Author Topic: ‘Modern’ Wargaming Rulesets discussion  (Read 419 times)

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10103
  • Sydney, Australia
‘Modern’ Wargaming Rulesets discussion
« on: December 26, 2020, 01:49:16 PM »
What do you mean by modern?
I haven’t played a game in years, so curious...
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Online GamesPoet

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 21237
  • Spring is still here! : )
Re: ‘Modern’ Wargaming Rulesets discussion
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2020, 02:00:03 PM »
Yep, I could guess, although curious as to what is meant as well.
"Not all who wander are lost ... " Tolkien

"... my old suggestion is forget it, take two aspirins and go paint" steveb

"The beauty of curiosity and creativity is so much more useful than the passion of fear." me

"Until death it is all life." Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

Offline Zygmund

  • Pure of Heart
  • Posts: 2300
    • https://www.facebook.com/groups/288460758594334
Re: ‘Modern’ Wargaming Rulesets discussion
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2020, 05:02:02 PM »
What do you mean by modern?

First of all, after the 3rd ed of Warhammer there was Grenadier's Fantasy Warriors and TSR/Ral Partha's Battlesystem. The former at least contained interesting aspects that were not and never became part of Warhammer. So interesting new design isn't necessarily that new. 30 years ago there were fresh options for WFB.


Kings of War is semi-modern. Does the block tactics much more efficiently than WFB, without the grind. Or lacking the grind, if that is what you like. The magic is much more balanced. But then again lacking some character. In the big picture, KoW has more things that I prefer than things I feel are lacking.

Hail Caesar has a good concept of leadership. Basically similar to Warmaster, of course. Still 15-20 years fresher rules than WHFB. Luck plays a bigger role, which for me is OK, since historically large battles were quite uncontrollable, once they got going.

Impetus. Haven't tried it, only read. But its interesting. Haven't heard if the fantasy version has progressed.

Sword & Spear (?), and Swordpoint (?) are basically WHAB rehacks, with larger unit bases and ways to influence the grind. Opinions vary if they're successes or meh. Again, they're historical, and contain perhaps more an element of luck (at certain point of the game).

Song of Ice and Fire is much liked among some WFB players. No magic there, and more card or sheet control, but it seems to be a fresh approach to the traditional block game.

Many of the new fantasy games don't quite do it for me. Warlords of Erehwon I feel is not good, it's too much tied to rifle platoon design. Oathmark I haven't tried, but it seems to be "alternate KoW" in the sense that it is more focused on some aspects of WHFB but then less focused on others. I'm, gonna try it out.

Modern/fresh mass battle rules seem to be essentially lighter, more straightforward, omitting most or all of the WAAC rules-lawyering and holes in the design, yet keeping the tactics and units interesting. Usually less moving parts, so streamlined rules which are easier to pick up. The question then is how easy the rules are to master, i.e. if the games offer enough challenge and aspects to find out. Then again in the modern internet age, all games tend to get dissected/broken fast. Just think about how fast WFB 8th ed armies were dissected into units and builds that generally work against such that mostly don't work.

My quest for 'optimal' fantasy battles is not settled yet, likely never will be. But these are some thoughts about the context where WFB today lives, where we make choices about the game we want to play. Personally, my main criterion is how economic the rules are. Every edition of WFB is a monster compared to these newer games. A good game, in my opinion, has the rules in 30-50 pages (just the text and the tables), and can be compressed into less than 10 pages.

Sorry for the offtopic. Hope this answers the question.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2020, 05:25:45 PM by Zygmund »
Live in peace and prosper.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10103
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: ‘Modern’ Wargaming Rulesets discussion
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2020, 11:56:45 AM »
Splitter it into its own topic.

I guess reason I ask, is because every few months I tinker with a new game system or armylist concept for a game and fantasy background world I would like to make.

But I don’t get to play much anymore. Arguably my ideas could be submitted to The 9th Age boards, but then they 1 - cease to be my ideas, and 2 - get decided and watered down by committee. I like a lot of what they do over there, and I can appreciate how long things take having tried to start it myself, but there are some fundamentals of the game system I think are too invested in legacy WHFB which I want to be unshackled from.

As such, I guess I am keen to learn more from those who have played other systems, and what constitutes both modern design, but then also what experience do people actually look for in a battlegame.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline Mathi Alfblut

  • Posts: 6508
  • intres cum fixura sine misericordia
Re: ‘Modern’ Wargaming Rulesets discussion
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2021, 12:50:55 PM »
I am all stoaked for Oathmark!

I have been organizing my elves to form an army of an elven kingdom and I am building a human kingdom army (with some elven foederati). I am slowly trying to get my youngest son to embrace fantasy gaming and he has gotten 29 old monopose skink archers and all my Lord of the Ring orcs.

When the corona madness finally calms down I hope to get playing with a friend.

All focus goes there today. My humans are inspired by the migration period, using a mix of Oathmark humans and Late roman miniatures.

However, there is a chance I paint my Oathmark humans in "stirlandish" colours. Just saying...
Oh, and remember GW made it personal, not you!