Editor in Chief Bill | 05 Aug 2016 2:07 p.m. PST |
Hail Caesar (Warlord Games) was recently voted as the best ruleset for reenacting an ancient historical battle. TMP link What makes you like these rules? |
mckrok | 05 Aug 2016 2:17 p.m. PST |
The fellas in the gaming group like to play it. pjm |
MajorB | 05 Aug 2016 2:18 p.m. PST |
They are fun and they work without taxing too many brain cells. |
VVV reply | 05 Aug 2016 2:55 p.m. PST |
Hail Caesar, best ancient historical set OMG. I am obviously on a different planet. |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 05 Aug 2016 3:31 p.m. PST |
Why play Hail Caesar?
Because they're absolutely HOOFING! |
Mute Bystander | 05 Aug 2016 3:37 p.m. PST |
VVV, Why do you say that? Honestly curious. |
DOUGKL | 05 Aug 2016 5:23 p.m. PST |
I don't know if I would say they were the best but I definitely enjoyed the game when I played them. I look at it this way. If the rules don't get in the way of my having fun, then they're not bad. |
Syrinx0 | 05 Aug 2016 5:45 p.m. PST |
I like HC for a fun quick no hassles game that is easy on the figure count needed for big battles. That said I still play some WAB. You can get a bit more individual flavor with some armies in WAB but movement can be more fiddly. |
Jamesonsafari | 05 Aug 2016 5:55 p.m. PST |
No fixed basing scheme Quick moving |
Tgerritsen | 05 Aug 2016 8:11 p.m. PST |
All the cool kids are doing it. |
langobard | 05 Aug 2016 9:32 p.m. PST |
I didn't expect that outcome, but I'm happy with it. In terms of why I play it: 1. Its fun. 2. I'm happy with the command (and blunder) system. It does provide a fair amount of chaos and angst to those who don't have a solid plan going into the game. Honestly, my favourite command system is probably DBA or DBABB (I think that it is strained beyond capacity in either DBM or DBMM, but that is just my feeling.) 3. For my money a crucial factor in any ancient wargames rules is 'how does it handle multi unit melees'. For me, the system in HC works. 4. As others have noted, 'the look' on the table is excellent, and can be tailored to suit your army. Dang. Don't think I have a fifth reason, but the above four are important ones for me in playing the game. |
Wolfshanza | 05 Aug 2016 11:00 p.m. PST |
Think the rules work really well and aren't over complicated. The Celts actually whomp the Romans sometimes. |
Zippee | 06 Aug 2016 2:13 a.m. PST |
It might say "best" in the poll but it almost certainly results in a vote for "most popular". I can see why HC would end up getting the most popular result. In many regards what else are the chaps with WAB armies going to play these days? It's a perfectly decent fun game – not my vote, I'd rather play Impetus but I wouldn't turn a game down. |
Dave Crowell | 06 Aug 2016 5:56 a.m. PST |
WAB armies work great for Rob Broom's War & Conquest rules. Or WAB for that matter if you have your WAB books. Haven't played HC, but it seems popular. From what I have heard I'd play if someone offered me a seat at the table. |
LEGION 1950 | 06 Aug 2016 6:42 a.m. PST |
Where is the rest of the command figures for their Caesarian Range that Steve Saleh was doing two years ago at Salute? Mike Adams P.S. That is why I have not bought any more figures from them!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Teklea2018 | 06 Aug 2016 8:49 a.m. PST |
"what else are the chaps with WAB armies going to play these days?" WAB :-D "WAB armies work great for Rob Broom's War & Conquest rules" But they work a lot better for WAB!! WaC doesn't port directly over to WAB armies because of the change in skirmish rules and heavy dice bonuses when making leadership type tests. I've never tried Hail Caesar simply because it always seemed to be played with much larger armies than I was used to/had available. |
Lazyworker | 07 Aug 2016 12:08 a.m. PST |
In my opinion where HC really shines is a big club game. Everyone brings their armies, you divide the group into two sides (I'm talking 5+ players a side) and four hours later not only do you have great conversations with friends you possibly haven't seen in nearly a year, but you've actually finished a game! Without a headache either! Not too many rule sets I've played can achieve that. In a game that large, I recommend using an office bell to help keep time. The bell helps from having to yell over any distracting conversations. Ring the bell to signal end of movement phase, combat, etc. There's always one conversation going on at the far end of the table that will drag out the game if you let it. Check out the setup for the Hastings game in Carl Titterington's youtube review of the 2016 Oklahoma Warlord's Game Day: YouTube link Shameless plug, my Point Do Hoc game (built with my gaming group helping me out) is at 3:50. Black Powder demo table at 7:26 True demo game. Needs at least a bigger table. However, a couple of people did reset and switched sides for a I can do better than you challenge. Demo+ HC table at 9:45. Good size for a quick game that doesn't feel too small as it had two sub-commanders with a General giving a boost where needed. Hastings demo table at 10:32. I'd say that would be the minimum # of units you'd want to use per side. Great thing with HC is you can make the "standard" units any size you want so it's up to you to decide how many figures you'll need to paint. |
frostydog | 07 Aug 2016 3:03 a.m. PST |
Most of our group have moved on to Impetus. |
arsbelli | 07 Aug 2016 9:08 a.m. PST |
Odd that this was not crossposted to the Hail Caesar discussion board. In any case, here are my "Top 5 Reasons to Play Hail Caesar": 1. HC is designed primarily for scenario-based play in a relaxed, social setting; 2. HC has simple, elegant core mechanics that reward historical tactics, with useful special rules that add period flavor, allowing the scenario designer to build forces that will closely match his/her own understanding of history; 3. The HC orders system encourages commanders to plan ahead, and to have a back-up plan for when things do go awry; 4. The HC combat support rules encourage players to maintain a solid battle line, and to make intelligent use of reserves; 5. The HC rulebook is a pleasure to read, has loads of visual appeal, and above all is tremendous fun to play! |
kallman | 07 Aug 2016 10:59 a.m. PST |
Okay I have not bought HC but played one game. Love it. It is basically Warmaster (the best damn set of miniature rules ever created period) so it Warmaster with some changes that you play using 28 mm figures. Although it appears to not be scale specific. Lazyworker may have made the best argument. You can play as many figures as you want (or less) have a great game and you are done within a few hours having a nice bit of post game conversation while enjoying pizza and beer. And +1 to arsbelli I would agree with all his talking points. I've not bought HC yet as I have not seen much of an ancients or classic era game scene since I moved to Texas. Bolt Action, Flames of War, 40K, Warmahordes and Malifeux seem to be the main games being played. I have considered beefing up some of the forces I currently own and putting on a demo game to see if I can generate interest. |
VVV reply | 08 Aug 2016 2:26 p.m. PST |
OK Mute Bystander, I had to have a dig out and find my old copy of Hail Caesar and read through it again. So here goes: Other people commented on Hail Caesar and to a great extent, I echo their negative views TMP link Game Rules Being able to move depends on rolling dice – I always hate that rule mechanism and why people like it beats me. I am happy to lose a game because my plan was wrong or I lost a vital combat, but because I could not get my troops to move, come on. First one side does everything, then the other side does everything – a bad idea inherited from GW. Defeat based on mathematics (you lose when more than half your divisions are gone). Well you game play that. Have two divisions and then your whole army has to break before you lose :) and similar ideas – a bad idea inherited from GW. I shoot at you, you do nothing in reply – a bad idea inherited from GW. But you get the idea. History I always say you can take a set of historical rules, play an historical battle with it and see how well it matches up to what we are told actually happened. Any mods you have to make to rules to get something like an historical result, shows how historical the rules are. OK I only flicked through Hail Caesar this afternoon but I could see nothing about Roman units exchanging lines in combat. And the Roman army features pretty heavily in ancient wargames. Fairly easy to mod the Hail Caesar rules to make it happen of course, just allow a unit providing rear support to replace the unit in combat to its front. But that does seem forbidden in Hail Caesar. I hope the above helped. |
arsbelli | 10 Aug 2016 10:07 a.m. PST |
In Hail Caesar, units with the 'Drilled' special rule can interchange freely without becoming disordered. Together with the rule for rear support, this can be used to represent the Roman system of legionary line exchange in a very simple and elegant way, without needing any rules specifically entitled 'Roman line exchange.' In general, this rule and the other special 'Useful Rules' found toward the end of the book allow players to customize their units and armies to match their historical characteristics and performance for specific scenarios. IMHO, this built-in 'customizability' Is one of the best features of the HC system. And it is precisely what happens in the large number of Hail Caesar battle reports found here and elsewhere online, the vast majority of which are either refights of historical battles or historically-based scenarios. |
MajorB | 10 Aug 2016 11:22 a.m. PST |
Being able to move depends on rolling dice – I always hate that rule mechanism and why people like it beats me. I am happy to lose a game because my plan was wrong or I lost a vital combat, but because I could not get my troops to move, come on. It's called friction. Most wargames rules don't actually model friction at all. |
Bowman | 13 Aug 2016 8:41 p.m. PST |
Thanks VVV Being able to move depends on rolling dice – I always hate that rule mechanism and why people like it beats me. I am happy to lose a game because my plan was wrong or I lost a vital combat, but because I could not get my troops to move, come on. Seriously? Troops always move exactly like an ancient commander wants? Every time? First one side does everything, then the other side does everything – a bad idea inherited from GW. IGO UGO existed way before GW
Defeat based on mathematics (you lose when more than half your divisions are gone). Well you game play that. Have two divisions and then your whole army has to break before you lose :) and similar ideas – a bad idea inherited from GW. That bothers you. Doesn't bother me. I usually play until an outcome is clear. I shoot at you, you do nothing in reply – a bad idea inherited from GW. But you get the idea. I get shot at and risk becoming disordered. Next turn I'm not in a position to receive orders. That's not really nothing. Did shooting in the ancient eras cause divisions to run away? What outcome are you expecting from shooting? It's not hard to pick holes in every rule set. The best rules are those that conform best to one's pre-existing biases and expectations. If they weren't we'd all be playing the same one game and universally loving it. |
VVV reply | 16 Aug 2016 4:29 a.m. PST |
"In Hail Caesar, units with the 'Drilled' special rule can interchange freely without becoming disordered. Together with the rule for rear support, this can be used to represent the Roman system of legionary line exchange in a very simple and elegant way, without needing any rules specifically entitled 'Roman line exchange.'" And other troops can use it just the same. Greek hoplites using line replacement, I don't remember reading about this. Roman line replacement was a system to keep their troops fighting at optimum efficiency and they gave up both width of battle line and depth of units to do so, so there had to to have been a good reason to do it. And since Moving through units (p35) is not allowed in combat, I would say your view does not even apply. "It's called friction. Most wargames rules don't actually model friction at all." No its friction when something is happening, Doing each and every time you want to move is a fantasy. In fact get close enough and your move is automatic and thats where your 'friction' should come into play. What Greek would want to charge the Spartans or indeed stand against their charge? "Seriously? Troops always move exactly like an ancient commander wants? Every time?" No, but there are better ways to control movement than with dice. Morale is an excellent way, so you cannot just expect a unit of peasants to charge the enemy or indeed stand being charged. The new MeG rules are a good compromise between being able to do anything you want and the unpredictability of war. Movement in Black Powder/Hail Caesar is complete nonsense. And that is my point, it is a very poor system. "IGO UGO existed way before GW" But the guys who wrote Black Power/Hail Caesar, came from GW. Hence the comment. When you can 'game' the rules to create a game advantage, you have a poor set of rules. Black Powder/Hail Caesar carry this flaw over from GW. "I shoot at you, you do nothing in reply – a bad idea inherited from GW. But you get the idea." Sorry you missed the point, one side does not shoot and the other side stand around doing nothing (unless they have nothing to reply with). if both sides are in range of each other, they should both shoot. It is very easy pick holes in Black Power/Hail Caesar because of their poor design – that being my point. Luckily there are much better rules available. So we have the choice to use them instead. I used to play Warmaster and we used to laugh ourselves silly at commands that did nothing for most of the game. Same sort of movement system but it was not trying to take itself seriously. In fact that would be my recommendation to Hail Caesar players, use Warmaster Ancients instead. |
Bowman | 16 Aug 2016 10:35 a.m. PST |
Being able to move depends on rolling dice – I always hate that rule mechanism and why people like it beats me. I won't go into a point by point dissertation on why you should like HC. You answered it very well in the quote above. Game X conforms closer to you existing biases, and Game Y doesn't. Ergo, Game Y is crap. Having said that, thanks for the heads up on Mortem et Gloriam. Will look into them. |
VVV reply | 16 Aug 2016 12:19 p.m. PST |
"You answered it very well in the quote above." You have it, I don't like rubbish rules. And after all with 45 years of experience playing ancients, I have seen lots of ways of playing an ancients game. Some work, some don't. If people want a HC type experience, the better way to do it is to play Warhammer Ancients. |
Bowman | 17 Aug 2016 6:28 a.m. PST |
You have it, I don't like rubbish rules. Lol! |
Scorpio | 18 Aug 2016 8:45 a.m. PST |
Please include a selection for 'not a historical gamer.' |
VVV reply | 18 Aug 2016 9:50 a.m. PST |
Oh lots of popular rules sets. DBx and the old WAB (WAB2 was a lot better, by getting rid of columns of troops). Basically any set of rules where you have to mod them to make historical tactics work. After all if it does not play like an ancient battle, its a game. Not that games are bad of course, I like both Risk and Monopoly :) |
ether drake | 29 Aug 2016 9:35 a.m. PST |
Defeat based on mathematics (you lose when more than half your divisions are gone). Well you game play that. Have two divisions and then your whole army has to break before you lose :) and similar ideas – a bad idea inherited from GW. It's terribly helpful to read the rules in full. It's also helpful to understand that Hail Caesar is a casual play and scenario-focused ruleset, one that doesn't favour tournament play. One adds or removes rules that help recreate a particular scenario and disposition of forces. In the chapter entitled VICTORY AND DEFEAT, the Hail Caesar rules read: "Generally speaking, our preferred approach is for the umpire to set objectives for each side before the game. This will vary according to the nature of the game being played: escape an ambush by breaking through a blocking force… .…In many battles the opposing armies will have no special objective other than to defeat their enemy. …The rules [for this] are offered as guidelines and are not meant to be immutable by an means, but form a useful starting point and can easily by adapted to suit particular circumstances as required. DEFEAT An army is deemed defeated once more than half of its divisions are broken as defined below. At this point all the army's remaining divisions are also judged to have been broken. …This simple rule does assume the army has at least three divisions. Should you be playing a small game where is this not the case you might agree to call a halt once one division is broken." |
VVV reply | 30 Aug 2016 10:10 a.m. PST |
Indeed Hail Caesar is not really a set of rules at all but a list of suggestions. Fair enough, if thats what floats your boat. And as from your quote its only an idea that you end the game after one division is broken. But like all these GW style rules that use factions to determine their effect, you just game it. So (as an example) In WAB, you take a morale test when you take 25% losses, so you have units which are one more than a multiple of 4 strong. 5 not 4, 9 not 8…… Army breaks when losing more than half its divisions, have even numbers of divisions. That keeps you going a bit longer. Same with the number of units a division, a division of 3 units will break just as easily as a division of 2. Each time one of you asks a question about Hail Caesar its a hell of a lot of trouble for me. I have to go to the box in the shed where I keep it (along with a few more pointless rule sets) and frankly I would be happy if I never opened HC again. The next time we have a bonfire, I think thats where it is heading. |
Diocletian284 | 31 Aug 2016 4:34 p.m. PST |
I agree with all the positive comments and in addition to it, I can say as primarily a solo gamer, I find the game mechanics work very well for solo play. Blunders, the command and movement systems, and the structure of combat all suit solo play very well. These add an uncertainty and variability that can make a solo game more uncertain and less biased. I highly favor the game. |
madaxeman | 02 Sep 2016 11:01 a.m. PST |
Can we have a "top 5 reasons why anyone would want to comment on rules that they either don't like for entirely arbitrary personal preference reasons, or which in some cases they have never actually even played"? Poll please? :-) Might draw a record number of votes ! |
Theophanes | 28 Sep 2016 8:54 a.m. PST |
Hail Caesar is not my cup of tea. Last summer we played Cannae. Our Romans beated Carthago. One of the times I wanted to leave the battle was when one of my cavalry units fired javelins to one Veteran unit. I fired beacuse I didn´t have any other target, and the cavalry was lurking there. I roll six, so the fresh veteran unit had to test and roll double one…veterans back to the box and the right wing of Carthaginian army fell…I won the battle, but the game is absolutly random, imho. |
Bowman | 09 Oct 2016 9:38 p.m. PST |
Hail Caesar is not my cup of tea. That's quite possible. Last summer we played Cannae. Our Romans beated Carthago I hope you're not suggesting a different historical result is an indictment of a rule set. One of the times I wanted to leave the battle was when one of my cavalry units fired javelins to one Veteran unit. I fired beacuse I didn´t have any other target, and the cavalry was lurking there. I roll six, so the fresh veteran unit had to test and roll double one…veterans back to the box and the right wing of Carthaginian army fell…I won the battle, but the game is absolutly random, imho. You are basing this on an extreme example. Rolling a 6 happens 1/6th every time you roll. Your friend takes a morale test and rolls snake eyes which happens 1/36th of the time. Those conditions happening consecutively occurs 1/216th of the time. This hardly counts as a game being "absolutely random". Plus the enemy cavalry unit would only have broken if you caused casualties. This wasn't mentioned and your opponent would negate that on a 4+ or 5+ morale save (dropping the probability even further). If no casualties, they would have retreated in disorder. Also, there is no "veteran" ability or attribute. If they were a unit of heavy cavalry with a morale of 4+, then this occurrence would drop to a probability of 1/432. My guess is that this occurance would never occur again in any of your games. Finally, if you actually needed a 6 to hit the enemy cavalry, due to shooting modifiers, you would have needed to roll two or more 6's to force a break test (see page 44). Are you sure you played the game correctly? |
Part time gamer | 01 Apr 2017 3:06 a.m. PST |
First @Navy Fower Wun Seven, thats an Amazing set up. Love to have read and seen the AAR of that game. 15mm right? VVV reply Being able to move depends on rolling dice – I always hate that rule mechanism and why people like it beats me.Bowman Seriously? Troops always move exactly like an ancient commander wants? Every time? Agreed. Does anyone know of 'ANY' battle where every plan went 'exactly' as planed. Defeat based on mathematics (you lose when more than half your divisions are gone).That bothers you. Doesn't bother me. I usually play until an outcome is clear. Historically the best' field CO's could tell; 'this isnt working, time to cut my losses, withdraw and fight another day". 'Loosing half' is simply a 'yard stick' if you will for making that decsion. VVV reply Each time one of you asks a question about Hail Caesar its a hell of a lot of trouble for me. Youve GOT to be joking. i.e. you have nothing else to do but look for a reason to argue a sys. you consider usless. ..frankly I would be happy if I never opened HC again. Then Dont. |
Uesugi Kenshin | 29 May 2018 1:50 p.m. PST |
I was actually turned off from playing when they first came out. The reason being I almost exclusively collect armies for historical battles and the unit sizes in this game seemed pretty inflexible. I found myself having to change the historical size of certain units up or down in order to fit the given unit sizes of the game (eg: 6, 12, 24, 48, etc…). At least that's one of the reasons I remember not choosing them back in 2012. I'm definitely willing to give them another look based on theircurrent polarity however. |
Bowman | 28 Jun 2018 2:42 p.m. PST |
There are no required sizes for the units. The sizes in the book are what the authors use. You just need to show what normal sized units look like, what large units look like and what small or tiny units look like. The number of figures in your unit doesn't matter. Have fun. All my Saga armies (on round bases) go on magnetised movement trays and become units in my HC armies. |