To the Strongest for fantasy?

[Hobgoblin]

The other month, a friend evangelised so vociferously about Simon Miller's To the Strongest that I bought the book. We've been playing it with fantasy armies and have quickly become converts.

In general, I prefer fantasy rules that are fairly close to historical rules; I'm quite happy with beastmen = barbarians and wizards = artillery and so on, which is why I like Hordes of the Things.

I'm interested to hear if anyone else is using TTS for fantasy games and, if so, how they use the rules. I gather that there are few wholesale unofficial fantasy adaptations out there, but I'm less interested in "how to use TTS for Warhammer" than ways in which people have used the existing rules and profiles to reflect generic tropes.

So far, we've done a few things.

First, we've generally kept the "veteran" designation for fantasy troops. This means that you lose a little variety among the human units, but you gain a means of distinguishing tougher creatures from humans. For example, we make all lizardmen units veterans to reflect their scaly hides and cold-blooded indifference to pain. We tend to use veteran billmen profiles for ogres and trolls, which gives them a nice combination of offensive clout and defensive staying power. In our most recent game, we made the ogres veteran billmen and the trolls fanatic veteran billmen.

Another quick win with trolls and ogres is to make two ranks a deep unit. This is quite intuitive, as two ranks of ogres on 40mm squares matches up to four ranks of humans on 20mm-deep HOTT bases.

Mobs handle orcs quite well; for Uruk-hai types, I'm tempted to play around with veteran fanatic mobs (presuming they hit on 6 not with more ammo chits (the Isengarders and Mordor-orcs seem to be quite indisciplined archers, but they also have some noted success with their bows ...).

The elephant rules handle very large trolls and giants nicely - especially the terrific rampage rules - and the African/Indian/escorted nuances offer scope for a bit of variety.

For things like packs of wolves, the light-cavalry rules work well; we interpreted "javelins" as representing lightning raids and harrying.

Anachronism can also lend a helping hand. A great thing about TTS is that it has such a wide range of troop types - even compared with HOTT, which has a not-inconsiderable 20. So you can achieve some interesting effects by playing (say) cataphracts against later knights. As an example, I'm painting up some 15mm orc boar riders at the moment; I reckon the cataphract rules will cover those nicely, with the high save representing the tough hides of rider and mount, and the propensity for disorder representing swinish obstinacy. Lizardman cavalry might be veteran cataphracts for similar reasons.

The longbowmen profile should do the trick for elves; elfin prowess with the bow is reflected in the same weight of arrow power from less dense formations.

The fanatic rule should cover most rank-and-file sorts of undead (zombies might be mobs without missiles).

Carrobalistae profiles for wizards are an easy fit. But with the immobile artillery profile, there's a nice modelling opportunity for druids with standing stones, shamans with totems or altars with human sacrifices. We've also been simply using orcish shamans as heroes: they look the part.

Fliers are always tricky in massed-battle games. Hordes of the Things models fliers more 'accurately', I think, than most games (where fliers are often actually hoppers), but it's obviously difficult to find an ancient or medieval match! In our first couple of games, we had some gargoyles acting as light cavalry with javelins, which worked well enough. For dragons and the like, though, we're probably in the area of making new profiles.

One thing I thought of for dragons was to give them a very large move (three or four boxes) and a one-box missile attack that hits on a 6 rather than an 8 (to represent dragon-fire). This, I thought, might make dragons highly destructive but also vulnerable to being stranded in charge distance after closing in for the 'free' melee attack afforded by the fire.

The other fantasy trope that would be easily added would be an extra save modifier (two-handed weapons x 2, effectively). That's something that lots of games do successfully - e.g. an ogre with a hand weapon hits as hard as a billman, and an ogre with a greatsword has one extra modifier.

Anyone else had much experience of trying this sort of thing out? I'd love to hear (by which I mean scavenge) any other ideas!

[Gibby]

I don't particularly feel qualified to deliver the answers you seek (I haven't played the game yet), but your list of ideas goes to show just how easy it is to use existing unit profiles in games to fit the overall theme of whatever type of fantasy unit you might want. This is, as you demonstrate, particularly easy if you prefer a more low-fantasy (or grounded-fantasy, if that's a better term).

It reminds me of people in the Warmaster Revolution community who ask when unit profiles for [Warhammer Unit Invented After Warmaster Released] might be added to an army. Often, and rightly, the answer is that you don't need them - quite often there's an existing profile in that army that'll work just fine for that unit, and the difference is just visual. Unit profiles in mass battle games are often less interested in the nitty-gritty differences of line soldiery for a good reason. One might add a magic item to the unit to give it a certain edge in whatever way its theme would deem necessary.

It sounds like TTS offers a huge amount of freedom when it comes to doing that!

Carrobalistae profiles for wizards are an easy fit. But with the immobile artillery profile, there's a nice modelling opportunity for druids with standing stones, shamans with totems or altars with human sacrifices. We've also been simply using orcish shamans as heroes: they look the part.

Whilst this sounds pretty good, and no doubt works well, I have always been a bit switched off by the "Wizards as Fireball Caddies" type thing. I like some of that, but I also like my fantasy magic to be a bit more subtle. Is there some way in which different types of wizards (different to the Fire Flinging types) might be represented as leaders, who perhaps offer some house-ruled extra benefits, or even negative modifiers to enemies in some fashion? That might represent a more low-key type of magic. I'm also a fan of wizards being able to affect the environment, such as creating rough ground and such, but that's where you start needing "Spells" which is far beyond the scope of what you're after. Just thinking out loud!

Really must try and get TTS to the table some day...

[Sunjester]

I've only played TTS with historical armies so far, but you are inspiring me to give it a go with fantasy armies now!

[Hobgoblin]

It reminds me of people in the Warmaster Revolution community who ask when unit profiles for [Warhammer Unit Invented After Warmaster Released] might be added to an army. Often, and rightly, the answer is that you don't need them - quite often there's an existing profile in that army that'll work just fine for that unit, and the difference is just visual. Unit profiles in mass battle games are often less interested in the nitty-gritty differences of line soldiery for a good reason. One might add a magic item to the unit to give it a certain edge in whatever way its theme would deem necessary.

Yes, very good points. And in massed-battle (or indeed large-skirmish) games, discrepancies in size and model number per base often do sort things out on their own. If six ogres occupy the same space as 30+ men, then the same profile may do just fine for both.

Whilst this sounds pretty good, and no doubt works well, I have always been a bit switched off by the "Wizards as Fireball Caddies" type thing. I like some of that, but I also like my fantasy magic to be a bit more subtle. Is there some way in which different types of wizards (different to the Fire Flinging types) might be represented as leaders, who perhaps offer some house-ruled extra benefits, or even negative modifiers to enemies in some fashion? That might represent a more low-key type of magic. I'm also a fan of wizards being able to affect the environment, such as creating rough ground and such, but that's where you start needing "Spells" which is far beyond the scope of what you're after. Just thinking out loud!

Yes, there's certainly room for both. Some of TTS's various general types will work as wizards, along with heroes (essentially one-shot "retools"), and there might be something to be done with the stratagem cards. Brilliant generals get to choose a stratagem instead of drawing one randomly; perhaps a 'subtle' wizard might get to choose more than one.

Sunjester - you should! Keen to hear what you come up with!

[Galtisant]

There has always been a vague plan for Simon to write a fantasy version of To The Strongest! (To the Strangest?), but there always seem to be too many other things that need to be done first.

We have fought a few fantasy battles with the rules, set in a Gloranthan setting. See https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Glorantha) for battle reports and photographs etc. I have also fielded fantasy armies in historical competitions, by retro-fitting them into a historical list eg fielding Arthurian knights using a Feudal French list.

I think that the heroes idea could be greatly expanded. In this case I assume that that the hero represents one or more lowish level D&D type characters, who may do one notable thing during a battle. You could then have many different types of hero, so one could give an extra attack during melee (mage), a bonus save (cleric), assassinate an enemy hero (rogue), negate the effect of bad terrain (ranger) and so on.

Ian

[Hobgoblin]

We have fought a few fantasy battles with the rules, set in a Gloranthan setting. See https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Glorantha) for battle reports and photographs etc. I have also fielded fantasy armies in historical competitions, by retro-fitting them into a historical list eg fielding Arthurian knights using a Feudal French list.

Those are glorious-looking games!

I think that the heroes idea could be greatly expanded. In this case I assume that that the hero represents one or more lowish level D&D type characters, who may do one notable thing during a battle. You could then have many different types of hero, so one could give an extra attack during melee (mage), a bonus save (cleric), assassinate an enemy hero (rogue), negate the effect of bad terrain (ranger) and so on.

Those are great ideas! In our first couple of games of TTS, we did some of this by accident, as I was going on memory and allowed a hero to be used to replay any card (not just an attack).

Another idea would be discipline masters - there's no shortage of suitable orcish figures ("where there's a whip, there's a way ...") - who can be expended to remove a point of disorder. They should probably be more expensive than regular heroes, but they could be balanced with mechanically identical "healers" who do the same for more civilised peoples. It's the kind of thing that's easily modelled - a brute with a whip for one side and a white-robed sort for the other - and handed out to each side to experiment with.

[Hobgoblin]

With discipline masters and healers, I suppose the assumption would be that the former exhaust their authority or are shot through the eye by rebellious snaga-types and the latter use up their herbs or potions!

[Hobgoblin]

I wonder if there's also some scope to extend the cataphract rule (disorganised on an ace when attempting difficult activations) to include not only aces but 1s or 2s as well. That might apply to huge creatures (behemoths of whatever description) or particularly stubborn or truculent ones (something like the original conception of the Warhammer cold one). Such units might always qualify as extra-deep to reflect their bulk and toughness, which would also mean that the high potential for disorganisation needn't be an immediate harbinger of destruction if there were enemy units in the vicinity.

The rampage rule could also be extended to this sort of behemoth so that they run amok when they become disorganised if they fail an extra save. So they could cause enormous destruction to their own lines (not only crushing but also pushing out of boxes) but still be in play afterwards.

That would probably need to be offset with enormous destructive power to get the risk/reward balance right: perhaps two (lance-like) hits on all attacks - or even three. And double penalties to saves.

[Vis Bellica]

This was a playtest of the “a few sides of A4” initial version of my fantasy version of To The Strongest: legendary Greeks versus legendary Norse.

https://www.vislardica.com/after-action-reports-1/2023/8/27/legendary-greeks-versus-legendary-norse

[Galtisant]

The rules are robust enough to withstand a lot of tinkering, so go with whatever changes work for you. Be aware though that although some changes may work, they can unbalance the relative strengths of units in surprising ways. A little while ago Simon changed the Persian Sparabara archer/spearmen units to be deep. He then had to make an emergency change when a Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the Sparabara had become by far the most cost effective unit in the rules.

For reference the latest updates to the rules (Even Stronger v12a) can be downloaded from the Big Red Bat’s Shop (https://bigredbatshop.co.uk/).

There is also an old discussion area on the To The Strongest! Forum, where ideas for a fantasy variants are discussed https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/tothestrongest/to-the-strangest-f75/ .

[Hobgoblin]

This was a playtest of the “a few sides of A4” initial version of my fantasy version of To The Strongest: legendary Greeks versus legendary Norse.

Looks like a terrific game! I gather you used magic points to change pips on cards. What sort of profiles did you use for 'giants' and 'hulks'? Save modifiers and 'deep' or 'extra-deep' equivalence?

The rules are robust enough to withstand a lot of tinkering, so go with whatever changes work for you. Be aware though that although some changes may work, they can unbalance the relative strengths of units in surprising ways. A little while ago Simon changed the Persian Sparabara archer/spearmen units to be deep. He then had to make an emergency change when a Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the Sparabara had become by far the most cost effective unit in the rules.

For reference the latest updates to the rules (Even Stronger v12a) can be downloaded from the Big Red Bat’s Shop (https://bigredbatshop.co.uk/).

Yes, the points costing will be the big deal with any changes. That's why I'd generally prefer to use existing profiles and achieve effects through anachronism (cataphracts as fantasy cavalry against high-medieval foes, for example) or to deal in 'both sides' add-ons (like the healer/discipline-master balance discussed above).

I got hold of Even Stronger a week or so ago, and it cleared up a few things - notably the extra hero that now comes with a unit of warriors! That had puzzled me a bit when using the army spreadsheet.

Also, I noticed that when (earlier) knights dismount, they are now armed with spears rather than two-handed weapons. The armament of foot knights is the one thing in the rules that strikes me as 'off' - I don't think two-handed weapons became the norm for dismounted knights until full plate was adopted and shields abandoned. Purely as a WYSIWYG issue, it doesn't quite sit right with me - most of my 12th or 13th-century foot knights have shields and one-handed weapons, and I imagine most collection are similar. And in our first few games, we tended to forget that the foot knights should reduce the save of their opponents - which we didn't with the 'later knights' because they actually had poleaxes and longswords. I suspect we'll end up dropping the two-handers for ordinary foot knights and giving them a hero to balance the points (I think that works out arithmetically!).

[Maceface]

Those ideas sound great, and those photos very inspirational too!

I've been thinking about making some huge 18mm fantasy armies for To The Strongest, but was unsure of how to do the magic etc. Seems like picking a good historical counterpart would be good enough to start.

Have you guys tried M2? I think its some variant of TtS, with Warhammer and LOTR armies?

[Hobgoblin]

Those ideas sound great, and those photos very inspirational too!

I've been thinking about making some huge 18mm fantasy armies for To The Strongest, but was unsure of how to do the magic etc. Seems like picking a good historical counterpart would be good enough to start.

So far, we've had lots of fun with a couple of simple principles:

• keeping 'veteran' status for larger-than-life creatures (ogres, trolls, etc.); and
• using mobile artillery units and, more simply, heroes for wizards

Everything else just seems to work fine when mapped to an appropriate historical unit. And the rampaging trolls (elephants) are great fun!

Have you guys tried M2? I think its some variant of TtS, with Warhammer and LOTR armies?

No - although I think I did have a look at it. Our fantasy armies are quite wild and woolly, being essentially Hordes of the Things armies, so they're easier to map to historical archetypes rather than fantasy lists from specific settings.

[Elbows]

Haven't tried TTS but my initial imagi-nations ancients rules were quickly corrupted by my buddies who all insisted on a fantasy version.

We have found it relatively easy to convert fantasy units to historical units, and what I've done is simply added "additional" stuff that you slot in for fantasy.  I added a simple spell mechanic, a bunch of fantasy traits (which make no sense for a unit of Dacians, but may for a unit of Dwarves).

I added a handful of special units to showcase the slightly crazier fantasy stuff (such as packs of animals/creatures, and large monsters, etc.).

I think most historical/ancients games would work quite well for fantasy, until you get to the sillier/dumb stuff like Age of Sigmar level absurdity.  Lord of the Rings could be done with almost zero "fantasy" modifications, etc.  So far we haven't had an issue slotting in almost any kind of fantasy unit.

I'm sure we're going to get a lot of weird looks from Old World players when we rock up to the local game store and play something completely different.

[Maceface]

Great ideas in this thread for sure!

Are you guys picking units from different lists or just using a standard list, but being very deliberate in what gets upgraded/downgraded into Raw/Veteran (if list permits)?

Do you know if the List's point values are universal, so you can pluck statlines from anywhere? or are they costed mostly for the army in question?