Lion Rampant for fantasy - trial game

[Momotaro]

Ran a game of Lion Rampant for Gibby and Majorsmith last night, and thought folks may care to see some shots and hear some thoughts.

Lion Rampant is the newest Osprey game, covering medieval skirmishes.  Most units are in groups of 12, with mounted troops and a couple of foot units in groups of 6, and a typical force will be 5-6 units.  The game is fairly simple - no unit facing, for example - but does have depth and a good range of units with a handful of special abilities.

We decided to play a simple test game - 12 points per side, half the normal game size as we were trying the rules for the first time.  We skipped missile troops, and although it was asupposed to be a fantasy game we decided not to use any magic or try to include monster units.

Apologies for the rubbish camera phone pictures!

We played the Bloodbath scenario - a fight to the death!  The forces were as follows:

Gibby (Rohan)

A small, tough force of cavalry and foot troops.  Good attack and defence all round.

1 x 6 mounted serjeants + leader
2 x 12 foot serjeants

Majorsmith (Skaven)

A larger force of poor quality troops led by a block of rat ogres that are scarily good on the attack, rubbish in defence.

2 x 12 serfs
2 x 12 yeoman foot
1 x 12 fierce foot (we used 6 rat ogres and just kept track of hits) + leader

The setup



Rohan



Skaven



Early battle

Gibby's foot serjeants chew through a unit of serfs and another of yeomen in quick order.  Armour makes a huge difference.  The serfs were scoring hits, but foot serjeants only lose one figure per three hits due to their better armour.  The poor serfs were losing one figure per hit...

Morale is a killer - once you start losing figures, they count as a penalty to your morale roll.  The last serf standing had -11 on his 2D6 morale roll!





Majorsmith's skaven stick to the rivers - they move at half speed, but the rough ground rules are a great equalizer for poorer quality troops.



Rat ogres catch a unit of foot serjeants crossing the river.  Fierce foot are not affected by the terrain, but the serjeants are... ouch!  The serjeants rout off the table!



At this point, with both sides having lost 4 points of units and with 5 units left on the table, we diced and found that the next turn would be the last.  Gibby challenged Majorsmith's leader to a challenge... and lost!  His sides made their morale rolls, but has tide of battle turned?

On points alone, the game was a draw, although Majorsmith might have shaded it by killing the enemy leader!

Great game, although with so few units there was a bit of dodging around the board mid-game.  That would probably be less of an issue  in a normal-sized game though.  Serfs are rubbish, but rough terrain is a great equalizer for them - good for holding objectives or as a roadblock in these circumstances.

Rules are straightforward - by the end of that first game, everyone knew the rules and could concentrate on tactics.  With a good range of unit types, it will be easy to customise your force, and things like magic, monsters and heroes shouldn't be too hard to add.

[Gibby]

Nice little write up, Derek. Watching my leader galloping to his death was a bit of a rubbish finishing move, but hey ho! The rules seem very good. I can see serfs being annoying troops to deal with if you're trying to break through some woodlands or buildings. With them being so cheap, they will be worth having at least one unit of I think. I like the idea of grotty troops who are rubbish in an open fight, but given the chance to leap from behind trees or spring from behind a tavern bar they can hold their own a bit more.

[majorsmith]

Great game! Loved it nice and simple to get into, and a great looking game with gibbys terrain and momotaros figures!

[audrey]

My local group played a game of Lion Rampant just the other week. Everyone really enjoyed and started talking about using Warhammer and Lord of the Rings armies for these rules. I thought it would be good to start with exact "counts as" like you did. Then maybe add on one to two special rules per army, similar to how the author did with the quick fantasy list having the undead with a Courage of 0. Missle troops do add to the game. I forget the unit name, but the skirmishing archers were very effect because they could potentially move out of charge range and fire back at the charging unit.

[Dr. Kevin Moon III esq.]

top write up. Nice to see a game in action.

[warburton]

Nice; I have been pondering how to use these rules with Skaven myself recently.

[Nord]

Now I am even more interested in this ruleset, despite having about half a dozen other rulesets that I have still to try.

[Elbows]

Nord,

I've just read it this week and I'm a little torn.  Seems like a good simple beer-n-pretzels rule-set.  It's abstract nature might actually work better with the fantasy armies than historical.  It's pretty cheap in the states (about $13 shipped) so I had no problem picking it up.  I have friends who play it and enjoy it.  It doesn't stir me to go and invest in an army, but I may cobble together a retinue and partake if they continue to play it.

I think it's worth a read, though personally it's a little on the light side (intended by the author).  Seems to be a trend with some of the Osprey games I've seen reviews for.

[Nord]

I think there is a gap in the rules market for fantasy gamers. Small skirmish and mass battle are covered by multiple systems. LotR strategy battle works at about 30 figures, any more and it bogs down into endless dice rolling for me. So, a game that's about 50 - 70 figures a side, that's a nice hole to fill. I'm surprised at the lack of dedicated rulesets for this size of battle, can only think of God of Battles off the top of my head that's in this area. Saga with home brew battle boards might be useable I guess.

[joe5mc]

I agree the rules would great for 'low magic' fantasy, and I'm working up an army of Dwarves myself.  To be fair - the author actually says serfs are rubbish and basically only advises taking them if you have a left over point to spend.

[Nord]

Pitching serfs against knights and decent troops is a good test to see if the rules hold up. And skaven = serfs for sure. 

[joe5mc]

True, that.

[Zoggin-eck]

Nice work there Momotaro, I've been meaning to have a look at these rules properly.

I think there is a gap in the rules market for fantasy gamers. Small skirmish and mass battle are covered by multiple systems. LotR strategy battle works at about 30 figures, any more and it bogs down into endless dice rolling for me. So, a game that's about 50 - 70 figures a side, that's a nice hole to fill. I'm surprised at the lack of dedicated rulesets for this size of battle, can only think of God of Battles off the top of my head that's in this area. Saga with home brew battle boards might be useable I guess.

Good point, and something I've been wondering about, myself. There really are a ton of really low model count games and both old and new big battle games, but not enough between.

Look at how often people ask the bloke writing Ganesha Games' Song of Blades and Heroes when the larger battle version will be out! I got excited recently reading it wasn't far off, only to later read the same thing written in 2008!

[blacksoilbill]

Interesting, thanks for the report. Do the rules have suggestions for magic and monsters, or are these things you'd need to add in?

Also, if you had to pick one set of rules for large-scale fantasy skirmish, would you go for Lion Rampant or God of Battles?

Edit: more questions!

[Smith]

The rules include a couple of 'old-school fantasy' army lists, but there are no dedicated unit types or rules for monsters or magicians - it's a historical game! That said, as other people have indicated, it's not a bad fit for fantasy, especially if you're into more low-fantasy settings (e.g. Conan, LOTR).

In the sample fantasy lists, the fantastical elements are represented by adapting one of the historical troop types in a logical way. For example:

• A unit of "vile warlocks and necromancers" is interpreted as a unit of Archers with the 'Expert' upgrade to make them a little more lethal. This fits with the concept of the wizards as being a little fragile, but still capable of powerful attacks from range.
• Similarly, a unit of "colossal trolls or giants" is interpreted as Foot Men-at-Arms. This unit type has the 'Ferocious' special rule, which gives them an advantage in rough terrain, but the unit is just 6 figures - half the size of the average.

I'm building a couple of armies for sawn-off Lion Rampant (all unit sizes are halved), and have rated a single ogre/troll as a full 6-man unit of Fierce Foot - ferocious, aggressive and a little tough to control - and will simply keep track of his 'wounds'. If I was playing a full-size game, I might have a unit of 3 such ogres/trolls, with each one representing 4 figures in a regular unit of Fierce Foot. There'd probably be a little book-keeping or a few counters needed to mark out 'wounds', but nothing major.

As for characters... they could be figured out in the same way as a single figure representing a whole unit. If deployed with a unit (as the game intends), a hero might be represented by the 'Expert' upgrade for the unit. Generals (as in the leader of the force, though it could certainly be applied for heroes in general) also have the ability to select or roll special skills, and can also go into a scenario with 'boasts' - specific objectives for which they, if successful, would receive additional victory points... and lose if they fail. A bit of tweaking with some of these could easily offer a variety of hero types and a light roleplaying experience.