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.

Finally got hold of a copy of the Dragon Rampant rules and they're really impressive, if a little barebones in terms of the fantastical additions. One thing that is giving me pause though is the impression that shooting units, especially gunpowder units, are pretty ineffectual for a fantasy setting like Warhammer. I've only played a few mock games myself using counters so far(I have to learn the rules before I can convince others to play them, hah), but playing the recommended size warbands on the recommended sizes of table with anything close to what I consider a reasonable amount of terrain for a skirmish game left me feeling very underwhelmed by missile troops. They can be moderately effective at very short range, but not IME enough to prevent themselves from being charged and if even a reduced strength combat-focused hits them they just melt away. Additionally the suggested method of representing blackpowder weapons, ie drop from 18" to 12" range Heavy Missiles and save 1pt on the unit cost is extremely unsatisfying. I'm proposing a couple of houserules to "fix" these perceived issues, I'd welcome input from anyone with more experience of the system.

First, add a new optional upgrade to the Missile & Scout units; "Marksmen", +1pt - the unit may choose to make an aimed attack at up to twice their normal range, with half the normal number of dice.

Second, either add to or replace the existing "Weighty Projectiles" rule with the following; "Blackpowder", +1pt - range reduced to 12", Shooting attacks by this unit count the target enemy unit's Armour value as one lower than it normally is.

The first rule allows missile units to begin attempting to whittle down the enemy further away, but the half attack dice combined with the relative ease of finding cover at range should prevent the pendulum swinging too far the other way. The second gives blackpowder weapons an actual point; shorter base range in exchange for making it easier to damage the enemy.

The other thing that caught my eye are the randomly determined Leader traits - these are a personal bugbear of mine, I despise such mechanics, it either requires you to totally divorce yourself from the narrative aspect of the gameplay(ie, you do not have Dwarfy Dwarfnamesson, Thane of Dwarfhold the character you invented and modelled up, you just have a generic, nameless Dwarf Thane that amounts to a game piece) or to assume your character has multiple personality disorder to account for the fact they can be a great strategist in one battle, a braindead berzerker in the next, and a snivelling coward the one after. My first impulse was to take the same approach I do when GW try and force such mechanics into things; ignore the random rolling and any negative traits and just have players choose a single positive trait for their Leader, on the condition that choice is permanent(ie they don't get to change it unless everyone in the group consents, or we start a new campaign/session, or they "retire" the original leader and replace them with a new model and character on the same terms), but looking more closely it does seem some of the Traits are just flat-out better than others rather than just situationally better. That suggests they might need to have points assigned, which on the plus side means the negative traits could stay in with point reductions for the Leader unit, but would take a lot more effort and I'm not comfortable doing it until I understand the game better. Has anyone else experimented with changing up the Leader Traits system?

Typically, I don't even use the leader traits system at all.

I've found shooting to be pretty effective. Every time an opposing unit takes a casualty they need to take a rally test. If they fail they fall back 1/2 distance and and need to rally the next turn (which if they fail they lose a another strength point and fall back again 1/2 distance, repeating till they pass the rally test which gets harder every time they lose a SP). Even if the unit passes the rally test (in the rally phase) they can't do anything that turn. I've gotten lucky and put together a a nice string of shooting that really damages an opponent.

As for the random leader traits I agree that they don't make any sense in a campaign setting. I use them in one off games to add a bit of fun.

DR works best when you don't take it too seriously, and I've found the rules work more as a framework for a game which you can build on as you see fit.

You could try the Dragon Rampant optional Gonne rules:

http://duxrampant.yuku.com/topic/5/Handgonnes-gunpowder#.V34p_DcUXyE

Which should work since it's exactly the same game. Won't shoot often, won't hit often, but when it does it hits like a train and will scare hell out of the enemy.

Dragon Rampant itself has a (brief) set of campaign rules and a bunch of extra scenarios, along with more leader traits and boasts/quests. As it's essentially the same game it should be totally cross-compatible; you do indeed keep leader traits from game to game in the included campaign until your leader dies.

Hmm. I'll play a few more games then before deciding on shooting mods.

Graphite: The gonne rules don't really work, they're designed to represent crude medieval-style blackpowder weapons not the 16th/17th century-ish match, flint, & wheellock guns used by factions like the Empire.

Turns out there's actually a Pike & Shot variant of the Rampant system coming out in early 2017 though, so that problem should solve itself as I can just mash whatever system that uses into DR.

As for the traits through a campaign thing, it's not just keeping them the same that's a consideration though, I hate having to randomly determine them in the first place. I almost always start with the model or the fluff, and will certainly do both before I even go near the rules, so being able to choose stuff like Traits is necessary.

Not sure how different the rules in Pikeman's Lament will be - Pike and Shotte warfare seems to be very different from the medieval style fantasy of DR (and LR).

However, still likely to buy them and never get around to playing them. The kindle store is a dangerous thing...

There's also a version for colonial era games coming out, "The Men Who Would Be Kings" but I think that's after Pikeman's Lament.

 Graphite wrote:
Not sure how different the rules in Pikeman's Lament will be - Pike and Shotte warfare seems to be very different from the medieval style fantasy of DR (and LR).

However, still likely to buy them and never get around to playing them. The kindle store is a dangerous thing...

There's also a version for colonial era games coming out, "The Men Who Would Be Kings" but I think that's after Pikeman's Lament.

Other way round chief - TMWWBK is out September, PL comes January 2017.

I expect what I'll end up doing is using PL as the "base" version of the rules and then mash in anything useful from DR & LR, maybe with the unit-based "free activation" mechanic from TMWWBK if it's not in PL.

I'm hoping PL does up the complexity somewhat, the simplicity of the Rampant engine is great but I like to do lots of wee projects(I have an actually stupid number of Mordheim warbands) and I'm worried things will get a touch samey after the third or fourth unless some new options are forthcoming.