Re: Points, Mass and Fantasy FMA NON-TOPIC, REALLY
From: Oerjan Ohlson <f92-ooh@n...>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 07:44:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Points, Mass and Fantasy FMA NON-TOPIC, REALLY
Sorry for sending this to this list, but I've lost count on which people
could be interested:
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Allan Goodall wrote:
> At 12:59 AM 12/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
> > Dunno about that lack of flavor, but I don't have a lot of
> >experience with HOTT.
> The problem with HOTT is that an Orc blade unit feels exactly the same
> Dwarf blade unit or a Human blade unit (and the same could be said
> other unit types).
Since armies are so small (usually 10-15 elements) and play so fast
(usually less than 1 hour), I don't see that as a real problem.
unit grades a la DBM would unbalance things quite a lot - going from (O)
(Ordinary) to (I) (gets a -1 penalty if the opponent gets a better
result) means going from dying once in a while to dying a lot, and with
so few elements to lose... well, it's hard to get a very even fight
My solution has been to use DBM rules (and correspondingly larger
armies); by using some creative troop definitions (like equating wolfes
with camels <g>) and in some rare cases inventing new troop types (...
all flying troops, for instance) one can use DBMs grading system to full
You might want to use some sort of magic system, though; I'm mainly into
the Tolkien/Pratchett style of fighting, where magic doesn't normally
affect the battle directly.
> The armies are distinct as a whole, and the interaction
> of the whole army is the most important factor. However, an Orc army
> warbands (Orc soldiers), 2 shooters (Orc bowmen), 1 heavy cavalry (Orc
> riders), and an Orc general is functionally identical to a Wood Elf
> 8 warbands, 2 shooters, 1 heavy cavalry, and one Elf general. In a
> played at a smaller level, the Orcs might outnumber the Elves and the
> may be more capable (1-on-1) with the Orcs, but HotT loses this
In DBM/Fantasy, I'd make the Elves Regular Spearmen(S) (for Superior -
adds 1 to the combat roll if beaten), Reg. Bow(S) and various mounted;
all these troop types are 'expensive' in the points system used. The
orcs would be irregulars - Hordes, Warbands, Bow(I), Camels(?!) and so
- cheap but brittle units. There's your outnumbering effect.
Of course, there are several DBM/Fantasy conversions floating around the
'net. Last time I checked there were some Middle-Earth army lists on Ed
Allen's DBM Homepage... and IIRC those lists don't use any special rules
> >I've been planning on taking a small set of
> >counters (not miniatures; I don't have enough) to a medieval
> >friend of mine, showing him how the battles flow, and getting his
> You might want to show him DBA, as well. Although there aren't a whole
> of figures on a DBA/HotT battlefield, at least the end result feels
> like a battle than Warhammer.
They should be. DBA was written for historical battles, after all <G>
> The campaign rules would be part of a grand tactical set.
This I disagree with. A campaign system should be able to play out
battles using your favourite grand tactical rules set rather than being
tied into one single set; after all, how much people eat has little
to do with how you resolve their fights...
"Father, what is wrong?"
"My shoes are too tight. But it does not matter, because
I have forgotten how to dance."
- Londo Mollari