Large Skirmish Rules recommendation needed.

[pixelgeek]

I use Age of Fantasy, from One Page Rules.  https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/age-of-fantasy/

IIRC if you are a Patreon member you can also get a point cost calculator to build your own models

[andyskinner]

IIRC if you are a Patreon member you can also get a point cost calculator to build your own models

Yes, I mentioned that. 

andy

[AdmiralAndy]

That would seem to be at odds with assumed scale of those two games though, no?

I think its only TMWWBK does this, as its Colonial based game and whereas the Red Coat with rifles has 12 man Infantry units the Native forces tend to be larger sized at 18 or more.

So assume the change in the usual unit combat block of rolls being 12 or 6 when half strength to each man fights and nobody quits, is how it more balances out the difference between Imperial and Native Combat and the unit sizes.

I've not played this one myself, so that is an assumption.

[Hobgoblin]

The system as a whole seems to be adjusting based on player feedback. Or at least that is the impression I get. Pikeman's Lament had adjustments to the activation system and now we're seeing changes to the way attack dice are calculated. I don't think that any of the changes aren't things you could slot into the earlier games with any issues.

There are some issues. The main difference between TMWWBK and the Rampant games is in unit size. In TMWWBK, most units are at least 12 strong, and the close-combat fighting power of each man is fairly similar. In the Rampant games, a fully armoured man-at-arms is (correctly) represented as having much more killing power than an unarmoured peasant. So six men-at-arms (Elite Foot) are more than a match for 12 peasants (Ravenous Hordes).

That means that if you use the die-per-man system in DR or LR, you need to roll two dice per man for the elite units (and big monsters). It's not a huge change, but it will slow things down a bit from the 12/6 binary system for being above or below half strength.

While I really like TMWWBK and have experimented with one die/man in DR, I'd generally stick with the full/half rule in for fantasy; it keeps the game a bit more heroic and reflects the more extreme differences in arms and armour.

[Storm Wolf]

I can echo the One Page Rules comments, nice simple, alternate activation of one unit/character at a time which can be truly randomised by colour chit pulling etc.

Plus proper army builder, just drop the fantasy bits if you like.

Give it a go, its free.

Good luck

Glen

[Elk101]

I think that the question was asked in a reasonable fashion and was directed to the point that the poster was making about the difference between some of the rules being discussed. Not sure what the problem is?

Fine. Let's continue to keep it constructive and informative.

One of my old gaming group members who wrote some printed rules probably 30 years ago always talked about 'positive rules justification'. He said a lot of the time it was about how the rule was understood in context.  He reckoned that if a rule was understandable in context to a player, they were generally more likely to accept them. The exact issue about how many figures in a unit could fight or fire was raised several times. For example, for one ruleset he did, only half the unit could fire at a time because the others were deemed to be reloading, cleaning blockages, etc. It was ACW if I remember correctly, so we all accepted the gist of the situation and the rule.

[pixelgeek]

That means that if you use the die-per-man system in DR or LR, you need to roll two dice per man for the elite units (and big monsters). It's not a huge change, but it will slow things down a bit from the 12/6 binary system for being above or below half strength.

Good point. That also doesn't take into account the single model rule in DR. That would complicate it further.

[pixelgeek]

One of my old gaming group members who wrote some printed rules probably 30 years ago always talked about 'positive rules justification'. He said a lot of the time it was about how the rule was understood in context.  He reckoned that if a rule was understandable in context to a player, they were generally more likely to accept them.

Which is why I said earlier that the activation system made more sense in LR. The history of the period is replete examples of units and wings not responding in time or even switching sides.

I think that in a fantasy context the justifications for a lack of action don't exist in the same way and so it stands out.

[pixelgeek]

Yes, I mentioned that. 

Old eye syndrome. 

[Sir Barnaby Hammond-Rye]

Do people consider rules that one pays for inherently better than those that are free, or home-grown?

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

There are some issues. The main difference between TMWWBK and the Rampant games is in unit size. In TMWWBK, most units are at least 12 strong, and the close-combat fighting power of each man is fairly similar. In the Rampant games, a fully armoured man-at-arms is (correctly) represented as having much more killing power than an unarmoured peasant. So six men-at-arms (Elite Foot) are more than a match for 12 peasants (Ravenous Hordes).

That means that if you use the die-per-man system in DR or LR, you need to roll two dice per man for the elite units (and big monsters). It's not a huge change, but it will slow things down a bit from the 12/6 binary system for being above or below half strength.

While I really like TMWWBK and have experimented with one die/man in DR, I'd generally stick with the full/half rule in for fantasy; it keeps the game a bit more heroic and reflects the more extreme differences in arms and armour.

The problem with one man one die in DR is that some units would become useless once they get to 4 or so figures as it will become impossible to deliver a hit on units with high armour value.  Other games also have this problem where the number of dice rolled is related to the number of figures and bases.  It can end with two depleted units battering away at each other without ever being able to deliver the killing blow.

On another topic, has anyone tried Mortal Gods Mythic for fantasy? 

[Elk101]

Which is why I said earlier that the activation system made more sense in LR. The history of the period is replete examples of units and wings not responding in time or even switching sides.

I think that in a fantasy context the justifications for a lack of action don't exist in the same way and so it stands out.

I suppose that's one of the difficulties with Fantasy, it's not a genre that has a snapshot of history to support its context. There's a wide range of Fantasy settings that could relate to thousands of years of historical periods, so unless a ruleset seting is specifically based on a period, it probably ends up being something of a compromise when dealing with how larger forces act. It's not such an issue at the 1:1 scale skirmishes I suppose.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

At the risk of this thread becoming largely Dragon Rampant oriented..................

There are a few things you can do to mitigate the failed activations to some degree if this is a deal breaker for you.
There was a supplement in Wargames Illustrated (and later posted on Dan Mersey's site - now defunct) for the Dark Ages.  It had the following rules:

Holy Men & Banners’ special characters
Available to: Any unit except for Skirmishers or Villagers; units containing your Leader may not take this upgrade.
Cost: 1 point per unit.
Maximum of 1 special character per unit.
Special characters may not transfer between units.
Replace one ordinary model in the unit with a special character. This special character moves, fights, and acts in all ways like any other model in the unit.
Units with a special character gain +1 to all Courage tests (in the same way as, and in addition to, being within 12” of their Leader – see page 11 of the rulebook).
Test for the death of special characters in the same way as Leader Lucky Blows.
A player killing an opposing unit’s special character gains +1 Glory

You could, possibly allow one unit with a hero or banner to receive +1 for activation.  This is a bigger deal than the courage tests so possibly only 1 unit per side and should cost at least a couple of extra points.

The other thing you could do is give all leaders the "Commanding" trait. 

[Polkovnik]

Do people consider rules that one pays for inherently better than those that are free, or home-grown?

Well free and home-grown may not be the same thing. These days it is very easy to produce home-grown rules to a good standard and sell them.
However, rules that you pay for are much more likely to be better than free ones. You would expect them to be much more playtested (although unfortunately that doesn't always seem to be the case). If the free rules are good, why wouldn't the author be charging for them ? They are also much more likely to be widely played, meaning you can find more willing opponents.
I will have a look at free rules and maybe comment on them, and possibly borrow some ideas, but it's very unlikely that I would play them.

[Polkovnik]

Which is why I said earlier that the activation system made more sense in LR. The history of the period is replete examples of units and wings not responding in time or even switching sides.

I think that in a fantasy context the justifications for a lack of action don't exist in the same way and so it stands out.

I don't see why it should be any different in fantasy. I would expect troops in a fantasy army to behave in a similar way to troops in a medieval army, except possibly with more variation- for example elves might be more likely to act in the way the general wants them to compared to humans, and orcs less likely.