Dragon Rampant Second Edition is official... Cover Inside!

[Mr. White]

most of the reviews i looked at in the pastwere just a bit too general and more about selling the sizzle ( which tends to be a constant lately). i’ll admit hating watching videos most of the time.  it’s been a while since i last looked.

For fairly balanced reviews (considering features liked and not enjoyed so much) I would recommend this review from our very own Easy E:

http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2016/12/review-dragon-rampant-osprey-wargame.html?m=1
(It's probably worth reading the Lion Rampant review first. It's linked to in the review above)

He’s pretty good about reviewing the majority of Osprey’s offerings as well as other games too.

EDIT: He's also got a review of the Lion Rampant 2nd Edition hardback, which may be good for anyone thinking about what the DR jump from blue- to hard- back might be. https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/04/review-lion-rampant-second-edition.html

Note - I don't personally know Easy E, but I do appreciate his review format.

[mikedemana]

If you want to watch a YouTube battle report, Graham's Wargame Vault is a big fan of Lion Rampant. Here's his channel:

https://www.youtube.com/@grahamswargamevault2635

Mike Demana

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Yeah, Easy E is a good bloke on several levels.

I only got to play Dragon Rampant for the first time about a year ago, I played the very, very similar Lion Rampant and Xenos Rampant a few times before that though. Wrote a rules review and a battle report of my test game of Dragon Rampant:
https://tabletopstories.net/language/en/2024/02/dragon-rampant-review-and-test-game/

I don't have to sell anything related to these rules and I don't get free review copies or stuff like that.



As for the second edition of DR- yup, the cover illustration looks very good. Glad they stick to the same format as they've done with Lion Rampant 2. They just tidy up some things, add some bits, and most of all add scenarios. The basic scenarios from DR already were pretty good.

The funny thing is how the second edition of LR, whilst having a higher page count, costs less than Xenos Rampant. So I'm curious of Dragon Rampant will also be hit with that "fantasy sci-fi tax" or if it'll be along the lines of LR2 cost-wise.

[joe5mc]

Will definitely be picking up a copy!

[Longstrider]

Having followed the Rampant games for a while (despite never having played them - too many shinies) I FINALLY got to try it with a demo of TMWWBK and quite liked it, and that's got me looking at LR2E again to use when we want something less accessory-y than Saga, and the same is true for DR2E. Exciting times - especially if there are 12 different scenarios that we can just use in addition to the ones from games of the same engine.

[mellis1644]

I like SAGA but it never feels historical to me... It's a good fantasy game with different skins for the forces. But it has a core of mythic bits to it.

The Rampant series on the other hand give games which feel more like traditional 'no mystical random stuff'. Because of this I find DR the least appealing of the series as it tries to add some of that in. In the end it is still fairly low variation stuff and so it works but just has a different feel to me...

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I finally watched some of the how to play videos and read some reviews, still wonder how well it rewards maneuver.  Is there an imperative to guard flanks? 

[Longstrider]

I like SAGA but it never feels historical to me... It's a good fantasy game with different skins for the forces. But it has a core of mythic bits to it.

The Rampant series on the other hand give games which feel more like traditional 'no mystical random stuff'. Because of this I find DR the least appealing of the series as it tries to add some of that in. In the end it is still fairly low variation stuff and so it works but just has a different feel to me...

Oh, absolutely. I really enjoy Saga but I'd never suggest it's trying to simulate anything even lightly - it's some dudes around a campfire recounting their last cattle raid. I don't know that I think of the Rampant games as particularly historical either - they're also not expressly trying to simulate anything, but the game is much more readable at a glance.

Re: flanks and maneuver - not overly, though there is some incentive to claim space around your units. It's very much also a story of small fights. I think they're pretty comparable in terms of being set up to tell a heroic tale with some period aesthetics rather than being detailed simulations.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Even small fights still very much had to concern themselves with attacks on the flank or rear, even gladiators in one on one combat worried about attacks against the unshielded or blind spots.

If there is no maneuvering to wrest an advantage from position, you really aren’t playing much of game.  You might as well each compare a card drawn from a pack like in the children’s game of War

[Rick]

Even small fights still very much had to concern themselves with attacks on the flank or rear, even gladiators in one on one combat worried about attacks against the unshielded or blind spots.

If there is no maneuvering to wrest an advantage from position, you really aren’t playing much of game.  You might as well each compare a card drawn from a pack like in the children’s game of War

I fear you may have misunderstood the scale of the game entirely. This is not a 'grand battle' scale game where you are manoevring battalions and corps d'armee around according to Frederick the Great's drill manual, the figures are very small bands of men forming a warband of no more than a few dozen in total. The figures have a 360° visual arc and there are no 'rank and flank' artificial modifiers to make things easier for the tactically impaired. The tactics you use in the game are to try to bring as much to bear on a target unit as possible while minimising the chances of an opponent doing the same to you. Manouevre and concentration of force are all part of the game - if you can attack one unit then attack the same unit again with a different one of yours you stand a good chance of forcing a courage check - a bad result (by your opponent) will cause a retreat or rout and you'll have weakened his warband.
In real life there was little or no advantage to attacking a flank - the only advantage was the same as in these rules - you're forcing an opponent to fight 2 forces without a rest or respite, which (aside from the casualties) is likely to have a detrimental effect on that units will to fight.
If you want to play 'those' sorts of games that impose artificial and unrealistic modifiers because that's how Warhammer did it, then go right ahead - I'm sure there's a good set out there for you. These rules, however, make you work (and think) for each victory.

[Dice Roller]

In LR2 they introduced optional flank rules so they may well port them over to DR2 as well.

[Gibby]

I fear you may have misunderstood the scale of the game entirely. This is not a 'grand battle' scale game where you are manoevring battalions and corps d'armee around according to Frederick the Great's drill manual, the figures are very small bands of men forming a warband of no more than a few dozen in total. The figures have a 360° visual arc and there are no 'rank and flank' artificial modifiers to make things easier for the tactically impaired. The tactics you use in the game are to try to bring as much to bear on a target unit as possible while minimising the chances of an opponent doing the same to you. Manouevre and concentration of force are all part of the game - if you can attack one unit then attack the same unit again with a different one of yours you stand a good chance of forcing a courage check - a bad result (by your opponent) will cause a retreat or rout and you'll have weakened his warband.
In real life there was little or no advantage to attacking a flank - the only advantage was the same as in these rules - you're forcing an opponent to fight 2 forces without a rest or respite, which (aside from the casualties) is likely to have a detrimental effect on that units will to fight.
If you want to play 'those' sorts of games that impose artificial and unrealistic modifiers because that's how Warhammer did it, then go right ahead - I'm sure there's a good set out there for you. These rules, however, make you work (and think) for each victory.

I would hesitate to bring the word realism into the discussion at all, because LR/DR gives flavour at best but certainly not realism - you can't even attack an enemy with two units at once, you can only send them in one at a time - as if the larger force in history wouldn't mob its outnumbered enemy from all sides.

Add to that some other artificial gameplay-dependent rules (even friendly units must have 3" between one another at all times?!) etc then you have a game that makes you think about how to win, but does so with its own "artificial and unrealistic modifiers" same as you say Warhammer does (another game that makes you work and think for each victory.)

I'd also add that concern for flanks and blind spots is very much NOT unrealistic and artificial in medieval warfare, but that's a whole other topic.

[Rick]

Well Gibby, I wasn't actually discussing 'realism' in LR/DR, but I take your point - in medieval battles there was a concern for flanks in the units of 2-300 men, but I never mentioned those - I mentioned small bands of men, an entire force being a warband of only a few dozen at most. In terms of scale, an entire LR/DR warband would only be a tiny fraction of one unit out of an entire army - you might as well be discussing manouevring 12 men as if they were an entire corps d'armee - it doesn't work as a comparison. As to your other points, I believe you are just repeating what I said; LR/DR doesn't play like most 'rank and flank' games; you need to learn an entirely new set of tactics.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Even a few men still have a flank and rear un-shielded/blind spots they are concerned about protecting or keeping from being exposed.  If you are outnumbered, your opponent is going to try to take advantage of that, and sometimes even just two men are reduced to fighting back to back for that reason.  It’s not just a concern for big rank and file battalions, nor is it quite the same effect as hitting one man with two from the front, if one is attacking a unshielded blind side or from the rear, it is not artificial to understand that the defender cannot dodge attacks or defend his blind points as efficiently as he can against threats from his front, he might not even have a riposte for the blind attack at all.   Watch how even footballers look for gaps in the line to infiltrate and exploit and try to get behind a defender.

I don't think your statement that flanks and rear areas have no application in small skirmishes is very plausible.  This might be a rather fun game, but it doesn't  smack much of plausibility or versimilitude.  It probably isn't the game for me.

[armchairgeneral]

you can't even attack an enemy with two units at once, you can only send them in one at a time - as if the larger force in history wouldn't mob its outnumbered enemy from all sides.

You can attack one unit with two or more units in the same move. For the sake of simplicity each attack is dealt with separately.