Help support TMP


"Should HOTT be changed?" Topic


76 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 DBx Message Board


3,136 hits since 17 Sep 2012
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

mikeygees Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 11:38 a.m. PST

…or, should HOTT be left alone?

GildasFacit Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 11:47 a.m. PST

Is it broken ? If so it needs fixing, if not then leave it alone.

IMHO it ain't broke so don't need fixin'.

Trying to 'improve' DBA didn't really work all that well, debatable whether all the effort and hot air generated was really worth it.

Thomas Thomas17 Sep 2012 11:53 a.m. PST

Actually we have already melded lots of DBA3.0 into our HOTT games and it works very well.

The longer move rates give a much more dynamic game.

The addition of a Fast subtype allows skirmishing Bow and Auxilia spear and a Cav/Lh horse distinction.

The variable terrian set up also produces more interesting battlefields.

DBA 3.0 also has a better shooter dymanic.

In addition several concept from HOTT have crossed over to DBA3.0 making the games more compatiable.

Great time to be a DB/Hott gamer…

TomT

Personal logo elsyrsyn Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 12:06 p.m. PST

I'd like to see all of the DBA troop types reflected in HotT. For example, I don't care if fantasy authors are typically hazy about the difference between spears and pikes, I'm not, and I don't think that's a good reason to ditch the distinction. That said, if you're asking if the changes in 2.2+ or 3.0 should be applied to HotT, I just don't know. I've not had enough games with either to be able to tell which changes I like (and the 3.0 changes keep, well, changing).

Doug

Dave Gamer17 Sep 2012 12:12 p.m. PST

If DBA 3.0 is good, then yes, update HoTT to 3.0 specs.

Personal logo Dervel Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Sep 2012 12:26 p.m. PST

I'd like to see all of the DBA troop types reflected in HotT.

Have to agree…. plus it gives options for more flavor between armies…

Personal logo elsyrsyn Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 12:30 p.m. PST

On the plus side, it's a pretty easy house rule to implement the missing troop types in HotT.

Doug

lkmjbc317 Sep 2012 12:43 p.m. PST

Yes, HoTT has lots of holes…

Adding:
Phalanx
Monstrous Warbands
Berserks
Militia
Monstrous Magicians

Closes these holes. As Tom Thomas stated… increased move distances and other 3.0 ideas are a definite "Yes!".

Joe Collins

Rwphillipsstl Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 12:47 p.m. PST

HoTT needs an update, though exactly what concepts from DBA 2.0/2.2/3.0 need adding is something for a debate. I agree, however, that it needs a light horse/rider distinction and an auxilia troop type. The magic rules could use a bit more spice as well, IMHO.

I just bought Piquet's Hostile Realms for these reasons and plan on basing compatible with HoTT. HoTT is just a little too vanilla for my taste.

punkrabbitt returns17 Sep 2012 1:00 p.m. PST

I would like to see all DBA troop types in HotT, with the fantastical elements blended nicely together as well.

Personal logo Bobgnar Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 1:43 p.m. PST

Once upon a time HOTT was just the Fantasy version of DBA with a couple of rule changes but mostly different troop types, Fantasy Types. If you knew one you could play the other with just a reference sheet.

Then RBS revised HOTT and did make it clearer but also did not follow a lot of the rules in DBA so the two game became quite different in the basic playing aspect. See here

link

HOTT and DBA 3 are really different games, almost no overlap. If people want congruency in the rules then HOTT will need to be changed. If they are satisfied with different games, nothing needed. Many HOTT players want some movement changes and Sneakers to be more useful. Base Width moves might be useful for giant games, as that is for DBA.

I have added DBA types to HOTT games by just using their DBA moves, combat and outcomes.

Personal logo Brigadier General Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 1:57 p.m. PST

Yes

Personal logo Dale Hurtt Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 2:45 p.m. PST

Yes, I think it should. I think the fantasy literature-based army lists were interesting, but one of the reasons that Mr. Barker had to take out the lists from the free PDF was because of those lists; some authors did not agree to release the information.

I think that those particular lists were interesting, but in the end it sounded as if it were more trouble than it was worth. Besides, I think there are a lot of better ideas for lists to include.

That and bring the rules in line with DBA 3 so switching between the two is not as hard, as dog-less Bob pointed out.

Shedman Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 2:55 p.m. PST

Yes – they should have a Tentacle troop type

YouTube link

lkmjbc317 Sep 2012 3:25 p.m. PST

Awesome…

He does need to remove the price-tag from the stronghold.

Joe Collins

mikeygees Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 4:17 p.m. PST

To cool…. ;}

Yesthatphil17 Sep 2012 4:30 p.m. PST

Perhaps HOTT could become the new DBA 2.2 for players who don't like DBA 3? It may do anyway.

So I hope it stays simple.

SECURITY MINISTER CRITTER Inactive Member17 Sep 2012 5:57 p.m. PST

Maybe.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 6:26 p.m. PST

No.
Why Bleeped text up a classic?
It is absurd to try to bring a game with all its weird wonderfulness into sync with an "ancients" game that is eternally in search of "perfection".
Leave it alone. DBA should have been left alone, but Phil Barker has this absurd need to tinker and fill holes that do not exist.

kokigami Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 6:40 p.m. PST

I would suggest, rather than bleep a classic, the fans of DBA 3 might make a fantasy supplement? HOTT works, and only appears to need a tiny tweak of movement for a couple units.. or not, as some would argue..

krieghund17 Sep 2012 10:21 p.m. PST

NO!

Personal logo Inari7 Supporting Member of TMP17 Sep 2012 10:23 p.m. PST

Leave it alone, and add an optional advanced rules supplement.

streetline18 Sep 2012 12:04 a.m. PST

The warband/shooters movement fix needs to be made permanent. And something needs to be done for Sneakers. Otherwise it's mostly fine.

Hagar the Horrible18 Sep 2012 2:24 a.m. PST

I'd rather leave it alone if any changes are going to cause the same amount of knife throwing and bile spitting we have seen in the changes to DBA!

Yesthatphil18 Sep 2012 3:25 a.m. PST

Seconding what Hagar said, by the way …

Guthroth18 Sep 2012 5:17 a.m. PST

PB has said – in the last week I believe – that he and RBS have agreed that there are no plans to do anything to HoTT.

A print-on-demand rulebook with the warband/shooter moves amended would be nice, (V2.1) but that really is all it needs.

The very last thing HoTT needs is a slew of ill-thought out 'historical' troop types. For example spears in HoTT are more effective than in DBA, so we don't need a 'Pike' or 'Phalanx'. In part this is because fantasy authors do not differentiate bewteen the lenghts of these weapons in their writing. It's unimportant.

If you want to write your own sub-set of a Fantasy reuleset to address your issues over historical gaming, fine. Failing that, go ahead and do a fantasy DBA.

Just please don't fiddle with a perfectly good set of fantasy rules.

Pete

stenicplus18 Sep 2012 6:02 a.m. PST

<rant mode on>

Phil Barker has this absurd need to tinker and fill holes that do not exist.

To be fair other than some input over wording for V2 he's left HOTT alone. I suspect his (and Sue's) drive to change it comes from the DBA crowd clamouring to have their favourite troop types grafted on to HOTT.

Note that current plans do not mention HOTT: wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/plans.html

I don't care if fantasy authors are typically hazy about the difference between spears and pikes, I'm not, and I don't think that's a good reason to ditch the distinction

I do. Because that's what the rules do, and it works within the confines of HOTT. The sentiment is however indicative that it's those who favour DBA that want DBA concepts applied to HOTT.

Most HOTT players are happy and agree that other than oddities as mentioned by streeline it works.

It's interesting that generally the call by those wanting change is for DBA troops to be added to HOTT, but there is not the call to add HOTT fantasy troops to DBA.

There's no impediment to adding what ever you want for your own games, but why do people insist the rules must be changed to fit their notion of 'Monstrous Warbands' etc?

Adding:
Phalanx
Monstrous Warbands
Berserks
Militia
Monstrous Magicians

Closes these holes.

What holes? There are no holes, just your view that the game needs more troop types to satisfy you perception of how some troops fight.

kokigami has it right. If you like DBA so much then add HOTT troops to that or make your own fantasy supplement.

That and bring the rules in line with DBA 3 so switching between the two is not as hard, as dog-less Bob pointed out.

Which for those that only play HOTT and not DBA could be seen as selfish. What you want is for HOTT players to now have to conform to DBA to make it easier for you so that you do not get confused.

There are players that still can't get their head around treating them as different games. I don't play DBA, I don't want to, but neither do I request they all drop non-HOTT troop types.

HOTT needs to be viewed as a seperate generic game. It's not just about fantasy armies using ancient and medieval fighting styles; it caters for all sorts of armies.

The OFM has is though, Barker's tinkering due to what he and others have felt as issue in the game have led to numerous versions and now a split in the DBA camp. The same for HOTT would kill it.

Having played since 1994 and run internationally reknowned HOTT Berkeley Tournament for 12 years now I think it works. In that time I played DBA once, it wasn't for me.

<rant mode off>

streetline18 Sep 2012 6:44 a.m. PST

Good rant…

Just to add +1 rear support to Stenicplus and Guthroth, I've got 37 HotT armies and haven't felt any burning need to add pikes or monstrous warbands to any of them. and given the oppurtunity, I play DBA.

stenicplus18 Sep 2012 7:38 a.m. PST

As an addendum now I've had my pills…

There appear to be 3 camps

1. Leave HOTT as is
2. Make HOTT more like DBA
3. Add more troop types to HOTT

Camps 2 and 3 intermingle where the troop types are DBA ones as opposed to new fantasy types.

For camp 2 let us suppose HOTT had been altered to be like DBA years ago, many years ago. And then of course been kept in line along with the changes over the years.

Using your skill and judgement consider how many versions of HOTT would have been played and altered and think where the rules would be now.

For camp 3 let us suppose HOTT was updated every time some Tom, Dick and Harry had a bright idea for their new troop type… Monstrous Warbands, Slightly Effete Warbands, Dark Elf Warbands (so different of course from Orc Warbands). How many updates would there have been? Who would have controlled them and policed what were valid troop types?

For DBA troops types, who can show me in fantasy litarature, as aspired to within the HOTT rules, where there exists Auxila or Psiloi who cannot be fitted into the game? Where are the Light horse who cannot be classified as Riders under the troop descriptions?

As the famous Sebastian Rogers said "Hobbits should be classified as bad going." Few and far between are the problems that cannot be solved by outside the box thinking.

For camp 1 let us suppose the game was left as is… oh wait. Done that.

Now of the camps, which solution might one think has provided the most fun for least hassle with minimal variations or disturbances over the longest period of time for the largest number of people?

Any one to take a bet that in 2 years time we are discussing DBA 3.1?

Personal logo Bob in Edmonton Supporting Member of TMP18 Sep 2012 8:46 a.m. PST

Other than the shooter/warband movement change, I would leave it alone. That movement swap is an easy change to make in any group as is adding base-width movement (which is fun) and starting armies closer together.

lkmjbc318 Sep 2012 9:21 a.m. PST

Yes, there are holes. Big ones.

I cannot play the game I want to play without the added troop types. Period. All the troop types mention add to game, allow for more variation, allow the players to more follow the fiction they wish to emulate.

Unless HoTT is updated. It will die.

It really is that simple.

Joe Collins

stenicplus18 Sep 2012 10:19 a.m. PST

I cannot play the game I want to play without the added troop types.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood. It's all about you.

My advice? Add them, play them, enjoy it. But that is not HOTT

For you they add to the game. But how balanced are they? How big is your player pool? How much testing to check for odd outcomes have you done?

Unless HoTT is updated. It will die.

Ah. The harbinger of doom. I beg to differ. I've never used your troop types yet still enjoy the game nor found it wanting. Neither do the 20+ people who go to HOTT Berkeley every year. Nor the majority of the HOTT Yahoo group.

What you mean to say is you will not play it any more and it will die for you and possibly your club.

There are regular requests for the link to the pdf to get acopy of the rules, that suggests an ongoing interest.

I think you perhaps value your personal vested interest in the rules too highly. Just because you perceive a fault it does not make it true for every one else.

It may die, but not for want of more troop types and certainly not because you feel unable to play because the authors failed to bow to your demands and prophecies of death.

Go on then, humour me, what is a Monstrous Magician and how doe they work?

Might I suggest if it's such an issue then perhaps it's not the game you want.

I don't demand Armati change because it's not the game I want, instead I find the game I want and play that.

GarrisonMiniatures Supporting Member of TMP18 Sep 2012 11:21 a.m. PST

Personally prefer HOTT to DBA for historical games. Why should a game that works well die? It's surviving better than DBA which did need revising!

If you want to play historical games, fine you follow that route. If you want to play fantasy, then it has it's own rules as set by the authors of the stories they are based on. Skirmishers tend to be ignored by story tellers, spears and pikes tend to be interchangeable. So why does HOTT need either?

If you want pikes as separate but in a fantasy context, adapt something the HOTT community is experimenting with. Troops that move in deep formations and are looked on as juggernaughts can be classed as Behemoths.Remember, they're fantasy rules, the important thing is not how things behave in real life, but how they behave in the minds of authors.

Shedman Supporting Member of TMP18 Sep 2012 11:40 a.m. PST

If I'd had Slightly Effete Warbands I wouldn't have lost to a 13 year old girl at Hott Berkelayley

Kaptain Kobold Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member18 Sep 2012 1:59 p.m. PST

"HOTT and DBA 3 are really different games, almost no overlap. If people want congruency in the rules then HOTT will need to be changed"

HOTT and DBA 3 are really different games, almost no overlap. If people want congruency in the rules then DBA 3 will need to be changed.

(Corrected it for you :) )

Kaptain Kobold Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member18 Sep 2012 2:12 p.m. PST

"Unless HoTT is updated. It will die."

To be replaced by what? If the replacement is a game that does everything HOTT does, without any of its alleged flaws, then bring it on.

If you want to drop me an email with your group's house rules in them, though, I'll look at putting them on The Stronghold.

Kaptain Kobold Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member18 Sep 2012 2:15 p.m. PST

"HOTT needs to be viewed as a seperate generic game. It's not just about fantasy armies using ancient and medieval fighting styles; it caters for all sorts of armies."

Actually I'd disagree with this. Leaving aside the esoteric collection of lists in the back I would say that HOTT only really works when using armies with ancient and medieval fighting styles. The further away you get from that the less effective the game is. That's not to say I don't own and use armies that aren't of those styles, but I'm aware of the limits imposed by using them.

Kaptain Kobold Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member18 Sep 2012 2:24 p.m. PST

"The warband/shooters movement fix needs to be made permanent."

Based on the fact that it's pencilled into the PDF download, and that Sue mentioned it as a change when she was floating the idea of a reprint on the HOTT Yahoo Group the other day, I think it can probably be considered permanent and pretty much official.

lkmjbc318 Sep 2012 2:30 p.m. PST

Guys:

Nice rant. Here is the reality. When is the last time you saw groups of folks snatching copies of HoTT off the game store shelves? When is the last time you saw demand for the rules? When was the last time you saw the game being played at a convention by folks not part of the DBA crowd?

20+ People at Berkley? LOL. That many play GW at the local game store every Saturday and Thursday!

You can sit back and wax nostalgic and watch it die. A reprint/retread of the old will not generate any new interest. It will not attract any new players. There will be no buzz and old players will have no reason to purchase a new copy.

Every year there are many new and exciting Fantasy games that folks are moving toward. HoTT needs to grow… or it will die.

Joe Collins

GildasFacit Sponsoring Member of TMP18 Sep 2012 2:32 p.m. PST

I'm not one of the HotT 'purists' who won't accept any new troop types but I don't see the need to make any 'official' by updating the current version.

I don't know what stocks are like at retailers but I'm sure that the minor changes mentioned could be done at the next printing and the new troop types can do what they do now – get suggested, shared and discussed on various websites.

Just 'cos you can't play them in a tournament doesn't mean that they don't work and nor does it mean that you aren't playing HotT any more – as some rather anal purists seem to think.

HotT shares one major feature with DBA – a large degree of flexibility. You have to bend it a long way before it gets broken !!

Kaptain Kobold Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member18 Sep 2012 2:43 p.m. PST

"Every year there are many new and exciting Fantasy games that folks are moving toward"

With regard to games that do mass battles with relatively small numbers of figures whilst not being tied to any specific background, what are they? I should give them a look.

And how many of them will still have an active international player base in ten or fifteen years time?

Kaptain Kobold Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member18 Sep 2012 2:47 p.m. PST

"Just 'cos you can't play them in a tournament doesn't mean that they don't work"

They can be used in a tournament. If you have a favourite troop-type you want to add, just run your own tournament and make it a 'tournament official' change to the rules. Experience with other games has shown that this is never a recipe for acrimony and disaster.

Kaptain Kobold Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member18 Sep 2012 3:02 p.m. PST

"20+ People at Berkley? LOL. That many play GW at the local game store every Saturday and Thursday!"

Would this be the same GW that probably spends more in a month marketing and promoting its games than the authors of HOTT have spent in a lifetime?

Kaptain Kobold Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member18 Sep 2012 3:27 p.m. PST

" A reprint/retread of the old will not generate any new interest. It will not attract any new players. There will be no buzz and old players will have no reason to purchase a new copy."

I'm not sure that this is entirely valid. A reprint of the rules would generate a certain amount of interest, and could be used to recruit new players who hadn't seen the game before.

But I think I understand what you mean – you;re saying the game must be continually reinvented and re-released so that people buy new copies of it every few years and generate a buzz that attracts other people to the game. So, for example, there should be a new edition featuring your ground-breaking, hole-plugging new troop types. This will make HOTT the game of the moment, attract new players and revitalise the jaded older ones. It will see the game good for five or so years. Then we repeat, with some new innovations. And so on.

Have you got in touch with WRG and expressed your concerns?

artslave Inactive Member18 Sep 2012 8:48 p.m. PST

I play both HOTT and DBA and I accept them both as an abstraction that covers the subject but painted with a big brush. If you need more detail, then find a smaller brush. I don't expect HOTT to cover every conceivable idea or troop type or factor intricate layers of magic and mystical power. What I get is an enjoyable game that plays to a conclusion in about an hour and doesn't make my head hurt with a million pages of rules and addendum. I find the fun in building armies. I get to play 2 or 3 different ones in the time normally spent on just one game of almost anything else.

so…no. If I really need a troop type for a certain army, I'm sure I can "house-rule" it just fine.

lkmjbc318 Sep 2012 10:04 p.m. PST

K. Kobold…
Most certainly! We will see. They have alot of other projects scheduled.

Joe Collins

streetline19 Sep 2012 1:48 a.m. PST

HotT doesn't appear to be dying. The only problem that prevents it being snatched off the shelves is the lack of a book on the shelves. For a dying game it sells out quickly enough. A print on demand version of the current rules will fix that. On the other hand, we could have a 200 page $50 USD full colour rulebook with 20 new troop types and limited edition official gold resin Vociferous Behemoth and Monstrous-Lurker-Ninja-Hero-Cleric figures. But that's not really the type of game the rest of us seem to have been enjoying for 20 years.

Don't get me wrong, I have have house rules I use in house for one particular flavor of HotT. But it's like having Bleeped text – just because you enjoy playing with your own doesn't mean everyone wants to know about it.

streetline19 Sep 2012 2:04 a.m. PST

Now who'd have thought "DBA house rules" would be bleeped :-)

Victor19 Sep 2012 2:30 a.m. PST

I find this thread bemusing. Despite years of debate in the HoTT boards about fixes for sneakers, water lurkers etc, ALL problems can instead be solved with the introduction of new troop types, being "monstrous [insert name of pre existing troop type]". Though the "slightly effete [insert name of pre existing troop type]" sounds like an equally valid solution.

streetline19 Sep 2012 2:34 a.m. PST

In fairness – and I know that's not like me – we should possibly ask for a look at the troop types rules before dismissing them out of hand.

Joe, can you post your rules up here or on another thread?

Pages: 1 2