Help support TMP


"Impetus vs. Warlord vs. FoG: Any comments?" Topic


94 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board

Back to the Ancients Product Reviews Message Board


4,714 hits since 14 Aug 2012
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

monger Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 1:11 p.m. PST

These seem to be the top 3 rules systems to challenge DBM/M. Anyone have a preference, or care to comment on such a comparison? I have my own feelings… but I'll save that for now. Just want to know what others have to say.

Steve W Inactive Member14 Aug 2012 2:13 p.m. PST

I think I should say first up that I never liked DBM,for me it was a set of rules that encouraged arguments and fiddling about in millimetres which I never really wanted in a game


Well if I had to choose I would say Impetus as I like big bases and I like quick games, I actually prefer BI over full Impetus but even today I still like Vis Bellica over any other sets, with Armati coming a close second. FOG I have played a few times and although better than DBM I didnt like the way that troops could zip about the battle field, and like DBM the vast amount of army lists involved, some of which I dont think anybody had ever heard of ( though I am sure they did exsist at some point)

I am not sure what the Warlord system is

Marcus Brutus Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 2:33 p.m. PST

I think that you've have to include Hail Caesar in the top 3 ancients rules sets that are challening for supremacy. Perhaps that is what monger is refering to with respect to Warlord.

Having played Armati a lot and Vis Bellica a little I think Impetus is far superior to either set. It is more than big bases that makes Impetus a great game. The Impetus system is more dynamic and the rules more developed that Vis Bellica. Armati is a decent set but pretty restrictive in deployment and movement and is ultimately a real bore to play.

6sided Inactive Member14 Aug 2012 3:05 p.m. PST

I believe he means Hail Caesar.

Jaz
6sided.net – wargaming blog host

jameshammyhamilton14 Aug 2012 3:19 p.m. PST

It depends on what you define as a top set……

I used to play DBM a lot and was involved in the testing phases of both DBMM and FoG.

For me DBMM 'fixes' a lot of 'problems' with DBM that IMO did not exist in the first place while simultaneously changing the whole feel of the game into something I really dislike. You will not find me playing DBMM in the foreseeable future.

FoG is in some ways a throwback and in others quite a modern set. I like FoG as a wargame but there is not as much 'game' in FoG as there was in DBM. For some this is a bad thing, for me I actually like it and at the moment FoG is my main ancients game.

I had heard a lot of positives about Impetus and tracked down a set of the rules at a show (eventually). I found reading the rules a real struggle and also there seemed to me to be a number of areas where the game at least as I read it did not work. As a result I decided that rather than play the game with me as the rules leader I would try to get someone else who knew how the game played to introduce me. Despite a number of offers this didn't happen for a long while and I finally decided just to enter a tournament and dive in at the deep end. After three games I can safely say that I have no intention of playing the game again and if anyone wants a hardly used copy of Impetus at a reduced price please get in touch as I am not going to use my copy again.

I have not played Warlord or Hail Caesar so cannot comment on the games although I believe that as tournament games neither of them generate the same size of field as FoG, DBMM or even WRG 6th edition.

Muncehead14 Aug 2012 3:30 p.m. PST

For me I wanted a set of rules that would work a bit in solo play. In a lot of ways Hail Caesar does that for me with dice determing success in carrying out orders. Although all the examples of play I have seen involve 28mm figures I have opted for the Impetus big base system in 6mm scale.

I also looked at Impetus and came to the same conclusions as jameshammyhamilton- Impetus is not for me. Have to also bear in mind Piquet rules with the Ancients expansion. This was a definite 'possible' and if I am not happy with Hail Caesar in the long run that is where I will turn.

monger Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 4:12 p.m. PST

Warlord… I am refering to the set by Partizen Press (if I remember correctly). Also… Hail Caesar, CoE, Crusader, etc… I consider a whole different level of play when compared to DBx. Their focus is mainly tactical and visual. A different focus then DBx really (which is more grand tactical). So I didn't include them (or any WA clone).

To me there are two different schoolsL WAB, and DBx.

Seems Warlord has very little a following. Not many gamers have even heard of it, and I find little about it really.

Personal logo The Beast Rampant Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 4:16 p.m. PST

if anyone wants a hardly used copy of Impetus at a reduced price please get in touch as I am not going to use my copy again.

How much are you thinking, JHH?

AlanYork Inactive Member14 Aug 2012 5:00 p.m. PST

Impetus for me. I don't know much about Warlord but I did spend a couple of years trying and failing to like FoG. In the end I had to admit to myself that games of FoG bored me and seemed like a tedious slog so I just stopped playing. Rather like James but the opposite side of the coin, I can't see me playing FoG again anytime soon.

There was some talk about FoG version 2 being only available as some kind of PDF that wasn't printable. I don't play those rules anymore so didn't keep up with the debate but if I did the chances of me taking any kind of PC to a tournament where it could be damaged, stolen, mislaid or forgotten would be zero. I don't think I'd be alone in that so if Slitherine do persist in what seems to be a very odd marketing strategy it'd be interesting to see how that affects FoG's popularity.

monger Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 5:21 p.m. PST

Alan… I was really thinking aout getting into FoG. As soon as I found out what Slitherine was doing going ALL DIGITAL (as a non-print.), I gave up on it. Odd… but one of the IG draws for me was FoG's production quality, and support from its publisher! LOL. Well… that was a joke indeed.

I do hear mumbling that Slither. is considering a print. version of some sort. I wonder what about all their other spin-offs of FoG (not just their lists, but the Napoleonic and Renn. versions of the game). I assume their fate is the same. Sad indeed.

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 5:28 p.m. PST

Most of the popular rules are over-engineered in my opinion. Lots and lots of exceptions to try and cover every case real and imagined.

Impetus was just OK for me. It was mostly good but suffered in places from going too far with regards to the command and control system. There is a lot to like there. I actually liked Basic Impetus better.

Read through DBM, DBMM and FoG and all left me cold. Too much complexity and too many exceptions.

Warlord (I presume you mean this one link) was written by T.J. Halsall, the same author of "Fast Play Rules for Ancient Warfare". The latter was not for the faint of heart. I can only guess from the web page that his latest set was the same. I don't see it as having a huge following today.

Ancient and Medieval Wargaming is an approachable set. Figure requirement is pretty low. You can easily knock out a game or two in an evening.

I still like DBA and play some solo games on occasion.

Fantasy, Ancient and Medieval Battles link looks promising. It is a free-bee but you have to join the yahoo group to get a copy.

John

monger Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 7:06 p.m. PST

John. What did you mean by, "… going too far with regards to the command and control system." regarding Impetus.

Impetus seems like an awesome set of rules. A lot of people feel there is too much left to extreme situations brought about by extreme die rolling. I can see that. But I don't think that is un-realistic. The less control you have over the results of a battle, its flow (esp. at the lower tactical levels) the better. However, it seems that these 'extreme' die rolling events might happen a little too often in a game. THAT is a problem.

TKindred Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 7:53 p.m. PST

Impetus for me. I also love WAB and still have all the books. I might even haul it out to use from time to time, though for smaller games Basic Impetus works as well.

The "translation" problem with Impetus is that it is written in Italian originally, and translated into English, which also explains some of the abbreviations used.

BUT, once you get past that, I like the way it plays, and ESPECIALLY the big bases.

Of course, discussing which rules set is best is like discussing which beer is best, or even which style of cooking. It all comes down to personal tastes.

monger Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 8:17 p.m. PST

True TK. It's all a matter of what the player 'likes', or what he feels is his 'style' of play. That's one reaons there are so many diff. types of rules (although a lot of them are very similar). I am not a big fan of the WAB style of play, although I love the more grand tactical feel of rules like DBx. Impetus sounds really good (although I am not a fan of Armati style games either, and Impetus seems like a more free-form Armati, whatever that means)

Bandolier Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 8:56 p.m. PST

I'm another that prefers Impetus. Simple, but subtle details with an interesting turn sequence. The "Extra Impetus" supplements and army lists have various extra rules, clarifications and tutorials. The big bases make it less fiddly on the table and the effort people make on their units makes it look damn good too. Plus Lorenzo, the author, is very active on the Impetus Forum.
I've never played FoG but looking at the rulebook made me crosseyed grin

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 8:58 p.m. PST

John. What did you mean by, "… going too far with regards to the command and control system." regarding Impetus.

Command and Control maybe the wrong term but here is what I mean.

You could make a move. Then you could roll a die against your "quality" (not the right term) to get a second or third move which is fine. Each move diminished your chances and if you fail you get disordered. Fine. But then if you were still short of the enemy and were charging, you could roll an extra die and add that (or half that for infantry) to your move and if you came up short you were disordered. The last bit is an example of adding too many chances. I would think your quality checks would be those random chances.

The reaction system was completely confusing. You could react if your unit was set to opportunity. However, you had to make a quality (discipline is it?) check and only then you could react. And yet you gave up your move to be put on opportunity. You were already holding an action so why the die roll. on top of that, some units could just react in certain situations.

The combat system works pretty well though the author had the need to detail every missile weapon he could. And yet, there are only 3 kinds of melee weapons, LTS, Pike and the ones in your hand. So the extra complexity did nothing for me. I prefer BI given a choice of the two and maybe add a rule to allow skirmish infantry and cavalry to evade.

monger Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 9:59 p.m. PST

John, I see what you mean. I think the author was trying to take more and more control away from the player at the 'lower' levels of command (not the players domain really). The randomness is a rules mechanic used often to simulate all these factors. There are soooo many reasons why things happen (or could happen) that dice rolling is often the simple way of taking care of all that. Anyway… the extreme results and how often they occur are what we need to watch out for in rules design.

As far as the large number of missle weapons listed in Impetus, I believe the author explained that he was actually simulating missile weapon use/tactics, not actual weapons. The way they were used instead. makes sense to me. He avoided the confusion of creating new unit su-types to reflect usage and chose to model the weapons instead.

Ahhh… the wonders of Impetus. A game that makes us think. LOL

MingtheMad14 Aug 2012 10:24 p.m. PST

I play for fun. It is a game not an historical rematch.

Tried Fog 14 games with 28 armies and found lots of faults and no fun. Over thirty played with these rules now 4. A great game for those who max thier chances by pre planning. A game

Impetus is a far more complicated game than it appears blaming the dice is not right. Best basing system. Great for quick and fun times. A game

DBMM is not DBM. Never confuse that. Lost ground to FOG but now is king again. A good fix of game and fun. A game

Madmike1 Inactive Member14 Aug 2012 10:43 p.m. PST

These 'which is the best set of rules' questions always get the same responses with each player pushing the set they prefer. The reason they like a set is the reason another player hates it.

Find out what rules the people you will be playing use and that is your answer.

If your group is starting out fresh with no set yet in mind then think about other factors, which scale, how many figures in a game, do you want fixed units, do you want officers etc represented in the rules, size of your gaming table, length of games, are the figures already based and how (e.g. number and position on bases).

When you have thought about the above issues people can give you a meaningful answer.

Failing all that play FOG, better than all the other sets. :)

ancientsgamer Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2012 11:27 p.m. PST

DBMM is not even remotely king again. Maybe in your area but not at tournaments or with wargaming groups that I have seen. FoG and DBA are FAR more popular. Impetus seems to have gained a following a retained it for the most part.

FoG has corrected some balance issues and incorporated parts of what are in FoG: R, which is widely regarded as an extremely good game for Renaissance with very little criticism that I have noted. FoG is still a complicated game and will not be many people's cup of tea because of this. I see at as a set of rules for people that spend most of their time playing ancients. If you play other periods and other rules sets, I don't think it is for you. As there is a bit of a learning curve. The rules are laid out well. The Player's Index should have been included with the original printing and is a godsend to those that are learning and those more experienced.

I do want to try full Impetus and give them a go.

I have not tried HC but became disenchanted with Warmaster because I don't care for shooting adjudication. If HC is similar, it will be tough for me to pick up. Also, most players seem to be playing 28mm from what I have seen. At least no one around here plays them in 15mm, which is my preference.

Of the rules that have been in print since the 1980's, my favorite so far has been Might of Arms. The only issue is dismounted heavily armored cavalry or knights. They really do cause balance issues in the game. Home rules of no more than 1 or 2 units allowed to dismount in the game should be a standard. We played a campaign where it was really a long and drawn out tournament over time. I won every game by dismounting my heavy cavalry or knights (can't remember which troops now:-) It was not fun for my opponents and was not fun for me after the first couple of wins. GREAT game, just do the house rule for one off and tournament play. It is a simpler version of WRG 6th in some ways but saying it is a WRG derivative would be unfair to MOA.

Other people playing the game and being able to play a pick up game readily are important to me. Right now, this means FoG or DBA (which is okay but I prefer the look of 'units') Frankly, I think Big Battle DBA is superior to the DBX variants. I never cared for DBM, other than the army lists. I didn't think the added complexities made it a better game than DBA. My other beef with DBX games is again, the shooting adjudication in many instances. I understand the recoil, I just don't like a game where attrition is not taken into account.

blacksmith Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2012 2:01 a.m. PST

I don't like Impetus and neither DBM. So far I play DBA and DBABB.
I played WA lately link but I'm not convinced and now I'm looking to try HC and Polemos.

1ngram15 Aug 2012 2:19 a.m. PST

We have been running a campaign for the past couple of years using Basic Impetus and have been impressed by them. They produce swift and, most importantly, clean and elegant solutions to game situations and I would heartily recommend them to anyone looking for a new set of rules. In the past six months we have been trying out the full set of Impetus Rules and enjoying them as well. Like almost all sets they suffer from the author trying to achieve greater gameability (sic)at the expense of historical authenticity but they are still far better than the dullard FOG.

Steve W Inactive Member15 Aug 2012 2:40 a.m. PST

Marcus Brutus

I agree with you about Impetus being more than big bases and having to do record keeping was a bit of a bore in Vis Bellica but there are still some thinks I like about it, the hidden bases and spotting I thought were always quite well done and added a little extra to the game

jameshammyhamilton15 Aug 2012 3:33 a.m. PST

For me the final nail in the coffin of Impetus was when I had a unit of Gothic lancer cavalry advancing towards a unit of Chinese spear armed cavalry that were on opportunity. I moved to just outside move distance but a charge would have made contact on a 2+ variable. I wanted to make a second move to charge, my opponent told me that he was going to declare a charge on me using his opportunity and my Gothic cavalry had no choice but to stand there like patsys and receive the charge at the halt. The Chinese cavalry charged for more than their full move and my lads just stood and looked impressed. It was my turn for bleeps sake.

As far as I can tell if you have a battle with two lines of cavalry facing each other or possibly two lines of infantry one side just puts itself on opportunity and then if the other side tries to attack them they get charged with no response. That seemed very very silly to me.

That said some people like the game. Me I really don't.

TBR I was looking for about half price but sending it to the States would cost a lot with the rip off prices of the Post Office so it may not make sense.

jameshammyhamilton15 Aug 2012 3:38 a.m. PST

Alan… I was really thinking aout getting into FoG. As soon as I found out what Slitherine was doing going ALL DIGITAL (as a non-print.), I gave up on it. Odd… but one of the IG draws for me was FoG's production quality, and support from its publisher! LOL. Well… that was a joke indeed.

Interesting, where did you get that from? Slitherine announced that they were doing a digital only release then after a lot of complaints are looking at other ways of delivering FoG2. At the moment as far as I know they have not actually clarified the final situation regarding how FoG2 will be released. Either way FoG is still a perfectly playable game and it is likely that if FoG2 does do well that copies of FoG1 will be available cheaply on various second hand sites. You only need to worry about the very latest rules if you play tournaments and if you want to play tournaments you need to find out what games actually have tournaments in your area.

Barca Dax Inactive Member15 Aug 2012 4:55 a.m. PST

Have to agree that it is difficult to remain objective when posting up about what ones favourite rule set is – it takes a lot of investment in both time and figures, certainly in my experience, to fully familiarise yourself with a set of rules. After that time a certain level of loyalty or distaste (probably both on occasion) does tend to set in. I am in the Impetus favouring camp for now – it seems to be continually growing and has a healthy competition circuit, good support and an active forum which keep it fresh – and as a side note to James – if it was my Chinese opportunity charge that put you off Impetus, first of all apologies – fierce competitions are probably not the best initiation into the rules, and secondly, my very first experience of competition with Impetus was of a mass of Cataphracts triple moving down the table into an exposed flank – which I can assure you shocked the bejejus out of me. However I still like the rules which are designed for rapid, fluid play which I enjoy a great deal on occasion.
I started off with WAB – which I also really liked, but moved away from when 2.0 came out and support for the rules seemed to wane. We have quite a few who play 6th edition ancients and still love it after all these years. I quite enjoy Hail Caesar and will play pretty much any rule set. For me its just great that there is a bit of choice at the moment – but I can never decide which I prefer – green jelly or red jelly……

jameshammyhamilton15 Aug 2012 5:51 a.m. PST

No problem Barca Dax, I went expecting to see at least some people use the rules. Your Chinese cavalry did not do anything 'wrong' but I can see that the rule on opportunity charges and the moving player essentially not being able to do much about it as a definite no no for me. The lack of maneuver for non lights is reasonable but lights are too maneuverable in comparison.

Another thing I didn't like is the activation mechanism where you move one unit, see what happens with its attacks then move another and then another. It all felt very computer gamey and again that is not what I want from a miniatures game. Having five units of light troops all shoot at the same target one after the other all from the same place is not my idea of ancient warfare.

The large bases are a really good idea and being able to play with a small number of figures is why I initially looked at the game with the idea of it being a great introduction to miniatures for kids. Sadly the fact I don't like the game means I cannot 'sell' it to anyone else. I am a terrible salesman for something I don't believe in.

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2012 6:32 a.m. PST

For me the final nail in the coffin of Impetus was when I had a unit of Gothic lancer cavalry advancing towards a unit of Chinese spear armed cavalry that were on opportunity. I moved to just outside move distance but a charge would have made contact on a 2+ variable. I wanted to make a second move to charge, my opponent told me that he was going to declare a charge on me using his opportunity and my Gothic cavalry had no choice but to stand there like patsys and receive the charge at the halt.

Your intent was to charge. There may be hairs split here but I would have counted you as charging and the opponent as charging as well. I think you even get to continue rolling forward to meet the counter charge at half way if memory serves. Anything else just feels "meta-gamey".

jameshammyhamilton15 Aug 2012 6:48 a.m. PST

For me the final nail in the coffin of Impetus was when I had a unit of Gothic lancer cavalry advancing towards a unit of Chinese spear armed cavalry that were on opportunity. I moved to just outside move distance but a charge would have made contact on a 2+ variable. I wanted to make a second move to charge, my opponent told me that he was going to declare a charge on me using his opportunity and my Gothic cavalry had no choice but to stand there like patsys and receive the charge at the halt.

Your intent was to charge. There may be hairs split here but I would have counted you as charging and the opponent as charging as well. I think you even get to continue rolling forward to meet the counter charge at half way if memory serves. Anything else just feels "meta-gamey".

That would seem reasonable but when I questioned this all the people who had played Impetus for a while seemed to think it was totally reasonable that my cavalry just stood and waited :O

It was not the only thing I disliked but it felt very very wrong.

Yesthatphil15 Aug 2012 7:26 a.m. PST

On the original topic, I suspect I have played all the current published games with the exception of Clash of Empires which I have watched through a couple of demos and discussed with the authors (so I get it, but haven't actually played an entire game or more) …

The top 3 in apparent popularity (and/or visibility at shows and tournaments) are FoG, Hail Caesar and DBMM. I take ancientgamer's point about his turf, and suspect DBA is the DB top three-er in the US – but DBMM definitely has more visible players than DBA in the UK.

My choice would probably be FoG Doubles or DBA singles. FoG takes so long to play that you really need the sociability of a 4-handed game to sustain interest in it. Hence my interest in DBA. Big Battle DBA doesn't have the profile it ought to, maybe.

Armati used to be a good alternative but, in the UK at least, is now played so slowly that, again, you need to shift over to a multi-player format to liven it up. It has also refused to upgrade itself in the light of sustained play, so has become formulaic in tournament circles. For friendly and historical games, however, it still has a lot of merit.

For simplicity and quickness, I wouldn't rule out Neil Thomas's ancients game (which, locally, we still play quite a bit … ancient, medieval _and renaissance) …

For the UK, I suspect, within tournaments FoG will remain the more popular, and without, Hail Caesar will have it.

For historical scenarios, Phil Sabin's Lost Battles is the gold standard.

Phil
soawargamesteam.blogspot.com

kreoseus215 Aug 2012 9:03 a.m. PST

jameshammyhamilton

perhaps Basic Impetus might suit you better, there is no reaction in it, and is a stripped down version of Impetus. And it is free.

Phil

Bohemund15 Aug 2012 9:16 a.m. PST

JamesHammyHamilton, et al

Perhaps you were not taught how the Impetus rules work in you opportunity charge situation.

If you were the active player and your intent was to move into contact, and the opportunity charge contacted your units front, you should have had your charging, or impetus, bonus. If it was not your intent to contact, or you were not contacted on your front, you would not have. These distinctions were probably not explained after you had your pants pulled down, and obviously not before. Too bad you did not experience the game in a promotional situation instead of a tournament atmosphere.

I've no intention to tell people what to like, but I want to clarify the Impetus rules for those reading this thread to see what they might like or dislike.

Regards,

Brent

jameshammyhamilton15 Aug 2012 9:54 a.m. PST

Thanks for that Brent,

A pity that the umpire and the other experienced players didn't consider the rules to work that way :(

My intent was absolutely to charge, infact the opportunity charge was declared after I had said that I would move again and charge the unit on opportunity.

There was another big rules error when I moved a unit of heavy cavalry very close to some lights then charged and would have caught the lights had they not somehow magically gained a second evade. Again this seemed wrong, I questioned it and was told that no the lights could evade the same charge move twice. Later in the day I was told that actually they couldn't but that didn't help my dead cavalry.

Playing in a promotional type game would have been much better but I tried to get someone who knew the rules to help me with that for two years and it never happened so I went the tournament route.

I know for a fact that at any FoG tournament I am umpiring new players will not get incorrect rulings if they call the umpire. They might get themselves into bad situations but once the umpire is called what they get is correct information.

Perhaps I will give Impetus another go but none of these errors fix the computer gamey feel of the way it works and the very odd missile fire mechanics which are also reasons I dislike the game.

Brent, if you want to take this discussion offline I would be happy to continue. I wanted to like Impetus but the games I played were not in any way inspiring.

Bohemund15 Aug 2012 10:34 a.m. PST

James,

"My intent was absolutely to charge, in fact the opportunity charge was declared after I had said that I would move again and charge the unit on opportunity."

If your above statement is accurate, I can only say wow, or Fine Flemish Sours (FFS)! That is not an opportunity charge, that is a counter-charge. The "special rule" is that a unit on opportunity may counter-charge without taking a discipline check (ie, the counter-charge is automatic).

I wasn't there, and do not mean to disparage the tournamant organizers or players. You clearly had a terrible experience. If you're discriptions are correct, you also got jobbed. I'm sorry to hear that.

If you're ever in the midwest USA, I'd be happy to introduce you to Impetus. I hope someone near you makes the same offer.

Brent

The Young Guard15 Aug 2012 11:36 a.m. PST

I have both DBMM and FOG, and have only played a game of each once, a very long time ago!

I would be interested so see why people dislike the two games. All I seem to find is the FOG takes to long. I've not looked at Impatus as I believe (maybe wrongly that) my basing would be wrong for it!

jameshammyhamilton15 Aug 2012 12:31 p.m. PST

DUS, if your troops are based for FOG and DBMM you can play Impetus. Just put 2 or 4 bases of FOG/DBMM troops together and you have an impetus unit.

Bohemund15 Aug 2012 1:18 p.m. PST

DUS,

I like Impetus, and prefer it to FOG and DBMM. I like Impetus because it is fast-paced, dynamic, has lots of decision points, elegent game sechanisms, and a lot of unpredicability in outcomes.

I never found DBMM attractive -- it didn't feel like a ancient or medieval battle to me. It seemed really millimetric, and the guys I played with fiddled around whilst waiting for a couple of skirmisher stands on the flanks to give them an advantage. These may be unfair criticisms, but that is why I did not take to DBMM. There was always another game I would rather play (including a home brew set my group played with).

Ive played several games of FOG, and for me it seems ponderous -- a big investment for the result. Games often determined by a roll-off somewhere, but predicatble and slow. Just personal, but I never was captivated by FOG.

I played a lot of Might of Arms, and liked it. MoA has real swings in the game, and ends in one side falling apart. However, I have picked Impetus over it because of the many more decision points and greater unpredicability.

jameshammyhamilton15 Aug 2012 1:47 p.m. PST

Ive played several games of FOG, and for me it seems ponderous -- a big investment for the result. Games often determined by a roll-off somewhere, but predicatble and slow. Just personal, but I never was captivated by FOG.

Interesting, I found Impetus more ponderous than FOG, just goes to show different people different impressions.

In my one experience of a tournament none of my games were close to completion and I think the majority of the other games were similar.

Steve W Inactive Member15 Aug 2012 2:11 p.m. PST

I wonder if someones like or dislike of a ruleset is dependant on who they first play a new ruleset against, and this colours any future impression a player might have

Marcus Brutus Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2012 2:19 p.m. PST

James, having played a lot of FOG before I converted to Impetus I can't believe that you would say that Impetus is a more ponderous set. This has not been my experience at all. Quite the opposite.

With respect to your situation, unless the Chinese cavalry were the target of the charge by your Gothic heavies, you do not get the impetus bonus when he opportunity charges (unless you happened to be charging someone else.) It really is quite simple.

More to the point, with all respect, your complaining about this fact tells me that you don't understand Impetus. Because the advantage in the Chinese cavalry charging is a few extra bonus impetus dice. This is actually quite secondary to the cohesion test that is rolled in response to the successful damage done in melee. I've seen units with high impetus roll poorly on the hits and the cohesion test and lose the melee. In fact, the impetus dice are the least important part of the game. It is the basic fighting value of the unit and the roll on the cohesion test that ends the melee that really matters.

It took me probably 20 games to really get Impetus and I'm still trying to figure the game out. A brilliant system and one that continues to bring much enjoyment to my gaming. A few games frankly isn't enough to understand or appreciate this system.

jameshammyhamilton15 Aug 2012 3:13 p.m. PST

I wonder if someones like or dislike of a ruleset is dependant on who they first play a new ruleset against, and this colours any future impression a player might have

Quite possibly.

I think like or dislike are based on a lot of things.
How readable the rules are
The scale and pace of the game
Initial experiences playing the game
Depth of game play

Given the option I would generally want to play at least half a dozen games of something before throwing in the towel. DBMM got perhaps 15 games before I decided it was not for me. Impetus so far only three and if a fan wants to show me the error of my opinions I am very happy to have another game, I will not however enter another Impetus tournament unless I actually realise the error of my ways and see the light.

Last weekend I played 6 games of FoG:R at a tournament and had a great time, I won some, lost some finished in the middle of the pack but I am absolutely up for more.

jameshammyhamilton15 Aug 2012 3:14 p.m. PST

MB

Please send me an e-mail to hammy(at)the-riverbank(dot)net

I would love to know if the cavalry situation was correct or not.

Marshal Mark Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2012 3:35 p.m. PST

FOG for me, although it is quite complicated and not a short game. As mentioned above, I don't think it is a game you can play occassionally.
I tried Impetus and didn't like some parts of it, mostly for reasons that have already been stated on this thread.

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2012 4:28 p.m. PST

I found FoG boggling to read let alone play. I have never read a review of Warlord. Ive gone back to using Terry Gore's Ancient Warfare.

The Young Guard15 Aug 2012 4:59 p.m. PST

hmmmmmm

altough I'll probably buy impetus, I sometimes wonder if its best to make my own rules!

platypus01au15 Aug 2012 7:41 p.m. PST

Hi Guys,

I play DBMM. For me it is an exciting game with few faults. We have a small group in Canberra that plays it and we all have a great time.

I've tried FoG, and while other people may like it, it is too boring for me. What I like about DBMM is that there is always something happening during the game.

Impetus I've read, but since I like DBMM a lot, there is no incentive to change. I do like the big bases though.

Cheers,
JohnG

Tarty115 Aug 2012 10:17 p.m. PST

It took me probably 20 games to really get Impetus and I'm still trying to figure the game out. A brilliant system and one that continues to bring much enjoyment to my gaming. A few games frankly isn't enough to understand or appreciate this system.

Yes….. I would go along with that statement, and I see myself playing Impetus for a very long time to come.

IanB340616 Aug 2012 2:40 a.m. PST

I never liked the idea of an "over watch" type of mechanic for ancients. Always feels like skirmish or something for ww2 type of rules. And for a grand tactical game at the level we are talking about both sides should be considered charging.

Barca Dax Inactive Member16 Aug 2012 3:17 a.m. PST

I've been to about a dozen Impetus tournaments and all of them were well organised, and well umpired. There is quite a good, relaxed atmosphere about the players and games, although all played within the spirit and strict adherence to the rules of course @ James Hammy Hamilton "would love to know if the cavalry situation was correct or not."
I've sent a wee rules clarification – hope it helps, as for the bad rule call – I think it came from a "helpful" player rather than an umpire, I agreed with you after that match (not our evil Chinese game incidentally) that it was incorrect.
Point I'm making is that, I was at the same tournament and had a really fantastic couple of days and 6 highly enjoyable matches with a bunch of really nice people – but my preception is no more valid or invalid than any other.

CptKremmen16 Aug 2012 4:08 a.m. PST

My favourite of the 3 is Impetus. Very good set of rules, even though the cohesion test can be a bit random.

FOG – Good set of rules, bit more fiddly than Impetus and in my humble opinion not very bow friendly. In Impetus (as in real life) a Mongol army is to be feared. In Fog it generally is not. I find FOG works best for classical greece and rome HI based armies.

Warlord – Too much like Warhammer ancient battles for my liking.

Hail Caesar – I can't stand the warmaster activation mechanic which can leav parts of your army unable to do pretty much of anything for large periods of time. Just a personal choice but that is why I hated Blitzkrieg commander even though i tried really hard to like it.

Andy

Pages: 1 2