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 was hoping to initiate a discussion about the merits of, and perhaps reasons for, the changes made to Saga with the 2nd edition rules. I do not consider new nomenclature (e.g. “Aggression”) to be a rules change.

I would like to tackle each change, one by one. I will refer to each with as specific a header as I can, along with a page reference. Do add to this list if I have missed any changes, or correct me if I misidentified a rule as new.

I am not interested in exploring changes to the Viking-era factions. So, let us begin…

[Page references are for the new rulebook]


1. Formations, p. 8.

New Rule - All models in a unit must remain within S (M for mounted) of the first model deployed or moved.

I am of two minds about this change. I believe it is appropriate for most early Middle Age, European warfare as units tended to attack as a mass instead of in rank and file formation. However, this is a general rule that will be applied across eras and factions, and I do not see it applying to all situations. One cannot even create a basic line of levy archers with this rule.

2. Generating Saga Dice, p. 10.

New Rule - Warlords generate 1 Saga die and Levy units of 6+ generate 1 Saga de.

I despise this rule change (which is closely tied to other changes to the Warlord, see #37 below). I could see some factions, those with a strong warrior ethos and command & control issues, having this new rule as a special faction rule. But applying this across the board removes the thematic element of one’s Warlord as a commander and levies as untrained peons that need constant direction.

I also have doubts about what a levy-heavy army list will be like (just imagine those Anglo-Saxons with every unit qualifying for those battle board abilities).

3. Rolling Saga Dice, p.11.

New Rule - Saga dice can be left on one’s battle board from turn to turn.

I am not against this change. It will help to ensure more abilities are used from turn to turn. However, I think this was a missed opportunity to distinguish the more strategic factions from the impulsive ones.

I would like to see this rule available to such factions as the Late Romans or Byzantines. Naturally, this would unbalance the factions. I might suggest that factions that gained this rule would retain the old Warlord statistics for Saga dice generation and combat, as well as Levy non-generation of Saga dice.

4. How to Move, p.16.

New Rule - Movement must be in a straight line

This rule makes absolutely no sense except to simplify the game. Why can my unit not skirt around a piece of terrain? Whatever savings in time gained by this rule does not overcome the loss of thematic engagement in the game. The allowance for L-move units to turn after moving M is not enough of a relief. I will not be playing with this.

5. Effects of Models on Movement, p.18.

New Rule - Gaps in formations of greater than S can be moved through (possible with mounted units)

I have no problem with this change as it prevents a small mounted unit from controlling too large an area of the field.

6. Maneuvers, p.18

New Rule - Free move activation for unit’s first activation if starting further than L from enemy and never moving within L of enemy or through terrain.

I suppose this helps armies close in with each other quickly. Yet, speeding this skirmish game up is not one of the problems I thought this game needed fixing. I do not know if this minimize significantly the tough command decisions one must make in using one’s Saga dice. I suspect it might. If so, I won’t like it as maneuvering is one of my favorite aspects of miniature gaming.

I also wonder if creating this rule partly led to the “move in a straight line” rule above. If so, I’ll like this rule even less.

7. Charge, p.20 & 14.

New Rule - Charge activation and movement must be in a straight line.

Now, here is a place where I can accept the idea of a unit needing to move in a straight line. If one wants to engage an enemy, then one runs full-bore at that enemy.

I also appreciate the design space created by separating charge moves from regular movement.

8. Shooting LoS, p.22.

Questionable Rule - The space between two figures in the same unit obstructs line of sight.

Though this is the same as before, because of the new rule (see #5 above) allowing movement through a formation with gaps greater than S, one must wonder why such a large gap blocks shooting LoS but not movement. The large gap exception should apply to shooting.

9. Shooting Dice Generation, p.23.

New Rule - Combat pool at step 1 cannot exceed 8 dice. [This limit includes bonus dice granted by special rule or Saga abilities done prior to step 2 of this Shooting activation.] Final Combat pool at step 3 cannot exceed 16 dice.

Was there a problem in the past with 12-man HG units wiping the table with people during 1st Ed.? My breadth of experience against different factions has been limited, so I may simply have not seen this problem. In any event, I do not see myself making bow-armed HG units of larger than 8 models.

10. Shooting Defense Dice Generation, p.25.

New Rule - There is no longer a limit to defense dice generation of twice the number of hits inflicted.

Apparently shooting was deadlier than I had experienced if Tomahawk felt the need to limit shooting attacks and bolster shooting defense.

11. Beginning a Melee, p.26.

New Rule - A single unit may never be engaged in Melee with two or more units.

This removes the two situations that allowed for 3+ unit engagements, i. attacking a building defended by two or more units and, ii. using a Warlord’s side-by-side rule to have your leader join a unit in a Melee. This certainly is a simplification, but only scenario ii. arose with any regularity. Was it so burdensome to resolve these types of combat? I do not see the need to dispense with it.

12. Melee/Reaction, p.26, 42.

New Rule - No more Melee/Reaction Saga abilities, so no Step 0.

Here is a simplification that makes sense. Why have two different steps in which to resolve Melee abilities? Of course, one cannot retroactively apply this new rule to older, non-Aetius&Arthur factions.

13. Who Fights in Melee, p.26

New Rule - All models in the Melee generate attack dice. Distance from enemy model no longer matters.

This probably makes sense given the new formation rule (see #1 above), and it does simplify. However, I had crafted a weapon (elven spear) with a unique bonus that related to distance from an enemy model, so I like it the way it was.

14. Defender Option, p.26.

New Rule - Defending unit can elect to ‘close ranks’ to gain solid cover in this Melee while generating half its normal number of Attack dice.

‘Close ranks’ replaces the ability to lose half of the unit’s Attack dice to gain half this number in Defense dice. Though I do like the thematic name, they both seem to be attempts at capturing the same thing. Did matches become too bloodless in 1st ed.? I did not think so. I am partial to the old mechanism, but not overly so.

More problematic is how mounted, bow-armed and heavy weapon armed units cannot close ranks. Though a thematic restriction, it greatly weakens the options available to these units. I feel that, as to heavy weapons at least, this makes their inclusion much less likely.

15. Melee Dice Generation, p.27.

New Rule - Maximum combat pool is 16 dice.

Were “death star” units of 12 HG that much of a problem? Or is Tomahawk trying to get people to field units of 8 HG for some other reason? As an Anglo-Saxon player, I do not like this change nor see its need.

16. Melee Defense Dice Generation, p.27.

New Rule - There is no longer a limit to defense dice generation of twice the number of hits inflicted.

I simply cannot tell if Tomahawk felt attacks were too deadly in this game. Some changes seem to support attacking more and others defense more. I liked the simplicity of knowing that for all dice generation, Saga abilities could never do more than double one’s pool of dice.

17. Saga ability and Fatigue use, p.27.

New Rule - Players alternate electing to use a Melee Saga ability or an opposing unit’s fatigue marker, one at a time and with no limit on fatigue uses.

I prefer the escalating use of Saga and fatigue markers. It adds tension and that is always good. I never saw a thematic reason to limit spending an opponent’s fatigue.

18. Withdrawal, p.28-29.

New Rule - Defenders benefiting from solid cover never withdraw if they outnumber the attacker; withdrawing units may end within VS of the opposing unit if restricted.

A solid addition that is thematic. The first new rule noted here, oddly, is a rule that runs counter to Tomahawk’s trend of simplification.

19. Fatigue Limits, p.30.

New Rule - All unit types exhaust upon accumulating 3 fatigue.

This is simplification for the sheer sake of simplification. 1st Ed. unit distinction with this rule added a lot of character to the game. This needlessly takes away theme.

20. Using Fatigue, p.31.

New Rule - After a unit has been activated, and a target has been selected if charging or shooting, the opponent can spend 2 fatigue markers on this unit to cancel the activation.

I like the idea of providing more uses for fatigue, but I feel this can lead to gamey situations. Moreover, from my general gaming experience, anything that allows one to prevent the basic mechanic of a game from being executed by a player kills the “fun” of the game. Yet, I should play with it before dismissing it. Given that exhaustion will happen at the end of most activations where this is an option, it may end up being better to let the unit exhaust itself.

21. Using Fatigue, p.32.

New Rule - One can spend 1 fatigue during an opposing unit’s move/charge action to drop its movement to S.

This rule severely impedes mounted units, as they now go from L to S instead of to M. It does help foot units moving through uneven terrain, as their movement cannot fall below S (so no dropping movement to VS). Changes that take away nuance in the game are not my cup of tea, especially when I cannot fathom a good reason for it.

22. Using Fatigue in Shooting, p.32.

New Rule - One can spend more than 1 fatigue to increase the defending units armor.

Shooting units are going to be taking many more rest actions than before. Coupled with the removal of the cap to defense die generation, shooting is getting considerably weaker.

23. Using Fatigue in Melee, p.32.

New Rule - One can spend more than 1 of the engaged enemy’s fatigue to either in increase one’s units armor or decrease the enemy’s armor by 1.

This change will likely make players more cautious in approaching the enemy, so one goes in with few fatigue markers.

24. Exhaustion, p.32.

New Rule - A unit starting Melee exhausted suffers a -1 to all Attack dice in Melee; and a unit cannot accumulate more than 3 fatigue markers.

This first rule is a different way of penalizing attacks by exhausted units (arguably simpler since division is harder than subtraction). I am not sure there is a need, but Tomahawk has removed most instances of division in the rules.

As for a cap on accumulating fatigue, I guess it does not matter too much as an exhausted unit was always prohibited from activating again. It does mean that a 2-fatigue unit might recover quicker from engaging in Melee, as the fourth fatigue marker given at the end of Melee will be ignored.

25. Cover, p.34.

New Rule - To benefit from cover, all figures in the unit must be within the terrain piece.

This again is Tomahawk simplifying by removing division, as a unit can no longer can benefit from cover by having 2/3rds of its figures being in the terrain.

26. Terrain Difficulty, p.35.

New Rule - Dangerous terrain type slows movement like uneven and also inflicts 1 fatigue.

More variety in terrain types is always welcome!

27. Terrain Size, p.35.

New Rule - Small terrain can be larger (M+VS), but large terrain cannot be smaller than M (where Brush and Rocky Ground could go down to S before); also, there is a typo here where I believe “S” was typed as “C.”

Not sure the reason for this, aside from standardizing sizes instead of linking size to type of real-world terrain. Does not seem to have a negative impact in my view.

28. Resilience, p.36.

New Rule - It now is broken into two rules: Resilience and Bodyguard; Resilience allows ignoring of un-cancelled hits at a rate of 1 hit per fatigue taken (up to unit’s exhaustion limit); Bodyguard extends the range of the “sacrifice” to S but only can remove HG figures.

I am okay with these rules, though it does kind of force the mustering of HG units (at least 1). I would prefer to have the Warlord with an exhaustion limit of 4 though.

29. We Obey, p.36.

New Rule - The unit bearing this special ability need not be activated at the time of electing a friendly unit to activate; and the friendly unit may be activated for free as to any type of activation, not just Movement.

I like the flexibility introduced by these changes.

30. Special Rules, p.36.

New Rule - There no longer exists “Side-by-Side.”

Bah! This removes one of the stronger thematic elements in Saga, likely for the sake of simplification. I would surmise that by electing to remove this, Tomahawk was forced to increase the Warlord’s attack value (and the range of the Bodyguard rule).

31. Special Rules, p.36.

New Rule - Presence: apparently the number of models in a unit is important now; Heroic Unit grants all of the Warlord’s usual abilities to a unit that contains a hero.

This could lead to some fun new rules, like fear/terror, and greater use of unique units. I approve.

32. Equipment, p.37-39.

New Rule - Equipment specifies its penalty to armor, unit type restrictions (like bows only for foot and composite only for mounted).

I like the clarity here and its standardization by weapon type.

33. Composite Bows, p.37.

New Rule - Shooting activations are free and do not generate fatigue; the unit cannot activate to shoot consecutively in the same turn.

This is an interesting change. It basically breaks up the activation sequence (move/shoot or shoot/move) permitted by the prior rule. I do not see a downside. Here is a prime example of simplification done right.

34. Crossbow, p.39

New Rule - +1 to shooting Attack dice results instead of -1 to Armor; the unit cannot activate to shoot consecutively in the same turn.

The first change is a non-change (save for occasional interactions with fatigue). The second change is substantial

35. Javelins, p.39.

New Rule - +1 to melee Attack dice on the Charge.

The bonus to melee helps counter the inability to close ranks, a compensation that heavy weapons did not receive.

36. Improvised Weapons & Unarmed, p.39.

New Rule - IW: Range S, target gains +1 to Defense dice results. UA: target gains +1 to Defense dice results, cannot close ranks.

A new weapon types are always welcome.

37. Warlord, p.44

New Rule - Saga die generation: 1, Attack dice: 8(4), Armor: 5, loses Side-by-Side.

As I mentioned above, the change to the Warlord is overall for the worse. I would like to see this Warlord as being one of two options for Warlords (the other option being the 1st Ed. version).

38. Levies, p.45.

New Rule - Saga die generation: 1 for units of 6+ models, Attack dice: 1/2 in Melee if non-range armed, Armor: 4

I am okay with this change, but would prefer this version of levies to be present in factions allotted the new Warlord (to distinguish impulsive/barbaric nations from more strategic ones).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I did forget one change, that falls within #2 above - Generating Saga Dice.

New Rule - Warrior units of less than 4 models do not generate Saga dice.

I am fine with this given the Levy rule. To keeps things balanced, I would add a similar restriction for Hearthguard units where HG units of 1 model do not generate Saga dice. Of course, my own rule construction (for my LotR factions) prior to reading the rulebook was that units of less than 2/3/4 (HG/WR/LV) models do not generate Saga dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My interpretation of #8 (and by extension, #5 and #1) is wrong. I completely overlooked p.8 of the new rulebook where all models must be within VS of another model in its unit (which is an old rule!). However, the second bullet of "Effect of Models" on p.18 (#5 above) makes no sense since it is a situation that can never arise.

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size
Another gent on BGG pointed out that my initial interpretation of #8 is correct, as the situation can arise (w/ foot or mounted) if the unit is arrayed in a horseshoe shape.

callidusx3 wrote:
I was hoping to initiate a discussion about the merits of, and perhaps reasons for, the changes made to Saga with the 2nd edition rules. I do not consider new nomenclature (e.g. “Aggression”) to be a rules change.

I would like to tackle each change, one by one. I will refer to each with as specific a header as I can, along with a page reference. Do add to this list if I have missed any changes, or correct me if I misidentified a rule as new.

I am not interested in exploring changes to the Viking-era factions. So, let us begin…

[Page references are for the new rulebook]

My thoughts
1. Formations, p. 8.

New Rule - All models in a unit must remain within S (M for mounted) of the first model deployed or moved.

I disagree that Dark Age tended to be mob on mob. Effective shieldwalls won or lost battles, and Normans are reknowned for the orderliness of their cavalry charges. However, I do agree that this is a stupid and unhelpful change. We'll be ignoring it in all likelihood

2. Generating Saga Dice, p. 10.

New Rule - Warlords generate 1 Saga die and Levy units of 6+ generate 1 Saga de.

I really dislike the change to Warlords, it removes the fact that at any level a warlord is looked to for keeping his side together in combat. Yes personal combat was key in many periods of history, but they were still the leader and expected to 'lead' their men. The changes to Levy I actually welcome. There are armies that badly need their levies, and given the complexity of their boards they didn't need the double whammy of also loosing Saga dice (Normans and Anglo Saxons both, Aetius and Arthur's Romans, and so on).

3. Rolling Saga Dice, p.11.

New Rule - Saga dice can be left on one’s battle board from turn to turn.

I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand it reduces strategic decision making, on the other it means some of the harder or more situational abilities might see gameplay. I think it needs a lot of play testing to see if it is good or bad.

4. How to Move, p.16.

New Rule - Movement must be in a straight line

The main purpose of this rule change clearly seems to be 'buy our stuff'. There is no other point to this rule in a game with individually based models. It will definitely be ignored.

5. Effects of Models on Movement, p.18.

New Rule - Gaps in formations of greater than S can be moved through (possible with mounted units)

This actually has a LOT of historical potential. Republican Roman battle doctrine and Crusader (holy land or Baltic) combat doctrine advocated this sort of combat style.

6. Maneuvers, p.18

New Rule - Free move activation for unit’s first activation if starting further than L from enemy and never moving within L of enemy or through terrain.

This helps on larger tables, and seems a good change.

I also wonder if creating this rule partly led to the “move in a straight line” rule above. If so, I’ll like this rule even less.


8. Shooting LoS, p.22.

Questionable Rule - The space between two figures in the same unit obstructs line of sight.

We generally ignore this rule. Small, tactical groups like this aren't going to block each other as one or the other would step to the side and fire. Second, massed fire was standard combat training.


11. Beginning a Melee, p.26.

New Rule - A single unit may never be engaged in Melee with two or more units.

This was a bad change with regards to the warlord. Warlord's should never be charging solo. I agree with the change to them only sponging off to Hearthguard, but then not letting them charge in with Hearthguard is stupid.


13. Who Fights in Melee, p.26

New Rule - All models in the Melee generate attack dice. Distance from enemy model no longer matters.

Not keen on this one, as it hampers good unit positioning to limit incoming attacks.


18. Withdrawal, p.28-29.

New Rule - Defenders benefiting from solid cover never withdraw if they outnumber the attacker; withdrawing units may end within VS of the opposing unit if restricted.

Agree with you on this one

19. Fatigue Limits, p.30.

New Rule - All unit types exhaust upon accumulating 3 fatigue.

Again I agree. It is a useful simplification.



That's it for now as I still need to read through the rest of the rules.

New Rule - Saga dice can be left on one’s battle board from turn to turn.

Wasn't this already a rule? Or are you saying that you can now *use* SAGA dice and still leave them on the battle board for the following turn?

I haven't seen the rules for 2nd Edition yet. And the list of changes provided in this post makes me want to keep it that way.

Eumerin wrote:

New Rule - Saga dice can be left on one’s battle board from turn to turn.

Wasn't this already a rule?

Indeed, I thought that was already the case and have been playing it that way...

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

New Rule - Saga dice can be left on one’s battle board from turn to turn.

Wasn't this already a rule?

Indeed, I thought that was already the case and have been playing it that way...

You guys are correct. However I missed typed what the New Rule is. I meant to say that the rule is - Saga dice can be left on one’s battle board from turn to turn without reducing the number of Saga dice one rolls during one's Order phase. This was not the rule in 1st ed. (though there was a Hero that allowed one to do that).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

callidusx3 wrote:
I was hoping to initiate a discussion about the merits of, and perhaps reasons for, the changes made to Saga with the 2nd edition rules. I do not consider new nomenclature (e.g. “Aggression”) to be a rules change.

I would like to tackle each change, one by one. I will refer to each with as specific a header as I can, along with a page reference. Do add to this list if I have missed any changes, or correct me if I misidentified a rule as new.

I am not interested in exploring changes to the Viking-era factions. So, let us begin…

[Page references are for the new rulebook]

My thoughts
1. Formations, p. 8.

New Rule - All models in a unit must remain within S (M for mounted) of the first model deployed or moved.

I disagree that Dark Age tended to be mob on mob. Effective shieldwalls won or lost battles, and Normans are reknowned for the orderliness of their cavalry charges. However, I do agree that this is a stupid and unhelpful change. We'll be ignoring it in all likelihood

Thank you for correcting my erroneous statement Maniac, and for your detailed input.

callidusx3 wrote:

My thoughts
1. Formations, p. 8.

New Rule - All models in a unit must remain within S (M for mounted) of the first model deployed or moved.

I disagree that Dark Age tended to be mob on mob. Effective shieldwalls won or lost battles, and Normans are reknowned for the orderliness of their cavalry charges. However, I do agree that this is a stupid and unhelpful change. We'll be ignoring it in all likelihood

Thank you for correcting my erroneous statement Maniac, and for your detailed input.

Just to be clear (it isn't always easy on typed forums), I wasn't trying to be flippant, just offering a different perspective.

So far I have only played 1 game, so we did not get the rules 90% correct but I do like the new Fatigue rules and the Warlord getting one dice was not a real problem.

The Unit minimums for generating Saga Dice was also nice, as missing out on killing that lucky last Warrior has been a cause for frustration in every game of Saga I have played (some times for me, some for my opponent).

As to the original points.

1: I am not too fussed about this, with 30mm bases I can make a 9 man front line and most of the times I am too restricted by Terrain to get more than that anyway.

2: After 1 game I am okay with 1 Dice for the Warlord.

3: Wow, this rule sucks. We didn't play it this way keeping Dice for free just seems too easy, but I will make sure we do it this way next game. Then I can decide if I like it or not.

4: I prefer normal movement to be will nilly.

5: Good.

6: I liked how units could be left behind in Saga. Allowing free movement just feels like to much reliability to me. It removes that mess that happens when you have to prioritise. It is fine, I will use it and be grateful.

7: I like charges being restricted to straight lines.

8: Agree, LoS for shooting is inconsistent with movement rule.

9: As far as I know the problem was with Hearthguard Javelin units.

10: I am okay with unlimited Defence Dice.

11: Well, I always thought Saga was cheating with it's 1 combat at a time, now it is just taking the rest of the biscuit.

12: Best part of Saga 2.

13: This rule is a bit tricky, the problem with the old rule was (as usual) clipping. The problem with the new rule is that a smaller unit takes the same number of hits as a bigger one.

14: I love closing the ranks.

15 - 19: all good.

20: This was alot of fun, it made me count fatigue like crazy. You stop the unit for 1 turn, which is very powerful but you also unleash it to attack at full force the next turn.

21: Dropping Cav to S is a bit harsh IMO.

22 - 26: I am fine with this.

27: We just use the Terrain we have.

28: I will miss sacrificing my Warriors.

29: I am not happy with this rule because it is something extra to forget.

30-33: Good.

34: I feel sad for my Crossbows.

35: This is a cool change.

36-38 All changes I am happy with.

Overall, I like the updated Battleboards but the core rules have left me with an impression that the edition change is a mixed bag of good, bad and okay. I think I will have just as much fun playing it though and I am seriously looking forward to Saga Fantasy.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:


Just to be clear (it isn't always easy on typed forums), I wasn't trying to be flippant, just offering a different perspective.

I did not take it as such. You are correct that it is easy to misunderstand, and perhaps be offended by, others online. I do appreciate your clarification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StygianBeach wrote:
So far I have only played 1 game, so we did not get the rules 90% correct but I do like the new Fatigue rules and the Warlord getting one dice was not a real problem.

The Unit minimums for generating Saga Dice was also nice, as missing out on killing that lucky last Warrior has been a cause for frustration in every game of Saga I have played (some times for me, some for my opponent).

I may have written this before, but HG units of size 1 should also not generate Saga dice. And I do not think the game will appreciably worsen due to the warlord generating 1 die, I just think it is a thematic loss of "command and control" in doing so (along with loss of side-by-side).

 StygianBeach wrote:
Overall, I like the updated Battleboards but the core rules have left me with an impression that the edition change is a mixed bag of good, bad and okay. I think I will have just as much fun playing it though and I am seriously looking forward to Saga Fantasy.

Thank you for your insights.

My rulebooks arrived in the post on Monday, I've only had a cursory flick-through. As noted above there appears to be some good rule clarifications, but also some mischief that I'm not so keen on. I'll post something more in-depth once I've played a few games and tried out the rule set


EDIT: Bit off-topic, but HERE is the latest SAGA2 news: Crusades and Plastic Roman Heavy Cavalry