|
I think I've pretty much sown up the slots of my wargaming bar one focusing a little more on the heroic, individual side of things. I was almost ready to pull the trigger on SAGA; but the idea of a battle-board really puts me off. Instead I have been reviewing 'A Song of Blades and Heroes' by Ganesha games and it seems to be perfect but I'm not sure if it's TOO light. Does anyone in this thread have experience playing it?
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Gosh, I'm sorry! I read that a while ago but forgot it was in this thread! Apologies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
I played my first solo game of Songs of Blades and Heroes this morning, and I was suitably impressed, I've never had a game play so smoothly and with this alacrity there is a very real possibility of a campaign against my regular opponent, instead of the usual we-do-it-once-and-get-bored killer. I used a scenario with all the rules, morale, VP and so on and it still wrapped up in under 45 minutes.quote:The Red Orc tribe mustered it's goons (Bugbear, Minotaur, Bear Warrior) and leaders (Warchief, Shaman) and set out to raid a local smithy, where rumours of a hidden diamond chalice would allow them to hire many mercenaries for their upcoming campaign. Little did they know, this chalice was an Elven artifact and that they too were on the prowl for it (Hero, Wizard and a retinue of three warriors). I was struck by how powerful the elves quality seems, I only passed initiative to the orcs once or twice the whole time, and insane with the Hero rule. I would really like to try this out in a non-fantasy setting too, does anyone have any familiarity with how Songs of Shadows and Dust plays? If it's the same game but with different stat-lines I'll just jerry rig it into SoBH but otherwise may pick it up later today.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
I have a quick rules Q for anyone who is familiar with the SoBH ruleset. Ambush is a rule which gives +1C when attacking from being 'totally hidden, not just in cover' - however the rules then go on to state that a model is either partially in cover (eligible for cover bonus) or not a valid target (i.e. not in LoS) - with that in mind, how can something ever ambush? A model most be within LoS of the target, and that means they're no longer totally hidden and don't get the ambush bonus...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Right! So it's based on start of turn, not start of action! Cheers for that!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
I've since played four games of Songs of Blades and Heroes and can confirm that it's as fun as heck - the only thing which drags it down are how the mechanics take precedence over the narrative IMO, but then I'm getting more into RPG and less into wargaming as time progresses, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
I ran three games of SBH with my warband - 11 figures per side and it was pretty smooth and quick. Like I said before, the only thing that is starting to kill it is the even/odd rule for knockdown or knockback. I think it would benefit from less symbolic mechanics there, but as you said you can easily house-rule it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
Now that the dust has settled, what's Gates of Antares like? I've tried a bundle of games with a buddy of mine: Infinity: Great mechanics, alright figures way too many special rules Malifaux: Good mechanics, alright figures, way too many special rules Song of Blades and Heroes: OK mechanics, N/A figures, maybe a little TOO simplistic Warmachine: 'Just right' DBA: He doesn't like history KoW: Good mechanics, great figures (we're using proxies), good complexity but requires A LOT of time and effort. I'm looking at GoA for something to sit squarely where we used to play 40k 2nd Edition: 20-30 miniatures per side with a few heavies or vehicles. I'm probably going to have to foot the bill for the models/rules and paint them - so restrained design would be useful. I can't figure out why I'd play GoA instead of Bolt Action beyond the aesthetic changes (above we're fine with proxying, etc. already)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
For KoW proxies: Avatars of War, Scibor. With regard to Time and Effort, meaning the size of the boards, the number of miniatures rather than the actual game itself 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Laughing_historicals.tiff I have not, and I will do. For a slight attendum to my question can anyone who has played both BA and GoA give me the dirty on the actual differences? anecdotally it seems that shooting is more effective and there's less bogging-down of pinned units? Thanks,
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
spectralent posted:The weapons are sci-fi so it doesn't send me into fits when people armed with standard rifles can't hit things standing across a street from them. Well go the starter set for £45. Here's hoping my opponent doesn't get game-fatique
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Thundercloud posted:It starts with Gates of Antares is D10 based and low numbers are better. This means accuracy 5 (the standard post human accuracy score) means you hit 50% of the time. A Fire order, meaning you don't move, gives you +1 to your accuracy. Seems analogous to Armor Save and Save Modifers from 2nd Edition which is a decent enough thing. My buddy and I were JUST talking about how great and simple KoW is so hopefully there's not too much of that (I felt that Infinity was insane with conditional modifiers).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
I managed to get a BTGoA box for £45 NIB so hopefully it turns out OK. Since then I've read some rather scathing reviews of things like the blast weapon rules, terrain rules and so on. For example: http://theback40k.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/beyond-gates-of-antares.html I think I'll give my buddy the Ghar as there are only a few models to put together, and I'll assemble the Concord to play against, but if it goes well pick up Algoryns. This just looks too good not to mimic: http://ataleofbeardedwargamers.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/beyond-gates-of-antares-jezs-algoryn.html
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
So it seems from the demo games of Antares that I have watched, that there's not much movement - both sides just arrange themselves near cover and pelt each other with shots. Is there something I'm missing/is this just the games I've watched? I imagine small KoW games from a birds-eye-view if 'Kill!' would just involve a rumble in the middle, but just checking Secondly, assuming my opponent DOES want to go ahead with Ghar, are the Ghar Support and Concord Support forces decent add-ons to those in the starter set? Lastly, are there any glaring balance issues between the factions? Thanks! Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
In KoW about 1k points is the smallest I'd want to go outside of learning; is that about the same for GoA? I gather the starter set is around 500 each?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Righto, first game 'in anger' of GoA tonight, 3x Concord Strike squads with Plasma Lances vs Ghar Battle Squad and Ghar Assault Squad. In the little demo game I ran against myself, the Ghar simply couldn't take the number of pins dished out by the Concord - is there a 'secret' to this? Or simply watching firing lanes? I'd rather not stomp my opponent in the first game.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Well my first 'real' game of GoA was somewhat underwhelming. All of the rules are just splattered around with both 'universal special rules' and just plain special rules - which aren't bundled with the units they apply to. For example: Ghar Battle Squad, Large - look for special rules for large models, it can't run. Asks me if he can shoot with them, he has 'Ghar Disruptors'. Disruptors aren't listed in the weapon summary in the middle of the book, nor the one at end of the book. Find it in some kind of special wargear section, with special rule 'Disruption - see page 37 (or sth)' which has no reference to Disruption, only special ammo types. I just feel that Infinity does this kind of complexity better :/ Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
So I finally got my miniatures out of tupperware and toilet paper and on my shelf and lo and behold - found my Concord troopers. Now, I only played a couple of demo games of GoA and I wasn't too hot on it - the rulebook had chunks of rules spread all over the place, the close combat was extremely lethal and options (at least at the starter-box level) seemed relatively sparse: find a piece of cover and then spend the game shooting at the other dudes until one of you gives up. Now, I'm not saying that it's a bad game - but my gaming time and patience is somewhat limited: I'm actively playing (at least) Infinity and Kings of War, and have on-and-off matches of Warmachine, Malifaux and possibly now either Pike and Shotte and/or Lasalle. I don't need convincing that GoA is a good game (because it is definitely good), but I would be very interested to hear why people would choose it over the dozens of other games that are out there.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Yes, I really wished I could jive with Antares more but it seems alot less elegant than both Firefight and Warpath in large and small scales - on the other hand, the miniatures are a damned sight better than the Mantic humanoids so I'm using Concord to represent Asterians (at least, so far)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
So having watched a few games of AoS Skirmish and being very underwhelmed, and at the same time really enjoying the games of Firefight I played (that is, relatively streamlined rules, few models) - I wonder if there's anything to scratch the fantasy itch in the same way. Ideally looking at around 8-10 models per side (with exceptions for horde-type factions), and so far I've come across a few games that would be suitable: A Song of Blades and Heroes (having played this with my regular opponent and enjoyed it) AOS Skirmish (as above, not so excited about) Frostgrave Mordheim (I never played the game, I hear it was alot more awkward than fun). Anything else I should consider? Not neccesarily swords-and-sorcery required, i.e. post-apocalyptic, gangs, etc. would be fine - just no zombies and no Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
I did actually mean 'gothic sci-fi' when I said 'high fantasy'in that last line for no god damned reason at all - but it's still a good call. I'll see if I can get a game together of either. Having enjoyed both Malifaux, Infinity and Warmachine to some degree I overall found them all to be extremely deep and 'difficult' for not much benefit, so it seems that DZ and SoBH are up the right alley. Looking at some Frostgrave Batreps that seems to err on the side of complexity for no good reason too, although I'd be interested to hear some of the threads opinions?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
OK! I will spend some more time with Frostgrave and review those posted. In the interim last night I decided to finally put some money towards Ganesha Games after pirating all their stuff for so long and bought the "Advanced Song of Blades and Heroes" book. The first section is a background for the SoBH world, which I'm not interested in at all. The rules are solid, but need to be explained at a top level before jumping straight in IMO - having read the original SoBH so this wasn't quite the shock, but there's not really much of an introductory section. For those who aren't famililar:
Essentially all rolls are against one of the two statistics, and the complexity of the game mechanics are the modifiers around those rolls: long range shooting, charging from a hidden location, wearing armour. The complexity of the game itself is around the 'Trait' system - essentially these are an encyclopaedia of universal special rules that models aggregate to make a Stone Giant 'lumbering, gargantuan, hard-hide', or a dark elf assassin 'Assassin, Expert Parry, Difficult Target'. All of those rules add to/remove from/preclude Q/C rolls. My first impressions are that it certainly provides significant depth to the game, but I'm now a little shy of games with simple statistics but lots of modifiers: the game of LADLAG last friday epitomised the difficulty in layering many adjustments ontop of otherwise simple rolls. Would anyone be interested in a little mini-batrep?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
I was worried at the number of rules, but honestly while there are 180+ traits, your warband is typically going to only have a few, and they are very easy to remember. I ran the following demo having read the PDF once, and spending a few minutes writing out my unit stats:JcDent posted:You people and your inability to grasp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44-CMNwkFAo I can see some things to improve, happy to document further batreps with slightly less laborious explanation if there's any interest. EDIT: and while checking out Otherworld Fantasy Skirmish I checked out their models and holy poo poo if they aren't perfect: http://otherworldminiatures.co.uk/shop/drow/dr1-drow-warriors-i-3/ Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Gosh, the problem with a warband based game is that I don't need any number of R&F troops, and buying purely characters is ending up quite bloody costly! It seems no matter which way I dice it with GW, Gamezone, Avatars of War, etc. I'm always ending up around £50 per warband!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Yes, right now I'm using Dungeon Saga figures for 'Generic Evil Warband' . Speaking of which, I've played a little demo game of Frostgrave and I'm not particularly overawed. The game started with two level 0 wizards and some soldiers, no apprentices. Stunty the Witch had an expensive ranger and a man-at-arms, Frilly the Necromancer had four goons. The game started with Stunty poisoning one of the goons with Poison Dart, while his Man-at-Arms clambered over a fence, only to be zerg'ed by thugs on the other side - with no charge bonuses per se, he was on equal footing with a generic mook and soon succumbed. The ranger shot the poisoned goon a few times (who was now also cursed) before being dragged into combat as well, where the weight of bodies took him out. Frilly summoned a zombie to join the party and with one lucky hit, said zombie knocked 10 HP off of Stunty in a single hit and took him out of action. Campaign results: the Man at Arms was injured, and Stunty was dead. I can see how the game plays quite quickly and it does seem quite intuitive but I think it's in an odd place - it's not as detailed as Infinity/Mordheim/etc. and not as simple as ASOBH.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Righto, so I ran the same 'scenario' three times - dwarfs vs undead. In Frostgrave this was as a Stunty witch and his rather short group of soldiers against a Necromancer and his rather mouldy thugs. In Otherworld Fantasy as a good vs. evil party. The latter was proobably the most interesting game, but it took me over two hours to put together the warband sheet with ALOT of flipping back and forth through the rulebook:  There are SEVEN conditions to keep track of - Weakened, Dominated, Scared, Stunned etc. which all have different effects in different ways. With so few members of the warband (four vs five) and almost no fate-points of consequence, there was precious little to do once combat was locked in, other than to get to the bitter end. As a result, the Immortal Fiend with a Ring of Regeneration clung on to the bitter end, while his ghouls were chopped to pieces by Dwarven runesteel. Playing the game felt like slipping to a worn pair of sweatpants even if it was a bit clunky and complicated. For example, weapons have a 'to hit' stat, like '5+' that you most roll equal to or above, to hit in melee or via shooting after modifiers. The 'to wound' roll is done like Warhammer's comparitive rolling (str 3 vs tough 4 = 5+ to wound), and then stat tests (like morale checks) are done with Warhammer's 'to hit' roll mechanism where the number is subtracted from seven to get the target you must roll over. I played again as an ASOBH warband to refresh my memory, and golly the other two games have alot more going on in them - I think ASOBH is definitely the most dicey of the three (I don't think I managed a single activation without a failure in the whole game, then one reaction permitted me to attack a prone leader which garnered a gruesome kill, and the whole opposing warband legged it off the table!). I'm quite torn, because I like the campaign part of Frostgrave, but have almost zero interest in the fluff, in having a magic user be my party leader. The setting, units, etc. of Otherworld Fantasy are much more my thinking, but the game is just nowhere near as playable!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
I didn't, I guess that's a chance for round #2! Speaking of which, I played another quick Frostgrave game this morning, switching board sides. My Necromancer warband is just destroying the Dwarfs: four thugs (fight 3, +2 damage if they win combat) just steamroll through anything! I'm playing with small warbands on a sheet of paper, with the distances in CM - (so roughly 30" x 20" if it were a real game) and it's quite fun. I will try Otherworld Fantasy again, and give Relic Wars a shot tonight, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
 WARNING!! EFFORTPOST AHEAD!!! I played another game of Otherworld Skirmish yesterday, this time both the Bar-Room Brawl (which is the introductory scenario) and re-fought the Heroes vs. Undead now I was familiar with rules on both sides.The Bar-Room Brawl game was fairly deadly - it's a small area with a chest in the middle, a single action against which allows your figuress to attack with their real weapons, instead of just brawl (which is a 5+ 'weapon' that can only make enemies prone). It was a no-brainer to have everyone bee-line into the chest, and with almost everyone having 4+ weapon and then 3+ or 4+ to kill - it was very dicey and not altogether unexpected. It was alot easier to manage, and with the newfound confidence of that I decided to re-play my more fully fledged game: Otherworld Fantasy - Gameplay Fighting over a disused laundry complex that served as a lookout post for the undead (now defending) - the forces of evil were represented by an Immortal Fiend (evil wizard) with the Haste spell, 4+ Force of Will (cause enemies to be weakened), 5+ Drain (damage and weaken) and a Ring of Regeneration (recover 1 wound on a 5+ at the end of each turn) accompanied by his Wight with Rage (enemy must pass morale test or recieve another attack when it is charged), Invulnerability (reduce all damage by 1), and 5+ Bite (causes 2 'to wound' rolls), and four hanger-on Ghouls with 5+ Bite (causes 2 'to wound' rolls) Seeking to cleanse the rot from their hereditary homeland were the dwarfs: A Valiant warrior with Onslaught (reroll a miss), Heavy Armour (5+ to ignore any damage) and a 4+ Broad Sword (which can parry). His brother the Ranger came along, with various shooting bonuses and being invisible within cover, and two of the clansmen: a Berzerker and a Worshipper. The Undead were able to capitalise on a stunted (ha!) advance and retrieved many of their treasures that were spread around the area, and by accumulating more fate AND having a larger warband were able to mob the tougher attackers - the Wight's hardy invulnerability to small injuries pushed the Berzerker down long enough for a ghoul to bite off his face, and the coup-de-gras occured when the Warrior, injured from taking on three Ghouls was knocked down and had his life drained by the Fiend. Honestly, it sounds more exciting than it was! Otherworld Fantasy - Game Mechanics The defener places adventure tokens on their side of the board, which typically permit re-rolls or adding fate points. The system of activation is IGOUGO, determined by a dice-off at the top of each turn. The difference in rolls represents 'fate', which are divided as tokens between the two players, the difference going to the player with the highest roll, who then activates first. The fate tokens can be used to boost a dice roll, or a pair of tokens can be used to buy an activation - which is important since you only ever get as many activations as HALF your warband by default. It means you need to zero in on what matters, specially since you'll rarely get more than two fate tokens per player, per turn. All models activate and can do any two actions for their activation (except aim/shoot) - the only mitigating factor is that in combat, both figures participate and as such you can find yourself being mortally wounded in your own turn. Weapons and Melee attacks have a flat 'to hit' roll with a variety of modifiers (are you prone? Are you fighting over an obstacle?). Then you compare the weapon's STR with the enemy's DEF to get a comparitive roll (like old 40k/Fantasy - 4+ for equal, increasing or decreasing depending on your relative stats), and 'wounds' are taken as hits unless the target has some mechanic like armour or invulnerability. Magic is performed by adding the value of your Magic ability, plus your intelligence, plus D6 to hit a target difficulty number. You can 'chant' as your first action in a turn to get an additional +2. Difficulties are typically in the range of 7-10. Any non-opposed rolls (for example, being scared) you have to subtract your value from 7 to get the number you have to beat. Otherworld Fantasy - My opinion~ Having played three games I now feel I can offer an opinion. I think the game is an interesting framework and shows a very clear lineage to GW of an earlier time - the dice rolling, the mechanics around facing, magic, etc. While there's certainly a nostalgia to the artwork in the book and the miniatures that are produced, I don't think OWFS has a niche any more: there are games which simply perform what it's trying to achieve in better ways. My primary grumble with the game is the redundancy: there are seven statuses, there are three distinct dice mechanics (D6+stat>target, D6>(Stat vs target) probability matrix, D6>stat-7),. each monster and NPC has multiple paragraphs of options and unique points costs, there are something like five different 'ability' types: special powers, otherworldly traits, abilities, weapon effects, and spells. To me the most striking example of this is simply trying to build your warband. It took me multiple hours to put together a non-mook warband for my games. Here's where you have to go to collate information about a single unit, the Valiant Warrior. Now I do appreciate this isn't unique to OWFS, but it is indicative of the kind of game it is: p55 Legends: quote:Good Legend | 50 gP p40 Equipment: quote:Heavy Armour p39 Abilities: quote:Martial Training p33 Table 7: Basic Attacks: quote:Brawl - Stun special rule p35 Weapon Effects: quote:Stun p19 Status Effects quote:Stunned p33 Attack Tables quote:Table 7: Trained Attacks back to p35: Weapon Effects quote:Two-handed p39 Abilities: quote:Onslaught Otherworld Fantasy - Overall As you can see, it's very, very weighty and laborious with much flicking back and forth. and this is how the game feels. The Fate system is probably the only concession to a command-and-control mechanic that we see in games like Chain of Command or ASOBH - and it just doesn't really work. The probability curve of 2D6 it so weighted against vastly different results that typically you'll only gain a single fate token, and if not just enough for one additional activation, and with the limited activations you have per turn, once engaged in anything resembling an advantageous situation there's very little reason to attempt anything else (especially when the danger of death is so high in combat), and it comes down to simply rolling dice after dice to see who cracks first. The Adventure Token mechanic (wherein the attacker can try to capture all the tokens instead of going into combat) is also a system with potential that falls flat - a single dice modifier or reroll in a game that requires many, many rolls is just a bit boring. I would say that the game is playable, very flavourful - and reading the book reminds me of pawing through old White Dwarf magazines and 3rd Edition WHFB rules and sub-clauses - but that the indy game market is so full of amazing games that OWFS doesn't do enough to rise above the pack. It feels like someone has attempted to merge early D&D with an early GW ruleset, effectively ignoring the last 25 years of game design and development. Zark the Damned posted:Your issue with Frostgrave sounds like it may be because you're deliberately playing with very small teams instead of using actual warbands - see http://www.battletortoise.com/frostgrave/roster.html My bad - it was Infantrymen on one side, versus thugs on another. I was using this: http://frostgrave.ash.pikselin.net/ and created roughly this warband:  I'm going to give it another shot today if I have time - since as above I think I may have wrapped up my testing of OWFS. Then, maybe Relic blade?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
Well after that effortpost thoroughly killed the thread, here I am back with another! My first 'real' game of Frostgrave, and it was a good. We played two warbands I put together: Chronomancer vs Illusionist, with the same henchmen : 2 thiefs, 2 thugs, an archer and a barbarian. Highlights included a super-charged gnoll thief taking down a thug, my wizard and another thief - and my lone treasure-laden thug having the Illusionist apprentice teleport infront of him blocking his escape - so he dropped the treasure and ran off in the other direction only to face an arrow to the back of the head. It was a total massacre, but despite being tabled (other than one thug with a grimoire that got off-board), my Wizard recieved a crushed arm and only my barbarian died. The swingy-ness of the D20 system was abound: my chronomancy only managed a single spell in the whole game, and he rolled a 19 for mind controlling my barbarian on turn two, so I had a maul-wielding nordic psycho trampling through my squishy areas. It was good fun, and he wants to play again - I can't wait.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Well yes - it would make lower and higher rolls less likely:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
The more of a bulge, the more you can predict where the result will be - notice how the 1d20 line is flat? It means that you're equally likely to get any result. 3d6 on the other hand has a big bulge in the middle which means you're much more likely to get results in the 5-15 range than outside it. It makes rolls more predictable which is more/less desirable depending. Honestly I think I'll stick with D20 because this isn't a WM/Malifaux-type competitive game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
I think that's an honest problem for my buddy and I - we've flitedt from game to game like crazy! In the last couple of years for skirmish games alone we've played Infinity, Malifaux, Warmachine, ASOBH, and now Frostgrave. I've 'test run' Otherworld Fantasy, AASOBH and was about to run Relic Blade. That's not to say anything of Firefight, Kings of War, Pike and Shotte, Lasalle, and DBA. Honestly I think that the lack of options might be a better thing - when we were kids we just banged away at 40k 2nd edition over, and over again - and it was fun and different every time (mostly). We could get into the playing the game, rather than playing the game - if you get my drift?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Does anyone have a link to that WD snippet where the guy talks about the exact opposite of netlisting? I don't think it was even in the internet era so maybe just referring to min-max army lists of that era - he talks (possibly tongue in cheek) about supergluing and gloss varnishing his miniatures, having them as parts of a whole but not varying the size of the regiment or what banners/etc. it was equipped with. The idea being that over time you just know what to do with them; good or bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:Was that Nigel Stillman? Bit of internet sleuthing found this (on an old Warseer post so may not be 100% accurate but I seem to remember most of this being right): That's the ticket! Thank you! EDIT: I like the sentiment, if only GW games were robust enough that deployment/usage would be enough
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Yes, and JJ was quite outspoken in WD that he found tournament gaming, and especially a RAW approach, to be unimaginable to him. TTerrible posted:It is not Parody at all. it's very, very Nigel Stillman / Jervis Johnson. This is my poo poo right here, but then again I only play against one dude.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Yes, but I think the concept of 'competitive' gaming in the context of a hobby based around a combination of art, narration and chance is just a bit misplaced (personally!). If you play as the Romans at Cannae it's hardly a fair proposition and you will probably lose - but that's not the important point, is it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
jodai posted:Just as a slight aside, has anyone used the Fear and Faith rules? I'm always surprised when o go back and read stuff based on SoBH because it sounds very fun but I just can't find any players. If F&F didn't work, is there a decent set of horror skirmish rules that anyone can recommend? SoBH is like historicals, you have to bring both armies and know the rules and expect it to be a short lived/one-shot thing - it just doesn't have staying power.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
I've come to loathe Malifaux as a skirmish game - everything lasts forever (or is instantly destroyed). All of the factions have crazy amounts of synergy and combos. There are many 'come back from death', 'banish your model forever', etc. type rules. There is a strategy, four? schemes per game, with markers and different objective types. It's just a pain in the arse and not fun for me at all. I've gone through Otherworld SKirmish, Frostgrave and Advanced SoBH and the latter is definitely the most fun. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Sep 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
Biennial Advanced Song of Blades and Heroes post.MeinPanzer posted:I'm looking to get back into miniature gaming, and Frostgrave and Advanced SoBH sound the most interesting to me. Can you go over a little why you find the latter the most fun? I've been able to find a bit about it online, but the reviews I've read are pretty general in their discussions. I'm looking for a flexible ruleset that I could use to play fun skirmish games with a wide variety of models. I found Frostgrave to be a bit of a one-trick pony - there's THE theme, with THE character archtetypes, etc. - it's alot less sandbox than boardgame IMHO. Song of Blades and Heroes is a really, really simple system. The guy who runs is it is really nice, I co-wrote an AI system for it (so you can play by yourself). It is a very simple, elegant core ruleset and there are literally dozens of add-ons if you want to make it a dungeoncrawler, set it in the time of King Arthur or Napoleon, include campaigns, etc. Each miniature has three stats (Cost, Quality and Combat) and some of a library of universal special rules (in which lies all the flavour). For example, a Barbarian would have this statline: Barbarian Archer 3/3 - 50pts Special rules: Composite-Bow Range Long - rolling a 1 (and 1 on a re-roll causes bow to snap and is unusable) Snow Walk No movement penalty for Snow Every historical general has written about how hard it is to organise your troops, communicate effectively, rally and retreat in an orderly fashion etc - and having this represented on the game tabletop IMO is very important. There are many ways of doing it, but I think ASOBH does it the best - you simply decide how many actions a model will take (for example, the Archer will move, aim, then shoot - 3 actions), and roll the relevant number of dice - for every dice you roll equal to or over the quality, an action is granted. For every failure, a reaction is granted to any enemy model. If you roll two failures, then the turn passes to the opponent. You have to be shrewd about not only who activates, but how much you push the envelope. All of the special rules bolt onto these - Being 'poisoned' makes your quality worse (higher in value), having a magic shield might add +1 to your combat better when being attacked. Heavy Rain might give a -1 penalty to all ranged fire. All of the buildings surrounding the courtyard catching fire might make anyone within 'short' range of structures take a 'Fire' attack, and anyone within 'medium' have a penalty to all combat roles due to the noxious smoke.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
I was super excited about Frostgrave- bought the book and a couple of warbands and spent ages converting them - but ultimately it was just dull. The whole game's premise is based around long narrative campaigns, and while it's certainly a lofty goal I've never EVER managed to get more than one person playing a wargame even remotely consistently, let alone in an ongoing league or campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 16:45
|
|