Switch Theme:

Outremer: Faith&Blood - What I think  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ru
Death-Dealing Devastator





Never thought about doing reviews before, but after playing three games (two in a campaign and one stand-alone) of this system and encouraged by recent "What makes a good wargame?" thread I felt sudden urge to share my thoughts on this one. I was actually planning on doing full interconnected story-driven campaign consisting of 5+ scenarios fought between Templar and Saracen warbands, but in second encounter Christian force was almost completely wiped out and we decided to end it there. Still, it was very interesting to play something both similar and dissimilar to my previous experiences.

Spoiler:


Going forward: me and my opponent are leaning towards positive opinion on the game, but are not sure we will play it again in near future, primarily because nobody in the vicinity seems to be interested in this setting.
Outremer: Faith&Blood is a small-scale (with 13 miniatures per side as strict upper limit) skirmish ruleset published by Osprey in 2018. The game is barely talked about online and with author's blog now occupied by invaded spambots seems to be pretty much dead in all regards. It didn't end up as lucky as Lion Rampant, but I still think it has enough neat ideas to warrant a playthrough if you're like the scale and time period.

Spoiler:


The game, as its name implies, is centered around warfare in Holy Land and represents multiple factions of Crusaders and Saracens fighting each other in tight streets and desert wilderness. Both players control small ragtag groups of militia, peasants and mercenaries led by nobility and men of faith. Roster building is quite flexible and allows you to field many different archetypes, ranging from angry revolting mob of commoners or group of pilgrims guarded by Knights Templar and ending with local feudal and his retinue on a quest of installing order in the countryside (they all have to include at least one high-class officer though).

Spoiler:


Game's basic mechanics are pretty similar to Mordheim and other classic pre-mass-gunpowder era skirmishers, both fantasy and historical, and will not surprise anybody with mild experience in wargaming: you can walk, run, charge, shoot (with cover, range and target size modifying chances of success), climb, jump, use additional equipment and probably fall into panic and run away in the end. Where it gets unusual is in its use of different types of dice reflecting varied levels of skill and experience of your troops, ranging from D4 to D12 (experience and injury tables can also sometimes use D20). I feel like they did good job with showing some troops' dominance over others in their field of mastery without it feeling too arbitrary, like "always gets -2 when shooting". For example, lowly peasants fight with D4 and will most likely be easily smashed by knight's D10 attack value in face-to-face roll-off, but they are also much better with ranged weaponry (D6) and can, given enough numbers, slingshot said knight to death. While it's nothing new and is used in some other systems (Force on Force, Donnybrook), I really like how author implemented it here and how different circumstances can modify it. The game, I think, also managed to strike nice balance between shooting and melee: while coming under massed bombardment in the open field is deadly, proper use of cover can allow you to largely negate incoming missiles and eventually strike opponents down in close combat.

Spoiler:


To summarize my opinion, I'll start with the positives.


[+] Regardless of one's opinion on simplicity, these rules are quick to learn, quick to set up and quick to play. Interactions are simple and intuitive, model count is low, actions rarely require precision with positioning. We've managed to clock standard 750 pts game, running full 8 turns, in barely over an hour, and 500 pts game - in mere 30 minutes.


[+] As stated before, I think that Outremer's utilization of varied dice mechanic is great, both in how it's used to pass tests and how supplementary rules can drastically change the outcome if you execute your moves carefully. It allows modifiers to impact your results to different degrees for different warriors, makes high skilled fighters really scary in direct confrontation and still leaves enough place for lighter troops to come on top by, for example, ganging up on single enemy or attacking them from the rear (surrounded models degrade their defensive value by one degree, and overconfident elite can fall easy prey to nimble skirmishers; backstabbing also greatly diminishes your mail-clad dreadnought's chances of survival). I really like how levels of dice proficiency are used in weaponry: for example, maces and axes are one degree better in pure damage output against armoured targets in comparison to swords but also inflict negative accuracy penalties on the bearer. It helps with different weapons to really feel different without multitude of special rules.


[+] The game is centered around doing campaigns with multiple participants over long periods of time, and it shows. Campaign system is nothing to write home about, but it's still pretty good. It closely resembles PC game Mount&Blade in how your troops gradually progress through experience trees, learning new skills and switching from one profession to another, coming all the way from fresh village recruit to heavily armed sergeant. Rookies open new career paths as they gain levels, and at some point will get access to various skill tables, which helps you in customizing your personal retinue (and there a lot of skills in various specialties to spice things up). There are even non-combat activities like crafting and trading - not really in-depth, but a nice addition nonetheless.

Spoiler:


Negatives.


[-] My biggest gripe with these rules is the activation system. It's completely random and there is nothing you can do to effect it in some manner. Before the game starts, each model is assigned a specific card from one of two (or more, if you're playing with 3+ people) suits to distinguish between opposing forces. These cards are then shuffled together at the beginning of each round and are drawn at random. Whenever model's card is drawn, this warrior can activate, then the right to go is passed to next random model. That's it. I like randomness in my games, but it feels too restrictive and reactionary: regardless of what you do, you have no idea when will your models fight and in which order, thus planning ahead is very hard. You have to act with each soldier independently and hope for the best, since there is no guarantee that your guards won't sleep through your archers getting stomped and wake up when it's too late. Somewhat controllable random turn sequence like Mortal Gods (you don't know which unit type will be allowed to activate next, but you are free to assign action to any model of this unit type currently on the table), betting mechanic of Blood&Plunder (you don't know in what order your opponents will move their forces, but you can predict it and either bide your time and get more activations later or try to go first but simultaneously receive fewer action points) or strict order chain of Conquest (you plan your entire turn ahead in linear succession from one unit to another) are all much better at being both engaging and allowing your large degree of tactical freedom.


[-] I get that author tried to push "Faith" aspect by making morale tests and connected buffs/debuffs as frequent as possible, but it sometimes looks way too arbitrary and unnatural. It's way overblown in some situations and strangely doesn't exist in others. If a warrior is hit by an arrow and survives it, they have good chance at running away and cowering in fear in distant cover. It happens way too often, and models constantly run away - run back - run away again, which looks silly, especially since their allies not currently under fire are completely unaffected by their comrades' shaky morale. While necessity to pass courage checks in order to charge ominous warriors is very thematic, I find it strange that only multiple-wounded models are affected by panic in close combat: single-wounded rabble will always fight to the death, feeling no desire to run away from three knights with two-handed swords descending upon them.


[-] Admittedly, Faith&Blood feels a little too light in some areas. I have a feeling it is 20 odd pages from being elevated from "fine" to "really good", which makes some field interactions a bit stiff. For example, there is no way to voluntarily leave melee (unless you get one specific skill which hilariously allows you to freely run away without your opponents being able to pursue), and getting stuck in close combat for several rounds is pretty odd for overall very fast and mobile game environment.


[-] These rules are also NOT tightly written and look like they really lacked thorough proofreading. There are typos, wonky RAW, unexplained rule interactions, and overall lack of commentary. Can knockback from an arrow throw you over the roof and make you fall? If charge is not necessarily a straight line, can you run clockwise around your opponent and backstab them? A character who used two move actions in a row is considered to be Running, but there is no indication what this status means exactly, unless it's simple "for your information". I think a lot of it can be blamed on strict size limitations, but a con is a con.

Spoiler:


Neutral commentary - not something I have strong decisive opinion about, but still worth mentioning.


- Rules are supposed to be played on 4'x4' board. I personally deem it to be way too big, considering heavily armoured infantrymen can have staggering 3" move characteristic or even lower. Ranged weapons are also very short-ranged in comparison to other games (only the best master-crafted bows are able to shoot past 20"). Of course, there are fewer open gaps on the table, but honestly I'm not sure we need huge open fields in melee-focused game averaging 5-7 miniatures per side. The only way it clashes with the rules directly is that it makes running off the table way too easy, especially for mounted models, but, as I've already stated, I consider morale chapter to be rather poorly thought-out.


- You do need a lot of terrain, the more the better. Personally, it's a plus for me, but I can imagine it can be pretty hard to find suitable landscape for relatively exotic setting.


- Factions are distinct enough to allow different playstyles, but are nothing to write home about. Crusaders and military orders are expectedly great at aggressive melee and receive buffs to their heavy cavalry. Saracens are faster, more defensive in nature and are better shooters. Selection pool of only three is admittedly tiny, but, sadly, both Byzantine Empire and Assassins are relegated to single-entry mercenary units and can't be deployed on their own, which is dissappointing.


- These rules are very deadly and I have a feeling it could be toned down a bit. Other skirmish games usually dance around idea of losing your experienced fighters a bit, while Faith&Blood plays it completely straight. In Mordheim, your enemy actively tries to get rid of as many of your models as possible, and it's very likely you will suffer great casualties in every battle, but chances of your hero to suddenly turn out dead or become captive are relatively slim and you have to be really unlucky to lose it all after first few games. In Zona Alfa, on the contrary, it's very easy to die for good, but it's almost never a good idea to actually try and finish off your opponent completely - you have enough loot to collect and aggressive wildlife on your tail to attend to more pressing matters first. In Outremer, killing or capturing your enemy is both easy to do on the battlefield and has immediate long-term effect. Once you cut off and knock down substational part of the enemy force, they are yours for the taking and can essentially cripple your opponent for the remainder of the campaign.


- Considering its very thorough campaign system, having only six scenarios (all of which are nearly identical to any other vanilla scenario in any other skirmish game) is very limited selection. Not good, not bad, but you will clearly need home-made ones in the long run.

Spoiler:



Overall I think that the game has its fair share of dubious design decisions, but I generally liked it, it was fun and had some good ideas. I can only hope to find similar wargames with less uneven execution.

Spoiler:

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/05 20:03:34


 
   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut



Cheyenne WY

Thanks! I feel like I have a "handle" on how this rule set works.

The will of the hive is always the same: HUNGER 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I am glad you adopted the Good, Bad, and Meh approach to writing reviews.

I though a bit more of the Campaign system then you did, but also found the morale rules puzzling. I also enjoyed the dice shifting. I actually found the game to have very little tactical depth overall, partly because once you are stuck in, you are stuck in!

Here is my take:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2018/07/review-outremer-faith-and-blood-osprey.html



Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in ru
Death-Dealing Devastator





 Easy E wrote:

II actually found the game to have very little tactical depth overall, partly because once you are stuck in, you are stuck in!


I probably formed that opinion because both of our warband variants were very shooting-heavy, and melee was usually quick, decisive and done with 1-2 flanking units while the rest run around and try to snipe each other. Otherwise - yes, I also thought that relegating retreat out of melee to a single random skill was stupid idea.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/07 19:48:38


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I have a feeling this idea is a legacy of GW skirmish rule designs that have stuck with us for longer than desired because "That is how it has always been done".

Mord, Necro, Gorka back in the day were always "locked in Melee" style of mechanics.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in ru
Death-Dealing Devastator





Over the years I've come to conclusion that skirmish melee should be fast and bloody, preferrably without long, drawn-out dice roll face-offs, and there is a decisive lack of "mobile", jump in and out of combat style games on the market.
   
 
Forum Index » Historical Miniature Games: Pre-WW1
Go to: