Skirmish Army Lists

[Faust23]

I'm interested in your feedback as I put the finishing touches on Epic Heroes: Skirmish Gaming in the Realms of Fantasy. 

[Mister Rab]

For me, it depends. If it's a dozen figures, I'd want to make my own warband - sort of like an adventuring party in an RPG. If it's forty figures, I'd rather have an outline list.

[eilif]

I choose "without a list" but from prebuilt stats.  That allows you to build either a thematic warband or a classic mixed party.

However, when looking at a skirmish game, the more important factor for me is that the game has to have a good unit creation mechanic.  Prestatted units are essential for being able to pick up the game fast, but I can't stand being limited to only the units that an author chooses to include in the book.

[phreedh]

Prestatted units are essential for being able to pick up the game fast, but I can't stand being limited to only the units that an author chooses to include in the book.

Quoted for truthness and correctitude!

[Faust23]

For me, it depends. If it's a dozen figures, I'd want to make my own warband - sort of like an adventuring party in an RPG. If it's forty figures, I'd rather have an outline list.

Brink of Battle is the core rules mechanic for Epic Heroes. It's a 3-20 models per player range.  Elites run 3-10, Standard Forces are 5-15, and a Horde force is 7-20 models.  It is encouraged that you build your force with some individuality, but its not necessarily required that you do.

[Red Orc]

Have a flexible system.

A couple of pre-made lists/units/characters as examples, and the ability to do other things.

So maybe there's a list for a 'Barbarian Tribe' warband and an 'Eternal Empire' warband and a 'Pirate Raider' warband, as well as some heroic characters.

But have a generation system as well so players can make their own lists. Maybe the Pirate Raiders are attacking an out-of-the-way settlement of the Eternal Empire and a proper Eternal Empire warband isn't right; there should be the ability to mix parts of the Eternal Empire warband (representing the soldiers at a nearby watchtower) with some 'Barbarian Tribesmen' (unarmoured locals from the village being attacked) with a magic-using hero (local priest?) with perhaps something totally different (the local agriculture involves collecting the dung of marsh-dragons so the player adds a small group of locals who throw burning dragon dung at attackers).

Something like that anyway.

[Faust23]

Have a flexible system.

A couple of pre-made lists/units/characters as examples, and the ability to do other things.

That's the general idea at this point.  Seems neck and neck so far.  It'll be interesting to see how it ends up on the vote.

[Christian]

Having purchased a copy of the core rules, I think your current approach is great. Although I've only read them once

However, if you think of what makes most commercially available games succesful it is that there is a potential for standardised tournament play. If you have some standard lists to choose from, tournament play becomes a possibility. But I'm referring more to the "big" games such was Warhammer (although larger scale, I refer to the principle of lists), Warmachine/Hordes as the most enduring, and the less popular but currently prevalent systems such as Infinity and Saga.

Without, it remains a casual affair. I'm more a fan of the latter, but I thought I'd make the point. I actually voted for the first option.

The question is: what direction do you want to take it in?

[Faust23]

Having purchased a copy of the core rules, I think your current approach is great. Although I've only read them once

The question is: what direction do you want to take it in?

Having read through Brink of Battle you probably remember that I'm army list averse.  I want people to be unhindered by the power creep that is found with 'lists'. 

Having said that, I have discovered in the past year of the book being on the market that a strong majority of gamers either don't have the time to build their forces from scratch, or are self-diagnosed as 'lazy' and want the thinking to be done for them.   

I'm trying to verify this division so I can 'split the baby' so to speak with some confidence that both types of players will be satisfied.

[PatrickWR]

The key thing with skirmish gaming is the ability to get a game going without too much fuss and paperwork. (Sidenote: IMHO skirmish gaming really only encompasses something like 6-20 models per side. Anything larger is not skirmish gaming.) So I'm all in favor of pre-made warrior profiles that I can pick and choose to make my warband and get a game going in 15 minutes or less.

[Faust23]

The key thing with skirmish gaming is the ability to get a game going without too much fuss and paperwork. (Sidenote: IMHO skirmish gaming really only encompasses something like 6-20 models per side. Anything larger is not skirmish gaming.) So I'm all in favor of pre-made warrior profiles that I can pick and choose to make my warband and get a game going in 15 minutes or less.

So, would you prefer something generic like Human Fighter CBT 4/ CMD 3/ CON 4   ARM 3 Man-at-Arms+1 Medium Armor, etc.?

Or something that gives you more choices but narrows it enough so you don't have to do a lot of page flipping?

[PatrickWR]

So, would you prefer something generic like Human Fighter CBT 4/ CMD 3/ CON 4   ARM 3 Man-at-Arms+1 Medium Armor, etc.?

Or something that gives you more choices but narrows it enough so you don't have to do a lot of page flipping?

Yes, definitely. As long as it's clear how those numbers were arrived at, so that one day I can do some tinkering and make my own custom units. One day, that is.

[Red Orc]

I understand the reluctance to get involved in 'power creep' (really a problem when a company releases a new version of an army and thinks 'but how do we sell more books/minis? Let's make the new army unkillable!) but that's a decision they make, isn't it? It's not inherent in lists as such, I don't think. The principle should always be rock/paper/scissors (or maybe rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock). So yes, your Doom Ogres might be very hard in close combat, but they should be scared of mice, or fire, or something else relatively easy to get hold of, be slow to advance, vulnerable to bow-fire (maybe they hit hard but have bad armour). No unit (model type) should have no weaknesses. Even 'very hard units' should have the problem of being very small (1-3 models maybe) and vulnerable to being swamped by a horde of Gribblings.

[Faust23]

I understand the reluctance to get involved in 'power creep' (really a problem when a company releases a new version of an army and thinks 'but how do we sell more books/minis? Let's make the new army unkillable!) but that's a decision they make, isn't it? It's not inherent in lists as such, I don't think. The principle should always be rock/paper/scissors (or maybe rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock). So yes, your Doom Ogres might be very hard in close combat, but they should be scared of mice, or fire, or something else relatively easy to get hold of, be slow to advance, vulnerable to bow-fire (maybe they hit hard but have bad armour). No unit (model type) should have no weaknesses. Even 'very hard units' should have the problem of being very small (1-3 models maybe) and vulnerable to being swamped by a horde of Gribblings.

I have a big advantage over most game companies, in that I do not sell miniatures.  I have no need to incentivize my customer base by making the next figure release better game-wise than the others.  That is how powercreep happens fastest IMO. 

[Red Orc]

Well, that was kinda my point; without the necessity to persuade anyone to buy new minis, what's the incentive to indulge in 'power-creep' as far as lists go?