Swordpoint...

[Captain Blood]

What's with all the angst?

I've been wondering that for most of the time this thread has been running... 
Not sure why this topic seems to have got people so wound up over various aspects...
It's just another ruleset. And God knows there are already many, many alternatives out there... They seem to come along every few weeks.
I don't get why everyone sounds so angry about this one. Can we try to just chill a little bit? Thanks

[redzed]

Not sure why this topic seems to have got people so wound up over various aspects...

half my customers are really pissed off with GB, they all have Saga armies and the basing for the game has them annoyed as hell.

I have the game, would of been good 10-15 years ago, but in all honesty it lacks ambition, it's mostly ok, it could've been really good. Pictures are average and the paper it's printed on is pretty crap to honest, there's only about 20 pages of rules the rest is pictures and guff. GB should've gone all harback book and spanky pictures for £30 or gone Osprey sized for £12.

[Captain Blood]

there's only about 20 pages of rules the rest is pictures and guff.

Pretty much the model now, isn't it Shaun? I'm personally a big fan of dead simple rules. The simpler the better. But if you're going to sell big fat rulebooks for £20 or £30, then you'd think they'd be pretty substantial and comprehensive. Instead, as you say, the actual rules are padded out with 3 or 4 times as much guff, fluff and eye candy just in order to justify the cover price. Seems to be the way it's done these days. Even the cheap and cheerful Osprey rulesets do it. You could probably get most of the rules in an Osprey book into half a dozen pages. The rest is largely padding

Just make up your own rules. They're all basically variants on a few common mechanisms anyway. I don't understand the fascination with collecting every new ruleset that comes along.
Ah well, different strokes... 

[Dr. Zombie]

I cannot believe this thread is six pages of people moaning about base sizes.

In my experience base size is completely irrelevant for any game. There might be a theoretical difference but once the dice start flying it become mostly irrelevant. Especially if everyone uses the same base sizes anyway. At most I find that they have a visual impact and that is about it.

[Nord]

So we are not supposed to discuss things on a discussion forum? We just get all our info from GB, oh wait............

[Arlequín]

I don't understand the fascination with collecting every new ruleset that comes along.

You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find the princess; presuming there is a princess out there of course.

[A Lot of Gaul]

Plenty of good Swordpoint discussion, Q & A with author Martin Gibbins, army lists and galleries, battle reports and event listings to be found here:

http://swordpoint.grippingbeastplastics.co.uk/

[Keith T]

I have now played two games of SWORDPOINT and did not rebase any figures, you can use movement trays with the right frontage and a scattering of your round based figures on it, just as long as your opponents know if they are close or open order.

At £20 I thought they were good value. [having paid £30 for a hardback set of Napoleonic rules that were very poorly produced with multiple mistakes and poor editing] I am not bothered that they are not hardback, saving £10.

They are better than Clash of empires and war and conquest which were quickly produced to replace WAB, these are written by Martin Gibbons the author of WAB 2.0, but unlike the other rule sets they are fully supported by a miniature figure manufacturer Gripping Beast.

Their will be multiple supplements covering the periods and army lists.

Ok rant over, I do like these and think they play very well, looking forward to the Darkage tournament in February where I am sure I will meet some old friends.

[jcspqr]

I have played several games since the offical release.  Vikings/Saxons and Normans/Byzantines.   Using proxy lists where necessary.  All of the games have been played with a mix of figures based up for WAB and SAGA mounted on movement trays.  My opponnent and I being responsible adults we had no problem working out the basing differentials.  I do plan to rebase both my Byantines (in progress now) and Vikings, per the Swordpoint standards, but that has more to do with the need of both armies of some much needed tarting up and not due to difficulties reconciling the divergent basing to Sword point.

I expected Swordpoint to just be another WAB clone, but it is not.  There are always similarities, but the differces in turn sequence, momemtum, combat results chart,  and morale do make Swordpoint its own set of rules.

Something that hasn't been commented on yet, but which I see as a major (positve) factor in Swordpoint is the battle line concept.  If you are playing large infantry centric games, the battle line modifier will have the effect of moderating the combat results and initially at least turn the combat into the push of pikes etc that I think most infrantry scrums should look like.  The moderating impact of the battle line, inturn can be negated by turning a flank or focusing your energies (or momemtum) on the end units of the line.  Once the line is turned, you will find it has a much more dramatic impact on the battle line as a whole as opposed to just the end unit in the line.  So for example, once we get to the classical lists, it will be important for the hoplite amries to not just buy all hoplites, but to have some peltasts, or god, forbid cavalry that can either protect your flank or turn your enemies flank.

Finally, the need to have a general/commander of some permutation within proximity to rally any broken troops does tend to mitigate agasint the old WAB  tendancy of every character becoming Marshal Ney and leading the battle from the front.  There are still combat advantages to doing that, but save something behond the lines if you hope to rally those bondi that used to be protecting your flank...  (something I did not do to my detriment).

Jim

[Codsticker]

Sounds very interesting...

[Mapleleaf]

Gripping Bast is being very supportive for Swordpoint  There are a section of applicable downloads on their website including a new Quick Reference Sheet

http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/Swordpoint_Downloads--category--384.html

In addition there is a discussion forum that they refer to as a Living FAQ  where lot of questions are being answered

A  questions involve basing  which has been a hot subject here   it states

If your figures are on different size bases, then so long as they are all the same size you will still be able to play, though cavalry may become slightly more or less effective against infantry than the rules intend-this should not be too much of a problem though.

[Nord]

My main fear that is that it sounds like the two armies line up opposite each other and just try to keep a line. So you end up with two rigid lines meeting in the middle. Might be historically accurate (whatever that is, given the lack of documents and so forth), but it sure sounds boring. A battle report might allay my fears, but I don't see one happening from GB very soon.

I will wait for Aetius and Arthur I think. At least Saga has a proven pedigree.

[A Lot of Gaul]

Mass battle rulesets tend to play quite differently from skirmish sets, for a whole host of perfectly valid historical reasons. Most large ancient and medieval infantry-heavy armies did consistently form battle lines, because support from comrades and keeping flanks secure was vital to success and survival on the battlefield. Dark Age European infantry armies typically formed shield walls for precisely the same reasons. On the other hand, cavalry and skirmish-oriented armies such as Skythians, Numidians, Parthians, Huns, etc. tended to favour much looser formations that played to their strengths as skirmishers. From what I have seen thus far, Swordpoint should be able to handle these different types of historical forces quite well.

In addition, the Swordpoint downloads website linked above includes free downloadable PDFs for twelve very different types of historically-based engagement scenarios. These look like they will provide great variety for players and thus help to keep their tabletop battles from becoming "boring."

[Charlie_]

My main fear that is that it sounds like the two armies line up opposite each other and just try to keep a line. So you end up with two rigid lines meeting in the middle. Might be historically accurate (whatever that is, given the lack of documents and so forth), but it sure sounds boring. A battle report might allay my fears, but I don't see one happening from GB very soon.

Well, the concept of 'massed battle' games does kind of mean mostly pitched battles, which are 'line up and advance towards the opponent' games. But by NO means the only sort of game to be played!

It's all about the scenarios.

I've lately been reading a lot of Osprey Campaign Series books, and they've given me all sorts of insipirations for games (regardless of ruleset). Even when there is a 'battleline' pitched battle, there are preliminary skirmishes and raids, extreme terrain which dictate what one side can or cannot do.... All sorts of ideas for more interesting games.

In addition, the Swordpoint downloads website linked above includes free downloadable PDFs for twelve very different types of historically-based engagement scenarios. These look like they will provide great variety for players and thus help to keep their tabletop battles from becoming "boring."

I've looked at these scenarios, and they are good starting points I guess, but nothing that exciting.

People need to make their own 'scenarios'! And forget about trying to get the forces equally matched (throw points systems out the window!).
Something I REALLY like about the Hail Caesar rules is how the 'scenarios' I've seen are really interesting and don't rely on equally matched forces (or at least from what I've seen from battle reports, including the ones in the rulebook).
The idea of having equally matched forces, given 'objectives' or something like that, doesn't appeal to me so much.... I much prefer the idea of a game being set up with a story behind it, perhaps by an impartial umpire, and it's down to the players to assess the situation and decide what they should be doing with the forces they have available, rather than being dictated by objectives, pre-determined game lengths and 'victory points'.

Anyway, my point....
My point is that this outlook on massed battle games doesn't rely on the the ruleset. What I've just described with Hail Caesar can no doubt be done just the same way with Swordpoint.
If your approach to massed battle games is just to follow the scenarios given in the rulebook to the letter, most of which focus on evenly matched pitched battles with slight variations.... Then yeah, it might get dull.
Try out the Hail Caesar approach, with whatever ruleset you want (In this case, Swordpoint!).

[Coenus Scaldingus]

Ruleset sounds interesting enough so far; might just about have enough soldiers for a small force if I combine several SAGA armies into one (Irish with Norse Gael and Viking mercenaries isn't bad from a historical point of view either). The extensive online support is pretty promising, good to see a company make use of the web and keep the price of the book down that way.