Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: robh on January 26, 2012, 09:35:44 PM
-
Just wondering if anyone else here is building armies for the Fantasy Variant of Impetvs. (I know Here Wego and his super Bretonnians are here somewhere).
I am working on resurrecting (mainly) old GW Warhammer figures (Vampire Counts, Elves and Bretonnians) for some different themed armies, but trying to work in models from PPP, MagEgos, Reaper and all.
Anyone else?
Rob
-
Geek Tactica does some, great blog...
http://geektactica.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-fantasy-impetus-gaming.html
-
Geek Tactica does some, great blog...
http://geektactica.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-fantasy-impetus-gaming.html
Plus one on this - Jason posts on here sometimes as Jet and there's almost always some great eye-candy in his posts.
-
I've been tempted, but not done anything about it.
Duncan
-
I've been looking to do so, but was hoping that there would be more standardised Fantasy lists to work from. It helps to have a solid base to start from. I also don't know IMPETVS enough to be confident in building new armies.
Maybe another couple of read throughs.
Are there any videos of battle reports or "how to plays" out there?
That would certainly help my group get going.
-
A lot of people seem to like the rules as they're easy and consistent. Anyway I wouldn't base my models in such an awkward way (you know, big bases 12cm frontage, depth varies) and use a sabot instead, until 100% sure.
Lately I've been playing Hail Caesar rather, and is great with fantasy too. The HC fantasy modding has been made from the creators themselves, and you can use any basing you like.
-
I like Impetvs very much and have a lot of fun with it so I was thinking on recycle my old WHFB armies into Fantasy Impetvs armies. Maybe I´m going to use italso for silly ideas, or armies that doesn´t have a list (yet), like african medieval armies :)
-
I think sabot bases are the best solution to allow people to try the rules without rebasing everything.
Duncan
-
Certainly sabots are a potential interim step, but they still lose (what to me is) the greatest appeal of Impetus basing. That each base can be a scenic diorama rather than a couple of sterile rows of figures.
I tend to recommend players try the rules with card bases first to see if they like the game mechanisms and relative lack of mobility.
It seems to be a great way of bringing old Warhammer forces back into use with the bonus that you can create armies as you want. I have Beastmen in my Wood Elf army and a bunch of the Hordes Orobos savage elf types.
Rob
-
It has potential to be a great alternative Fantasy game to WHFB/HOTT but at the moment it's just not clicking.
Sorry :)
edit- I should say it just doesn't click for me at the moment. Basic Baroque and Impetus work fine for me by the way :D
There's just something missing when I game the Fantasy version.
-
It has potential to be a great alternative Fantasy game to WHFB/HOTT but at the moment it's just not clicking.
Sorry :)
edit- I should say it just doesn't click for me at the moment. Basic Baroque and Impetus work fine for me by the way :D
There's just something missing when I game the Fantasy version.
Missing what, though? Is it a problem with the gameplay or the forces?
I know a lot of people have a problem starting from scratch with an army. Imagining what they want from the ground up and then working out the points/abilities for the various units.
I think the section around characters needs to be expanded, at the moment the limited abilities they have make them a bit of a bore.
Rob
-
I have version 0.6, and it's just hard reading o_o
Whereas the main rulebook flows and follows the updates for Fantasy and bitty and blocky.
ex New rules for Firing, New Rules for movement, New rules for Charge anfd flee distances etc, would it be possible to put the Impetvs directory numbers by the side, so for New Discipline it would read 2.4(?) New Dicipline, 2.5.2 New Rules For Groups, so we can compare it to the rulebook. I would just find it easier to organise this in mind :) and also it will be easier to find and replace the new rulings.
Like wise can the entire new Magic have it's own numbered directory system so 12.0 Magic, 12.2.3 Magic items etc and can Magic be used at any point during activation? it's a new add-on and although I would say yes, lots of people may think Magic has it's own phase :)
Characters- needs a bit more re-defining, also would benefit from it's own directory.
The real 'trouble' is that you have to know the rules of Impetus really, really well before you can start using the Fantasy bits (you then have to change the main bits with the new fantasy bits), whereas what I (and maybe others) want, is to be able to pick up Fantasy Impetus right away. it's akin to WFB and WHFB- both share some of the same characteristics but both give very different games.
Points Values, can be argued over by everyone so I'm not to bothered, but a general costing is always useful, it may be abused but I don't game with 'beardy types'.
I want Fantasy Impetus to be easy to play, and easy to show others how to play, Impetus is a great game which I've converted a number of people to play, I want to do the same for the Fantasy version.
There isn't really a good (and different) Fantasy game available, Impetus fantasy could hit that spot.
-
I have version 0.6, and it's just hard reading o_o
...SNIP...
All valid points, and I agree. I am a bit to blame for that maybe as I did the English proof reading and editing for the rules. It would certainly be possible to do (I will have a look at it). The option to use it with full Impetus was an extra added in response to player requests during testing/early discussions. Originally it was set for Basic Impetus with standardised armies only. I am sure this has not helped its readability.
You are right about magic, use it at any time in your turn or your opponents by interruption if applicable. The magic expansion I wrote is not yet "official" so it is down to local groups to use or not as desired.
What we have currently is really only teh final draft, the entire thing was supposed to be formalised and published properly. But that has gone from being "later" to "eventually" to "one day". It would be nice to see more people using it to create the will to publish it. But Catch22, no?
-
yep :D
1- make the rules fit with Impetus only, it'll be worth it in the long run.
2- have a few sample lists and a couple of easy to follow how to's on creating a list from scratch.
and yes it is a catch-22 for you. lol
Amazingly enough there aren't that many Big Battle Fantasy Rules available, Impetus could easily fit into the market and gap and fill it.
-
Amazingly enough there aren't that many Big Battle Fantasy Rules available, Impetus could easily fit into the market and gap and fill it.
That I think is the perhaps the key to the whole thing.
-
Agree with Zed. I played some basic Impetus and really felt the need to upgrade to the full version. The fantasy stuff should be tuned on that set.
Otherwise I don't think Impetus Fantasy should be more detailed than Vanilla Impetus; just to mention a parallel, SoB is fine to me: stramlined stats with some Perc to give a flavour. I mean: I don't really want rules to create a "realistic" dwarf army (ha ha ha), but to play an army reasonably dwarfy with dwarf miniatures. I know this post may sound complicated, but it's just badly worded... :(
-
Yes, I have plenty of Fantasy skirmish :-* and small battle 8) rules to choose from. Large battles, not so much. :'(
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Agree with Zed. I played some basic Impetus and really felt the need to upgrade to the full version. The fantasy stuff should be tuned on that set.
But there are a lot more "Basic" Impetus players than full Impetus players, a lot of people do not make the jump or cherrypick a couple of rules from the full version to add to BI. Maybe the ideal for Impetus Fantasy is somewhere between the 2?
Otherwise I don't think Impetus Fantasy should be more detailed than Vanilla Impetus; just to mention a parallel, SoB is fine to me: stramlined stats with some Perc to give a flavour. I mean: I don't really want rules to create a "realistic" dwarf army (ha ha ha), but to play an army reasonably dwarfy with dwarf miniatures. I know this post may sound complicated, but it's just badly worded... :(
No it is fine. :)
The key to understanding the approach taken to the Impetus Fantasy Army builder is that your idea of what is "dwarfy" is probably totally different to mine. Therefore if we had just built a sample dwarf army and left it at that one of us would be disappointed with the result and maybe not bother to try the rules at all. Same applies to Savage or Effeminate Elves, Brave or Cowardly Goblins, Wet or Dry undead. The complexity of having free choice on how you build an army is a necessary part of increasing the games appeal.
My 'Wood Elf' army has a few staples: Bowmen, TreeMen/Dryads and some light cavalry (would be centaurs if I could find decent figures cheaply enough), but is mainly Beastmen, Barbarian savages, Shapeshifters/Were Creatures. No rules writer is going to use that as the "standard" wood elf army.
Also, you cannot do justice to 'Heroic Fantasy' as a genre without including viable heroes, wizards and above all monsters. They are as important to the game as the fighting troops. Difficulty is in balancing them as useful but not overpowering. Impetus (or Basic Impetus) already provides everything necessary for the army side of the game. It is proving more difficult to add in Characters without a disproportionate increase in the complexity.
I would love to hear any ideas.........
Rob
-
You're right. In order to satisfy the WHFB kind of army you just have to go like this. So, in this respect, I understand. But the choice of Basic Impetus as core rules seems to be holding the whole project one step away from success. You aren't going to have much more than occasional gamers if you stick to the Basic, I think. I mean: a guy who invests time and passion on basing his fantasy army on you 12cm frontage bases isn't going to be satisfied with the BI rules. I myself managed to play a couple of BI games with WHFB addicted but the very simple rules kind of made them think WH was better. I'd say it would't have happened with Impetus. But that's just my experience. Anyhow, keep up the good work.
-
I'd agree create a Basic Impetus Fantasy later as an intro, but I think the average fantasy player generally prefer more detail on their units and special rules to distinguish them than when they play more historical games where the differences aren't generally so huge.
-
It is proving more difficult to add in Characters without a disproportionate increase in the complexity.
I would love to hear any ideas.........
treat them as a unit in their own right, minimum 60cm square base, Hero with retinue, let them attach to certain units (which will gain benefits etc). Obviously some Heroes will never join a unit, but that's the joy of characters. some a re great and some are gits.
-
The key to understanding the approach taken to the Impetus Fantasy Army builder is that your idea of what is "dwarfy" is probably totally different to mine.
I did see in the forums that someone had started to convert the WHFB armybook lists to Impetus Fantasy, a rather good idea as an intro I thought.
t I think the average fantasy player generally prefer more detail on their units and special rules to distinguish them
yep :)
Warhammer is 28 pages of rules than 10 whole armyboooks of exceptions to those rules lol