Is Lion Rampant really that good?

[Nord]

Are there any reports which go into a little more detail on the mechanics? I like the size of the game, thinking it will be ideal to kickstart my languishing fantasy forces, but I have a few concerns.

I don't particularly like the idea of units standing around and doing nothing because they fail a dice roll. Is there a "default" action that units will undertake if they fail the roll? (even if the default is stand). I remember playing warmaster and being frustrated when half my force stood at the back, never moved, while the rest of my army was duffed up. Some find this realistic, but for me it's a game spoiler.

Not massively keen on the full strength/half strength thing, would probably change that to one dice per model, ala War of the Ring. Is there any reason I could not do this?

How would the game deal with really different forces? Men vs men is fine, and probably for Lotr would be good enough. But would it cope with bigger differences in troop types, such as deamons, undead, dwarfs, etc? ie Warhammer style gaming.

I really want a game at this level (large skirmish), but reading the scant battle reports around has not yet convinced me. Have I read it wrong? 

[Mad Doc Morris]

Check out Dan Mersey's blog, he's given a few insights on mechanics and hints at some detailed reviews under the Lion Rampant tag.

I don't particularly like the idea of units standing around and doing nothing because they fail a dice roll. Is there a "default" action that units will undertake if they fail the roll? (even if the default is stand).

Nope. Failing an activation roll means initiative changes to your opponent. That's pretty key. There are several work-arounds on this and other threads, and perhaps you could come up with a house rule.

Not massively keen on the full strength/half strength thing, would probably change that to one dice per model, ala War of the Ring. Is there any reason I could not do this?

You could, but it possibly adds only to the length of the game. As it stands, you either hit pretty hard or you're not lasting very long anymore. The system also allows for units like dismounted knights to be hard hitting but brittle. It's simplified, but it works.

How would the game deal with really different forces? Men vs men is fine, and probably for Lotr would be good enough. But would it cope with bigger differences in troop types, such as deamons, undead, dwarfs, etc? ie Warhammer style gaming.

There are two example retinues for 'old-school fantasy' in the back of the book. Monsters are depicted as 'count as' units. If you want magic or advanced special rules, though, you'd have to come up with your own rules.

[Nord]

Thanks for the link. Interesting section on if the game is for you. Troops have different values for moving, shooting and fighting, so presumably it would be pretty simple to set one as the default thing to do. Why would a unit of archers not fire at the enemy?

The stereotypes thing I'm not convinced by. All knights are headstrong loonies? Mmmmm. I think if I picked up the game it would need major tweaks. When I play a game I want to be in control of most of what happens, not leave it to a dice roll or automatic rule.

Maybe my Warhammer background has too much of a hold on me. 

[Mad Doc Morris]

When I play a game I want to be in control of most of what happens, not leave it to a dice roll or automatic rule.

To be honest, I don't think the game is for you then. You do have control, but only to a degree; e.g. what unit you would like to activate next or what you want them to do (archers do activate more easily for shooting). And the rules do paint with a broad brush, there's no emphasis on technical/tactical detail but rather on a certain "feel". Anyway, Dan Mersey's put it much better than me.
Nothing wrong with other preferences, we all have different tastes.

[Ahistorian]

Thanks for the link. Interesting section on if the game is for you. Troops have different values for moving, shooting and fighting, so presumably it would be pretty simple to set one as the default thing to do. Why would a unit of archers not fire at the enemy?

The stereotypes thing I'm not convinced by. All knights are headstrong loonies? Mmmmm. I think if I picked up the game it would need major tweaks. When I play a game I want to be in control of most of what happens, not leave it to a dice roll or automatic rule.

Maybe my Warhammer background has too much of a hold on me. 

- They might not fire because they haven't reloaded (which is why it's harder for Crossbowmen than Bowmen), or because they've been caught on the hop, or they just weren't paying attention. That said, I agree that some of the caricatures are just that.
- As for wanting more control, I sort of agree with you there too. I really like having friction & random movement in my games, but I dislike Leadership tests to activate. I prefer a "resource management" approach, where you have only so many PIP, Initiative, Command, Impetus or whatever points (or SAGA dice) with which to activate your troops.

[Arlequín]

Indeed... troops just don't do what you want them to do all of the time. Baugé in 1421 and Patay in 1429 are both examples of troops not doing what they were told, or what was 'common sense'. Let's face it, how many sets of wargame rules allow for the same historical blunders as occurred in real life?  ;-)

For me the uncertainty is important, especially when we are talking a period without formal training, other than in weapon usage and the potential for your subordinates to lack any martial aptitude or ability... or indeed loyalty, is reflected in rolling for activation. It's not perfect, but for me it will do.

It is a simple truth that some wargamers like to have complete control of their armies, while others prefer the uncertainty. You play to what suits you. According to Mr Mersey, Lion Rampant was written as more a set of 'Hollywood' rules than the 'Holy Grail' of rules. If a rule set requires major tweaks to make you happy, then I suspect that they are the wrong rules for you to be using... no slight intended and indeed there are certainly plenty to choose from.

[monkeylite]

nevermind

[Argonor]

I am going to try the rules at Horisont VI in Odense in a bit over a week from now, but this discussion has been a really interesting read.

I'm still inclined towards thinking I'll like how the rules play, but now I have an opportunity to play an introductory game, so I'll have first-hand knowledge to base the decision whether to or not to purchase them.

[dhtandco]

Knights can be controlled by paying for the upgrade to drilled and the rules are simple enough in concept to change or add new factors.the only thing I change with 2 d6 roll systems is to use a D12 instead as the probability of each score is not linear whereas on a D12 it increases by about 8 per cent for each increase of 1 on the required total

As a representation of Crusader warfare I think they are as good as anything I've used in 40+ years as a wargamer!

[Dilettante Gamer]

Indeed... troops just don't do what you want them to do all of the time. Baugé in 1421 and Patay in 1429 are both examples of troops not doing what they were told, or what was 'common sense'. Let's face it, how many sets of wargame rules allow for the same historical blunders as occurred in real life?  ;-)

For me the uncertainty is important, especially when we are talking a period without formal training, other than in weapon usage and the potential for your subordinates to lack any martial aptitude or ability... or indeed loyalty, is reflected in rolling for activation. It's not perfect, but for me it will do.

^^^
This.

I find the rules quite charming and they've inspired me to resume my Westeros project.

The appear quite adaptable if you want to house rule them to your particular tastes.

[commissarmoody]

Here are a few Battle reports for LR

http://dalauppror.blogspot.com/2014/11/aar-battle-at-fjale-myr-24-july-1361.html

http://dalauppror.blogspot.com/2013/07/novgorod-vs-swedish-crusaders-lion.html

http://dalauppror.blogspot.com/2013/03/lion-rampant-aar-4.html

http://dalauppror.blogspot.com/2013/03/lion-rampant-aar-3.html

[carlos13th]

This article he wrote is good.

http://merseybooks.blogspot.de/search/label/lion%20rampant

Seems like an honest explanation of what LR is and just as importantly what it isnt.

[Duff]

How does it scale up to 150-200 figure aside games?

[whiskey priest]

I'd imagine it'd still work, at 150 figs your talking about 15 or so units so it's just a matter of prioritising units. You'll fail an activation eventually but then so will your opponent. In most medieval battles only a small proportion of troops would be in contact to start with and then a general melee would develop from there. It'd certainly force you to use your reserves sensibly.

[commissarmoody]

That would be one massive punch up. I would like to try that some time.