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.

piperider361 wrote:
I'd be interested in some comparison to KoW if anyone who has played both has any thoughts!

Bear in mind that LR/DR is a skirmish game and KoW is a formed-unit battle game, so they attempt to simulate different things.

Lion/Dragon Rampant has an activation mechanic - different unit types are better or worse at moving or attacking, and you have to take this into account when choosing the order you activate in. Fail an activation roll and you end your turn. Otherwse it is IGOUGO like KoW.

In KoW, unit placement is key - you want to gang up on an enemy to maximise your attacks, and flank them or attack from behind to maximise attack dice. In LR/DR, there are no flanks or rear, the unit is just a blob of figures, and once a unit is finished attacking it steps back from the enemy so there are no bonuses or extra benefits for ganging up. There are rules for flanks/rear attacks on the LR Boardgamegeek forums, but they really are very simple.

A KoW unit is a fixed size and shape. A LR/DR unit is a bunch of figures in cohesion with one another. If one figure touches an enemy during a charge, everyone fights; if one figure can reach a unit during shooting, everyone can shoot. LR/DR battles are less about... geometry.

One of the keys in KoW is keeping units on the battlefield with Inspiring character figures - there's not really that option in LR/DR as you only have your Leader (tied to one unit), and also in DR a spellcaster, to affect nearby units.

DR has a fixed number of unit types and you choose one that's closest to the thing you want to create. Everyone draws from the same toolkit "army list" and it's up to you how you build the army. Maybe Light Cavalry covers the Rohirrim AND Goblin wolf riders - with the appropriate fantasy tweaks. Characters/monsters/warmachines are just normal units in DR - choose a unit type and options, and add in one or more fantasy special abilities as required to simulate the effect that you want.

Both tend to work within the rules framework rather than being overloaded with rules-breaking special abilities.

LR tracks unit hits with figures on the table; DR is more like KoW in that the "wound" tracker is independent of the number of models in the unit. LR/DR units lose combat effectiveness as they take hits.

The actual combat mechanics are quite similar - roll a fixed pool of dice and look to beat a target number.

I picked up Dragon Rampant, and I'm pretty disappointed in it. Completely uninspired. Almost no effort was put into adapting Lion Rampant to fantasy games. I think most people could come up with better fantasy house rules for Lion Rampant on there own.

There are also a couple of things about the core Lion Rampant mechanics that I don't really like, both having to do with things that appear to have no correlation to a "real world" justification. I like my games to tell a good story, and when the mechanics do something that can't be explained by any real happening, it kind of breaks the suspension of disbelief for me.

Care to share what you don't like? I'm not going to argue with you, or even disagree - I'm well aware that LR does simplify things, sometimes grossly. It just happens to be close to what I'm looking for in a game.

As far as the core rules go, I don't like that when you fail to activate one unit, your turn ends and you don't get to try to activate any of your other units. I'm sure that as a game mechanic it makes you prioritize you attempted actions, but I don't see any way to rationalize that to any real cause. Why would one unit being distracted, scared, pausing to catch their breath, or whatever, make every other unit stand around doing nothing? It just doesn't work for me because it makes the narrative of the game not really make sense.

The other one is that unit effectiveness doesn't degrade at all until you hit half strength. It seems like it would have been really easy to tie the number of dice you roll to your current strength points, so causing casualties would gradually degrade a unit's effectiveness, instead of having that one hit that takes them to half strength suddenly make them half as effective as they were before that hit.

As far as the changes to Dragon Rampant, I think they were very tacked-on. The simplifications that are fine for historical games where there is a small range of types of unit, don't seem to work for the kind of fantasy units I want to use. For example, if I want to use some of my Warhammer Empire models, a unit of handgunners will be exactly the same in the game as a cannon. There could have been more options for units to allow more distinction, for example being able to take a heavy ranged unit with half as many strength points for fewer points might be a good way to represent a cannon, which can output a lot of damage but only has a few crew members so can't take much before becomming ineffective.

I also was disappointed with how few fantasy special rules there are, and how pointless or useless most of them are. For example, if I want to use my giant bats, the only thing that makes sense is making them lesser warbeasts with the flying rule. But since warbeasts already move and fight to full effect in difficult terrain, the flying rule hardly benefits them at all, and in fact probably makes them worse (since they can no longer benefit from cover and will flee farther). But I have to pay 2 points (1/12 of my army) for something that makes that unit worse.

Basically, it doesn't really allow me to field a lot of things I'd want to field, and many things won't play anything like what they are, or will require handicapping myself by taking pointless expensive options.

Suddenly I'm not very excited about getting home to pick up my copy... Sounds like a huge shame. I like each unit to be unique, and I thought the special rules would let me customize them enough.

After a couple of games, I think there's enough complexity and differentiation here that it's well worthwhile. I've not played LR so can't comment on the changes, but there's a large number of basic unit types (elite cavalry, heavy cavalry, light cavalry, greater warbeast, lesser warbeasts, elite foot, heavy foot, light foot, bellicose foot, heavy missiles, light missiles, scouts) and enough interesting options to apply to them, that you always feel you can reasonably customise your army. A regular warbeast (e.g. one of the big bronze bulls from Reaper) is going to play very differently to a Flying Poison Warbeast (chimera or cockatrice).

Plenty of good tactical options each turn, too, partly caused by the uncertainty as to which units you'll activate successfully. Both games were big fun.

It's not bad, Mymearan. Just depends on what you're looking for. There aren't all that many fantasy special rules to give units, so you might be disappointed there. But some of the unit types have specific options, like fire breath, that can make them a little different.

I think if you look at the unit types in the rules and think "what can I use to represent that", you'll do okay. If, like me, you look at your collection of existing models and say "how can I use this unit in the game" you may be disappointed in how it will have to be represented in order to use it.

I picked up both Lion Rampant and Dragon Rampant for Christmas and really like them. I'm not looking for a super heavy set of rules for either historical or fantasy gaming. I like the fact that the games are base and scale neutral and that there isn't a ton of special rules that I have to memorize/constantly look up. I've spent time putting together lists and feel like the unit types and fantasy rules add the right flavor. I've always wanted to do a goblin army but the idea of putting together big blocks of identical little green men for WHFB always put me off the idea. I like that in DR the units can be smaller (I'm sticking with 12 figs per unit or various fractions of 12). I've added the Fearful rule to most of the goblin units which makes them cheaper but also means they will run away easy, I feel like this captures the feel of a goblin force pretty well.

On the other hand my Undead list has units that cause fear and have no feeling, which seems perfect for a bunch of animated skeletons and zombies.

DR definitely falls on the "beer and pretzels" side of the casual/tournament davide but that's what I was looking for.

Thanks for the helpful reviews guys (and particularly for the KoW comparison Momotaro, I was going to ask about that too).

Albino Squirrel - just a couple of suggestions for units. Slightly tricky as I'm without my rules at the moment, but I'll give it a go.

Cannon could be Horde plus dragon breath. Horde units are really brittle, and die or run away quickly. Or if you want a tougher unit, a Wizardling can add in some spell-like effects to simulate shooting, or clouds kf smoke drifting across the battlefield

Your giant bats - depending on how you intend to use them, do you even need to take Flying?

Myrmearan - AS and Ian have it. The units are well differentiated and give very different playstyles, and the special effects allow some tailoring. In the end though, the rules are only 3x the length of AoS - they're designed to be short and sweet but coherent and tactical.

Don't like that one failed activation ends your turn? Try playing with and without the rule to see which you prefer.

Couple of friends have had a chance to play and they reckon 36pts is better for a fantasy army than LR's 24pt standard, as it allows you to get some "fantasy stuff" into your lists.

I got my copy a few days before Xmas. I haven't had chance to play it yet. I'm slightly disappointed that the handgonnes rules didn't make it into the rulebook but otherwise it looks ok.

Re: Bats. As Momotaro says just don't give them flight (the ability to move over friendly units). Problem solved.

For example, if I want to use some of my Warhammer Empire models, a unit of handgunners will be exactly the same in the game as a cannon.

For me this is a matter of theme and scale, if you keep in mind LR's original concept of a knight and his retinue running about. I don't know if cannons or other heavy war machines really fit in the game, although I realise that might sound like a ridiculous thing to say when DR lets you take giant dragons and other monsters, and suggests profiles and tweaks for war machines.

Still, it's why I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the additional flanking rules, and assertions that it works fine for big games too. I feel it's trying to shoehorn LR/DR into too many niches, and vice versa. Smacks a bit of what some say about 40K. Even if it does work with few niggles, it'd at least be nice to give some tailor-made mass combat rules a chance.

Using the same models for DR and mass combat might muck up the idea of a diorama-style base for KoW or the like. At any rate, I'm thinking of basing some 12-strong DR units (skaven, at least. I've a lot of IoB models lying around.) on 40mm bases. Stick four of those together for an 80mm Mayhem base. You can have a cannon in that, at least.

Momotaro wrote:
Couple of friends have had a chance to play and they reckon 36pts is better for a fantasy army than LR's 24pt standard, as it allows you to get some "fantasy stuff" into your lists.

I was thinking of more points as well. 24 points gets me my army as basic units but I need some more points to buy some specials rules and spells.

Survived Scottish floods and driving rain and back to my books now. Cannon - oops, forgot that Flame Breath was an option for warbeasts, not a fantasy ability. War machines do appear to be a weak spot.

Hmm... Heavy missiles + venomous? Expensive at 7 points though.

For a more Fantasy contraption, Horde + Venomous + Wizardling (Power Bolt, Dragon's Breath and Befuddle Thee spells) for 6 points. Hilariously bad at combat but with a real punch that can damage you, blind you or leave themselves shrouded in smoke.

Or as Vermis says, maybe warmachines are not a great fit for the game?

I think with a dozen pages of units and another dozen of special abilities, the aim is to get something reasonably close rather than map all the abilities you want onto the unit. It's not GURPS or Hero System, nor was it ever intended to be. If you don't like that level of abstraction, then fair enough.

@Momotaro: thanks for the rules summary. I'm eagerly awaiting for my copy to arrive.

I have a question about casting spells - what is the mechanic? Does spell casting use one of unit's stats as a 2D6 target to carry out the order similar to moving or attacking in Lion Rampant? Is there a magic value D6 roll for offensive spells similar to attacking or shooting in Lion Rampant?

I'm assuming each spell has its own entry or is it much more generic (i.e shooting spells as a shooting attack)?

Thanks!

Spellcasting works just the same as a normal activation like move or shoot: Roll the dice to activate, if you succeed the spell is cast. There are ten generic spells and each has its own chance of activation. The author points out that the spells work within the existing rules framework and any spells you wish to add should be created the same way.

There's only one spell that deals damage, and it's explicitly a shooting attack with its own Shoot Value in the description That means it deals damage like any other shooting attack, with the usual modifiers.

One of the sample unit types is a Necromancer who is, functionally, a unit of Heavy Missile to simulate a magical attack and relative weakness in melee, with the Summoner ability allowing the more traditional raising of the dead.

Got my copy today and first impressions are certainly very positive! The book looks and reads great. Will take a closer look later.

Momotaro wrote:
Spellcasting works just the same as a normal activation like move or shoot: Roll the dice to activate, if you succeed the spell is cast. There are ten generic spells and each has its own chance of activation. The author points out that the spells work within the existing rules framework and any spells you wish to add should be created the same way.

There's only one spell that deals damage, and it's explicitly a shooting attack with its own Shoot Value in the description That means it deals damage like any other shooting attack, with the usual modifiers.

Thanks for the reply. So spellcaster is an option you can add to any unit, but casting spells does not rely on that unit's stats (sounds like most are passive buff spells with a a target number on a 2D6 roll to cast).

What's interesting is that on the author's blog he posted an overview of the unit profiles and he mentions adding the spellcaster option to a unit of elite foot (fielded as a single model) @ 10 points (so I'm assuming spellcaster is a 4 point option). I can't see any reason to make a 10 point spellcaster - roughly 40% of the total army in a single buffing unit. While making an elite foot spellcaster would give the him high armor, the 3+ attack value is completely wasted and is part of the cost. Seems like a much better option would be a spellcaster scout (bidower) - 6 points with hard to target special rule (I'm assuming the DR profiles are all the same as their LR equivalents). Here is the blog post I'm referring to, I've been using it to plan my warbands while waiting for my copy of DR:


merseybooks.blogspot.com/2015/08/troop-types-in-dragon-rampant.html

We found spellcaster to be quite powerful if used well (Befuddling an enemy, or buffing your unit to do more damage, being about the best uses). I agree that you want it either moving or spellcasting, so the base unit doesn't need to be offensively powerful. Being fast helps, though -- so yeah, scouts could work well. You don't want to be stuck too far from the action by being slow-moving.

I suspect most people aiming for min-maxing will find Wizardling (like spellcaster, but can only use 3 spells of your choice) more effective.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to "power game" - just trying to get my head around the spellcaster in DR while waiting for a copy of the rules. The elite foot spellcaster just struck me as a bit odd, unless you're making a fighter-wizard type character.

A big part of the pre-launch appeal of DR, for me at least, has been playing around in my head with the various unit types and thinking about lists of different factions such as fantasy vikings + frost giants or wood elves + ents/ dryads. There's so many combinations that can be created using the various unit types and fantasy special rules that I imagine the same army can be played in many different ways.

Albino Squirrel wrote:
As far as the core rules go, I don't like that when you fail to activate one unit, your turn ends and you don't get to try to activate any of your other units. I'm sure that as a game mechanic it makes you prioritize you attempted actions, but I don't see any way to rationalize that to any real cause. Why would one unit being distracted, scared, pausing to catch their breath, or whatever, make every other unit stand around doing nothing? It just doesn't work for me because it makes the narrative of the game not really make sense.

Having not played Dragon/Lion Rampant, I cant' comment on the way it works in that particular game, but "fail and your turn ends" is a mechanic that shows up in quite a few games. It seems to be a quick way of loosely simulating breakdowns in command. The general idea seems to be that you are the commander and a failure to activate is a breakdown of your ability to command (distraction, etc) or some-such.

In games like the "Song of Blades" series its also the consequence of gambling on your activations, whereby the more actions you attempt for a given unit, the more chance of rolling a double-fail and ending your turn.

It's definitely a mechanic that doesn't appeal to everyone, but it's not without reason.

I'm fine with the mechanic until games like tonight's, where I failed about five first activations in a row

Mind you, I feel the same about failed Hit Rolls...

Ways around the problem within the rules:

There's a spell that lets you re-roll a failed activation, and a couple of Leader traits that let you pass a single activation per turn automatically.

You could make your Leader a Wizardling and give him that spell and a couple of other buff spells to make him more of a fantastical Leader of men. It does mean that you may be using up an activation per turn on "housekeeping", but it does mean you have more control over what happens.

Wild Charges do not cost you your turn if the roll fails, so choose your units and position them with care.

Summoner lets you place reserved units up-table and where you need them -you just need to get the summoner there first.

Hatred is very cheap and grants your unit a Wild Charge. Put it on a unit with Wild Charge already, and you pass the activation test automatically.

Potential changes:

If you find that bad Activation rolls are wrecking your game, you may consider allowing the first activation to be re-rolled if it fails, or making it an automatic success.

I'll need some more playtesting before I'd be happy dropping the "failed activation ends turn" rule completely, but go for it if you don't like it.

Maybe roll D6 for "potential activations" rather than allowing every unit to activate.

Edit:

I'm thinking that ending your turn on a failed activation, combined with how tough spells are to cast, stops you spamming Wizardling on multiple units. Nothing like befuddling an enemy before you attack, or giving everyone a powerful ranged attack.

I like the way that This is Not a Test uses that mechanic, in that if you fail to activate a unit you can still go with it before play passes over, but can only use 1 action instead of 2. There are also several ways to buff the stat you're rolling on for activating.

Takes the sting out of "you failed so you can't do anything" type rules.

I ordered a copy of DR after reading this thread. It arrived today, and right there on the first page is a mention of several fantasy armies listed in Lion Rampant. Can anyone tell me what they are and if I should get the other book as well?

The 'two lists' mentioned are suggestions for 'old-school fantasy' forces, basically Tolkien's free peoples vs. evil sorcerors and orcs. Also four 'Hollywood Legends' lists, i.e. merry men vs. the sheriff, and round table knights vs. Mordred. The biggest shakeups are men at arms (DR's elite foot) with bows for the merry men, and an allowance of four men at arms units for the round table.

Your call.

Back to the earlier discussion on spellcasters for a moment -- from what I recall, you can't add full spellcaster to Scouts, but you can add Wizardling (+3 pts rather than +4, but only gets you 3 spells rather than the full complement). I guess the rationale is that a wizard at the full height of their powers is going to be quite deadly in melee combat too (12 orcs charging Gandalf? I know who my money's on...) whether due to actually being a badass fighter--mage or just being able to set anyone who comes into melee range on fire.

Wizardling is looking like a good way to add several "special effects" to a unit without implying spellcasting.

It's cheap and the effects are powerful, but the cost is: 1) an activation to pull it off; and 2) a risky activation at that.

So what units can be full spellcasters?

I'm just not getting that design decision, elite foot with their high armor and 3+ attack value should be in close combat using their ordered activations to attack, why would anyone take a 10 point unit (out of 24 total point army) just to buff /debuff?

Once I see the full spell list the wizardling option might seem fine with just three spells, but I can't imagine taking a full spellcaster at 10 points.

 Vermis wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Osprey are going great guns with their B5 rulebook series. I have the Ronin, Fistful of Kung Fu, and Fighting Sail books.

Dux Bellorum, IHMN, Ronin, Lion Rampant.
.

Lion Rampant, Ronin, now Frostgrave and soon Fighting Sail.

In addition to Tomahawk Games Saga.

Osprey and some other publishers are really doing some excellent stuff right now - long may they continue!

Having had my fisst game with Dragon Rampant (after several with Lion Rampant) I must admit having several issues with the layout, or tather the lack of improvement in the layout of Dragon Rampant.

There's no index and the odd split of the terrain rules (in the movement and shooting sections) is very awkward. I've previously mentioned the lack of hand guns despite the rules existing and it was also dissapointing to see that they are not in the book.

Given that in some ways this is Lion Rampant version two and it is being published by Osprey who are no newcomers to publishing it's a bit dissapointing. The game is fine (barring IMO a few overcosted options) but the rulebook is dissapointing.