Who asked this joker | 05 Jul 2011 8:34 a.m. PST |
They both look like interesting games. I own both but have not played either. The first was built closer to the DnD system with AC and D20s and so forth. The second seems to be built more towards the damage your weapons do vs AC. It seems to be an attempt to streamline. There are also a few nice painting articles in the book. So which do you prefer? |
religon | 05 Jul 2011 8:38 a.m. PST |
|
richarDISNEY | 05 Jul 2011 8:40 a.m. PST |
1st.
|
SheriffLee | 05 Jul 2011 8:59 a.m. PST |
|
m4jumbo | 05 Jul 2011 9:07 a.m. PST |
It's been so long since I've played or even looked at 1st ed Battlesystem that I can't recall all the specific differences, but when 2nd ed came out, I happily switched over and continue to enjoy playing 2nd Ed. |
Ken Sharp | 05 Jul 2011 10:34 a.m. PST |
1st edition if the battle was part of a RPG campaign, and 2nd edition for stand alone battles. Ken |
Landorl | 05 Jul 2011 10:56 a.m. PST |
1st edition had a couple of neat features. One of the ones that I liked was that figures could have variable soldier to fig ratio. For example, you could have your infantry at 1:10, and knights at 1:5, and it calculated the differences for you. Combat was a little more difficult because there was a little math involved because of the variable scale. Overall, I would say that 2nd edition is a better wargame, but 1st edition is still playable. |
John Leahy | 05 Jul 2011 11:02 a.m. PST |
2nd edition. Haven't heard of any groups that still play 1st. Thanks, John |
21eRegt | 05 Jul 2011 11:12 a.m. PST |
Played both, found 2nd edition much superior for army battles. |
LostPict | 05 Jul 2011 4:15 p.m. PST |
|
darthfozzywig | 05 Jul 2011 4:25 p.m. PST |
|
Saber6 | 05 Jul 2011 8:27 p.m. PST |
|
Who asked this joker | 05 Jul 2011 8:41 p.m. PST |
Swords and Spells? Seriously old school. But not as old school as Chainmail! |
Sgt Slag | 06 Jul 2011 1:53 p.m. PST |
I picked up PDF copies of Chainmail (1972), Swords & Spells, 2nd Ed. BattleSystem, and 2nd Ed. BattleSystem Skirmish, when they were still available from RPGNow.com. While I have not played all of them (played both 2nd Ed. BS games numerous times), I have read the earlier editions. There is a noticeable progression between the different games, towards streamlining of the rules. 2nd Ed. BS is very streamlined, compared to the earlier games, with seemingly little of importance to the game, being lost in the process. BS Skirmish is a direct forerunner to 4th Ed. D&D -- it is AD&D Lite. You could easily roleplay with it, but combat would be fast, and deadly, since your figure/character only gets one hit per level! Monsters get the same, so it is balanced, but
Cheers! |
Syr Hobbs Wargames | 13 Jul 2011 6:37 a.m. PST |
I have always enjoyed 1st Edition and still use this rule system fantasy mass combat. I never liked the way second edition tried to mimic Warhammer especially the reduction in hit dice for higher hit dice creatures. I normally use the 1st edition rules as a skirmish game with a 1:1 ratio and only made one modification to the rules. All creatures greater than 4 hit dice take damage as hit point loss and do not receive the two wounds and your are killed effect. At 1:1 spells are much more powerful in terms of a larger area of effect as well. A 10th level Paladin could take on 10 1 HD orcs etc. I also added modifiers for banners and musicians etc. I have even played around with AD&D 3.? and 4th edition D&D rules by using feats etc to make a LOTR game. Setting up Goblin Warg riders were fun for a small skirmish game. I tried second edition, both sets, but felt they betrayed the AD&D universe by their attempt to be more like GW. Not played 1st edition lately need to go dust off my tomes. lol Duane |
cooey2ph | 16 Jul 2011 2:37 a.m. PST |
I still have both but 2nd edition is faster and not too cumbersome unlike 1st. I believe some other games used the 2nd ed's combat system mainly because it felt very logical and was easy to understand albeit required a variety of dice. my gaming group still uses it often enough. |