Swordpoint...

[A Lot of Gaul]

Try out the Hail Caesar approach, with whatever ruleset you want (In this case, Swordpoint!).

Point well taken. I have enjoyed playing Hail Caesar since it first came out in 2011. I well remember the author's very practical decision to publish two army list books right away, and then follow up over time with a series scenario books. At the time the army list books were announced, the decision provoked a good deal of consternation, even some accusations of "selling out" for publishing army lists at all. All rather silly in retrospect, but it does highlight the passion that many HC players have for scenario-based play. And now, it appears from their website that GB plans for Swordpoint to follow a very similar publication schedule, beginning with a series army lists books, to be followed by a number of publications for campaign-based scenarios.

But as you say, the best scenarios are the ones you design yourself!

Cheers,
Scott

[Codsticker]

If your figures are on different size bases, then so long as they are all the same size you will still be able to play, though cavalry may become slightly more or less effective against infantry than the rules intend-this should not be too much of a problem though.

I am not familiar with the rules (although I did listen to the M&M 'Swordpoint' podcast), how exactly would slightly different base sizes do that?

[A Lot of Gaul]

If your figures are on different size bases, then so long as they are all the same size you will still be able to play, though cavalry may become slightly more or less effective against infantry than the rules intend-this should not be too much of a problem though.

I am not familiar with the rules (although I did listen to the M&M 'Swordpoint' podcast), how exactly would slightly different base sizes do that?

Recommended bases sizes for Swordpoint include 40x40mm bases for formed infantry and 50x50mm for formed cavalry. Combat is predicated in part by the number of bases fighting on each side. So if, for example, all of your formed infantry and cavalry are on 50x50mm bases, over an extended battle line there would be 20% fewer bases of formed infantry fighting against opposed formed cavalry than if you had used the recommended base frontages. That is what the rules author meant in the quote above.

[craigjwoodfield]

I have read a few times now in various forums that “Swordpoint isn’t WAB". This just isn't the case. The majority of the mechanics and rules of Swordpoint are either carbon copies or slight tweakings of WAB mechanics and rules. There are new mechanics and rules, and a few radical re-interpretations of WAB mechanics and rules, but these are in the minority. Swordpoint is WAB 3.0, which I can only assume was the point (if you’ll excuse the pun).

As a rules set, it didn't grab me. It has all the things that used to annoy me about WAB, plus some new things to annoy me. For the record, I played a lot of WAB back in the day, wrote an unpublished supplement and play tested a few things. But I haven't played it in about 5 years, preferring Hail Caesar, ADLG or Dux Bellorum for mass-battle games.

Given the crowded market, I can't see it making a big splash either. There's a hell of a lot of choice these days.

cheers

CW

[Johnp4000]

As Martin wrote WAB 2, it would be assumed that this would be a major influence on Swordpoint, Hail caesar and ADLG are hardly original but based on previously successful systems. Is it a crowded market?Back in the day, WAB had tournaments, games days etc, I don't see any systems offering that level of support.Hail Caesar due to its random nature would scare of the more competitive player.  My impression is that most WAB players are either in limbo, not being attracted to any of the so called successors or still playing WAB, that's a big gaming group for Martin to go after.GB made a huge success with Saga, Swordpoint has the potential to be a popular system.

[Arlequín]

GB made a huge success with Saga, Swordpoint has the potential to be a popular system.

In the same way as any Osprey Wargame title might have potential in comparison to Lion Rampant, despite them all being written by different people? If Alex Buchel had written Swordpoint, then I might concede that one would probably follow the other. Martin Gibbons didn't 'write' WAB 2, he revised and added to WAB 1, just as whoever 'wrote' WAB 1 (Jervis Johnson?) revised and added to WFB 5 and so on.

Don't get me wrong, Swordpoint does have the potential to be a popular system, but then so did War and Conquest, Clash of Empires and so does Kings of War Historical. Back when WAB came out the competition was mainly WRG, so it had the same impact on Ancient Wargaming as Mohammed Ali had on Boxing. Subsequently everyone is looking for the new Ali; maybe Swordpoint is it, maybe it isn't; time will tell. At the least it may prove to be one of a number of good heavyweight fighters, none of whom stand out from the crowd*.

* This would make Hail Caesar the Mike Tyson of Ancients rule sets, good results, ugly to look at.

[craigjwoodfield]

Credit where credit is due - Jervis J, Rick P and the Perry Brothers wrote WAB. The 2.0 re-write was mostly cosmetic. My name is also on the credit page but personally I did little more than  bit of play testing and contribute to some email discussions. The 2.0 re-write never went as far as many of us wanted.

And Saga is a Studio Tomahawk game. GB have done a wonderful job of promoting it and providing the figures, which segways nicely to the original point of this thread -
there another path that Swordpoint could have taken, a mass battles variation on Saga. That’s not to say that it had to have Saga dice or boards or any of that. But using units built around multiples of 4 figures on movement trays (as per the old LoTR ones), Swordpoint could probably have capitalised on the runaway success that has been Saga. Most of the mechanics could still have been lifted from WAB if that's really what people desired, all that was really required was something that was consistent with the Saga basing scheme.

This was, I believe, a golden marketing opportunity missed to expand an existing market and sell more miniatures already conveniently packaged.

Can Swordpoint bring back all those old WAB players? Unlikely, I think. Many of those who still play WAB will likely still play WAB. Many of those who have given it up have moved on.

cheers

CW

[nikephorous]

What Gripping Beast need to do is put up a good, detailed, in-depth game demo on youtube.

Agreed - just without 2 hours of Warren's wittering! The best online demo I have seen so far has been Tobi's 3 parter for Aurelian. Even if you were not impressed with the game (I was) you have to admire the thought, planning and execution of the video. Good eye candy too.

There clearly is a video somewhere as we see bits of it everywhere...... We can only hope it will be released soon.

[Draccan]

I have gathered a few hundred metal and plastic Gripping Beast vikings and always kept an eye on playing mass battle games with them. Thus I based them on 20mm bases with 25mm converters to get the most out of my models.

With Swordpoint out, I just got a lot of movement trays (from war-bases.co.uk).
Swordpoint is normally 40x40mm for four infantry and 50x50 for cavalry. But I compromised and I got 45x45mm movement trays and 55x55mm for cavalry.

This setup is probably not for everyone, but I am very fond of it. Not the least the flexibility.
Anyways, just wanted to share with the community in case it inspires some one...



I love dealing with War bases. Great company.

[A Lot of Gaul]

Looks like an elegant basing solution to maximize your gaming options, Draccan. Thanks for sharing!

BTW, here is a link to a player-produced YouTube video featuring a detailed, step-by-step example of the turn phases, shooting and combat resolution in Swordpoint:

Cheers,
Scott

[Tordenkuglen]

Heres another one by the same guy. Worth a look.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5VuVjJzWuhI&feature=youtu.be

Has my first two games, some mismatch n errors, but we had fun, and will defenitely play more game, will have to rethink the charges with cavalry against formed inf thou.