"How much like/unlike HoTT is Fantasy Rules! ?" Topic

hello!

in my never ending task for a good set of fantasy rules i have yet another question:

how does FR! compare to HoTT?

it would be very helpful, if you would state to what edition of FR! you refer.

All FR! rules sets are similar. The differences is in the details and the amount of chrome added to each rules set. That aside, they play the same. But your question was how do they compare to HoTT…

HoTT basically plays like DBA. A victory drives back the opponent. A double victory destroys an opponent.

In FR!, A victory causes a demoralization to an opponent. These are cumulative. 2 DMZs cause the opponent to be driven back. 3 kills the opponent. A double still kills the opponent out right.

HoTT uses WRG bases 40mm wide by whatever deep for 15mm sized figures.

FR! uses 40mm square bases for 15mm figures. You can put 2 WRG bases on a sabot for FR! if you end up playing both games.

HoTT magic is limited to Ensourceling the opponent.

In FR! you have a host of spells to cast. There are different caster types.

HoTT has random pips that allow you to move your units or groups.

FR! has pips based on the morale clock which gives you plenty of pips to move your units around but as your army takes a beating, the clock goes down and you have fewer and fewer pips to use.

Both systems use a challenge roll system for melee combat. HoTT you roll a D6. FR! you roll a D10.

Missile combat for HoTT is the same mechanic as melee.

FR! you roll on a table to see if you score any dmzs or a kill.

HoTT you shoot after you move.

FR! you shoot before you move. This makes shooting somewhat ineffective as there is no defensive fire except a +1 melee factor for being charged frontally.

That's the differences off the top of my head. What else would you like to know?

BTW, they are both good games, just different. Very different.

John

Thanks acarhj you answered a few questions I had about FR! as well.

great THANKS!

and how much flavour does FR! have?
more than the rather dry HoTT? can units have special abilities and such?

HoTT is like Chinese food to me. No matter how much I play, I always seem to want more and am never satisfied. It is definitely light fair by comparison.

FR! does have more detail than HoTT in every incarnation. It is a heavy meal and you can still knock out a couple of games in an evening.

FR!2 or 3 provide a lot (some may say too many) options to customize armies with very fine details. I like these sets well. I thought FR!3 went a little overboard. I think it is still workable but you have to limit things in a set game world to prevent abuse of the rules.

FR!TCE seems to get back to the roots of FR!1. Very stream lined with different army customizations called army focuses. Instead of having lists of armies that you can play who have certain units, you take customizations that allow certain units for that army. You can basically make anything under the sun!

I've played Version 1 and 2 extensively and have played HoTT a few times. I've played DBA many times. FR!3 is not different from FR!2. It just has more. IMHO too much more.

I'd go with FR!TCE personally for a quick simple game that's very satisfying. Go with FR!3 if you want lots and lots of detail. Be prepared to house rule to prevent abuse.

Units can have special abilities like fear and flight. Characters are single stands that combine with units to enhance them rather than being a 1 man wrecking crew on the battlefield. Plenty of monsters and spirits to be had too!

John

John, i really owe you.
i promise i will repay by answering any possible question you might have about Age of Might and Glory, once i got those rules.

John, i really owe you.

No problem really. I'm always willing to share.

John

you are a great guy.

i hope i can talk someone into trying FR! then.

just to make that absolutely sure: people who hate HoTT and find it terribly dry and un-fantasy might like FR ?

you are a great guy.

I'm sure you will find some here that think otherwise! But thanks!

just to make that absolutely sure: people who hate HoTT and find it terribly dry and un-fantasy might like FR ?

I should think you will find folks like this. It's really a taste thing. I would think they would like it if they enjoy element based games like FR and HoTT have. If they are looking for more detail (options, magic so forth) I should think they will like FR.

Yeah, Hott has a simple yet elegant Army design system. FR has a very open system which can be abused by a gamer. The mechanics of FR are excellent. I was an early fan of FR since the very 1st edition. I think the problem you will find is that FR players are very hard to find. The PDF pricing debacle of FR3 combined with FR3 diving into loads of extra chrome almost completely eliminated the game from visibility. That's really a shame since it IS a great system. HOTT benefits from being rewritten in a more understandable English and being affliated with DBA. It is widely popular.

Thanks,

John

"HOTT benefits from being rewritten in a more understandable English"

Something harder to decipher than Barkerese? Truly a rare specimen.

i think he refers to the 2ns edition of HoTT which is, i believe, not written by Barker and neither in His Own Tongue.

(i should add that i greatly respect Barker as a person and what he did for the hobby. its only that i find his writing style rather a bit high for me. read "high" as you want.)

Yeah, HoTT 2nd Ed was a far superior product to 1st Ed and is probably written in such a way that DBA should have been written in. Dispite his unwillingness to write legibly, I agree that Mr. Barker has contributed a lot to the hobby.

BTW, the debacle John speaks of largely put the fire out on FR! Overpriced rules and too much stuff. Of course, FR!3 can be looked at as a sandbox. Pick and choose what you want to use.

FR!TCE, IMHO, still has a better way of handling armies.

J-

Yeah, the debacle was a very sad thing. There were a LOT of folks who privately emailed and discussed on the Yahoo group with the authors about what a bad call it was on the PDF pricing. The authors are some very nice guys. Very creative too. Most of us could never get a handle on the WHY of it all. But sure enough, FR play died out almost completely. Around here (SW Ohio) we had about 20+ players with FR 1 and 2. Once 3 was on the market it dropped to zero after a few months. Very sad.

So John, you REALLY like the newest FR set? Could you elaborate a little?

Thanks,

John

ok, i bought the rules.

they look very flexible. the basics that are in the books still look a little too DBx-ish in parts, but the rules will be flexible enough to get that out.

i will generally make all mounted troops 10 oints cheaper and delete the automatic dismounting ability. that will have to be bought for 10 points. i just hat the thought of having to do doubles for all stands..

overall i am very curious what kind of game the rules will give.

So John, you REALLY like the newest FR set? Could you elaborate a little?

I do. Now I have to say I have not played them yet but i consider myself to be a pretty good judge of what a good rules set is to me. You tend to get that way after 30+ years of gaming. :-)

So, one of the things I did not like about FR!(1-3) was the open army lists and then calling them something. Woodelves was a good example. You could take a wood elf army and nothing was stopping you from taking all monsters. This, of course, looks nothing like a woodelf army and yet you get all the woodelf abilities.

The army shticks were a little unbalanced. Holy/Unholy were noteable examples that were band in tourneys all over the country.

Now they have focuses for armies instead. Each gets up to 3 focuses. One or two can be spent on character focuses instead. Example focus is chivalric which lets you take knight units. Another example is wind rider which lets you take light cavalry units. Character focuses work similarly.

The basic game mechanics work about the same. Everything is much ore limited. It brings you back to those days of FR! and FR!2 where you had a finite amount of things you could do with your armies and you could plunk down and play a game out in no time flat.

hwarang said…

overall i am very curious what kind of game the rules will give.

It is a very different game than DBx of any sort. you have to play to see. It certainly has some roots in the authors gaming history of, presumably, DBA. Try a 750 point game solo. Skip the magic and see how you like it.

John

Hmmmmm…….that does sound interesting. The Army lists were VERY susceptible to abuse like you describe. I remeber my buddies Samurai army list. My gosh was it cheesed out. I tended to like Beastmen units since they were so nasty. My Undead army was thumped pretty badly when all the magic users were destroyed leaving the army to collapse into the dust including my Grenadier Undead War Mammoth.

We played some really BIG battles. Had a great time.

Yeah, magic tended to be low level in our games. I wanted to fight a battle not play Wizard.

if the game isn't too expensive I may check it out. How many pages is it?

Thanks,

John

150 pages.
luckily they included an indey, its still a mess layout-wise.

On of the things we did to tone down magic was to make all casters L1 and the army mana pool 5. We also lifted the restrictions on the caster being able to cast only up to 4 point (I think) spells. This way, if they happened to have enough to cast the mega spell, they could, but then could do nothing else except watch the enemy caster cast spell after spell. :-) It made a MUCH better game magic wise.

150 pages! Wow, that would be a lot to print up. How many are just the rules? Come a long way since FR1 which was under 15 pages.

Thanks,

John

"just the rules" would probably around 50 pages, which also have quite a few diagrams and pictures.

FR!3 is ~150 pages, the new FR!TCE is 37

ok. played today. two games. lost both. i rather liked it. feels muchg less generic than i feared it might. those construction rules really can addd character to a unit.

its a good game.