Swordpoint?

[armchairgeneral]

Read the earlier threads on Swordpoint rules. Now it has been out for a while and has had chance to bed in, I just wondered what people think of them?

[A Lot of Gaul]

Swordpoint has become my favorite set of Ancients mass battle rules, bar none. Although designed for 28mm armies, I can vouch that the rules also work perfectly for 15/18mm figures with few or no changes. Units and armies are of a reasonable size for solo or one-on-one gaming, while still providing a distinctly ‘big battle’ feel. The rules are relatively simple, yet tactically quite nuanced. I especially like that the rules and mechanics reward players for fighting aggressively, i.e. attacking and causing casualties by accumulating and using momentum tokens through effective shooting and/or combat, and encourage the use of historical tactics, rather than arbitrarily mandating them. The Swordpoint gaming community appears to be growing organically, with at least nine tournaments and events in the first year, as well as an active and growing dedicated forum and player-generated Facebook page. In short, I expect to be playing Swordpoint for a long time to come!

[armchairgeneral]

Thanks for that reply Scott. Very interesting as I recall you were a big HC fan?

Did Swordpoint take a while to learn?

Peter

[A Lot of Gaul]

Thanks, Peter. I have been a big fan of Hail Caesar, and I still find it enjoyable for very large multiplayer club games, in which each player is in charge of a 'division' or so. However, most of my gaming these days is either solo or one-on-one, with each player serving as the general for the entire army. IMHO Swordpoint works better at this size of tabletop battle. Also I much prefer the Swordpoint initiative and turn sequence to the one employed in HC, which I ended up modifying for my own games. So, all in all, Swordpoint is my #1 Ancients rule set, with HC coming in at a strong #2.

I found the Swordpoint rules system fairly easy to learn and remember. Swordpoint and HC are both 'evolutionary' developments from WAB, and so have a number of design features and mechanics in common. Naturally, the differences - such as the turn sequence - are the ones most difficult to remember. Even so, by 'starting from scratch' with Swordpoint and separating it in my mind from HC or WAB, I found the 'learning curve' to be not too steep. It helps that the Swordpoint rulebook is written in a straightforward manner - and that it has an index! I also find the dedicated forum to be very useful for clarifying any confusion or issues that do arise.

[armchairgeneral]

Thanks Scott. I have ordered the rules it now so looking forward to giving them a go  

[grubman]

I was just looking at these rules myself.  I was watching some of the tutorial videos.  It seemed like a lot of common sense rules that flow pretty well.  I'd like some experienced opinions on the things that worry me a bit (note, this post focuses on the negative...not all the cool stuff). 

I didn't really like that it seemed like they came up with some different terms for the "same old thing".  I like it when a game doesn't do this, as it's much easier to just know what a common term is, instead of having to translate the "new" term to what we know it as.  I know it's minor...and assume you just get used to it.

I'm wondering if all those combat resolution numbers get annoying and take away from the feeling of a battle?  I think Warhammer was a pretty good balance of the drama of play and the follow-up bookkeeping and calculations.  This game makes me think the bookkeeping part might weigh a bit heavier and take away from the former?

It also seems like there are a lot of compulsory type rules, who you can charge and shoot at, where you can and can't move, ect.  These seem like they make sense...but I rather have total control of my army (even if it DOESN'T always make sense).  If I want to shoot at a unit that is further away than another one for a tactical reason, I think I should be able to make that choice on my own.  I guess I want to make GAME choices instead of being restricted by SIMULATION rules.

[A Lot of Gaul]

I was just looking at these rules myself.  I was watching some of the tutorial videos.  It seemed like a lot of common sense rules that flow pretty well.  I'd like some experienced opinions on the things that worry me a bit (note, this post focuses on the negative...not all the cool stuff).  

I didn't really like that it seemed like they came up with some different terms for the "same old thing".  I like it when a game doesn't do this, as it's much easier to just know what a common term is, instead of having to translate the "new" term to what we know it as.  I know it's minor...and assume you just get used to it.

I'm wondering if all those combat resolution numbers get annoying and take away from the feeling of a battle?  I think Warhammer was a pretty good balance of the drama of play and the follow-up bookkeeping and calculations.  This game makes me think the bookkeeping part might weigh a bit heavier and take away from the former?

It also seems like there are a lot of compulsory type rules, who you can charge and shoot at, where you can and can't move, ect.  These seem like they make sense...but I rather have total control of my army (even if it DOESN'T always make sense).  If I want to shoot at a unit that is further away than another one for a tactical reason, I think I should be able to make that choice on my own.  I guess I want to make GAME choices instead of being restricted by SIMULATION rules.

Hi grubman,

The writer of a new ruleset may want to use terms that are different from another ruleset for a variety of reasons, e.g. because he thinks they are more historically appropriate, or because he doesn't want to be accused of 'copying' some other ruleset, etc. As someone who has played a large number of different Ancients rules, I am quite accustomed to this. If you can provide some specific examples that you find confusing, I would be happy to assist. However, if you are looking for some sort of 'standardization' in Ancients rule sets, I am afraid that just isn't going to be happening any time soon.

What "bookkeeping" items in Swordpoint do you see as being different and/or more complicated from those in WAB? Swordpoint was written by the same author as WAB 2.0, so the two rulesets actually share a number of mechanics in common. Which specific ones that appear in Swordpoint but not in WAB are troubling you?

As far as "compulsory type rules," you are absolutely correct - Swordpoint has more of those than WAB. The author added them specifically in order to reduce the amount of "total control" available to the player, and to produce "game choices" that better reflect the kinds of decisions made by ancient army commanders. Speaking of which, there are no WAB-type "characters" in Swordpoint. Commanders play an important role in adding to a unit's fighting ability and/or recovering units that have broken and fled, but they do not engage in "personal challenges" or other kinds of skirmish-level "heroic" behavior.

So if you want a game that provides for some "fog of war" and (IMHO) offers more historically-viable game choices, and you think that the "cool stuff" possibly outweighs your personal "negatives," then Swordpoint may be a good fit for you. OTOH, if you prefer a game that allows total player control and unrestricted "game choices," then you are probably better off sticking with WAB 1.0 or 1.5.

Cheers,
Scott

P.S. There is a very good discussion forum for Swordpoint, located here: http://swordpoint.grippingbeastplastics.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=5

[grubman]

If you can provide some specific examples that you find confusing

Not confusing, but rather "annoying"  it was more of a rant than any fault of this specific game.

What "bookkeeping" items in Swordpoint do you see as being different and/or more complicated from those in WAB?

"Bookeeping" was probably a bad term...Rather, all the points you count for various things at the end of a given combat.  There just seem like a lot of things to remember to calculate both from the battle outcome, the unit abilities, and other situations.  I know this is the same in many games...but it seemed a little extensive (in the combat examples I watched).  Reading and watching are never the same as playing, I know.

I appreciate the response, and you've given me some more insight.  Again, I was pointing out the things I was wondering/worried about. The rest seems pretty solid (and familiar).