"Why so little attention for Swordpoint?" Topic

So I haven't played Swordpoint yet but it seems like it would be a popular alternative to Hail Caesar.

Especially as Swordpoint appears to use considerably fewer miniatures while advertising that it still offers historical outcomes.

They have some nice campaign books for Ghengis Khan and Alexander.

In fact, I could only find 10 posts at TMP with Swordpoint in the title.

Does anyone have any experience with or thoughts about Swordpoint…positive or negative?

Thanks as always.

"Having thoughts or experience" is not the same as "why so little attention?" Uesugi.

In my case, the "little attention" is largely burnout/cynicism. Seems as though hot new rules come along faster than I will rebase or can learn, and "fewer miniatures but with historical outcomes" has been with me since Empire, Napoleon's Battles and DBA. I'd pay more attention if they said "not quite as historical but cheaper and faster." (At least I'd consider it more likely they were truthful.)

Someone else's turn to take point. But by all means learn the system and tell me about it.

"Having thoughts or experience" is not the same as "why so little attention?" Uesugi"

-True dat!

"But by all means learn the system and tell me about it"

I've got the rules & the Medieval army list too so far. I'm working slowly on Hundred Years War for it but I'm quite some ways of from gaming it yet.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm seeing that there's not much of a middle ground for rules any longer. Either you play skirmish games where you only need a few figs, or you need large units using a ton of figs for games like Hail Caesar. This just seems to be how the rules have diverged in the hobby the last decade or so. If you play either of those types of games (i.e., skirmish or large battle), then you're probably not interested in purchasing any set of rules that's in between.

The current ancient rules scene is pretty saturated. Think about the current active sets already existing before Swordpoint.

1. DBMM
2. FoG
3. ADLG
4. Impetus
5. MeG
6. Hail Caesar
7. TTS

Then there is Warrior, Warhammer, Armati, C&C Ancients etc.. I am sure I am missing some big sets in this list (there are a couple of Warhammer next edition types out there.) Point being there isn't a huge need for another set of rules that I can see. It would have to be revolutionary and exceptional to push into an already overcrowded scene.

The authors of Swordpoint have complicated the Ancients rule situation themselves by coming out with a larger scale set of rules called Milites Mundi. MM uses the same army lists as Swordpoint. Ah for the good old days when Phil Barker had one set of rules to rule them all.

The 1990s Tactica players might disagree that Barker "ruled them all".

I am with Marcus – there are so many (good) rules out there. What I wonder is, might the descision to publish separate books with army lists be a bad idea for a new system? The ones that did gather a following recently either include army lists like L'Art De La Guerre or have/had them free online like Mortem et Gloriam and To the Strongest.

And regarding

Either you play skirmish games where you only need a few figs, or you need large units using a ton of figs for games like Hail Caesar

I don't know. At least with Lion Rampant etc. by Daniel Mersey "big skirmish" seems to be the middle ground (like never before). Then came Clash of Spear, I recently looked into Fistful of Lead: Bigger Battles, or have a look at Captains and Kings. I don't know if Feudal Patrol is "too small" to be seen "in the middle" or "Men of Bronze" is "too large", but what I recon is there is plenty of choice if you have a closer look.

free online like Mortem et Gloriam and To the Strongest.

Where is MEG free online?

large units using a ton of figs for games like Hail Caesar.

This is really a misconception.

In HC the number of figures plays no role in combat calculations. Therefore your units can be any number of figures you like, and the game works fine. I know from experience.

Olivero was mentioning army lists being free on-line.

mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/meg

I agree. We play Impetus and quite enjoy the system but I think its major detriment is army lists. They are slow in coming and fairly costly. On this I think other sets have a decided advantage.

"This is really a misconception."

Depends upon what basing you're using and how you want your units to look. I'm using 40 man pike units for my Seleucids, so 8 units of those is 320 figs and that's not counting all the cavalry, skirmishers, etc. Yes, that's my choice, but from looking at many of the pictures on the FB Hail Caesar group, there's quite a few other gamers who think the same way.

I think the same could be said for many rule sets.

How about "Triumph?" A DBA style game that launched at the end of 2019 and disappeared into the hell of Covid. It has loads of free army lists, an online army generator "Meshwesh" and a nifty terrain generation system.

The market is over-saturated in many periods, but new rules keep getting released every day. Kinda like pop singles, only a few become hits.

@aegiscg47
take a look at the BigRedBat of TTS fame :)
he does it in the grand scale

In HC the number of figures plays no role in combat calculations. Therefore your units can be any number of figures you like, and the game works fine. I know from experience.

I think this is true for a lot of the games systems of recent years, where people can use as many or as few minis to represent a unit as they wish. Personally I like to use excessive numbers of minis, but I know people who represent a unit with as few as four 54mm minis, and it looks good enough and plays exactly the same.

This winter I'm working on Swiss units which will have 96 minis each, I expect to have six in the field by April.

If I had to I would rate Triumph! in the same group of (more or less) successful rules like ADLG, MeG and TtSt. It's been around since 2016 and has its group of active players I believe? Especially as a rules system closely related to DBA it has strong competition, of course. The publishers are about to launch a campaign book this year, by the way.

I lean more and more to two basing systems: either big enough to be handled individually and removed when "dead" or uniform frontages of tiny soldiers--so many they still look like units and not color guards.

Those minis are spectacular BigRedBat! I just purchased ToThe Strongest and am looking forward to my first game

Depends upon what basing you're using and how you want your units to look. I'm using 40 man pike units for my Seleucids, …….Yes, that's my choice,…."

Right. Like I said, it's a misconception to think that HC requires a large number of figures.

I hope we're not going to debate what "requires" means….

How about "Triumph?" A DBA style game that launched at the end of 2019 and disappeared into the hell of Covid. It has loads of free army lists, an online army generator "Meshwesh" and a nifty terrain generation system.

Rules-wise Triumph is distinctly un-revolutionary, basically DBA with more equipment-centric troop classifications. But the online army list database is a thing of beauty, which should be studied by anyone intending to do a game with army lists in the future.

There was a post from Gripping Beast on TMP towards the end of last year saying that the first print run of 2,000 copies of Swordpoint was almost sold out, and that they'd be reprinting soon.

So, someone is certainly buying it as that sounds like a huge number of mass battle Ancients rules to have shifted to my mind.

Whether it's then being played, or if the Gripping Beast brand and eye candy content is enough to simply get it sold and it then joins the other sets on the shelf is another question entirely.

"Does anyone have any experience with or thoughts about Swordpoint…positive or negative?"

Swordpoint is basically a streamlined version of WAB that uses casualties by bases rather than individual models. The 2x2 basing on 40mm square bases are nice building blocks for units, but create issues for the all the rage skirmish game world of popularity we find ourselves in.

I found the game worked better outside the Hellenistic period – since that is where my interest lands, it did not gain traction among my diasporic group. There has been since that time a specific version supplement for Hellenistic armies. That may or may not have solved some of the issues.

The issues that landed hardest for me was the system of streamlined WAB meant if a whole base was not eliminated then extra losses were simply ignored. Many situations occurred where it was plainly impossible under normal odds to inflict losses. Accumulated action markers were always plentiful enough to reduce the threat of unit destruction, plus the game instituted battle line cohesion rules that spread out the consequences of a combat over a whole line- which further reduced things happening. Missile troops often hardly could inflict enough damage to remove each other- let alone affect hardened close combat troops.

In effect the wilder effects of units routing and chaotic outcome became more moderated, and often the game seemed to be about an attrition mode of wearing out the momentum chit pool, and once one side had some and the other none- then things started to happen, with less impact of casualties.

I found the way that base removal and the streamlining of the WAB-like D6 to hit mechanics actually increased the effectiveness of some troops. Unarmored Galatians often had the ability to defeat a pike phalanx in one on one combat frontally, and cost less. This was simply because they rolled more dice and had better chances to inflict a base loss- where the phalanx could barely achieved 4 hits on them back.

Our banter after the games was that there wasn't enough tension in the games- and many of the troop types did not act in ways that old grognard WRG/Tactica/WAB/DBA experienced gamers expected.

Sadly this shelved interest. I found little desire to rebase an game force to 40x40mm bases for this system.

Again for some periods I think the system works, in fact one can argue that the WAB system that it evolved from always worked better as Dark Ages period scrum style rules set. So I expect that Swordpoint remains popular because those armies (Vikings Saxons Gauls etc.) are a lot more capable of winning than they are in most other game rules against Romans and combined arms variety forces.

So not wanting to be dissing on the rules- which are nicely presented and have a following, there are plenty of pluses for the rules- especially if you find they fit your period and style of game. I agree with some other posts, the rules may have been more widely accepted if there were not so many other competing rules to try to gain space while FOG was all the rage, and then somewhat replaced by ADLG and now many others.

It pains me to be so blunt in my review as I have great respect and admire the author, have worked with him. Actually I comment only in the hope that others explore the rules themselves. Ultimately I feel that Swordpoint suffers like all rules that attempt to cover everything from Sumerians to Agincourt in one system.

Thanks for that JJ.

Simply the lack of chances to play Swordpoint due to pandemic restrictions prevents my to dive into the ruleset. I like the mixture of simplification and WAB feeling but most the flair of nostalgia with the active players known eons ago, when the WAB Forum was the place to be/chat :)

I've painted hundreds (>2000) of miniatures (oldhammer metal and mainly plastic for ancient&medieval and napoleonic) but rarely have the opportunity to play a game.

Like the approach of the Swordpoint crew to create supplements with unique flair, a good portion of historical background, tailored list and most of all scenarios/campaigns as guideline to enjoy the period/theatre.

So for me it's step by step, painting figures, buy and read rules and then play and use them if possible again. And the hope to join one of the events again, be that in UK, Strasbourg or the Munich area :)

Cheers
Olaf

Olaf

So for me it's step by step, painting figures, buy and read rules and then play and use them if possible again. And the hope to join one of the events again, be that in UK, Strasbourg or the Munich area :)

Hi Olaf,

Darrell here.

Are there plans afoot to put any Swordpoint tournaments/campaign days in in Germany od Strasburg?

When/if the Covid situation dies down I would love to attend.

I'm at Britcon for Swordpoint in July Assuming Sars Cov 2 has payed most of it's particularly nasty tricky by then.

My Just Add Water Painting and Wargaming Blog:
link

Back to the question.

I think that Swordpoint has suffered a little from lack of multi media support. Yes, there are already plenty of supplements, some general and some very period specific. The HYW supplement is coming out very soon which I'm very excited about.

What I'm referring to is media like YouTube. Just look at what the lies of TooFatLardies and Mortem et Gloriam have managed to do with by supporting the game with video media.

It is much easier to grow enthusiasm for a game if there are real time 3D examples. It gives a better feel for the game, what players can expect to get out of the game etc.

I really think the guys who have put so much effort into Swordpoint ought to take a deep look at getting regular videos out; this in itself will develop interest.

My Just Add Water Painting and Wargaming Blog:
link

I was thinking the same Darrel, although looking at Saga on youtube, most of the vids seem to be fan produced rather than anything from GB? A real missed opportunity

Johnp4000

I was thinking the same Darrel, although looking at Saga on youtube, most of the vids seem to be fan produced rather than anything from GB?

Very true. It's almost a must do if you don't have the promotional mechanics of Games Workshop etc.

A real missed opportunity

There were some rumblings from GB that it might be in the pipeline but that was a while ago. I really hope they can get some vids put together.

If you look at how well the TooFatLardies promote their rules, explaining how to play, how different armies play etc. In my mind instructional vids are essential to drum up interest outside of what used to be the old WAB crowd.

My Just Add Water Painting and Wargaming Blog:
link

I noticed that on the swordpoint forum every question, as to when a supplement will be produced or your questions about promotional vids, always the same answer, manana,manana! I am sure back when the forum first started the same question was asked in 2018? The same reponse!
It is funny but I also noticed that the posters seem to be mainly veterans of the really popular old WAB forum but it has never attracted the same numbers.
It is a pity, as it is one of the few systems that rewards maintaining the line rather than the usual set up of unrelated combats all over the table.

I noticed that on the swordpoint forum every question, as to when a supplement will be produced or your questions about promotional vids, always the same answer, manana,manana! I am sure back when the forum first started the same question was asked in 2018? The same reponse!

Yeah, it's kind of frustrating as it is very much the way any given company has to promote their rules these days. In time that might change to another format but for now- it's essential.

It is funny but I also noticed that the posters seem to be mainly veterans of the really popular old WAB forum but it has never attracted the same numbers.

100%. There are very few players on the forum who I can't fit a face to from the ye olde days of WAB.

It is a pity, as it is one of the few systems that rewards maintaining the line rather than the usual set up of unrelated combats all over the table.

My sentiments exactly. There are very few rule systems where the line of battle is the predominant feature of the game. It allows for average units to hold the line even when attacked by elites. I'm not a great fan of the momentum tokens but I can see why they were put in there. What I don't like is that a unit on, say that far left flank, can shoot up a unit on the same flank and the momentum tokens can be used by units on the right flank. It's counterintuitive, but I suppose to do anything else would make things more complicated.

My Just Add Water Painting and Wargaming Blog:
link

It is funny but the momentum rule is my key dislike with the system. I think you could abstract something like command points to produce a better result. The points being used for rerolls rather than adding bonus's to combat which can get really unbalanced. It also seems a rather clunky mechanism having to keep records both in the shooting and melee phase.

Hi John4000

That's a key problem for me- I'm absolutely pants at designing rules- even tinkering with them is a stretch for me LOL

Just Add Water Wargamoinjg and Painting Blog:
link

I am perfectly happy playing Triumph! where each army is 12-14 stands/elements.

Sounds rather DBA like at that point

coopman

I am perfectly happy playing Triumph! where each army is 12-14 stands/elements.

Plancon

Sounds rather DBA like at that point

Which would put me off immediately…. I like the units in my armies to look like units and not playing pieces. Personal choice and all that….

Just Add Water Wargaming and Painting Blog:
link

Atheling,
Do you remember our discussion on another forum, how if you ask about a rule set you just get adverts for other sets totally ignoring your original question?

DBA killed my interest in gaming for several years, not sure why it was popular, 12 elements just looked lame, more like military draughts.

Uesugi, there is now a HYW supplement for Swordpoint which gives far more options than the medieval lists.

I must admit unlike Jeff's comment, I found Roman armies do well under the system, as you need 5 hits to remove the first base. Depending on your view, my opponent didn't like the way casualties don't carry over which can produce some drawn out combats.
I have never played against a Phalanx, but as only the front ranks count, I thought they had a lot of advantages like hitting first and the -1 to attacks, and don't they get a bonus to the combat modifiers?

I agree about DBA/Triumph!. I saw a game of Triumph played at a convention a few years back. It looked fun but it didn't seem to be a serious game. More of a beers and pretzel game to amuse. It certainly didn't have the mass effect that I like.

A lot of medieval wargame rules suffer from a shortfall in the research aspect – certainly in relation to the wars of England and Scotland in the 13/14th C. Skirmish games with a a few cavalry, a few archers, a few spearmen and a few unarmoured hangers-on are pretty common, but what is the historical rationale? The same thing happens in WW2 games – an army with 2 squads of infantry (one paratroops, one SS) a Tiger, a Puma, a 88 and a Pak 40. Imagine the same approach for Napoleonics? 6 lancers, 6 curassiers, 6 dragoons, 6 old guard and 6 camp followers?

Johnp4000

Atheling,
Do you remember our discussion on another forum, how if you ask about a rule set you just get adverts for other sets totally ignoring your original question?

I do indeed. It's a little infuriating. I'm sure it's all meant well, but it just clouds the issue and often leads threads off at a massive tangent with little to do with the original thread/question.

DBA killed my interest in gaming for several years, not sure why it was popular, 12 elements just looked lame, more like military draughts.

I remember well the level seriousness that most players of BDA/DBX would play at the club. I often wondered why they were bothering, as for many, they just seemed to be getting angrier and angrier if they started to lose. For me, to go into a game with that sort of mindset is nuts as, like most, I'm in it for the fun (and the research). For example, I've sent the last 30 years researching the HYW but would not let the foibles of any rule system spoil the fun of rolling the dice/cards and having a good time with my mates. That is not to say that I haven't spent the last 30 odd years looking for what would be my idea of a great set of HYW rules to suit my tastes!

Marcus Brutus

It certainly didn't have the mass effect that I like.

Exactly my point. Except in my experience at least, the players seemed to be a million miles away from having fun.

uglyfatbloke

A lot of medieval wargame rules suffer from a shortfall in the research aspect – certainly in relation to the wars of England and Scotland in the 13/14th C. Skirmish games with a a few cavalry, a few archers, a few spearmen and a few unarmoured hangers-on are pretty common, but what is the historical rationale? The same thing happens in WW2 games – an army with 2 squads of infantry (one paratroops, one SS) a Tiger, a Puma, a 88 and a Pak 40. Imagine the same approach for Napoleonics? 6 lancers, 6 curassiers, 6 dragoons, 6 old guard and 6 camp followers?

Again, I wholeheartedly agree. It's the visual aesthetic that matters equally as much as te fun of playing the game.

Just Add Water Wargaming and Painting Blog:
link

I think the Anglo-Scottish battles of the 14/15th century highlight a problem in trying to make the game interesting. The Scots had several major defeats where they do exactly the same form an army of mainly Spearmen( Cavalry or archers don't seem to have any impact), mob up into a big column, then march blindly towards the English sitting on a hill with the same result. I doubt that any ruleset can make that sort of battle interesting.

'Several' being the same as 'two'? Both of which were hard-fought affairs? The thing is, big battles are not the norm of medieval war in England or Scotland; the normal activity being quite small actions between parties of men-at-arms with not an infantryman to be seen.

What like, Halidon Hill, Dupplin Moor, Neville's Cross and the later Humbleton Hill? I am referring to large scale actions only as Swordpoint is intended as a big battles set, I doubt it would work well for skirmish level fights.
Actually the above battles might be a good test for Swordpoint, under those rules would the longbow inflict sufficient casualties on the Scottish schiltrons and if they make contact would the English line hold?
Have you done any experiments with archery fire, Atheling?

True enough, but they are still not typical of the wars are they? A couple of hundred (or even a lot fewer) MAA on either side is more like the thing. Really my point was about absurd force selections.

uglyfatbloke

'Several' being the same as 'two'? Both of which were hard-fought affairs? The thing is, big battles are not the norm of medieval war in England or Scotland; the normal activity being quite small actions between parties of men-at-arms with not an infantryman to be seen.

The same can be said for nearly all wars up until the 20th Century. Possibly even up to this day.

Just Add Water Wargaming and Painting Blog:
link

Actually Uglyfatbloke, I do remember a ACW game where my poor Confederate Militia played against a Union force, composed of Marines, Regulars, Iron Brigade and Berdans Sharpshooters, supported by Custer's wolverines!

Yes, but I expect it was n't a matter of half a dozen individuals from each unit? Mind you….that does sound like a challenge does n't it? Where's Wargame Developments when we need them?

I have not performed an in-depth analysis of ancients figure gaming rules, but I have done so for Napoleonic and WW2/Cold war. The one thing I have really noticed is when a set of rules is established in an area, a new set of rules can only succeed if it provided a unique value add. So in an area where DBMM is being played, another DBMM style set of rules will not succeed easily. On the other hand an ancient skirmish set of rules, or a dramatically simpler game system, could succeed.

The other factor is supporting material, DBx does very well because its army lists are very good, as well as providing a good game. Its only downside is its complex. I suspect Art De La Guerre has been doing so well because they are simpler rules, but they certainly have not knocked out DBx and instead co-exist with DBx, so both sets of rules must be offering something unique.

pfmodel

On the other hand an ancient skirmish set of rules, or a dramatically simpler game system, could succeed.

Indeed. The introduction of the plethora of skirmish games over the last few years has, in my view, it's roots in a general move towards simpler rule sets but also the increased prices of knocking out metal miniatures which is (of course) rightly passed onto the customers.

The other factor is supporting material

This is a key point nowadays. It is essential to support the rules utilising all forms of media available. YouTube is a rules writer/producers friend. In fact it is essential. Take one look at the tremendous support TooFatLardies apply to their rules via YouTube. Same with Mortem et Gloriam.

I have communicated this a number of times to Gripping Beast (all good mates going back years) but, partly due to the pandemic and partly due to a lack of technical gradation, this has not happened. In my mind, it is essential to use YouTube in order to:

1/ Promote the game- the number of wargamers who watch YouTube to get a feel for a game is in my opinion very high.

2/ To show how the mechanics work. Could it be that some producers of rules are reluctant to do this as they (naturally) don't want to "give the game away"? I think the opposite it actually true.

3/ Walk through the army lists with an emphasis on tactics etc.

Just Add Water Wargaming and Painting Blog:
link

x2 for Atheling.

May I mention that Day of Battle is a mid level game. Players start off as lesser lords with smallish retinue type armies of maybe 8 stands. As they progress through battles their skills and social rank grow as does their army. Units are recommended to be single stands like Impetus and To The strongest do. Players can also use sabots and use figures based anyway they like. The number of models in a unit do not matter.

Support isn't very good I will admit. I do have some videos up of YouTube and a decent though quit website.

Chris