Has anyone seen the Heroes of Battle book? It's basically got rules on how PC actions can have an effect on the outcome of battles, without having to play a minatures wargame. It seems like the sort of thing that could be very useful for a War of the Lance campaign (or Chaos War, etc). Worth looking into if you're interested in such battles depending on what the PCs do.
Ravenmantle
#1- The "Warhammer Option". In this, my PC's whom are familiar with the WarHammer Fantasy gaming system, adapt units over to the Warhammer system. It makes battles fun, quick, easy and realisitc. However, th is option does not work well if people had no Warhammer Experience.
#2- The Pivotal Characters- In this, I base the entire battle entirely on how the Players as individual's do. I will try to find a good match up for the Players in the midst of the battle, and how the battle goes is contingent on how the players roll/fight/do.
Takes a session or two for everyone to get familiar with it. The first 3-4 hours can be painfully slow. But it DOES get a lot better.
Ch. 6, Mass Combat from the Miniature's Handbook is a serviceable option for mass battle rules in a D&D campaign.
Takes a session or two for everyone to get familiar with it. The first 3-4 hours can be painfully slow. But it DOES get a lot better.
The original modules also had such rules. In DL11, I believe. I would just prefer to avoid mass battles with minis, while still allowing players to have a say in what happens. If I'm gonna spend hours playing a game, I'd like to play one I enjoy.
The original modules also had such rules. In DL11, I believe. I would just prefer to avoid mass battles with minis, while still allowing players to have a say in what happens. If I'm gonna spend hours playing a game, I'd like to play one I enjoy.
No. DL11 is a stand alone Wargame which simulates the War of the Lance. It is not meant to be used as part of a session of D&D.
Ch. 6 - Mass Combat, otoh, is.
Ch. 6, Mass Combat from the Miniature's Handbook is a serviceable option for mass battle rules in a D&D campaign.
My gripe with Miniatures Handbook is that it still deals with individual soldiers. You really can't use it to play out a battle between thousands of troops. If I were to bother playing out a battle in mass combat, I'd want arrow volleys that darken the skies, cavalry charges that shake the ground - Braveheart on my kitchen table.
My gripe with Miniatures Handbook is that it still deals with individual soldiers. You really can't use it to play out a battle between thousands of troops. If I were to bother playing out a battle in mass combat, I'd want arrow volleys that darken the skies, cavalry charges that shake the ground - Braveheart on my kitchen table.
Exactly the problem with the book's system, yes. In fact, when I bought the Miniatures Handbook I thought that the skirmish system would be the single-mini version, and the mass combat system would be one mini = multiple creatures. No such luck!
Cry Havoc from Malhavoc Press, and Fields of Blood from Eden Studios are both superior products for mass combat. Even Mike Mearls' Empire from AEG has a better mass combat system than the Miniatures Handbook. I like the Miniatures Handbook for all the stuff in the first few chapters, but Chapter Six was a real let-down.
Cheers,
Cam
I have. They are both needlessly complex and do not mesh well with a traditional PnP D&D session.
Miniature's Handbook Mass Combat is not meant to simulate the battle of thousands - but it does permit battles of hundreds in which the PCs can meaningfully participate.
Sorry. I tried both of the systems you prefer in play and do not agree with your opinion at all.
It all depends on what you are looking for of course. But if you are looking for a system that can mesh with your players characters having meaningful roles in a mass combat that still resembles a session of D&D - neither Cry Havoc nor Fields of Blood rules can achieve that.
Miniature's Handbook Mass Combat is not meant to simulate the battle of thousands - but it does permit battles of hundreds in which the PCs can meaningfully participate.
I suppose it's a matter of how you want to use it. What you describe here, I can do without the MH. When I think of "mass combat", I sort of expect it to be "mass". One individual per unit isn't what I think of. Like you say, it's a matter of what you're looking for.
Sorry. I tried both of the systems you prefer in play and do not agree with your opinion at all.
That's OK, Steel_Wind. I think we've already established that you and I share few opinions in common!
I have a fondness for mass combat systems which I can use as a backdrop for the events of the characters, which Cry Havoc and Fields of Blood do, as does Pendragon's own Battle system. The Heroes of Battle sourcebook is even more concerned with this approach, and is something I'm considering picking up on the strength of that intent.
Cheers,
Cam
That's OK, Steel_Wind. I think we've already established that you and I share few opinions in common!
Bah! You like steel pieces and I hate em. Other than that we've pretty much seen eye-to-eye hitherto. And I suppose I break cannon whenver it suits me - (but I do try not to when I don't have to).
I have a fondness for mass combat systems which I can use as a backdrop for the events of the characters
I like the intent of that as well. In many respects, that IS what the WotL is, after all.
But for that effect in session, I think it's a better approach for DMs to use the Heroes of Battle scheme and just PICK what's going to happen in the event of PC losses and victories.
In other words, if the war is a backdrop to facilitate telling a story - I'd prefer to tell the story and leave out the mechanics of something that isn't my player's story so that they can effect the outcome (be it great or small).
The Mass Combat rules in Minature's Handbook may not be for everyone. That I accept.
But those rules do let you have a battle of - say - 500-600 troops on the field. It does let your heroes play a role directing that battle and participating in it. It does resemble D&D and more or less plays out akin to D&D as you conduct the battle.
It permits a DM to set up an invasion scenario during the War of the Lance a la 1st ed Battlesystem and *play it*. And that is not something that you are going to get from Fields of Blood very easily.
While the intent Of Ch. 6 Mass Comabt might not be something that floats your boat concept wise, I don't see it as an inherent failure or a disappointment with the book.
By the same token, I have seen a lot of ppl on EnWorld slag Heroes of Battle. Most were looking for the book to be something other that what it is intended to be. There is even a current review of Heroes of Battle on Paizo's site from somebody who clearly didn't even bother to READ the book (the "reviewer" suggests it has rules for something it does not have. I think the reviewer picked it up in a store and merely flipped through it).
You see, I read reviews from a LOT of people who slagged Ch. 6 Mass Combat before I ever tried it. I was plain scared off. I went to Fields of Blood and Cry Havoc first. Read em through - tried a small session with both. Nope.
Mass Combat was preferable and very useful for War of the Lance scenarios during play.
So while I appreciate that Ch. 6 Mass Comabt may not aim for what you wanted it to be - it was not a disappointment given it's goals and its utility in roleplaying sessions. I think it is a very worthy book for DL DMs to examine and consider using for that purpose.
And yer scaring em off Cam
