a game to represent my figures well, what makes a game fun are the systems for story, friction, and uncertainty. A counter pull (these happen to be dice) is one way to do that.
andy
-
I am curious what I'd use for my orcs/goblins. They are LotR Moria goblins and Uruk Hai scouts, and won't fit quite into goblins (if rules are too silly) or in orcs (because not big brutes). Barbarians?
Would the game be able support something as simple as 'doubling up' with the Moria goblins? ie. use them as Orcs, but simply provide 2 Goblin models per Orc in your army list. You could then just count 2 models as providing 1 attack, remove 2 models for 1 casualty, etc..
-
I am curious what I'd use for my orcs/goblins. They are LotR Moria goblins and Uruk Hai scouts, and won't fit quite into goblins (if rules are too silly) or in orcs (because not big brutes). Barbarians?
This game's being marketed with the old Wargames Factory orcs, no? Those scale pretty well with the GW LotR orcs (though not with any boar-riding models I can think of, which is odd too).
-
Now the Restless Dead...
The cheapest commander is the necromancer, but he is still more expensive than most commanders of other armies. His cost is mainly due to the fact that he is a wizard in addition to being a commander. He may therefore have a retenu of guards and evil spirits. You also have the opportunity to take a lich that is even more powerful than the necromancer and even a specter, who is as much a melee monster as a powerful wizard.
All units have access to the spectral undead rule that allows you to really change the theme of your army and their capacity to manoeuvre on the field.
The undead have access to warriors, archers, chariots, light cavalry, heavy cavalry and wights, all skeletal. In addition, they have zombies, 2 war machines and a very fast flying beast.
Finally, the commanders, have access to some spells that are not for all, but that's for another time.
On the Erehwon FB page there is a WIP pic of a 400pt Olympian demo warband, though apparently 1000pts is a standard game.
-
Took me a while to work out 'retenu'.
-
Bahaha. True. Doesn't own the ip of WFB though. Guess I'm just sick of boar mounted orcs. Why not sabre tooth tigers or mammoths?
Because we’ve all got five hundred quid’s worth of Warhammer armies in our cupboards which include boar mounted Orcs. I have fifteen. Nice to use them...
I’ve pre-ordered these rules. Hope they take off.
-
Just posting to get all the input. :)
-
Because we’ve all got five hundred quid’s worth of Warhammer armies
about 2 units then ;)
-
Took me a while to work out 'retenu'.
The format of these previews drives me crazy.
-
The format of these previews drives me crazy.
I know! Its almost as if English wasn't their first language ;)
-
I hope they start giving out a few more details about how the game actually works
-
This game's being marketed with the old Wargames Factory orcs, no? Those scale pretty well with the GW LotR orcs (though not with any boar-riding models I can think of, which is odd too).
But the description of the orcs are the massive ferocious brutes. Someone else suggested doubling up. I'd have to look to see whether it gave the right feel.
The game I've been playing (Age of Fantasy, one page rules) has alternating activations. I could get some of the uncertainty that the Warlord games offer by drawing chips instead of alternating.
andy
-
I know! Its almost as if English wasn't their first language ;)
Are these posts an official Warlord thing or a fan?
-
I assume they are being done by someone who works at Warlord. They are going up on the Warlords of Erehwon FB page.
-
I assume they are being done by someone who works at Warlord. They are going up on the Warlords of Erehwon FB page.
None of the Erewhon pages say they are official so I didn’t want to assume. If that is the case then it’s inexcusable.
-
Aye, I wouldn't be happy if it was my company. It's not the end of the world though and as long as its not indicative of the book I will be happy.
It does leave me wondering if Warlord are underestimating the appeal of the book and so not committing many resources to its release. The lack of Order Dice in the full starter set seems odd...I assume they think the book will only appeal to those players who already have them and play Bolt Action and / or Antares.
-
The lack of Order Dice in the full starter set seems odd...I assume they think the book will only appeal to those players who already have them and play Bolt Action and / or Antares.
I wonder if its because the BA/ Antares say Ambush, Advance, Rally etc. on them
Maybe the actions have been renamed to be sound a bit more old fashioned
the starter comes with 20 d10 in 2 different colours so assuming you have 5 units aside you can put 5 black dice and 5 white dice in a cup/bag and still have 10 left to play the game with
I'm just guessing her, it could just be like you said that its a quick cash grab and they don't think it will have a wide appeal
-
Nah those terms are old and I think they'd be unlikely to do Order Dice specific to a game that they aren't going to release many minis for.
For my part it sounds like the kinda Fantasy game I've been waiting for as I drifted away from rank'n file games with 5th or 6th edition WFB. With the success of SAGA in recent years I can definitely see these rules appealing, though perhaps more so if they had come with a range of minis.
-
Nah those terms are old and I think they'd be unlikely to do Order Dice specific to a game that they aren't going to release many minis for.
I agree. I suspect it is just going to be D10s in a bag with different colours for each side
-
While I haven't played any of Warlord's dice-draw games, I don't see why you'd draw dice at all if they weren't going to use them to show what you did with a unit. For years I've drawn counters and used the counters to mark units that have been activated. (We used to do that in Shock Force / WarEngine.)
I bet they are going to use order dice (seems intrinsic to the games), and might as well use them to draw. But if they didn't, I'd imagine you'd just draw counters.
andy
-
Rick has already said the game uses the Order Dice mechanic.
If I remember correctly from Antares both players put an Order Dice of their colour in the bag for each unit. Players take it in turns to choose a dice, the player who owns the dice then gets to activate a unit and leaves the dice next to the unit to denote what they did. This carries on till all units have been activated.
You could easily do all that with counters of course but the dice make it a bit easier.
-
Yeah, I just mentioned counters because someone suggested you might draw d10s. I think if you didn't need orders dice, you would draw counters instead of dice. But I expect dice.
andy
-
Some info on movement...
The movement is very similar to Gates of Antares, but I do not teach you anything there. Where it gets a little different it's the effect of some special rules such as Fast, Slow and several other rules that prevents sprints or reduce its efficiency. We also have rules such as zombie that have some limiting applications on the unit's displacement and spectral undead that completely ignores difficult terrain and obstacles.
However, what is out of the ordinary is the rule that allows units to fly. These units are incredibly powerful thanks to this rule and cost a lot of points even for a simple harpy. One reason is that you can not charge a flying unit if your unit does not fly to. There is still a lot to say, but I can not sell everything before the book is released.
Apparently they are gunna continue to reveal snippets up to the books release on 26th.
-
Combat..
We are 14 days from the fateful date!
And today I'm talking about the hand to hand which is split in two stages.
During the charge there is the missile exchange which represents the troop that uses shooting weapons at the approach of the enemy, followed by hand-to-hand combat itself.
If you know Gates of Antares, there is no secret for you.
What will have the most impact is obviously the weapons, some can serve in both phases, some can serve in the exchange of missiles only if you are charged by your enemy and I would like to mention that all the weapons will adapt better to some strategies than others, but none is inferior.
It is possible to have a "second round" of close combat, but at that moment there is no more missile exchange.
The loser of the fight will then have to carry out a morale test to avoid being routed.
A beautiful mechanic of the game, allows a unit to make a rally order to try and rally friendly routed units nearby.
In conclusion, melee is an effective and simple mechanic, but you will have a lot of decision and subtlety so that each melee will be crucial.
-
On the Erehwon FB page they have shown off an actual page from the rulebook...
https://www.facebook.com/WarlordsofErehwon/photos/a.1115386791952502/1146910592133455/?type=3&theater
..looks good to me.
-
Would it be asking too much to hope for the re-release of the WFG Amazons (even at double the original price...) while they're at it?
-
I'm partial to the Crocodile Games Amazons meself.
-
Monster, monster!
12 days before the big day! Let's talk about monsters.
There is a bit of everything, the book is very large with almost 250 pages and unfortunately, Rick Priestley said himself that there was not enough space to put everything he wanted .
So I can tell you that Rick is already planning 3 more armies and if we all get together to make Warlords of Erehwon a great success, we will certainly get a lot more!
As far as monsters are concerned, I must first of all tell you that most of them have 3 distinct costs depending on their loyalty to your Warband. There is the cheapest that is "Wild", you can lose control during the game. There are also monsters who are "Bond", they have the opportunity to abandon you during the battle if you are unlucky. Finally, there are the monsters who are "allies", you will pay more, but they will be more reliable. That said, they are not trained troops and monsters never take advantage of the command abilities of your heroes and commanders.
In the list you will find the most expensive creature of the game, the dragon, allied for 440 points, a truly monstrous beast with a resistance of 15.
You will also find an WILD ogre for only 28 points.
There's also; BASILISK, COCKATRICE, CHIMERA, CYCLOPS, GHOULS, GIANT, GIANT RATS, GIANT SCORPIONS, GIANT SPIDERS, GIGANTIC SPIDERS, GOLEM, GRIFFIN, HIPPOGRIFF, HYDRA, MANTICORE, SWARMS, WYVERN, GIANT TREEMAN. TREEMAN/DRYADS, TROLLS, CAVE BEAR, BRONTOSAUR, TYRANNOSAUR and HORNED DINOSAURE.
The 3 ways of hiring monsters sounds interesting.
It also sounds like monsters can serve as a mount for a character.
-
No Jabberwock, no comment.
-
I'm partial to the Crocodile Games Amazons meself.
They are pretty for sure. Thx for the tip.
-
Right. I think I'm sold on this.
-
Apparently Rick has written 3 other army lists; Ratmen, Lizard/Frog Men & another (the poster couldn't remember the 3rd one).
-
11 days ...
Today, I'm talking about orders. You have the same 6 orders that you will find on all the dice of this type at Warlord Games.
Advance, which allows you to move 1x of your standard movement and make use of a shooting weapon.
Run, which allows you to move 2x your standard move. You can also sprint with this order, but you must pass an agility test or have a pin. It is under this order that the charge is possible.
Fire, which allows you to make use of your shooting weapons with a bonus for the time your troops spend aiming.
Rally, which allows your troops to reorganize themselves by decreasing the number of pin that afflicts them.
Down, for those who want to enjoy a little longer their cover.
Ambush, which allows you, if you pass an initiative test, to interrupt your opponent and react to what he was trying to do. You can choose any action for your reacting units. Yes you can have a fight where both sides have charged.
This is where models with the Hero special rule come into play by sharing their high initiative value..
-
Fairly standard, as expected
-
Combat..
Interesting as in Antares, the close combat is very random if you don't have lots of odds stacked (pins, better weapons etc.), in which case it's very much like mopping up of those battered units. It also almost always ends to complete destruction of the losing side in a single turn, which can be pretty annoying when you have two evenly matched full strength units battling against each other, as it often results to a coinflip of which of them is destroyed. Interesting to see how it works in a game that has close combat focus instead of shooting focus (or at least should have). I have a bad feeling that it will cause some issues.
On the other hand I like Gates of Antares as a game very much, so I'm sure I'll get the rules anyways and play them. I have a good collection of generic fantasy armies, so it's fun to have a variation of rules to choose from. Though I have a feeling, that Fantasy Saga will be the number one set released this year.
-
Not convinced about the "down" action in a melee oriented system. In a firearm system, sure, keep your head down and stay in cover, but this sounds a bit like matching the rules to the dice instead of redesigning better suited dice faces. It might become a "shieldwall" or "close ranks" type action, which makes more sense. ???
-
10 days...
Magic
Yes ... Magic!
ALL warbands have access to a wizard and you can only field one. They are powerful characters thanks to their magic, but they are still mortals and that is why they are often accompanied by a group of apprentices and also other creatures such as spirits, devils, fairies, nymphs and other to protect them.
Each mage knows 1 spell (free in points) and can acquire as much as he wishes for a point cost.
Casting the spell is relatively simple and you can do it at the conclusion of any action that the mage and his unit undertake, however, the mage must not make use of a shooting weapon, be down or charge.
There is a risk that the spell goes wrong and there is a table indicating what happens. Yes your magician could turn into a useless and invulnerable frog for a turn or two.
Spells all have a significant effect on the battle and your wizard's level boost this effect, even those who seem more ordinary should not be ignored.
Fiery Balls, the easiest spell, (yes I know, it must be uncomfortable) throws a few flaming projectiles, you can well imagine that the trolls are not very fan, but moreover the ignited attacks inflicts 2 pins instead of one and that is rather rare.
There are 14 spells for the moment, two of them are restricted to necromancers and undead wizards (yes you can bring back troops in a LIMITED way, because at the scale of the game it could be catastrophic otherwise.).
There are also some magic weapons to equip your heroes and commanders, but the real magical power really lies in your wizard.
Also, note that the wizard is the only one who can protect you from your opponent's evil spells.
Spell back-firing and turning a wizard into an invulnerable frog...yes please! :D
-
Again all sounds pretty much as expected, which is a good thing. I'm going necromancy, so some interesting info for that side of things.
-
Warlord have just announced they'll be stocking all the Frostgrave and Oathmark plastics to make it easier to start a Erehwon force.
-
That move makes sense. I'm currently building an Elven warband from the Oathmark plastics, you can quite a good solid force from one box though I suspect for a full warband you'd need 2 boxes plus.
-
8 Days before the release!
Let's talk about the characters.
You have the Warlord, the leader of your warband who is a remarkable fighter and who brings the "Command" rule and often the "Follow" rule. They are often accompanied by bodyguards. Only the undead have a leader who can cast spells.
The wizard brings magical abilities and can be accompanied by apprentices and creatures to enhance his abilities. You can also increase his magic level to make his spells more potent. The undead have no wizard, their role is filled by the warlord.
The hero is always alone and frequently has the rule "Hero" which grants his high value in initiative to the units around him. Heroes are still very capable fighters and are often even stronger than the warlord.
Some faction can mount the hero in a chariot and it becomes a really terrible piece for your opponent.
These three characters are the only sources for the three skills "Follow, Command and Hero". In addition, these are the only three models that can be equipped with a magic weapon.
Do not underestimate these three models, because good management of your commander will be decisive in most battles and the presence of a hero could allow your force to seize ambush opportunities.
Finally, do not deprive yourself of a wizard, because the magic is powerful and he will protect your troops against it.
-
Today we are 7 days before D DAY!
I will tell you a little bit about scenery.
We have covered a lot of topics until today and now it's time to talk a bit about battlegrounds and how they affect the fighting.
First, we have the terrain areas.
They are best represented when using a base to outline their borders and some removable elements that will not interfere with the placement of your troops while keeping an interesting and immersive visual appearance for your games.
From a mechanical point of view, assigning the hits to each model individually avoids any dispute about the unit being in cover or not. Those who touch it have a bonus and others do not.
It's always a good idea to define the terrain effect with your opponent before starting the game, but the book contains a nice set of examples.
The FB page shows off some photo examples.
-
So Warlord confirmed today that the page on FB is a fan page.
Why they would be releasing preview material to be reposted in such a sloppy fashion is beyond me but the lack of any official previews makes me think that Warlord are holding their nose and releasing this.
Saga Fantasy is coming out and I think I will be saving my money for those rules
-
"Saga Fantasy is coming out and I think I will be saving my money for those rules"
I think those won't be that good, either.
And I don't say that because of my project (see my signature) but because all the Battleboards released to this point for the second edition are a bit... dull.
And when saying "a bit" I mean "very".
I don't know, they seem to be playing it too safe... probably because of fears they can't get the balancing right if they don't... but all those new boards are missing the flavor the first edition boards had.
Those boards from the first edition were all soooo different, some of them altering the way the game worked...
each felt unique and like you had to make an effort to understand and learn to use them
but the new boards are all like:
"get 3 defence dice"
"get 3 attack dice"
"get a + 1 bonus on your rolls"
"enemy gets - 1 on his rolls"
Seriously, where's the creativity in them?! And the challenge?!
It is one of the main reasons I dislike the second edition and keep playing the first.
(the other reasons are the changes to the movement - why, why oh god, would you do that to a SKIRMISH game?!
and the changes that buffed Levies and made Warriors worse... feels like there's no longer enough distinction between those troop types)
-
So Warlord confirmed today that the page on FB is a fan page.
Why they would be releasing preview material to be reposted in such a sloppy fashion is beyond me but the lack of any official previews makes me think that Warlord are holding their nose and releasing this.
Saga Fantasy is coming out and I think I will be saving my money for those rules
Ahh...that kinds makes sense how the errors snuck through then. From the comments I had guessed it was the playtesters posting.
That is a bit of an odd choice for Warlord and if makes me think even more that they don't see this as taking off...more of a pandering to Rick and the Fantasy-interested Antares-Bolt Action players. I'd liked to be proved wrong though.
SAGA holds no interest for me, I've tried a couple of times to get into it but the whole Battle Board mechanic is too gamey for my tastes.
-
"Saga Fantasy is coming out and I think I will be saving my money for those rules"
I think those won't be that good, either.
And I don't say that because of my project (see my signature) but because all the Battleboards released to this point for the second edition are a bit... dull.
And when saying "a bit" I mean "very".
I don't know, they seem to be playing it too safe... probably because of fears they can't get the balancing right if they don't... but all those new boards are missing the flavor the first edition boards had.
Those boards from the first edition were all soooo different, some of them altering the way the game worked...
each felt unique and like you had to make an effort to understand and learn to use them
but the new boards are all like:
"get 3 defence dice"
"get 3 attack dice"
"get a + 1 bonus on your rolls"
"enemy gets - 1 on his rolls"
Seriously, where's the creativity in them?! And the challenge?!
It is one of the main reasons I dislike the second edition and keep playing the first.
(the other reasons are the changes to the movement - why, why oh god, would you do that to a SKIRMISH game?!
and the changes that buffed Levies and made Warriors worse... feels like there's no longer enough distinction between those troop types)
They changed it to appease the Tournament crowd since Saga is heavily played at a Tournament level
Warlord have also put their 1000pt army boxes up on sale, theirs an undead and orc one each with a unique metal miniature. Theyve also got a 1000pt Barbarian collection made from their Hail Caesar range.
Heres the two new metal models in those army boxes, interestingly the Undead one is a ringer for Jack Gwillim as King Aeetes in Jason and the Argonauts.
-
All 3 army deals are just kinda cobbled together from what they have though with a single sculpt each for the Orc & Undead.
Part of me thinks its a shame they aren't doing a range of minis but part of me likes the idea.
Either way I have the Forgotten World plastics coming in May so I am gunna have a couple of warbands on top of my Oathmark Elves.
-
Warlord have just announced they'll be stocking all the Frostgrave and Oathmark plastics to make it easier to start a Erehwon force.
Well they are literally next door to each other in the same industrial estate in Lenton so shouldn't be difficult to arrange lol
-
Well they are literally next door to each other in the same industrial estate in Lenton so shouldn't be difficult to arrange lol
Shipping to and from must be a bugger
-
6 days ... 6 DAYS !!!!
The buildings!
This is the only terrain element that applies a penalty to the to hit roll of shooters and gives a bonus bonus to the resistance of troops that occupy it. If you have powerful enough weapons, you can fire at the building itself and damage it or even destroy it. There are also rules that cover the possibility of smashing barricaded doors and setting the buildings on fire .
If your building is high enough it can be declared as a high ground and allow you to see over the surrounding terrain. Note that high ground is not required to be a building, it is like everything else, you determine the various impacts of each element of scenery before the start of the game to avoids many surprises.
-
Today there's only 5 days left before the official date, but some pre-orders have begun to arrive!
We will talk about the 7 basic scenarios that are in the book.
1 Upon the field of battle
Classic, we settle one face to the other and we kick each others most tender parts.
2 A bloody encounter
The classic, but with the addition of the possibility of bringing some of your forces by the flanks.
3 An unexpected encounter
One of the two armies must cross while the other must prevent it. Simple?
4 The watchtower
There is one who occupies the tower and the other who does not agree. It is a good scenario to try the high ground rule and rules about buildings.
5 Pillage the village
One player must burn or loot it and the other must defend it. This scenario is really fun for pyromaniacs.
6 The sacred relic
This is another classic, but it offers a different approach to the positioning of the table and I promise you that the game will not run as you wish.
7 The rogue beast
The last scenario of the book. Yes there is a wild beast on the table and both forces want his heart. So you will have to deal with a monster that thinks you are lunch and an opponent who may also thinks you are lunch.
Most of the scenarios have a variable limited duration and classic victory conditions, but a little more elaborate. That said, they provide an excellent base and offer a lot of inspiration for designing dozens additionnal scenarios.
-
I cannot find anything official about this game on the actual Warlord Games website. Five days to go and we have had a fairly bland press release. Am I missing something, is there a video/article/interview with the guys somewhere? You would think they would get something a bit more polished out, this fan stuff is enthusiastic but it's kinda offputting too. Maybe that's just me.
-
Yeah its is very odd. I would have thought they would get Rick to do an interview or something. I much prefer that the fan page on FB is releasing some info than to not hear anything at all. There is an old interview with Rick, search youtube for Fantares, that looks like it was done at a convention or something.
I can only assume this is, in Warlords eyes, a very minor release with only the two plastic sets (just because they had them anyway). I think they reakon only existing Bolt Action & Antares players will buy in.
-
I can only assume this is, in Warlords eyes, a very minor release with only the two plastic sets (just because they had them anyway). I think they reakon only existing Bolt Action & Antares players will buy in.
Well they may be missing a huge opportunity here. There's a gap in the market for fantasy games that appeal to the old WHFB crowd. Some have got on board with AOS, but many are still looking for a system. I can't help thinking of Wargames Foundry God of Battles - book released then fade to oblivion within a couple of years. Mind you, maybe they still think that gamers will think for themselves and do their own thing - some will of course, but I always get the impression that the majority prefer to be handheld. If they released a few preview pages and maybe sketched out ideas for how they will support it in future, many more people would sign up. At the moment it comes across as very half hearted and is not boding well for future commitment. To me, YMMV.
-
There is a gap, but I feel that the gap is pretty small. At least as actual business goes. We are talking about a margin of a margin in a pretty marginal hobby overall and there is also already a lot of competition in that margin of a margin.
I would say that Age of Sigmar and rerelease of Midle Earth SBG take already a major chunk of potential players (the Fantasy margin of the overall hobby). Then the Kings of War and 9th age are the biggest players in the "old whfb" group. After those there are Saga, Oathmark and such on the next step and a lot of small simple universal rulesets like Dragon rampant, Mayhem, Havoc, etc.) and more importantly a lot of models out there already and more under kickstarters. I would presume that the model sales are the part that brings the income, but also the fixed costs are high on that side bringing a big risk. I would say that it has some indication on the amount of potential sales that GW is still selling some of their fantasy models with square bases, i.e. they still have boxes in storage from pre-AoS era unsold.
-
Well they may be missing a huge opportunity here. There's a gap in the market for fantasy games that appeal to the old WHFB crowd. Some have got on board with AOS, but many are still looking for a system. I can't help thinking of Wargames Foundry God of Battles - book released then fade to oblivion within a couple of years. Mind you, maybe they still think that gamers will think for themselves and do their own thing - some will of course, but I always get the impression that the majority prefer to be handheld. If they released a few preview pages and maybe sketched out ideas for how they will support it in future, many more people would sign up. At the moment it comes across as very half hearted and is not boding well for future commitment. To me, YMMV.
I know what you mean.
Personally I don't see it as a gap specifically for old WHFB players but rather the size of the game, as most are either skirmish or big battles. I much prefer the size of game that WoE is aimed at; I don't have loads of dispensable income, the time or indeed the inclination to build a massive army. I'd much rather build a warband size force and then if I like the game build more forces of a similar size and maybe a few extra options.
Given that Warlord was started by ex-GW people I am a little surprised that they aren't doing a range of minis to go with it...though I can understand why not. The range of fantasy plastics is growing so maybe they feel the market is flooding. In some ways though I'm not too bothered as their minis don't quite work for me.
-
Given that Warlord was started by ex-GW people I am a little surprised that they aren't doing a range of minis to go with it...though I can understand why not. The range of fantasy plastics is growing so maybe they feel the market is flooding. In some ways though I'm not too bothered as their minis don't quite work for me.
There seems to be a certain flood. In addition to GW's offering of two ranges (AoS/WHFB and MESBG) there are at least Avatars of War, Oathmark, Fireforge, Mantic, Alternative armies and those old kits that Warlord are selling, plus a lot of historical ranges for human armies. Then on top of that, all of the metal, resin and Reaper Bones. This quote from the 9th age board sums it quite well:
In the Miniatures Tab there are currently all sixteen factions clearly listed. I counted each faction's listings and roughly, give or take ten or so listings either way, there are about 200-300 individual mini. company links for unit listings for each faction, for a grand total of about 3,200-4,800+ total mini. company links. They cover practically every unit, monster, and character in the game. The devs. of this game have models COVERED and COVERED WELL.
-
Aye and Fireforge have got their Forgotten World Fantasy plastics coming in May and they are going to be releasing other factions (beyond the Northern humans & Undead of the KS) including heavily armoured humans, dwarves, orcs and elves.
As long as I like WoE I should be able to build a couple of forces for the game from my Forgotten World KS pledge.
-
I also pre-ordered WoE and I have a project ongoing for an Elven army that I'll build so that it can be used for Dragon rampart, Saga, WoE and maybe even AoS and with regiment trays, also for rank and file games that don't care about individual models.
In addition to that I already have fantasy humans and Undead already for use in similar fashion and I also participated in the Fireforge KS for the latter.
I have to say, that this is a good time for a fantasy gamer.
-
Good times indeed.
I meant in my post that Warlord are missing an opportunity to sell more copies of the book. I don't think they will develop a fantasy range, just try to flog some of the old wargames factory stuff. There is a surplus of fantasy models around, so not much point in competing there. The fact that they are stocking Oathmark figures reinforces this - they are just selling the book. So why not hype it a bit? Three videos with Rick explaining an overview, a brief rules summary, and maybe extracts from a battle. Ten to twenty minutes each, would take them a day tops to put together. Put that out on social media, sit back, orders flood in cos RP has that reputation. That's got to be a better approach than the current complete and utter silence, it's like they are trying to sneak it out with only the current customer base knowing about it. Reach out to a new customer base, not all fantasy wannabees will have bought Warlord stuff, there's new recruits just sitting around out there, oblivious to this book.
-
And if the marketing budget is tight ask Beast of War (or something similar) to do a battlereport, send a few copies out to bloggers for review etc.
It seems silly to rely on word of mouth with so much cheap/free access to social media.
-
Definitely odd. As you say Munindk...why not send out copies for review. I was surprised when the book went up for pre-order that I couldn't find any reviews or interviews on it...beyond an old Fantares interview.
I'm sure Beasts of War would lap it up.
-
Yeah, that is indeed very sloppy. Similar video like they had with the new edition of Black powder would have been great.
-
4 ...
I'm talking about tokens today.
Warlords of Erehwon is really well designed and can be played without the use of markers except for the "pins" of course.
However, the use of marker for some special rules and some uncommon effect will make the game more fluid and avoid many oversights.
So here are these rules:
Savage: This rule allows you to re-roll the missed hits the first time the unit fights in the game. It would therefore be convenient to use tokens that would be placed near the units with this rule and remove them as they use them.
Haughty disdain: The elves think themselves so superior that they do not accept defeats against a lower opponent. If you pay this skill to your units, they will automatically pass their first "break test" of the game. Again, a token next to the unit at the beginning of the game, which you withdraw once used, will avoid you oversights and confusion.
Divine Intervention: This rule allows a unit to steal the activation die of an enemy unit, but can only be used once per turn. Moreover, a unit that is the victim of this ability can not receive the order that was intended for it. A token that would be placed next to the victim would remind everyone that this unit can not receive the order that was intended for them and if the skill does not work, you could place the token next to the unit which tried to use it to remind you that she has already tried this turn.
Shieldwall: The mechanics of the game included placing all the models in base to base contact to indicate the use of this skill, but a token could make the thing visually clearer and especially prevent confusion in the situation where certain model would be moved by accident.
Spells: Many spells have a duration that is not instantaneous (until the end of the turn or until the magician moves). Having a marker to remind everyone that a spell is taking effect on the table right now will always be a good idea.
"Miscast": Several miscast have lasting effects such as the famous transformation into an invulnerable frog. A marker to remind this fact could avoid forgetting in what state your Prince Charming is.
Trolls and maybe more later: The trolls have a projectile attack that can become short of "ammo", a marker that you can removes when the unit can no longer make use of this skill would be a simple and effective way of keeping track of it.
Routing: When a unit fails a "Break Test" it becomes routed and must flee toward your table edge. Although it is very easy to know which unit is routed during a small game, remember that it is a very mobile game and that it will not be rare to observe units that turn back towards an enemy who threatens the back lines. A token indicating routed units could reduce confusion during larger games.
Finally The Wounds: Again, the game include in its mechanics a way to mark injuries by keeping a permanent "pin", but it is very easy to forget this fact during a rally that removes more "pins" than necessary and simply remove the pin marker forgetting that you must keep one or more.
There were some pics of unofficial tokens that one of the playtesters has done (and are selling) on the FB page.
Personally I'm not a fan of needing tokens and cluttering up the board; I guess that may be one reason why I prefer smaller games. Looking at these though I'm not sure any are really needed.
-
Noticed on one guys blog he had received the book already. Maybe we will get a proper review some time soon. As a non-warlord games player, though I have dabbled in bolt action style games, I am still unsure on this.
-
Hopefully.
Just did a quick search and found a demo game Battle Report...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYCvnpf8eXc
Not watched it yet though.
-
Had a quick skim, looks pretty good, straight forward gameplay but with plenty of crunch to make the factions unique. I like simpler rulesets, but dislike all factions being identical which is the feeling I get with Rampant. Looking forward to more reports on this now, it's gone up a point on my interestometer. :D
-
Finished the video this morning and I can say that it definitely looks good to me, have loads of ideas.
Just found another video, this time a bit from Rick on the game...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2XB8cBZKq0
-
Overdue, good start, hopefully they will put more out. If you are familiar with Antares and Bolt Action, you already know all this. But if you are a diehard fantasy player, wandering in the wilderness after the Olde World was destroyed, you might know absolutely nothing about those games. So an obvious follow up would be to briefly describe the mechanics. Handy for us old gamers too, trying to convince others to get into it. :D
-
It does seem a bit odd to put a video out advertising the pre-order just a few days before the books actual release...did someone forget to do it earlier?
-
believe it or not, it's only after watching the Priestley video that I get the 'Nowhere' thing ... ! I actually quite like that they've made that the title. Enough to encourage me to buy the rules, where I probably wasn't going to otherwise ... go ... figure ...
-
I just got a notification from Warlord games that my package has been shipped. So actually saw that video advertising the pre-order later than the actual pre-order, but oh well. It's starting to look good, the gameplay video was nice. Seems that there will be lots of abilities for ignoring pinning in combat for various effects and pretty many units seemed to have some sort of shooting attack as well (centaurs threw spears, harpies threw rocks, etc.) to put in those pins. I would believe there are some sort of intimidation skills for the factions with less shooting.
-
We saw a pre order at our club last night, lovely looking book and just might hit the spot, tried bolt action didn't enjoy it, antares but went nowhere (see what I did) at the club but think this will do the job nicely
-
Got mine two days ago, read it this morning.
Good: it's very much the same feel as WFB 2-4e lightly modernised with d10s and pinning etc, magic and magic weapons are in it enough to add colour without being combotastic or herohammered, and it's at the early 90's scale of a couple characters, a couple regiments and a war machine or monster (anyone who remembers the era of WD145 +/- 10 or so will get it). There's a ton of silliness (in a good way) written in and it'll surely play very well.
Bad: the force lists are a bit samey, not very deep or extensible (without homebrew of course), and a bit too stuck in the 70's for my liking. Three human factions (and the greekbthing just feels wierd sorry) but elves basically only means high elves, orcs and goblins are separate, and i don't get why gnolls aren't just beastmen but ratmen don't make it? Trollslayers and goblin fanatics exist, wardancers don't? For a book with no world framing it, I was expecting more flex. I was also dissappointed to see that the incredibly granular points and equipment systems of wfb are still here, which i personally would've rather left behind for warband scale games.
Ugly: the book itself. This really doesn't feel like a 30 quid product, with a hash of reused artwork from hail caesar(!), what looks like bad deviantart, and just really spartan layout and design. Compare with the frostgrave books or even just random Osprey books.
Overall, it looks like something i'll play and enjoy but only with homebrew lists, and if f-saga turns out to be solid you'll find this listed in the bazaar.
-
Only 2 days before the official release!
I've been through the book now (extremely concisely), but that does not mean I have nothing to say.
After trying some games, I can give you some advice on the composition of your armies and especially what to watch out for.
First, magic is really not something you should underestimate. Including a magician is not an obligation, but consider that the magician, even if he does nothing with his own magic, remains your only defense against well-used witchcraft. I've seen hoplite units decimated by the Chill Wind spell that ignores their armor and shieldwall ability.
Second, it's fast! Your infantry will have to fight with the enemy from turn 2 and some cavalry will sometimes have the opportunity to trample a victim in the first round!
Thirdly, it's a tactical game, if you go head-on everything will depend on the dice, but if you support your troops well and you orchestrate your maneuvers well, you will have much more success.
Fourth, no one is invincible, do not think that having a resistance of 10 on your chariot puts you in a safe position, be vigilant against the archers, a resistance test is a failure on a result of 10 even if you are a dragon with a natural resistance of 15.
That's the little generic advice, tomorrow I'm talking about army composition! 😃
-
Thanks for the mini review waitwhat 8)
Good: it's very much the same feel as WFB 2-4e lightly modernised with d10s and pinning etc, magic and magic weapons are in it enough to add colour without being combotastic or herohammered, and it's at the early 90's scale of a couple characters, a couple regiments and a war machine or monster (anyone who remembers the era of WD145 +/- 10 or so will get it). There's a ton of silliness (in a good way) written in and it'll surely play very well.
I am definitely loving the size of the warbands. I'm not completely sold on pinning (no idea how that works in this system) or on the Order Dice mechanic...while not strictly alternate activation it does kinda seem like play could be bitty with units working individually rather than being able to have units work together, say two units simultaneously charging the same enemy unit.
Bad: the force lists are a bit samey, not very deep or extensible (without homebrew of course), and a bit too stuck in the 70's for my liking. Three human factions (and the greekbthing just feels wierd sorry) but elves basically only means high elves, orcs and goblins are separate, and i don't get why gnolls aren't just beastmen but ratmen don't make it? Trollslayers and goblin fanatics exist, wardancers don't? For a book with no world framing it, I was expecting more flex. I was also dissappointed to see that the incredibly granular points and equipment systems of wfb are still here, which i personally would've rather left behind for warband scale games.
I'm sure I have heard that Rick is working on more lists (including ratmen) so maybe other Elves are in the future and I haven't owned a fantasy army in maybe 20 years so I'm not so bothered that some of the older lists aren't covered. From what I've gathered the gnolls have no cavalry and are individually faster than beastmen. I'm not sure what you mean by a granular points system.
Ugly: the book itself. This really doesn't feel like a 30 quid product, with a hash of reused artwork from hail caesar(!), what looks like bad deviantart, and just really spartan layout and design. Compare with the frostgrave books or even just random Osprey books.
This does sound like a shame... though such aesthetics can sometimes be subjective. How is the proof reading?
-
Proof reading certainly is better than the facebook teasers...
About granular points - compare saga or foo rampant which are basically pointing at a unit level in round denominations with goblin = 3 points +1 point shield +1 point spear x 15 + 12 pts for leader (no book in front of me so made up on the spot for illustration). Basically saying a unit works out to 293 points just feels incredibly arbitrary, old fashioned, and makes me question the rigour of the balancing. I haven't specced up armies yet though so maybe i'm wrong and ymmv.
I don't think it matters much if Rick is writing new force lists - for an open world, it just seems like the wrong approach. It will never cover everything or fit everyones visions.
One other ugly I forgot was it feels like a very naked transplant of GoA or bolt action or whatever and I'd really havd preferred a cleaner fantasy take even if it meant warlord had to commission new dice. Do fantasy units really get "pinned"? Do they go "down"? (Stop it)
-
Ugly: the book itself. This really doesn't feel like a 30 quid product, with a hash of reused artwork from hail caesar(!), what looks like bad deviantart, and just really spartan layout and design. Compare with the frostgrave books or even just random Osprey books.
might well give it a miss for this reason alone tbh, - at least will wait to get some more impressions from others I think.
-
Proof reading certainly is better than the facebook teasers...
About granular points - compare saga or foo rampant which are basically pointing at a unit level in round denominations with goblin = 3 points +1 point shield +1 point spear x 15 + 12 pts for leader (no book in front of me so made up on the spot for illustration). Basically saying a unit works out to 293 points just feels incredibly arbitrary, old fashioned, and makes me question the rigour of the balancing. I haven't specced up armies yet though so maybe i'm wrong and ymmv.
I don't think it matters much if Rick is writing new force lists - for an open world, it just seems like the wrong approach. It will never cover everything or fit everyones visions.
One other ugly I forgot was it feels like a very naked transplant of GoA or bolt action or whatever and I'd really havd preferred a cleaner fantasy take even if it meant warlord had to commission new dice. Do fantasy units really get "pinned"? Do they go "down"? (Stop it)
I'm glad the proof reading is better.
Ahh right I get you on the points...to my mind though points per unit would work better with larger scale games where units are more likely to be more unified whereas warbands are more likely to be irregular. Each to their own though.
From what Rick says in the video above this was written / adapted from Antares for him and his mates and while Warlord are releasing it they aren't supporting it with minis and dice (except what they already have) so I guess he had to work with an existing framework. No idea yet on how the different lists look or play...I will just have to wait till my copy arrives from Wayland.
-
As far as I have understood, Bolt action is played around here mostly without points (and it is played quite a lot), as the points are so off in many cases. I don't play BA myself, but I have noticed the same thing is very much true in Antares.
-
I also much prefer the more granular points system.
I have heard Rick is currently working on 3 more factions Ratman, Dark elves and something else
I think worst case if they will be free PDFS but hopefully we'll get a supplement at some point down the line
in the mean time I'll probably start making me own fan lists.... once I have the book that is
-
Agreed, pdfs are better than nought but a book would be cool.
I fancy adjusting the lists for the Celtos ranges as that game seems to be dead and I do love me some Celtic myth.
-
As a matter of interest, how exactly does the Down dice work? No sniggering at the back there.
-
I think you don't move but gain a bonus for being harder to hit. It kinda reminds me of Shape's Waterloo where unit of men would lie down to avoid being seen or make them harder to hit.
I don't have the book though so could well be wrong.
-
A down order is the fallback for a failed order, but can also be deliberately given. It removes a pin and risks being stuck on the order next turn. Haven't seen any other benefit to it yet!
Edit, after further reading:
Somebody mentioned coordinated actions - there's a "follow" attribute which lets units act en masse (to a limited degree).
Also in the could-you-not-just-have-changed-the-word-to-fit-the-setting category: "sprint".
Noticing a few typos now... and getting more irked by conspicuous omissions (unicorns? mounted wizards?)
There's some decent deviantart as well as crap :D
-
I'm in, just ordered my copy..
-
I've ordered a copy too. I haven't played Beyond the Gates of Antares but I enjoy Bolt Action and already own the order dice and a ruck of fantasy models so why not?
-
Had an email from Wayland to say my copy is on its way :D
Tomorrow!!!!!!!
To continue a little on my run of yesterday.
I strongly recommend not to deprive your force of the wizard in your army, but that nail has been amered many time.
Shooting, archers, ballista, catapult or any option that seems entertaining to you. Shooting has two functions that must not be neglected.
The first and most obvious, the shooting can reduce the strength of your opponent before it charge you, it is obvious and remember, one or two less enemies will not hurt you.
The second function may be less obvious, but it is essential. You will add pins to the enemy units and this pressure will make all the difference. Not to mention that your enemy may fail a command test because of a pin, you have the opportunity to destroy units if you accumulate enough pins on them. In addition, your opponent will be more hesitant to throw himself in the fray with a unit that already has 2 or 3 pins, because it is the pins who determines who wins the fight.
Flying creatures are fast, dangerous and extremely difficult to manage. If you can play one, it's a great idea, if you do not want to add a monster to your strength and you do not have access to flying creatures, make sure you are equipped with heavy, numerous, serious firepower or have offensive spells, because flying creatures are expensive in point, but they are worth it. Acquiring air superiority is not a luxury in this game.
Finally, for today, the cavalry, it is generally very resistant and very fast, but very impotant when facing long spears. In addition, a good cavalry is very expensive so you must use it wisely, choose your targets well and do not expose to the heavy fire of your opponent.
-
Just spotted on FB that the 3rd list Rick has been working on is Demons.
...am still waiting for my copy... :'(
-
Just spotted on FB that the 3rd list Rick has been working on is Demons.
...am still waiting for my copy... :'(
I thought they were very deliberately not approaching demons or chaos of any stripe for distancing reasons?
-
Nope Rick has confirmed a few times now that he is currently working on frog / lizard people, demons and ratmen.
-
I am chuffed there are going to be more lists, hoping for Landsnechkt fantasy and human mercenary forces
-
From what I've read here then it would seem to be relatively easy to convert the armies from the 3rd edition hardback WFB armies book which had a lot of nice armies in it.
-
Yeah it does seem to be designed for that. Its a shame that so many classic GW minis would have been awesome for this game but they are long OOP and expensive or difficult to find in significant quantities...does anyone have a time machine I can borrow?
-
Black Tree's fantasy figures are pretty much designed for making WH3ed armies.
-
Yeah it does seem to be designed for that. Its a shame that so many classic GW minis would have been awesome for this game but they are long OOP and expensive or difficult to find in significant quantities...does anyone have a time machine I can borrow?
Foundry do...
-
Thanks, just had a look at both of those then realised I was was thinking of 4th ed minis so these feel a little too old school for my tastes. Cheers though :D
-
I thought they were very deliberately not approaching demons or chaos of any stripe for distancing reasons?
Less distancing reasons, more “it was a pain to wedge them in” from what I read in an RP interview. Assume that must have been due to deadline reasons for the publication
-
A lot of the feedback thus far seems to fit a scenario where the game is 80% ready and has been squeezed out in a bit of a rush to meet a tight deadline with publishers. Not the first game to do this, won't be the last. Expect a 2.0 version in 2020!
-
A lot of the feedback thus far seems to fit a scenario where the game is 80% ready and has been squeezed out in a bit of a rush to meet a tight deadline with publishers. Not the first game to do this, won't be the last. Expect a 2.0 version in 2020!
If f-saga is any good I doubt they'll get a second chance on the market, and I suspect it's also a factor in pushing it out quickly
-
First post on the forum, longtime lurker.
Got my copy a few days ago. Live in the States. Quick background, I never played Warhammer Fantasy but always wanted to. I play Bolt Action, Saga and ME SBG. Saw this and decided to Jump on it. Have an army for Knightly Order and For Orcs. Knigthly Order Army is all Perry Agincourt and WotR figures. Orcs are GW LotR.
Played a game last night. Seemed Pretty even, Knights pulled out a victory. Size felt right, speed of play was pretty good given the need to keep looking up rules on a first play through. Basic units did feel a bit samesy but the scenario (Pillage the Village) was fun.
I don't think the pin mechanic should be called 'pin', seems more like shaken or exhausted, or rattled.
If the enemy has cav you absolutely need long spears. wizard feels like a must take.
Had fun, going to play a few more games, but still interested in F-Saga if only to at least see the rule set. But im itching to play a really large game of WoE
-
If f-saga is any good I doubt they'll get a second chance on the market, and I suspect it's also a factor in pushing it out quickly
I dont see F-saga hitting the exact same crowd. This seems to be "Got any fantasy minis lying around and dont want to play big rank battle with ?" compared to "Do you play Saga and want to buy our overpriced dice ?"
-
As opposed to the overpriced Order Dice ;)
-
As opposed to the overpriced Order Dice ;)
Which you dont actually need, since you can literally pull a token out. The Saga dice on the otherhand claim you can run with just the numbers but realistically you need the symbols.
-
The saga dice contain just three symbols, which translates to using a d6 with faces 1-3, faces 4-5 and faces 6 being the symbols. The order dice contain six different faces. So how does that make Saga more complex?
-
Either way once you have the dice your set...though I guess the SAGA dice are board specific (though shared with multiple boards).
I'm none to bothered and will likely use counters at first till I grab me some dice...minis are more important at the mo :D
-
The saga dice contain just three symbols, which translates to using a d6 with faces 1-3, faces 4-5 and faces 6 being the symbols. The order dice contain six different faces. So how does that make Saga more complex?
Because specific combos need specific symbols and its easier to glance at them then think for a second whilst the Order Dice are frankly unnecessary.
-
I dont see F-saga hitting the exact same crowd. This seems to be "Got any fantasy minis lying around and dont want to play big rank battle with ?" compared to "Do you play Saga and want to buy our overpriced dice ?"
I agree that Sage: Age of Fantasy and Erehwon are different enough that they arent direct competitors, but for different reasons.
"Got any fantasy minis lying around and dont want to play big rank battle with ?" works for Saga too.
"Do you play Saga and want to buy our overpriced dice ?" Considering how many complaints there were at the inclusion of fantasy miniatures in the Saga Book of Battles, I think a large part of the Saga community will ignore the book and it'll effectively end up being a seperate game, which just happens to share the Saga mechanics.
And we dont yet know what kind of Saga dice the fantasy factions will use. It might be a brand new set (or more sets) of dice.
I think Saga: Age of Fantasy is more of a competitor for Dragon Rampant, as both systems use generic unit types. Saga then adds some special rules for the army as whole, where Dragon Rampant lets you add special rules to each unit.
Erehwon, from what I've read, has lots of different unit types. Making it more of a competitor for Warhammer 9th age or Kings of War, but not a direct competitor because of the skirmish scale.
-
Whilst I'm waiting for my book can someone help me out with a rough run down of the Orc list please.
And can they take ogres and giants?
-
Orcs;
Chieftain
Chieftain on boar
Shaman
Champion
Warriors
Archers
Trolls
Guard
Boar riders
Chariot
Stone and bolt throwers.
Ogres and giants are monsters and can be taken
-
Orcs;
Chieftain
Chieftain on boar
Shaman
Champion
Warriors
Archers
Trolls
Guard
Boar riders
Chariot
Stone and bolt throwers.
Ogres and giants are monsters and can be taken
For ease of new enquiries would you be able to do that with every faction if possible ?
-
This is the kind of info I was hoping for from Warlord, it doesn't seem to be asking too much. When they put out a game which is designed to allow you to use your unused minis, but then don't actually tell you which minis they mean, it is kinda frustrating. My dwarfs are very grumpy about this, the elves are getting even haughtier than usual, and the greenskins are starting to get a bit troublesome. Mind you, the undead are taking it well, they just lie there chilling most of the time.
-
I'm struck again by the contrast between that orc list and the ex-Wargames Factory orcs that are being marketed with the book. I saw a sealed copy of the book in a shop in Glasgow the other day; the back cover said something about the orcs being "hulking brutes". Well, the repackaged WF orcs aren't - they're Tolkien-via-McBride skulkers and are close to man-sized at best - and Perry/Fireforge/Warlord man-sized rather than GW at that.
As far as I know, there are no boar-rider miniatures that come close to matching them.
A bit odd, no?
-
Yes, I found that strange also that the description of the orcs (from what I have read, or maybe inferred, here) seem to be the GW orc, big jaw fluoro green orcs. Those wargame Factory orcs seem to be warg riding orcs as you compare them to Tolkien's LOTR. I can't see those orcs on boars. Also Shaman seems out of place with there aesthetic. Sorcerer or Wizard seems to fit their style better.
I'd like to see some conversions with them riding Boars but I think it was really just an excuse to get those plastic orcs out there. I have some of these orcs and really like them by the way (and the skeletons).
-
my book is in the post, now just need to read it and then convince other people to give it ago
to start with I'll just use my existing ex WFB Dwarves/Undead/Bretonians but if my opponents like it then I could be tempted by Halfling army using TT Combats shiny new ones or a barbarian army using the new frostgrave tribal warriors and some angry dinosuars
-
Thanks for the info.
That's the spirit, just get the toys out, blow off the dust and start playing fantasy Wargames.
-
For ease of new enquiries would you be able to do that with every faction if possible ?
Will do when at home. Not lists are variants on weapons armour and such but all types have that plus some specific traits
-
There's a brief battle report on the Warlord website. It's not detailed, but it gives you a little feel for the size of the forces.
http://www.warlordgames.com/frontline-report-moot-point/ (http://www.warlordgames.com/frontline-report-moot-point/)
Looks like basic unit sizes are 3 for cavalry and five for infantry, though the latter at least can be boosted (in mulitiples of 5 by the look of it, though no way of knowing if there's a cap on this). This kind of basic information is sadly lacking at the moment. Come on Warlord, you can do better than this! :o
-
I saw that of Bell of Lost Souls...not read it yet but its a shame there were no pics of the battle or the minis...though I can understand why they wouldn't show off someone elses minis. Perhaps they should have done one with the minis they sell.
-
I'm struck again by the contrast between that orc list and the ex-Wargames Factory orcs that are being marketed with the book.
A bit odd, no?
No, not really, unless you think Warlord are going to develop fantasy ranges. They are not. They are selling these rules, you decide which minis to use, and which profiles to match them to. Any fluff in the book is redundant really. You want it to match LotR stuff, fine, pick what you feel is the best profile. The majority of players will most likely dig out their old GW gorilla orcs for a bash with this game, so quite rightly they have provided profiles for all the old usual GW suspects.
The fact they are trying to flog some old WGF plastics is not a surprise, I'm glad they realise that most of us will be digging out our old GW stuff and hoping for a WHFB ver 10. :)
-
There isn't much fluff in the book and no setting; there is an intro to each faction discussing the kinda forces the list is meant to represent and that's about it.
-
No, not really, unless you think Warlord are going to develop fantasy ranges. They are not. They are selling these rules, you decide which minis to use, and which profiles to match them to. Any fluff in the book is redundant really. You want it to match LotR stuff, fine, pick what you feel is the best profile. The majority of players will most likely dig out their old GW gorilla orcs for a bash with this game, so quite rightly they have provided profiles for all the old usual GW suspects.
Sure - I get that, and I generally think 'fluff' in fantasy games is a complete waste of time, as almost all of it pales compared with literature, myth or history. There are a very few exceptions ("Go Glorantha or go home!"). I'm also instinctively averse to any ruleset that tries to tell you which miniatures to use
But I'm surprised that Warlord haven't made any attempt to tie the "supporting cast" (now repackaged in large boxes to match the game) into the rulebook - e.g. by having a Tolkienesque orc list (e.g. "The Dark Lord's minions") as well as the GW one. I saw both in a shop on Monday, and the first thing I noticed was that the orc figures were glaringly at odds with the orc description on the back of the rulebook. It just seems a curiously half-hearted bit of marketing.
A question on the game itself: for someone like me who's never played Antares, but enjoys "large skirmish" games like Dragon Rampant and Saga, what's the selling point of this system? I confess that I'm a bit suspicious of games with too much Warhammer DNA; I played a game of Kill Team last week followed by a game of Mutants and Death Ray Guns, and was struck by the difference between the two. The former took at least four dice rolls to resolve a single shot and give one of three outcomes (nothing, killed, wounded) while the latter used a single opposed roll to give one of five outcomes (nothing, knocked down, pushed back, killed, gruesomely killed).
So, what does the Antares/Erehwon system have over DR or Saga? (I find the latter works extremely well for fantasy games using the Age of Vikings book.)
-
I would say that the most fundamental difference between Antares, Saga and Rampant is the turn sequence. Rampant and Saga are games where one player plays a turn and then the other gets his turn (IGOUGO is the common name I believe). In Antares/Bolt Action units take their actions one at a time and the order which player get to move the next one is random.
Second bigger difference is the 'pin' mechanic (that I'm not too fond of in a fantasy game, but whatever). Each time a unit gets shot at or takes a casualty in close combat, you get a pin marker. Each pin marker gives a penalty of -1 to all dice rolls and when you take certain number of them, or get enough casualties at the same shooting, or lose a combat, you take courage checks. This is again modified by pins. If you fail the test, you either go down, or the unit is wiped out, depending on how much you fail. A roll of 10 is always a 'leg it' result, no matter what. In close combat, you can't go down. If you fail your courage, your're gone. That's pretty much it.
Then the third bigger difference is the order mechanic. You can move double or triple pace, advance (i.e. move and shoot), fire with a bonus, rally the pins away and go to ambush, where you can react to other player moving. In antares you can also react to fire order by shooting back or sprinting to cover, don't know if they are in here.
Otherwise it's pretty similar between all. The to hit/to wound/save system is pretty similar in all of the games. Basically you roll a die in all of them if you hit and then the other player rolls a dice if the armour saves.
-
Otherwise it's pretty similar between all. The to hit/to wound/save system is pretty similar in all of the games. Basically you roll a die in all of them if you hit and then the other player rolls a dice if the armour saves.
You were doing so well, then this bit. They are quite different. WHFB is the clunkiest, there are tables to cross check skills and number needed to hit, to wound, to save. Saga reduces the die roll to two rounds, first the attacker rolls to hit, the defender then rolls to cancel the hits. Erewhon is similar, though different dice (d10) and rolling low rather than high, with lots of modifiers (I think, from the scant info available). Rampant is the most different, and most radical. Six or twelve dice rolled, hits are gathered into groups of successes relating to the enemy armour, each group is a fatality. So one round of dice only.
-
I think Rick has said the pin mechanic is more of an exhaustion thing but he was stuck with the term.
-
I think Rick has said the pin mechanic is more of an exhaustion thing but he was stuck with the term.
Yeah it could be hesitate, stagger, the size of writing, using common dice size of dice is factor deffo
-
Pins are equivalent of fatigue in Saga, you don't use a dice, you use a marker of some kind. Cannot be that hard to go into a rules document and global change "pin" for "exhaust", "stress", "waver" or whatever, not sure why he was "stuck with it". It is a shame they have used this modern terminology for an olde combat game, but it's no biggie really. Whenever you see the word pin, sub in your word of choice.
-
Thanks! That does sound intriguing. I'd somehow had the impression that Antares was a sort of 40K clone, with all the clunk that entails. It sounds a lot more interesting.
-
WHFB is the clunkiest, there are tables to cross check skills and number needed to hit, to wound, to save.
That's the thing I remember with no great fondness (and it seems to have gotten worse for Kill Team, as there's another roll to see whether it's just a flesh wound).
The argument for the Saga-style saving throw, I suppose, is that it keeps the other player in the game, in a similar way to an opposed roll in Song of Blades or HotT. The last two have much more riding on the roll, though, as you can best or kill your opponent even if you were attacked. So they have the highest stakes or the maximum efficiency of all these systems.
-
Saga is slightly more involved than just giving your opponent a go with dice to keep him interested. There are ways to up/down the number of rolls used, the numbers required too, in using abilities on the Saga battle Board. You can also forgo some attacks to make your save/cancel throw easier (it's called close ranks).
-
Yes, all true. My point was more that I can see there's an argument for 'sub-maximal efficiency' in dice-rolling. Saga makes a particular virtue of this because of the way combat intermeshes with other mechanics (including the risk/reward decision over closing ranks).
I can just about see the narrative benefits of the Warhammer approach ("well, you hit the chaos warriors fair and square, but their head-to-toe steel casing saved all but the one with the open visor ..."). But it's a bit of a stretch when you actually have to roll all those dice - and even then, having the roll to wound before the armour save seems unnecessary; the other way around would save time.
-
It's a pretty broad church, this hobby. I've never understood the way some gamers describe HAVING to roll dice as though picking up a load of dice and casting them out isn't fun as all hell! Honestly, the trend for rules to be as simplistic as possible now makes me wonder if people are always running late for a business meetings during games. Warhammer had its clunkiness, but it was never difficult to play I don't think - and in fact the rule did often reflect the "narrative" of the action in the way Hobgoblin alludes to.
I also have to disagree that fluff in a fantasy game is pointless, even though it definitely does pale in comparison to literature, history and myth. Whilst no one wants to write a novel to describe a tabletop game, the setting and lore of what's happening is surely fairly critical if you're a narrative player, otherwise there's no meaning or motivation behind the action being portrayed. That said, I understand that each of us has our own tastes with these things!
-
I think that the point about the pointlessness of fluff in a generic fantasy rule-set is that the players bring their own (or borrowed) fluff to the game, for example:
Were I to use this rules to play a battle in middle earth I wouldn't need the rules fluff since I'd be using the background from Tolkien, etc...
-
I certainly didn't say I preferred one dice rolling mechanism to another, just that they were different. I find one set of dice rolls by the attacker followed by one set by the defender is my favourite, though I do also like the rampant system. Three rounds just feels a bit laboured after those systems.
Fluff can add a lot to a game system, if it's well done. Warhammer is my fave fluff for sure, grew up with it I guess. Bad fluff in a rulebook can be a real turn off. But I think with a set of rules intended to be generic like these are, it's quite wise to not impose a world background on it. After all, we all know that RP wrote a lot of the original Warhammer stuff so you can imagine he had this in mind with these rules.
-
Ah, you're absolutely correct. In a generic ruleset such as this it DOES become a tad pointless for the rulebook to contain even snippets of fluff. I mistook the point as being fluff in ANY fantasy game, I guess. My apologies. I also didn't mean to aim my original post AT anyone here - I've just noticed a general trend of people preferring rules to be simple first and foremost.
I guess I am just a bit salty as last year I played a 500 point game of Warhammer 6th and it was the best game I'd played in ages, and I found it easy to get to grips with despite not having played in years. It provided a really nice narrative experience, but within wargaming at large people talk about WFB as though it was like translating Egyptian hieroglyphics and then using them to do calculus to resolve the wargame (again, not aimed at anyone here).
-
Ive played undreds of games of WFB 6th, some brilliant, a small amount dreadful. That is of course due to players involved, not the rules per say.
I'm gutted at what GW has done to WFB, and I'm just relieved a rule set is out that helps capture some of that 'old' world flavour.
:)
-
because it was asked...
Barbarians
Chieftain|Mounted|Chariot, Hero|Chariot, Shaman, Warriors, Archers, Horsemen, Berserkers, Chariot, Warhounds, Brats (i.e. levy), Mammoth, Stone thrower
Beastmen
Chieftain|Chariot, Shaman|Chariot, Minotaur lord, Centaur Lord, Guard, Warriors, Low (levy), Archers, Minotaurs, Hounds, Centaurs, Harpies, Bolt thrower
Dwarves
Lord, Runesmith, Hero, Guard, Warriors, Archers, Handguns, Pony riders, Rangers, Trollslayers (spade is a spade), stone thrower, cannon, bombard, fire cannon, bolt thrower, gyrocopter, steam juggernaut
Elves
Lord|Mounted, Hero|Mounted, Mage, Guard, Warriors, Archers, Rangers, Cavalry, Knights, Eagle, Chariot, Bolt thrower, Stone thrower(!)
Gnolls
Chieftain, Shaman, Champion, Guard, Warriors, Archers, Scouts, Trackers, Chariot, Stone thrower
Goblins
Chieftain|Chariot, Shaman, Guard, Warriors, Archers, Fanatics (spade), Wolf Riders, Chariot, Snotlings (spade), Squig herd (spade), Trolls, Stone thrower, Bolt thrower
Halflings
Chief Sheriff|Cart, Fortune Teller, Clan Chief|Mounted, Sheriffs, Militia, Archers, urchins (swarm), donkey riders, stone thrower, bolt thrower
Knights
Lord|Mounted, Wizard, Champion (always mounted), knights|mounted, retainers|mounted, archers, crossbows, arbalestiers, peasants (levy), flagellants, bolt thrower, stone thrower
Olympians
Lord|Chariot, Hero|Chariot, Seer, Guard, Warriors, Peltasts, Amazons, Amazon archers, amazon cavalry, centaurs, harpies
Undead
Necromancer, Liche|Chariot, Wraith|Mounted, Champion, Guard, Warriors, Archers, Zombies, Wights, Riders, Knights, Chariot, Carrion beast (flyer), Bolt thrower, screaming skull catapult (spade)
Monster list
Basilisk, Chimera, Cockatrice, Cyclops, Dragon, Ghouls (wtf in monsters?), Giant, giant rats, giant scorpions, giant spiders, even gianter spider, golem, griffin, hippogriff, hydra, manticore, ogres, various swarms, Wyvern, treeman, dryads (big sort), trolls, cave bear, various dinosaurs
...
plenty of strange choices in there imho
-
Thanks, that's really useful. Looks like most of my collection is covered, I guess I can build my own profiles if anything is missing.
Can you give us some real basics? - size of battlefield is a big thing for me, I am restricted to 5x3 at home. Size of units - multiples of 5 or can you buy individual troops if you like? Typical game length - obviously scales with force sizes, but are we talking an hour a game, two or a whole night to fight?
-
I can answer a couple of those questions but I've only skimmed so far.
Battlefield Size - 4x4 to 4x6ft I imagine that 5x3 would work with a bit of tweaking
Unit sizes - Lords and wizards seem to come with 2 bodyguards and can have upto 2 more. Heros and monsters are single models. Units tend to be 3 or 5 models strong with the option to add more...units of 3 can have 2 more while units of 5 can have 5 more minis. Yep you can add additional models individually.
Game length - I think I heard a 500pt starter game is maybe an hour while a 1000pts standard game is 1 to 2 hours. I could well be wrong though.
-
Seems odd to limit units to 10, what about goblin/skaven/skeleton hordes?
I think one reason Saga became so popular was because it allows you to play a tactical game of toy soldiers on a table just 4X3, which most of us can muster on our dining surface. I always thought WHFB lacked a bit here - play on a 6x4 area, but then spend the first two turns moving your units into charging distance of each other! :D
-
I think one reason Saga became so popular was because it allows you to play a tactical game of toy soldiers on a table just 4X3, which most of us can muster on our dining surface.
Yup, that's one reason why Saga has become such a domestic favourite here. It, the Ganesha family and HotT all seem to embrace the 3' constraints that most people face at home, making them our go-to games. I bought Alien Squad Leader last year, and it looks great, but I've yet to play it because it's designed for a four-foot table. I do have some terrain boards that will make 6 x 4, but their rescue and dusting is too much of a faff to consider when 'time to table' is important (and I find it always is).
Oddly enough, we've played much less Dragon Rampant since starting Saga, and I think table dimensions are a factor in that. You can have a lot of fun with DR on a three-foot-wide table, but there's always the feeling that the interaction of activation difficulties (especially for knights and the like) and the Wild Charge rule would be more interesting on a bigger table.
-
I know what you mean, regarding the time to table aspect. Many of my gaming buddies completely prefer smaller tables and games that can be played on them. I myself do love a good 6x4 layout and a game that takes advantage of that (without ramming too much on the table; room to maneuver is the main benefit after all) but it can really be a real task to set up, especially in a standard UK sized spare room where I have to move bits about to even deploy it. Usually find it's worth it, but yeah...
-
Oh, yes - a big table's great when you can get it. But - and this is especially true when gaming with kids - I find that the less time's involved between deciding to play and actually rolling the first dice, the greater the likelihood of actually getting a game. Or, more importantly, finishing it! I think that's the reason for my slight antipathy towards Warhammer's number of rolls; I have vivid memories of countless unfinished childhood games. And then there was a switch to HotT, and we played whole campaigns in the same time.
Simple points systems (e.g. DR, Saga and HotT) are great for short 'time to table', and Song of Blades is pretty good because it works well with asymmetrical games or games that are very roughly balanced. It'll be interesting to see how this game works in that regard.
On the earlier discussion about fluff, I think there's a distinction between 'world' fluff, which is often just filler, and 'scenario' fluff, which is usually well worth it. With the Warhammer world, I reckon all the best stuff was in things like Kremlo the Slann, The Magnificent Sven, Rigg's Shrine, The Dolgan Raiders, Vengeance of the Lichemaster, Orc's Drift and The Tragedy of McDeath. All those had lots of nice specifics that added flavour to the scenario without imposing constraints on whatever you planned to do at the next session.
-
Seems odd to limit units to 10, what about goblin/skaven/skeleton hordes?
I think one reason Saga became so popular was because it allows you to play a tactical game of toy soldiers on a table just 4X3, which most of us can muster on our dining surface. I always thought WHFB lacked a bit here - play on a 6x4 area, but then spend the first two turns moving your units into charging distance of each other! :D
I think the unit limitation is due to the order dice mechanic. It works the best when both players have about the same amount of dice, having big parts of the army working with single dice sort of break the system, being an advantage or disadvantage depending on the situation. Though I would say that mostly it would be a disadvantage.
Saga's developer Alex Buchel said in an interview that one of the key design points he had was that the game should be able to be played on a regular kitchen table. It clearly was a good idea.
And sorry about the dice roll mix up, didn't consider WHFB at all and forgot the details of Rampant system as I haven't played it too much. Saga and Erewhon should be pretty similar, with the dice being the big difference.
I played Gates of Antares quite much when it came out, but now it has been bit of back burner as I have focused on sword wielding games, but one of the best things in it was that the rules were so easy to learn, that after few games we had a game with a friend, where we both had forgot our rulebooks and had only a quick reference leaflet and the game still went more or less fluidly. Wouldn't have happened with the good old WHFB...
-
I think that's the reason for my slight antipathy towards Warhammer's number of rolls; I have vivid memories of countless unfinished childhood games.
I absolutely get you on this - if you have to roll to hit, to wound, to armour save, can you not simply combine them into a single roll by the cunning use of a table or something?
I would favour a 'roll to hit' then 'roll to wound' (or 'roll to effect' perhaps is more accurate) system, but I think I understand the thinking in the separation. The game is aimed at kids (or those of us who remain so) and the fun of being able to imagine our troops hitting, then wounding, but then being thwarted by our opponent's lucky roll adds to the tension and fun. Maybe it's also a way of giving the player whose turn it isn't, to have something to do during the attacking player's turn. Maybe it's also a way of keeping play simple and enabling players to remember what they need to roll without having to consult their tables - most of us get to know what roll we need to hit with WS3 vs WS3 and S3 vs T3, then a heavy armour save. It's long winded certainly, but the numbers stay simple.
-
I think Rick said in his book about designing tabletop wargames that it was to do with the numbers and the restriction of a D6 system. I'm not sure on the maths and that but I seem to remember him suggesting it was about increasing the possible outcomes.
-
For those who Really like to roll dice, there is always AoS. I once played a game where there were 40 skeletons, that had 160 attacks, hitting on fours, wounding on fives and I was saving on re-rolled threes. The combat lasted for the whole game (and for few hours of real time).
-
Ah yes, AOS, the game with rules touted as easy - they are on just four pages - but then every unit has a sheet full of special rules and comboes, many of them ridiculously overpowered. Tried it a few times, not for me. I do actually prefer to roll lots of dice, it theoretically evens out randomness.
Not convinced about the unit size limit, suspect I would use twice the actual amount of gobboes and other runty stuff, just to bulk out the unit for visual appeal. Two for one rule.
-
I like it quite a bit as a system, especially the second edition, but they have went bit overboard with all the additional stuff like those awful spell models and the traditional "codex creep". If they ever get a full set of those Warhammer Legends armylists that they just released for Orc and goblins, it will be a very good alternative for some Old world action. But until that, Erehwon and Saga look to be the top dogs.
-
That army list reminds me of the old Warhammer bestiary (Was it 2nd or 3rd edition?) I loved looking through that and deciding what monsters I wanted in my army. I'm getting more and more into wanting this. I'll wait until a sale though I think.
-
Not convinced about the unit size limit, suspect I would use twice the actual amount of gobboes and other runty stuff, just to bulk out the unit for visual appeal. Two for one rule.
Well gobbos are cheap so I expect you would have more units than you opponent so you could swamp them.
-
If tournaments or organized play are anything like Bolt Action or GoA, then there will be a dice limit for the event say 16 dice at 1250 points. Playing knightly Order I chew up points fast. and would struggle to get to 16 Dice. The orc list which ive spent some time looking into could get closer to that dice limit and im sure an army like goblins could easily hit it. Unit size may be 10 figures but if you can take 2-3 units for the enemies 1 then you get that horde mechanic.
On another note i like that there is little to no fluff, my group includes a few DnD players and we have you used another game called Dawn of Worlds to generate fantasy worlds in the past. We each have a main faction we will play and another faction we may play, all of those will get rolled into this world we create.
Currently we have Knightly Order, Barbarians, Gnolls, and Skeletons. However with our extra faction each we have included Orcs, Dwarfs, Elves and beastmen.
We are going to treat it like an ongoing campaign.
-
I'm also having plans on running a big Fantasy campaign with generic fantasy setting when this and the Fantasy Saga hits the shelves. It'll be game system independent, so people can play what they like and generate their own fluff for their army and thus create the setting at the same time. I'm currently running a test campaign of MESBG Battle Companies and after two rounds it seems to work quite nicely. There is a map, and I as umpire tell everyone where they are and then they wonder around finding treasures and battle against each other when their ways cross. When there is uneven matches due real time issues of peoples or three way games, I stand in as a NPC force. We have ten players and everyone seems to enjoy the system quite much.
-
Yeah that sounds awesome, In a way its like DnD the wargaming version. lol
-
I don't think this will be too much of an interruption to the topic, but fits with some of the above discussion.
Age of Fantasy, from One Page Rules, is similar to Age of Sigmar, but fewer special rules, and normally two dice in melee (to hit and save). It alternates unit activation, though I am planning to try drawing counters next time. I have mostly used LotR figures, though they aren't a one-to-one match, similar to orc discussion above.
https://onepagerules.com/
andy
-
On quick perusal thats a nifty little set of rules, i checked out he humans list. Looks like the same idea. "we know a lot of folks have these figures, so lets use them!"
I'm starting my knightly order in earnest when the weather here permits, its so cold im afraid to prime my figures. guess ill have to start my first topic here on LAF.
-
Got my copy, as usual excellent service from warlord.
enjoyed what I've read so far, although I did laugh at the inserted errata note! lol
-
Errata note?
-
Errata note?
My rule book arrive last night, inside the front cover was a little flyer saying they missed out the 'Retained Run' rule and detailing how the rule works
-
Something always gets missed...not bad though as I think that's only the third thing missed or wrong. I'm sure they will put out an FAQ & Errata soon.
-
The trickle of info continues, not from Warlord but this intro video by Wargames Illustrated is quite useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8z-QTf-Ny8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8z-QTf-Ny8)
-
I think this was originally for Wargames Illustrated members only before the books release. Odd really as its only a sneak peak-basic intro to the book.
-
Just spotted this video on the WoE FB page...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1244&v=OSS7UzUEqTU&fbclid=IwAR2MsFymv3H2N2GcWxj4B4wGkZMjj0lKG_c2V8qf4RK2q1fYSNctxAtHUAY
...it features Rick himself on a playthrough, not watched it yet.
-
Knights
Lord|Mounted, Wizard, Champion (always mounted), knights|mounted, retainers|mounted, archers, crossbows, arbalestiers, peasants (levy), flagellants, bolt thrower, stone thrower
Thank you for posting the general overview of the lists! Am I reading this right in that knights and retainers come in both infantry and cavalry versions?
-
They do indeed :D
-
Thanks for the youtube link, finally get some decent info on the game. Well worth a watch if you are sat on the fence.
-
A great video...I am a little surprised I haven't seen the game mentioned much on wargaming news websites.
-
It's Warlord Games new stealth policy, try to get it out without attracting any pesky attention. lol
-
I really think Warlord is hoping this is a one and done book that will help them sell some of their WF figures. I can’t see them going too deep in producing models for the game, and there’s not much cash just in rulebooks.
I got the skellies frame with the book. Man, they’re fragile looking.....
-
I got the skellies frame with the book. Man, they’re fragile looking.....
They are fragile, especially at the ankles. Plan your storage of them accordingly!
-
In the Rick Priestley video I notice they had some hobbit hole terrain. Are these the ones Westfalia briefly did during their kickstarter. Are they available anywhere does anyone know?
-
I think so, but NorthStar also has some Hobbity stuff, so it might be theirs. There has been an unusual amount of Halfling-Gnoll conflict lately, especially since the launch of the NorthStar Gnolls. I wonder what the wee fellas have done to upset them?
-
TT Combat did some Halfling terrain with their KS.
-
Anybody who has the book, have you played any games yet?
I like the look of it and a lot of the mechanics appeal to me - random turns, activation tests, simple rules all appeal.
My main concern is that the game will favour shooters. Shoot at a unit to pin it, makes sense in modern warfare, but feels a bit "wrong" in fantasy. Any thoughts?
-
Played a fair bit of BA so these rules look interesting.
Just wondered why a D10 is used instead of 2 D6 as I thought with the latter the bell curve of probability was a much prized mechanism in these and other Rick Priestly rule system?
Presumably these rules would work okay for straight historical games?
-
My main concern is that the game will favour shooters. Shoot at a unit to pin it, makes sense in modern warfare, but feels a bit "wrong" in fantasy. Any thoughts?
I've not played yet but from what I can gather shooting is more to soften foes with pin before the charge. Rick himself said (in a video I saw recently) "You don't shoot to cause casualties, you shoot to gives pins." I think its less a case of actually pinning a foe and more of affecting moral so when you charge in they are easier to kill.
Presumably these rules would work okay for straight historical games?
You could aye but you'd have to assigned different races to different historical factions or games might get very samey. Can't see a problem with that though.
-
My main concern is that the game will favour shooters. Shoot at a unit to pin it, makes sense in modern warfare, but feels a bit "wrong" in fantasy. Any thoughts?
I strongly object to the terminology, but my poor understanding of pre-gunpowder is that missiles were almost primarily intended to disrupt (scatter, slow, soften) to either create holes in the line or expose to a charge.
The game itself seems very very fast with triple and quadruple moves, so it's possible to be engaged from turn 1. In that context i think missiles won't dominate but will serve to tactically weaken and deal with remote threats (artillery, objective campers). In short it feels like a cavalry game to me.
-
Played a fair bit of BA so these rules look interesting.
Just wondered why a D10 is used instead of 2 D6 as I thought with the latter the bell curve of probability was a much prized mechanism in these and other Rick Priestly rule system?
Presumably these rules would work okay for straight historical games?
I would guess that it's due to having 6 rolls of 2d6 is much more hassle than rolling 6 x D10.
-
Also keeps the die roll results consistent with the Bolt Action mechanics but allows for a greater range. Interestingly, in an interview many moons ago with Battlegames magazine, Priestly said that he had wanted the original version of WFB to be D10 based but Ian Livingstone (I think...), the one who asked him to write the rules, insisted on a D6 system which became the 3 rolls of to hit, to wound and armour save that everyone loves/hates.
-
Also keeps the die roll results consistent with the Bolt Action mechanics but allows for a greater range. Interestingly, in an interview many moons ago with Battlegames magazine, Priestly said that he had wanted the original version of WFB to be D10 based but Ian Livingstone (I think...), the one who asked him to write the rules, insisted on a D6 system which became the 3 rolls of to hit, to wound and armour save that everyone loves/hates.
I read that, although I think it was Bryan Ansell rather than Ian Livingstone. The thinking was that everyone owned D6s so it made the game more accessible
-
I read that, although I think it was Bryan Ansell rather than Ian Livingstone. The thinking was that everyone owned D6s so it made the game more accessible
Which was certainly true then, and certainly didn't inhibit the success of the game.
Everyone complains about charts but really it was a comparativd mechanism underlying it: equal, better/worse, double/half better/worse. Sheer number of dice rolls only became a problem (imho) when Stillman started making units of 50 or 100 the norm; for the original intent of whole forces that sized it was fine.
-
The original idea for d10s would explain why all the stats went from 1-10 while they were hardly used outside 2 to 6.
-
Which was certainly true then, and certainly didn't inhibit the success of the game.
Everyone complains about charts but really it was a comparativd mechanism underlying it: equal, better/worse, double/half better/worse. Sheer number of dice rolls only became a problem (imho) when Stillman started making units of 50 or 100 the norm; for the original intent of whole forces that sized it was fine.
Its nice to see a 1000pt army thats roughly 50 models compared to AOS where 51 models can just get over 650
-
I prefer the charts, though a few changes wouldn't go amiss, they have a logical appeal.
-
Its nice to see a 1000pt army thats roughly 50 models compared to AOS where 51 models can just get over 650
Why not then play 650 point games? :) I guess the amount of models you put on the table is up to the player's decision, no matter the game. Though of course some systems handle small/large amount of models better than others. That said, old FB was not one of those games that worked particularly well with small amount of models, but I would say that AoS works quite okay if players don't game the system (which is of course again a big assumption).
-
Why not then play 650 point games? :) I guess the amount of models you put on the table is up to the player's decision, no matter the game. Though of course some systems handle small/large amount of models better than others. That said, old FB was not one of those games that worked particularly well with small amount of models, but I would say that AoS works quite okay if players don't game the system (which is of course again a big assumption).
Points to model ratio can change massively depending on faction, there's mandatory core troops and some scenarios dont work at that scale.
Like the example I gave was for my Dwarfs, my Spider Rider Goblins would be 30 and my Trolls would be 9.
-
I watched the video up until the lego add (then it was noticed I wasn't listening to the meeting )
Unless I'm mistaken Rick and Wayne allocated the order dice to each side .popped them in a bag and promptly forgot which side had which colour. Admittedly I could just watch the rest of the video but I'll ask here . :D
Do you use your order dice on the opposite force or your own. If its your own then its a bit worrying that the designer can't remember who's who thirty seconds later.
I was tempted with the rule system at York on Sunday but got totally sidetracked. So its on my wish list as I've little enough time for anything but skirmish sized games.
Mark.
-
:D You use your Order Dice on your own forces.
-
I notice there is a tournament already organised, I think near Birmingham?
1250pts interestingly, also allowing up to 25% monsters etc.
So is there any other tournaments being organised?
Maybe start a thread for Erehwon events?
-
I'll put up a battle report this weekend. Knights and Orcs on the killing fields. Should be fun.
Best part of this is i feel comfortable with the rules. i play a TON of bolt action. Played a few games of Antares.
-
I got the Skeleton sprue. had one leg break on me otherwise with a little care and a sharp blade it wasnt bad.
(https://i.imgur.com/3bN15zo.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/oHntQEu.jpg)
-
Cheers Egg.
(I play a lot of pulp ;) ) So I was right half a dozen sentences in and he'd forgotten what he's said and done. Well that would explain the need for snagging after printing ::)
I do need some skeletons (for something else) these look quite useful although I think the bulk of the original workshop plastic ones seem more durable for a table top.
-
Seeing how you have some Perry minis right behind them, could you tell how those skeletons match up with historicals in terms of scale? Their occasionally problematic thinness appears to be a result of the fact that they are realistically sized, but those proportions do of course vary a lot among ranges. Would be nice to know which manufacturers they fit with in terms of making undead variants of said historical ranges...
-
Points to model ratio can change massively depending on faction, there's mandatory core troops and some scenarios dont work at that scale.
Like the example I gave was for my Dwarfs, my Spider Rider Goblins would be 30 and my Trolls would be 9.
I meant that if you build the armies to be reasonable on, say, 500 point level it works well, but it just requires an amount of gentleman's agreements with the players and works better without the "tournament restrictions" on army building. Just like with any other game when you "go further than the book tells you". In fact I think that the main strength of AoS is that the rules are so easy to tweak for whatever you want to do.
But I don't want to derail it further as I finally got my Erehwon book on Monday and got time to read the rules yesterday. I have to say that I'm really impressed. They are streamlined from Beyond the Gates of Antares by taking away most of the rules that I didn't like too much (like the "magic" ones and tens, leader ability giving you re-rolls on resist). The system is also tweaked a bit to be better for swordplay with no automatic destruction of units when they break from close combat (although I believe the rout will be eventually the same thing) and the reactions changed so that you get to do any action from ambush and don't get to react on fire order. The book looks nice and is quite a complete package as well, which is nice. Looking forward for the next game, hopefully in this month as the game has built up some interest at our club where Bolt Action is one of the most played games already and we had good buzz with Antares as well.
edit:
One thing to look out for. In Antares running with fast unit and retaining the run order combined with close combat is very strong tactic, especially if the unit has good resist. My belief is that with less shooting it can be even stronger. Dragons and cavalry sound like they are very good in the game, hopefully the cost is reflecting that.
-
I cannot remember after looking through the book, but is there a force selection guide like there is for something like bolt action? I know in bolt action you can take an HQ into infantry squads as a basic unit. Is there a minimum requirement in erewhon? I would imagine it's a Lord and two infantry units or something along those lines. I do remember seeing some units had a only one per army rule or something along those lines.
-
I've only flicked through the rulebook so far but as far as I can tell the only thing you have to take is a Lord or similar with most factions having only a single choice (mounted or no) while some have a couple, like the Undead. Yep, some units are only one per warband but they seem to be the really exotic ones so you probably wouldn't want two anyway.
-
Got the rule book through a couple of days ago. Seems pretty good from what I have read so far. I have only played BA not GoA.
I am interested in trying it for historical games. Wondered if their were plans for a historical version? I feel it would work particularly well for the Arthurian period.
Does anyone know if there is pdf of the quick reference sheet?
-
I believe Warlord have done one they just haven't gotten around to uploading it yet...for some reason.
As far I I know there are no plans for a historical version.
-
Now that it’s released, I’m wondering if we’ll see anything else coming out for it short of pdf army lists.
-
I notice there is a tournament already organised, I think near Birmingham?
1250pts interestingly, also allowing up to 25% monsters etc.
So is there any other tournaments being organised?
Maybe start a thread for Erehwon events?
What is it with tournament organisers and 1250 / 1750 etc. points?!?
Why not just make it 1200 or 1300? Much easier to calculate 25% for than 1250.
Maybe it's just me...
-
For whatever reason we have settled on 250 point increments. No idea why though but i rarely see a tournament in the states that isn't 500,750,1000,1250, or 1500. Occasionally see 600 in Bolt action for combat patrol games.
I think whether or not we see more likely depends on how well the game is received. So far it appears to have went over well.
-
312 rounding down.
Just enough for a giant!
To be fair, this is the first WoE I've heard of, and the initial information didn't even mention monsters! So maybe they just quickly made the decision on 25%.
The book actually mentions a whole warband made up from monsters,
But does caution the reader against it being fair for the other guy!
Anybody else thinking of running maybe a one day event?
-
The Quick Play Reference Sheet is up...
https://www.warlordgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/WoE%20Quick%20Reference%20Sheet.pdf
-
I have a grand total of 0 monsters at the moment >:(
I need to grab a few if even just for the scenario that involves two armies trying to take down the same monster and getting away with its goodies.
-
Love to know if they plan to support this with more books?
I’m liking what I’m reading so far. I see lots of possibilities for this game!
-
New books not sure, there has been talk of at least three more army lists though.
-
So just finished up a game of WoE. Knights vs Orcs, 650 pts (Both armies came out to 649 actually.)
Knights:
Mounted Lord Knight and 2 bodyguards, with lances
4 mounted knights with lances
10 foot knights
8 foot retainers
8 Crossbowmen
5 dice total
Orcs:
Orc Chieftain and 2 bodyguards with big axes
10 orc guard with bug axes
10 orc warriors spears
10 orc warriors swords
10 orc archers
5 dice total
played scenario 1 which is the standard meeting engagement. I'll post a few photos here then, recap some below. feel free to ask questions!
(https://i.imgur.com/stS80IL.jpg)
the view after the first turn. just maneuvering. Knights towards bottom, orcs at top.
(https://i.imgur.com/pgsoTTz.jpg)
Knights attacking orc guard, knight would ultimately win this fight with only one survivor.
(https://i.imgur.com/8TxPlbU.jpg)
Orc cheiftan and bodyguards fall to foot knights. not shown here is the orc chieftain wiping out a unit of retainers
(https://i.imgur.com/00L5z3b.jpg)
Plucky orc archers claim the life of bodyguard of the knight lord seconds before being utterly crushed.
So the game moved pretty good for new players still fumbling through rules. If you have a background in Bolt action or Antares it feels familiar.
The game was three hours for 7 turns, and part of that was definitely rule reading time. combat had weight to it, the pin rule was fine and should be called shaken or something.
-
Great report! I would love to ask: did you feel like the game challenged you to make any interesting decisions? From the outside looking in this game seems to have Priestly's fingerprints all over it (which of course it should). I want to love it, but I question how much 'game' there really is here to discover beyond 'choose obvious target, move, shoot, punch'. I apologize for being negative. Thoughts?
-
I placed all my cavalry off to one side after my opponent had deployed spears, then i sprinted them back across the table. Sprint is a move order past advance or run and its a gamble. they have to test agility and pass or they take a pin/exhaustion. Another instance was after an initial combat a unit of knights was down to two men. i had routed the enemy unit and they were going to have to run away but i chose to continue combat to finish them off and not take the chance of them rallying. to be clear this is a choice the player who wins the initial combat must make. Had i not done that i could've kept both knights, instead i lost one in the ensuing melee and that unit became largely weakened even though i destroyed his unit. weapons choices greatly affect combat. It isnt as detailed as WFB or something that is rank and file. Terrain can play a big role. those are some examples i ran into that come to mind.
-
Thanks for sharing the pics and the report Commander Baker...out of interest how did it handle with 5 dice aside? Also, what do you think about unit sizes, go for 10 or have more smaller units? I think Rick posted on FB that he tends to go for units of 7-8 for warriors and 5 for archers.
-
5 dice for each player felt like a decent number of troops on a 6x4 table. this was at 650 points. doubling that basically to 1250 which is the top end of my Bolt action games, i think we'd see no more than 12 dice depending on the army and more like 8-10 with them more uniquely kitted out. There was no artillery, no magic, no champions in this game. but this didn't feel like a small battle or large one, just a skirmish. and it worked well. Im convinced that if we didn't have to keep looking up rules due to our greenes, we would have finished in roughly jut over an hour with a larger game taking 1.5-2.
It is extremely helpful that each army list has a quick reference at the end of their list. and once you have the flow down the D10s help keep things straight forward. should note there were two instances we had to toss a D6.
As far as unit sizes go the orcs were all full strength and the knights were either full or just under full. 8 men felt ideal for the humies and probably saved close to 100 points to be spent elsewhere. I think taking groups of 5 archers is a cool idea assuming you can keep them out of the melee. Otherwise it depends on how tough your troops are. Low resistance units need the bulk to sustain combat. Looking at the gnoll list for example its a toss up, do you get as many as you can or do you utilize their high resistance to bring more dice and vary their weapons.
-
Thanks for the advice :D
-
Lost Egg you have the Oathmark Elves right? How do they square up to other plastic manufacturers?
-
I do indeed.
They are ok. Now I've built a few I kinda like the look of them but they do seem to be quite limited in terms of poses and the heads seem to want to sit at odd angles; I have plans to kitbash with some gothic cavalry so will see how they mix together.
My plan was always to build up a 500pt warband with them as they were cheap but I'm not sure I will add much else. I am more tempted to buy old metal GW or Celtos minis as they seem to have so much more character. I find I'm kicking myself for not having kept my old WHFB minis as they'd be great for this game and though they are still out there they are very expensive.
I've not really got many other minis at the moment but I'd say they'd probably sit well with most non-GW plastics as they have much more 'realistic' proportions.
-
Thanks Egg, i saw a comparsion of GW elves to them and the GW ones only looked slightly larger. i think they were 7th eidtion ones. Im buying a Island of Blood set for the skaven out of it and a friend was going to make a an allied elf army of high elves and wood elves and us the oathmark lads as wood elf infantry.
-
Couldn't say how they'd go side by side though I guess stylisticly you could tell they were from two different manufacturers.
-
Podcast with Rick:
https://soundcloud.com/whatsabattlepodcastnetwork/the-official-warlord-games-podacst-episode-10-warlords-of-erehwon (https://soundcloud.com/whatsabattlepodcastnetwork/the-official-warlord-games-podacst-episode-10-warlords-of-erehwon)
-
Thanks for the reply CommanderBaker. You've almost sold me!
-
I am loving the podcast so far...I watched an interview with Andy Chambers the other day and you really get a feel for how GW was and how much its changed. It's always great to hear the thinking behind a games creation.
-
Great report! I would love to ask: did you feel like the game challenged you to make any interesting decisions? From the outside looking in this game seems to have Priestly's fingerprints all over it (which of course it should). I want to love it, but I question how much 'game' there really is here to discover beyond 'choose obvious target, move, shoot, punch'. I apologize for being negative. Thoughts?
There are lots of little decisions to be made, none of which are earth shattering. I think the biggest "interesting" decision will be in the use of the ambush dice. This is effectively a wait and see action. A unit in ambush can react to an enemy activation. For example, a unit of archers in ambush could react to a unit of enemy cavalry charging a friendly unit - a supporting unit in effect. Another unit in ambush could react to an enemy charge with a charge of their own - a countercharge. Or maybe react by an advance, but away from the chargers - a tactical retreat. Lots of possibilities there for some more realistic battlefield actions I reckon, and bit different to most rock paper scissors stuff we see today.
-
Yeah Nord, the Podcast goes into detail about it and i didnt even use it in my first game. but you could activate archers to shoot at and kill and add pins to the unit that just charged some other soldiers. Basically disrupting their charge and softening them up for the ensuing melee.
I think its a good addition.
-
Finally got my first game of Erehwon. The game is fun, but the close combat is just as brutal that I thought, making the game quite intensive as the units are destroyed pretty quickly. Also the cavalry was as strong as I thought, but still not too overpowering. All in all, a nice game for some fast skirmishes with your favourite models. Wrote a small report in my blog, if anyone is interested: https://wewargaming.blogspot.com/2019/03/first-try-of-warlords-of-erehwon.html
-
We did on sunday a 500 point Skaven (Goblins with GW Skaven minitures) against Empire (Knights with Perry Late Medieaval). Is was fun and worked very well. The combats were fast and very bloody, but with surprises. A halbard carrying Imperial unit slaughtered 3 Skaven units inclduding the Skaven warlord and 3 Rat Ogers ate my Lord and his two knights.
I hope there will be more books, or at least a point system to construct your own list. And I will try it for historical skirmish.
-
Seeing how you have some Perry minis right behind them, could you tell how those skeletons match up with historicals in terms of scale? Their occasionally problematic thinness appears to be a result of the fact that they are realistically sized, but those proportions do of course vary a lot among ranges. Would be nice to know which manufacturers they fit with in terms of making undead variants of said historical ranges...
I completely missed this, i will add a comparison pick ASAP.
-
I have now played three games. 2 1vs1 games and a four way multiplayer game. The multiplayer game went perfectly, even when I was the only one who knew the rules when we started. The "randomness" of the combat is still an issue. The last game yesterday was decided by a combat where 10 unpinned dwarf warriors with great weapons charged my unpinned elven command. The combat was pretty even, with the dwarfs having a upper hand, but I rolled better saves and the 10 dwarfs vanished in a single sweep. Often it is like that. It gives action, but the games are over very quickly and give a feeling there wasn't much that was to be done from either side. We spoke if it would be good idea to give just d3 pins from the failed break test, or even just one. This would give the game little bit of grind. Now even the units immune to rout usually just get removed from the table after the first lost round of close combat.
-
Yes, I agree on the overly random nature of those break tests. At least WHFB had the less random bell curve of the 2d6 roll. A d3 would give losers some sticking power, but they would still be at a considerable disadvantage. Might try that out in our next game.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/y1V9UOR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/jVMcYNl.jpg)
Height Compare, Perry Agincourt Historical, Warlord Games Skeletons
-
Many thanks! :)
Oeh, those bones really are spindly when compared to that arrow, but certainly promising.
-
Have you guys seen the skellies from Wargames Atlantic, sold by North Star?
http://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=13454
-
Already ordered in readiness for my undead force for Warlords.
Problem is I’ve ordered direct from the US before realising that North Star would stock them!
It’s a race to see who gets them first...
-
Yes, I agree on the overly random nature of those break tests. At least WHFB had the less random bell curve of the 2d6 roll. A d3 would give losers some sticking power, but they would still be at a considerable disadvantage. Might try that out in our next game.
The close combat system is a direct port of the rules from Bolt Action and Gates of Antares where it is meant to be a very quick and decisive result. I don’t think that it works as well in a game where there is a lot of close combat and where you actually do want longer combats and less immediate results. Especially in a game where you may not have a lot of potential combats based on the point value you are playing.
I would go even further than the suggestions here are remove the post-combat break test entirely. Make the loser do a disengage movement and then only do a break test if the unit meets one of the other requirements for a break test.
Another option might be to retain the break test but only add a single pin for losing combat. Count the casualties and then determine the winner that way with the loser getting a pin marker and then making a break test. Even a d3 might provide too many pin markers to allow a unit to survive combat
-
Check out the other thread on my WoE event.
We’re going to leave it pretty open, just to get some concentrated gaming in one place done.
I’ll give feedback to see if after a whole day of 20 players playing, we have come up with any ideas.
-
It’s a race to see who gets them first...
Not going to be me - I'll probably be ordering late summer, as I have another project brewing (expanding my Rohan force for Age of Magic and God of Battles), and I need to get some mileage done on that over the summer, but THEN it will be time for expanding my GoB Lords of Undeath army with some nice classical skellies! So many minis, so little time... lol
-
I recently received my copy of the WoE book, and some order dice. Add to that some D10s from AliExpress, and I had everything required to start playing.
So a couple of days ago, The Voivod and I played our first game of WoE. Due to time restraints, and the common sense to start out small, we decided on a 250 points level battle, just to get to grips with the rules and the system.
It played pretty smooth, although there definitely was some extensive leafing through the book.
Some things we took away from this first game: certain spells at this level are ridiculously good; they will probably scale better in larger games. Spears are the kings of the battlefield (and we even decided to forego the ranged attacks that spear units get). The pin system is not particularly suited for a primarily close combat game.
So, having thought this over for a bit, here are some thoughts of mine in regards to the above points:
Maybe a minimum points level for fielding a magic user should be in order. At 250 points, the necromancer my goblins were facing managed to double up almost his entire army before we got to charge, due to his spell. And my shaman was a pint-sized rapid-fire cannon, decimating entire enemy units with his fiery balls.
Then again; this was a try-out game at a deliberately low points cost of 250; I'm not expecting to play many such small battles in the future. If only because the juicier units tend to cost at least half that on their own.
Spears should have a points cost (+1?), be an add-on to standard CCWs, and be a one use ranged weapon. Once thrown, the unit reverts back to its standard CCWs. Possibly it could hit harder when thrown, but otherwise it should remain the same. Perhaps a javelin type of weapon could be added tot he list, maybe reducing its AV or range, but making it possible to buy multiples per miniature?
Once a combat has started, it will rarely last longer than one turn (it did not for us anyway, and when it did, my Goblins always passed their Co tests, and simply advanced (tactically retreated) their 6 inches, while the zombies they were fighting could only advance 5, so they broke combat, and then charged in again next turn...) Therefore our conclusion was that when determining combat resolution (using an oldhammer term here), the loser should simply receive 1 pin marker, instead of both sides 1 per casualty, and both units should be locked in combat.
This is explicitly noticeable when playing with bare-bone 5 man units, because they will usually break or be destroyed in one turn. Especially when adding in some ranged combat before the charge (yes spears; I'm looking at you...).
One other thing that popped up is that we'd like to see larger units. Certainly larger than 10 miniatures. Perhaps 20 or 30 max? Without trying to turn WoE into a WHFB clone/replacement, I do think this could add some more depth to the game. There would be a trade off; you obviously get less command dice, but maybe larger units get things like a shield wall or even testudo bonus, a Co boost because of their numbers, a hero or commander might possibly lead them, a sprint order deals an automatic pin, etc.
All things that could make larger units be a possibility, without making them overpowered or impossible to properly field. this is after all a fantasy game; this type of game is about basically medieval combat with added fantastical elements. And medieval battles (at least as we see them now) were all about large formations, flanking maneuvers and shiny heroes under billowing banners.
Concluding; I like the game and will play it more, but as we decided during the after battle prattle, it feels... unfinished. I do think it could be a real gem, but it does need some tweaking to make it really shine...
The lists we used were:
Goblins:
- Commander (plus his 2 bodyguards: 1+2)
- Shaman (1)
- Warriors with spears (5)
- Warriors with spears (5)
- Warriors with bows (plus one extra: 5+1)
Undead:
- Necromancer (plus his 2 bodyguards and 2 extra: 1+4)
- Skeletons (5)
- Zombies (5)
- Zombies (5)
(One more odd thing: Extra Goblin bodyguards cost the same as Warriors, but extra bodyguards for the Necromancer cost 2 pts per miniature more than regular Skeletons?)
-
We initially thought spears were too powerful, in fact we are still undecided.
But play some more games before you make changes, really big axes in the hands of dwarfs, for example are good.
Glad you’ve enjoyed yourself, that’s the main point.
I like the idea of bigger units, but again it changes things, like big units of spears!
Get some experience using the ambush order and using fast cavalry, you’ll change the game again with these troops.
Regards
-
I think it sounds interesting!
I am always looking for rulesets that can handle both small and large skirmishes, and WoE seems to scratch that itch. Age of Fantasy Skirmish also, though, so I shall probably try that out, first, as it is free, but I am pretty sure I shall be getting WoE at some point. :)
-
BTW: I am hoping there will eventually be more army lists by the way, because even with those already in the book, there are still some armies not (well) represented right now. For instance; I'd really like to differentiate my Chaos Dwarfs from their not-evil cousins with some race specific units and warmachines. And there are currently no vampires in the undead list. Also; demons!
Now I know they can be represented, proxied or played-as, but more flavour is always welcome as far as I'm concerned... :)
I think it sounds interesting!
I am always looking for rulesets that can handle both small and large skirmishes, and WoE seems to scratch that itch. Age of Fantasy Skirmish also, though, so I shall probably try that out, first, as it is free, but I am pretty sure I shall be getting WoE at some point. :)
Even with just one game under my belt, and with the initial thoughts described above, I can still recommend WoE, because it's fast (once you get familiar with the rules) and certainly fun... :)