"differences between Hott and MA?" Topic

so what are the major differences between the two systems?

I'm in the process of rebasing my 15mm mini's and I kind of like how MA has pretty uniform basing system since it would allow me to buy in bulk.

how many different types of troop archetypes are there?

how balanced is the Army creation formula, and what are obvious pitfalls to avoid?

does it use anything like strongholds from Hott? I just got done with a stockade and I hope i can make some more use of it.

DBx uses a cross-reference, somewhat rock-paper-scissors style combat resolution. With different troop types being more effective against others, and in such & such terrain, beating a opposing elements score can have one effect, doubling a more serious effect.

With MA, you simply roll for each opposing *group* (not individual element), factor in modifiers for terrain, rear support, or being flanked or hit in the rear, and the losing group driven back and some units destroyed, depending on if the victors doubled or merely exceeded their opponents total.

MA's Troop types are Heavy and Light Infantry, Heavy & Light Cavalry, infantry & cavalry shooters, Chariots, and Artillery. You make your General element any appropriate troop type for free.

Overall, MA is much more simple and direct than HotT. It's really a question of whether you find HotT tedious and rules-lawyery, or MA to be way too simplistic. Some people like them both for different reasons.

I love to customize units, something you cannot do with HotT, so I am not big on the cookie-cutter units of HotT. As I have stated on previous threads, I prefer Gary Chalk's Man-at-Arms (published in Wargames Illustrated about ten years ago, I have no idea if it has appeared anywhere else). I find it to be a happy medium between both systems, with stats that can be easily altered by special abilities, as well as the DBx style resolution chart, so you still get that "different units interact with opposing units in different ways" effect that is hard to get out of a straight-up stats system, like MA.

But (pardon the aside!) both are good systems. As you can see, HotT is widely played, and MA has some enthusiastic supporters, and a new board here. I prefer the MA basing, as I find it difficult to cram big 15mm fantasy minis onto a 40mm frontage. Also, 1x2" is much handier on the tabletop with a much more pronounced 'margin' for handling. since you aren't building big blocks of troops, little 40x15mm bases are pretty pointless. Still, the "DBx standard" is so widely accepted, you have to worry about your minis compatibility, but I am at peace with my decision.

My apologies for this rambling post!

IMHO DBx/HOTT gives a much greater feel of being an army general than MA. MA has a couple more spells and some army list variance. In regards to customization I've had no problem writing or finding that for my DBx games or MA, creating house rules and club rules to cover what was desired. If your interested in an example look up "Great Hordes" in the Tulsa Area Wargamers Yahoo Group file section.

HOTT will probably get an update in the coming years and MA has an enthusiastic owner with Rebel Mike. As far as basing goes you'll probably find more opponents with DBx basing vice MA.

I don't recall stronghold rules in MA. HOTT is free and MA only $5 USD so why not try both.

I will add this for what it's worth. In the last decade I've jumped around from rulebook to rulebook yet I always find myself coming back to DBx.

Best wishes.

@Beast Rabban--rambling posts often are informative posts and I thank you for yours, no apologies necessary!

re strongholds in MA: I don't believe the original rules had any but I heard the new edition has siege rules.

I think that combat in HotT/DBx could use a little more explanation (I don't like to see it characterized as rock-paper-scissors).

Combat is decided by comaparing opposing dice rolls. Each troop type is assigned a modifier based on the opposing troop type (combat effectiveness), then modifiers for terrain in which the combat takes place, attached leadership, flanking, support, etc. are added to, or subtracted from, the base modifier. Attacker and defender roll differences determine who wins the combat and what becomes of the loser. It is a very simple, yet effective combat system.

Its simplicity stems from the limited number of modifers and troop types. Indeed, if is rock-paper-scissors, then just about every rule set I've ever played that uses any sort of modifed dice roll is guilty of the same.

Movement is based on troop type, terrain, and formation. Formations are single elements (bases), columns, and lines. All turning of lines is by wheeling. All measurements of movement are based on the corner which moves the furthest.

Command and control is called the PIP system. A die is cast which provides command points. Points are used to move single elements or groups. Movement allowances for various troops are modified by terrain and command stands attached.

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about MA, so I can't make a comparision for you. Hopefully someone can fill in the blank with a little more detailed information than has been provided so far so a comparison can be made.

from what I see of the stats on the army pages for MA, it looks a lot like song of heroes and blades.

As for the rebasing, I would suggest you go with the following:
infantry goes on 40mm x 20mm
cav and monsters go on 40mm x 20mm
everything else goes as fits, 40mm x 80mm being ideal for oversized stuff.
This should work for all the systems out there. It sure works for HoTT, MA, Fantasy Rules! (you would have to put two infantry bases together for one infantry base in FR!), works for Krieger III, works for Pride of Lions (I believe 3 or 6 bases should do the trick) etc.

It has the added beauty of making HoTT less fiddly, as it dramatically cuts down on the ammount of different dephts troops.

"Indeed, if is rock-paper-scissors, then just about every rule set I've ever played that uses any sort of modifed dice roll is guilty of the same."

I admit the analogy was pretty weak.