Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: racm32 on January 26, 2021, 08:31:08 AM
-
Hello all.
While mostly a historical wargamer I have enjoyed deviations into small scale fantasy and sci-fi games. For fantasy that has been mostly D&D, Frostgrave, and Relicblade. I have been getting the itch to start a larger fantasy army that I could match against my Anglo-Saxon or Norman armies. To this end I am working on an alternative history setting where in 1066, instead of passing harmlessly by, Hailey's Comet brakes apart and big paces rain down over the earth. The impacts seriously disrupt the world order and the fragments imbue those that carry them with magical powers. To see this out on the tabletop I am looking for miniature agnostic fantasy skirmish rules. I have played lots of SAGA and have the Myth and Magic version but I don't feel the rules give enough flexibility to army composition and narrative play.
Here is were I would like recommendations. I am primarily considering one of the following 3: Oathmark, Warlords of Erehwon, or Dragon Rampant. What are the differences in these rules and what do you like/dislike about them? Are there other rules sets you'd recommend?
-
Seeing as how you mention Oathmark, what do you mean when you say skirmish? In my mind as a fantasy gamer skirmish can be either small skirmish (say Frostgrave, ca 10 figures per side) or large skirmish (say SAGA, 50 or so figures per side) with individual basing.
Oathmark uses square formations and would usually be called a mass battle system, even if you could play with pretty small armies. I can see it referred to as a skirmish game from a historical perspective because you have fewer troops.
Don't know much about the other two, but I do really like Oathmark anyway. It has a built in campaign system where you build a Kingdom which unlocks different unit choices in your army. It is very flexible and easy to adapt to different themes of army. Campaign games then impact these kingdoms as you can expand with new regions, occupy enemy territory and so on. It has a dark age theme to it as far as equipment and troop options, so your historical armies should fit in pretty easily.
-
I never played Warlords of Erehwon (Bolt Action) or Dragon Rampart (Lion Rampart), so I cant really compare them to each other, but I really love Oathmark. Its a fantastic system, its very easy to learn and use, the rules make a very fluid gameplay, the army lists are flexible (because you can mix every unit in one army) and its kingdom and campaign system is perfect for narrative play. And as a bonus, its dark age / tolkienesque style wopuld fit perfectly for your setting.
But I dont know if it can be referred as a skirmish game. Its flexible in army sizes, so you can make skirmish sized games, but the units are in square ranks.
Update: Basically I totally agree with Ogrob. :)
-
Another warband skirmish set to look at is Mantic's Vanguard. They seem to be aiming at the same type of game as Warlords of Erehwon and Dragon Rampant.
Mantic's stuff tends to favour their own figure ranges, but worth a look.
-
Warlords works perfect for historical and fantasy skirmish, we use it for Warhammer Fantasy style games and historical games, like HYW. You have to work a little on the lists, perhaps add some options for certains type of troops, but there is a pdf with all the point cost on the website.
So if you plan to let loose Catweazle the Mage at Hastings, its perfect.
-
I think large skirmish would be more accurate for size of game. Something between 50-100 models a side.
-
I think large skirmish would be more accurate for size of game. Something between 50-100 models a side.
I think Dragon Rampant is what you're looking for... it's my go to one size fits all fantasy wargame... oathmark is also great, but it's rank and file and you have to be in the mood for that. Give it a read, I think you'll like it.
-
I was going to suggest Saga when I started reading the request - but you’ve already tried that!
Dragon Rampant forces will be very much the size of Saga ones. And uses a similar idea around larger models having more wounds, and therefore fewer figures in a unit. DR is very generic, you will have to put quite a bit of effort into building units to represent your ideas - but that sounds like it may be a plus. I’m not a fan of the activation - in that a failed activation ends your turn.
-
Dragon Rampant is a horrible fantasy game
https://zacgaming.wordpress.com/2020/12/14/stop-recommending-dragon-rampant/
-
Oathmark is more of a rank-and-flank game and won't really give you the skirmish feel you want.
Warlords has a much looser feel and you can play it with smaller units to give you a more skirmish-like game. It also has a publicly available point system so you can build your own units.
Given what you seem to want I would go with WoE
-
I'm not opposed to rank and file games I just dont have a collect that can quite support ones like Warhammer Historical, FoG or Hail Creaser in number/size of units. Thats why I chose the term skirmish.
-
Dragon Rampant is a horrible fantasy game
https://zacgaming.wordpress.com/2020/12/14/stop-recommending-dragon-rampant/
Thank you for the review. I won Lion Rampant but hadn't had the opportunity to play, though that activation mechanic was a concern.
-
I'm not opposed to rank and file games I just dont have a collect that can quite support ones like Warhammer Historical, FoG or Hail Creaser in number/size of units. Thats why I chose the term skirmish.
I think that WoE is called a "warband skirmish" game in the rules. It certainly does feel like a bit of a hybrid game. Especially if you keep the unit sizes down to the minimum size or thereabouts.
It does use the order dice from Bolt Action though so you will need some of those or just use regular d6s and map the faces to an order
-
Thank you for the review. I won Lion Rampant but hadn't had the opportunity to play, though that activation mechanic was a concern.
The Rampant Activation system is a bit marmite love it or hate it.
As its representation of Fog of War, and historically there were plenty of battles where units would sit around on the side-lines and slink off having done nothing the whole battle when people started falling over in the bloody fashion they tend too. I think it works fine, and have enjoyed the games of Lion Rampant and Pikemans Lament I have played.
But if you've played Saga and liked it then the idea that you don't always have the dice for your units to all do what you want when you want is not so different.
There are a number of ways around it anyway. Such as having an average dice worth of rerolls at the start of the battle (kept secret under a cup till the end from your opponent) so they can't entirely be sure that just at the critical moment you'll get a unit moving in after a few trys, just when you need it.
Or you at least try to activate all your units without it being an instant turn over with a fail.
If you've the ruleset anyway give it a go. There was also a Dark Age Variant Mr Mersey has posted up on his blog page, so you've half your army lists ready to go with just a few tweaks on options that differ between LR and DR. Just need to tweak the fantasy bit to suit.
Also a Light Infantry Unit, or group of archers etc will work much the same in whichever army there in.
As you've mentioned about a narrative aspect though Oathmark does have that in that the result of a battle will have some bearing on your next and so forth. It also has an activation method but less brutal, if you succeed your unit takes two actions, fail and you still get to take one action. Try and google for some Oathmark Reviews on Blogs or youtube.
I would also point to the Lion Rampant series having been well received enough to have 5 subsequent rule sets derived from it and a number of articles in Wargames Illustrated, Wargames Soldiers & Strategy and recently Miniature Wargames to expand on it. Which I think is substantively more than most of the Osprey Blue Books, and that many have found it a rule set that works.
Oathmark has also been generating some interest with ideas put forward for Battles in Middle Earth in Miniature Wargames as well.
I have seen less said about WoE, although there may well be some background and expanding articles on the Warlord Games Website. So other than its a Fantasy version of Bolt Action I can't say much about it.
-
At the very least I can say Dragon Rampant is worth a try simply because it's a $15 book. I can definitely agree it'll be a love or hate thing with many people.
-
If you can hunt down a copy, there is a lot to like about God of Battles
-
As its representation of Fog of War, and historically there were plenty of battles where units would sit around on the side-lines and slink off having done nothing the whole battle when people started falling over in the bloody fashion they tend too. I think it works fine, and have enjoyed the games of Lion Rampant and Pikemans Lament I have played.
I'd agree with this. I've played Lion and Dragon Rampant a lot and have always had fun. The sole poor experience I've had with the Rampant series was when playing the fan-made 'hack' Xenos Rampant, which allows automatic activations for the sci-fi troop types it introduces but not for 'traditional' units from Dragon Rampant. I'd thoughtlessly composed one of four sides entirely from DR melee troops, and that player rolled three or four turn-ending failures in a row. We just gave him some automatic move actions and the problem was solved; Xenos Rampant worked very well otherwise.
For conventional Dragon Rampant, I've always found the failures to even out over the course of a game, especially in two-player games. They make things unpredictable, and there's plenty of fun to be had in the frustration (yours and others'). And the short turns that result help move the game along. Also, many unit types have the Wild Charge rule, so once the two sides close, there are quite a few automatic free actions (a failure to Wild Charge doesn't end the turn). Overall, I'd say it's good to have a game in which the best-laid plans gang aft aglae.
Dragon Rampant's also a hugely flexible ruleset. You can stat up pretty much anything very easily, and you can get it onto the table very quickly after deciding to play, which is a huge plus in my book.
As Elbows says, the game is very cheap. You can also find some useful ideas for variants in The Men Who Would Be Kings by the same author. That game does things slightly differently (individual casualties affecting unit strength, for example), so it provides lots of ideas for cross-fertilisation. And it has a solo-play engine too.
-
Dragon Rampant's also a hugely flexible ruleset. You can stat up pretty much anything very easily, and you can get it onto the table very quickly after deciding to play, which is a huge plus in my book.
I didn't really find it very flexible. Most of the units all turn out to be pretty much the same since they are all based on the same template and there is only so much you can do to the unit to differentiate it.
I understand the fog of war aspect of the activation system and it works in Lion Rampant. But it is not uncommon for you to fail to activate anything in a round and I don't think that most people come into a fantasy game expecting their army to just stand around and look at their feet.
(As an aside you often can't activate all of your units in Saga. Especially in Age of Magic. Especially as the game goes on and you lose dice as units get eliminated or reduced)
-
I too like Lion/Dragon rampant (& variants)
Could be worth having a look at the Fistful of Lead Big battles set of rules.
We have had lots of fun with their rules.
-
You can get an STD for free but I wouldn't recommend that either.
Trolls under bridges happily shout out all day long too, doesn't mean I recommend hearing what they say.
Having read your review I get you don't like the DR game. I would hope anyone else posting in this thread has also read it too see the context of discussion between the OP and yourself.
As 3 or 4 of us have said why we consider DR a positive choice, perhaps you would rather more constructively clarify why you feel WoE is a better choice to match the OPs choice for a game than all the other rule sets.
-
If you can hunt down a copy, there is a lot to like about God of Battles
As this isn't a title I've heard about, is there a review you can point too, or advise an overview of its strong points.
-
I too like Lion/Dragon rampant (& variants)
Could be worth having a look at the Fistful of Lead Big battles set of rules.
We have had lots of fun with their rules.
I had thought about mentioning this one, but I don't believe the Fantasy Version with its 3 books was ready for release yet. Could you play a game with just Big Battles and the Core Rules?
-
As this isn't a title I've heard about, is there a review you can point too, or advise an overview of its strong points.
Sorry, That would be helpful!
It was a set produced by Foundry and written by Jake Thornton as a way to use their fantasy range, although ita easy enough to use the various lists as a wide range of fantasy archetypes. Its a very attractive hardback book with a good, streamlined set of mechanics.
https://meeples.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/review-god-of-battles/
https://thelostcityofcarcosa.com/2012/10/03/god-of-battles-a-rules-review/
As far as I know this out of production. But you may be able to hunt down a copy.
-
Trolls under bridges happily shout out all day long too, doesn't mean I recommend hearing what they say.
I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out the ridiculous nature of suggesting a ruleset because it is cheap.
FFoL doesn't really have anything like a magic system so depending on what the OPs requirements are it may or may not work. It certainly might be a good place to start since it would be easy enough to stat up monsters
Bigger Battles does have some stats for fantasy races in the back of the book
-
I didn't really find it very flexible. Most of the units all turn out to be pretty much the same since they are all based on the same template and there is only so much you can do to the unit to differentiate it.
Aren't the templates quite dissimilar to each other - more so than in most games?
I'd say that a real strength of the Rampant system is that units behave in a very different way from each other. Heavy Foot and Bellicose Foot, for example, are very different animals, and the same goes for monsters or heroes based on them. The upgrades in Dragon Rampant provide a lot of scope for differentiating creatures further. So a troll that's based on Bellicose Foot with Mystical Armour (i.e. regeneration) and Exploder will play very differently from an ogre that's based on Elite Foot with Fear and Venomous.
That's more differentiation than you'd get between an ogre and troll in most games; the difference, i think, is that you can see "under the hood" with Dragon Rampant.
I understand the fog of war aspect of the activation system and it works in Lion Rampant. But it is not uncommon for you to fail to activate anything in a round and I don't think that most people come into a fantasy game expecting their army to just stand around and look at their feet.
I don't follow this - why does it work in Lion Rampant and not in Dragon Rampant? We used Lion Rampant for fantasy battles before Dragon Rampant came out; they're essentially the same game, but with a lot more variety in Dragon Rampant through its wider range of upgrades.
In answer to the original post, it's worth noting that Dragon Rampant has 13 basic troop types, each of which has some upgrades or downgrades and each of which can be modified by some of the 18 or so special rules. So there's a wide combination of possibilities for any potential troop type.
But - more importantly - the Dragon Rampant troop types are much more differentiated than in most comparable games, with a big emphasis on their battlefield role. In Oathmark (which is a great game too), the differences between, say, a linebreaker and a warrior are much slighter than between DR's Bellicose Foot and Heavy Foot. In Oathmark, there are incremental differences (1 pip on a d10, say), but Bellicose Foot hit twice as hard as Heavy Foot when on the attack, can counter-charge attackers, move faster and ignore rough terrain. On the other hand, they're much worse on the defensive, can't benefit from formations and die much more easily thanks to poorer armour. So they function very differently on the battlefield, which encourages you to use them in very different roles.
Another strength of Dragon Rampant is the way in which the Wild Charge and terrain rules interact. Your Ravenous Horde (the worst troop type) of ill-equipped goblins might have a real chance against the elven knights if they can lure them into the marshes or the wood - and the rules make that much more likely to happen than in most games.
-
You can get an STD for free but I wouldn't recommend that either.
Tell us how you really feel.
-
Try Armatura:
https://lohwand.blogspot.com/2021/01/lohwand-armatura-ver-6.html (https://lohwand.blogspot.com/2021/01/lohwand-armatura-ver-6.html)
-
Dragon Rampant is my favourite fantasy rulebook, outstanding little game,and very adaptable :)
-
I had made a reply but must have forgotten to hit post before closing down the computer - so I make a much smaller comment now.
Mainly, I would echo Hobgoblin and say I find the troop types are more varied than most other rule sets and are easy to customise.
So far, DR is the fantasy war game I have enjoyed the most. I mainly play solo and find it is very good for this purpose.
I have tried Warlords of Erehwon. There are many aspects I like, but I find there is a lot to keep track of if solo gaming. For a normal two player game things should be easier. I will give Warlords another go, but I still prefer DR for now.
-
I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out the ridiculous nature of suggesting a ruleset because it is cheap.
As most wargamers have finite disposable income, financial cost can be a barrier to entry to trying a ruleset or not and can factor in the decision to try a ruleset and is a valid point to put forward for consideration.
Also for myself I feel to denigrate someones comment by comparison to an STD is trolling and is the kind of toxic comment that is not helpful and this forum is largely free off. Continually beating down on a ruleset you don't like does not help the OP to decide what they should try.
I get that if DR was given away as a free PDF you'd still not recommend it, but I wonder if WoE had been the ruleset mentioned how differently you might have answered.
I respect that your passion for wargaming the OP topic is different to my own and others and embrace that, as without differing views there'd be no inovation and we'd still be playing Chainmail with the fantasy addon, or Warhammer Fantasy Battle.
Please allow the same courtesy for the rest of us whose passion for hobby is of a different sort.
All rulesets have strengths and weaknesses, there is no perfect system, just rules and games we enjoy and those we don't, I wouldn't want to unduly block someone from trying something as I might be blocking there passion for hobby however well intentioned I thought I was being.
So lets leave to rest any further discussion on this please.
-
Thank you everyone for lots of good suggestions. I think Enough has been said about the merits of Dragon Rampant and I will keep all the feed back in mind when looking for a rules set.
I do love Frostgrave, does Oathmark have any similarities?
-
I do love Frostgrave, does Oathmark have any similarities?
Not really. It has a strong narrative element in the campaign system but aside from that its quite distinct from Frostgrave
-
handy timed thread, have snuck in an order for DR and Oathmark- do love a good rulebook
-
Right. I thought we were generally quite nice to each other on the Fantasy Board. As the board moderator I don't want arguments over this, it's a discussion on rulesets. I get that it's often easy to take and make comments out of context but I don't really want to see snarky comments and LAFers having a pop at each other. Constructive discussion is fine.
Thank you
-
I never tried Dragon Rampart, but we did a few test games with Lion Rampart. I never liked this loss of of dice if the unit is down to half its strenght. I feels wrong to me. I prefer rules were a loss of a miniature goes proportionally with a loss of combat strength of the unit, but not one single loss of combat strength. The activation mechanismen was ok.
Wirh Warlord we played games with 30 minis up to 100 miniatures on one side. Like with Bolt Action it becomes a litte unbalanced it one side has many small units and the other side only a few large units, baut is not that bad as with Bolt Action.
-
Thank you everyone for lots of good suggestions. I think Enough has been said about the merits of Dragon Rampant and I will keep all the feed back in mind when looking for a rules set.
I do love Frostgrave, does Oathmark have any similarities?
Rules are quite different, but there are some similarities in feel and theme. It does the same type of world building, where Joe implies more than explains a setting and leaves you to fill in what you need. There is a solid campaign system (for a mass-battle game) and Joe does a good job of writing scenarios in the expansion books, just like for Frostgrave.
-
A point about Oathmark that's worth making is that it really isn't a 1:1 game when it comes to figure scale. It pretends to be, but nothing about the rules or the campaign system supports that. I think the tacit figure scale is really something like 1:20 or more. So groups of 'five' men are vulnerable to flank attacks even when not in contact to the front. That's not a criticism of the rules, which I really like; it's just that the game is very much a massed battle game that only really makes sense if you assume that the units represent hundreds of men (orcs, dwarves, whatever) rather than a few handfuls. That holds true for the campaign system, where you have a city raising a few 10s of men for its defence.
That's in marked contrast to Saga and Dragon Rampant, in which a single figure is very much one man - so no flanks or strict formations (Dragon Rampant allows certain units to form shieldwalls if they're not down to half-strength).
I never tried Dragon Rampart, but we did a few test games with Lion Rampart. I never liked this loss of of dice if the unit is down to half its strenght. I feels wrong to me. I prefer rules were a loss of a miniature goes proportionally with a loss of combat strength of the unit, but not one single loss of combat strength. The activation mechanismen was ok.
The Men Who Would Be Kings tweaks the LR mechanism so that each man contributes a die to the attack rather than the 12/6 format. It's easy to import that to the other systems, so you get a gradual decrease in effectiveness. It does mean more counting, though, but it works well.
I think the rationalisation for LR/DR is that not every man is actually fighting in each clash of troops - whereas in TMWWBK, the whole unit is assumed to be shooting (or bayoneting), so every rifle counts.
-
I was going to suggest that you have a look at The 9th Age
https://the-ninth-age.com/
Its free - but its locked into its own set of army lists, so may not be quite the "agnostic" experience you were after. The games of it I saw were very much a Warhammer FB experience, so that may or may not float your boat depending on how you feel about Warhammer
-
I think the rationalisation for LR/DR is that not every man is actually fighting in each clash of troops - whereas in TMWWBK, the whole unit is assumed to be shooting (or bayoneting), so every rifle counts.
That would seem to be at odds with assumed scale of those two games though, no?
-
Hello all.
While mostly a historical wargamer I have enjoyed deviations into small scale fantasy and sci-fi games. For fantasy that has been mostly D&D, Frostgrave, and Relicblade. I have been getting the itch to start a larger fantasy army that I could match against my Anglo-Saxon or Norman armies. To this end I am working on an alternative history setting where in 1066, instead of passing harmlessly by, Hailey's Comet brakes apart and big paces rain down over the earth. The impacts seriously disrupt the world order and the fragments imbue those that carry them with magical powers. To see this out on the tabletop I am looking for miniature agnostic fantasy skirmish rules. I have played lots of SAGA and have the Myth and Magic version but I don't feel the rules give enough flexibility to army composition and narrative play.
Whichever rules you choose this setting sounds great!
-
That would seem to be at odds with assumed scale of those two games though, no?
Different rulesets take different approaches, some more abstract than others. Ultimately it comes down to personal choice and what elements we, as gamers, prefer.
Some people might not like certain rules and it's perfectly ok to say what it is that they don't like about them in a constructive manner. Let's not get into arguments over it though.
-
That would seem to be at odds with assumed scale of those two games though, no?
Not really; it's 1:1, and the melees are brief clashes between two loose bands, so I think the assumption is that not everyone's in a position to deliver a killing or disabling role in each combat. They're not formed up as lines. If a band of Bellicose Foot completely destroys a unit of Light Foot, the guys at the front have probably done most of the killing. It is abstracted somewhat, but the morale rules mean that it seldom looks too odd.
In TMWWBK, the emphasis is on shooting, which I think explains the more granular approach.
-
Some people might not like certain rules and it's perfectly ok to say what it is that they don't like about them in a constructive manner. Let's not get into arguments over it though.
I think that the question was asked in a reasonable fashion and was directed to the point that the poster was making about the difference between some of the rules being discussed. Not sure what the problem is?
-
In TMWWBK, the emphasis is on shooting, which I think explains the more granular approach.
The system as a whole seems to be adjusting based on player feedback. Or at least that is the impression I get. Pikeman's Lament had adjustments to the activation system and now we're seeing changes to the way attack dice are calculated. I don't think that any of the changes aren't things you could slot into the earlier games with any issues.
-
I use Age of Fantasy, from One Page Rules. https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/age-of-fantasy/ (https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/age-of-fantasy/)
It is obviously a simplified Age of Sigmar, but I've used it for my Lord of the Rings collection, which I don't use for Middle Earth refights. The main rules are one page, there is a page of special rules, and each army list is a page, but it really is short enough to not have to look up stuff. There are longer versions available. If you are a Patreon supporter, you get access to the point calculator, and can make up your own units.
It isn't perfect, since I like a bit more of the extra kinds of things that some games add with uncertainty and surprises. (Chain of Command for WW2, Song of Blades & Heroes for smaller skirmish.) I vary the alternate activation sequence by drawing tokens, for example. But it lets me play with a lot of figures pretty quickly.
A couple of battle reports of this, and some Grimdark Future (sci-fi game, close to same rules) here:
https://andyshobby.wordpress.com/category/battle-report/ (https://andyshobby.wordpress.com/category/battle-report/)
andy
-
I use Age of Fantasy, from One Page Rules. https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/age-of-fantasy/ (https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/age-of-fantasy/)
IIRC if you are a Patreon member you can also get a point cost calculator to build your own models
-
IIRC if you are a Patreon member you can also get a point cost calculator to build your own models
Yes, I mentioned that. :)
andy
-
That would seem to be at odds with assumed scale of those two games though, no?
I think its only TMWWBK does this, as its Colonial based game and whereas the Red Coat with rifles has 12 man Infantry units the Native forces tend to be larger sized at 18 or more.
So assume the change in the usual unit combat block of rolls being 12 or 6 when half strength to each man fights and nobody quits, is how it more balances out the difference between Imperial and Native Combat and the unit sizes.
I've not played this one myself, so that is an assumption.
-
The system as a whole seems to be adjusting based on player feedback. Or at least that is the impression I get. Pikeman's Lament had adjustments to the activation system and now we're seeing changes to the way attack dice are calculated. I don't think that any of the changes aren't things you could slot into the earlier games with any issues.
There are some issues. The main difference between TMWWBK and the Rampant games is in unit size. In TMWWBK, most units are at least 12 strong, and the close-combat fighting power of each man is fairly similar. In the Rampant games, a fully armoured man-at-arms is (correctly) represented as having much more killing power than an unarmoured peasant. So six men-at-arms (Elite Foot) are more than a match for 12 peasants (Ravenous Hordes).
That means that if you use the die-per-man system in DR or LR, you need to roll two dice per man for the elite units (and big monsters). It's not a huge change, but it will slow things down a bit from the 12/6 binary system for being above or below half strength.
While I really like TMWWBK and have experimented with one die/man in DR, I'd generally stick with the full/half rule in for fantasy; it keeps the game a bit more heroic and reflects the more extreme differences in arms and armour.
-
I can echo the One Page Rules comments, nice simple, alternate activation of one unit/character at a time which can be truly randomised by colour chit pulling etc.
Plus proper army builder, just drop the fantasy bits if you like.
Give it a go, its free.
Good luck
Glen
-
I think that the question was asked in a reasonable fashion and was directed to the point that the poster was making about the difference between some of the rules being discussed. Not sure what the problem is?
Fine. Let's continue to keep it constructive and informative.
One of my old gaming group members who wrote some printed rules probably 30 years ago always talked about 'positive rules justification'. He said a lot of the time it was about how the rule was understood in context. He reckoned that if a rule was understandable in context to a player, they were generally more likely to accept them. The exact issue about how many figures in a unit could fight or fire was raised several times. For example, for one ruleset he did, only half the unit could fire at a time because the others were deemed to be reloading, cleaning blockages, etc. It was ACW if I remember correctly, so we all accepted the gist of the situation and the rule.
-
That means that if you use the die-per-man system in DR or LR, you need to roll two dice per man for the elite units (and big monsters). It's not a huge change, but it will slow things down a bit from the 12/6 binary system for being above or below half strength.
Good point. That also doesn't take into account the single model rule in DR. That would complicate it further.
-
One of my old gaming group members who wrote some printed rules probably 30 years ago always talked about 'positive rules justification'. He said a lot of the time it was about how the rule was understood in context. He reckoned that if a rule was understandable in context to a player, they were generally more likely to accept them.
Which is why I said earlier that the activation system made more sense in LR. The history of the period is replete examples of units and wings not responding in time or even switching sides.
I think that in a fantasy context the justifications for a lack of action don't exist in the same way and so it stands out.
-
Yes, I mentioned that. :)
Old eye syndrome.
-
Do people consider rules that one pays for inherently better than those that are free, or home-grown?
-
There are some issues. The main difference between TMWWBK and the Rampant games is in unit size. In TMWWBK, most units are at least 12 strong, and the close-combat fighting power of each man is fairly similar. In the Rampant games, a fully armoured man-at-arms is (correctly) represented as having much more killing power than an unarmoured peasant. So six men-at-arms (Elite Foot) are more than a match for 12 peasants (Ravenous Hordes).
That means that if you use the die-per-man system in DR or LR, you need to roll two dice per man for the elite units (and big monsters). It's not a huge change, but it will slow things down a bit from the 12/6 binary system for being above or below half strength.
While I really like TMWWBK and have experimented with one die/man in DR, I'd generally stick with the full/half rule in for fantasy; it keeps the game a bit more heroic and reflects the more extreme differences in arms and armour.
The problem with one man one die in DR is that some units would become useless once they get to 4 or so figures as it will become impossible to deliver a hit on units with high armour value. Other games also have this problem where the number of dice rolled is related to the number of figures and bases. It can end with two depleted units battering away at each other without ever being able to deliver the killing blow.
On another topic, has anyone tried Mortal Gods Mythic for fantasy?
-
Which is why I said earlier that the activation system made more sense in LR. The history of the period is replete examples of units and wings not responding in time or even switching sides.
I think that in a fantasy context the justifications for a lack of action don't exist in the same way and so it stands out.
I suppose that's one of the difficulties with Fantasy, it's not a genre that has a snapshot of history to support its context. There's a wide range of Fantasy settings that could relate to thousands of years of historical periods, so unless a ruleset seting is specifically based on a period, it probably ends up being something of a compromise when dealing with how larger forces act. It's not such an issue at the 1:1 scale skirmishes I suppose.
-
At the risk of this thread becoming largely Dragon Rampant oriented..................
There are a few things you can do to mitigate the failed activations to some degree if this is a deal breaker for you.
There was a supplement in Wargames Illustrated (and later posted on Dan Mersey's site - now defunct) for the Dark Ages. It had the following rules:
Holy Men & Banners’ special characters
Available to: Any unit except for Skirmishers or Villagers; units containing your Leader may not take this upgrade.
Cost: 1 point per unit.
Maximum of 1 special character per unit.
Special characters may not transfer between units.
Replace one ordinary model in the unit with a special character. This special character moves, fights, and acts in all ways like any other model in the unit.
Units with a special character gain +1 to all Courage tests (in the same way as, and in addition to, being within 12” of their Leader – see page 11 of the rulebook).
Test for the death of special characters in the same way as Leader Lucky Blows.
A player killing an opposing unit’s special character gains +1 Glory
You could, possibly allow one unit with a hero or banner to receive +1 for activation. This is a bigger deal than the courage tests so possibly only 1 unit per side and should cost at least a couple of extra points.
The other thing you could do is give all leaders the "Commanding" trait.
-
Do people consider rules that one pays for inherently better than those that are free, or home-grown?
Well free and home-grown may not be the same thing. These days it is very easy to produce home-grown rules to a good standard and sell them.
However, rules that you pay for are much more likely to be better than free ones. You would expect them to be much more playtested (although unfortunately that doesn't always seem to be the case). If the free rules are good, why wouldn't the author be charging for them ? They are also much more likely to be widely played, meaning you can find more willing opponents.
I will have a look at free rules and maybe comment on them, and possibly borrow some ideas, but it's very unlikely that I would play them.
-
Which is why I said earlier that the activation system made more sense in LR. The history of the period is replete examples of units and wings not responding in time or even switching sides.
I think that in a fantasy context the justifications for a lack of action don't exist in the same way and so it stands out.
I don't see why it should be any different in fantasy. I would expect troops in a fantasy army to behave in a similar way to troops in a medieval army, except possibly with more variation- for example elves might be more likely to act in the way the general wants them to compared to humans, and orcs less likely.
-
I don't see why it should be any different in fantasy. I would expect troops in a fantasy army to behave in a similar way to troops in a medieval army, except possibly with more variation- for example elves might be more likely to act in the way the general wants them too compared to humans, and orcs less likely.
I was going to say the same! You wouldn't expect a gang of unscrupulous half-orc mercenaries (like Mudak's lot from Warhammer of old) to be particularly punctilious. And yes, most tabletop fantasy seems to be "medieval plus monsters and magic".
With regard to Dragon Rampant's activations, a useful comparator is Hordes of the Things. In that game (one of the very best fantasy wargames in my view and clearly one of the most enduring - a 30-year run with only a couple of tiny rule tweaks over that time), it's quite possible that you won't be able to do what you want in your turn. You might roll just one PIP, which isn't great when you want to have your wolfriders attack in a pincer movement or your magician general do anything. But it's all part of the fun of the game.
-
With regard to Dragon Rampant's activations, a useful comparator is Hordes of the Things. In that game (one of the very best fantasy wargames in my view and clearly one of the most enduring - a 30-year run with only a couple of tiny rule tweaks over that time), it's quite possible that you won't be able to do what you want in your turn. You might roll just one PIP, which isn't great when you want to have your wolfriders attack in a pincer movement or your magician general do anything. But it's all part of the fun of the game.
The big difference though is that in HOTT you get some choice about which units you activate. You roll the PIP dice and then you have decisions to make, and it's decisions like these that makes wargames interesting and fun IMO. Also you will always activate at least one unit, and over two or three turns you would be very unlucky if you don't activate an average of at least two per turn.
On the other hand, the activations in LR and DR are just completely random. You can have turns where you activate nothing, and your best troops might sit there all game without moving.
Personally I like command and control restrictions in a wargame, so your units do not always do exactly what you want, but I want to have some control, and have some decision making to do in the activation process, not just have it left completely to chance.
-
We had a house rule for a similar 'roll to activate' mechanism in a home spun ruleset whereby the commander had a certain number of Command Points to use each turn based on their competence. They could be expended on forcing units to activate who had failed their activation rolls, shoring up the morale of units, etc. That worked quite well in that situation. It would be easy enough to so something similar in Dragon Rampant I'm sure?
-
The big difference though is that in HOTT you get some choice about which units you activate. You roll the PIP dice and then you have decisions to make, and it's decisions like these that makes wargames interesting and fun IMO. Also you will always activate at least one unit, and over two or three turns you would be very unlucky if you don't activate an average of at least two per turn.
On the other hand, the activations in LR and DR are just completely random. You can have turns where you activate nothing, and your best troops might sit there all game without moving.
Personally I like command and control restrictions in a wargame, so your units do not always do exactly what you want, but I want to have some control, and have some decision making to do in the activation process, not just have it left completely to chance.
Those are all good points, and I'd certainly see HOTT as one of the best-designed fantasy wargames out there (its longevity, popularity and lack of revisions are as close as one can get to objective proof of that). But LR and DR do deliver a fun, messy skirmish. And - like Song of Blades and Heroes - they break up the turn system a lot, so that you're constantly having to respond to unexpected events.
I'd say that the risk of failed activations hurting the game rises as you add more players - especially in games with larger-than-normal points values. But if you're playing with two, or if you have retinues of the recommended 24 points, the activations are likely to be zipping back and forth pretty regularly.
-
Whilst Rampant and its children does tend to be my goto system for games.
What do others make of the Activation systems for WoE and Oathmark? As those where the other rulesets the OP had refered to.
Other than online reviews which I'm sure the OP has seen, its not something I can comment on as don't own either set of rules. Though I am curious about them myself.
Also as Narrative play was a consideration. Could the campaign system in Oathmark be adapted to WoE or DR?
-
In Oathmark there is an alternating activation system (I prefer it over an I-go-You-go), and every unit has to make an activation roll. If its successful, the unit can make 2 actions (move, turn, attack, shoot, cast a spell), if not (which is much more probable for goblins then for elves for example), then its only 1 activation allowed (no combat). Its a pretty good system, because it has fog-of-war, but its not that tragic: with a bad roll you still can do some action, but not as much as with a good one.
-
BZ summarized Oathmark well.
WoE uses the turn system from Bolt Action. Each player’s force has markers (usually 6-sided order dice) of a specific color (ex. Red for one force, blue for the other). Each unit in a player’s force gets one marker, which is placed in a container with those from the other side. During the turn, one marker at a time is pulled and the player for that color puts it with a unit to activate it. Normally, the player has a free choice what the activating unit does, unless it is already suffering from a morale problem.
The randomness/friction in WoE comes from not knowing the activation order, but player control is otherwise pretty complete and each unit will get to act each turn (unless it gets wiped out before it gets activated, which is a real possibility).
-
Also as Narrative play was a consideration. Could the campaign system in Oathmark be adapted to WoE or DR?
You probably could port it over easily enough. One of the key things about the Oathmark campaign system is that armies derive particular troop types from particular areas. You could (very broadly) map Oathmark troop types to DR equivalents:
Heavy Foot = Warriors
Light Foot = Soldiers
Bellicose Foot = Linebreakers
Light/Heavy Missiles = Archers
Lesser Warbeasts = Wolves, Spiders, Warhounds, etc.
Greater Warbeasts = Dragons, Lindworms, Surma, etc.
Elite Foot = Any character figure or Ogres, Trolls, etc (whether using the Elite Foot profile or another with upgrades)
You could also use both Oathmark and DR for a campaign game - using Oathmark for massed battles with a 1:20, 1:50 or 1:100 ratio and DR for skirmishes with a 1:1 ratio. That might be a lot of fun - and both rulebooks are reasonably priced. As I noted above, Oathmark very clearly assumes a tacit figure scale that's not 1:1 (even though it states that it is 1:1). So combining both games in one campaign makes a lot of sense. You could go one step further and use Song of Blades (or whatever) for very small skirmishes too.
If you were doing something like that, you might allow the winners of skirmishes to gain some advantage in large-scale battles (delaying or preventing the arrival of some troops, etc.). So you might have a skirmish to destroy a bridge that would prevent troops from one area arriving in time for the next big battle.
-
I like the sound of your setting. Sounds quite Arthurian in a way. I think DR would easily allow you to use your dark age figures with a sprinkling of fantasy elements. Lion Rampant revitalised me on fantasy gaming as it meant you could have a fun battle with all the old GW lead in the space of 2 hours. It very easily adapted to my fantasy collection. The DR modification is essentially the same game with some extra zing.
As previously said the different troop types are quite different, however for differences between races (eg goblins and ogres) certain troop types are going to be restricted. eg you probably shouldn't make goblins elite foot.
I think it strongly depends on how you view miniature gaming. Back in the days of Warhammer 2nd and 3rd edition nothing caused us more hilarity than the stupid rule for giants and trolls and the totally random luck of goblin fanatics. If you hated them then it is probably not for you. If you view it as all part of the narrative you are creating then the failed activations become comical. eg one battle a unit of archers steadfastly failed every single activation for the entire game. They were clearly p***d off with their commander and refused to take part.
Having said that there are things you can do to mitigate the luck and failed activations don't necessarily mean you don't get to do anything. The other guy may fail his first roll. Wild Charging units don't end the turn with a fail. This makes Wild Charge both a blessing and a curse. Once they are in charge range you don't really get much control of their targets but they are also a free activation (and pack quite a punch normally). Also keep in mind your units still defend in combat so even if you fail your activation the troops that are attacked will still fight.
DR is good at producing moments where it feels like a lot hinges on a particular dice roll - be it activation or courage check. You both intently watch the dice as they roll praying for the result you need.
-
Well free and home-grown may not be the same thing. These days it is very easy to produce home-grown rules to a good standard and sell them.
However, rules that you pay for are much more likely to be better than free ones. You would expect them to be much more playtested (although unfortunately that doesn't always seem to be the case). If the free rules are good, why wouldn't the author be charging for them ? They are also much more likely to be widely played, meaning you can find more willing opponents.
I will have a look at free rules and maybe comment on them, and possibly borrow some ideas, but it's very unlikely that I would play them.
So unless its monetized it isn't any good?
-
Oh come on people, let's not get into another argument. Opinions are just that, opinions. I'll bet there are some home grown rulesets that haven't been used outside of someone's house that might blow away some commercial rules. Likewise I think there are probably some home rulesets that really only suit the players who designed them. You can't say one way or another that rules you pay for are always going to be better than free rules. You might expect a higher level of production value but that might not necessarily relate to the gameplay quality of the rules. It's also up to an individual whether they would even want to charge for their rules, they may just be happy to share them with the community, even though people would happily pay for them.
Let's leave that one there please. I don't want more complaints heading my way over this thread.
Thank you
-
My absolute favorite medieval/fantasay skirmish game was the freebie handout from Ral Parha: The Rules According To Ral.
The original was historically oriented, I pencilled in fantasy units easily enough.
There was a later expanded commercial fantasy version: Chaos Wars.
Original free rules can be found here:
http://mainly28s.com/rules/0FANT.Ral.Partha.html
Chaos Wars was rebooted with a semi-recentKickstarter and is available, and now with many of the original line of RP minis too:
https://ralparthalegacy.com/
-
So unless its monetized it isn't any good?
I dont think thats what he is saying. I would agree that if I was paying for rules I would expect them to have been well play tested and laid out in a user friendly manner (not always the case). Nothing wrong with free rules but I find you have a greater chance of getting a set that ends up needing more work then its worth (but not always).
-
I dont think thats what he is saying. I would agree that if I was paying for rules I would expect them to have been well play tested and laid out in a user friendly manner (not always the case). Nothing wrong with free rules but I find you have a greater chance of getting a set that ends up needing more work then its worth (but not always).
Actually, one set of rules you might consider is a medieval/fantasy variant of FUBAR. There are loads, they're all free, and they're very decent.
There should be rich pickings here (https://fubarwargames.wordpress.com/downloads/). I haven't played anything other than the standard modern/sf ones, but those were great.
-
I really apricate everyone's input. I am honestly surprised at how much there has been. I guess a lot of you are quite passionate for this genre, which is great.
I don't think I'll give WoE a try as I'm not sure the dice activation mechanic works well for the setting. I like it fine for Bolt Action but maybe not for this. I think I might get both Dragon Rampant and Oathmark to try as a lot of you have had good things to say about both. I don't mind tweaking a mechanic a bit if the rest of the rules seem solid enough.
I apricate everyone's help.