"Is Saga Still Popular?" Topic

Or am I late to the party once again? It is still stocked in a small section at my local game store, but I have yet to see anyone playing a game there. If so what are the popular armies?

yes, we just started playing the new Arthur expansion.

Oh yes. A&A is a great addition.

The Colonel

Definitely yes! My group we still play the original version haven't got into Arthur or crusades yet.

Very popular here at the local club (in Belgium).
There is a plan for a club campaign with at least a dozen participants.

We played for awhile but haven't recently. Nothing wrong with the game, we just moved on to other things. There is a group locally that plays regularly.

The Irish seem fun.

I played in a tournament at Giga-Bites there in Marietta a couple of years ago. It was real big around there then. I look at the web page on occasion hoping to see an announcement for another fun filled Saturday but, nothing since.

I'm up Chattanooga way, few Saga players here that I know of. Siege of Augusta always has a Saga tourney. That's where I learned to play!

I walked into Endgame in Oakland one Sunday afternoon last month and they were playing Saga on three tables.

I haven't played myself.

It's pretty big in Central California. They play a lot of it. I have painted up an Irish army with which to join them when I actually manage to move there. It doubles as a fairly squishy Lion Rampant army.

Ok sounds like at least there is something at our local cons here in Georgia. Is Late Rome or Huns pretty good starting armies?

I just joined a group that's starting a Saga campaign. I think the game is still being played but doesn't generate the news it did when it first came out.

nope…not around my neck of the woods.

P.

I played in a 24 player Saga Tournament while visiting (from Scotland) Club Comandante in Malaga Spain last month. They had players from all over Andalucia attending and at the "Hispania" Convention a month later nearby there was a whole roomfull of Saga games going on. So its pretty popular there.

I am a bit late to SAGA, too, having played it only twice.

What is the rationale for only ever having a maximum of one unit from each side in a melee?

Is SAGA meant to be a skirmish game or a big battle game? The number of figures and scenery imply that it would be a skirmish, but the mix of troop types in such a small force, along with the possible presence of famous commanders, implies that it may be a shrunken big battle, sort of like DBA. What is it supposed to represent?

SAGA is popular with different groups in the southern USA. In the Miss-LA area any skirmish players are using their armies for Lion Ramphant and Draon Ramphant.
Some SaGa players in GA and Alabama. Tenn is strong but the real push their is for the Kings of War tournament play. The last two I saw there in Nashville had over 40 players each.
Florida is a strong place for all of them. A lot depends on which city you live in.

The same rule applies in the Rampant series, Skeptic. I presume that the logic is that in a brief, fast-paced, confused skirmish coordinating 'units' to attack simultaneously would be nigh-on impossible, and the time represented by a turn is so short that a small melee would be over before another unit could join in anyway.

Both systems appear to be a bit confused about the level at which they're pitched, which seems to have in turn confused some owners of the rules who then try to use them for mass battles. For example, the description in Lion Rampant of the troop type 'bidowers' includes the line: 'They are missile- armed skirmishers and of limited use in a stand-up fight… ', which could have come from a set of mass battle rules. That characteristic forms the basis of their distinct identity under the rules, when in a true skirmish everybody is… skirmishing, and so the distinctions between combatants should come down only to individual weapons, armour, and abilities.

@HM: Thanks for your explanation!

I hear it is very popular with those who play it, less so with those who don't.

Brilliant!

Brilliant, but not very helpful. Any good suggestions on other good skirmish rules which I might find other people playing? 😊

A small addendum to the above comments:

I think LR makes more sense if you consider each of your figures as representing a small number of men, say between two and five, rather than individuals; still a skirmish in military terms, yet not exceeding the number of combatants that could conceivably have been engaged in the types of scenarios in the rule book.

What is the rationale for only ever having a maximum of one unit from each side in a melee?

You move one unit at a time. If you engage an enemy unit, you fight that combat immediately. Either one side is destroyed or pushed back. Then another unit moves/charges. That's why there is only one melee at a time.

Is SAGA meant to be a skirmish game or a big battle game?

Skirmish, not big battle.

What is it supposed to represent?

A small warband

Well… that's certainly the procedural explanation…

As to the rationale, see my suggestion above.

If you read the designer notes Alex explains the game. He states it is not a simulation of medieval warfare but a game with the theme of medieval warfare. Viewed in that context it is brilliant and the rules all work and balance each other out.

Joe

The introduction of famous characters is indeed a small break between the claim to be a skirmish and the mechanics – and while some Vikings or Dark Age Chieftains can claim to have built their "saga" durings such fights, it fails when it comes to kings or even emperors.

Personally, I just ignore named characters while gaming – the system works perfectly well without.

I have played both Lion Rampart and Saga and – while the first was fun – I prefer the second. Having a game this Sunday :-)

I played a few games of SAGA, and found them entertaining. However, I still prefer Lion Rampant for gaming at this level, and then Impetus for big battles.