A Big Fantasy Battle - Another Test Game. It's getting there.

[Melnibonean]

After several months of being side tracked by WWII and Napoleonics it's back to Fantasy again. This time I'm looking at big battles. I'm not happy with any of the game I've seen on offer. I won't disparage any of them but none of the big battle games are really my cup of tea. It's fantasy after all and we all have our own imaginations to feed.

That said, I've decided to head down the road of making my own rules. I banged together a quick set or rules last week and decided to ry them out a couple of days ago. They worked okay for what they are but need a lot of knocking into shape. You have to start somewhere so I took things that I like from various sources as starting points. After a quick test I now need to hammer and beat things around, try some ideas and bash them around again.

As it is, I had a test game and put a load of figures on the table. Lots more work to be done. Lots of time and writing to be done and, no doubt, discarded only to start again.

Lots of pics and blabbering on my blog at: https://this28mmlife.blogspot.com/2021/07/is-this-real-life.html

[wds0855]

That looks all quite excellent!!

Walt

[OSHIROmodels]

Looks grand 

[AKULA]

Great looking game 

[Chief Lackey Rich]

I'm not a huge fan of any of the rank-and-flank fantasy rules out there at the moment either, although I would recommend a look at the apparently OOP Armies of Arcana rules (3rd ed, or possibly 4th) if you can somehow find a copy.

Your system sounds intriguing and does some stuff I haven't seen before (the "monsters in the ranks" thing, "shoot and switch") but you didn't really talk about the morale system.  Given that a lot of my dissatisfaction with existing rules stems from how badly they tackle morale, command control, and general battlefield "friction" I'm curious to hear what you're doing with them.  All pretty inter-related to me, and even in a fantasy setting they ought to be nearly as important as they were historically.

Nice photos, BTW.  Good to see a table properly covered in (mostly) ranked troops, something that's been a bit thin outside of the odd Kings of War game since that dopey Sigmar rules set came out.

[dadlamassu]

Looks very good.  I will have a look through your blog later to see if there is anything I can say or do to assist.

[einarolafson]

Beautiful armies!!

[dadlamassu]

I like quite a few of your ideas and the way the game appeared to go.  Many years ago (1970s) my friend wrote us a set of fantasy rules that we still use. 

Some thoughts for you:

Shield Wall: this essentially a defensive formation and very slow at moving (we use 1/2 move).  In our games it must be composed of at least 2 ranks with a minimum frontage of 8 figures.  It is vulnerable to flank and rear.  It may not shoot or throw javelins from the front 2 ranks but it does count as "soft cover" against missiles.  A unit with oblong shields may form a "testudo" having all round "soft cover".

Phalanx: may not move fast, double etc without losing the formation bonuses.  A phalanx has a minimum depth of 3 ranks.  The first two ranks of pikes (1.5 ranks of spears) count as fighting in the first round of melee.  In the second round the front rank fight but gets a bonus for each supporting rank up to 4.  A phalanx may wheel but loses its bonuses while doing so. 

Spear/bow armed troops: it is assumed that the spear is stuck in the ground beside or in front of the shooter if he also has a shield this is assumed to be placed with the spear and may if oblong count as "soft cover".  While shooting the unit may not move without losing its spears/shields.  If contacted by an enemy the suffers a penalty in melee as it changes weapons. 

Two handed axe, bills or similar armed troops may not use a shield in melee.  Again the move that they sling their shields they suffer a penalty in melee.  They must sling the shield before charging.  If caught carrying shields they count as hand arms. 

 

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Great looking game.  I hope we see more.
I have sent you a PM.

 

[Melnibonean]

Thanks for all the interest guys.
The rules are very much in their infancy and I've already made changes to some aspects after my first run through. It's difficult to pinpoint individual things at this time because I'm still stirring the pot to see what comes out, what can stay and what should go. I'm using some very basic concepts because I don't want to reinvent the wheel and I want the whole thing to be easy to pick up and understand.

Some of the important things to me: No individual casualty removal. Simple but effective command and control. Flexibility for creating armies. A heroic feeling. The ability to use your favorite models. A good magic system. With that last I'm pretty happy to say I came up with an idea that seems to work really well. It's like nothing I've ever seen before (I hope!).

[Grumpy Gnome]

Great looking armies!

[Irregular Wars Nic]

Very interesting project, and such a wonderful looking table and armies!

Having read the outline of the different aspects you are looking for in a game, have you explored Fantastic Battles? I know you say you've looked at a lot of rule sets and don't want to be disparaging about them, so you might have already seen FB and just not mentioned it. 

• Very flexible army building (including mixed spear and bow units if that if your fancy)
• Company based, but compaies can be formed in larger fixed units
• Formation changes
• Small buckets of die rolled during shooting and melee
• Randomised initiative
• All manner of fog-of-war effects during delpoyment and throughout the game

[Chief Lackey Rich]

Some of the important things to me: No individual casualty removal.

So how are you handling casualty removal, then?  Are your figs individually based solely so that you can adopt different formations?  One of the things I really disliked about Kings of War was the way they handled casualty removal, although they made it even worse by having the unit footprint set in stone as well.

[Melnibonean]

Having read the outline of the different aspects you are looking for in a game, have you explored Fantastic Battles? I know you say you've looked at a lot of rule sets and don't want to be disparaging about them, so you might have already seen FB and just not mentioned it. 

Hi Nic, yes I have a copy of Fantastic Battles. I couldn't get my head around parts of it. I recall reading through and finding it really difficult to understand the unit construction. It may be straight forward but I couldn't quite grasp it.

So how are you handling casualty removal, then?  Are your figs individually based solely so that you can adopt different formations?  One of the things I really disliked about Kings of War was the way they handled casualty removal, although they made it even worse by having the unit footprint set in stone as well.

So how are you handling casualty removal, then?
With unit deterioration. Record mounting casualties until a unit finally breaks and is removed from the game in its entirety. The same sort of thing as Hail Caesar or General d'Armee, and other games. Morale will play a large part in this process.

[fred]

Hi Nic, yes I have a copy of Fantastic Battles. I couldn't get my head around parts of it. I recall reading through and finding it really difficult to understand the unit construction. It may be straight forward but I couldn't quite grasp it.

Personally I found the unit construction rules pretty straight forward - one suggestion, don’t over sweat the names of base units or special rules. With so many possible options in fantasy sometimes you need to look at the effect rather than the name.

But there are also quite a few sample armies so you don’t need to work out how to build units to play - you can play first, then see if you want to tweak the army lists to fit your view of the armies more.