Medieval Asia Rule Sets??

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.

**David Hume**

Hello All!

Are there any rule sets for the Medieval Asia time period -- specifically, formation fighting like warhammer/warhammer historical, as well as the usage of gunpowder units.

**carlos13th**

I think hail Caesar, Warhammer historical and pike and shottle might have rules/mods for chinese and samurai armies at least.

On a smaller scale ronin has rules for Ming chinese, korean and samurai but it's only around 10-15 models a side.

You could also use kings of war to play large scale battles.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: think war and conquest has a samurai supplement too.

**BeAfraid**

Fields of Glory.

**frozenwastes**

Fields of Glory is more element based and isn't really in the same line of development as a ranked up fantasy game. People who like it seem to really like it, but I'd say it's not very warhammer/warhammer ancients like at all.

The style of warfare was actually very similar in many ways to the rennaissance in Europe. So you could just use any English Civil War rules you like and find units that match up. They wouldn't have the combined pike and shot formations though (with some of the retinue based Sengoku era Japanese forces being an exception, but the retinues are too small to truly be a pike & shot regiment). So if you like WAB:ECW that would probably just work with substituting things for the army lists.

**BeAfraid**

I wasn't aware that "formation fighting" was limited to individually based figures.

I have NEVER been able to figure out what the attraction to that is.

MB

**frozenwastes**

Obviously every mass battle games the soldiers represented are firing in some sort of "formation." The original poster just wanted a warhammer like ranked up game. I don't really like that approach, but it's what the OP asked for. War & Conquest, Warhammer Ancients. I'm sure there are a few others.

I prefer where each unit is on as few bases as possible for it to work in the game. Something like this:

But I'd cram on another 2-4 miniatures per base as I think the spacing is too wide.

Some people though, like individual figures with removal on a per figure basis.

I'm not a fan of how the empty movement trays look. I figure that if a battle looks like this sort of thing:

Then each of those blocks can be a single base (or maybe a group of 4 or so smaller bases to allow for formation changes) with figures on it and I can mark casualties either on a roster, a card in a plastic sleeve using a dry erase marker, or with little tokens textured to look like the ground but then with blood splatters and dropped weapons on them.

If the original poster ends up being tempted by an element based game without individual figures, then I'd recommend Basic Impetus. It's free and if you base for Fields of Glory you can get some Impetus games (just reduce measurements appropriately based on the frontage of each stand) in while your collection is smaller and then play other more involved games like FoG when you have enough bases finished.

PDF: http://www.dadiepiombo.it/images/stories/dp/bie08nov.pdf
Army lists: http://www.dadiepiombo.it/images/stories/dp/vol34e.html
Army lists for other periods (scroll down): http://www.dadiepiombo.it/images/stories/dp/basic2.html

Fields of Glory though, is definitely a more in depth, technical game. When the game clicks with people, they really like it.

http://www.fieldofglory.com/whatis

**David Hume**

Combined with your response (and another post regarding ECW rules) I agree with your point that individual models are not the way to go. Once I figure out what base size to use, I think what I'll (since I'm used to indiv model removal ala 40k) is perhaps leave a little space for a small nice to be place onto each base. That way, I can keep track of wounds (if the rules require).

Thank you very much for the rec of impetus! I've also come across a copy of Field of Glory, so I will be looking into that as well!

**carlos13th**

This is how I am doing my Samurai for Kings of War there is no casualty removal in that game but I also want to be able to use them for differently based games and for smaller skirmish games. So I went for Sabol trays.

**David Hume**

That's a great idea, a hybrid!

How much did those trays cost?

**carlos13th**

Not that much. About £1.80 each. The bases the models are on are British pennies so cost exactly 1p each.

http://war-bases.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=68_69&product_id=101

**frozenwastes**

If you can't easily get your hands on pence, they're about 20mm across, so you can get 20mm laser cut discs to fit in those (with .15 mm to spare around them).

Litko in the US makes similar products.

http://www.litko.net/products/Skirmish-Trays-for-20mm-Round-Bases-(All-Patterns).html

http://www.litko.net/categories/Movement-Trays/Rank-Trays/

Here's a little dice frame on a base of 10mm prussians:

I know Pendraken/Warbits makes them, but I'm not sure who else makes little laser cut dice frames to glue onto your base. It looks though like the dice will stay in them fairly well:

http://www.minibits.net/Hit-Marker-Dice-Frames-c22/7mm-Frames-sc62/

**Maniac_nmt**

I don't have a lot of experience with it, but Warmaster Ancients has lists for the Far East.

http://www.ricks-warmaster.com/ricks_lists.htm

**Kilkrazy**

Single figure removal is potentially a PITA and was to a significant extent abandoned as a mechanism in historical rules about 25 years ago.

That said, if you want to have multiple figure bases and use single figure removal, the way forwards is so-called "casualty hats" which allow you to mark single figures that are part of multiple figures bases as "dead" and then remove the whole base when needed.

**carlos13th**

For wound allocation I am using wooden dials. Stick a single dead or wounded model on them and paint it up then just out it next to the unit to show they are wounded.

**frozenwastes**

I don't think we can really say single figure removal for casaulties was abandoned 25 years ago when you consider the success of Warhammer historicals from the late nineties until GW intentionally killed off the line (they made 2nd edition direct only through Forge World when 90%+ of their 1st edition & supplement sales was through trade distribution). Until GW abandoned their huge ancients market share in 2010, you could argue single figure removal was a standard practice among many gamers. And even then it lives on in a few different games. I think War & Conquest and Clash of Empires both still have it.

I'm not a huge fan of casaulty caps or rings or hats. I think the less obtrustive markers on the table, the better.

Not the biggest fan of draping big white donuts on everything.

I like carlos13th's idea of dials. I did a search for examples and found this napoleonic picture:

My personal preference is for blood splatter and dropped weapons and equipment. Like these, but maybe with just the blood and a helmet or whatever.

Though these transparent ones are a cool idea:

http://anatolisgameroom.blogspot.ca/2011/08/bloodcasualty-tokens-tutorial.html

I think a roster isn't that hard to deal with and I enjoy filling in little dots with a dry erase marker. Though I can see wanting some sort of visual representation of it on the table.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

David Hume wrote:Thank you very much for the rec of impetus!

There's one rules module missing from the free basic version of the game. Light cavalry and skirmishers evading. Here's a simple evasion rule that fixes the issue:

http://impetus.ativiforum.com/t86-adding-evasion-to-basic-impetus

1ngram wrote: Adding Evasion to Basic Impetus

The major hole in Basic Impetus is Evasion. I'm fed up with the number of times a passerby at the club has snorted in derision as my Parthian light horse get caught by advancing enemy foot getting a back to back move, usually adding the comment, "in real life they would have scampered away easily" True! So we have added evasion rules to BI. Here they are:

1. Evasion is a move in Basic Impetus available to any friendly skirmisher or light horse unit when an enemy unit able to charge declares a charge move which would result in the skirmisher or light horse unit being contacted to the front. Charges to the rear or flank may not be evaded.

2. Such a friendly unit with an impetus value of its own may choose to evade or stand its ground. Any such unit with no impetus value must evade.

3. An evade move is a full move directly to the rear ending up facing the same way. If a friendly unit is interpenetrated then the evading unit may halt immediately behind the interpenetrated unit if it wishes or continue to make a full move. If the interpenetrating unit ends its move still interpenetrating it may be moved further to clear the friendly interpenetrated unit. If this interpenetrated unit itself subsequently evades then the previously interpenetrating unit may not evade a second time in this move.

4 If any evading unit is contacted at the end of its move it must fight.

5. Units declaring a charge which would contact a unit which can and does decide to evade may halt after a normal move if it would have contacted the evading unit within that distance if the evading unit had not evaded, or it may roll to extend its charge move. If it does so and does not make contact with an enemy unit it will end its move disordered. If it halted after a normal move it will not be disordered. If after either move it makes contact with an enemy unit it must fight it.