|
Post by felixs on Jan 12, 2020 22:02:34 GMT
Not sure where this belongs, so I went the safe way and put it under "rants and raves", even though it really is neither. It rather is a very brief playtest report.
Since a few years I am in search of an acceptable set of rules for gaming fantasy battles. HotT would have been my rules of choice. But DBA 3 is (in my view) much superior to DBA 2 and HotT (which is based on DBA 2). I never really liked the way that HotT handles Magicians and Heroes anyway; the "enscorceled" meta-game and the possibility of re-appearing mages and heroes never really appealed to me. Neither did HotT's take on Dragons and Gods. And Lurkers in HotT always were a bit of a pain. And I do not want to even get started on Sneakers.
But I really like Auxilia in DBA 3 and I think that Scythed Chariots (Expendables) and the different types of Warbands, Blades, Knights etc. have a lot of potential for portraying fantasy armies.
So I realized that - for me - the only thing that DBA 3 lacks in comparison to HotT are aerial units. And then I thought further and realized that Airboats are pretty rare and that Flyers could be portrayed by Light Horse in a pinch for most cases.
So no reason not to use DBA 3 as written (but with fantasy army lists) for fantasy!
It works brilliant. And this is best exemplified by an example (Hah!).
Today's game was Undead vs. Elves.
Elves (Forest, Ag: 1) were: 3Kn (Gen), 2x 3Kn, 2x 3Cv, 1 El (giant treeman), 2x 6Bd (elves with mattocks), 3x 3 Bw, 1x LH (pegasi).
Undead (Hilly, Ag: 3) were: LH (Gen, wraith and ghost dogs), 3x Cv, 6x 7Hd (skeleton hordes), 2x 3Wb (Ghouls).
Elves were defending in both games and placed a few patches of woods in both games. Looked about right. The elvish 6Bd were quite vulnerable, but the elvish treeman wroke havoc on anything in its path. The skeleton hordes fell as they should, but occasional steadfastness was a nice touch and lend a sense of uncertainty to the whole affair.
The first game was won by the undead, mostly due to extremely lucky dice, helped by the elves struggling with their rather narrow deployment zone. One 6Bd, one 3Bw and the LH died quickly, the only casualties on the undead side were two Hd. The second game was equally fast and furious, but dice luck was not as extreme. This time, the undead player (me...) made a mistake and the general was flanked and killed. Still managed to kill one 6Bd and one 3Bw, but the game ended in defeat for the undead, who lost their General, one Wb, lots of Hd, and finally a Cv.
We discussed that the 3Bw should really be 3Lb and that the undead general should be 3Cv instead. Otherwise we were very happy with the game. The pegasi as LH felt absolutely fine. Monsters and giants as El work perfect.
I will try other army lists and I feel pretty confident that even rather wild combinations should be both playable and fun. Since balance is not an issue in DBA (there just is none and no-one pretends that there is), a rule-of-thumbish approach is fine. Since battles are short, there is always time for another game or for switching the armies to see what the other side of the table feels like.
If you are interested in fantasy gaming at all, I can very much recommend adding a few fantasy elements to your historical armies, or building a fantasy army or two for DBA 3.
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jan 12, 2020 23:18:20 GMT
Good to see some fantasy. I have done a little but only converted armies from the book to fantasy, LH wolf riders, Cav boat riders etc.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jan 13, 2020 5:54:44 GMT
Nothing wrong in using ancients rules for fantasy battles. Sometimes the extra detail that there tends to be with conventional troop types in rules for historical battles can be more important than a rules author's ideas on how fantasy troop types would work. For instance, in battles set on Tolkien's Middle Earth, the wizards don't seem to sling magic about at opposing units, but seem to have a role closer to that of diplomats and the intelligence community.
By the way, I believe that you will find that Hordes of the Things is not based on version 2 of DBA. It owes its origins to version 1,obviously with a huge amount of adaption, including merging many conventional troop types.
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jan 13, 2020 9:04:08 GMT
Some years ago I did fantasy battles using the Warhammer rules. I had an undead army.
I am now thinking about fantasy again, was going to look at Hott but 3.0 seems the better option.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 13, 2020 9:49:02 GMT
Felixs, There is a variant of HOTT done by Tom Thomas which uses the current DBA rule set. Titled D3H2, this has all the refinements of DBA3 messed with the key HOTT features. You can request a copy from medievalthomas, here at the forum.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jan 13, 2020 11:12:56 GMT
Felixs, There is a variant of HOTT done by Tom Thomas which uses the current DBA rule set. Titled D3H2, this has all the refinements of DBA3 messed with the key HOTT features. You can request a copy from medievalthomas, here at the forum.
Timurilank's suggestion is a good way forward I believe. Simon
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 13, 2020 16:30:09 GMT
Good comments everyone, thanks!
Interestingly, my taste in fantasy wargaming has very much been nurtured by the aesthetics (not so much the actual game) of Warhammer. HotT, however, does not really portray Heroes, Magicians, Paladins and Clerics on an appropriate scale. Neither do I like the whole Stronghold concept - feels a bit like the DBA city rules in being out of synch with the scope of the rest of the rules. But that is a matter of taste.
What really works great for fantasy armies are the nuances of troop types. The "Fast" - "Solid" differentiation and the introduction of double based elements helps a lot with portraying all kind of fantasy troop types. 3Lb are a much better depiction of elven archers than Bw in HotT. 4Bd for dwarves works perfect if orc elites are 3Bd or 3Pk. 6Kn should be perfect for non-flying dragons, non-replacing hordes of DBA 3 are very good for undead and should work equally well for goblins and the like.
My handful of games with fantasy DBA 3 were - so far - the best fantasy wargaming I had in 10 years or so. Only thing that more or less matches the fun of that experience for me is a set of house rules for a fantasy version of Impetus - but that game requires quadruple the tablespace that DBA does and takes three to four times as long. I would (normally) rather play three shorter games in that time and still have time for some friendly chit-chat.
Felixs, There is a variant of HOTT done by Tom Thomas which uses the current DBA rule set. Titled D3H2, this has all the refinements of DBA3 messed with the key HOTT features. You can request a copy from medievalthomas, here at the forum.
I am aware of those variants. They do not work for me, but I am glad if they work well for others.
By the way, I believe that you will find that Hordes of the Things is not based on version 2 of DBA. It owes its origins to version 1,obviously with a huge amount of adaption, including merging many conventional troop types. I am aware that the first edition of HotT came out after DBA 1. But I believe that HotT 2 is an update that incorporates changes in DBA 2 - wrong?
The merging, IMHO, was not a good idea. The argument that authors and film-makers do not differentiate between, say, Spears and Pikes, might be sound. But in wargaming, it would be nice to have the option to portray this as a difference. More is more, to some degree.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jan 14, 2020 16:48:41 GMT
felixs - I haven't kept my copy of the original version of Hordes of the Things, but I don't recall many actual changes from version 1 to version 2. There seemed to be a lot more clearing up of ambiguities and adding useful diagrams. The terrain system might date from version 2, but as I gave away my copy of HotT version 1 in 2008, I can't confirm that. Concerning merging troop types, this also included Cavalry with Light Horse, Warband with Auxilia, and Psiloi partly being merged with Bows to give Shooters as well as possibly becoming Lurkers. For most fantasy battles, I tend to agree with your last paragraph in which you said that you prefer to be able to differentiate between, for example, Spear and Pikes. On the other hand, rules can get a little cumbersome if there are too many troop types after the fantasy elements are added. This site is not the place for me to discuss the rules that I am writing, otherwise I would say more.
Edit: You mentioned Strongholds. Strongholds were present in the original HotT, and were largely accepted by HotT players (probably because of the fantasy settings). The garrisoned city type built-up areas were not present in DBA version 1. BUAs in version 1 represented villages that were bad-going and blocked line of sight, like woods but with buildings instead of trees. I suspect that the authors of DBA introduced the walled cities that may be garrisoned into DBA version 2 because they liked Stongholds in HotT. They were not universally popular among DBA players at the time!
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 14, 2020 17:18:51 GMT
Yes, the changes from HotT 1 to HotT 2 were pretty minor. But then, the changes from DBA 1 to DBA 2 were not that drastic, IMHO.
Interesting point about Strongholds - I did not know that.
This site is not the place for me to discuss the rules that I am writing, otherwise I would say more.
Please do say more. In a private message, if you like. I am very happy with DBA 3 for fantasy battles so far, but the quest for the holy grail of fantasy rules is not yet over.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 14, 2020 21:04:10 GMT
Felixs:
I'm interested in why D3H2 did not work for you. It has all the DBA 3.0 elements (so we do differentiate between Pike & Spear) plus the HOTT elements. So you can get Heroes, "Shooters" (Bow that is +3 v. Foot), Dragons, Flyers etc. but all using DBA 3.0 rules.
I've also done a more general game using DBX mechanics (though completely redone) that does incorporate all the Warhammer type elements (including Banners & Musicians, elder races etc.) - A Game of Knights & Knaves with the Olde World Expansion.
You can use just DBA 3.0 elements (or just traditional HOTT elements if you want) but it seems better for the purposes of fantasy to have access to all the types so I'm curious why you rejected D3H2.
Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 14, 2020 21:50:55 GMT
Felixs: I'm interested in why D3H2 did not work for you. It has all the DBA 3.0 elements (so we do differentiate between Pike & Spear) plus the HOTT elements. So you can get Heroes, "Shooters" (Bow that is +3 v. Foot), Dragons, Flyers etc. but all using DBA 3.0 rules. I've also done a more general game using DBX mechanics (though completely redone) that does incorporate all the Warhammer type elements (including Banners & Musicians, elder races etc.) - A Game of Knights & Knaves with the Olde World Expansion. You can use just DBA 3.0 elements (or just traditional HOTT elements if you want) but it seems better for the purposes of fantasy to have access to all the types so I'm curious why you rejected D3H2. Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games
We did discuss both sets of rules, as you might remember. To put it short - both sets of rules are (to me) not usable as they are. D3H2 is unfinished and causes more problems than it solves. A Game of Knights and Knaves suffers - IMHO - from bad presentation and convoluted modularity.
These are personal opinions. We had a short discussion, if I remember correctly, which led to nothing. I am still watching how both rules develop, but at the current stage I am not interested.
DBA 3 is a well-presented, usable set of rules that is more or less finished and works well enough. That is why I do currently prefer to use that set of rules.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 15, 2020 18:44:50 GMT
Another list that works very well for me: Halflings (or Hobbits) (Arable, Ag: 0) Sp (Gen), 5x Sp (halflings with spears), 4x 3Bw (halflings with bows, 2x Ps (halfling scouts, rangers and dogs). Feels about right to me. Arguably, 4Ax might work even better than Sp for this army. Might be worth a try. The good thing about using the DBA 3 rules here is that by giving the army a low aggression (which fits very well thematically), chances are very good that they will be the defender and that they can choose terrain that will help them against armies with a lot of mounted troops. At least it helped against Mongols
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 16, 2020 0:09:47 GMT
Felixs:
What part of D3H2 do you feel is "unfinished" it uses the exact same rules as DBA 3.0 (which of course you must have to play) - just adds HOTT elements. It has all HOTT elements included (as well as all DBA 3.0 elements) so I'm not sure what is unfinished. Without HOTT elements you don't have Dragons, Beasts, Heroes, Paladins, Mages -pretty important for a fantasy setting. Likewise we expanded the Fast concept so that you could have Fast Knights for instance which you can't have in base DBA 3.0 - also very useful for fantasy.
But if there is some area you feel is "unfinished" please tell me what it is and I will "finish" it.
As to A Game of Knights & Knaves, while based on elegant DBX mechanics (much modernized) it goes on to cover fantasy and medieval subjects in much greater detail, hence the modular rule system which allows player to play games as they learn. Its very common in modern rule design dating back to Squad Leader. Puzzled also by presentation issues as this is one of the most common positive feedback reactions. People who have struggled with the Purple book feel like a light when off when they use K&K re DBX mechanics (of course using the modular system we only teach them a bit at a time so the comparison is a bit unfair). My son uses K&K to teach DBX mechanics to Boy Scouts at Camp and his role playing buddies at college - most of which have never played a miniature game before - and with great success.
Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 16, 2020 7:40:33 GMT
For 3H2 I might re-read the rules and compile a list of problems - if you are actually interested.
For K&K (Olde Worlde), re-check your private messages - we discussed that some time ago.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 17, 2020 21:46:07 GMT
And another list, which is pseudo-historical in part:
Old Choseon Korean (Hilly, Ag. 2) Kn Gen (general on Chinese style chariot), 2x Kn (charioteers), 4x 3Pk (loose order pikemen), 3x 3Bw (loose order bowmen), 1x Ps (skirmishing bowmen), 1x El (Tan'gun in his form as a giant bear or tiger).
There is very little evidence of what actual Old Choseon warfare might have looked like and the dimension and significance of that state or polity (if it did ever exist at all) is vastly exaggerated by Korean historians. However, the foundation myth is fun, the few bits and pieces found in the (very late, thus mythical) records are interesting as well - justifying a tentative view of Old Choseon as a medium power in early North East Asia. And I find the army to be a good way to use the rather odd and completely ahistorical, but beautifully sculpted, miniatures that Magister Militum sells as "Han Chinese". So the army really is inspired by myth, sketchy records from unreliable Chinese and Korean sources and by a small bunch of otherwise useless miniatures that I had at hand.
|
|