NagoyaHammer.com

Once upon a time, there was a game that brought joy and wonder to all those who played it. Then one day a great evil arose and destroyed the game, leaving despair and sorrow in it's wake.

Ok, so maybe I'm laying it on a little thick there. The destruction of The Old World in Warhammer wasn't the end of the world (see what I did there?), but some people were a bit peeved about it. Personally, I liked the setting, it had a dark and gritty feeling to it. I never really enjoyed the game that much though. WFB wasn't a terrible system, but it had some huge flaws to it and was pretty open to min-maxing abuse.

Anyway, I'm not really here to talk about WFB, but about what is available on the market to take it's place. For the most part I'm going to assume that everyone is somewhat aware of Age of Sigmar and therefore will skip over it entirely. I'm also not going to talk about the various Fantasy skirmish games like Frostgrave and Warcry, we're here to talk Fantasy Battles, not Fantasy Scuffles.

First of all let's begin with WFB itself. The King is dead! Long live the King!
Nothing is stopping anyone from playing WFB in any of it's various forms. Rulebooks didn't simply wink out of existence when AoS was released. If you have a legacy army from the days when dinosaurs walked the earth and all minis were single piece metal figures, maybe you'll play Oldhammer. If you want to keep playing WFB with updated rules and support, maybe you'll play 9th Age. Of course, each of those comes with the same issues that WFB has always had. Deathstar units, overly complex movement phases and more besides.
For me, my biggest gripe though is that WFB is not really a good rank-and-flank game. When each model of a unit fights, saves and dies as an individual figure, having them ranked up doesn't really make a lot of sense. Likewise, when your 'regiment' is just 5 guys taking a flag for a walk, it doesn't really feel right.

Having spent some time with other rulebooks and seeing what's out there, I'm going to cover some contenders to the throne for Fantasy Battle games. In the posts that follow, I'll introduce different systems, explain their size and scope, lay out what makes them unique, and give my opinions about their pros and cons. Feel free to jump in with your own thoughts and opinions if you want to. I'll try to answer questions if I can, but please note that I haven't played some of these games and am working from a simple read-through of the rules and a few internet reviews.

For all it’s worts (and there a lot of them on figures in setting), I really enjoyed the 8th edition experience. It was far from a tight rules system, clunky and prone to odd situations, but I enjoyed the games, most especially the two campaigns run by Primarch. (Oh, I’m most especially fond of the last narrative campaign - I still think of my dwarves that I marched straight across the Pricedoms and still out there questing.)

And it isn’t entirely dead. I found there’s a local group of gamers who attend the hobby store in Kashiwa that still play good old fashioned Warhammer. And, I guess Whizkid down in the west countries most know of some opponents.

I do hope some rule set can find a footing in the gaming group. It’d be cool to see good old fashioned ranked up units on the table again.

It's a shame RuneWars didn't take off / FFG killed it - if they'd released it like a year earlier, when WHFB was freshly-dead and AoS hadn't had new life breathed into it, it could have been a contender. There was a lot to like about the system, and the models were cool-looking in an "inspired-by-WarCraft-in-a-good-way"... way. Way?

Dragon Rampant

I'm starting with DR because it's a system that I have played a few times. It's published by Osprey Games, a subsidiary of Osprey Publishing. They are not a minis company, but instead publish rules from a variety if writers. In general their rules are model agnostic and are usually very simple as they must fit the entirety of the game into a 90 page book along with army lists, scenarios, etc.

System:
The game doesn't deal with individual models, but rather with units. The stat block details how the unit moves, fights and attacks. Units are either at full strength, half strength or dead, with models in the unit basically acting as wound markers. Similarly, unit types don't differentiate between the models in them. Units of the same type have the same stats. E.g. 12 Elf spearmen have the same stats as 12 Goblin spearmen. Bigger creatures are treated in the same way, so you could have 3 Ogre spearmen representing 4 wounds each or even 1 Giant spearman with 12 wounds and they would all have the same stat block.
As it sounds, this leads to the game feeling a little generic. There are some rules for adding special abilities such as causing fear, flying and magic attacks, to spice the units up a little.
The game focus is mainly on command and control. You roll to activate each unit, with some units being easier to move around, or to stand and shoot. Each unit can only do one thing per turn, so you cannot usually move and fire for example. When attacking, units roll either 12 dice or 6 depending on if they are over or under half strength. Powerful units may hit on 3+, weak units on 6+. Units have different values to hit if they are charged or if they are charging to represent more defensive or offensive types. Units don't have a save as such, but they do have an armour value. To take a wound, the attacker needs to score as many successes as the target's armour value. Unarmoured troops take a wound for every enemy success, whereas the heaviest cavalry may require 4 hits for one wound.

Size:
Due to the way the game is unit based rather than model based, the size of the game can vary a lot. Players' forces are required to have between 4 and 10 units, comprising up to 12 models per unit. A force of 4 unit big monsters, or even just 4 legendary hero types is totally possible though.

Pros and cons:
Having played a few games of this system, it is very easy to get your head round. The rules are simple and straightforward. There are no super-units, and the way the rules are set up, you can easily compare what units can do. The army building rules let you slap whatever you like on the table with ease. Basing is unimportant, which makes the game very accessible no matter the minis you use.
On the other hand, the command rules as written can cause a player to effectively skip a turn if they have poor rolls. Units feel very generic, with none of the racial special rules of WFB. And, while the system does have rules to add fantastic powers to your units, you're nearly always better off spending those points on an extra unit instead. Finally, the magic system just doesn't seem worth it. Spellcasters are expensive, have extra hoops to jump through and have less potential impact on the game than a ranged unit.
For those that care about such things, there is no pre-established fluff or games world.

Overall:
A little house ruling could easily deal with most of the cons. The rules as they are work well, but some tweaking would certainly make them a bit more interesting. The fact that you can play with pretty much anything and everything in your collection without needing to be overly concerned about army building is the main selling point in my view.

The Other Dave wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:11 am

It's a shame RuneWars didn't take off / FFG killed it...There was a lot to like about the system, and the models were cool-looking in an "inspired-by-WarCraft-in-a-good-way"... way. Way?

Such is the way of FFG, sadly. The game certainly looked to have some fresh ideas, but for some reason never really appealed to me.


Saga: Age of Magic

I haven't played SAoM, but I have played Age of Vikings, which is the same basic rule set and style of playing. SAoM, is based on Saga 2nd Ed and is the 4th 'Age of...' supplement for the game. The core rules are in a softback book and run to about 30 pages or so, if memory serves. The supplement is a bit bigger, in hardback and contains the setting's unique rules, faction rules, armylists and battleboards. In addition, a set of Saga dice will be useful, but not absolutely necessary.

System:
SAoM lets players select their army based on one of 6 themes. The Great Kingdom, The Wild, Underearth, The Horde, Undead and Otherworld. Each theme also includes a sub-theme or two for variety. (Underearth allows for Skaven and Dwarves for example). Each theme has it's own special rules, unique options, army limitations and playstyle. Each theme also gets access to different schools of magic. Players are pretty much free to choose the theme they like, you could have a Goblin army using Horde rules one game and Undead the next. (Presumably if they lose the first game??) Obviously some armies seem a better fit for certain themes than others.
In the game players roll Saga Dice and assign them to their Battleboard. These dice allow you to activate units to move and to utilize special attacks and skills. I think Warcry has a similar mechanic, though a bit simpler. Depending on the ability, a unit may get a bonus to hit or deny the enemy an activation. Players can stack special abilities for one uber-attack, though at the risk of being unable to do anything else that turn. Units can activate multiple times in a turn, though they generate fatigue by doing too much. Fatigue points can be used in combat to drastically shift the odds. A fresh unit will usually beat a fatigued unit handily.

Size:
Infantry (and cavalry) are divided into levies, warriors and hearthguard (elites), with options for large infantry (ogre types), various monster options and war machines. A small elite force could be 30 models and a large force of levies up to 100ish. Rather than buying units directly, players use points to buy miniatures of a particular type, which they can then divide into units before setting up.
For example a player can buy 4 hearthguard or 12 levies for 1 point. Spending 3 points on hearthguard (12 models) and 2 on levies (24 models), the player splits the hearthguard into two units of 6 and the levies into two units of 10 and one of 4. It sounds strange at first, but it's pretty simple in practice.

Pros and cons
On the positive side of things, SAoM involves a fair amount of decision-making>success style choices. Using your Battleboards abilities at the right time and managing Fatigue successfully is how you win. If you want a game that rewards your in-game thinking, Saga does it.
Though not as open as Dragon Rampant above, SAoM does allow you to use your existing models as you see fit. That said, some themes impose limits on what you can or can't deploy. For example Underearth themed armies cannot have mounted archers.
Technically, you could use Battleboards from other settings to spice things up, but they are not intended to be balanced outside their own supplement. Vikings Vs. Elves is do-able should the fancy take you.
One nice point is that the faction special rules all come with some nice clarification points (gathered during playtesting I believe), so the game can usually progress smoothly.
Looking at the negative points, Saga can be a little swingy. A bad turn can be difficult to come back from, especially if whole units are wiped out. The initial start-up for the game can seem daunting for a non-GW game. Saga Dice can be proxied, but you're looking at two books to get started, plus the scenario book once you have a few games under your belt.
Looking at the games of Saga I have played, there is a learning curve for the game, some factions in Age of Vikings are easier than others to use.
The game doesn't have any fluff of it's own.

Overall:
I lile Saga: Age of Vikings, so I am keen to give Age of Magic a go. It is the kind of game you'd probably need to play a few times, just to get the hang of the balancing act between activating units, using powers and handling fatigue.
The game has certainly been built to allow old WFB armies to be used easily, though you might not be able to use everything you want. Large collections will offer a lot of variety in how you build your lists and what you focus on with your battleboard.

Great thread, Primarch. It's very interesting to hear your thoughts on these various games, I've heard of a few of them but great to see an analysis of the details.

Oathmark

The newest kid on the block, Oathmark is by the same writer as Frostgrave and Rangers of Shadowdeep. There is a range of figures being developed by Northstar to accompany the game. I have one box of their dwarves and they are great! I haven't played Oathmark yet.

System:
Oathmark is selling itself as a rank-and-flank successor to WFB. Units are deployed as a block and must move and maneuver by pivoting and wheeling. Players alternate activating units which may (usually) perform 2 actions such as Moving, Shooting or Casting a spell. Combat is based on subtracting a target's defence value from your attack value and rolling to beat that target number. Extra ranks, fighting to the rear and other situational modifiers all come up as you'd expect. Once you've fought, there is a combat resolution step to see if either side breaks.
The core rules take up the first 50 pages of the book, but mixed in with that is a LOT of beautifully illustrated artwork and lots of pictures of the official model range.
The rest of the book covers special rules for characters and warmachines, army building and scenarios.

Size:
According to the rulebook, a standard game is 2500 points. A general costs about 250 points and a standard trooper costs about 13 points. Unit sizes are capped at 20 models in 4 ranks of 5 for infantry and 10 models in 2 ranks of 5 for cavalry. (Oathmark boxes so far have 30 infantry or 15 cavalry, make of that what you will). I would imagine that this should lead to games of about the same scale as WFB.

Pros and cons
If you want a new version of WFB with simpler rules, this probably fits the bill. The movement rules especially seem like a clear improvement. Different races have different units and different special rules.
The army building rules are quite novel. Rather than picking from a predetermined list, players design their own kingdom from a menu. Each part of the kingdom grants access to certain troop types. If you've played an RTS game where you construct buildings, which then produce units, it will seem familiar. This allows for some themed forces and also for allied troops. You can have Elves and Goblins together if you like.
The alternating activations are another positive in my book.
For my own personal tastes, Oathmark suffers from the same issue I had with WFB. It wants to pretend it's a mass battle game, but the rules are just a large skirmish with models on square bases. I'm ok with using 20 guys to represent a company of 200, but that suspension of disbelief breaks down when you start calculating attacks and removing bodies on a one-by-one basis.
My own bugbears aside, Oathmark currently only has rules for 4(5) playable armies. Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Orcs & Goblins. (Technically you can split Orcs and Goblins into two different forces). There are options for trolls and ogres as support troops for your army, but until more books are released, it won't replace most of WFB's armies anytime soon. As I said at the start, Oathmark's own minis are great, but the release rate is very slow, so I'm not sure how quickly new armies will become available.
Finally, at first read through, the combat rules look a little math intensive. With play that will probably change, it's hard to get a feel without some dice rolling under fire to show you what's what.

Overall:
Did I say I liked the models? The game looks solid enough and the kingdom building gives the army structure a nice RPGish feel. You can make your own background to your kingdom and create an army that fits your story. I'm not overly fond of a regiment consisting of 3 guys and a trumpet, but I'm becoming kind of numb to the way fantasy/SF rules writers butcher military terminology.

Jye Nicolson wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:04 am

Great thread, Primarch. It's very interesting to hear your thoughts on these various games, I've heard of a few of them but great to see an analysis of the details.

Thanks. There are a lot of options on the market, so finding the best one isn't easy.


Warlords of Erehwon

WoE is produced by Warlord Games and was written by the Great Prophet of Fantasy Gaming himself, Rick Priestley. As far as game pedigrees go, they don't get much better than that.

System:
WoE's stand out point is it's use of Order Dice. If you've played Bolt Action or Gates of Antares (also by Warlord), you'll have an immediate idea if the game is for you. If you haven't, I guess a brief description is needed. At the start of each turn, each player puts an order die into a bag for each unit they control. During the turn, order dice are taken out if the bag at random. The player whose die gets pulled out can activate a unit. The die is placed next to the unit to show that it has activated and the order it performed. This system creates a lot of tactical choices. Do I activate unit A now and hope that I get the next order die, or do I activate unit B and move it out of charge range?
The game uses a d10 system for combat resolution, which seems reasonably straightforward. Roll to hit, then the enemy rolls to save. Units which are hit in melee or at a range acquire Pin markers. These make it harder to activate the unit and easier for the unit to break.

Size:
WoE has quite a granular approach to points values. You can upgrade units with different weapons and armour from a list. Units start at 3 for cavalry and 5 for infantry and cap at 5 and 10 respectively. The expected size is about 7-8 units including heros and , but some armies will be able to field hordes of poor quality troops if they choose. Most forces will probably be around the 50-60 minis mark on average.

Pros and Cons
I love the order dice system for activations, it beats IGoUGo hands down and is more fun than simply alternating activations. It also means that both players have to think a lot about what they are going to do and react when their opponent throws a spanner in the works.
The model count for the game seems reasonable and it is fairly model agnostic. The army lists provided cover a fair few of the more common fantasy tropes and a few historical options too.
The rules are written from the assumption that this game will be played casually between like-minded friends. As such, there are probably a variety of ways that lists and rules could be openly abused by more competitive players.
The army lists provided don't cover every option you might want, though I believe that there is an option to develop your own lists.

Overall:
I like what I see in the rulebook, but then again I'm a fan of Mr. Priestley's work in general. The level of player interaction and tactical decision-making seems to be at the level I prefer, though I acknowledge that some people would prefer a simpler approach. While not really a contender for massed battle games, I'd certainly consider this for a large skirmish game.

Primarch wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:10 am

Warlords of Erehwon

I can never, ever, forgive this name.

The Other Dave wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:13 am

Primarch wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:10 am

Warlords of Erehwon

I can never, ever, forgive this name.

Yeah, I agree on that point.