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

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

but does the fact that there are two give any sort of amplification to the units' attacks, or is it basically the same odds of success adjudicated sequentially?

[Rick]

No. Why should it? 12 men attack 12 men, the survivors are then attacked by another 12 men - why should there be any sort of amplification? If you are reduced below half strength by casualties there are modifiers to your stats and to your courage value meaning the survivors are far more likely to run away.
There is very little facing in LR/DR - the units move around in a loose, unformed unit; no straight lines with ranks behind - the only times that happens is when using the 'shieldwall' or 'wall of spears' rules.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Because it’s really an attack of 24 men on 12?  Yes, it is sort of Igo ugo for the game but it represents the possibility of simultaneous attacks.   Sequential moves and attacks are only because it is not practical or very difficult mechanically to have simultaneous actions.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I am being rapidly convinced that maneuver has very little to do with outcomes in this game.   it might provide an illusion of having an effect, but from the few videos I have now watched, I can’t see any real reason to it. Is there a qrf or roster of unit traits/ special abilities that might give me some tactical nuances that might be derived from position?

[Dice Roller]

If Unit A is attacked by Unit B and Unit A takes casualties then Unit A will be at a disadvantage if also charged by Unit C (because Unit A may have fallen under half strength, but will still be at a disadvantage if it has to take a morale check even if above half strength).
But if Unit A takes no casualties and Unit C then charges in then Unit A is at no disadvantage and it will be like the attack by Unit B never happened.

That's the way the rules work, like it or hate it. Is it realistic (there's that damned word again)? No. But do you get an enjoyable game? Yes. If you hate it then no biggie, just move on to a set of rules you do like and have fun with them instead of wasting your time reading threads about rules you don't play and don't like.

[Dice Roller]

The rules clearly state there is no facing in the game.
At the scale the encounters are aimed at (skirmishes) it is assumed that members of each unit are looking about them and that if charged to the rear that someone would see it, yell out to their mates, and they'd turn to face.
That's what it says, that's its rationale, and you just have to decide whether that's something you can cope with or not.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Yep, I am growing convinced, it’s probably not the game for me because verisimilitude is rather important even in fantasy games. Maybe with a lot of house rules, which is why I am still hoping to see how some of these mentioned special traits or optional rules such as flanks/shield walls and  optional rules work regarding facing (and possibly even some sort of group moves. ) As it stands right now, I don’t see it doing anything much to justify buying in to it but I remain curious and ever hopeful. Anyone have a trait listing?

[Dice Roller]

In DR there are no traits that affect facing.
In LR2 they introduced flanks and flank attacks for units in Shieldwall formation, but that only affects those units and other units NOT in Shieldwall have no flank or rear because it's assumed that a unit is a higgledy-piggledy group and not in any kind of formation.
Whether this gets imported into DR2 or not remains to be seen (I have a feeling it will) but, as it currently stands, there is nothing in DR that affects or influences formations for one simple reason - there are no formations.

Remember, DR (and LR for that matter) are skirmish games, not mass battle games. If formations and group moves is what you are after then look for games that already have those because, otherwise, what's the point? It's obviously not for you. We all do the odd tweak to games (e.g. as mentioned elsewhere, originally there was a rule that no unit, friendly or enemy, could get within 3" without charging. As a club, we promptly knocked that on the head for friendly units. Indeed, in LR2, that was brought in as an option), but if you have to do a major overhaul to a set of rules (such as you are proposing) then why bother? Why not just find a game that's closer to what you are looking for?

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Dice Roller, no need to take umbrage at my questions…I am indeed trying on the game to see if it does  or could do what i want before i spend my money.  Isn’t that the whole point of these forums?

Yes, i am finding that it probably doesn't meet my taste and that it makes assumptions that are not plausible to my sense of verisimilitude, (but not that it couldn’t) but your tone is showing your irritation with my attempts to get a better handle on the game.  Really not necessary.  If you and the designer think formations are not essential to depict plausible skirmish combat, i am quite glad to know it before i plunk down my pewter. Clearly formations and facing do enter into someone’s mind if just because of the mentioned LR rules
about shield walls and flank attacks.


So again, anyone got a qrs or point to a list of unit traits/stats that help me understand some of the nuances of the game?

[Hobgoblin]

The traits are optional, and the stats are a reasonably lengthy string. Some of the stats are the numbers needed on two dice to perform an action (so knights will attack - charge - on 5+ but move on a 7+, for example, whereas skirmishers move on 5+ but attack on 7+, and so on).

Manoeuvre is important in several regards. First, there's a big difference between attacking and defending. Some units (e.g. "Bellicose Foot" - wild warriors of some sort) hit very hard when they charge but are highly vulnerable when they're attacked. Others - e.g. heavy spearmen - are much more comfortable defending (and can form up to be better protected too). So positioning and manoeuvre matter for securing defensible positions or allowing advantageous attacks.

Second, some units are compelled to charge when in range. So they can be pinned or lured into inconvenient attacks.

Compounding that is the role of terrain. Certain units are hugely disadvantaged in rough ground, so weaker units can take advantage of that, especially if the units are impetuous types (mounted knights, for example), and use terrain as a great leveller.

Also, certain sorts of terrain give protection both against shooting and hand-to-hand attacks (though not necessarily from every angle). So manoeuvre matters to get units into defensible positions.

As to realism, the game is - by design - "cinematic" rather than simulationist, but it does do somethings in quite a realistic way, I think. The way in which bands of men clash and then retreat strikes me as the sort of thing you see in street brawls (the Song of Blades and Heroes ruleset does this very well for individual-centred skirmishes). Units don't typically get locked in combat but instead fight in a series of clashes. I suspect that's what a lot of small-scale medieval combat was like.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Thank you,  Hobgoblin, that’s a good taste of the sort of details I wanted to learn about.

[Rick]

I see no umbrage taken, Awf, but you do seem to have a very different set of rules in mind; more like a smaller scale version of mass battle rules? Perhaps asking around any wargamers you know might turn up someone that has a copy you could have a look at? To my knowledge, there aren't any listings of traits/abilities from any of the books that are available seperately.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

The lack of local players who play it is why i have been resorting to questions here.  The local con had someone playing it a few years back but i was involved in something else and didn’t get to make a close look as i would have liked. 

As for what i want, i want something that fills the niche between SoBH with individually maneuvering figures, of 8-10 a side and a bigger massed battle game where each stands represent 100-200 soldiers, even if you have 12-24 of those stands per side.  i want something that represents a combat between 30-100 men per side in maneuver elements, groupings or units of 5-12 men, with a minimum of 5 maneuver elements per player.  Call it a fireteam or squad for games of a single reinforced platoon or company against another.

Currently I use Fistful of Lead: BB (or SoBH where a fig instead represents 3-5 grunts).  but i am always looking for something that might be more fun/realistic/
popular with a fresh spin on the subject.

Ideally scalable back and forth to individual heroes or larger groups for role playing and resolving out slightly bigger fights than the typical gaming party of 3-5 players and their supporting NPCs  normally get involved in…such as when the protagonists find themselves swept up in a Battle of Stanford Bridge-type scenario or a larger Viking raid descends on the town they are in.

[Rick]

Hmm, yes - I see where you're coming from now. The scale of the game would certainly seem to fit, as would the games design process (either use an army from a long list or build units plus traits that fit your idea of the unit type) and the use of reduced-scale units to represent fewer but tougher fighters (or one big one in the case of Dragon Rampant).
The only sticking point I can see is that you might want a more orderly arrangement of figures into frontage and ranks rather than the 6 or 12 figure mobs that are usual, which would certainly be an option - the number of figures that fight or shoot is dependant on the numbers in a unit, not on their frontage. Lion Rampant 2, of course, has the optional rule of facing and flanks but the rules there might not be quite enough for you - if this comes over into Dragon Rampant 2 then I'd say go for it - shop around and see if you can get a bit of discount somewhere, or wait a little bit and see if the price comes down. In the meanwhile you could try looking at the 1st edition for a flavour - with 2nd edition out it might be a cheap option?

[boneio]

I am being rapidly convinced that maneuver has very little to do with outcomes in this game. 

I had this problem with the original DR - it seemed to me to really be decided by deployment (is my rock unit opposite their scissors unit) and whether your activation rolls succeed. I couldn't really see very much room for tactics beyond throwing the right unit against the right unit - and then only if they deployed in a position to be able to do so.

Maybe I just needed to play on larger tables or with better scenarios