Help support TMP

"Top 5 Reasons to Like Lion Rampant" Topic

32 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 Medieval Discussion Message Board

Action Log

14 Aug 2017 3:02 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board

Areas of Interest


1,677 hits since 24 Jan 2017
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian24 Jan 2017 12:08 p.m. PST

Lion Rampant was recently voted best ruleset for the Crusades. TMP link What makes this game the best?

daler240D Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member24 Jan 2017 1:09 p.m. PST

it's accessible, not over wrought, easy to get into because of the author's tone and writing style.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP24 Jan 2017 1:10 p.m. PST

Mind you, I like LR--but points are always awarded for "recent" "widely publicized" "color" and "glossy." Many "best" rules sets are out of print in three years and $2 USD in the flea market in five. That said:
--It's playable by anyone with individually mounted figures, and doesn't require large numbers of them. That is, you don't have to build or rebase an army to try out the game.
--It requires very few playing aids--a tape in inches, three status markers and a small bucket of D6's are all you need.
--It has little created vocabulary. You can read the rules, look at your castings and know who they're talking about.
--The rules are clear and well presented--in sequence, with flow chart and examples of play.
--The game itself moves fast, flows well, and works very well for solo play.
Basing, level of detail, level of play and what's really important in warfare of a particular period are all matters of dispute. But the things I've listed above are mostly fundamentals--things every rules set should try for, and many don't. There are many talented and imaginative rulesmiths, but there seems to be a real shortage of people to insist that the final product be clear and readily playable. I believe they're called "editors."

uglyfatbloke Inactive Member24 Jan 2017 1:11 p.m. PST

…and you don't have to bother with all that tedious history stuff. It's great if you want a Hollywood drama game – and why not?

Black Cavalier Inactive Member24 Jan 2017 1:31 p.m. PST

It's figure agnostic. You can use any company's figures and in most scales

advocate24 Jan 2017 2:16 p.m. PST

The scenarios give good quick games. Not always balanced, but quick enough that you can get two or more games in of an evening

Ney Ney24 Jan 2017 2:20 p.m. PST

Written so I can understand it and explain easily to others
Aims at a size of battle not many other medieval rules do"……… Small battles
Choose your own army, not any restricted army lists
It is fun and gives good games
It's playing with Knights!

Clays Russians24 Jan 2017 2:57 p.m. PST

I loves it. Working on them as I speak, invested almost 100$ USD on Vallejo paints, Windsor newton brushes, and a wet palette just to try and bring my craft to a higher level just for medieval models. I wish I could figure out how to post pix. Going to 'retro fit' my Norman and Saxon SAGA war bands (which means just adding more 'figgers'.). Oh dreadful😁. Does the war store carry Gripping Beast? Or Curtsey-?

Personal logo Bashytubits Supporting Member of TMP24 Jan 2017 3:01 p.m. PST

Easy to learn, easy to play, loads of fun and character. Easy to add house rules as well. Best medieval set to come down the pike in a long while.

Grignotage24 Jan 2017 3:07 p.m. PST

It's a solid game, just unpredictable enough to induce nail-biting, and stays out of its own way: you don't have to learn a complex activation or command and control system. Just put your minis on the board and fight.

Tony S24 Jan 2017 3:07 p.m. PST

It's figure agnostic. You can use any company's figures and in most scales

Forgive me, but is there any set of historical rules that are NOT figure agnostic?

Although personally I'm at a loss as to why LR won the poll, perhaps another reason is the extreme flexibility of the lists and the plethora of scenarios?

Auld Minis ter Sponsoring Member of TMP Inactive Member24 Jan 2017 5:13 p.m. PST

I found it very 'flexible' in terms of organization and troop types. I have reconstituted many old collections to find a place in the organization of LR.
The player can also "tweak" any of the fighting characteristics to match his idea of the fighting capabilities of the particular troop type. Or indeed what you have in the collection to make up the appropriate number of points necessary. I like that aspect.

Irish Marine Supporting Member of TMP24 Jan 2017 5:53 p.m. PST

Could you use it for Romans and Celts? I have two full Centuries and over 250 Celts.

Auld Minis ter Sponsoring Member of TMP Inactive Member24 Jan 2017 6:36 p.m. PST

Of course.
Instead of keeping to the 1:1 ratio, why not have a stand of 6 Romans = 1?
Thus for a unit of 12 you will have 72 figures! Looks massive but plays the same.
The Roman legionaries are well armoured and kick-arse so equivalent to dismounted MAA. Celt warriors equivalent to fierce warriors as per the original rules.
Very accommodating

Lazyworker24 Jan 2017 11:13 p.m. PST

It's fun. It's simple. It's simple and fun.

Ease of entry.
The book is priced right. You don't need that many figures (but that never stopped me from buying multiple boxes for new armies to build one day).

The rules are so written to make you want to drag out old figures from previous rule sets and have a go.

The rules are so written that you want to tweek them to work for "your time period". From chariot wars to the Renaissance, if you're supplying both sides you can put on a game you can talk a friend into playing.

YogiBearMinis Supporting Member of TMP25 Jan 2017 6:18 a.m. PST

Do people feel the same way about Dragon Rampant?

Thomas O25 Jan 2017 7:23 a.m. PST

I have both sets of rules (Lion Rampant and Dragon Rampant) and they are very similar and play pretty much the same. In some ways I like Dragon Rampant better.

Cavcmdr25 Jan 2017 8:59 a.m. PST

Dear Thomas O

Pray, why the preference for Dragon Rampant?
Is it like a second edition?


SBSchifani Inactive Member25 Jan 2017 10:18 a.m. PST

"…and you don't have to bother with all that tedious history stuff."

I'm interested in your thoughts, care to expand on this?

uglyfatbloke Inactive Member25 Jan 2017 3:33 p.m. PST

Just look at the army lists; if it's a skirmish game it should be focused on parties of men-at-arms, not scaled down versions of large armies. It's a Hollywood fantasy game and none the worse for that I've played it a couple of times and will undoubtedly do so again; I would n't say that it it had n't been fairly good fun. Worth adding that I've yet to find a set of medieval rules that gives a good flavour for 13/14th century wars, but I've tried several that were historically worse than Lion Rampant.

Codsticker25 Jan 2017 5:38 p.m. PST

I like the activation system and the hit/wound mechanic: simple and effective. Mr. Piepenbrink sums up the positives nicely.

KSmyth25 Jan 2017 9:03 p.m. PST

It's fun. Easy to learn and easy to teach. Can be played easily by two players or six players depending on one's commitment to the rules in cash and time. I find it easily adaptable to scenario-making or expanding beyond the scope of the period/army lists. I love its randomness.

I use these rules with my large collection of HYW figures. I've also assembled a collection of Aztecs, Conquitadors, and Tlaxcala allies for Quetzalcoatl Rampant developed with a friend. Can't recommend LR and all the follow on rules highly enough.

SBSchifani Inactive Member25 Jan 2017 10:21 p.m. PST

It gives you all the tools necessary if you feel that the only way to properly reflect small scale medieval warfare is with primarily or exclusively mounted forces. Are you sure all small parties engaging in low level clashes weren't ever somewhat balanced in composition?

I do agree with you on happily settling for fun over perceptions/delusions of accuracy. I don't expect any game, however complex or innovative, to be able to teach squat concerning the realities of medieval warfare.

krisgibbo26 Jan 2017 2:10 a.m. PST

As above really. We play both and the line is becoming blurred between the two. Having played raids and supply train scenarios, we have plans for future games which will include siege works and castle walls.
I would mention the size of the forces which makes it realistic to collect a force. Most of my mates have multiple forces and as I've mentioned before, models are seeing the light of day after years of languishing in their boxes. Medieval Swedes anybody?

uglyfatbloke Inactive Member26 Jan 2017 2:20 a.m. PST

SB, it might well depend on where your games are set. Ours are in England/Scotland, where small actions (apart from the odd surprise attack on castles)were invariably cavalry engagements; I would n't know if that were the case for say Spain or Italy.

Ney Ney26 Jan 2017 2:45 a.m. PST

There are no army lists. You build the retinue you want to build. I think the sample retinues are there to show players what they can do and what the troop types are. I do not think they are official forces you have to use. The rule say that. And that's a big bit of the fun of these rules.

SBSchifani Inactive Member26 Jan 2017 6:06 a.m. PST

Invariably? Given that most meaningless engagements of this size and scope would be extremely unlikely to have a written account, I'm not sure I can agree with that so firmly. Surely there were small unrecorded neighborly sluggos with mundane goals (similar to the scenarios) all across England and Scotland that had nothing to do with the larger overall conflict between the two.

Your point that small forces usually aren't exact miniature replicas of the larger national army is a very good one. It appears to me that Lion Rampant allows for purely cavalry engagements.

Everyone has their own scale in mind regarding how many actual men a casting represents, which can change quite radically from game to game, and I think that's part of the fun. I'm not sure how the author can be faulted for throwing out intentionally stereotypical lists that seem to be trying to get players in the spirit of things.

BelgianRay26 Jan 2017 11:32 a.m. PST

Who says you have to use "smaLl" retinues ? In my opinion it all depends on the time you want to spend on a game, no?

uglyfatbloke Inactive Member26 Jan 2017 5:18 p.m. PST

Maybe I'm doing LR an injustice. My impression was that those were the retinue section (is that no the same as army lists) were an intrinsic part of the game. If so, they don't really make sense for the theatres in which our games are set. I can't offhand think of a recorded small action (and there's plenty of them) in 13/14 C. Scottish/English wars that was anything other than a cavalry fight, nor any evidence at all to indicate that Scottish and English MAA were in any way different. The same holds true for larger armies. The proportions are different, but the troop-types are identical in every action I can bring to mind; also I cannot think of a single action where small forces reflect the structure of larger ones.

SBSchifani Inactive Member26 Jan 2017 7:35 p.m. PST

I get it, and I appreciate you explaining your perspective. Recorded actions whether small or large do seem to mostly be about professional soldiers. The rules for building a retinue allow for a reasonably good variety of mounted troops, and you are allowed to spend your entire points allotment on cavalry. I fully agree that English and Scottish MAA were essentially the same, and the rules don't prevent or block that conclusion from being reflected in a game.

The author clearly states there are no official army lists. They are by no means mandatory, merely suggestions to get ideas going.

I do love a good historical refight, and will vary the scale per casting as necessary to give a hazily plausible reflection of just about anything. What are big fights but lots and lots of small fights?

But I'm also quite happy to game undocumented and undignified situations well below the level of organized warfare. You know, kidnappings, tax collections, Robin Hood-like scuffles, Cry Havoc style scenarios, and the like, and not feel I'm doing history the least bit of disservice. Can't see why anything that might occur in the wild west or the dark ages couldn't be gamed in a medieval setting, with just about anything goes for throwing together a retinue.

uglyfatbloke Inactive Member27 Jan 2017 3:04 a.m. PST

Could n't agree more about tiny scenarios SB.If you're having fun you're doing something right.

wmyers22 May 2018 10:04 p.m. PST

@uglyfatbloke: Clearly you have experience playing games with miniatures and can identify what makes rules fun/enjoyable. If you cannot find 13/14th Century rules that you like, why not try writing your own?

Take the best parts of the games you like (you don't have to copy, just the gist/idea/overall scheme) and put them in to your own rules.

Add in what you think has been missing from all the others. Playtest it, revise it, play, revise and then see if you can get a publisher (Osprey is always looking for good, unique and inspiring authors). Add some fun and interesting story and historical elements (most rules sets are actually very minimal but the books pack pictures, modelling ideas, stories, history, etc in to them to pad the material to a large enough size to publish).

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.