"First game of Mighty Armies." Topic

Hi Guys

I downloaded the new Mighty armies rules during the week, and had my first 2 games of it last night. When I got it first I was worried that it would be a HOTT clone, but it plays very differently and it has more complexity and options than I thought. It was my opponent plaing undead, and I took orcs, I lost both games, the first was a very close run thing, until a unit of infantry fell foul of some light cavalry charging in the rear, the second game I lost when my general got a bit too brave and lost. After playing fairly "heavy" games like FOG, it was a relief to have what amounts to a "kick-about" game. The mechanism where groups fighting groups always results in at least one casualty is very nice. There are a few issues I am as yet unclear on, and will post these questions on the forum. The one thing I felt was lacking was some sample army lists. There are a few available online, but it would have been nice to have at least 2 in the rulebook itself, espescially on your first read-through. All in all, I was well pleased the MA, and am looking forward to another game. I will spur me to start working through 15mm lead mountain, although I will still base my stuff so it will be compatible for HOTT as well as MA.

Phil

I imagine we (the McBrides) could easily put sample army lists on the Splintered Light blog, where there are already pictures of pre-made armies for MA.

What I wonder, though, is to what extent the "customizable" aspect mitigates against army lists to post? For example, if I am fielding a barbarian army, I might consider making their infantry Fearless, or a Horde, or a Rampager. All cost the same, +1 AP, and any might reasonably be given to a barbarian force. But they have different game effects, and which to use (if any) seems a matter of personal preference and personal style of play.

And by the way, Phil, your first experience very much mirrored mine, in that my initial impression with the rolling of pips for movement was "Oh, it's HOTT"; but pretty quickly that turned into, "Well, it's really not much like HOTT at all."

Hi Doc

I am just surprised that there was not at least 1 sample army in the downloaded rulebook. There are army profiles to mathc the boxed sets, even 1 of these list in the rulebook would have provided a nice example for reference when reading the rulebook. Even in HOTT with a very open army build approach, there is a huge amount of sample lists included in the rulebook, to provide a basis for newer players to tinker with.

Phil

Yeah, I was re-reading HOTT just last week, and they have lists for everything, seems like. And they are fun to examine. And I do see the usefulness when learning the rules.

It looks interesting I shall have to indulge I think. Although it might have to wait for the Magic book first.

Magic book?

I suggested to them several times that they make the basing the same as HOTT (and DBA etc.)

Its a major drawback since I might want to have an occasional MA game or play in a tournament but not if I have to rebase.

TomT

I am wondering too on how the points system works when you add or subtract for movement or fighting power?

doug: From my reading of the rules book that is not something you are supposed to do. I too would have wished for more customization options in the points system.

Thomas: you can easily base your minis 40 by 40 (40 by 20) for smaller stuff and be good with both (and, which is why I do it, also good for Fantasy Rules!). The real problem is that they did not give rules for what has to go on what base and that a small base is much better than a big one.

All that might sound devastating. Its not meant to, the game is good. It still feels a bit rough and frankly I would have expected more for the price. Still quite ok though.

I know there has been a lot of talk about the point system and wanting to add this and that. One of the strengths of MA is its simplicity. The more stuff added like different point for this base size or that base size makes it more and more complex, which is not what it is intended to be. There are other games for those who want complexity.

I am pretty sure that just monstrous units and chariots go on the big bases. As mentioned in the rules, monstrous does not mean necessarily 1 big figure but might be a mob of goblins or sentient mushrooms. If you have some cavalry figures that need to go on a big base, they would need to be made monstrous, which makes sense. The monstrous ability is really useful and I think makes up for the advantage the smaller bases have.

As far as adding movement or fighting skills, what I typically do is add 1 to the combat factor and 1 to the support factor per extra point spent. For movement, an extra point would be 2 or 3 inches of movement.

Having played a lot of games of MA, it is really hard to build some uber army or unit that is unbeatable. I think the rules are designed in such a way that no unit or army is unbeatable as there are plenty of ways to counter any type force or unit.

If you are playing games among friends, then there should be no problem with a little wiggle room among armies and if you are that intense about games, then, again, MA may not be for you. If you want a really fun, easy to play and quick to learn set of rules, then MA is perfect for that.

David

Thanks. We are going to bring out the figures and try the game out this weekend.

I believe what is wanted is clarity in the first place. And the rules as written currently are not satisfying in that regard.

What I dislike is that there are units in the "official" army lists that have abilities that I cannot build with the point system in the book. I would want a points system to allow me to do that: Build everything that is in the official lists too. A tad more complexity in army design would not necessarily translate to more complicated gameplay.

I was really looking forward to this, but having been disappointed by MA1, I'm not surprised that MA2 left me feeling the same.

The army creation rules are a tad suspect and I still can't fit the majority of my 15mm cavalry on a 50x25mm base.

@Thomas Thomas- I understand. That is why we posted in the rule book that you can use any base size you like as long 1) Your opponent has the same basing or 2) you both agree that there will be a difference and play accordingly. I actually have a couple of DBA armies I use.

@doug redshirt- As David said, we wanted to keep the game a simple, fun and quick to learn game. That being said, you can modify your FS as David suggested.

@hwarang- Thank you for your feedback. We have been disussing some of your points(from previous posts as well)and looking to see what we can come up with. Clarity is good :) As far as offical older armies, we are changing some of the older armries to be in line with the new BYO system.

@krieghund- Let me know what you think are suspect and maybe I can clear them up for you.

I want to thank everyone for thier feedback. MA is not for everyone, I know that. I also know that even with all the playtesters, proofreaders and editors, we have made some mistakes. But we are working on it and listening to the feedback. If you have any more questions or feedback, drop us a line at the forum: mightyarmiesonline.info

Thanks!