Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: throwsFireball on February 03, 2016, 07:47:58 PM
-
Just curious as to what you guys think is the best fantasy skirmish game and why. I'm looking for a game in which I can field orcs vs goblins and the like without going into astronomical numbers of units.
(Not including Frostgrave.)
-
Depends on your level of skirmish.
5-9 figures per side, or 20-30 per side?
My temptation is to suggest Dragon Rampant - solely because it can be used with any miniatures, isn't tied to a world or super complicate system. While you can make it any scale you want, it's really about small company sized groups (handful of units 6-12 figures each ---- or suitable monsters "counting as").
I desperately want to try Otherworld Skirmish as well. I thought Frostgrave was hugely underwhelming.
-
Besides Frostgrave, there's also Mayhem, Relicblade, Otherworld Fantasy Skirmish and Goalsystem Delves. Of those, Delves has the most robust campaigning system IMO. I haven't had a chance to play it yet, but it is deffo RPG-lite.
There's also Savage Worlds, which is a straight-up RPG with a robust tactical game.
-
I have high hopes for Skulldred once it gets out of Beta.
-
Dragon Rampant and Otherworld Fantasy Skirmish would be my first choices for skirmish-level fantasy gaming.
-
Thanks guys, this is helpful. I already have Dragon Rampant on the shelf and I was eyeing Otherworld but it's pretty expensive for something that I have no certainty of.
I'll probably end up grabbing it, though.
-
For small-scale clashes (5-20 figures a side, say), I'd recommend Song of Blades and Heroes. It's a brilliant game, and you can quickly design profiles to reflect whatever you want, using the online builders. The Advanced version is available too, which adds quite a lot, but the basic game's a classic. It's cheap, fun and fast, with a very quick "time to table". There's a whole family of variants, ranging from sci-fi and modern to slightly larger-scale skirmishes involving gods (Of Gods and Mortals, published by Osprey) to wuxia (A Fistful of Kung Fu - also by Osprey).
For larger skirmishes involving units (say 20-60 figures a side), Dragon Rampant is terrific.
I also like Battlesworn, from Ganesha Games (publisher of Song of Blades). It's more abstract in some ways and uses a bidding system, but works really well once you've got that hang of the system. An expansion - Knights and Knaves - has just been published, which adds many more "character classes".
In my view, all three games are excellent. They're also popular and well-supported, and can be used with whatever models you please. And in all three cases, "time to table" - the stretch from deciding to play to getting the game underway - is very short.
-
Thanks guys, this is helpful. I already have Dragon Rampant on the shelf and I was eyeing Otherworld but it's pretty expensive for something that I have no certainty of.
I'll probably end up grabbing it, though.
This is my only issue...it's expensive, and their online downloadable version is from a website that looks a bit too shady for me to trust. It's on my list though.
-
There's allready been mentioned a lot of the "greats" - but I thought that I'd pipe in with some of my personal favourites, even though I think the question of "best" game in any capacity is a bit weird. Games do different things well for different people. Having fun with it is what counts.
Song of Blades and Heroes has already been mentioned: We're currently playing our second campaign of it in our local club. Great fun. I prefer the base version (revised) to the newly released Advanced, though a lot of the new traits and special rules are great fun.
Open Combat - Not sure what happened to it, since the author hasn't really made any fuzz since ~august 2015. Its a pretty fun system, though it works best for human or human-ish forces fighting. Some remark that it feels like it misses "something" extra, which I am inclined to agree with. Still - Its a really great system thats very fun to play. A bit smaller in scale - 5-10 per side, with the sweet spot being around 8, in my opinion.
LotR SBG - I really really love this system, and I really really hate what GW is doing with it. In my opinion, it was at its best before they released the current "The Hobbit" version, which added bloat, unnecessary dice rolls, and hiked the prices into ridiculous. With the price of the base rules, its almost like they dont want people to play their game.
Still, if you can grab a previous version of the rules, its well worth it. It works from "Heroic" skirmish (small groups of powerful heroes) to small battles of 30-50 miniatures, and has a really great 'ebb and flow' feel to the battles. Think more of a tug of war. 'Legends of the Old West' and '... of the High Seas' use the same system, and its pretty easy to mod, if thats your thing. Personally I am working on a Mordheim/SBG crossover, as a sort of sideproject.
The greatest problem with the system is that GW owns it, and that it is tied to the LotR-IP - I'd love to see a generic or historic version of the system released.
Relicblade - VERY small scale skirmish, about the same scale as Open Combat, though it can go even lower and still provide a meaningful game. Heroic fantasy. Great fun to play. Very new still. I am anxiously awaiting more releases for the system.
Otherworld Fantasy Skirmish - I haven't had a change to play it yet, but just reading the book is a joy in itself, and I am greatly looking forward to trying it. It takes some design-ques from SBG, but seems like a very different system. Extremely customizable, and seems to work with anything from 2 to 20 models. Though, as said, I haven't had a chance to actually play it yet, just drool over the book :D
Lion/Dragon Rampant: Also already mentioned. I personally prefer Lion more than Dragon, though the differences are minor. Lion Rampant has some, in my opinion, better Boasts, scenarios and mechanics for the General (Duels and challenges are very simple, seem arbitrary, but has some actual decision-making in the way they key into the boasts and rest of the games systems. I've had some very tense moments as I rolled those duel dice). I greatly recommend this system as well. Absolutely magnificent game.
Those are my big ones at the moment.
Saga seems interesting, but I have yet to try it. Mayhem, likewise (though that is more "mass battle" - some people play it as skirmish, but I'd rather use another system for that). The rulebook is a great read though, and I definitely want to get some games in at some point.
Of course, there's also the venerable Mordheim and Warhammer Fantasy Skirmish - Both of which very much where my entry into skirmish gaming, though the rules are a bit clunky. Still, they have that feel to them. Might just be nostalgia, but a lot of games certainly takes inspiration from them.
That turned into a wall of text and a half. Hopefully there's some value in there to you.
-
A friend of mine recently told me that he was grabbing the LOTR books off of used book store sites like Abebooks for super cheap. Like $5 a title including shipping.
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=lord+of+the+ring+strategy+battle+game
I'm sure there are other used book sites that will have lots of them as well.
-
A friend of mine recently told me that he was grabbing the LOTR books off of used book store sites like Abebooks for super cheap. Like $5 a title including shipping.
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=lord+of+the+ring+strategy+battle+game
I'm sure there are other used book sites that will have lots of them as well.
The older editions actually go for quite cheap. If you can pick up The Return of the King version of the rules cheaply, I'd say its well worth it. In my opinion that was really where the system was at its height. The following "One Rulebook" added a lot of great erreta and small rules fixes, but the book itself is a quite shoddy product, full of re-used pictures and articles and typos. And I've yet to find it at a reasonable cost.
-
Well, I just ordered a RotK book. :o I've got a collection of miniatures that I use for AD&D/Swords & Wizardry so why not? I emailed my friend about it.
-
I keep seeing Dragon Rampant pop up. Do they have different army lists (humans, elves, orcs, etc.), or is it more about troop type (spearmen, cavalry, archer, etc.)? I'd like to look into the game, but don't really know where to start.
-
I keep seeing Dragon Rampant pop up. Do they have different army lists (humans, elves, orcs, etc.), or is it more about troop type (spearmen, cavalry, archer, etc.)? I'd like to look into the game, but don't really know where to start.
There are different races, but you can design your own army lists really easily which is one of the strengths of the game.
-
Song of Blades and Heroes has already been mentioned: We're currently playing our second campaign of it in our local club. Great fun. I prefer the base version (revised) to the newly released Advanced, though a lot of the new traits and special rules are great fun.
It's probably worth pointing out that the differences between the basic and Advanced versions aren't that great. The main ones are that Advanced introduces reactions, which allow you to act in your opponent's turn, and a greatly expanded magic system. There are also a lot of weapon-specific traits, none of which are compulsory - i.e a model with a warhammer doesn't need to have Piercing Weapon, but you can add it if you want. You could use pretty much any of the Advanced traits in a basic game, and if you played an Advanced game without reactions or the wider magic system, it would be little different from the basic version.
I really like reactions, so we always use those when we play. We rarely use much magic, but I really like the different types of leader that Advanced introduces - e.g. Discipline Master for orcs and the like.
-
Pretty much any of those listed will give you a good game (apart from SoBH which imho lacks flavour, depth and unless you buy every expansion really does not have much scope)
You could also look at Fanticide and Iron & Honor which I have not seen mentioned yet. The latter being particularly good.
THis question has been asked a few times before so there are threads with many more ideas back a few pages in the forum.
-
It's probably worth pointing out that the differences between the basic and Advanced versions aren't that great. The main ones are that Advanced introduces reactions, which allow you to act in your opponent's turn, and a greatly expanded magic system. There are also a lot of weapon-specific traits, none of which are compulsory - i.e a model with a warhammer doesn't need to have Piercing Weapon, but you can add it if you want. You could use pretty much any of the Advanced traits in a basic game, and if you played an Advanced game without reactions or the wider magic system, it would be little different from the basic version.
I really like reactions, so we always use those when we play. We rarely use much magic, but I really like the different types of leader that Advanced introduces - e.g. Discipline Master for orcs and the like.
Yeah, this nails it. I don't really like the Reactions because they kinda make the game into a two player affair - And most of my games tend to be 3 or 4 player things. There's something about the simple scale-able elegance of the system that I really enjoy, which is lost somewhat with the reactions. On the other hand, they add some DEEP strategy to the game and are definitely a good mechanic. There's some quite complex strategy in how they interact with spellcasters as well. The expanded traits-list, and especially the spell-system, are also great toolboxes which we use all the time. I just prefer keeping profiles simple, with perhaps 0-3 traits, but more choice is good :D I'd definitely recommend the advanced book!
(Oh, and the Fireball spell rules.)
Well, I just ordered a RotK book. :o I've got a collection of miniatures that I use for AD&D/Swords & Wizardry so why not? I emailed my friend about it.
Well, I hope you enjoy it. Do post something when you've tried it out.
Also, the basic points-cost system for profiles is pretty easy to figure out, so you can greatly expand the scope of the system with a bit of thinkering, though the basic profiles provided should also provide a lot of variety. And there's a lot of profiles in the RotK-rulebook.
-
Once I get my dudes painted up, I'm going to be using Osprey's latest release En Garde! Suitable for a handful of guys on each side, it was written for the musketeer late rennaisance era, but includes a fantasy appendix that should work fine. Apparently the rules are a reskinned version of Osprey's Ronin, so you can poke about for info on that ruleset to get a decent idea of how En Garde! will play.
-
I'd like to put my vote in for Otherworld, great game if you fancy recreating 'old skool' rpg style encounters, plays well with Crooked Dice's 7th Voyage too so you can go all sword n sandal too - I have a review and AAR on my blog it you fancy a visit: http://www.posullivandesign.com
-
Open Combat - Not sure what happened to it, since the author hasn't really made any fuzz since ~august 2015....
It's finally done and at the printers now... apparently revised and updated and out in hardback by the end of the month.
-
Open Combat - Not sure what happened to it, since the author hasn't really made any fuzz since ~august 2015. Its a pretty fun system, though it works best for human or human-ish forces fighting. Some remark that it feels like it misses "something" extra, which I am inclined to agree with. Still - Its a really great system thats very fun to play. A bit smaller in scale - 5-10 per side, with the sweet spot being around 8, in my opinion.
I backed the kickstarter for the hardback. It has been a bit delayed but is due out in the next few weeks.
Otherworld Fantasy Skirmish - I haven't had a change to play it yet, but just reading the book is a joy in itself, and I am greatly looking forward to trying it. It takes some design-ques from SBG, but seems like a very different system. Extremely customizable, and seems to work with anything from 2 to 20 models. Though, as said, I haven't had a chance to actually play it yet, just drool over the book :D
Lovely book. Great system...also compatible with 7th Voyage. Works for the smaller end of the skirmish spectrum and has a very narrative/rpg-lite feel to it.
Lion/Dragon Rampant: Also already mentioned. I personally prefer Lion more than Dragon, though the differences are minor. Lion Rampant has some, in my opinion, better Boasts, scenarios and mechanics for the General (Duels and challenges are very simple, seem arbitrary, but has some actual decision-making in the way they key into the boasts and rest of the games systems. I've had some very tense moments as I rolled those duel dice). I greatly recommend this system as well. Absolutely magnificent game.
This is my favourite game, at the moment. Simple, flexible and bags of fun. Though normally aimed at the larger side of skirmish games with half a dozen units per side, it scales down really well (units can be anything from one model up to a dozen)...I recently played with around a dozen figures per side and it worked perfectly (battle report here (http://ihavewroughtmysimpleplan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/a-dark-shadow-in-hills-dragon-rampant.html)).
-
I backed the kickstarter for the hardback. It has been a bit delayed but is due out in the next few weeks.
It's finally done and at the printers now... apparently revised and updated and out in hardback by the end of the month.
Ah, that's good to hear. That's what's been keeping him quiet then. I was afraid the game had just "vanished".
I want to pick up the hardback rulebook, when I have the money, as I really do enjoy the system. I have some Caesarian romans lying about looking for an excuse to be painted :P
-
Yeah, this nails it. I don't really like the Reactions because they kinda make the game into a two player affair - And most of my games tend to be 3 or 4 player things. There's something about the simple scale-able elegance of the system that I really enjoy, which is lost somewhat with the reactions. On the other hand, they add some DEEP strategy to the game and are definitely a good mechanic. There's some quite complex strategy in how they interact with spellcasters as well. The expanded traits-list, and especially the spell-system, are also great toolboxes which we use all the time. I just prefer keeping profiles simple, with perhaps 0-3 traits, but more choice is good :D I'd definitely recommend the advanced book!
(Oh, and the Fireball spell rules.)
Have you seen Andrea's card-based system for reactions in multiple-player games? I think it's basically the same as the "Draw a card to determine who goes next", except that you draw a card to determine who reacts and goes next (so, in the case of two failures, the player whose card has come up can opt to take the reactions or start his turn). It seems very elegant.
We played a four-player game last year where everyone got reactions, which actually worked quite well (though it was a bit chaotic). The card-based system is probably better, though.
I agree on the ASOBH book and, yes, 0-3 traits is probably the sweet spot, barring the odd extraordinary character.
-
I keep seeing Dragon Rampant pop up. Do they have different army lists (humans, elves, orcs, etc.), or is it more about troop type (spearmen, cavalry, archer, etc.)? I'd like to look into the game, but don't really know where to start.
There are no different army lists, just the troop types as you probably realised. There's a dozen or so profiles - Elite Foot, Heavy Cavalry, Light Missile, that sort of thing. You decide which category best fits your fantasy troops. There are a few upgrades to add a little variety to the basic profiles. Personally, I think Lion Rampant works well for medieval human v human gaming. For fantasy gaming, it depends on your outlook. If you think an orc with a spear is the same as a dwarf with a spear is the same as an elf with a spear, then it might serve you well. If you think that different races should be different on the tabletop, then you might find it a little underwhelming. You can adapt it slightly, but only a bit.
Take a look at Fantastic Saga. There's a thread here in the fantasy forum somewhere. You will need a copy of Saga (dark ages skirmish game) to play, but then there's a free fantasy mod to download. I rambled on in a bit more depth on my blog - see it here for a bit more explanation (http://paintsngluenrocknroll.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/dragon-rampant-or-saga.html).
-
Have you seen Andrea's card-based system for reactions in multiple-player games? I think it's basically the same as the "Draw a card to determine who goes next", except that you draw a card to determine who reacts and goes next (so, in the case of two failures, the player whose card has come up can opt to take the reactions or start his turn). It seems very elegant.
We played a four-player game last year where everyone got reactions, which actually worked quite well (though it was a bit chaotic). The card-based system is probably better, though.
I agree on the ASOBH book and, yes, 0-3 traits is probably the sweet spot, barring the odd extraordinary character.
Hmm, haven't seen that yet, but that might be interesting. It sounds like what we use for regular activation: Put 4 markers in a cup at the start of the round, one for each player. remove the one of the player who went last in the previous round, and then draw one - That player takes their turn. (after the first draw, add back the one for the bloke who went last. It's just so they don't get two turns in a row)
Will have to try it out with reactions at some point then. Might go for a smaller game size then, though, in order to keep the game fast. I'm guessing ~200 pts a player for 3 to 4 people.
-
Pretty much any of those listed will give you a good game (apart from SoBH which imho lacks flavour, depth and unless you buy every expansion really does not have much scope)
Oddly enough, I'd say that flavour is one of SoBH's strongest points. It's very easy to construct profiles that reflect exactly the sort of creature you want to portray. Are your orcs ill-disciplined but brutal? If so, keep a (Q4, C3) profile but give them Savage. Are they more like the Uruk-hai (or D&D hobgoblins)? If so, go with Q4, C3, Gregarious. Those profiles will play very differently, even though it's only the single trait that differs. And there are all kinds of possibilities for tailoring profiles. For the classic adventuring party versus hordes of monsters, you can tool up the adventurers with things like Hero and Free Disengage, to allow for the requisite level of derring-do. And so on.
While the various supplements did introduce a lot of good stuff, none of it's essential (and all of them are cheap). And ASOBH collects the vast majority of useful traits in one place; it's a standalone game too.
Again, I'd say that flavour is a real strong point of the Advanced version of the rules. The different leadership types (Lead from the Front, Discipline Master, etc.) are soaked in flavour through and through. I can't think of another game that gives you so much freedom and flexibility to get the precise flavour you want in your warbands.
If you think about (probably) the best-known skirmish in fantasy literature - the Fellowship fighting black Uruks and trolls in Moria - it's easy to see exactly how that account could arise from a game of SoBH - from Gimli on Balin's tomb (+1 C bonus) to Frodo stabbing the troll (a wound on a Tough creature, so -1 to Q in subsequent activations, going by Basic rules; hence no further part in the clash) to the huge orc-chieftain on the charge (a recoil on Boromir, a double fail by Aragorn, a wound on Frodo - who is Tough because of his mithril shirt - and then a morale fail by the "howling follower" when Aragorn causes a Gruesome Kill). I think that underscores how good SoBH is at generating "flavour". :)
-
I can recommend Epic Heroes ( expansion for Brink of Battle ) ( 7-20 minis per side )
http://brinkofbattle.blogspot.com/
It has a bit of a learning curve, it is a bit more meaty and a bit more complicated than simpler faster ones like Song of Blades or Frostgrave or Open Combat ( which I think are also very good ). But if you want something a bit more dedicated this is for you.
And the depth of the Epic Heroes expansion allows you to do everything you could wish for'
some of my examples
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12647556_10207550006644914_6925070605967725828_n.jpg?oh=c061eff0a4e88b8389ce13310c94cde0&oe=576D2705)
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/v/t1.0-9/12661917_10207540282081806_2155964275868261379_n.jpg?oh=0ec0dec1069d1c0454a2c49d48ba9fd3&oe=572BDBD5)
I cannot recommended enough... I've been playing it at least twice a month for the last 4 months now and cannot get enough.
cheers
Francisco
-
Another vote for Song of Blades and Heroes...great small scale skirmish. For what I would call "unit sized skirmish," I too recommend Lion/Dragon Rampant.
We have played many a game of SoBaH, and everyone has been smooth and fun. It is easily adaptable. Same goes for DR.
The SoBaH army builder is also a useful tool. Check it out here: http://www.ganeshagames.net/army_builders/SBHbuilderRevised-v1217.html
Hope that is useful ;)
-
If you think an orc with a spear is the same as a dwarf with a spear is the same as an elf with a spear, then it might serve you well. If you think that different races should be different on the tabletop, then you might find it a little underwhelming. You can adapt it slightly, but only a bit.
That's an interesting point. Highly differentiated racial profiles were the big innovation of Warhammer, I think, and was one reason that the game was so popular. But I think that it can become a bit stultifying - not least because it throws up odd anomalies with the figures. If I remember rightly, Warhammer orcs were Strength 3 (same as a human) and chaos warriors were Strength 4. But recent GW orcs have arms that are thicker than some Strength 3 models' waists. And they generally look stronger than the average chaos warrior. And so on.
The other thing is that a generic game like Dragon Rampant can hardly hope to differentiate between "orcs" and "dwarves", etc: Wargames Factory orcs look very different from Viking Forge orcs, which look different again from Citadel orcs, and so on. Ditto Ral Partha Dwarves and many other companies' dwarves.
In Dragon Rampant, of course, you can get round this either by special rules, as you say, or by reducing/increasing model count.
-
I've only seen Mordhiem mentioned once :o that can't be right! Yes its GW, its abit clunky and if you insist on using the original figures it's expensive (theres absolutely no reason to do this, like the rest of the games mentioned here you could use what ever you want).
But I haven't seen a better campaign system yet, there is loads of expansions both "official" and fan made (don't discount the fan stuff check out 'Border town Burning' supplement it's better produced than a lot of the new Indy stuff out there) and of course it's all free, every supplement every issue of town crier can be downloaded somewhere. Check out the facebook group or Toms Boring Mordhiem forum.
-
I almost don't dare say it, but age of sigmar is a pretty serviceable skirmish ruleset , and works well at a smaller scale.Plus ALL your fantasy tropes are already stated up .
-
I watched an Age of Sigmar battle report on youtube. One guy charged his mounted chaos general into his opponent's general in an early turn of the game. He rolled dice and there was a six. A rule triggered on his magic sword and the target was just immediately removed from the game.
I think the game is intentionally very lethal to make high model count games playable in a reasonable time. <-- that's my overly generous interpretation of what's going on lol
I think it could work, but you'd probably have to figure out how to change things to make it work at a lower model count or you'll run afoul of crazy rules like "I rolled a six so each enemy unit within 6" takes a wound." That might be a bit much if you're doing a bunch of 1-5 model units when the game is meant to be played with 10-20.
-
I almost don't dare say it, but age of sigmar is a pretty serviceable skirmish ruleset , and works well at a smaller scale.Plus ALL your fantasy tropes are already stated up .
How does it handle these common fantasy tropes?
Hobgoblin heavy infantry
Orcish wolfriders
Kobolds
Ettins
Bugbears
Serpent-men
:)
-
How does it handle these common fantasy tropes?
Hobgoblin heavy infantry
Orcish wolfriders
Kobolds
Ettins
Bugbears
Serpent-men
:)
Run as orcs
run as goblin wolf riders
run as lizardmen
run as ogres
run as beastmen
run as dark elf Medusa.
Pretty well with a bit of imagination. :)
-
Run as orcs
run as goblin wolf riders
run as lizardmen
run as ogres
run as beastmen
run as dark elf Medusa.
Pretty well with a bit of imagination. :)
Touché, sir! :D
-
How about No quarter free rules? I haven't played yet but I have been wanting to since it is based on Chronopia/Vor mix and I loved those rules. It is completely customizable too. Is it something I will hate when I play? I never see anyone mention it, are these newer games much better than it?
-
I remember No Quarter from around 2003. I had stopped playing WHFB in the late 90s but a friend lasted until 2003 and then wanted to play No Quarter instead. I had already sold my stuff, but my friend had enough stuff that we played a couple of times. It was too long ago for me to remember what I thought, but I was already out on Warhammer type fantasy games, so only played it a bit.
I just took a look at the current PDF and it looks pretty good. I think whether or not someone likes it will be based on whether or not they like the action points thing. 8AC, move up 5" (spending 5 action points). Use the 3 left over to attack. The game does have alternating activation, so that means smaller waiting times.
As for the newer games being recommended more, I think it's just a matter of current mind share. People are likely to think about what they are either player or seeing talked about.
-
I think it could work, but you'd probably have to figure out how to change things to make it work at a lower model count or you'll run afoul of crazy rules like "I rolled a six so each enemy unit within 6" takes a wound." That might be a bit much if you're doing a bunch of 1-5 model units when the game is meant to be played with 10-20.
I have found that Age of Sigmar does give a good game - if you were looking to do a true skirmish with it (i.e. 3 -5 models) I would suggest running it with nothing but characters. Characters pretty much all have 5 wounds, with exceptions like weedy goblins and meaty ogres, which down tunes the lethality to a play able level. With a bit of imagination you can get pretty much any character trope you could imagine:
- Barbarian warrior with two axes? Use the Orc warboss warscroll
- Elven archer? Use the Elven Prince and choose the reaver bow option
- Warrior mage? Use the Heinrich Kemmler warscroll and forget about the raising skeleton rule
- Hard nut dwarf? Use the Dwarf Lord with shield option
etc.
It doesn't have morale / psychology as the rules are designed around that mainly applying to units rather than individuals, but from memory apart from Gruesome Kills the same applies to SoBH
-
I watched an Age of Sigmar battle report on youtube. One guy charged his mounted chaos general into his opponent's general in an early turn of the game. He rolled dice and there was a six. A rule triggered on his magic sword and the target was just immediately removed from the game.
So? In Lion Rampant a challenge between two generals, both roll 3 dice each, the highest number of 5's and 6's wins, the loser is killed and removed from the game. And not a magic sword in sight.
I don't like AOS, it's got too many special rules, each unit seems to have 2 or 3 extras added to the basic rules. On the other hand, DR seems too simple, the dozen profiles to my mind cannot cover the multitude of different races and creatures that exist in a fantasy setting. My ideal would be somewhere between these two.
-
It doesn't have morale / psychology as the rules are designed around that mainly applying to units rather than individuals, but from memory apart from Gruesome Kills the same applies to SoBH
Morale is usually what decides a game in SoBH - not just Gruesome Kills, but "the dead outnumber the living", death of a leader, the effect of the Terror trait, etc. And of course, those can add up into brutal "cascading" morale checks - as when your leader's death tips your warband into less than half its starting numbers and happens to be a Gruesome Kill at the same time ...
One of the things I really like about SoBH is how the morale plays out: characters scatter when startled or alarmed and may then recover themselves. And green or ill-disciplined troops are more to likely to scatter this than more level-headed veterans.
-
How about No quarter free rules? I haven't played yet but I have been wanting to since it is based on Chronopia/Vor mix and I loved those rules. It is completely customizable too. Is it something I will hate when I play? I never see anyone mention it, are these newer games much better than it?
It isn't really a skirmish game (although I've seen it played as such).
Actually, I've printed it out and read it a few times intending to play. To me it seems to be a d10 Warhammer with some parts more detailed (like formations and combat, what with action points) and others slightly simpler (like morale, if I recall correctly).
It really appeals to me, but I just can't quite justify playing it over older editions of Warhammer, since that's what I already know quite well and I'd just be using it for WHFB armies anyway.
-
I don't like AOS, it's got too many special rules, each unit seems to have 2 or 3 extras added to the basic rules. On the other hand, DR seems too simple, the dozen profiles to my mind cannot cover the multitude of different races and creatures that exist in a fantasy setting. My ideal would be somewhere between these two.
Again, though, isn't the problem for a generic game that there aren't settled ideas of what those creatures actually are?
Take dwarfs (dwarves, if you're feeling Tolkienish!): are they hardy and preternaturally strong (as in Middle Earth)? Or are they weak and reliant on magical weapons (as in Germanic legend)? For the latter, Tom Meier's Ral Partha dwarfs are perfect;if you were using those, you'd expect them to differ considerably from the steroidal GW and Mantic versions.
Ditto Middle Earth-style orcs vs GW's hulking gorillas, or early GW hobgoblins (tough and very aggressive) versus later GW hobgoblins (less tough and more sneaky). And so on.
Of course, you could just model the profile according to the miniature (as you'd do in SoBH). But in a unit-based game, I think that does tend to lead to odd anomalies. Warhammer was full of them: the Tom Meier lizardmen were statted up with 2 wounds each, for example, despite being about half the size of your average orc. And there was a sort of ludicrous arms race with the chaos troops becoming ever-more powerful. If you looked at the Strength and Toughness stats compared with the actual models, there were often wild discrepancies:"Why are these huge orcs not as strong as these beastmen, even though they're twice as big and three times as muscular?" or "Why should these hobgoblins be poorer fighters than those chaos warriors, when they're bigger, fiercer-looking and more uniformly equipped?"
In Dragon Rampant, I think the best solution is using reduced-model units (or increased-model ones) to reflect the relatively potency of the troop types. Are your lizardmen hulking creatures with weapons larger than anything a man could wield? Then make them a six-lizard unit of Bellicose Foot to match that effect, and give them Terrifically Shiny Armour to reflect their scales. If it takes 20 goblins to match 12 men, then use a unit of 20 goblins. Are your fantastical cavalry riding on terrifying beasts? Well then, use a warbeast profile rather than a standard cavalry one.
Two more thoughts: first, because Lion Rampant takes an avowedly cinematic approach to games, I think there's a little bit of "poetic license" built into the rules already (Fierce Foot are really hard-hitting, for example - great for drama, and great for the game, but possibly slightly and deliberately exaggerated; ditto the impetuousness of knights). That means that it translates very well into fantasy - the main tropes are already very slightly fantastic. So it's quite easy to match them to fantastical troop types.
Second, one thing that Dragon Rampant does well is balance. It's hard to get a "killer" side, especially when scenarios and scenery are unpredictable (those Elite Riders are great ... in good terrain). And it's great that there's no "racially superior" army: hobgoblin heavy infantry fight just as well as chaos-warrior heavy infantry, and why shouldn't they? Adding "racial" traits to the game would seem, to me, to lead it into a rather murky world of "list-building" and maximising. I like Dan's original fantasy retinues for Lion Rampant, which are gleefully diverse - dwarfs and elves and men and whatnot on the good side, and skeletons and orcs and wizards and whatever on the bad. Adding racial profiles would tend, I think, to dilute the "use whatever you fancy" ethos that the book encourages ("Hmm ... these orcs look a bit tough for the official profile, so I'll have to get some new, weedier-looking ones").
-
... speaking of Open Combat (well, a page ago at least) - They just released their revised rules document! Which I got access to for free, since I've already bought the regular rules .pdf. Check your folders people.
Looking forward to digging in.
-
... speaking of Open Combat (well, a page ago at least) - They just released their revised rules document! Which I got access to for free, since I've already bought the regular rules .pdf. Check your folders people.
Looking forward to digging in.
Ooh! Been eagerly waiting to get a glimpse of the finished product, I'm off to check my email...
-
So? In Lion Rampant a challenge between two generals, both roll 3 dice each, the highest number of 5's and 6's wins, the loser is killed and removed from the game. And not a magic sword in sight.
It was really strange to see these gigantic miniatures that looked like they were going to be a bad ass part of their armies just die from a die roll out of nowhere, bypassing all the normal rules for wounding and armour and all that depending on where the right roll popped up in the process. Or seeing things like "I attack this guy, but that guy over there 6 inches away automatically dies."
AoS is intentionally very swingy and lethal. This allows both high model count games (sales motivating game design) and mitigates skill (through randomness setting the system aside) to keep the game accessible to new and younger players. As well these "roll a six and the target just dies" type effects help GW get away with worse rules design. They can accidentally make one thing way too strong and one thing way too week and just rely on enough of these really swingy dice results to cover over the problems.
I don't really like Lion Rampant's duel thing either. Though it appears to be confined to leader vs leader duels whereas in AoS it is widespread. The game is very much based on a very simple system and then tons and tons of special rules and kewl powers.
-
Second, one thing that Dragon Rampant does well is balance. It's hard to get a "killer" side, especially when scenarios and scenery are unpredictable (those Elite Riders are great ... in good terrain). And it's great that there's no "racially superior" army: hobgoblin heavy infantry fight just as well as chaos-warrior heavy infantry, and why shouldn't they? Adding "racial" traits to the game would seem, to me, to lead it into a rather murky world of "list-building" and maximising. I like Dan's original fantasy retinues for Lion Rampant, which are gleefully diverse - dwarfs and elves and men and whatnot on the good side, and skeletons and orcs and wizards and whatever on the bad. Adding racial profiles would tend, I think, to dilute the "use whatever you fancy" ethos that the book encourages ("Hmm ... these orcs look a bit tough for the official profile, so I'll have to get some new, weedier-looking ones").
What you say here is true. And obviously this side of it appeals to you, and many others. But to me, boiling everything down to a few profiles removes the fantasy. It removes that variety, or the racial differences. Why shouldn't hobgoblins fight as well as chaos warriors? Because they are crappy fighters whereas chaos warriors are truly elite? There's no room for the differences I became accustomed to in other fantasy systems. There's no quirks, no depth. It's a decent enough starter system, and I think it works well in the medieval setting, but it's a little bland for high fantasy. I don't really think that adding in that variety necessarily leads to list building and min-maxxing - it can do of course, but it could also lead to more depth, more variety. Horses for courses and all that. It's a nice lite system with some flexibility, but it lacks crunchy bits.
-
I think it's a common characteristic of most historical games that have been extended into fantasy to have that issue. The foundation for the games are ones where everyone is human and usually equipped very similarly and then you try to make it represent the wide array of possible fantastic creatures. So you end up with this balancing act of needing to push things so you can represent the fantastic but not wanting to go so far that the game stops working in the same fashion as the historical one it is based off of.
I prefer games that are designed from the ground up for their genre than ones that are drifted or extended, but every now and again, I'm sure some rules authors make a great fantasy game that started out as a historical one (or vice versa, I suppose).
-
The only downside to dragon rampant I found is that you really need to agree on what units should be reduced or single models as I recently played a game where I had a unit of 12 bellicose foot that couldn't maneuver well at all and my opponent put down a werewolf base on a 20mm square base, treated as light infantry, that was able to fit through tiny gaps where my fullsize unit was stuck with not being able to move because of the 3" rule. Still easily balanced.
-
I've enjoyed Song of Blades and Heroes, though i started with Of Gods and Mortals for that ruleset.
Honestly, if you want to play it, read the battle reports and start picking what minis you want, then next month, I think, when the Advanced Rulebook is coming out. The main reason is that while the game is rather quick and easy to pick up and lets you use pretty much any mini you want, the revised book isn't really the easiest thing to work through and the unit design rules have heavily changed.
Also use the online unit builder rather than trying to work out the math, it's far better there...
-
What you say here is true. And obviously this side of it appeals to you, and many others. But to me, boiling everything down to a few profiles removes the fantasy. It removes that variety, or the racial differences. Why shouldn't hobgoblins fight as well as chaos warriors? Because they are crappy fighters whereas chaos warriors are truly elite? There's no room for the differences I became accustomed to in other fantasy systems. There's no quirks, no depth. It's a decent enough starter system, and I think it works well in the medieval setting, but it's a little bland for high fantasy. I don't really think that adding in that variety necessarily leads to list building and min-maxxing - it can do of course, but it could also lead to more depth, more variety. Horses for courses and all that. It's a nice lite system with some flexibility, but it lacks crunchy bits.
Totally get where you're coming from about the race/faction "quirks" and "crunchy bits" (nice that) but, over time, I just didn't have the stamina to keep up with all of WFB ever-changing special rules for armies, units, tchotchkes. It felt like preparing for a chemistry exam.
Now LotR SBG is a fine set of rules, but would require modding to bring in non-Tolkein races and creatures. I don't have the wherewithal for that neither.
I guess what I'm saying is that my horses are opting for smoother, Lion Rampant/Dragon Rampant, courses for now. I'm seeking to build variety and color through scenarios and, as posted today, linked scenarios into mini campaigns. As the Russians say, "Kazhdi drohcheet, kak ohn hocheet."
Another tired WFB player for LR/DR.
-
I have never played the LotR SBG but have read mainly positive things about it. I see there are a lot of Returnof the King SBG books available second hand. Is this a stand alone rule book or is it a supplement?
I am enjoying Dragon Rampant as my first foray into fantasy gaming. As I am playing solo at the moment I feel free to adjust troop types/make my own.
-
Mayhem, likewise (though that is more "mass battle" - some people play it as skirmish, but I'd rather use another system for that).
Isn't Havoc Bombshell's/Brent's fantasy skirmish game?
http://bombshell-games.com/havoc/
Anyone tried that?
What you say here is true. And obviously this side of it appeals to you, and many others. But to me, boiling everything down to a few profiles removes the fantasy. It removes that variety, or the racial differences. Why shouldn't hobgoblins fight as well as chaos warriors? Because they are crappy fighters whereas chaos warriors are truly elite? There's no room for the differences I became accustomed to in other fantasy systems. There's no quirks, no depth.
I'd generally agree with DG - I get where you're coming from, I've thought like that myself from time to time; but I've become a bit wary of games where too much is made of an individual unit or model's special quirks and rules, over the core rules. To the point where all the imagination and variety goes into getting the right collection or sequence of stat cards... or warscrolls.
I know that's a bit too black and white, and there are shades in between, but at the mo I think some of the imagination in the Warhammer level of stats and tweaks could be diverted back into the minis.
-
Well, I dont wanna run some advertisement for my game here or anything, but at this point in the discussion I just cant help but mention it...
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=81709.0
I transformed SAGA into a fantasy game because of all the reasons you guys mentioned. Yes, I too feel that you take out the "fantasy" in a game if you go and "streamline" all the profiles...
on the other hand I like my games "easy to learn, hard to master" and games like Warhammer are just one constant search in the rule books for a certain passage...
which I find really annoying and disrupting my gaming experience.
SAGA kind of solves ALL of those problems.
It is indeed easy to learn and hard to master. (Even though some people play it in the "beer & bretzel"-fashion.)
It offers a ton of tactical potential and a lot of differentiation between factions.
But it does all this while using just a handful of profiles.
In my opinion its the best Skirmish Game on the market.
And I need my weekly dose of "Fantasy", so the logical thing was to implement SAGA as a fantasy system.
The whole mechanic with the "Battleboards" is just a stroke of genius.
It makes the game sooo versatile, you can basically go and use SAGA as an "engine" and design games around whatever setting you like.
All factions have the same profiles and you simply change the COMPLETE feel and style of gaming for each faction with this ONE tool, you might call it a "control center".
-
Havoc is skirmish fantasy10-20 guys per side. I have it, it is a lot of fun to read. It is quite complex and very rich. In the end I've gone with Brink of Battle/Epic Heroes but I would love to try Havoc one day. The mechanics are very original.
-
Another nonimation:
'Warband: Goalsystem Fantasy Skirmish': still in the test phase (for quiet some time now) - but I really like what I've been reading so far. The first playtest version is available here (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=67791.msg830386#msg830386).
Hagen
-
As someone who has bought a tonne of different rulesets I have to say that my absolutely favourite has to be Otherworld Fantasy Skirmish. Certainly for games with a small number of figures, it can't really be topped in terms of what I want from a game. It has enough detail to not be bland without being a headache, and I really enjoy coming up with characters and such using the profiles and options anyway. It certainly has depth and lots of scope. I hope an official campaign system comes out, but if not, it's easy to make one up.
For larger skirmishes, we've enjoyed Dragon Rampant so far.
-
I hope an official campaign system comes out, but if not, it's easy to make one up.
There are plans for that, I believe. Not sure if they will be included in the upcoming monster book or a separate book after that.
-
Another nonimation:
'Warband: Goalsystem Fantasy Skirmish': still in the test phase (for quiet some time now) - but I really like what I've been reading so far. The first playtest version is available here (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=67791.msg830386#msg830386).
A friend of mine uses the goal system (in the form of the latest version of SuperSystem) for everything. The way he puts it, comic book super heroes have literally fought everything from cavemen to dragons to nazis, so a rules system that does super heroes well can probably handle everything fantastical you can come up with. The only downside apparently, is statting things up requires understanding the system pretty well. I'm guessing the Warband: Goalsystem Fantasy Skirmish is going to do all that work in advance.
-
As someone who has bought a tonne of different rulesets I have to say that my absolutely favourite has to be Otherworld Fantasy Skirmish.
Based on that recommendation, I bought a copy today at Vappa. So if it's rubbish, I'm blaming you! ;)
-
I don't think you will be disappointed. :D
Here are a couple of battle reports of mine:
Attack of the Goblins
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=83116.0
Wrath of the Ettin
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=83118.0
As you can see, it works pretty well even if one force is just one big angry monster.
-
What you say here is true. And obviously this side of it appeals to you, and many others. But to me, boiling everything down to a few profiles removes the fantasy. It removes that variety, or the racial differences. Why shouldn't hobgoblins fight as well as chaos warriors? Because they are crappy fighters whereas chaos warriors are truly elite? There's no room for the differences I became accustomed to in other fantasy systems. There's no quirks, no depth. It's a decent enough starter system, and I think it works well in the medieval setting, but it's a little bland for high fantasy. I don't really think that adding in that variety necessarily leads to list building and min-maxxing - it can do of course, but it could also lead to more depth, more variety. Horses for courses and all that. It's a nice lite system with some flexibility, but it lacks crunchy bits.
The way the crunch comes into Dragon Rampant are the options. The basic profile is there but you can modify it. So a unit of Heavy Foot could be Fearful, could be Offensive, could be Venemous, could have Shiny Armour, could cause Fear, etc. Combine a few of those and you can have multiple different units that do vary considerably within the basic frame work. eg the Hobgoblins could be fearful heavy foot and the Chaos Warriors Offensive Heavy Foot with flaming weapons (Venemous upgrade). I would also argue that Chaos Warriors are clearly Elite Foot!
-
What you say here is true. And obviously this side of it appeals to you, and many others. But to me, boiling everything down to a few profiles removes the fantasy. It removes that variety, or the racial differences.
Yes, it's clearly a subjective thing. And there's certainly nothing wrong with your view!
Why shouldn't hobgoblins fight as well as chaos warriors? Because they are crappy fighters whereas chaos warriors are truly elite?
I suppose my points here are (a) "according to who?" and (b) "how do the miniatures look?". I mean, D&D-style hobgoblins are militaristic, well organised, warlike and physically bigger and tougher than humans. Not "crappy fighters", in other words. If we go on literary origins, they seem to be essentially a supersized version of Tolkien's Uruk-hai. Chaos warriors owe something to Moorcock (where they're generally the leaders of armies of mutated wretches and beastmen, rather than rank-and-file troops, if I remember correctly), but are largely a Warhammer invention. Now, they are extremely powerful in Warhammer, but the miniatures haven't always reflected that. And a generic game shouldn't automatically reflect that either - although it should permit the possibility. As to how the miniatures look: my Chronicle hobgoblins dwarf most of my Citadel chaos warriors (from the same era). If you asked non-gamers which looked fiercer, they'd probably go with the hobgoblins, on the grounds that they're heavily armoured with nasty weapons and are big muscular monsters, whereas the chaos warriors are just relatively normal-looking chaps in weird armour. The same point could be made with many orc models versus many elf ranges - and so on.
What a generic game like Dragon Rampant allows you to do is to escape the confines of (for example) the Warhammer hierarchies and follow visual logic. At the weekend, I played a game of DR against a friend who'd never played the game before. And we had hobgoblin and chaos-warrior Elite Foot as our respective leader units. Their equivalence would have jarred in the Warhammer world, but in a generic game it worked just fine - there wasn't some arbitrary reason why the big, heavily armoured monsters had to be "crappy fighters" while the heavily armoured humans were innately superior.
As an aside, I've sometimes detected in a few recent conversations about DR (not here, I hasten to add!) a reluctance on the part of GW-conditioned players to accept that an opponent's lizardman chief's guard might be just as potent as their own Tremendous Whirligigs of Khorne or whatever. "But my guys are SPECIAL ..." etc. I'm not suggesting that that's your argument here, of course, but I've been thinking about this as some of my son's friends have been drawn towards the AOS box set and will probably end up in a game of DR at our house at some point. My solution will be to suggest that the Topless Spike Fetishist of the Blood God are used as Bellicose Foot but in reduced-model units, thus (I hope!) satisfying all parties.
There's no room for the differences I became accustomed to in other fantasy systems. There's no quirks, no depth. It's a decent enough starter system, and I think it works well in the medieval setting, but it's a little bland for high fantasy. I don't really think that adding in that variety necessarily leads to list building and min-maxxing - it can do of course, but it could also lead to more depth, more variety. Horses for courses and all that. It's a nice lite system with some flexibility, but it lacks crunchy bits.
I'd agree with jon_1066 that the fantastic rules do add a lot of possibilities for "crunch" and flavour. The Venomous upgrade is very potent, as jon_1066 has said, and there are also the Spellcaster and Wizardling upgrades - plus Blessed/Cursed Weapons, etc. To my mind, Moorcock-style chaos warriors (Jagreen Lern and guards, or whoever) could be well represented as Elite Riders or Foot with a magic-using upgrade (Summoner, maybe, for full Moorcockian flavour).
As you say, it's horses for courses. But I think DR (and SoBH to an even greater extent, for that matter) provides huge freedom to come up with a warband that really reflects both the look of your miniatures and how you want them to play. An example: I've been gradually painting up a sizeable horde of 1980s Citadel night goblins. Most look like complete rabble: Light Foot at best, and most likely Ravenous Hordes. But then there are some that are distinctly fierce-looking and robust (with thicker, stronger-looking limbs than humans and huge fanged heads), and others that are even wearing uniforms (horned helmets, horned-skull shields). For these, Bellicose Foot and Offensive Light Foot suggest themselves, but there are other options too: Elite Foot using 12 models instead of six for the goblin king and his guard, for example, or even Heavy Foot (again, possibly upping the model count to 18). And, best of all, they don't have to be the same thing each time. I think that ultimately provides more choice and variety than games that have rigid "factions".
Above all, the freedom that DR brings means that it's a pretty well-balanced system. No points system can be perfect, but DR certainly benefits from the high cost of upgrades and the fact that both sides are free to choose whatever they like.