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.

I've always wanted to play LOTR and WOTR, but I've usually spent my money on other games (40k, WFB, Warmachine). Recently however I've been on a very strong Tolkein kick (even bought the WOTR rulebook just because it looked nice and man I really like these rules, much more than any edition of WFB) and I find myself wanting to model and paint and play with GW's LOTR range. Is it too late? Most of the local stores seem to have next to no stock and ordering from GW direct is pretty killer for Canadians. I also haven't heard much about people playing either WOTR or the Strategy Battle games, are you guys still seeing local players and support?

I know of one or two people in Houston who actually play GW's Middle-earth themed games (and even they have been finding them more of a hassle recently, with the availability of games like SAGA, which do a better job of skirmishing, and other, actual mass-combat rules that are not just a kludge).

And I know I think four people in LA who play it.

I do not know whether this is a good or bad thing, as I love Middle-earth, but loath GW's and Peter Jackson's treatment of it.

As far as getting the models... eBay is your best bet. Buying from GW should be a last resort, as you will pay about 5X what you will pay on eBay.

MB

I have been tempted to reskin Saga as a fantasy game because it looks incredibly fun, but I haven't been able to find anyone interested in giving a 'historical' game a chance. They seem to think they are all scenario based without any real competitive element.

I have found there to be a HUGE prejudice from both ends of the Historical-Fantasy divide, mostly intentionally driven by the biases of the rules authors on each side of that divide.

There are a few games designed by authors known primarily for contributing to one side or the other which cross that divide, but in all of the cases I have found so far (which is by no means exhaustive), few games produced actually manage to bridge that divide.

And there are further issues that have to do with the respective biases on each side.

They effectively boil down to Games Workshop (GW) versus Wargames Research Group (WRG), and the design philosophies of each.

GW tends to have this design philosophy of "It's just a game. So no need to bother with particulars."

WRG has a design philosophy of "It isn't "just" a game. It is a game that is about something and therefore the particulars are more important than the mechanisms."

We see some movement away from this divide, but with the bias strongly toward the former than the latter. SAGA and Hail Caesar are examples. They move slightly toward the latter from the former, but remain noticeably more in the camp of the former.

Fortunately, the players I have tended to play with are Historical Players with a deep interest in Middle-earth, and thus they have tended toward the application of Historical Rules to Fantasy. This produces a more complex game, and experience, but can be frustrating to people who come from a background in the "It's just a game" philosophy. They find that their actions are much more constrained than their imaginations, and chafe under those restrictions (often because they have never had the opportunity to understand the origin of the restrictions).

MB

Zatsuku wrote:
I've always wanted to play LOTR and WOTR, but I've usually spent my money on other games (40k, WFB, Warmachine). Recently however I've been on a very strong Tolkein kick (even bought the WOTR rulebook just because it looked nice and man I really like these rules, much more than any edition of WFB) and I find myself wanting to model and paint and play with GW's LOTR range. Is it too late? Most of the local stores seem to have next to no stock and ordering from GW direct is pretty killer for Canadians.

I'm not sure shops can even order LOTR/Hobbit stuff anymore (direct order only)? In any case, I'd pick up what you can locally, and then you are stuck either direct order from GW or third party from eBay. Right now most of the line can still be obtained from one or the other, but GW is slowly letting stuff go OOP and as time passes LOTR/Hobbit products on eBay are going to get more expensive and harder to find.

Also, if your interest is in WOTR the GW movement trays are OOP but you can buy laser-cut plywood replacements from Litko Game Accessories.

I also haven't heard much about people playing either WOTR or the Strategy Battle games, are you guys still seeing local players and support?

Generally, I find that all it takes is someone who is willing to push the game to get a local group started. Paint up a couple of opposing forces and bring them into your FLGS and offer to teach people. Find another interested person and just start playing at the shop. Set up a league or tournament. GW isn't going to kick start local interest for you, you need to do it yourself.

Zatsuku wrote:
They seem to think they are all scenario based without any real competitive element.

Tell them to check out the Great Britian Hobbit League channel on YouTube. They have an active tournament scene going on there, using points-matching and the "warband" rules.

I would echo that sentiment.

In the 1980s, I managed to find players instantly for any game I wished to play by just setting up the miniatures.

I did tend to have miniatures that were a little more attractive than typical for that period, which helped.

But, overall, if you bring a painted force to a game shop, and set up a sign "Looking for players" it will not be too terribly long before you find new players.

I am hoping over the coming years we can see Middle-earth themed gaming gain some prominence, even in the face of a company owning the IP who seems to not give a damn about it.

MB

The license expires next year. Its sadly to late, because unless GW is even stupider then I thought, they wont renew a deal that loses them money. they handled what could have been a bestseller like morons and its to late to fix.

I should look into who might want the License, and if I can get Mithril or Tom Meier interested in buying it.

It would mean different miniatures, which no longer were tied into the movies.

But I tend to think of that as a good thing.

And with attractive enough miniatures, I am sure others would come around to an appreciation of a more accurate Middle-earth.

MB

GW just fully abandoned their formerly second-biggest game, WHFB...thus LotR certainly won't be in for a long time either.

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW just fully abandoned their formerly second-biggest game, WHFB...thus LotR certainly won't be in for a long time either.

Im hoping for the reverse. I hope to see the player base start picking up lotr or returning to it since fantasy has kinda died..........

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW just fully abandoned their formerly second-biggest game, WHFB...thus LotR certainly won't be in for a long time either.

The only difference is that being a licenced product line, I think GW has a contractural obligation to continue selling LOTR/Hobbit products. Even if true, this will only last as long as their licence does and I have heard it ends at either the end of this year or end of next year. After that, LOTR/Hobbit as an active product line will be truly dead.

 namiel wrote:
Im hoping for the reverse. I hope to see the player base start picking up lotr or returning to it since fantasy has kinda died..........

If this were to happen, it would be up to the LOTR/Hobbit community to push the game back into popularity. GW obviously has no interest in supporting it any further.

 mdauben wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW just fully abandoned their formerly second-biggest game, WHFB...thus LotR certainly won't be in for a long time either.

The only difference is that being a licenced product line, I think GW has a contractural obligation to continue selling LOTR/Hobbit products. Even if true, this will only last as long as their licence does and I have heard it ends at either the end of this year or end of next year. After that, LOTR/Hobbit as an active product line will be truly dead.

 namiel wrote:
Im hoping for the reverse. I hope to see the player base start picking up lotr or returning to it since fantasy has kinda died..........

If this were to happen, it would be up to the LOTR/Hobbit community to push the game back into popularity. GW obviously has no interest in supporting it any further.

GW renewed their license for LOTR last year, some say for 10 years but I heard from a gw rep for 3 more years its been renewed so im thinking gw hasn't abandoned it yet since they would have dropped it last year

 namiel wrote:
GW renewed their license for LOTR last year, some say for 10 years but I heard from a gw rep for 3 more years its been renewed so im thinking gw hasn't abandoned it yet since they would have dropped it last year

That would be welcome news. At least it would give me a little more time to finish my collection before the whole line is discontinued.

I really wish they would take this opportunity to fill in some of the gaps in the Hobbit line (ex. Dain (mtd & ft), Iron Hills Pikemen, Goat Cavalry, Warriors of Erebor w/Bows, anything else I missed). Sadly, I have no expectations of seeing any more new releases for The Hobbit.

When I see "Goat Cavalry" and "The Hobbit" together...

It makes me cringe.

It reminds me of something people said in the thread in the Discussions forum about the Age of Sigmar destroying Warhammer.

Which was funny, because that is EXACTLY what I said about Peter Jackson's treatment of "The Hobbit."

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
When I see "Goat Cavalry" and "The Hobbit" together...

From a purist point of view I can understand that. Jackson made a lot of changes from the books. Some of them were I think justified by the trasition from book to movie, others...

Still, from a purely gaming persective, the dwarf forces from The Hobbit are terribly limited. We have the heavily infantry "Grim Hammers" and the light infantry "Warriors of Erebor". Of course we have a colorful collection of characters, but only a couple of them are really useful in-game. Not much to build a playable force around, even for someone who prefers scenario play like me.

The Laketown list suffers from somewhat the same problem. Too limited. The Hobbit Orcs are not bad, but I think the Mirkwood Elves are probably the best purely Hobbit army to come out of the game.

@mdauben: if you dig through this forum a bit you'll find a BotFA supplement that a few of us made a while back, which has hugely expanded Dwarf, Laketown and Gundabad lists, as well as a bunch of scenarios. Might be worth looking at if you want more options than the GW stuff gives.

Legolas doing an Anime avalanche run up the collapsing stones was one of the MANY things in the movies that made me want to wretch.

And. . . I disagree that ANY changes needed to be made for transition from book to movie.

One of the best examples I have seen of a terrifically complex book moving to a movie successfully with a minimum of changes was Cloud Atlas.

There were plenty of changes made, but only two or three were changes that could be described as "egregious" (and they were made due to the ages of the actors and the desire of the filmmakers to use the same set of actors for all of the sequences, to show the thread of fate running through the stories - as it made explicit by the Orison of Somni~451).

I am almost as big a fan of Cloud Atlas as I am of Tolkien's work.

And a few of the changes to the book in the movie bother me deeply (on the level of Elves showing up at Helm's deep, or their freaking single-edged, curved - "crooked" - swords).

But, like the original trilogy, I can largely stomach most of the changes.

I can ignore them, or set them aside.

Yet this is not the case for The Hobbit.

As soon as Azog is shown to have survived Azanulbizar, it just went further and further off the rails in ways that were just not just not necessary, but egregiously unnecessary.

And then the movie just got Stoopid (Stoopid is a completely different thing from your basic "stupid/stupidity.").

If I did not have to watch it for academic and production reasons, I would have never seen the second two installments of the series.

Cloud Atlas. . . Cloud Atlas should have become a Trilogy. The Wachowskis and Tom Twyker both said as much in interviews, and stated their desire to remain as purist as possible in their production.

It is a pity they could not make Cloud Atlas as a trilogy, completely unchanged from the book, simply to rub in every other producer's and director's face (and anyone in the public) who says that they "had" to change things for the movie.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:When I see "Goat Cavalry" and "The Hobbit" together...

Gonna be honest, I've thought of halflings on sheep cavalry in a semi-serious way; but halflings, not Hobbits. The dwarves on - what, 5-6' tall goats? - thing is far more Azeroth than Middle-Earth.

mdauben wrote:Still, from a purely gaming persective, the dwarf forces from The Hobbit are terribly limited. We have the heavily infantry "Grim Hammers" and the light infantry "Warriors of Erebor". Of course we have a colorful collection of characters, but only a couple of them are really useful in-game. Not much to build a playable force around, even for someone who prefers scenario play like me.

You should see some wargame army lists for the dark ages that M-E culture is based on. My Warhammer Shieldwall saxons could take one unit of heavy infantry, slightly less heavy infantry, light infantry, and skirmishers. There was a cavalry option too, but that was a bit nerfed to reflect how unused saxons were to that kind of thing. Saxon formed infantry were the only units in the game to benefit from the shieldwall rule, though. That was nice...
Still, I can understand that's still not going to help much with just two unit types. GW just dropped the ball on that. Any way to include some of the LotR dwarf units in The Hobbit games?

Where in Canada are you, Zatsuku? I'm in the Toronto area and have all the relevant rules and enough models to lend you and 5 friends all an army. If you wanted to get started, let me know

 Vermis wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:When I see "Goat Cavalry" and "The Hobbit" together...

Gonna be honest, I've thought of halflings on sheep cavalry in a semi-serious way; but halflings, not Hobbits. The dwarves on - what, 5-6' tall goats? - thing is far more Azeroth than Middle-Earth.

mdauben wrote:Still, from a purely gaming persective, the dwarf forces from The Hobbit are terribly limited. We have the heavily infantry "Grim Hammers" and the light infantry "Warriors of Erebor". Of course we have a colorful collection of characters, but only a couple of them are really useful in-game. Not much to build a playable force around, even for someone who prefers scenario play like me.

You should see some wargame army lists for the dark ages that M-E culture is based on. My Warhammer Shieldwall saxons could take one unit of heavy infantry, slightly less heavy infantry, light infantry, and skirmishers. There was a cavalry option too, but that was a bit nerfed to reflect how unused saxons were to that kind of thing. Saxon formed infantry were the only units in the game to benefit from the shieldwall rule, though. That was nice...
Still, I can understand that's still not going to help much with just two unit types. GW just dropped the ball on that. Any way to include some of the LotR dwarf units in The Hobbit games?

Technically the Dwarves should have armies that were similar to Saxons, or more appropriately Vikings, than having all sorts of different types of troops.

They would be a formed body of Infantry, primarily spears, behind a shield-wall. with Archers in a supporting role behind the Spear-dwarves.

No Mounted of any kind.

And, a small group of Archers as Scouts/Skirmishers on the flanks of the main body.

At least for the Longbeards (Durin's Folk). The Firebeards and Broadbeams, and the other four Houses would probably have different sorts of armies, but it is not likely that any would be on giant goats (although one cannot rule it out for one of the unnamed houses, since Dwarves on Goats are a legitimate Nordic trope).

There is actually more variation than you might imagine, though, for most of the armies of Middle-earth, if one were to remain more purist.

Even with Durin's Folk, there would be a Bodyguard Unit, and a few units of Houseceorls (armed with or without 2-handed axed and hammers/mattocks).

For each Age, there seems to be a theme about the groups/populations Tolkien was thinking of when he created the different peoples.

And, for most of the peoples, in any age, there would not be a huge variation in the types of warriors present in an army, being that most of the peoples tend to reflect germanic origins, or associations with Germanic, Anglo, Saxon, or Nordic peoples.

Even the Easterlings (of both the First and Third Ages) are connected to Nordic Peoples. In the First Age, they were a collection of Vikings and Jomsvikings (The people of Ulfang the Treacherous being Jomsvikings, and the people of Bors being regular Vikings - or most similar to them).

In the Third Age, the Easterlings are associated with Slavs, Huns, Rus, and Mongols.

And the Free Peoples have similar associations to Gauls & Ancient Germans (For the Dark Men and Hill-Tribes of the Second and Early Third Ages); Franks, Saxons, Anglos, Goths, and Byzantines (for the Númenóreans/Men of Westernesse, and their allies); and the armies of Islam and Africa for the Haradrim/Far-Haradrim.

Of course, there are not direct mappings, but the linguistic connections and Tolkien's sparse commentary make it clear that he was thinking of various groups traditionally aligned or hostile to Christendom when creating the different peoples of Middle-earth.

I, personally, do not see why people need to have so many specialized units for Middle-earth. It smacks of Warhammerisms.

MB

 Lord Corellia wrote:
Where in Canada are you, Zatsuku? I'm in the Toronto area and have all the relevant rules and enough models to lend you and 5 friends all an army. If you wanted to get started, let me know

If only, alas I live on the other side of the continent. Thank you for the incredibly generous offer though.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
The license expires next year. Its sadly to late, because unless GW is even stupider then I thought, they wont renew a deal that loses them money. they handled what could have been a bestseller like morons and its to late to fix.

Didn't they recently extend that licence? I presume it was done in order to keep the licence out of others' hands.

 Paradigm wrote:
@mdauben: if you dig through this forum a bit you'll find a BotFA supplement that a few of us made a while back, which has hugely expanded Dwarf, Laketown and Gundabad lists, as well as a bunch of scenarios. Might be worth looking at if you want more options than the GW stuff gives.

Thanks, Paradigm! Time to start digging...

 Vermis wrote:
You should see some wargame army lists for the dark ages that M-E culture is based on. My Warhammer Shieldwall saxons could take one unit of heavy infantry, slightly less heavy infantry, light infantry, and skirmishers. There was a cavalry option too, but that was a bit nerfed to reflect how unused saxons were to that kind of thing. Saxon formed infantry were the only units in the game to benefit from the shieldwall rule, though. That was nice...

Sounds interesting. What game was this for? I've seen some really nice looking dark ages figures from several companies recently and been sorely tempted to do something with them.

 Vermis wrote:
Still, I can understand that's still not going to help much with just two unit types. GW just dropped the ball on that. Any way to include some of the LotR dwarf units in The Hobbit games?

They're not bad troop types, either, and they can work in some scenarios. Just not as flexible in others (or in open gaming) compared to some of the other "army lists". You can "ally" LOTR dwarf units with Hobbit dwarf units, but each "warband" must be lead by a hero from their list. So, I could include a dozen Dwarf Rangers from the Durin's list, but I would need to take one of the heros from that list to lead them. Not really a big handicap, but it does kind of dilute the list if you are trying to put together a themed force.

 mdauben wrote:

Sounds interesting. What game was this for? I've seen some really nice looking dark ages figures from several companies recently and been sorely tempted to do something with them.

Warhammer Ancient Battles, second edition (originally based on WFB 5th ed rules) with the 1st ed Shieldwall expansion/supplement book dealing with early medieval/'dark ages' western europe. Vikings, saxons, normans, picts, scots, irish and so on. (1st ed supplement 'cos WAB 2 didn't last too long before GW whacked it on the head with a shovel. Specialist Games,
LotR/The Hobbit, WFB, WAB... at least GW has no problem with the concept of 'murder your darlings'...)

They're not bad troop types, either, and they can work in some scenarios. Just not as flexible in others (or in open gaming) compared to some of the other "army lists". You can "ally" LOTR dwarf units with Hobbit dwarf units, but each "warband" must be lead by a hero from their list. So, I could include a dozen Dwarf Rangers from the Durin's list, but I would need to take one of the heros from that list to lead them. Not really a big handicap, but it does kind of dilute the list if you are trying to put together a themed force.

I see what you mean.

To be honest I still think two unit types is a bit too little, and this still might not help you too much, but I get what BeAfraid is saying. When you start finding out how some real armies organised and fought, the sheer number of units and roles in some Warhammer armies begins to boggle the mind (that's not counting the monsters) I didn't pare it down like that earlier (might've been in danger of looking like I knew what I was talking about) but all those dark age races did basically boil down to minor variations of heavy and light infantry, with a few exceptions. In fact, GW did thaf with M-E dwarves before, in the 10mm Warmaster variant Battle of Five Armies. Plastic dwarf axemen in the box set, metal dwarf archers in the limited blister releases afterwards.
I'm not too sure how they do it in the LotR /Hobbit rules, but with Shieldwall they managed to introduce a bit of variety with universal or army-specific rules, representing historical fact or urban legend, affecting how they play. The saxons, as mentioned, were the only army to have the 'shieldwall' rule, which turned the formed, shield-weilding units into bunkers. Housecarls were the 0-1 bodyguard unit with two-handed dane axes ('great' axes), and thegns (thanes, the select fyrd, the 'nobles', not too far behind in capability) could split units to lead and lend leadership stats to units of ceorls. (churls, the great fyrd, the light, poorly trained infantry)
It sounded like a neat trick, but to be honest I came to it when I was fed up with WFB and wanted to try something else, and it ended up cementing my dislike of Warhammer altogether! Gripping Beast's plastic saxons too. Try pulling thegns out of the back of their ranks, in the middle of the whole unit, pushing the ceorls up into the gaps, and ranking them all back into places afterwards, all with 'dynamic' GB spears pointing every which way, usually into the guy in front. Hail Caesar had the same thegns-leading-ceorls arrangement (it'd almost have to, really) but presented the morale boost in a different way. The unit counts as thegns until it takes enough hits to be 'shaken', then counts as ceorls. More abstract, not as gritty, but IMO much more elegant and lacking in fuss.

Point being (yes, there was a point), if one ruleset doesn't give you what you want, it might be an idea to look at another that does. That same group I joined, on the run from WFB, were also at the point of abandoning WAB for English Civil War games, and switched to Pike & Shotte. It'll be more difficult with trademarked, copyrighted fantasy settings compared to historical periods, where anyone can write up a set specifically about vikings or roundheads, and I rarely hear anything but good things about GW's LoTR/Hobbit rules, so I can understand how it'd be difficult to give that up; but there are other skirmish rules out there, and it's my opinion that a certain amount of genericness gives you more of a certain kind of freedom, to include what models or roles you like.
For small battles, a similar size to LotR rules, there's God of Battles: a chunky book and a bit reliant on Foundry minis, but interestingly tactical and includes a dwarf list with more than two things on it. (Heck, it even includes a giant bear) Personally, I'm pinning a lot of hopes on Dragon Rampant, an upcoming fantasy version of Dan Mersey's medieval retinue Lion Rampant rules. They are quite generic, perhaps off-putting to some (HtH infantry choices are 'men at arms', 'sergeants', 'yeomen', and 'serfs', with limited options, and you choose which of your minis best suits the description and stats) but it's proving popular and the fantasy sneak-peeks allow more customisation of forces.

As for dark age games: as you might guess I'd choose Hail Caesar over WAB, but whatever floats your boat. There's also Saga, Gripping Beast's own game. Skirmish, so no problems trying to rank spears! Although I'm not too sure about it, because the battleboards mechanic with some off-table effects seems a bit 'gamey', even like 'magic spells' that have little to do with the minis on the table. But it's still hugely popular, so give it a look. Then there's Dux Bellorum, another compact Osprey rulebook by Dan Mersey. Deals with the slightly earlier romano-british period, but also usable for early medieval, thanks again to relatively generic units and archetypes. It has something of a DBX feel, if that means anything. Unit bases, small-medium armies, fairly abstracted.
In fact, two birds, one stone. Have a browse here, sometime. (Already has discussions about using Lion Rampant for LotR)

BTW.

In terms of figures to use for the various factions of Middle-earth, Gripping Beast makes some figures that would perfectly match the First Age Easterlings.

Tolkien used several names for Easterlings that I have since identified in Norse Sources.

These names are Ulfang, Brodda, and Bór.

And appear in the Jomskikingsaga.

Ulfang and Brodda are both Jomsvikings who switch sides after agreeing to fight for an English King, and Bór is a Danish Viking who remains faithful to the English King who has hired him, giving his life to allow the English King to escape.

Let's compare that to what happened at the Nírnaith Arnoediad:

Ulfang and Bór lead two faction of "Easterlings" to Beleriand, where they agree to fight for the Noldor (Maedhros) and Edain against Morgoth.

Ulfang's people have actually been bought off by Morgoth and turn traitor against the Edain.

Bór's people have been paid off by Morgoth, but they realize that Morgoth never intends to uphold his end of the deal. In return for being tempted, they defend the retreating forces of Maedhros, giving their lives in atonement for their sin of being tempted by Morgoth.

Ulfang, in turn, is killed, but his people are given Hithlum, where Brodda, one of his nephews, rules.


SO. . . Where am I going with this?

Well... Easy. Gripping Beast just released a set of Jomsvikings that are PERFECT for Easterlings (and the more I think about it, the more I think they will be useful for Later Easterlings as well - as I hope everyone knows how much I dislike Peter Jackson's treatment of Middle-earth).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OH!

As for rules.

Saga makes for an EXCELLENT Skirmish game, to rival that of LotR/Hobbit (which have to be the BEST GAMES that GW makes - pity the miniatures do not live up to the game).

For mass combat, I recommend staying away from the individually based games.

I know a LOT of players who say they prefer individually based Mass Combat games because then they can use their figures for both Skirmish and Mass Combat.

I call BS on this, as it does not cost much to have a skirmish force on top of what will be required for a decent sized mass combat army (200 - 400 figures - most of my Middle-earth armies are around 300 - 400 figures - and they are based on element bases, which is two to four figures per 80mm x 30mm or 80mm x 40mm base, depending upon the troop type). If one is going to need 200 figures for an Army, then buying an additional one or two dozen for skirmish gaming does not make up a very large percentage of the larger mass.

As for rules for Mass Combat, rules that focus upon the Dark Ages are a good idea.

I would avoid WAB like the plague, though.

And, more than just the Saxons used the Shieldwall (Saxons, Goths when they dismounted, Danes, Norse, Russ, Anglos, some Franks, some Normans, etc....).

I am doing Middle-earth explicit lists that can use either the GW miniatures, or that can field armies that are closer to what Tolkien intended.

This does mean many armies will be more uniform than you find in WHFB.

But this restriction/constraint forces players to learn how to play with forces where they cannot cherry-pick and mini-max their way out of every situation.

And, ultimately, it should produce a more intimate experience with Middle-earth, where you are working with something closer to what the creator of the world envisioned for that world.

The Lists are intended for a DBx Variant that seems to be well known enough to have other rules writers steal liberally from it.

But it remains the best set of Ancients and Medieval (including Dark Ages) Rules that I have run across.

And adding options for Fantasy play has been so incredibly easy given the already existing mechanisms in the rules allow for such easy variation with the already existing troop types.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
Well... Easy. Gripping Beast just released a set of Jomsvikings

Those are nice looking figures. There seem to be a lot of good dark ages figures coming out recently. Really makes me want to pick some up.

Saga makes for an EXCELLENT Skirmish game, to rival that of LotR/Hobbit (which have to be the BEST GAMES that GW makes - pity the miniatures do not live up to the game).

I have been hearing nothing but good things about Saga. I'm not looking to replace the SBG rules, but I may just have to pick up Saga and a couple of warbands to give it a try. As far as the GW miniatures, I actually think most of them are really excellent (taken on their own) but I'll be the first to agree that visually they don't look anything like they should in the books.

For mass combat, I recommend staying away from the individually based games.

I like the scale (both in terms of game size and miniature size) of the SBG rules. They are a good match. For anything much bigger I really prefer to go to a smaller scale miniatures (10-15mm). These of course don't use individually based miniatures which is a good thing. I have a copy of GW's Battle of Five Armies box set (the one with the 6mm plastic troops), but I've never played it so I'm not sure how well the rules work and I never got any of the now OOP extra troops. I really liked GW's old Warmaster and Warmaster Ancients rules for real mass battles and I'm sure there are other good options these days.

I would avoid WAB like the plague, though.

I personally agree. I was never that in love with the original WFB rules that I felt the need to play them for historical games, too. There are too many better choices.

The Lists are intended for a DBx Variant that seems to be well known enough to have other rules writers steal liberally from it.

Hmmm... I've played a fair amount of DBM and toyed with DBA and DBR but honestly I never really warmed to that system. I've still got three or four armies painted and based for DBM but its been years since I played a game. It is unarguably the most widely known and played system for ancient and medieval wargaming, though.

I have a feeling I've been preaching to the choir! Or the archbishop...

BeAfraid wrote:I know a LOT of players who say they prefer individually based Mass Combat games because then they can use their figures for both Skirmish and Mass Combat.

I call BS on this, as it does not cost much to have a skirmish force on top of what will be required for a decent sized mass combat army (200 - 400 figures - most of my Middle-earth armies are around 300 - 400 figures - and they are based on element bases, which is two to four figures per 80mm x 30mm or 80mm x 40mm base, depending upon the troop type). If one is going to need 200 figures for an Army, then buying an additional one or two dozen for skirmish gaming does not make up a very large percentage of the larger mass.

I've been thinking about this myself, for a while. I've got a couple of mass battle games and skirmish games that I'd like to try out, and it'd be handy to use the same minis for them. But as I hinted above I'm right off the idea of individually-based mass battles too, and I like the whole concept of 'mini diorama' bases. (seen some excellent ones for Impetus) Movement trays or sabot bases wouldn't be a happy medium for me.
Toyed with the idea of a wacky, complicated magnetised mini scheme to switch between bases, but I'm coming round to the idea of separate skirmish forces. I think it depends on what size skirmish, though - a frustratingly vague term at times. Lion Rampant is for 40-60 models but can go higher, for example. Still a significant numbers of minis to buy, build and paint, IMO. But I figure there are a couple of opposing reasons.
- It could be difficult to scrape enough of certain minis just for large skirmishes, let alone mass battles. Different as they might be from the original writings, I think GW's LotR dwarves are some of the best 28mm examples out there, and I'd like some of them for my own LotR gaming. Trouble is, on ebay the metal dwarves often go for hefty prices, and the plastics are almost nonexistant. Same thing when I look for certain WFB minis, despite AoS apparently causing all these GW fans to dump their armies.
I cut most of my GW purchases years ago, but I think I'm being slowly pushed back up to paying those prices because I want them enough. 'Course, having interesting small games to put 'em in helps too, and there's little knowing when the ranges for either system might become unavailable.
- Like MDauben, I'm starting to think smaller scales are the 'right' sizes for mass battles. It's been helped by the opportunity to have the same 40K/WFB forces in Epic and Warmaster, seeing the effect on the tabletop, and finding how much better those two games play than the 28mm versions. Not that 6-10mm games are inherently better! But GW's attempts at recreating those game scales in 28mm haven't been impressive. I also remember one particularly big 28mm ECW game, with the more streamlined Pike & Shotte, that also turned out a little too unweildy for my likes.
- I need to be a bit less cheap.

mdauben wrote:I have a copy of GW's Battle of Five Armies box set (the one with the 6mm plastic troops), but I've never played it so I'm not sure how well the rules work and I never got any of the now OOP extra troops. I really liked GW's old Warmaster and Warmaster Ancients rules for real mass battles and I'm sure there are other good options these days.

10mm. As far as I could see the rules were pretty much like Warmaster Ancients.

For other good fantasy battle options, I'd point at Mayhem by Bombshell Games. It's got a few leadership, action point, counter and support mechanics similar to Warmaster and HoTT, but it is it's own game too. Action point costs multiply according to how many actions a single unit takes per turn, and stats are based on polydice. (larger dice better for rolling distance, smaller dice better for opposed combat and defence rolls. Gamble the roll or take the default half-die value) Rules for creating units with a variety of stats, equipment, abilities and counters, without getting bogged down in Warhammer style special rules and grittiness. Multi-scale, but I have a feeling it's slightly better suited to 10-15mm than 28mm.
YMMV, but I like the rules so much I've decided to devote my Warmaster and (10mm) BoFA armies to them. We'll see how it goes with 28mm.

For me, it's about not wanting to buy, assemble and paint the same minis twice, when it comes to multibasing vs. skirmish basing. That's all there is to it. I don't see a need to declare one method inherently superior to another.

 mdauben wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Well... Easy. Gripping Beast just released a set of Jomsvikings

Those are nice looking figures. There seem to be a lot of good dark ages figures coming out recently. Really makes me want to pick some up.

I have been picking some up.

I am using the Jomsvikings for First Age Easterlings (Ulfang's group), and will have around 350 of them for the army (I wish they made some mounted, though - I am sure they will eventually).

These are technically Rus (Early Rus, from 860 - 1060 A.D.), but without the Druzhina (Retainers/Knights - like the Norman Millets, but in Kievan Rus, an Ugric/Uralic variant of Germanic tongues of the Vikings and Finns (I am just now learning about the linguistic patterns of this group in order to create names for Easterlings).

But I also want to pick up about 36 - 48 of them for the LotR SBG, and for Saga.

I REALLY WISH that people would make 40mm or 54mm figures for Skirmish games.

It is my plan to do so with the Middle-earth stuff I am doing (create 54mm for Skirmish - using the SBG, which has to be GW's best set of rules ever produced; and 30mm and 15mm for Mass Combat. If I were younger, I would focus solely upon 15mm for Mass Combat, as I did for Ancients, but I have found that I prefer Fantasy Mass Combat in 28mm/30mm).

But since I am doing most of the work digitally, printing out masters in the three sizes isn't that much more expensive if I do so on one sprue (combining the three figures into a single print-job).

Saga makes for an EXCELLENT Skirmish game, to rival that of LotR/Hobbit (which have to be the BEST GAMES that GW makes - pity the miniatures do not live up to the game).

I have been hearing nothing but good things about Saga. I'm not looking to replace the SBG rules, but I may just have to pick up Saga and a couple of warbands to give it a try. As far as the GW miniatures, I actually think most of them are really excellent (taken on their own) but I'll be the first to agree that visually they don't look anything like they should in the books.

This is an area where there seems to be some confusion on Dakka about my stance on GW's miniatures.

I do not dispute that they are beautiful miniatures, just that they do not really reflect adequately what Tolkien described for his world.

The Rohirrim and the Haradrim are really the only designs that come close to what Tolkien described (although the Rohirrim need to have some figures without bows - only some of the Rohirrim Carried Bows; and the Haradrim are really better suited as the Far-haradrim - what GW calls the "Mahûd," a word Tolkien never used. It does have a decent ring to it, and one of these days I will do a philological/linguistic dissection of it, to see how closely it would fit to an actual Haradrim word - as the Haradrim are described as having shields that resemble those of the Abbasid Caliphate Arabs of the Maghreb in Africa)

And, it turns out that Jackson did a Fast One with what we call the "Easterlings."

They are actually Southrons/Haradrim (and they better fit the part in some ways), but after filming he retconned them as Easterlings in Post-Production.

Notice that when we see them first, at the Black Gate, they are traveling toward the gate from the West, which is FROM ITHILIEN. The Easterlings would have been coming from the West, as the Road to Rhûn from Mordor runs directly to the Black Gate.

And, the second time we see them (if you pause the Scene of the Mûmakil traveling through Northern Ithilien), you will see these "Easterlings" marching with the Mûmak on the ground - and they look surprisingly a lot like Eastern Abbasid Caliphate Elephant Escorts, who were typically armed with Halberds.

In doing research for the film we are making about Tolkien's work as portrayed in pop-culture, we interviewed a few of the artists for Weta, who said that the designs that got labelled as "Easterlings" were originally done as Haradrim, but that during the production, Jackson was worried about portraying the Easterlings as East-Asians (Mongols, Chinese, etc. - never mind that they SHOULD be a Syncretic mixture of Huns, Rus/Russians (Kievan Vikings), and Mongols. But Jackson's "Tolkien Experts" are Pop-culture Tolkien experts, and not exactly Academic Tolkien experts, who follow all of the lines of thought of Tolkien in his "sub-creation" of the peoples of Middle-earth. But back to the issue of the "Easterlings."

As they were designing the Easterlings, and Jackson was uneasy about a portrayal of any group as being recognizably associated with any non-European Earth cultures, the "Haradrim" got coopted As Easterlings, and the concept art for the Easterlings was "disappeared."

For mass combat, I recommend staying away from the individually based games.

I like the scale (both in terms of game size and miniature size) of the SBG rules. They are a good match. For anything much bigger I really prefer to go to a smaller scale miniatures (10-15mm). These of course don't use individually based miniatures which is a good thing. I have a copy of GW's Battle of Five Armies box set (the one with the 6mm plastic troops), but I've never played it so I'm not sure how well the rules work and I never got any of the now OOP extra troops. I really liked GW's old Warmaster and Warmaster Ancients rules for real mass battles and I'm sure there are other good options these days.

I would avoid WAB like the plague, though.

I personally agree. I was never that in love with the original WFB rules that I felt the need to play them for historical games, too. There are too many better choices.

I played WHFB back in First Edition, and was the first to bring it to the USA in 1984 (GW was in the process of setting up their US shop when I brought it back), and ran it at a couple of conventions, and people LOVED it.

But, as I have pointed out elsewhere, there was a schism between Fantasy Genre players and Historical Genre players that was forced by a handful of pretty egotistical individuals. And, one of the things that the Fantasy Players rejected was the multiple-based figures of Historical Games (due to a MASSIVE ignorance of what it meant to fight in a unit verses fighting as a group of individuals).

I had my armies multi-based, and players tended to balk at it, and eventually I gave up on trying to push for a shift toward multi-basing.

Look at Kings of War. SUPPOSEDLY, it is combat unit-to-unit, with no casualty removal.

WHY THEN do they have the figures individually based???

Why do they not base them as units, like Impetus?

One of the things I am hoping to do with the 54mm Skirmish miniatures is to push for a distinction between Skirmish and Mass Combat that players will be more ready to accept.

There is a guy in Texas, who was a pivotal player in the Early Days of Heritage USA Miniatures, by the name of Steve Miller who has been promoting 54mm Dark Ages Skirmish, and he has been getting a LOT of attraction and impetus for this scale as opposed to 28mm/30mm figures (You get a lot more "character" in the minis at that size, and the detail, and possible poses are much more dynamic).

But, ideally, I would just like to see the adoption of a basing standard that existed for each scale.

The Lists are intended for a DBx Variant that seems to be well known enough to have other rules writers steal liberally from it.

Hmmm... I've played a fair amount of DBM and toyed with DBA and DBR but honestly I never really warmed to that system. I've still got three or four armies painted and based for DBM but its been years since I played a game. It is unarguably the most widely known and played system for ancient and medieval wargaming, though.

I should point out:

I HATE DBM. I find DBA and HotT to be enjoyable for a diversion, but they are too simplistic.

The DBx standard, though, offers a few mechanisms that are rather innovative and useful. It is just that the creator (Phil Barker) was too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater when he created DBx that he rejected MANY aspects of prior games that should have been retained.

Hoplon, and most of the games like it (many who stole directly from it), attempts (rather successfully) to re-introduce these things back into a set of rules for Ancients to Napoleonics gaming (There are Renaissance and Napoleonic versions of it as well, which do not get their due either).

But. . . It re-introduces differences in equipment that DBA/M/MM/R/N all threw out:

• Morale for units and army (instead of globally for only the armor), and how it affects combat performance.
• Charges and Counter-Charges (and the possibility of an infantry unit fleeing or breaking before a charging unit of cavalry, Knights, or Elephants).
• The Ability to halt charges by concentrated missile fire.
• The re-introduction of missile/ranged combat for ALL troops armed with missile weapons (this does not slow the game down at all, as many have claimed it would).
• Degradation of unit cohesion/quality through combat or morale results (Ordered/Disordered and Steady/Disrupted/Shaken).
• Variations in the quality of a general affecting his ability to lead troops, and the effects of his death upon the troops' morale.
• Troops being dual-armed, or capable of just Melee, or just Missile Combat or the troops having a primary role, but capable of operating as both melee (shock) troops and Missile Troops as being Shock/Missile or Missile/Shock.
• Variations in some weapons (Heavy Weapons, Lance armed Cavalry, and differences in Missile weapons - Javelin/Pilum, Sling, Bow, Crossbow, Longbow, or simply improvised missile weapons).
• Variations in Troop Training beyond just Drilled/Undrilled, or Regular/Irregular, such as Professional soldiers (whether Regular/Drilled or Irregular/Undrilled, and of any morale level), or troops who have received inadequate training or preparation - Untrained troops, who might be of any Morale class, simply lacking much training in the specific formation and weapons they are using (such as taking Hoplites, and giving them a Gladius and Pila and then expecting them to fight as Legionnaires without any training in that type of combat).
• Variations in Armor, from completely naked, to wearing full plate (troops being "normal" with no distinction in armor, or Vulnerable and having inadequate protection or being shieldless, Heavy and having a substantial shield and more than just cloth or leather armor, and Extra Heavy Armor, such as complete Plate or chainmail coverage and a shield).
• And then special behavior, or qualities of troops, such as mounted Light Horse being able to fight using a Skythian Missile Fire formation, or troops being able to use Rank-Relief as Roman Legionnares, or Mounted being able to charge in a Wedge formation, or Spearmen being able to form a Shieldwall or to charge at the run as Hoplites did - to name but a few.

The Structure of the troop types makes it such that modification is trivial for Fantasy games. All one needs to do is address whether a new capability of a Fantasy Troop Type is needed is to look at what it affects (The Type of troop, the Morale of the troop, the Qualities of the Troop (Untained, Armored/Unarmored, Fast, Professional, etc.), the Role of the troops (Shock or Missile), the Equipment/Weapons of the troop, or the Behavior of the troop.

Few things lie outside of one of these areas.

Anyway, the game had a LOT of opposition from within the Historical Community due to Phil Barker's condemnation of it (this was when DBM was still THE set of rules dominating Historical gaming).

But I did manage to get a few groups of people playing it in the USA. If I still had the means I had when I was younger I could have done a much better job at promoting it, getting to many more conventions than I was able to do from 2003 - 2008 (Prior to school taking over my life).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:

I know a LOT of players who say they prefer individually based Mass Combat games because then they can use their figures for both Skirmish and Mass Combat.

I call BS on this, as it does not cost much to have a skirmish force on top of what will be required for a decent sized mass combat army (200 - 400 figures - most of my Middle-earth armies are around 300 - 400 figures - and they are based on element bases, which is two to four figures per 80mm x 30mm or 80mm x 40mm base, depending upon the troop type). If one is going to need 200 figures for an Army, then buying an additional one or two dozen for skirmish gaming does not make up a very large percentage of the larger mass.

I call BS on this.
When you're the one who buys or paints figures for the rest of us then you can, perhaps, call our rationale BS. Especially given the high levels of painting quality and time constraints that many of us work to.
Try just a bit harder to not be offensive. To wit: I don't give two feths how you choose to base, paint or purchase your figures - more power to you. If you think you can call my rationale (that I've stated previously in these forums in direct discussion with you) BS, then be prepared to cop some flak.

BeAfraid wrote:

Look at Kings of War. SUPPOSEDLY, it is combat unit-to-unit, with no casualty removal.
WHY THEN do they have the figures individually based???
Why do they not base them as units, like Impetus?

You're seriously asking this? With ALL CAPS-style outrage? Seriously?


Because being a supplier of WHF-friendly proxy figures is important to their business model.
They recognise that an incredibly-huge proportion of their playerbase are current of ex-WHFB players, and would prefer a seamless transition for them rather than running the risk of alienating them.
Movement trays are already a thing.
KoW-style bases are designed to be easily glued together as they have straight-not-slanted sides.
They do officially encourage multibasing.

Also, I was looking on the GBG site for the plastic Jomsvikings you mentioned but couldn't find them. Do you have a link?