"WH Legends Of The Old West: Works For Victorians???" Topic

I've played Warhammer Historicals (WAB), and I am somewhat familiar with LOTR rules, so would rather stay with WH rules, if possible.

Now I am giving consideration to getting WH Legends of the Old West but, would it work for action among Victorians (1890s-1920s) in:

* Lost World scenarios;
* Time Machine traveler(s) and Eloi vs Morlocks;
* Dark Africa explorations (Tarzan, King Solomon's Mines);
* Victorians vs Selenites (First Men In The Moon), etc.???

Thanks.

CC

And perhaps also for Victorians explorers in South American Jungles (Amazon)?

TMP link

CC

LotOW should work just fine. You will need to come up with rules/stats for the various things that your adventurers will encounter, however. A couple of years ago, my gaming group used a variant of LotOW to run a pulpy campaign that ranged from New Mexico to Egypt, and involved Chinese tongs, nefarious Luftruppen, heroic Rocketmen, brave archaeologists, French legion etrangere, mysterious cults and the main villain, the mummy Amenhotep.

We needed to generate stats for beasties and develop rules for automatic weapons, but beyond that we were pretty much straight LotOW.

cheers
W

IMHO, yes. Most emphatically yes. LotOW/HS aka LotR:SBG is definately a "heroic" game. The deceptively simple mechanics would, at first glance, seem to be merely a dice rolling excersize. However, there a surprising amount of depth.

If you have the Pirate rules CC you can use them and simply change the wepons the mechanics are the same

And acronym of the year 2008 goes to: LotOW/HSakaLotR:SBG

And yes, the rules will work for pretty much anything where you want your heroes to be, well, heroic.

Thanks everyone. I knew I could count on your help.

CC

By coincidence CC, I'm putting together the minis and terrain for a few sessions of Victorian SF. The style will be very much S1889, but I'm doing it for a bunch of hardened GW gamers, so the Venusian lizardmen will be skinks, and the Martian hill tribes will be Moria Goblins :) LotOW is the system I went for. As well as the heroic game system (which I'm very familiar with) and the GW logo on the cover, there were a couple more reasons I went for it:

1) You can mix in a lot of the monsters (and magical effects = superscience gizmos or mystical witchdoctors) from the LotR rules. Just remember that most LotOW types are slightly underpowered in HTH compared to some of the more powerful LotR heroes and monsters – decide if you really need three-attack dice heroes. A soldier is a soldier, whether he's a British colonial trooper or a Man of Gondor;

2) The Blood on the Plains supplement has rules for North American Indian tribes that work quite well for Mahdists in the Sudan, Zulus, or Martians in their Kraags;

3) The Alamo mass battle rules will fork for Colonials vs natives – anain, in any setting.

4) There's an article in issue 14 of the Battlegames magazine on using LotOW for Colonial gaming that you may find useful.

I think it should work perfectly (although you might want to create a few special rules for better ammo and guns if you're playing in the 1920s).

When gaming VSF, I think it's mostly a matter of attitude, really. The technology is identical to that of the Wild West, but the attitude is very different. For lack of a better way to put it, cowboys have a "hellbent for leather" attitude, whereas VSF seems to have a "stiff upper lip" attitude.

If yuh know what I mean.

LOTOW *might* work for you, but you wouldn't be using much of the rule book. Half of the book is devoted to various stats for "old west" type characters and some history which will be useless to you, and some "Old West" type scenarios like "Stage Coach" and "Bank Robbery" which will be equally useless. The parts that will be useful to you are the campaign system which includes the usual stuff that you'll find in any miniatures RPG-like campaign like advancing the experience of characters and using income or loot to buy equipment, etc. although in a *very* simplified form, and the core system used for gunfights including moving, firing, cover, etc. The character stats, as it seems you already know, are used in almost exactly the same way as LOTR, Pirates, and 40K. The characteristics are Shootin', Fightin', Strength, Grit, Attacks, Pluck, and Wounds. The system is one of the simplest that I've ever seen and IMO, suits platoon or better sized conflicts better than a group of characters or less because most of the characters that aren't famous can only suffer one wound and they *die*, and seriously, with any knowledge of Warhammer games it wouldn't be much of an effort to develop stats without ever having seen the LOTOW rule book as they are abstracted and don't represent "real life" gun fighting at all, but rather the author's point of view, which is no better and might be worse than something that you can come up with yourself.

As was pointed out in a previous post in this string, you're going to have to add a *lot* of your own rules for scenarios in the Victorian era, and they are going to be the Lion's share of those rules, so why not just start from scratch with your own less simplified gun fighting rules and develop your scenarios in a way that will match the way you envision any conflict to be represented. If you really need to have a set of rules to work from I prefer "Astounding Tales" or ".45 Adventures" as they are more "meaty" and include some more modern rules that you're going to need.

Shadow, I think a lot more is usable that you might think.

A lot of the Hired Guns are more suitable for small-team scenarios than the basic gangs – they tend to have better stats, as well as Fame and Fortune points. A character with 2 wounds, 2 Fame and 2 Fortune is really pretty durable, and you can use the more basic "non-heroic" character types as mooks. The Hired Guns are pretty easily changed to Victorian and Pulp archetypes too – the Trapper, for example, is pretty good for a Big Game Hunter, the Indian Scout is an explorer, and maybe the Pugilist is a drunken Scottish engineer who likes to get into a lot of brawls.

It's quite easy to make your own archetypes. The Good Doctor, for example, might get a Fortune points to spend on healing other characters, the Great Detective or the Criminal Mastermind – sorry, don't have my book at work , maybe look through the skill list and check out anything that's appropriate).

Blood on the Plains has useful stuff on Natives, LotR, or even Warhammer (with little modification), monsters can easily be used in Lost World scenarios. If you want "special effects", I'll repeat that LotR has some not-overwhelming magical effects that can be incorporated (you don't even have to keep the Will roll – just the dice roll to activate the power).

The core rules have a lot of subtleties – the use of Fame and Fortune points at the right time is something of an artform. If you're worried about the strength of firearms, drop all the Strength values 1 point to bring them more in line with LotR. The machine gun rules presented in BotP are perfect for unreliable Victorian-era Gardners and Gatlings, maybe make them more reliable for 20th century scenarios.

The campaign system or variants thereof is widely used in GW games – check out the LotR Battle Companies free download, there's one similar for WFB Chaos Warrior gangs online too (can't remember the name?), and Mordheim is not too far from any of these. The scenarios can be modified with little trouble – Stage Coach could be Stop the Steam Walker, Bank Robbery could be "Raid the Moon-King's Palace".

The game system works really well at all "skirmish" levels, from a few heroes pitted against each other, to a couple of leaders with a larger warband (Explorers, Troops and Native Bearers vs the Temple of the Lizardmen anyone?), all the way up to pitched battles. If you use the massed battle rules in the Alamo supplement, you can go up to 100 or so on a side. Perfect for a campaign that starts small and scales up to a final battle.

You're right that things like 45 Adventure are excellent games in their own right, and have a lot of useful material. Event cards, IMHO, should be used in EVERY game. But there's not too much work to do if you simply want to lift that material wholesale to use in a LotOW game.

And some folks just like to stick with what they know, which often means GW – I can always find more takers for a game of LotOW than 45 Adventures.

Shadow,

I certainly am not a GW "fanboy", but I think your analysis of the LotR:SBG type games misses a lot of the intent of this game mechanic.

These games are focused on characters. Characters have a couple extra stats which allow them to alter outcomes and die rolls. Combined with special rules, the game, in practice, can become tense and very "strategic". It's true that there are "mooks" (cannon fodder), but the intent is to swarm the heroic characters and give heroes a chance to mow them down. So the game accurately duplicates the cinematic action in The Lord of the Rings and Spaghetti Westerns/Samurai movies.

As far a reproducing Victoriana, well, the Old West was the same era as the Victorian era. While the Brits were in Egypt and Northwest Frontier, cowboys were driving cattle up the Chisom Trail. The weaponry is contemporary between LotOW and Victorian England. Change the names of the figures and names of the weapons and you're basically done as long as you're doing a cinematic game.

Tanuki:"And some folks just like to stick with what they know, which often means GW – I can always find more takers for a game of LotOW than 45 Adventures."

Sigh. Ain't it just the truth, though. And yes, the events from .45A really add a ton of goodness to pretty much every other game, especially if you can work it so that everything doesn't inherently break down into an immediate gunfight.

[Also, it's very odd seeing you post under a different handle :D]

The Shadow:"If you really need to have a set of rules to work from I prefer "Astounding Tales" or ".45 Adventures" as they are more "meaty" and include some more modern rules that you're going to need."

I don't think I'd call Asounding Tales very meaty: that's my go-to game when I want really casual play, with a ref taking up most of the system stuff and the players just more-or-less freeforming whatever they want to do with their characters, along the lines of old-skool RPGing.

.45A has a decidedly meatier system, and works best for small numbers of minis per player, even with the later "mook" rules added in. On the upside, there are a ton of expansions out now and coming out soon, and all the Rattrap stuff is cross-compatible, meaning that you won't need to create stuff so much as pick and choose from what is already there.

As for characters "dying" in Legends of {blank} games, that's not quite accurate. A dead character rarely dies with utter finality under the campaign rules, and only very, very rarely when the mini represented even a minor "named" character. Most post-scenario results are temporary wounds, loss of gear, or perhaps capture-that sort of thing.

I am an advocate of using rules that fit the style and level of detail the player desires. The most enjoyment, what I think is the point of all this, can be gained by matching the rules the to players' expectations. To that end, when discussing rules with potential players, the shallow, uninformed "analysis" such as that Shadow's does no one service.

The types of scenarios posed in the original question whould be an excellent fit with a herioc game. The Lost World type game begs for a handful of intrepid explorers encounters hordes of ravenous headhunters or large hard to kill creatures, both of which are covered very well in LotR:SBG. The same is true of the other types of encounters as well. LotR:SBG/LotOW/LoHS system is specifically built for this these types of games.

BTW, making a comparision between 40K and LotR:SBG because the charcter stats are similarly named demostrates the shallowness of the the analysis. After all, are all games that have some sort of shooting skill, strength, etc. all the same as 40K? Dungeons and Dragons has similar character stats therefore D&D = 40K? I think not.

Are the LotR:SBG type rules the best choice? Perhaps. There are other fine rules out there as well. My opinion is that they should be a strong contender as they are specifically designed, have years of play testing, and a demonstrated adaptability to various periods.

Thanks so much for all the sincere pro/con feedback. I've decided to order the Legends of the Old West.

It won't always be Victorians vs primitives. There will be plenty of Victorian vs Victorian conflicts in my plan.

Thanks again.

CC

NB If you order the supplements via ARTIZAN you get free figures

If you want to do bigger battles, I would recommend Two Hour Wargames Colonial Adventures. I have many of the THW versions and until Colonial Adventures was published, I can tell you honestly I was very confused. CA cleans up the rules (the system itself is very clean once you understand how it works). Units are about 20 figures including one or more leader figures. Play is extremely dynamic and is focused on actions and reactions and thus will ebb abd flow in an exicing manner.

I got the change to play at last Millennium in Roundrock (Austin) Texas in November. The game surpased my expectations. I also got to talk a lot with Ed Teixeira (which is quite a bit as he get quite animated and stats talking fast when he discusses this game) and I think I undestand the game pretty well and I highly recommend it if you're thinking of making several turn of the century British units face off against Germans or similar match. One of the cool things about Ed's rules is that they are all availble as PDF and/or print. In fact, if you by the print copy, he will email the PDF to you as well.

"I am an advocate of using rules that fit the style and level of detail the player desires. The most enjoyment, what I think is the point of all this, can be gained by matching the rules the to players' expectations. To that end, when discussing rules with potential players, the shallow, uninformed "analysis" such as that Shadow's does no one service".

I was going to let this drop as Caribe has decided to order the rules, but since you have obviously been baffled by my "shallow analysis" i've decided to help you out here.

My point was an opinion, not an "analysis", regarding what the level of play is in LOTOW. My *opinion* is that the level of detail in the combat rules of this rules set, which is nearly a direct port from 40K, was originally based on platoon or larger sized unit combat, not man-to-man. Therefore hit location and the results of damage to specific body parts and how they will affect the flow and tension of the scenario is not modeled. This is perfectly fine if it's what you enjoy, but when we're talking about a scenario where there may be as few as two or three characters and possibly some sort of beast *I* would rather see more detailed combat and damage to the characters for many reasons that I'm sure you can figure out all by yourself if you just give it some thought.

"As far a reproducing Victoriana, well, the Old West was the same era as the Victorian era. While the Brits were in Egypt and Northwest Frontier, cowboys were driving cattle up the Chisom Trail".

I know that, and you *know* that I know that. However, "Old West" games are a genre of their own. What Caribe specifically asked about was whether LOTOW would be OK for what is commonly called VSF. He *specifically* mentioned "King Solomon's Mines, Tarzan's adventures, time travel and lost world adventures. Not cowboys and the Chisholm Trail. What's more, since Tarzan's adventures take place *after* the Victorian Era I can only guess what his concept of VSF is and conclude that the automobile, automatic weapons, and aircraft might be part of what he'd like to see represented in the rules. Considering that, I felt that ".45A" or "Astounding tales" might serve him better. So do yourself a favor and pay attention to the original question, not what you think the original question should be.

Actually, it's more of a port-over of the LotR rules than the 40K rules, with warband type campaign-play lessons learned from Necromunda/Gorkamorka/Mordheim.

LotR was esentially a cleaned-up version of the core GW games (40K and WHFB) that streamlined systems a good bit, changed a few things around, and probably would have caused head-splodiness to long-term fans had they been introduced in a new edition of either those main games.

As for use with different times, the LotOW supplement "Showdown" goes all-to-briefly into that, while Legends of the High Seas is a similar rule-set adapted for pirate gaming.

Mind you, I too lurve Rich's and Howard's games, but there is a very good argument for playing something very close to what people already know.

So, me, I get that you were expressing a preference, but some of your background arguments for that opinion are a bit off-base.

Thank you for your insight and your inside information concerning the "direct port" fro 40K to LotR:SBG. Apparently you are singular in your abiltiy to detect the correspondence.

Thanks, also, for the assistance in understanding the original post. It is quite obvious that I (and others who agreed that LotOW is easily adapted to the particular VSF themes posted) have no ability to read and understand a simple question, i.e., "Can LotOW be used for…?"

I make have no, and offer no, opinions concerning .45 Adventures or Asounding Tales (I do happen to own both, but have played neither). Unlike some posters, I'll offer no opinions on rules on which I haven't performed analysis or with which I have no, or inadequate, personal experience.

Again, let me thank you for my education.

"Again, let me thank you for my education".

No charge.

Hi CC,

I always follow your posts with interest.

To bring this old post up again, I too am currently compiling some stats and thoughts for LOTOW/LOTR and VSF. To second the majority of posters above, I think LOTOW is eminently suitable to port across to VSF (How about 'Legends of the Victoria Era' or 'LoVE' as a working title?)

Currently looking at stats for Brits, Zulus, Boers, Prussians and Amazons ('cos that is what I have in my collection at the moment). Of course, they need rules for maxims, gatlings, field guns, dinosaurs, gyrocopters, primitive tribal magic (superstitious nonsense of course!) and perhaps some profiles for various legendary hero types.

So if you would like to compare notes or ideas, please drop me a line at jkavanagh67 AT optusnet DOT com DOT au.

I would be happy to share the little I have at the moment, and some mutual support to keep me on track would be welcome. There is a yahoo group for LOTR variants that has some great stuff (including a a pretty good boxer rebellion starter variant).

Sitting next to me at the computer right now are copies of LOTR, LOTOW, Space 1889 RPG, Soldier's Companion, TSATF, Gaslight, Battles by Gaslight, Colonial Adventures and Farwell's Encyclopedia of 19th C Land Warfare. Just to establish my bona fides as it were.

Good luck with it!

cheers

John

Hey John,

TMP's Lowtardog has worked on several stats for LOTOW for prehistorics. They are now on our Yahoo Group, if you would like to join, in the Files/Rules and Lists/Cave Wars LOTOW Variant folder:

link

I couldn't write a rules variant if my life depended on it. However, I would love to read your ideas and, hopefully, Karl and others there can provide additional insight.

Thanks.

Dan

There was an article in the print version of Wargames Journal with Victorian dino hunters using LotOW rules. Not much help as they don't appear to be on their site wargamesjournal.com/#

Hi Dan,

Joined!

Many thanks.

Just have to do 22 ebay sales today and tomorrow, then I will be back onto it.

cheers

John

John,

When you're ready, all 422 of us would love to hear your ideas. I think the exchange will do us all well.

Dan

>When you're ready, all 422 of us would love to hear your ideas. I think the exchange will do us all well.<

No offense, but don't speak for all of us.

Alrightty there Shadow. Maybe you are not as hospitable as the rest of us.

Anyway . . .

Does anyone know if this is the best LOTOW Yahoo Group out there? Would they be open to ideas "outside the box"?

link

CC
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link

>Maybe you are not as hospitable as the rest of us.<

What I said wasn't inhospitable. John's ideas may be great, but I'll do my own thinking and express my own opinions. That is, of course, if you don't mind.

"What I said wasn't inhospitable."

Well, as we can all see, it did not sound very inviting, friendly or welcoming . . .

CC to jkavanagh67: "When you're ready, all 422 of us would love to hear your ideas. I think the exchange will do us all well."

Shadow: "No offense, but don't speak for all of us."

After wasting 7 days trying to determine if what I said was wrong I came to the conclusion that I can invite whomever I damn please to my discussion group and that if I say they will be welcome then, as long as they are civil, they will be welcome in the group.

The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

CC

*Your* discussion group. LOL. Since the thread is in *this* group I thought you meant *this* group. Sorry about that.

LOL. That's why I said "all 422 of us", man.

CC

So . . . is the following the best known of the LOTOW Yahoo Groups?

link

Thanks.

CC