Dragon Rampant as a skirmish game

[Evil Doctor]

Hi all,

It occurred to me that with DR having 'reduced model', 'single model' units, and the fact that the strength doesn't have to have any bearing on the number of models on the table, DR is a great option for skirmish gaming. And it is surprisingly easy to create heroes. One sides 'Elite foot' is a single Dwarven hero, the other sides 'Elite foot' is three Uruks. No change to how the game plays at all.

So we tried it. A small group of Dwarves, knights and elves against a horde of Orcs and Goblins. Same points each side, but half the models on the 'good guys' side. I'm happy to say it worked a treat, I'll stick a picture up later.

DR - what a great game!

EvilD

[Sunjester]

Yes played a game on Friday with a Stygian army of 1 unit of 12 figures, 1 unit of 3 figures and 3 single figure units.

[Golgotha]

Going skirmish seems to make sense - likewise you could also go the other direction and add more minis than suggested by the rules for larger looking battles - and if this holds true for Dragon it should work in Lion Rampant as well. Good thinking. The suggested size had concerned me, prefer the flexibility to have any size and that is always better for a set of rules - methinks.

[Rhoderic]

OT, but I think many wargamers would actually define DR as a skirmish game regardless. From my experience it's one of those things to do with the historicals-fantasticals divide. Your typical fantasy/sci-fi gamer would define a skirmish game as something where each figure acts and moves individually and a side is usually no more than about a dozen figures, often many fewer. By contrast, many historicals gamers, especially old-school ones, also use the word "skirmish game" even for unit-based games that might have 50+ figures a side, as long as the units are fairly small and move in loose formations.

Although I'm mainly a fantasticals gamer, I try to use the wider definition of "skirmish game" so as to avoid confusion with the old-school historicals crowd.

[Golgotha]

Agreed Rhoderic though there does not seem to be any agreed numerical value to the definition skirmish as a military term - indeed it normally is used contextually so for instance to describe a fight between small groups of soldiers, ships etc. - especially one that happens away from the main part of a battle or in the lead up to the main battle or indeed after the main battle. Hence skirmishers as troop types who specifically harass the enemy in the early stages of a battle. It is almost curious as wargamers, people deeply interested in all things military, that we draw such a sharp distinction to "skirmish" gaming. 

[Nord]

Personally, if I were playing a skirmish game with just a handful of models per side, I would want each one to have some kind of personality and the opportunity to change/advance as gaming went on. So I would go with a "true" skirmish system like Mordheim or something similar, Pulp Alley maybe, or IHMN, that kind of thing.

[Evil Doctor]

Fair points all on the word 'skirmish'. It really has taken on another meaning with non-historical gamers these days. I guess we're talking more like small action encounters than skirmishes.

For me, I just don't have the time to invest in a lot of the games available. Quite often I have about fifteen minutes before my opponent arrives to create both forces, find the figures and scenery, create the scenario and set up. Just the way life goes these days! DR I can do in that time, some of the more detailed small action rules wouldn't work under this time pressure!

Cheers,

EvilD

[Elbows]

I think when people say "Skirmish" gaming it generally refers to 10 or fewer figures per side, without "units".  But a skirmish in a military setting would definitely be 100 or less guys in a handful of units etc.

When someone says to me "I've been doing a lot more Skirmish gaming lately..." it's always in reference to single-character+crew style games (ala Frostgrave, Mordheim, etc.). 

[Rhoderic]

I think when people say "Skirmish" gaming it generally refers to 10 or fewer figures per side, without "units".  But a skirmish in a military setting would definitely be 100 or less guys in a handful of units etc.

When someone says to me "I've been doing a lot more Skirmish gaming lately..." it's always in reference to single-character+crew style games (ala Frostgrave, Mordheim, etc.). 

The thing is, in some online communities, like TMP and TWW, I've seen many people use the terms "skirmish gaming" and "skirmish game" in the other, larger sense. SAGA, Muskets & Tomahawks, Lion Rampant, Sharp Practice and other games like them are skirmish games in these circles. It threw me at first (as my "template" for a skirmish game before I first began to mix with these communities was something like Mordheim and Warhammer Skirmish), and it even rubbed me the wrong way a bit, but I've gotten used to it now.

Anyway, my point is that there definitely is a "parallel tradition" in another section of the worldwide wargaming community to use the word differently to how you (and probably most other LAFers, especially in the Fantasy Adventures and Future Wars boards) use it.

[Hobgoblin]

Hi all,

It occurred to me that with DR having 'reduced model', 'single model' units, and the fact that the strength doesn't have to have any bearing on the number of models on the table, DR is a great option for skirmish gaming. And it is surprisingly easy to create heroes. One sides 'Elite foot' is a single Dwarven hero, the other sides 'Elite foot' is three Uruks. No change to how the game plays at all.

So we tried it. A small group of Dwarves, knights and elves against a horde of Orcs and Goblins. Same points each side, but half the models on the 'good guys' side. I'm happy to say it worked a treat, I'll stick a picture up later.

DR - what a great game!

Seconded! One point I'd make, though, is that reduced-model units work very well for conveying outnumbering, "few standing against many" and general heroics: that is, when one side has very few models and the other has predominantly full-size (or even oversized units). If every unit is single figure, I don't think DR quite fits, as it's very much a unit-based game. For six models against ten (or whatever), I'd much rather play Song of Blades and Heroes or Battlesworn (EvilD, have you seen the new Knights & Knaves supplement for that?).

What DR doesn't give you (and there's no reason why it should!) is the "this guy jumps out of cover, fires a shot and dashes back into cover" sort of manoeuvre that you can pull off in SoBH. Or mechanics for climbing buildings or shooting into melee or whatever. Both are great games, but they cover very different sorts of "skirmish" games.

[ZeroTwentythree]

I've always understood "skirmish" to be not only a factor of the overall size of the battle being represented, but the figure scale -- and therefore is a matter of how figures behave in a given set of rules.

So I've never called DBA or HotT, both of which use a small number of figures per side, a skirmish game. The elements (bases of figures) behave like larger groups of men/creatures, and there's a rough figure scale actually laid out in the rules (something rarely done in fantasy games anymore.)

On the other hand, games like Warhammer have sometimes felt like a skirmish game masquerading as a larger battle game. So even when there are 300 figures in an army, it plays like a skirmish. You roll dice and move each figure (and worry each figure's position, facing, etc.) as an individual, even though they may work together in larger, more cumbersome units.

I haven't read nor played Dragon Rampant, though I have been reading about it trying to decide whether or not to give it a try. So I can't really comment on how I it fits into my own definition of skirmish vs. battle.

[jon_1066]

I've always understood "skirmish" to be not only a factor of the overall size of the battle being represented, but the figure scale -- and therefore is a matter of how figures behave in a given set of rules.

So I've never called DBA or HotT, both of which use a small number of figures per side, a skirmish game. The elements (bases of figures) behave like larger groups of men/creatures, and there's a rough figure scale actually laid out in the rules (something rarely done in fantasy games anymore.)

On the other hand, games like Warhammer have sometimes felt like a skirmish game masquerading as a larger battle game. So even when there are 300 figures in an army, it plays like a skirmish. You roll dice and move each figure (and worry each figure's position, facing, etc.) as an individual, even though they may work together in larger, more cumbersome units.

I haven't read nor played Dragon Rampant, though I have been reading about it trying to decide whether or not to give it a try. So I can't really comment on how I it fits into my own definition of skirmish vs. battle.

It would be a battle game under your definition since the figures move as a clump and the individual positioning of each figure doesn't really matter.  eg to shoot at someone only one figure has to be able to see at least one figure of the target and then all can shoot.  For combat only one figure has to be in range and then all can fight.

I think it would suite your collection of figures and what you are trying to achieve.  It is also fairly solo friendly since the activation mechanic gives some interest to proceedings.

[tomcat51]

Agreed Rhoderic though there does not seem to be any agreed numerical value to the definition skirmish as a military term - indeed it normally is used contextually so for instance to describe a fight between small groups of soldiers, ships etc. - especially one that happens away from the main part of a battle or in the lead up to the main battle or indeed after the main battle. Hence skirmishers as troop types who specifically harass the enemy in the early stages of a battle. It is almost curious as wargamers, people deeply interested in all things military, that we draw such a sharp distinction to "skirmish" gaming. 

Historically I always imagined skirmishes to be between outlying forces who range ahead of the main army to locate the enemy and secure positions etc. Modern armies would call it recon, find and if possible harass the enemy ahead of the main forces. In gaming terms I was always under the impression that anything in 28mm was skirmish, with smaller scales covering larger battles.

[wulfgar22]

I recently played a game where boths sides had only RMUs and SMUs...about a dozen models a side. It worked brilliantly! The battle report is on my blog here, if you're interested.

[affun]

I recently played a game where boths sides had only RMUs and SMUs...about a dozen models a side. It worked brilliantly! The battle report is on my blog here, if you're interested.

That's neat-looking! I actually have you tagged on my feedly, but hadn't checked in for a bit - so thanks for pointing me there.

I think I just might end up making my Dragon Rampant army in a similar way. I've been going through a lot of ideas for what to do, and until such a time as when I hae the funds to do the elf army I really want, Ill probably just put together a chaos warband in a similar way to the forst of your two army lists.

I'll try and put together another example list and grab some pics when I get home.