Sword and Spear Fantasy - first thoughts

[Hobgoblin]

I rescued my copy from the post office today and have just had a read through.  Here are some first thoughts. I'll review it more fully later (I hope to get a game in on Wednesday).

First, it's a nice-looking book: better on the inside than the outside, in my view, with good layout, plenty of illustrations, and clear diagrams that are fully integrated with the text. That is, there are 'worked examples' of movement and combat sequences, rather than just text and freestanding diagrams. It's also well written and - importantly - nicely edited (I spotted only a couple of inconsequential slips at first read). I'd say the editing is of a similar high standard to the Osprey books, which is pretty much as good as it gets with game rules. So well done on that score!

Incidentally, one of the photo illustrations is a very nice close-up of the Bad Squiddo female ogres painted by Cubs: well worth careful study for painting inspiration.

A read-through of the basic rules was illuminating. They're very clear, and I finished thinking that I know how to play and - just as importantly - where to look for fiddlier stuff, like when a unit doesn't get impetus. The dice-based system for activation looks both simple and highly tactical. The combat system has a lot of room for subtle gradations, I think, given the circumstances that give extra dice, soften attacks and so on.

I haven't yet absorbed all the special rules, but they look promising. The question I always ask of fantasy rules is "can you model Tolkien's Uruk-hai (fast-moving, bow-armed, undersized heavy infantry)"? From the looks of this, you can - through some combination of either heavy or medium infantry with some of the fast, melee-capable, bow, reduced capability and savage traits.

All in all, it looks great!

[Lowtardog]

I may have missed it but what size do units need to be, I know they are element or rather bases than individual miniatures but wondered if I could use my 28mm miniatures

[monkeylite]

I'm a big fan of the historical version, so not too much is new to me in these rules. But I was really hoping magic would be done in a way that complemented the existing system, and not, as magic is often done in these sorts of things, as a completely separate, strange system bolted onto the side. Very happy to say they've done just that, and it seems to fit very nicely with the rest of the game.

[monkeylite]

I may have missed it but what size do units need to be, I know they are element or rather bases than individual miniatures but wondered if I could use my 28mm miniatures

You can use any size you like. The only thing is that all units need to be the same frontage (or half that frontage for some special units). The Distance Unit is a function of that frontage.

So, for example, I use 11cm bases (coz it's about the size of a GW movement tray), so my distance unit is 5.5 cms. That might sound a bit unwieldy, but if you make measuring sticks, you don't have to learn your 5.5 times table.

[Lowtardog]

You can use any size you like. The only thing is that all units need to be the same frontage (or half that frontage for some special units). The Distance Unit is a function of that frontage.

So, for example, I use 11cm bases (coz it's about the size of a GW movement tray), so my distance unit is 5.5 cms. That might sound a bit unwieldy, but if you make measuring sticks, you don't have to learn your 5.5 times table.

That sounds good, thanks for that, I have 12 figure units as did play god of battles so may have a dabble

[squeaky]

I'm reading through my copy now, nice production values.  I'm going with 10cm bases, the reasons for which are lost in the mists of time, and partly the fault of Redzed - but the rules look like they will accommodate those perfectly.

[Hobgoblin]

You can use any size you like. The only thing is that all units need to be the same frontage (or half that frontage for some special units). The Distance Unit is a function of that frontage.

So, for example, I use 11cm bases (coz it's about the size of a GW movement tray), so my distance unit is 5.5 cms. That might sound a bit unwieldy, but if you make measuring sticks, you don't have to learn your 5.5 times table.

This is a great thing about the rules - you can scale them up or down according to the available space and figures. I'll mainly be using my HOTT-based 28mm stuff - but I can either use the individual HOTT elements as units or double the frontage (and perhaps the depth). For our first game tomorrow, we'll be doubling frontages but not depth (so lots of long thin units), to get more units out of the available figures and ensure a relatively quick game through large distance units (we'll be constrained by dinner and bedtimes).

The rules have had me scrutinising the various sabot trays available online, though. Buying a few of those with in 12 x 6cm would give me a huge number of options and allow me to use all my skirmish-based 20mm stuff alongside the HOTT troops. And as the HOTT stuff would be necessarily more densely based (12 figures to a unit rather than 8 in sabots), it might offer some nice ways to distinguish heavy infantry from medium or light.

[monkeylite]

Yeah. I use 20mm square bases so had to build my own light foot trays. But have no convenient way of distinguishing between heavy and medium.

[Hobgoblin]

Those look great! Isn't the rear unit with the bows clearly medium foot, though, with the two in front being light foot? [edit: sorry - misread. I think you could distinguish between medium and heavy through the armour on the figures. Those night goblins don't look like they would go beyond medium, but some of the more heavily armoured Citadel goblins could be heavy foot (e.g. the LotR "Snagga" [sic] goblins).

It occurred to me last night, as I looked over potential forces for tomorrow's clash, that 50mm isn't much between friends (or indeed family), so my son could use his individually based lizardmen as a unit, with five of them giving a 12.5cm frontage versus the 12cm frontages of the double-HOTT units.

The fact that Sword and Spear unit don't conform corner to corner makes this much more workable, I think.

Drawing up army lists for tomorrow, I'm seeing these guys as a large unit of medium foot with savage and lacking protection:



These guys as heavy foot with powerful attacks:


And these guys (with their leader, and allowing for 0.5cm of extra base width) as heavy foot with armoured and savage:



I popped these guys on a 10 x 10 base for Mayhem, but I might blueback them to spare HOTT bases to make a 12 x 8 unit of medium foot with fast and undrilled:

[mellis1644]

Does anyone know if this going to be available in PDF or will it be hard copy only?

[Sunjester]

These rules sound interesting, as I have a few 28mm Tolkien minis in my collection. I've played a couple of games of the historical version and quite enjoyed it.

Hobgoblin, I'll look forward to your ideas after you have played a game.

[Polkovnik]

It occurred to me last night, as I looked over potential forces for tomorrow's clash, that 50mm isn't much between friends (or indeed family), so my son could use his individually based lizardmen as a unit, with five of them giving a 12.5cm frontage versus the 12cm frontages of the double-HOTT units.

The fact that Sword and Spear unit don't conform corner to corner makes this much more workable, I think.

That's exactly right. It shouldn't cause any problems playing with units that are not exactly the same size, as long as they are reasonably close.

The figures look great. I can't wait to see them in action.

[Stan Shinn]

Does anyone know if this going to be available in PDF or will it be hard copy only?

I contacted Great Escape Games (the publisher) and was told that a PDF for Sword & Spear 2nd Edition would be out, hopefully by end of month. I'd expect the Sword & Spear Fantasy rules PDF would also be coming shortly :-)

[Hobgoblin]

Well, we played through our first game last night. We had 12 units vs 13, using a frontage of 12 cm on a 3' by 6' table. This was relatively small, but we only had time for a short game.

We really enjoyed it. The biggest difficulty we had was working out impetus. My son's game was ended by his bedtime, so I played out the remainder of the battle as a solo affair (first time I've ever done this - it struck me, though, that the game would work very well for solo play), and I'd got the hang of it by the end, I think. The crucial realisation was that fighting defensively costs a die. In the early phases, we were having one unit defend without a die, then assigning it a die in a later phase and having it attack the same opponent again.

One thing that this game does that HOTT (in my eyes, an almost perfect fantasy wargame) doesn't is to give skirmishers an interesting and exciting role. In HOTT, the only real role for skirmishers is as lurker elements. In S&SF, skirmishers are fragile but effective harassers and screeners. I started with two units behind my heavy infantry, but moved them through to slow down my son's lizardman advance. One unit was destroyed by his cavalry, but the other got out of the way and lingered to provide a flank attack on his flagship infantry unit later.

The dice-assignment meta-game is very interesting. You've got a huge amount of decision-making because of the way that actions play out in each phase. I ignored the morale rules to play to the death, just to get the hang of impetus. One thing I had already noticed before that is the way in which your army size gives you an edge. If you have a huge army of low-quality troops, you'll probably be able to dominate the phases. So there's an automatic advantage to "horde" armies, which gives the game a nice balance.

Similarly, reserves are important - both for morale and to keep your dice pool high. My son kept his dragonmen (flying beasts) back until late on, which seemed to be paying off until the heavy infantry in front of them broke, leaving them with an unenviable job of trying to stem the orcish tide.

Anyway, we'll get another game or two in this weekend. For our next game, we'll use single HOTT elements as units - just for speed of set-up. That will make a distance unit 3 cm. But it occurs to me that familiarity with HOTT might prompt us to deviate slightly and use a HOTT-style 4 cm as a distance unit (which would make most movement, though not missile ranges, match HOTT). We'll try both 3 and 4 out and see what works best. I can't see anything offhand that would 'break' the rules by using slightly more than half a frontage as a DU.

Meanwhile, I'll be ordering some 12cm sabot trays for full-sized games. I have 8' x 4' of terrain boards in the cellar, and this might present a good opportunity to get them out. I'm keen on the prospect of getting most of our single and multi-based miniatures on the table at the same time.

One thing that's worth noting in terms of a review is that the rulebook itself includes no points values. Instead, there's a spreadsheet on the website with a number of army lists and sample armies that you can then use to create your own. There's a full breakdown of the points in the final tab, but it's easier just to write over what's there, as the formulae are already embedded for you.

It's fairly easy to use (even for the Excel-adverse like me), and you aren't at all restricted by the starting lists. As an example, I put together a "lizardmen and other monsters" one that bears no resemblance to the barbarian army that I used as a starting point. You can adjust every element in the profile - so you could change ogre heavy infantry to pixie skirmishers in a matter of seconds.

[mellis1644]

The dice-assignment meta-game is very interesting. You've got a huge amount of decision-making because of the way that actions play out in each phase. I ignored the morale rules to play to the death, just to get the hang of impetus. One thing I had already noticed before that is the way in which your army size gives you an edge. If you have a huge army of low-quality troops, you'll probably be able to dominate the phases. So there's an automatic advantage to "horde" armies, which gives the game a nice balance.

Nice quick review and we have played a decent number of games of the ancients version of the rules. It played well and is fun. For the record though due to the command meta you mention we have found that the best format for an army is to have some really good fighting units which you want do most of the combat with, supported by a decent section of more mediocre troops. You can then have a 'cheering section' of dross in the back/avoiding fighting if possible to provide extra dice if needed/you have points.

An all crap horde army or an super elite force both suffer a little - which is likely correct, but hard to balance with any points system due to luck being a factor.