Is Lion Rampant really that good?

[Ahistorian]

Actually, there's a nifty nebulosity in the interaction between movement and firing. If you parse the text, you can pick which model to use as a "leader" each turn, allowing you to leapfrog your movement rates a little. Similarly, if one model can fire at one model, then all can fire at said unit (which might be obscured).

You'd lose a lot of flexibility with sabot trays, I think.

[joroas]

Just bought a set in the hope that it will kickstart my WOTR armies!

[Gibby]

Actually, there's a nifty nebulosity in the interaction between movement and firing. If you parse the text, you can pick which model to use as a "leader" each turn, allowing you to leapfrog your movement rates a little. Similarly, if one model can fire at one model, then all can fire at said unit (which might be obscured).

You'd lose a lot of flexibility with sabot trays, I think.

I must have read it wrong as I thought you chose a leader for each unit at the start of the game, and he dies last. It says it is a good use for bannermen etc. I think it is to prevent the sort of power gaming unsporting tactics you recommend. 

[Jack]

Actually, there's a nifty nebulosity in the interaction between movement and firing. If you parse the text, you can pick which model to use as a "leader" each turn, allowing you to leapfrog your movement rates a little. Similarly, if one model can fire at one model, then all can fire at said unit (which might be obscured).

You'd lose a lot of flexibility with sabot trays, I think.

My group, mainly ex WAB/Impetus had no problem with flexibility using either individual models, sabot trays or multi based minis in the same game. We have played 96pts per side on a 8x6 table disregarding the 3" flank Zone of Control. Giving a big game another go this Saturday incorporating some changes like shooting arcs/flank&rear attacks/Schiltrons moving/group movement.

[maxxon]

Actually, there's a nifty nebulosity in the interaction between movement and firing. If you parse the text, you can pick which model to use as a "leader" each turn, allowing you to leapfrog your movement rates a little. Similarly, if one model can fire at one model, then all can fire at said unit (which might be obscured).

And this is exactly the kind of fiddling I'd like to eliminate from any game.

But I think even in the vanilla rules you are supposed to measure movement for every model... otherwise doors to rampant abuse are wide open.

[Dewbakuk]

No, he's right you can manipulate the 'leader' that way. We were talking about it last night and will probably be introducing a house rule where you have a single leader model that can't be changed.

But I think even in the vanilla rules you are supposed to measure movement for every model... otherwise doors to rampant abuse are wide open.

Figures have to remain within 3" of the leader, other than that they move as a 'cloud'. So you measure your leader and the rest are placed around them.

I use movement trays for most games so I will be for this too. Gaining terrain advantages can be harder if you're strict on the rules and use trays though. Not an issue in my group but might be for some people.

I like the game. It has some idiosyncrasies but then so do most games.

[joe5mc]

As I read it - leaders have nothing to do with movement. They are only relevant for unit coherency.

For movement, the rules suggest you move a few models in the unit, which I would think would normally be the ones to fore of the direction being moved as these will be the only ones where exact position is likely to matter. The rest of the figures in a unit just fill in behind with movement being eye-balled.

Personally, I like the individual basing as I think it makes for a much more visually appealing game and gives it a bit of old school flavour, but that's just me. I'm going to be using the game for fantasy though.

[Ahistorian]

I must have read it wrong as I thought you chose a leader for each unit at the start of the game, and he dies last. It says it is a good use for bannermen etc. I think it is to prevent the sort of power gaming unsporting tactics you recommend. 

It's not powergaming, it's Dan Mersey's specific intention in order to cut down on waffle during the game. He explicitly references it in the book when explaining why the ranges seem short 

Similarly, the "move a guy, arrange the rest around him" is a nice and simple rule, like in God of Battles (which granted has dedicated Leader models). Unnecessary, granted, if you have multi-based models, but you lose a few inches here and there that way which will necessarily slow the game a little.

[guitarheroandy]

The 'leader' you choose at the beginning of the game is the force leader.  Very important distinction, as he's the one who influences morale tests, etc.

The model in each unit that you use to measure coherency can be different on each activation, although it can be easier just to have a suitably heroic model or banner and just use it each time if you so desire. It doesn't even have to be the 'force leader' in that individual's unit if you don't want it to be in any given activation.

Dan's whole approach to gaming is to 'eliminate waffle' and to bring fun and enjoyment to the fore. The whole of Lion Rampant shows this very clearly.
It really matters not one jot whether you use single figures or multi-based/sabot bases/movement trays. All you need to do is to make sure your system lets you indicate casualties and indicate whether the unit is in a special formation like schiltron. Both can easily be done with whatever basing system you choose to use with little thought.

Might I also be so bold as to suggest that if one plays the game and finds that one and/or one's opponent are quibbling over the odd exta millimetre of movement, unit shape, etc, or if one finds oneself missing very detailed charts for weapons, morale, etc, then one (or both players) is probably playing the wrong game!! 

It won't be to everyone's taste, but then, what rule set is?

[Arlequín]

... if one plays the game and finds that one and/or one's opponent are quibbling over the odd exta millimetre of movement, unit shape, etc, or if one finds oneself missing very detailed charts for weapons, morale, etc, then one (or both players) is probably playing the wrong game.

Indeed. 

[Gibby]

The 'leader' you choose at the beginning of the game is the force leader.  Very important distinction, as he's the one who influences morale tests, etc.

The model in each unit that you use to measure coherency can be different on each activation, although it can be easier just to have a suitably heroic model or banner and just use it each time if you so desire. It doesn't even have to be the 'force leader' in that individual's unit if you don't want it to be in any given activation.


Might I also be so bold as to suggest that if one plays the game and finds that one and/or one's opponent are quibbling over the odd exta millimetre of movement, unit shape, etc, or if one finds oneself missing very detailed charts for weapons, morale, etc, then one (or both players) is probably playing the wrong game!! 

It won't be to everyone's taste, but then, what rule set is?

I definitely did misread the unit leader thing then. The power gaming comment was a joke though, hence my winking smiley 

[guitarheroandy]

I definitely did misread the unit leader thing then. The power gaming comment was a joke though, hence my winking smiley 

Absolutely... I was just re-iterating for the benefit of others who might be wondering 

[Momotaro]

The game is clear that each figure moves up to the unit's move distance, and the unit must be in cohesion at the end of the move.

The game assumes that a full attack can take place even if a single figure contacts or is within range of a single figure in the target.  So yes, figures standing up to 6" away from a melee are fighting, and figures may be removed by missile fire beyond the range of the attackers' missile weapons.  The game is built for speed rather than precision, and I've seen some terribly fiddly" who can fight" rules over the years.

Movement trays - no problem at all using them.

If you do want to houserule the contact/range rules, be a little careful.  The armour system assumes fixed numbers of dice, so if you do go for a more realistic set of rules where only a part of your unit is attacking, units with higher armour become significantly tougher.  Damaging a unit of men at arms, for example, is still possible with a half-strength unit in the base rules, but would be impossible with, say, 3 dice.

Keeping all-or-nothing attack distances but measuring from a designated unit leader is a good houserule. (hey, us Lincolnites have to stick together  )

Guitarheroandy has it absolutely right - this is not DBA  

[purbrookmodels]

i really like the rules. I used them in a multiplayer Robin hood scenario at my club. My two boys (5 and joined in and they picked up the rules so quickly, that by the second time we played it, the 8 year old could GM! I look forward to playing more 'pitched battles' but a nice simple, no-nonsense rule set

[dhtandco]

Just played our first seventy point a side crusader game very enjoyable and a lot more subtle tactical options than it first appears, for one thing all the crusader cavalry was drawn out and the sergeants had to charge in support or see them isolated and secondly the Muslim light cavalry were doomed if caught. Best representation of Crusader warfare we have come across so far!