Help support TMP


"Triumph! Rules now Available" Topic


Triumph!

62 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 Triumph! Rules Board


Areas of Interest

Ancients
Medieval

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA)


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Eureka Amazon Project: The Phalangitrixes

Beowulf Fezian paints the prototypes for the Eureka Amazon Army.


Featured Profile Article

The Simtac Tour

The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.


Featured Book Review


4,789 hits since 16 Jan 2017
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.

Pages: 1 2 

Dervel Fezian08 Nov 2016 2:16 p.m. PST

Triumph! is now available as an early access download at Wargame Vault…..
wargamevault.com

Triumph! direct link:
link

The current version includes the rules, terrain system, QRS sheets everything you need to start playing the game.

Triumph currently has 646 armies listed on Meshwesh the online database which you can access via the Washington Grand Site:
wgcwar.com

Just click on Meshwesh and search by theme or name for your favorite army.

MHoxie08 Nov 2016 3:30 p.m. PST
Borderguy19008 Nov 2016 10:02 p.m. PST

Played the rules on Friday at Fall In!. Had a great time. Played two games in about 2 hours, including lots of help from the WGC guys in the first game.

We liked them so much I bought the early access rules and a pile of new lead.

Piyan Glupak09 Nov 2016 4:00 a.m. PST

Thank you Dervel for letting us know. I had signed up to the Triumph! mailing list, but so far haven't received any emails about the progress of Triumph!

Dervel Fezian09 Nov 2016 4:41 a.m. PST

Piyan,
Sorry about that there have been some technical problems with the mailing list… I think the guys hope to have that fixed soon or to restart with another service.

We started a Triumph FB page and of course you can always post questions here in the Ancients or Medieval discussion section.

There is talk about a forum as well….

Saurocet09 Nov 2016 5:16 a.m. PST

I didn't get to attend Fall In!, but I bought downloaded the rules. Seemed like a low price for everything you get. On the web page, there is mention of battle cards? Are those the Terrain Cards?

Dervel Fezian09 Nov 2016 5:33 a.m. PST

Saurocet,
Yes, this is the advantage of the early access deal :) You get a playable game and still get access to the final published version.

Battle cards are different from the terrain cards and will be released later and these are battlefield effects not represented by a troop type… "planted stakes" for example.

They will have points associated with them, and can also be used for scenarios.

Both can be represented without physical cards, but there is a plan to make the terrain cards available as print on demand very soon, in fact Jack will probably have that option up this week.

Who asked this joker09 Nov 2016 6:22 a.m. PST

Does someone have a synopsis/overview of the rules? What are the game mechanics like etc?

Dervel Fezian09 Nov 2016 8:12 a.m. PST

Joker,
What would you like to know?

Generally speaking:
It's an I go you go game.

The armies consist of different troop types representing peasants to knights and are based in stands of each troop type.

Each type has a point cost so you build your army using these points.

The army lists are online.

Players roll for action points each round.

Combat and shooting is done with contest rolls.

Movement is scaled to the base width so it scales up or down.

No book keeping.

…..

Who asked this joker09 Nov 2016 8:30 a.m. PST

What do the cards do?

ppecena09 Nov 2016 8:48 a.m. PST

I don't see any mention of camels in any of the current troop types. Are those planned for later?

Dave Schlanger09 Nov 2016 9:03 a.m. PST

ppecena,

Bringing in a response to a similar inquiry on our facebook page for Triumph!:

"Camels will be covered as a special ability (battle card) for some armies. So the Tuaregs, for example, will be listed as Knights (with the Camel ability). They charged like psychos. The Arabo-Aramaean cataphract camels will be listed as Cataphracts with the Camel ability. Various armies who used camel scouts that sucked in battle as front line troops will be listed as Bad Horse with the Camel ability. And so on. But is there a "Camel" troop category by itself, no. We had that for a year or more in playtesting, but it did not work for any of the examples I've described above (Knight, Cataphract, and Bad Horse camel armies), so we still had to have them. We ended up deciding that Light Foot with the Camel ability worked better for some Camel use (Moors v. Byzantines or Vandals) and Heavy Foot as Mounted Infantry (another battle card) worked better for others (Arab Nomads before the rise of Islam). Plus all the special one-off cases mentioned at the start of this response."

Dave Schlanger09 Nov 2016 9:06 a.m. PST

Watj,

Right now we have terrain cards that are used as part of the terrain setup system.

In the works we have battle cards which will represent special abilities for specific army lists or special tactics specific to a given period.

Ammianus09 Nov 2016 10:01 a.m. PST

Downloaded, thanks!

vtsaogames09 Nov 2016 10:07 a.m. PST

I bought a copy last night. My cursory first look says it is similar in scope and mechanics to DBA. It has more troop types, a point system (not all armies are 12 elements) and a card system for picking terrain. The battlefield is wider than deep.

The BUA rules and denizens are nowhere to be seen. Also gone is the Barkerese.

I'm still looking at the rules.

vtsaogames09 Nov 2016 11:16 a.m. PST

The terrain card system looks easy and fast. It also removes endless choices from an indecisive player so you can get on with the game.

The cards are in a PDF, 6 pages with 6 cards on each page. So two die rolls yield a random card.

The game looks good to me. Rules are in numbered paragraphs.

Edit: Looking at the army lists. Anglo Danes have no battle-line troops?

aynsley68309 Nov 2016 12:40 p.m. PST

Just downloaded the rules, done a quick read through and like the fact Barkeresse is gone and it's not a plain 12 on 12.
Will do a more in depth read through later tonight. And again i had a great time during the demo game there at Fall In.
Aynsley

ppecena09 Nov 2016 12:41 p.m. PST

Dave Schlanger-

Thanks for the response, it makes sense now.

Dervel Fezian09 Nov 2016 12:50 p.m. PST

Vtsaogames,
Not all the army list have the battle line info on them yet… for Anglo Danes I would assume that the Heavy Foot, Horde and possibly Rabble will be designated battle line. Bad Horse and Skirmisher would be allowed to deploy on the flanks.

Also looks like an edit is missing from the list related to the two lines of Heavy Foot (I suspect a date got left out).

I know updates are coming. One of the reasons it is an online database is so updates are easy and you don't obsolete a printed book.

vtsaogames09 Nov 2016 1:43 p.m. PST

Thanks, Dervel.

Dave Schlanger10 Nov 2016 5:38 a.m. PST

Aynsley,

Thanks for the kind words. Glad you enjoyed the demo!

DS

Dave Schlanger10 Nov 2016 5:41 a.m. PST

vtsaogames,

"Also looks like an edit is missing from the list related to the two lines of Heavy Foot (I suspect a date got left out)."

We have a massive amount of descriptive data that we are still finalizing that currently is not visible in the database. We will be gradually adding it as things progress. I suspect that the two lines of Heavy Foot might be two different descriptive groups if that makes sense.

DS

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP10 Nov 2016 10:10 a.m. PST

Got it on my thumb drive. Will print it out next time I'm by a Staples. Looking forward to a perusal!

Piyan Glupak11 Nov 2016 12:25 a.m. PST

@Dave Schlanger – Descriptive data about the troop types would really bring the army lists to life, in my opinion. With DBA, you could always refer to the DBM army lists to work out what was meant to be what. In the Triumph! army lists, I noticed that Heavy Foot and Elite Foot don't always correspond to 'Blades' in DBA and DBM, and that troops represented by 'Spear' in DBA etc. do not always become Spear in Triumph!. Similarly, some of the mounted troop definitions appear to overlap DBA classifications. (This is not a criticism, by the way, I am pleased that Triumph! troop types have been done differently from other wargames.)

Dave Schlanger11 Nov 2016 10:15 p.m. PST

Hi Piyan,

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

So in terms of broad descriptions, if you go to meshwesh.wgcwar.com and click on the 26 troop types link you will get a conceptual description of the troop types in Triumph!

Or just go here: link

Feel free to post any questions you have about the troop types if anything comes to mind. In specific, I am most excited about our innovative approach to the Biblical period. Chariots are great fun, and feel significantly better than in other systems.

If you are looking for descriptions within the specific lists, we are currently not displaying the specific descriptive text as we are still in the process of finalizing it (a long process). We will be releasing that descriptive text in chunks starting sometime soon and it will start showing up on Meshwesh.

DS

The Last Conformist12 Nov 2016 5:52 a.m. PST

With DBA, you could always refer to the DBM army lists to work out what was meant to be what.
Tangential, but the 3rd edition of DBA added troop descriptions in the army lists (albeit briefer ones than in DBM(M)).

kodiakblair13 Nov 2016 5:52 a.m. PST

OK. I'm a solo gamer.

What aspect would of the rules would draw me in ?

The Last Conformist13 Nov 2016 9:55 a.m. PST

Looking at the Triumph definitions, something that surprises me a little is the high rating of barbarian shock foot, i.e. Warband and Warriors. As 4 point troops, and assuming all ele^H stands represent the same approximate number of men, they're rated as more efficient per man than pikes or run-of-the-mill close combat foot (Heavy Foot), and the same as legionaries. This seems historically dubious, with warband-type armies frequently beaten by numerically inferior civilized types – one feels they should be poor enough to justify only a 3 point cost. (Plus, doesn't it take the fun out of playing a barbarian horde if most civilized armies you meet outnumber you?)

Any of the designers care to elaborate a little on how the thinking went here?

(I'm not suggesting the point cost is wrong in terms of the game as-is, which I haven't played, just curious about the high evaluation of their efficiency it implies.)

chriscoz15 Nov 2016 6:27 p.m. PST

Downloaded and read them through last night. Hope to playtest soon. I have major request: Can the final version have bigger text size?


And you may want to renumber the sections and have the sub sections coded to topic. instead of every higher article numbers???

The rules read well can't wait to play.

chriscoz16 Nov 2016 10:32 a.m. PST

I was wrong, there are good Heads and Subheads, but I think the design of the rules (from a readability standpoint) has of room for improvement. Look at some Arty Conliffe rules and Sam Mufasa rules and see how they are laid out.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2016 9:37 p.m. PST

Biggest immediate question from folks in our gaming group is why change the age-old basing standards for some of the troop types — are there particular benefits to the system?

Dervel Fezian18 Nov 2016 8:11 a.m. PST

miniMo, the short answer is that it's not different… it uses base widths and the recommended base width is 40mm for 15mm figures…

So if people have existing 15mm ancient armies then they can use them.

The real issue for some might be that the army lists are new and there are several troop types which may not be in their existing armies or the mix is different.

Rabble and Bow Levy are new troop types and the recomended base for them (in 15mm scale) is 30mm. Horde and Cataphracts are in the game as well and the recomended base depths for these troops (in 15mm scale) is 40mm.

There are several reasons for this in the game mechanics. It is not necessary to rebase to play the game and there is no problem using substitute troops for the new types.

The the main impact of the different basing is quick and easy troop identification. However, it also impacts the amount of space allowed for falling back after a lost combat and the physical amount of space required to deploy troops.

In some army lists this can be an issue becasue the lower quality troops generally take up more space and cost less, so there are more stands!

My suggestion would be try it and see what you think…. I really like the new troop types so I am adding them to some of my armies. My Classical Indian Army for example, after playing it using the new troop types (with existing bases) it was so much fun I am adding in the new types and the new basing.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP18 Nov 2016 9:11 a.m. PST

Thanks Dervel, that's good to know.

Dervel Fezian18 Nov 2016 12:16 p.m. PST

By the way… there is a planned update coming soon to the army lists on Meshwesh which will contain some updated descriptions by army type.

You might want to check the troop type descriptions here for a much better explanation of the new troops.

link

Temporary like Achilles21 Nov 2016 8:07 a.m. PST

Is there no heavy/light distinction for classical era cavalry? There seems to be no difference between Hannibal's Spanish and Gallic horse and his Numidian light cavalry, for instance.

If so, that removes a lot of the character and historicity of the period.

Going by the descriptions on Meshwash, the troop types appear to mix function and quality.

Cheers,
Aaron

coopman21 Nov 2016 5:33 p.m. PST

Hmmm….the Numidian Cav. would have to be "Javelin Cavalry" unless we're missing something.

Dervel Fezian28 Nov 2016 7:02 a.m. PST

Numidian Cavalry would be classified as Javelin Cavalry.

Keep in mind that Triumph is covering a rather large historical span and is meant to be a zoomed out level view of the battlefield. So some detail will be left out for the sake of minimizing the complexity.

In Triumph there are several mounted categories…

Knights
Cataphracts
Elite Cavalry
Javelin Cavalry
Horsebow
Bad Horse

I believe the authors felt that this gives a good balance between having multiple different mounted types and complexity. Plus it is reasonably supported by the historical performance.

And yes function and quality are almost always mixed and this applies in Triumph as well.

andyfb29 Nov 2016 3:38 a.m. PST

I agree, Numidian cav would be javelin cav, however having Gallic, Roman, Spanish and most Greek cav, which have been Medium cav under nearly every other ruleset and also almost universally based as 3 to an element seems a bit odd?
I know most people will just use the elements as already based in 3's and call them jav cav.

But now they work the same as light horse, now your troops can move faster, evade etc etc

I have the rules and will playing my first face to face game tomorrow night, so we'll see what we think.

Also, the Early Achemenid Persian list ( where their cav was known for using bows and loose formations, are now jav cav in skirmish formation?????)

I like the way the rules work in the solo run throughs I have done, but some of the choices of troop classification have me scratching my head.
Maybe think about changing the names of some troops to more suit my fav period, and maybe add something like the elite/poor troop modifiers from LADG? We'll see.

Do love the terrain cards! Great idea.

Battle Cry Bill29 Nov 2016 9:00 a.m. PST

As to cavalry classificiation it is interesting how our ideas are shaped by what we have read and how much we rely on old physical ideas of armor, shield size, weapon length, etc. Looking at Polybius as one of our more credible sources, what he has on cavalry is pretty light.

Looking at the summary on Cavalry in the Oxford Companion to Militray History you have Heavy Cavalry that sought to "press home their charge and defeat their opponents in hand-to-hand combat" and Steppe cavalry armed with the composite bow as the the two key types noted.

With the 6 catagories of mounted, the Bad Horse and Javelin Cavalry categories cover poor cavalry (advantage is speed) and cavalry that are good enough horsemen to use their mounts to advantage in combat. Some really good cavalry could be upgraded to Elite from either of these categories. (Commands & Colors Ancients will flex their definitions of LC, MC, and HC to fit an actual battle in the classical period.)

The tournament/competitive gaming conventions of basing make getting into the period easier. Ancients have avoided a lot of the rebasing issues of other rules sets. I am sure you could play with 'misbased' stands in terms of 3 figures per base rather than 2 and no one would mind.

And some of us are using the new catagory names and trying to decide how much we like them and find them useful. As noted above, when the Meshwesh troop descrpition gets cleaned up and added back to the lists, then it will be easy to refer to that vs. the catagory name. I think those names will suit the periods better anyway. (i.e. I like refering to Psiloi as Ps and Blades as Bd for the periods those catagories are a stretch for.)

Bill

andyfb29 Nov 2016 3:34 p.m. PST

Hi Bill, totally agree, none of us were around to see what the cavalry of these times actually looked like or how they performed, we can only make an approximate guess using the writings of ancient authors. (Although I've met a few grumpy old gamers who could have been :-). )

I would think of my comments about the rules are like going to buy a new car, love the style, performance and handling, but would like it in a different colour.

My favorite periods are from Early Persian, Hoplite Greek, Macedonian, Roman through to Parthians and Sassanids, really the Classical age.
Some of the troop names just doesn't seem to fit this period for me, I like how they perform, might just change them for personal use.

Been playing Ancients since DBA 1.0, early 90's, never played in a competition and most likely never will, much prefer a good game that makes me feel like I'd just fought an ancient battle ( subjective of course as we all have a different view of what one was like ).

I've mentioned on the FB group about Scythed chariots, they're going to be a Battlecard effect?, please please please put the figure on the table for all the players who have painted up their figures and want to use them!
Late Persian has to have one on the table, don't make these figures sit in their box while all their mates are playing! "Won't somebody think of the miniatures!!!!!!!!" :-)

Cheers Andy

Battle Cry Bill29 Nov 2016 4:22 p.m. PST

Andy,

I for one would not be able to resist the pretty figures crying out to me to die gloriously in battle. I enjoyed The Indian in the Cupboard too much.

Do try out the Horse Bow troops for the Parthians and Sassanids. The flank bonus and the Horse Bow classification really makes the Mongols a fun army to play and a damned hard one to beat.

Bill

Shaun Travers29 Nov 2016 4:42 p.m. PST

Good point for Scythed Chariots – I have about 6 of them. And I even used 2 of them the other day for the Seleucid side in the Battle of Ipsus.

I agree about the names – Bad Horse is not really bad, more like mediocre :-) I tend not to refer to many of the units by their troop definition anyway, unless they happen to match. So it tends to be Hoplites, Pikes, light cavalry, Guard cavalry, Companions, Agema etc. I can see also see myself saying Thureophoroi for Seleucids rather than Raiders in the game I am having tonight, although I *will* mangle the pronunciation!

Having Numidian cavalry the same as Early Roman cavalry has me wondering too, but I am not an expert, was not there and will go with the rules, at least for the first few games and reserve the right to change classifications later to suit my own prejudices :-)

Snowcat29 Nov 2016 4:52 p.m. PST

Is there any difference between chariot types? e.g. if 4-horse Assyrian monster chariots fight 2-horse Egyptian chariots they're both the same…?

Cheers

Dervel Fezian29 Nov 2016 5:23 p.m. PST

Chariots are either classified as Chariots (mobile missile platforms) or they are Battle Taxis….

They do perform differently.

andyfb29 Nov 2016 5:41 p.m. PST

Shaun, I will be checking on your pronunciation later :-)

Bill, had a solo run through with Parthians vs Sassanids the other day.

The battles on the wings with both sides fielding their max Horse bow was great, both wings going back and forth until the Parthians pushed both wings off the table. Sassanids were surrounded and slaughtered! Great game!

Snowcat29 Nov 2016 5:54 p.m. PST

@Dervel – both chariot types I mentioned in my example are classed as Chariots. How do those perform differently? In DBA one would be a Kn and the other a Cv. Here they both appear to be the same…?

Dave Schlanger29 Nov 2016 6:32 p.m. PST

Snowcat – Chariots in DBA were… well… not Chariots, they were Knights and Cavalry. Forget DBA.

TRIUMPH! uses a new innovative approach to Chariots (as in the Egyptian and Assyrian type). They are truly the elite force on the biblical battlefield. We are very proud of how they turned out and how much fun they are to play. Yes, Egyptian, Hittite and Assyrian chariots are classified the same, this is intentional and by design.

I hope you get a chance to try them!
DS

Dervel Fezian29 Nov 2016 6:56 p.m. PST

@Snowcat, correct…. as Dave mentions above they are missile platforms.

So are the big Indian Chariots.

Knights and Cavalry are something different entirely and fought differently on the battlefield than a Chariot filled with missile armed troops.

Same reasoning applies to Battle Taxis, Celtic Chariots with spear armed warriors that jump off to fight would not be the same as an Egyptian Chariot.

Shaun Travers29 Nov 2016 7:15 p.m. PST

Andy and I had a conversation around Chariots when we first got the rules. Chariots are not like in DBA and I am happy (for now) to go with Chariots and Battle Taxis. Not sure how this goes with battles with different chariots tactics on both sides, but willing to go with one category. I never liked the DBA lumping of Chariots into Kn and Cv.

DKuijt29 Nov 2016 7:16 p.m. PST

@Snowcat -- Chariots do change through time in history, evolving from light two-horse platforms with an archer and driver in 1350 BC to sturdier things with four armored horses and four armored crew in 616 BC, soon after which it was largely abandoned in the Middle East. (Dates for use in India and China run a little longer; I'm ignoring Celtic / British Isles chariots used as quick transport methods for heroic infantry fighting largely on foot, classed as Battle Taxi in Triumph).

The change is quite similar to the evolution of mounted Knights in the Middle Ages. Merovingian and Carolingian knights had mail shirts that went to the bicep and thigh, and an open-faced helmet that provided good protection against the rain and thrown rocks smaller than fist-sized from above, and not much else. Mail shirts got longer and longer through Norman periods; helmets gained nasals, and then mail coifs, and then mail leggings and mitts, and then partial frontal protection on helmets, and then pot helms and greaves and splint shin and forearm armor, and so on through coats of plates through plate armor and barded horses until by the middle 15th century you've got dudes in full white harness on fully barded horses.

But they're still Knights.

The changes to Knights through history (and the length of the period we're discussing, from 7th century through 15th century AD, is remarkably similar to the length of the period of Chariot supremacy in the Cradle of Civilization, 15th century BC through 7th century BC) are, if anything, even more dramatic than the changes to Chariot technology.

Pages: 1 2