I’ve been looking for a new set of rules for Dark Ages
gaming for quite a while now. I tried Impetvs but the games tend to become a
shoving match (given the tactics of the time not surprising really). I like
Impetvs for lots of periods, but I didn’t think it works so well for Dark Ages games so am still on the lookout for a suitable system for the Dark Ages games.
What about DBA?
I have discounted DBA (or Geometry Wars as I prefer to call
it) because the “gaminess” inherent in the rules just annoys the hell out of me these days, I want
to play a wargame, not use silly geometry tricks to game the rules. Not only
that but I think there are issues with some of the lists in thee Dark Ages period. I really don't like the nAnglDanes Viking amtch u, the Angllo snes get theri butts haned to them most of the time and to my mind the pcking order is: Vikings trump Anglo-Danes,
Normans trump Vikings and Anglo-Danes (and everyone else). The Norse Irish simply hide in a wood
and watch the others wander past.
DBA works best IMO at double or triples level but even then
the silly geometry wars aspect of the game leaves me cold these days and I want
more depth and subtlety than it offers. So I can’t see me going back to DBA
anytime soon. Actually, while on the subject,of DBA isn’t it about time that they entered the 21st century and actually wrote a modern rule set
(i.e easily to understand, simple sentenc strucutres rather than overaly complex, allmot unfathomable complex and compoun sentnece strutures. It as a freggin set of gaming rules, not part of an insurance policy! Here are some more ideas while they are at i: use (gasp) colour photos, decent eye candy and
diagrams, a layout and font size that is actually
readable. We are no longer in 1985 you know and times (and wargamers tastes) have
moved on as to what we is deemed to be acceptable presentation in a rule set.
So where does that leave me? Hail Caesar or Saga possibly? I
am keen to try Hail Caesar at some point (I have the rules, just lack the time)
but want something suitable for smaller games and which isn’t too complicated
(not that Hail Caesar is) to learn for an 11 year old. In fact if I was to put
on a big game then HC would be my first choice.
Saga?
The guys in CHCH are having a ball playing Saga and it does look like fun. However, I
really, really, really detest single basing. I have absolutely no interest in
skirmish style gaming so although Saga seems to be a fun ruleset and is certainly
very popular it just isn’t what I’m looking for. I want bases damn it, bases!
Now, I may sound like I'm being a bit picky, and I am but there is a reason. I want to get my son to get into a bit more gaming so I
want rules that are:
1. Fast
play
2. Fun
3. Not
to rules heavy/ hard to learn
4. Allow
him to learn and develop tactical concepts and ideas.
Hott/DBA worked well when he was younger to help his maths
but it’s simply roll one die and move a bit or work out the combat factors- and
we played loose with the ZoC/Geometry aspect to keep games fun. But the game
isn’t exactly riveting, after one game he’s usually had enough. He, likes his
“Boris the Beastman” army and I am keen to get him into some more fantasy type
gaming so have for some time now been on the lookout for some suitable rules.
What about War of the Ring?
I actually bought it hoping Finn might like the game. I’ve tried it a few times but it’s not my cup
of tea, a bit easy to abuse and not really the feel I’m after- Finn loves the pictures and eye candy, wasn't so excited by playing the game. The GW rules
don’t reflect the books AFAIK. I like the Lord of the Rings and have read the
books a dozen or more times but the GW game is too “hero” focussed (I know it
was necessary to make the movies interesting/ popular) but the rules produced
to GW to my mind bare little resemblance to what I want in a LoTR flavoured set
of rules. In the Lord of the Ring trilogy magic is rare and subtle and the
books are about ordinary people coping in extraordinary times. The heroes
aren’t heroes in the modern action movie sense (despite how many of them turned
out on screen). I don’t want larger than life heroes and I don’t want magic
being so dominant.
So, what is this? A rant about rules I don’t like? Maybe, but
hopefully its more about why I am dissatisfied with some rules out there and
still haven’t fund a ruleset that I think would suit an 11 year old.
I must admit though I’ve been tempted to create War of the
Rings inspired Mordor and Isengard forces for either Impetus and Hail Caesar
for games vs Finn. I think Hail Caesar would work best in that regard but now I
think Dux Bellorum may fit the bill even better- and also be a better fit for
Lord of the Rings themed games than the GW War of the Ring rules!
Why Dux Bellorum?
As I said earlier I haven’t really been happy with the way
the “Dark Ages” forces work in Impetus or DBA so have discounted both of those
and being a single figures based skirmish games Saga has been ruled out too. Lately,
I’ve heard a bit about Dux Bellorum. I read a few reviews and was interested enough
to order the book from Book Depository.
It turned up on Friday so I read over the last couple of
nights and must say I’m pretty impressed. Armies are about 8-12 bases (so not
to big) and I like the concepts such as the leadership dice (LPs) that add a
nice tactical decision making aspect to the game. The rules look simple and
straight forward and easy to grasp so I really think that they should give a
fast fun game with a bit of depth that DBA lacks, so I am quite hopeful Finn
will find them more fun. The rulebook is
64 pages and the rules are written clearly,
in easy to follow English- take that DBA!
So what are my
thoughts of Dux Bellorum?
The rules are straight forward and clearly set out. The author
adds lots of little “tactical tips” and advice that are enlightening
and informative. The diagrams are a little basic but are straightforward the
easy to understand. Being an Osprey publication they have lots of art from the
various Ospreys sprinkled throughout and some truly gorgeous 28mm eye candy
from the likes of James Morris.
The approach of the author agrees with how I prefer to play
games. Here are a couple of little gems in Dux Bellorum:
P15: Movement in a
miniatures game is an art, not a science: please don’t get into arguments about
the odd millimetre here and there, or the exact angle being used. If you’ve
playing against an opponent to whom this is important, agree before the game on
what is a reasonable amount of “unit wiggle.”
Or on p 31: The close
combat rules aren’t intended to be a test of geometry or cunning; I’ve tried to
provide guidelines for the most common situations that will arise, so if a
situation arises not governed by the rules, the general mantra is:
- Roll more rather than less dice
- Allow contact between enemies rather than preventing it.
Now those are both suggestions I prefer in my games and
seems to me that the second would improve DBA a whole lot too!
Things I like about Dux
Bellorum:
1. Army
size
Small forces (8-12 bases), simple rules= fast games & so
are good for teaching kids!
2. It
isn’t Herohammer.
I like the fact that generals and their companions (eg
Housecarls) are slightly better troops than the rank and file but by no means
“uber” troops.
3. Leadership
Points (LPs)
An interesting mechanism. Kind of like “pip” dice in DBA but
a lot more useful. You allocate LPs to different commands and they can be used
for different things can use LPS to add
extra dice in attacks, remove “hits” in combat, move out of turn (kind of like
opportunity charges in Impetus) or even to improve results on bravery (morale) tests. How many die to allocate and when to use them adds a tactical
decision making mechanism lacking from games such as DBA. Not only that but as
you use units you also lose LPs so your ability to influence the battle
decreases too.
4. Movement
It is similar in some ways to the Warmaster/ BP approach. To
move unit you need to pass a bravery (leadership) test- on 2d6. You can use the
units LP (if any) to reduce your dice roll to possibly mitigate a stuff up.
Optional rules allow for blunders or inspired moves so its similar to games like Hail Caesar & Warmaster- test then hopefully move (but your turn doesn't end if you ail to move a unit.
5. Combat
mechanisms
Again nice and simple and straight forward. All bases/stands/
elements/ units/ battlegroups (call them what you will) get so many dice and to
hit the enemy need to equal the defenders protection (armour). For instance an
ordinary warrior unit would get 5 dice +1 more if they charged. Say they were
fighting a shieldwall unit (protection 6), for each 6 they rolled the warriors would
score a hit. Each hit damages the unit which is reflected in a reduction to its
cohesion score (like VBU in Impetvs)). Most units cohesion rating is between
4-6 (ordinary shieldwall has a 4 so can take 4 hits before being destroyed).
The warriors have more attacks but less armour so the two are balanced out
somewhat.
So combat is relatively fast and straightforward. Roll dice, see how
many hits and reduce opponent’s cohesion. When a unit’s cohesion is reduced to
0 it is destroyed. No armour saves, fire power tests etc. Roll to hit, reduce
cohesion. Nice and simple. However, remember those LPs we were talking about
earlier. You can use up to 3 of those (assuming a unit has been allocated some
LPs) to reduce the number of casualties, so again the players have meaningful
choices. Do I use the LPs to move, use them for more dice in attack, keep them
for reducing hits, or do I save them for bravery tests for my army? Decisions,
decisions…
However, it will be interesting to see how LPs work out in
practice. I and see them making it hard for two shieldwall armies to damage
each other, so will probably used the suggestion of only allowing a maximum of 2
LPs be used to present loss of cohesion.
6. Strategies
and Tactics
Another thing I I like are the strategies and tactics
special rules. Each army can buy one or more tactics/strategies. These are
bought from the points (typically 32 points) allowed for each army. You can buy
things like:
Assassination: you try to assassinate the enemy commander
before the game. If you succeed (highly unlikely) the opponent loses 3LP for
the game as their leader has been killed and replaced, major failure means your
enemy gains fame for foiling the attempt and gains +1 LP for the game!
Other rules allow your army to get drunk before the game, or
monks improve leadership dice, or you can even have a mob of stampeding sheep
to run amok at a critical time in the battle.
These rules are quirky and fun and add another dimension to
a pretty straight forward game.
7. Army
Lists
Seem to be clear, are set out easily and allow some
flexibility in unit choice.
Things I’m not sure about:
The only thing I’m a bit doubtful about is break test mechanism.
When you army takes 50% losses (excluding skirmishers ) each unit on table must
pass a morale test or flee. I guess in reality this means only 3-4 tests are needed
but I first thought, hmm, more dice rolling. However, on reflection, I’m sure
it would work and means your army won’t all run away at once and will start to
drift off as some units morale breaks, eventually this trickle becomes a flood
and you will lose the game but have a chance to salvage something before it all
implodes- actually that is pretty cool really!
My concern with this system
was would it work in larger games (something I immediately thought of doing)
but we’ll probably go for multiple armies/commands rather than two large ones
in those instances.
Would it work for Lord
of the Rings?
I’ve been giving a bit more thought to a Lord of the Rings adaptation.
I never really liked Peter Jackson’s portrayal of Gondor. I think he got Rohan
pretty much spot on but the full plate armour of Gondor is, as far as I’m
concerned, completely out of kilter with the Anglo-Saxon history that inspired/
influenced Tolkien’s works. I understand why Jackson chose the style of armours
he did in that from a cinematographic point of view it was it visually easy to distinguish
Rohan and Gondor but each time I watch the movies it still strikes me as wrong.
Dux Bellorum is designed for Dark Ages gaming. Lord of the
Rings was inspired by Tolkiens research into Anglo Saxon England, so to me it seems a natural, and logical match up to use it for this genre.
Thinking about the armies I think the following lists will
work:
Gondor: Late Roman (but with up to 6 units of warriors
allowed)- and use Late Roman figures rather than silly renaissance era
wannabes.
Rohan: Romano-British- with an emphasis on lots of
cavalry!
Isengard: Land raiders (can use trolls as Noble riders and
wargs as ordinary riders) or possible even Pictish list but allow a second
troll- er, I mean noble rider)
I’ve already come up with a couple of armies to test the rules:
Rohan (using Post
Roman Britions)
1 Mounted
Companions
1 Noble Riders
3 Ordinary
Riders
3 Ordinary
Shieldwall
1 Foot Bow
1 Foot
Skirmishers
Boris the Beastman
Army (adapted from Land Raiders)
1 Boris the
Beastman (Mt Companions)
1 Beastman
Cataphract Riders)
5 Ogres
(Ordinary Warriors)
2 Wargs (War
Dogs)
Okay so Boris’s army is more of a generic fantasy army but
the same army can be run using GW trolls instead of beastmen and Urak Hai
instead of ogres to Middle Earth-ise it.
I am also keen to use Dux Bellorum with other historical eras and see it being
useful for lists up to 1066 and beyond too. In fact with a little tinkering I
see them as being easy to adapt for other eras and will definitely replace DBA
for that smaller (8-12 base) category “lighter” game in my gaming stable so can
see me breaking my “no more rules mantra”, at least this once. In fact I can’t
wait to try them out.
So overall thoughts. It seems simple, fast and fun and I am very, very keen to try it out.
Now, time to dig out those Westwind Saxons/Visigoths, Post
Roman/Arthurian Britons and Welsh I’ve had languishing in my lead pile!
