Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: Bloggard on August 14, 2020, 09:45:10 AM
-
trying to find a small units (skirmish) set of rules that suits. Finally looking at HoTT.
found a pdf of 2.1, and have a h/copy on the way from Amazon.
anyhow: apart from the perfunctory / 'colourless' use of magic, one thing I'm not liking the sound of is the apparently immutable element of attack/defence of a stronghold ... ? I must be missing something - it surely can't be that every game is limited to this set-up / objective?
-
A stronghold isn’t an objective - you don’t have to attack it. However, if you capture it, it will certainly hasten the demise of the other army. I have a set of expanded magic rules for HOTT which I could dig out and post here if there is interest.
-
thanks.
I'm definitely interested in your expanded rules, and would be very grateful if you would post, or send (PM etc)?
reading through 2.1, and not sure as it stands.
-
I wouldn’t call HoTT a skirmish set - more a battle set that uses a small number of minis. It was designed around DBA to offer a fast-playing battle, but obviously cuts out a lot of potential granularity/ flavour as a result. Because the standard DBA set up was two ancient armies fighting a battle with a camp on each side, so the HoTT set up included a stronghold. The DBA series has never featured a set of standard scenarios, which might be more what you’re looking for. That said, it provides a good fun game and gets a battle resolved in good time.
Sorry if that wasn’t as useful as you may have been hoping, but I thought it’d be helpful to explain a bit about why HoTT is what it is.
What specifically are you looking for in a set of rules?
Ps: love the Haddock/ flying fish avatar!
-
The stronghold and the attacker/defender set-up are the defaults for HotT, but there's no reason to restrict yourself to those. You can use other scenarios (e.g. those in Neil Thomas's One-Hour Wargames) and different victory conditions. The game also works fine with much larger armies - e.g. 36 AP per commander.
I wouldn't say that HotT is really a small-unit or skirmish game, though. While the figure scale is unspecified, I think it's fairly clear that one miniature is meant to represent scores or hundreds of men. It certainly plays as much more of a big-battle game than (e.g.) Dragon Rampant or Saga, even though it generally uses fewer figures.
-
I would agree that DBA/HotT is not a skirmish game (even with the minimal figure count).
The figures are representative of the units, there are some surprising and inventive armies for HotT on this forum.
I had a set I made using one cm ground scale rather than one inch and card tokens rather than figures. We used to play quick games during lunch at college.
-
thanks for the replies chaps, interesting info'.
yes, this whole 'skirmish / small units' thing is a bit confused (well, for me) these days, so thanks for the clarification there (and regarding the Stronghold aspect).
Having read through dragon rampant again today, (as well as reviews of Warlords of Erehwon, and briefly at my copy of Saga age of magic), I'm not sure what I'm after is out there, with DR probably being closest (with some house rules re: activation etc).
What attracts me to HOTT is that it looks like a 'proper' wargame with units (as an old timer the look of multiple figs on bases remains an ideal) but then as you've explained above, that's because it is a 'proper' wargame ... miniaturised, if you'll forgive the pun.
I'm not keen on the individual 'bunches' / groups of figures and buckets of dice approach which characterises all the other rules I mention above ... but suspect it's effectively unavoidable - and I know people do use movement trays etc at least in part with them. But then, while you can, all of the rules say that the game is designed for individually based figures, and at some point trays / multi-bases are going to 'get in the way' ...
I guess I'm after a massed battles look / vibe, but with no more than the 50 or so figs a side that the likes of DR are aimed at. That might be thought to be HoTT - but now having read the rules, I'm not too keen. Don't like the lack of casualties and the recoil / flee / destroyed mechanic. It is, I think, lacking a bit of crunch as mentioned above, and I'm not a particularly crunchy character ...
So, suppose I want the look and feel of a good old massed battle 28mm game, but with the troop count and narrative / cinematic feel / detail of a skirmish game. I may be expecting too much lol
Actually, I thought Bladestorm 2nd edition was going to do for me, covering as it does everything from RPG (lite) encounters and gameplay, through to pretty darn crunchy unit battles, with everything inter-relating, but I've had to accept it's too involved, and that I'll never take the time it would need to internalise / digest the system.
Anyhow - a lot of blather there - any further comments / advice much appreciated.
and @ James Morris - yes good ol' Haddock has always been my idol (at least in Londale Turner's brilliant english translations).
-
Have you had a look at Brent Spivey's Mayhem?
They have similarities to HotT in that each unit is a base but far more variety in the types of troops and method of fighhting and destruction and there is more magic (though I don't use the latter).
I haven't played many games with them but the games I have had have been enjoyable. You can see a couple of AAR's on my blog (http://tenmilwargames.blogspot.com (http://tenmilwargames.blogspot.com))
Actually selling for just 3.00USD for the next 24 hours on Wargames Vault!
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/110359/Mayhem (https://www.wargamevault.com/product/110359/Mayhem)
-
The search for the ideal set of rules is an ongoing challenge for all of us!
Since you have already ordered HoTT, there is a blog post by Hobgoblin that you might find worth reading: https://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2020/01/microhott-hordes-of-things-with.html?m=1 (https://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2020/01/microhott-hordes-of-things-with.html?m=1)
The gist of it is that Hobgoblin used a large number of single-based figures to play the HoTT rules with very few changes and it ended up working pretty smoothly for a large skirmish/small battle game. It’s an intriguing notion and might help you get some mileage out of HoTT as a base for games closer to what you are looking for.
-
@capthugeca
didn't he use to be in one of the star trek spin-offs !
anyway, picked that up - thanks for the suggestion.
@Pattus Magnus
will check out Hobgoblin's post, thanks, but I'd prefer not to use single-based figures (without any kind of sabot etc) really.
-
Ah, fair enough re. the preference for multi-based. I think Hobgoblin’s approach was meant to get more mileage out of his single-based figs, rather than an attempt to avoid multi-based. Perhaps his overall approach would still be useful, though, in that you could use a large number of multi bases. HoTT does have rules for big battles, also, but Hobgoblin’s approach is a little different (fewer initiative points to work with, so players benefit more from using group activations effectively).
-
If you do not want to play with buckets of dice, there is Oathmark.
Maximum number of dice in combat is five, additional ranks reduce the target number.
-
yes, will need to read his post more carefully.
Oathmark - unfortunately with my feelings these days, just too stereotypically 'tolkienesque' in its presentation (although I appreciate it then tries to subvert that a little in terms of possible alliances - but no, the gameworld is just too limited and prescriptive).
one thing I like about HoTT is the generic troop types approach which can be adapted to just about anything. Age of Magic is similar in that respect, although with much fewer catagories as such ...
It's one thing I don't like about Dragon Rampant - where for some reason the author (repeatedly) exhorts you to create as stereotypical a range of fantasy 'races' as possible - no idea why he felt the need to do that.
But... I'm feeling that I like the general cut of DR's jib, and I may just have to try and bodge some 'unit' rules into it, adapting movement and facings etc accordingly. Or something like that ::) (hey, it'll be easy, right ... ?)
thanks, gents, for the continued thoughts.
-
Have you looked at Kings of War?
I've played Kings of War with DBA bases (in both 15mm and 28mm) and enjoyed it quite a bit. On the surface Kings of War has a specific collection of armies that you have to choose from, but if you look a bit deeper you'll see a great generic set of rules with options for stats for any army you can dream of. The army composition rules are pretty great and straight forward, and the mechanics are way simpler than HoTT :)
Kings of War also has a pretty decent magic infrastructure as well!
Thanks
n
-
I have to admit that I did not find the Oathmark rules particularly Tolkeinesque (I only have a dwarf sprue for non-human in the figure range so I cannot really judge the figures).
Of course, I have been a bit lax in not mentioning a forthcoming project.
https://crooked-dice.co.uk/7tv-fantasy-is-coming/ (https://crooked-dice.co.uk/7tv-fantasy-is-coming/)
-
It's one thing I don't like about Dragon Rampant - where for some reason the author (repeatedly) exhorts you to create as stereotypical a range of fantasy 'races' as possible - no idea why he felt the need to do that.
But... I'm feeling that I like the general cut of DR's jib, and I may just have to try and bodge some 'unit' rules into it, adapting movement and facings etc accordingly. Or something like that ::) (hey, it'll be easy, right ... ?)
thanks, gents, for the continued thoughts.
There were some rules for flanks and rear on the Dux Rampant forum for Lion Rampant.
These are:
Flank and Rear
Models may move in any direction without penalty, but at the end of the unit’s movement, ensure that all models are facing in one direction.
• To change the direction a unit is facing requires a Move activation, even if the models just turn on the spot.
• Units may only Shoot at targets across the 180° arc to their front, measured from the unit’s forward-most model. At least one model from the target unit must be fully within this arc.
• Units may only Attack units within that same arc; the same applies for Wild Charges (they may not be made against units outside of the arc).
• Units shot at or Attacked by a unit beginning its move or shooting from behind its front arc count their Armour as 1 lower than normal (so Armour 2 becomes Armour 1). This is pretty deadly so don’t get flanked!
• Schiltrons cannot be flanked.
-
@ Neldorath ... sort of (KoW) ...
I have the Vanguard skirmish rules, and various 'old' supplements, and have looked into it more than once, bought some figs etc.
I suppose I have been put off by the 'fluff to the forefront' presentation.
But I do like the 'diorama' stands / bases approach to presenting units, with a casualties counter (which are commercially available), so I should look into it actually.
Price of the third edition rulebook is off-putting, and I had a really bad / cynical experience with their CS when inadvisably getting into Dungeon Saga a yr or two back, but ... yes, should look into it again.
@ultravanillasmurf - I guess I should actually read the rules before opining so strongly, but the look of the troop-types, and the 'races' couldn't be more tolkienesque to my eye, tbh.
-
@Ethelred the almost ready - that's brilliant, thank you very much!
-
@ultravanillasmurf.
sorry - yes, have looked into the current 7TV games with my bro' a while back.
love the 'conceit' and the visual presentation, but ultimately find the movie thing too self-conciously ironic and immersion breaking.
I love wit and humour in games, but like it to arise 'naturally' from swingy dice-roll situations etc.
so not sure their fantasy set will do much for me.
-
Mayhem is certainly worth a look - an interesting game, it is single bases with multiple figures, and represents a battle not a skirmish.
KoW I think would be hard to do while keeping the figure count low - while it certainly supports multi basing, and unit basing, you still end up needing a lot of figures. I have played it in 10mm with reduced distances and that plays fine. One part of KoW that can really put players off is the you do nothing in the other player’s turn part - not even fight back.
Another rule set to look at is Of Armies and Hordes by Ganesha Games https://www.ganeshagames.net/product_info.php?products_id=357&osCsid=abcuqbsb41imdt8cb5hn55vh55 I’ve not played this much but it has some very interesting approaches. It’s pretty low figure count.
-
One good thing about the HotT basing is that it can be used for many, many games.
I'd certainly give HotT a try, though. It's a great game - and it's far more flexible than you would think from the rule book. I really enjoy Mayhem and Dragon Rampant; they're great games. And Of Armies and Hordes is brilliant, and one I'd like to play more. But HotT is the one I keep coming back to. It's simple, elegant and has lots and lots of depth.
It also has the advantage of being quick - both to set up and to play. So you can play a full campaign in an afternoon. And if you want bigger, more absorbing battles, you can simply up the AP count. For example, you could play on a full-size table with three 36AP commands per side for a real 'big battle' experience.
-
thanks @Fred and Hobgoblin.
good stuff and appreciated.
with the rulebook coming today, I should certainly give HoTT a go. I intend to use sabots, and thus keep figs on individual bases, so trying different approaches should work.
I've read that fundamental criticism of KoW. Not sure what I'd make of it in practice, and certainly like the elements of the game and how it's presented.
Can you elaborate on why smaller games with just 'troop' sized units wouldn't work (I take it that some rules only come into play with larger sized units of course)?
I also like the fact that in theory it should sync up with Vanguard (which I have) smoothly - although I guess there's little if any real meaningful interplay, and you could use any skirmish rules with the massed battles set if you wanted ...
* and, oh gosh, another ganesha games ...er ... game. I have quite a few of their's already !
looks interesting. Seems difficult to get in h/copy.
ah, ok, looked into it: uses 'areas' bit like to the strongest (which I've played). Not attracted by that approach to movement somehow.
-
I’m not sure about playing KoW with just troops. It will change some of the relationships between units, particularly war engines are likely to be more powerful in relation to the units. But it would keep figure count down. Other than some of the army building rules (around unlocking) I don’t think anything changes rules wise.
OAaH while area based isn’t grid based. I played with using terrain to make the areas.
-
cheers @Fred.
I'm inclined to look further at KoW, I think. And keep HoTT in view.
have ordered the 3rd edition h/ copy. Will be good if they produce a historical army lists supplement as they did with 2nd edition (as a quick google suggests the exisiting one isn't compatible as such?).
-
I don’t recall that the KoW v2 to v3 changes were that huge. So would be surprised if the older historical lists don’t work.
I’m not sure KoW is a good historical rule set, not least as it is very brutal, within 4-6 turns both sides will have lost loads of units. We did a War of the Roses game with KoW and while it started off fine, by the end it felt and looked odd due to how few units were left on the table. For what ever reason this never seemed a problem with fantasy games of KoW. Also the rules have no attritional factors, units fight at full effect or are dead. Again OK for fantasy seems odd for historical
-
ok,right. Well that's certainly food for thought. The historical aspect, however, would just be for 'colour' / variation.
quite a lot of rule-reading in store it would appear ... o_o