Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pre-emptive apologies if this has been discussed recently (I was thinking it may have been w/ all the WHFB trends, discussions, and news over the past couple years).

A couple buddies and I were talking about all of the new/recent games coming out now and in the past handful of years and the various genres in miniature wargaming/skirmish games and realized that the traditional high fantasy setting seems to not be very popular.

A lot of popular and new games that implement fantasy elements seem to be either fantasy-hybrid games (steampunk fantasy, horror dark fantasy, Asian mythology elements, etc) or just a unique take on the genre's themes, races, etc (Wrath of Kings comes to mind). Of course there are also the doomsayers predicting WHFB will "die" after 9E. And it appears that KoW is the only game that has a shot at replacing WHFB, if WHFB were to "die". I suppose there is also D&D: Attack Wing for a fantasy fleet game. Spartan Games tried a high fantasy naval game w/ Uncharted Seas, and now they've stop supporting it, in favor of their sci-fi and steampunk naval/fleet games.

Anyway, I guess my questions are does the traditional high fantasy setting - magic, elves, dwarfs, orcs, trolls, dragons, undead, etc - still have a big seat at the table for the wargaming scene? Or do you see the future being almost exclusively sci-fi and fantasy-hybrid settings and high fantasy becomes even more niche than it currently is? Do you think the genre's livelihood relies solely on WHFB 9E and KoW? Perhaps trends have been set already to determine those games' chances of reaching a wide audience? I think a lot of people infer that the younger gamers prefer sci-fi and often balk at the high fantasy setting, right?

I'm fairly new to miniature gaming (5 years), so I'm unfamiliar of the hobby's historical trends. I'm fairly young for the hobby I think (30), and the high fantasy setting is my favorite, so part of me wonders if in 5~10 years, the only accessible communities will be for sci-fi and fantasy-hybrid games.

Thanks for any input and discussion!

To be fair, Warhammer Fantasy wasn't pure high fantasy anyway. It had GW's own slant with things like horror (Vampire Counts, Dark Elves), steampunk (Dwarves, Skaven) and their all encompassing Chaos forces.

 -Loki- wrote:
To be fair, Warhammer Fantasy wasn't pure high fantasy anyway. It had GW's own slant with things like horror (Vampire Counts, Dark Elves), steampunk (Dwarves, Skaven) and their all encompassing Chaos forces.

while fair points, I think it's still reasonable to call WHFB high fantasy. Its grimdark flavor is fairly negligible, imo, since it's still very true to essentially all other high fantasy elements. If anything, I'd say Lizardmen and Skaven as a race are bigger deviations than vampires, slightly advanced tech, and corrupted races.

There's a huge amount of high fantasy out there, so there's no reason to think it's going away.

It's generally just so generic and interchangeable that you likely won't see anyone get huge off of it.

In general, I do love a good High Fantasy setting; while fairly generic, there is still a certain magic (pun definitely intended) about Knights going off to slay dragons or wizards scheming in high towers, or mighty armies clashing under flowing banners and with gleaming blades that will never go away.

Is it still around in wargaming? I think so, especially now we're in an age where rules, background and minis often come from different places. There are suitable models by the dozen and no shortage of generic rulesets in various scales/styles that fit the theme, so if one is willing to take that and expand on it then High Fantasy gaming can certainly go on.

Whether it remains as prevalent as it was when D&D and WFB started out is a more pertinent question, and I think the New WFB, whatever it ends up being, might be a good test of that. If it's a new style, steam punk techno-fantasy then the flagship High Fantasy setting is gone, but on the other hand, it could just as easily go back to it's high Fantasy roots, and mark something of a revival of the genre (as so many producers do follow GW in style and theme).

We shall see.

I don't think there is really much call for Traditional High Fantasy in tabletop gaming

Two huge armies draw up on opposite sides of the field of battle then.... the evil wizard king casts a fell magic and kills 99% of the good guys forces

The small band of heroes then hack and slash (& magic) their way through the evil forces until the confront the wizard king who is slain. The remains of the evil army runs away

Basically its GW Herohammer (5th edition WFB)

what people want is pseudo high fantasy, with all the background and stories it carries with it, but when you get to the table they want low fantasy, where magic only has a limited role, and a unit of swordsmen, or archers can make a significant contribution to the battle, where tactics and unit choices have a real effect

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I don't think there is really much call for Traditional High Fantasy in tabletop gaming

Two huge armies draw up on opposite sides of the field of battle then.... the evil wizard king casts a fell magic and kills 99% of the good guys forces

The small band of heroes then hack and slash (& magic) their way through the evil forces until the confront the wizard king who is slain. The remains of the evil army runs away

Basically its GW Herohammer (5th edition WFB)

what people want is pseudo high fantasy, with all the background and stories it carries with it, but when you get to the table they want low fantasy, where magic only has a limited role, and a unit of swordsmen, or archers can make a significant contribution to the battle, where tactics and unit choices have a real effect

Hmm, good point. I guess I still see that as a part of High Fantasy, though.

That said, I would absolutely love a ruleset that allowed you to take a band of heroes and have them slash their way through hordes of baddies. LotR can kind of do this with all-hero armies, but more options are always good.

Songs of blades and heroes and it's supplements are a fantastic, skirmish level game with traditional fantasy races. Well worth checking out (made by Ganesha Games)

I don't think that High Fantasy necessarily leads solely herohammer, any more than Modern Warfare leads solely to nuclear strikes.

"High Fantasy" is very vaguely defined, and what we think of as High Fantasy is more linked to modern games than to to the literature its based on, most notably the big three of D&D, Warcraft, and Warhammer. All three share big tropes:
1) magic is weaponized, scarce but frequently present, and has built in weaknesses
2) Despite the complexity of the world, there is a clear good/evil (or order/Chaos) line that unites the races on either side. This means that no matter how much dwarfs and elves hate each other, they team up to fight the dragons/necromancer/hordes of chaos
3) Magical weapons and accoutrements are common for heroes
4) Races have strong moral alignments, which even when subverted tend to be along predictable lines. Elves are good, until they aren't, and then they are Dark Elves.
5) Technology varies wildly based ont he culture, but pivots around the late Middle Ages. Plate mail is common, gunpowder is floating around, but ancient weapons like javelins and slings are still effective.

it's a common shared world that's actually pretty awesome to game in, because it allows for a wide diversity of cultures, styles of fighting, etc. It'd be a shame to lose it completely, but in many ways the highly generic aspect makes it difficulty to stand out or to market unique miniatures for it. I mean, how do you make any money doing a generic high fantasy skirmish game knowing that you'll be competing with Reaper's back catalogue?

Back around 3rd-4th edition WFB was low fantasy, and then it made the transition to high fantasy in 5th. I dropped the game when 6th came out. Nothing wrong with the background, generic and forgettable as it is (although the RPG was awesome back in the day), but the game itself is not something I'd want to spend anymore time on. I'm not sure if that's a reaction to my experiences, or what, because I had originally planned to go with Warhammer Ancients, but then thought it was the basic Warhammer game of blocks I didn't like. Still haven't picked up any other fantasy games, so maybe it's the genre. Anyhow, my two cents.

I believe there are enough games in the fantasy genre to cover all game sizes and fantasy players needs for it to stay around.


I have found that Armies Of Arcana, and Kings Of War massed battle games have replaced WHFB in lots of clubs.(Especially sInce 8th ed WHFB arrived.)
And there are loads of great skirmish rule sets , and dungeon crawler /RPGs to keep that end of the genre well supplied.

The future is looking bright for lots of gamers and games companies.(Just not that good for GW plc with its current business plans.)

I think GW crippled themselves since 5th (this I think was the rules with elves vs goblins with cardboard grom the paunch )

While people make that say the rules got better in some ways GW has forgotten what fantasy was about, they still have.

People can argue that it's better. Ill give you the figures are that's it.

Herohammer was nice fun and quick . Yeah hand of dust could obliterate your opponent easy But you had a really crumbling army if you're general got it.

GW is not the big dog it was and needs to stop acting like it.

I think that there will always be a place for High Fantasy.

What exactly that is defined as is a different story.

A great deal of the problem is that many Gamers have been spoon fed a specific narrative and game-mechanic that limits a great deal of the possibilities, and explorations of the genre.

Currently, there has been a significant move toward skirmish styled games (which WHFB, and Kings of War technically are, given the base assumptions in the games). We see this in Games like SAGA, where Dark Age warfare is reduced to small Viking Raids of a Single or a Couple of Longship crews fighting against the inhabitants of a small settlement. Or the new Conan game, which is largely small groups of Hyborians against other small groups of Hyborians.

In the past few years, there has been little that accurately portrays large scale warfare in High Fantasy Settings, which uses very different assumptions than a skirmish game. There are significant differences in the roles of individuals in a game that focuses upon unit behavior, and a game that focuses upon the roles of individuals.

Much of this looks to be the result of people's desires to see Heroic Actions sway events on the tabletop; where a single hero can save the day.

And there is the difficulty of integrating Magic into these settings.

In Hyboria, in particular, there were/are magicians who can lay waste to entire armies. These are strategic weapons, and not tactical tabletop weapons, which is what most players seem to want to make out of their magicians.

Yet a tactical Magician just turns what should be ancient or medieval warfare into modern, mechanized combat, as a small number of tactical magicians (let us say "20") is pretty much no different than a modern day Platoon of mechanized Soldiers. Both have what you might call "Ammunition" limitations, but both perform essentially the same role.

And a platoon of mechanized soldiers would be the ruin of most ancient or medieval armies. Thus a contradiction arises in the High Fantasy games.

This is probably why we are seeing such a rise in the Steampunk genre, where Magicians are essentially on par with the more advanced weapons available (firearms).

All of the Why's and such are very interesting to explore.

But they do not really get at whether a High Fantasy Setting would be as viable today as it would have been in 1979/80 - 1990.

Look at Ral Partha's Chaos Wars Kickstarter.

It is a line of High Fantasy miniatures, and rules based upon those miniatures, which re-introduces Mass Combat in a High Fantasy setting. And there seems to be a sizable support for it.

This is relevant, because, one thing I have noticed is that almost ANY game will be a success if it is supported at conventions with an attractive table full of miniatures, and if those miniatures are easily available to the public.

This has basically been why GW succeeded so well where many other miniature and game companies have failed. Mantic Games has adopted the same model, with almost equal success.

Putting out rules and attractive miniatures that players see used.

Such a thing requires a substantial investment to get demonstration games put on at as many major Conventions as possible, but when players see table after table, at subsequent conventions, of beautiful miniatures, then they become attracted to the application (the game used) of those miniatures.

High Fantasy will be with us, and hopefully with the return of Ral Partha's Tom Meier centered lines (their most popular lines ever), and with other market players (companies) hoping to piggy-back upon similar lines, I think we will see a rise of High Fantasy games in the future.

MB

Lanrak wrote:
I have found that Armies Of Arcana...

yeah, heard of that one before. Forgot to look into it...

 JamesY wrote:
Songs of blades and heroes and it's supplements are a fantastic, skirmish level game with traditional fantasy races. Well worth checking out (made by Ganesha Games)

Lanrak wrote:
And there are loads of great skirmish rule sets , and dungeon crawler /RPGs to keep that end of the genre well supplied.

I've always been curious about the rulesets that don't come w/ models. Again, being relatively new to the hobby, I've always stuck to rulesets that had first-party models. Only until the past couple years or so was I exposed to all of the manufacturers that make minis not attached to any game system and of all the publishers that make game systems w/o models. Like a perfect marriage!

Hordes Of The Things is a classic example of an ancient/mediaeval mass battle wargame ruleset adapted for use in fantast/high fantasy settings. It will even cope with steampunk and pulp settings such as John Carter's Mars.

It works by a fair bit of abstraction. For example, a Hero unit is a single character who has the fighting capability of a whole platoon of normal troops. Therefore on the table, you don't bother to role the Hero's 97 attacks and defences against an infantry platoon. You just roll once.

The original rule system is the very well regarded De Bellis Antiquitatis.

The HOTT rulebook contains example armies for loads of fantasy settings as well as rules for making up your own.

I think there is still room for a good ruleset based around 'traditional' fantasy. It just faces the same issues as any game these days - finding that winning combination of setting, rules and models that enough people find appealing.

There already ARE existing rules sets for Fantasy that provide these things.

They are just not typically looked at by the general gaming population due to the conservative nature of most gamers with regards to rules.

For Fantasy, as has already been pointed out, we can begin with HotT (Hoards of the Things), which is based off of DBA (De Bellis Antiquitatus).

Yes, it is largely abstract, which turns off many players who wish detailed narratives written up for every action and spell in a game, when the effects of that action or spell in the game about to such limited and constrained effects (producing a -1/-2/-3/etc. on the next die roll, or to morale, or to move, etc...).

Then one step above HotT there is DBF (De Bellis Fantasticatus), which is based upon another WRG publication, intended for more detailed play and larger numbers of miniatures on the table, DBMM (De Bellis Magister Millitum). It includes all of the base troops in DBA/HotT, yet includes "Grades" to those troops:

• Superior (S)
• Ordinary (O)
• Inferior (I)
• Fast (F)
• Exception (X)

It also includes a very basic morale system (sort of).

And, then doing up the ladder from there is Hoplon and its French rip-off L'Art de le Guerre. The former I am more familiar with, as one of the playtesters for the historical rules, and as the author of the fantasy supplement(s).

It includes all of the troop types from DBMM/HotT, and it increases the level of detail (decreasing abstraction, so the game is LESS ABSTRACTED) by making "grade" SOLELY "Morale" (Superior (S), Ordinary (O), & Inferior (I)), and then including other qualities or what the original author called "Distinctives" (the Fantasy Version calls them "Characteristics and Qualities"), which describe the amount of armor worn (Extra-Heavy (Hx), Heavy (H), normal (no symbol is used), and Vulnerable (V)), being Faster than normal (F), being Professional or Untrained Troops (Pro or U).

In addition it describes the troops role: solely Melee "Shock," or solely shooting "Missile" troops, or if they are dual-role (double-armed) and primarily shock (shock/missile) or primarily shooting (missile/shock). And if the troops have any additional behavior or equipment (such as additional special weapons, such as Cavalry Lances, Heavy Weapons such as big maces or pole arms, what type of missile-weapons, being able to perform maneuvers such as the Parthian or Skythian Shot, or fighting in wedge, shield wall; spears able to attack in depth on the run like Hoplites; or infantry able to fight like Roman Legionaires swapping ranks to avoid morale reduction).

Oh! And the game uses units, unlike DBMM/HotT/DBA, which tends to be more realistic. And the game has variable quality generals and stratagems.

BUT... Because it is not put out in a glossy, slickly produced format, gamers tend to avoid it. Or, because it doesn't have a big name behind it, gamers tend to avoid it (often buying a complete rip-off of the game instead, simply because it is better produced). Or, because there is not a miniatures line dedicated specifically to it, gamers tend to avoid it.

MB

Astonishingly the various WRG games (DBA, HoTT, etc.) are written by some of the biggest names in wargaming, only from the historical side which is often a closed book to people who started through GW games.

I have tried DBA and really really couldn't get into it. I have played dark ages games with lotr rules which works really well, and I never thought I'd play Napoleonic games until drums and shakos, which is another great ganesha game. I don't mind historical games, but prefer fantasy.

Herzlos wrote:There's a huge amount of high fantasy out there, so there's no reason to think it's going away.

It's generally just so generic and interchangeable that you likely won't see anyone get huge off of it.

Kilkrazy wrote:Astonishingly the various WRG games (DBA, HoTT, etc.) are written by some of the biggest names in wargaming, only from the historical side which is often a closed book to people who started through GW games.

This. I think the question's being asked in terms of complete-package, 'big blockbuster' (relatively speaking) games, in the style of GW and KS.

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
I have found that Armies Of Arcana...

yeah, heard of that one before. Forgot to look into it...

I've always been curious about the rulesets that don't come w/ models. Again, being relatively new to the hobby, I've always stuck to rulesets that had first-party models. Only until the past couple years or so was I exposed to all of the manufacturers that make minis not attached to any game system and of all the publishers that make game systems w/o models. Like a perfect marriage!

Well then.

And that's only a smattering of fantasy mass battle systems that're receptive of any or most fantasy minis you have lying around. The choice only grows when you consider other game scales, genres, periods...

If you're interested in seeing what projects people have on the go, for obscure and not-so-obscure rule sets, I'd recommend a slow browse of the Lead Adventure Forum.

I think it's still reasonable to call WHFB high fantasy. Its grimdark flavor is fairly negligible,

I don't think many folks will agree with you When you compare WHFB to other high fantasy settings (tolkien, Greyhawk, etc) It's pretty clear that WHFB is packed with Grimdark. Skaven, their interpretation of chaos, skulls on everything, their interpretation of undead, etc, etc.

I do agree that it's still under the banner of high-fantasy, but it's a high fantasy sandwich loaded with grimdarky condiments.

Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
I've always been curious about the rulesets that don't come w/ models. Again, being relatively new to the hobby, I've always stuck to rulesets that had first-party models. Only until the past couple years or so was I exposed to all of the manufacturers that make minis not attached to any game system and of all the publishers that make game systems w/o models. Like a perfect marriage!

Rules without models existed long before the all-in-one systems and they are still alive and kicking, just not in the same numbers or with the same visibility as other systems. These systems do require you to do more work gathering interested players and choosing your minis, but there are at least several thousand currently-produced (not to mention the hordes of available oop optins) fantasy miniatures that do not have a dedicated ruleset (or used to have a ruleset and don't anymore) that playing alternate rulesets makes it easier to take advantage of this.

-Song of Blades and Heroes is an excellent choice. Our club plays it alot and has had a summer campaign for the past 4 years.
-Hott, as mentioned still has quite a following among old-school gamers.
-Armies of Arcana has held on for quite some time under it's new'ish owners
-Lion Rampant (Historical, Medieval) platoon size game was so popular that the makers are bringing out a "Dragon Rampant" fantasy version soon.
-and many more...

As for all-in-one packages...
-The upcomng "Frostgrave" has a very Mordhiem look and may be a great option for those looking for a game that you can use with your own minis or the "official" minis from Northstar. They're even releasing a plastic kit like the old Mordheim minis.
-Reaper's "Warlord" has a great selection of minis and a reasonable high-fantasy'ish feel
-Kings of War carries the banner well
-LoTR is still alive in some form

All this to say, there will always be games (likely several) carrying the high-fantasy banner.

 Eilif wrote:
It's pretty clear that WHFB is packed with Grimdark.

I guess my question would be whether Grimdark is it's own genre. I have never really heard anything besides the Warhammers referred to as "Grimdark" but maybe I don't get out much. When there are massive magical events that shake the foundations of the (old) world and daemons, and rat-things are cheap as chips I'd consider it high fantasy.

As far a High Fantasy miniature games go I recommend that anybody take a look at DGS Game's Freeblades system. It's a pretty awesome game, not to mention the models be incredibly nice and well priced. They are also coming out with an RPG and Mass Battle game all set in the world of Faelon.

That's just one example though, there are tons of options once you look away from GW.

Grimdark isn't really a genre itself. It's a term that get's used for describing a the relentlessly grim nature of narrative game settings (usually GW) and the abundance of skulls, death iconography and general "darkness" in the artistic depictions (art, minis, etc) of those settings.

Usually if something outside GW is called "grimdark" it would be by someone making a negative comparison to GW.

"Grimdark" is more of a term based on what's absent than what is included.

Most fantasy, including soft sci-fi like Star Wars, includes postive, wondrous elements to their worlds in addition to the dark stuff. Sauron is even more terriying because of how idyllic the shire is or how beautiful Lothlorien is. The harry potter universe and Narnia are almost saccharin at times, when not dark and terrifying. Star Trek is, or was, fairly utopian. These are worlds were love and friendship exist, where there is beauty and awe, and where even if good doesn't always triumph, it's implied that evil is the exception, not the rule.

Grimdark has none of that. It's a relentlessly and brutally dark environment, almost to the point of self satire. Don't get me wrong, a little darkness is a good thing. But GrimDark is something completely other.

 Polonius wrote:
Grimdark has none of that. It's a relentlessly and brutally dark environment, almost to the point of self satire. Don't get me wrong, a little darkness is a good thing. But GrimDark is something completely other.

GW's Grimdark really was a satire when it started. It was only taken seriously when the "old guard" of authors and designers moved on.

 theHandofGork wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Grimdark has none of that. It's a relentlessly and brutally dark environment, almost to the point of self satire. Don't get me wrong, a little darkness is a good thing. But GrimDark is something completely other.

GW's Grimdark really was a satire when it started. It was only taken seriously when the "old guard" of authors and designers moved on.

I'm not sure it was completely satire, more of pastiche. There was an element of parody to it, but it was good hearted.

The late 80s were around the time when pop culture got dark. Bronze Age comics got dark with Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, and Sandman. Superhero movies got dark. Star Wars gave way to the Aliens franchise and Blade Runner. so there was probably a bit of a culture backlash in their setting. But.. kind of like Spinal Tap, while it's silly to just "turn it up to 11," it was also really well done and done with love.

Either way, 2nd edition did usher in more of a pure grimdark, compared to Rogue Trader which had more of a fading glory, used universe feel. The tagline even changed. Rogue trader's tagline was "In the nightmare future of the 41st millennium there is no time for peace. No respite, no forgiveness. There is only war." Nightmare became Grim Darkness in 2nd edition.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Astonishingly the various WRG games (DBA, HoTT, etc.) are written by some of the biggest names in wargaming, only from the historical side which is often a closed book to people who started through GW games.

r

Which is a tragedy.

I BEGAN playing Fantasy Miniatures by using WRG's 3000BC - 1400AD Ancients and Medieval Rules, 5th Ed. in 1979.

I had to fight like a rabid dog against the "king" of the fantasy miniatures gaming crowd in Dallas Texas at the time (a guy by the name of Gordon Griffith, who was an excellent organizer of Conventions - he began the Gaming Convention scene in Texas, pretty much), who refused to consider that Fantasy Miniatures were essentially Ancients and Medieval miniatures with a few additional rules for heroic actions and for magic.

I managed to only get a couple of people involved.

And when Warhammer came out, I could not even get people to play it for a long time.

But, since then, I have discovered how to get people to play games:

Miniatures. Well painted miniatures. And prizes or "gifts" for people who try out the game.

I am determined to get the current rules we are working on (a variant of HotT and DBMM, which re-introduces finer details of moral and organization into the rules, by lifting some of the better parts of Warmaster, and the older WRG games, such as unit organization) to be promoted well enough to see them adopted.

We have made them such that existing Warhammer Armies can easily be used, and older Ancients and Medieval Armies (based for DBMM, or other Ancients rules) can be used (we put a basic 20mm frontage per figure, but use elements as the basis for casualties, so there will be some upwards variation of figure frontage from there). It uses "elements" as the basing standard, and an "element" has an 80mm frontage, to accommodate the traditional WRG element basing standards (4 figures for all Heavy Infantry and Regular Medium Infantry, or for Extra Heavy Cataphract Cavalry/Mounted; 3 figures for Irregular Medium Infantry or Loose Order Heavy Infantry, and for all "normal" Cavalry; and two figures per element for Light Troops of all kinds, foot or mounted) while still using the larger typical 28mm/30mm figures one finds today.

And the rules require very few special rules to accommodate for heroes or magicians. All of the effects of these tend to be accounted for in already existing rules, save for the very rare or very powerful.

One thing I am trying to change is the tendency toward individually mounted figures for mass combat.

People CLAIM they do this so that they can use their mass combat figures individually for RPG's or skirmish gaming, but I have seen VERY FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY do this; only seeing a few exceptions to the rule in scattered cases here and there.

ALSO, with the figures I am sculpting, I am trying to get skirmish gaming moved to a larger scale than even 30mm (either 40mm or the 58mm that are common among some SAGA players).

The larger scale for Skirmish just looks better and draws in players better.

Ultimately, I am trying to play on basic psychology, where players tend to be drawn toward things that look like what they expect, where Mass Combat looks like mass combat, and a Skrimish Game looks like a skirmish game; the former giving a God's Eye View, and the letter drawing you into the Tabletop itself.

High Fantasy still has a bright future, and historical rules sets are a part of that future. It will just take the proper investment in teaching gamers the distinctions and similarities between the two.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
I have tried DBA and really really couldn't get into it. I have played dark ages games with lotr rules which works really well, and I never thought I'd play Napoleonic games until drums and shakos, which is another great ganesha game. I don't mind historical games, but prefer fantasy.

This is not surprising.

DBA itself is a game that is trying to be too many things at once. The same thing with HotT (The Fantasy Variant, named Hoards of the Things).

MOST fantasy players I have found wish for more detail in their games than are present in DBA/HotT.

The basic mechanisms for DBA/HotT are sound, but the author of the basic system is a HUGE SNOB AND STUCK-UP ELITIST, who is a patronizing git when it comes to Fantasy games (or even to Historical).

The games are intended to simulate Mass Combat, but with only 12 elements (playing pieces), most people tend to prefer something with a little more flavor to it. And it really takes a convention setting with a campaign game to really understand what DBA/HotT are intended for.

As for LotR being an excellent Dark Ages game. . . It would be, wouldn't it, since this is essentially what other Dark Ages Skirmish games have done (SAGA, and Dux Brittanorum).

But there is still a gap in a Historical Game that is Mass Combat, that uses the mechanisms of HotT/DBA, yet includes the level of detail (less abstraction) that DBA/HotT discard. A game where players put not just 30 - 48 figures on the table (48 figures is the maximum number of figures in a DBA game) in 12 elements. But, rather. . . . .

They put 60 - 300 elements on the table, representing 150 - 600 figures (my largest army currently being built for a Middle-earth setting is 680 figures total, mostly Moria Goblins, but also with some Mordor Orcs, and Warg-Riders. And it is based upon 280 elements - most of my Hyboria Armies will have about 300 figures in them).

The current trend seems to be toward Skirmish, given that the Mass Combat games have failed so badly (War of the Rings being one example - it is a horrible game, when compared to Warmaster, even), and that the Fantasy Rules writers have known so very little about Historical Warfare in general (when Warmaster Historical came out, I had to communicate to Rick Preistly areas where various troop types did interact and support each other through history, eventually leading to three new rules for troop support. The only one I still recall is Psiloi/Light Infantry being able to support Cavalry as the Ancient Spanish Caetrati did, or the Ancient Greeks did).

Hopefully, we will begin to see more attention given to mass combat rules that more accurately portray the period combat, while giving voice to fantasy elements within them.

MB



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 theHandofGork wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Grimdark has none of that. It's a relentlessly and brutally dark environment, almost to the point of self satire. Don't get me wrong, a little darkness is a good thing. But GrimDark is something completely other.

GW's Grimdark really was a satire when it started. It was only taken seriously when the "old guard" of authors and designers moved on.

I'm not sure it was completely satire, more of pastiche. There was an element of parody to it, but it was good hearted.

The late 80s were around the time when pop culture got dark. Bronze Age comics got dark with Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, and Sandman. Superhero movies got dark. Star Wars gave way to the Aliens franchise and Blade Runner. so there was probably a bit of a culture backlash in their setting. But.. kind of like Spinal Tap, while it's silly to just "turn it up to 11," it was also really well done and done with love.

Either way, 2nd edition did usher in more of a pure grimdark, compared to Rogue Trader which had more of a fading glory, used universe feel. The tagline even changed. Rogue trader's tagline was "In the nightmare future of the 41st millennium there is no time for peace. No respite, no forgiveness. There is only war." Nightmare became Grim Darkness in 2nd edition.

The Authors of the original 40K were influenced by (and employed) the writers at 2000AD, where comic strips like Torquemada the God, or Nemesis the Warlock, which had a VERY DEEP CONNECTION to the then rising Goth and older Punk Scenes informed 40K's design aesthetic (there are even issues of 2000AD, which had episodes of Torquemada or Nemesis done using people from the Local London Goth Scene - I had friends who were in that issue).

Look at the original Eldar. Their design aesthetic was taken straight from King's Road Punk and Goth.

MB

The first thing, I think, is to agree on what's "high fantasy". Lord of the Rings is probably what defined it for a large number of people (although there are other important sources - the King Arthur legends, for example, and some other classics I've no doubt forgotten; the mythology that runs through A Midsummer Night's Dream, for one). Magic isn't usually an overtly powerful offensive force; Gandalf didn't incinerate entire battalions of Orcs at Minas Tirith, for example.

In that vein, it's perfectly possible to have your army in massed blocks, with a scattering of trolls, giants, dragons, monsters and mighty-thewed heroes without having them scythed off the battlefield by artillery companies of mages and warlocks. It's all about tailoring the world to produce the outcome you want.

You'd need to do a bit of work with the ranges and distances, but Warmaster is an excellent game, and could be scaled to 28mm miniatures easily, Simply choose an appropriate size for element bases, and scale from that. Since units consist of three elements, the number of miniatures is irrelevant (although the original game used 2 ranks of 6 men for infantry and two ranks of two for cavalry), so you can have a horde of goblins, shining ranks of elven spears or a wedge of brettonian cavalry. I think Warmaster Ancients added some tweaks (putting light cavalry facing the long edge of the base like infantry, for example), and the army listy book has quite a variety, so that might be worth picking up for inspiration.

I own a copy of War of the Ring but I've never played it, so I don't know if the core rules are sound.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The first thing, I think, is to agree on what's "high fantasy".

I used to think it was heroes in shining armour, while low fantasy was dung-eating grimdark, and the like. Then it turned out the actual definitions were that high fantasy is set on another, magical world; while low fantasy is this world with added fantasy elements. Wikipedia (the font of all knowledge ) goes a bit more in-depth - apparently Middle Earth is different enough to count as high fantasy, despite being built as an English mythology for this world. I wonder where that leaves Hyboria amd the like.

I own a copy of War of the Ring but I've never played it, so I don't know if the core rules are sound.

Ditto; though I have to say the way they managed to turn whole companies into unique-rule special characters put me right off anyway. It looked like GW were going par for the course. Oh well, it's not like it's the only fantasy battle gsme in town.

I was giong off the TVTropes definition:
"High Fantasy usually focuses on the epic struggle between absolute good and absolute evil, and the characters are thrust in the midst. Low Fantasy portrays the struggle of characters to achieve their own personal goals, ranging from questionable to decidedly unsavory.
Heroic Fantasy sits somewhere in between. It tends to be distinguishable from High Fantasy by its scale — the problems are generally those of the heroes, not the world. Kingdoms and societies are portrayed mainly to the extent the heroes have an impact on them. On the other hand, it's distinct from Low Fantasy as well in that the heroes are actually heroic and their goals are morally sound or, at the very least, not overtly objectionable."

Basically, Lord of the Rings = High Fantasy, D&D = Heroic Fantasy. Warhammer appears to deliberately written to be High, Low or Heroic, all at once (although its roots are in High Fantasy, I think).

As with all literary discussion, it's open to interpretation - or just plain arguing.