Arthur, Vikings, or the 100 years war ? Opinions

[grubman]

This is a broad question, prefaced by a bunch of rambling,  but I just want to hear opinions to help me make a decision (you can skip to the last 2 or 3 paragraphs if you want the meat of the question).  His is sort of long winded, and drifts a bit...but bear with me (if you have the mind to).

So, I've always been a fantasy/sci-fi gamer, with little use for real history in my games.  Even when I did some Vikings stuff (before Vikings were the "in thing") I made up an entire continent to avoid too much historical accuracy (the Mistlands, for a miniature heavy RPG.  Link if you care, minis start to come a couple pages in:  https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?528957-Savage-Worlds-The-Mistland-Saga ).

As we age, things change.  I've become enamored with the idea of doing some historical miniature gaming...or at least, preparing to do some historical miniature gaming.  Thing is, where I live (moved here 2 years ago) "old school" gamers are either far and few between, or next to impossible to find.  The internet has been no help, and the game stores are filled with "kids" playing card games, Hordes, or Bolt Action (games that hold absolutely no interest for me)...So this has kept me in limbo trying to find games "popular" enough to find players for.  But recently, I've figured out it doesn't really matter if I'm NOT playing a popular game, or one that is unpopular...so why not just do what I want to do, put it out there and see what happens.

Soooo...rule system isn't a problem.  I was an avid Warhammer Fantasy Battles gamer in the day (Saw my first taste with 3rd edition, played mostly 4th, 5th, and 6th edition, but quit before 7th).  Since I miss that game dearly, it was an obvious choice to play Warhammer Ancient Battles.  It doesn't hurt that the game isn't completely anal about accurate historical battle recreation, but rather puts the emphasis on having fun. Of course, finding that that game seems effectively "dead" I went through the traditional, gamer without a group, search for something newer, flashier, more popular, "better".  I searched tons of rules books, different scales, different approaches, and after a lot of wasted money and time...I found myself back where I started, with WAB.  See, I just like the way it (the Warhammer core game) works, I like the way it looks, I like single model casualties, I like the familiarity AND since I'll have to teach the rules to any opponent, does it really matter if the rules I use are "dead" or the newest thing?  Not really.  Since I was just comparing everything to WAB, I was just kidding myself into thinking I'd find something I liked better.

Anyhoo, Back to the "history" thing.  Like many people (who love fantasy), the Medieval is the obvious choice for me, and is the only historical period (and place) that holds any real interest for me besides the American Wild West (and Civil War).  I've been doing some research (for dummies) to get a more historical (if generic) understanding of the period.

...and thus we come to my conundrum...what age to focus on?  There are 3 pretty distinct areas I've narrowed it down to, The Age of Arthur, The Viking Age, or the 100 years war period.  All have exciting armies and miniatures and promise. 

The Arthurian "dark ages" and the Viking age allow for many small battles that will be easy to get into, and I won't have to KILL myself excessively with history, because with so many skirmishes going on I don't have to worry about recreating actual battles...hell, I probably don't have to be even close and nobody will notice.  The 100 years war has more variety of troop types and weapons, and really opens up the idea of including sieges (I only played Warhammer Siege once, but really enjoyed it and want to do it again).

So, 3 fairly distinct ages (and I want to keep the choice down to these 3), and once I start to invest time and money there won't be any going back for some time...so if you care to, tell my your opinion on which one will give me the most bang for the buck, or which one is your favorite and why.  Tell me your tales of triumph or woes when gaming in these periods...or your failed attempts to get games going.

Thanks,      

[LeadAsbestos]

WAB Age of Arthur is genius, the scenarios and characterization are excellent, and you are absolutely spoiled for choice with brilliant minis. My personal favorite. Watch Excalibur, read The Winter King, and do your own thing! A great fun period.

Shieldwall is a great book too. Who doesn't love Vikings? Personally, I'd do Vikings in Ireland. Again, spoiled for minis, and Footsore is about to start a new range, so they will no doubt be excellent.

Don't forget Lion Rampant and SAGA for systems. I enjoy both, and you may actually come across people who play them!

[grubman]

WAB Age of Arthur is genius, the scenarios and characterization are excellent, and you are absolutely spoiled for choice with brilliant minis. My personal favorite. Watch Excalibur, read The Winter King, and do your own thing! A great fun period.

Shieldwall is a great book too. Who doesn't love Vikings? Personally, I'd do Vikings in Ireland. Again, spoiled for minis, and Footsore is about to start a new range, so they will no doubt be excellent.

Don't forget Lion Rampant and SAGA for systems. I enjoy both, and you may actually come across people who play them!

Have all 3 time period books for WAB (well, I only have the PDF for Armies of Chivalry, but good enough), yeah good stuff...so hard to choose!

Ha ha, yeah, have Lion Rampant (and Dragon Rampant), Saga, Blood Eagle, Warmaster Ancients, Dux Bellorum, DBA some others, researched all the WAB "replacement" games....like I said, went through the search for the elusive "perfect game" phase (like it matters when you don't have a group lined up).  

Really want to do Warhammer style "mass" battles...not to "mass" like 6mm, or any of the "element" or multiple models on a single base to represent unit games, and want to stay away from the skirmish games as well.  I gave Dragon Rampant a serious try, but found I really want to get back to games with a little bit of complexity and involvement.  Not TOO much complexity, but I've been going lighter and lighter and less involved over the years, and really long for those 4 hour, roll tons of dice and look up rules games I miss from my Warhammer days.  All those pick-up and skirmish games are fun, but they don't really create the memories like the big battles did.

P.S.  You didn't mention the 100 year war...they have guns!

[GamesPoet]

Do all three!

[Jacksarge]

Anything from about 400  to 1066 AD is my preference. Plenty of cool stuff from West to Eastern Europe, great opportunity for collecting all sorts of armies 

[grubman]

Do all three!

Ah yes...I'll give you my paypal address for your donation

Maybe in the future.  Right now I need to take the baby step and see if I can drum up some interest.  Prospective players are more likely to get excited if they see the toys on the table.

[grubman]

great opportunity for collecting all sorts of armies 

But what two to start with?...that's the question.

[armchairgeneral]

If WAB is your thing then I would favour Arthurian. I second the excellence of the Age of Arthur supplement.

So much atmosphere especially if you read around it with Bernard Cornwell and Jack White. Battles tend to not be so big as it sounds like you might have to field both sides. You also have options for cavalry which Vikings don't give you.

I haven't gamed 100YW so can't comment on that.

Great ranges available from Saxon Miniatures and Footsore.

[Coenus Scaldingus]

Based on your writings, I would indeed drop the 100YW - while of course free to approach any project however you wish, you will much more quickly be bogged down in historical accuracy: more is known, so there is more to take into account.

Arthurian and Dark Age are not only more flexible in that sense, they also offer a large variety of forces (how much they differ from others is debatable), many of which can fight others historically (Romans used to be all over the place, Vikings seemed to get around a bit too). Do you prefer the last remnants of antiquity, the crumbling of an empire, or the transition to a new Europe, where great warlords and petty kings start to divide up the continent in familiar territories? Do you like chainmail and hairy barbarians? Well, I hope so, as you can't escape either in both. Plenty of largish battles in the Late Roman and Viking Age too (in as far as numbers are known!), although not many impressive sieges (somewhat lacking the defensive massive stone walls most of the time). Arthurian will at least have some factions uniform, others tend to be rather individual. Civilisation v barbarians or people that used to be the barbarians v other barbarians? Do you like big, big axes?

[horridperson]

I'm just trying to sort this out for myself.  I opted for Blood Eagle because is is narrative driven skirmish gaming.  Out of the book the rule set could cover the period from Dark Ages/Arthur to the Vikings very well.  If you enjoyed some fantasy elements in your gaming in the past there are allowances for low magic and mythical things if you would like to include them.  It focuses on small actions with bands of 10 men or so at most and a points system that allows you to build your heroes and their retainers to suit your tastes.  Epic heroism comes at a price so too many heroes could set you back some bodies.

The Gentlemen are quite quite active on their FB group and release neat stuff to add to the rules.  They recently introduced reinforced armour to the pot which allows for moving the clock forward into later periods.  There is potential for future adds that could move the rules set right into the crusades or to the 100 year war.  With some tweaking I think everything under the hood is highly adaptable.

I was considering checking out SAGA but wanted to try my hand on a smaller scale period piece.  I think BE would be an awesome way to recreate Bernard Cornwell's Warlord or History's Vikings.  One ruleset and chose either Dark Age or Viking models depending on your fancy and go from there.   

[Paul Richardson]

I've always been put off the HYW by the idea of having to paint the heraldry and my assumption that there were loads of cavalry so I'd have to paint loads of horses. 

[grubman]

I don't get the Warhammer thing.
i just don't get it.
It was out of date, clunky, and leaden when it came out in the 80s, so why on earth people still want to play it now defeats me.
Anyway, we'll look that aside

That leads me to my next point - I suspect somewhere in the dark ages may suit you better. Less of the details to worry about (which you'll get if thinking about 100YW), a good proportion of the troops will be interchangable, less is 'known' about the period (despite historians liking to talk definitively and with certainty about stuff) so will give you more flexibility.

I suspect that deep down inside you already know which you'd prefer.

Yeah,wellyou ,  know what they say about opinions .  I played plenty of other games in the 80s (Chainmail, the original Warlord, Chaos Wars, and Battlesystem) and by the time I got to Warhammer I was like, "WOW!  this is awesome!" in comparison, both in rules and atmosphere....but I can think of a zillion opinions I "just don't get"...but I'll accept that other people do for the same reasons I love the things I do (Hell, most people "just don't get" grown men playing with little metal dolls either )

In all honesty I wasn't leaning toward any of the 3 and was really torn.  Vikings are more familiar to me and already have a little love...but the Dark ages seems more "fantasy like" in terms of setting.  The 100 year wars was primarily attracting me because of the great look of the miniatures and variety of troops that can be fielded.

especially if you read around it with Bernard Cornwell

I read his Viking books, but forgot he also wrote a Arthur series...I should probably read that while painting.

Arthurian and Dark Age are not only more flexible in that sense, they also offer a large variety of forces (how much they differ from others is debatable), many of which can fight others historically (Romans used to be all over the place, Vikings seemed to get around a bit too).

the crumbling of an empire, or the transition to a new Europe, where great warlords and petty kings start to divide up the continent in familiar territories?

I think you put a finger on all the things that would be the best for me as I proceed.

[jamesmanto]

All three have their pluses.
Age of Arthur you can repurpose a lot of terrain and minis into Viking era.
Hyw is colourful and at the skirmish level all kinds of nifty scenarios.

The important question is what do you want to paint?

[Duncan McDane]

My advise is simple: go for whatever army ( looks of miniatures & background idea ) grabs you the most. You'll enjoy the collecting, painting and gaming more if you feel "into it".
Only risk, of course, is that you cannot stop with 1 army, but you'll want a few opponents, some mercenaries etc. etc "just because they fought at that battle and the simply look great  ".

[Codsticker]

As you are coming from a fantasy background, I would have suggested 100 Years War. However,as already stated we know enough about them that creative flexibility is a little limited and painting them would be more time consuming when the heraldry is taken into account. On the other hand, you have the fantastic Perry plastic kits and several rage of nice metal minis available and the armies might have more visual appeal as you would have brightly coloured livery and cloth barding.

However, the Viking Age has some very generic looking troops so a large unit of dudes with spears shields and beards could be Saxons or Danes from a wide time frame. The lack of a heraldry and a limited palette means you could paint up the armies pretty quickly. Although Gripping Beast produce many serviceable kits for the period, they are not as nice as the Perry kits but there lots of metal ranges, some of them very nice.