Of Armies and Hordes (Ganesha Games)

[Hobgoblin]

Discovered you get a lot of areas even on a 4'x4' board with 10mm figures!

Yes: I realised after our first game that our areas were much bigger than need be; they wouldn't have to be more than around 6" by 6" in 28mm (to accommodate two lots of 16 infantry) - and that's only for clear areas; rough terrain can be much smaller if required.

I used hedges to delimit most of the terrain areas - the very open looking areas are actually hills. To me this looks much like any other wargames table - the areas feel pretty natural.

Yup - looks good! I think a more broken-up battlefield actually looks better in many ways; necessity's the mother of invention, and all that.

Some rules seem rather geared towards 28mm - Cavalry having 2 wounds and 2 attacks feels like it is to do with 28mm cavalry models having such a big foot print. Likewise the chariot rules.  These can be tweaked easily enough.

The two wounds is just an option for cavalry, though, not a Mounted requirement; our wolf-riders were one-hit wonders!

It has the SoBH problem of a very simple stat line (which is good) but then loads of special rules, some of which I think would be better as stats.

That's interesting. I see this criticism of SoBH quite a lot, but I never quite understand it. That might just be because we've played SoBH and its offshoots so much, but I find that as each character typically has just one or two special rules, they really don't get in the way.

For example, I much prefer knowing that the beastman and the orc are both Q4, C3, but one has Dashing and Forester and the other has Savage and Shooter: Medium than having extra stats to look up. I also think a lot of the SoBH traits are really elegant - like Big (+1 C in close combat, but +1 to the opponent's C when being shot at). That seems better to me than having a close-combat stat and a 'ranged defence' stat, as it's quite intuitive.

Certainly, I find SoBH to be the one rulebook that almost never needs to be consulted during games - much less so than even relatively simple rulesets like Dragon Rampant, where the longer statline seems a bit fiddly by comparison. I'm hoping that OA&H will work out in the same way as SoBH, although some of the traits are initially going to be 'false friends' (i.e. two attacks for Mounted rather than +1 to C).

Anyway, that 10mm set-up looks great!

[DivisMal]

Set up a table and played a few turns solo last night

Discovered you get a lot of areas even on a 4'x4' board with 10mm figures!


I used hedges to delimit most of the terrain areas - the very open looking areas are actually hills. To me this looks much like any other wargames table - the areas feel pretty natural.

The activation is very good, allowing reactions and unexpected turn ends. Playing solo I definitely should have used counters to mark activations, as after a few turns the order switches quite a lot, so I was loosing track of who had activated or not. I think this is mainly a solo play thing.

Combat is brutal - perhaps too brutal, but I suppose it keeps the game moving. I haven't worked out the best way to use missile troops or flyers (but I only played a few turns) .

Some rules seem rather geared towards 28mm - Cavalry having 2 wounds and 2 attacks feels like it is to do with 28mm cavalry models having such a big foot print. Likewise the chariot rules.  These can be tweaked easily enough.

The terrain rules are good, and really interact with the activation, special rules and magic. It feels much more integrated than many rules. The stacking limits of terrain along with needing extra activations to enter, make for some interesting traffic jams, so it feels like terrain has a lot more impact than lots of other rules.

It has the SoBH problem of a very simple stat line (which is good) but then loads of special rules, some of which I think would be better as stats.

Your table looks brilliant! I have also thought of hedges and maybe little creeks ans paths to divide my open areas.
In fact, I’d say a tabletop such as yours looks much better than the suspiciously flat grasslands with  a couple of hills, we usually encounter. Most tabletop battles seems to be taking place on golf courses!

[fred]

Thanks guys, glad you like the table setup. I’ve updated quite a bit of my terrain recently to make it look better in photos!  Using fields and empty area terrain templates for areas does seem to break up the table more than normal.

As to the special rules vs stat line. Hobgoblin, I think the reason you like the special rules, is that you play the stable of games a lot. For those of us who flit between rulesets it’s hard to remember what many similarly named special rules do in different games. It’s not so much the number of special rules per unit, it’s the number in the army that the player needs to know.

[DS615]

I had high hopes until I saw the "area movement" comment.

Sigh, looks like I'll give this one a pass.  Good luck with it y'all.

I have no problem with the area movement, it's just spaces on a board.
Army list though, are an aberration I can not stand.

[andyskinner]

I like grids, and for some reason they seem less obtrusive to me than the pictures I've seen so far dividing up the battlefield.  I play large skirmish fantasy on 4" hexes: https://photos.app.goo.gl/oIMHXNXPBidNH6UE2

(I also use 4" hexes for Epic 40,000.)

But this game might be better if I used the 12" Geo-Hex system.

I love being able to pick miniatures up and put them down freely.  Feels more like playing with toys.

andy

[Froggy the Great]

Will the game work with 6mm large-stand armies? 
As an example:
https://www.deviantart.com/spielorjh/art/6mm-Army-of-Gondor-726248529

[fred]

Largely yes. You will need to decide what number of figures one of your bases corresponds to (I went with 4 ‘figures’ for a 40x40mm square base and 2 figures for 40x20mm base).

So you will be a bit limited on variance of unit sizes, but that’s not a big problem. You will need to track losses against a stand, again easy enough.

The problem area will be around the different formations which you will need some way of indicating open order vs closed order vs horde.

[DivisMal]

I guess the game is perfectly playable with multi-based units.
Either you define 1 base = 1 stand or you set a base as a number of stands and note the losses.

[beefcake]

Just preordered the hardback spiralbound one. Comes with a free pdf.

[Hobgoblin]

I have no problem with the area movement, it's just spaces on a board.
Army list though, are an aberration I can not stand.

I'd generally agree, but ... there are no armies in the book itself here, and the spreadsheet allows you to create any profiles you like.

Also, the 'official' army lists in the spreadsheet and forthcoming PDF are much more extensive than any I've seen for other games (e.g. 100+ troop types for each army). And you're allowed to use troops from any other army list as mercenaries (up to 50%). That gives you a huge amount of leeway to create whatever army you fancy. The mercenary rules mean that troops are cheaper but you lose the game if they're all that you have left at any point.

On top of that, the rules actively encourage you to create your own army lists and troop types. There are simple rules for which troop types are 'personalities' (who can make up no more than a third of your force) and 'limited' (no more than a half, but that half includes any personalities). So you can mix and match the existing profiles into combined lists (without using mercenaries) and create new profiles for anything that's missing.

[DivisMal]

I have no problem with the area movement, it's just spaces on a board.
Army list though, are an aberration I can not stand.

Well they’re probably not what you have in mind (competitive/ min-max / herohammer etc.), but rather extensive lists of example profiles, conveniently put into a single pdf.

It’s rather expected that you create your own army, complete with profiles.

[jon_1066]

Two things make me a bit wary of these rules - that huge list of special rules and the area movement. 

Re the movement it is not the movement by areas but the delineation of them. I like for a table to look naturalistic and forcing it into basically a 6" grid is really off putting.  One of the aspects of miniatures is the use of the pieces to mark locations - without that does it not just turn into a pretty boardgame?  Except it doesn't look pretty as there are a bunch of artificial lines all over the place and everything is in a grid pattern.

The host of special rules are basically a host of exceptions to the very basic rules.  I assume all won't be in play at any particular battle but it does create a proverbial headache of what does which to whom.  It's one reason I don't like Age of Sigmar - a whole host of exceptions to try and memorise to allow you to know what your army and your opponents actually does.

I would definitely be interested in seeing more battle reports and table set ups though.

[DivisMal]

Two things make me a bit wary of these rules - that huge list of special rules and the area movement. 

Re the movement it is not the movement by areas but the delineation of them. I like for a table to look naturalistic and forcing it into basically a 6" grid is really off putting.  One of the aspects of miniatures is the use of the pieces to mark locations - without that does it not just turn into a pretty boardgame?  Except it doesn't look pretty as there are a bunch of artificial lines all over the place and everything is in a grid pattern.

The host of special rules are basically a host of exceptions to the very basic rules.  I assume all won't be in play at any particular battle but it does create a proverbial headache of what does which to whom.  It's one reason I don't like Age of Sigmar - a whole host of exceptions to try and memorise to allow you to know what your army and your opponents actually does.

I would definitely be interested in seeing more battle reports and table set ups though.

Well, the host of special rules is something the author did already in his SoBH rules. IMO this is very elegant, because in contrast to what I originally thought, the mechanics already give a very satisfying battle. Then come the special rules, and for me it’s actually easier to remember just one or two rules per model than memorize a long profile with many digits.

The tabletop...well, it states specifically that the sections can be of different sizes. I don’t know how it’ll look, however, as I haven’t tried it myself yet.

[Hobgoblin]

Re the movement it is not the movement by areas but the delineation of them. I like for a table to look naturalistic and forcing it into basically a 6" grid is really off putting.  One of the aspects of miniatures is the use of the pieces to mark locations - without that does it not just turn into a pretty boardgame?  Except it doesn't look pretty as there are a bunch of artificial lines all over the place and everything is in a grid pattern.

It's worth pointing out that the game doesn't requite a grid, as the areas can be irregularly shaped and sized; indeed, that's what the author recommends. You do need some way of separating one area from another, but you don't need actual lines or anything. Because movement's by area, the areas only need to be vaguely indicated. So, a little thought's needed, but the battlefield doesn't have to be particularly artificial-looking - or artificial-looking at all with sufficient planning. We found that invisible lines between one rock/bush/tree and another were often all that was needed.

For example, there are at least eight areas visible in this photo (of a very hasty set-up), but it's hardly a grid:

The host of special rules are basically a host of exceptions to the very basic rules.  I assume all won't be in play at any particular battle but it does create a proverbial headache of what does which to whom.  It's one reason I don't like Age of Sigmar - a whole host of exceptions to try and memorise to allow you to know what your army and your opponents actually does.

As fred and I were discussing above, there seems to be a marmite aspect to this. All the Ganesha games use this system, just about, but I always find them to be the best rulesets for never having to open the book at the table. I think the main reason for this is that the traits tend to be simple in themselves, so you don't need to look them up.

As an example, the traits we used in our game (all from the official lists) included these:

Fast - can move two areas instead of one.

Savage - counts as if it caused an extra kill when determining the winner of a melee.

Resilient - saving throw of 5 or 6 for each kill.

Extra lives - effectively hit points.

Mounted - double dice in close combat; can't move through certain areas.

Rabble - the unit takes double casualties.

And so on.

What distinguishes the Ganesha-style traits from the Age of Sigmar ones is that they're all generic and all fairly common. All armies are likely to have some Fast, Mounted and Resilient troops; lots will have Rabble and Savage. So the effects of each trait are well known and easily applied. That's not the case with Age of Sigmar, where each "scroll" seems to contain lots of unit-specific traits.

The same applies to Song of Blades, etc,: if you know a character's Big (and you should be able to tell just by looking at the miniature), you just tally up the modifier in combat (+1 to shoot at it, +1 for it to hit). The elegance of the system rests on the traits being simple and intuitive, and well integrated with the other mechanics.

[fred]

Army list though, are an aberration I can not stand.

I'm not sure how you can play a fantasy game without Army Lists. You need something to define the stats of the various units, especially in a fantasy game where there is almost unlimited choice. The OAAH lists provide huge numbers of example units - I don't think anyone would want to field them all at once!

The army building rules are simple, with a total points cost and a few broad limits around the types of units.

Re the movement it is not the movement by areas but the delineation of them. I like for a table to look naturalistic and forcing it into basically a 6" grid is really off putting.  One of the aspects of miniatures is the use of the pieces to mark locations - without that does it not just turn into a pretty boardgame?  Except it doesn't look pretty as there are a bunch of artificial lines all over the place and everything is in a grid pattern.

There is no need to play on squares or hexes, or any other regular grid. I'll show this example again of my very quick table setup, with some 40 areas on it





Special Rules - yes there are a lot. But as Hobgoblin says they are fairly simple, and you don't have huge numbers on an army. I think to a degree this is always going to be the case in a fantasy game, as you have lots of types of units and tropes to represent. Where it becomes hard is remembering them all between different game systems.