Quirkworthy

This article is sparked by a response to a comment Minitrol made on another GoB article. Rather than try to fit this whole ramble in the comments I thought I’d give myself a little more space, and make it easier for other people who might be interested to find it later.

So what’s it all about? Let’s start with Minitrol’s comment. It reads:

“I’ll admit I am slightly cautious about buying another Foundry release there seemed little love for Tribes of Legend – is the intent for it to be a one off or will there be more support? I really tried to drum up interest last time but it was a damp squid (tee hee).

I like the sound of the rules but forgive me for saying I am not yet seeing anything different that God of Battles offers that couldn’t be supplied via Kings of War or Hordes of the Things or even Realm FW which is free…

Don’t get me wrong I am all for rules sets that allow me to use my existing miniatures (that was my primary focus for 2012!) but could you provide a bit more info on what makes this set unique or what you feel makes it ideal. You have mentioned this was the rule set you were writing more for your self so why is that?

Thanks Jake I am a fan of nearly everything you write – hopefully some buzz does build and we get some other views as well!”

He makes a few points that I’d like to drag out and look at more closely:

1. Support for games – how much is enough?
2. What are the major differences between GoB and WFB, KOW, etc?
3. What makes God of Battles “ideal”?

I’ll take them one at a time. Oh, and before you imagine that I’m having a go at Minitrol, this is not intended to be critical of him. He’s the messenger, and I don’t shoot them 😉

Support

The idea that games must have a constant flow of extras in order to be worth playing is an attitude I come across increasingly and was simply not around when I was a kid. These days it seems that games must bombard the individual with a constant stream of expansions and add-ons otherwise it is somehow not worth playing.

Why?

Is this simply the result of years of brainwashing by companies that must get the customer to buy something every month? GW’s cycle of replacing its core games, army books and ranges is the best known example of this, but it is not the needs of the game that drives it, but the needs of the balance sheet.

Let’s look at a few other games. DBA is a good example of a brilliant game that has not felt the need for a slew of additions over the years. It works as is so why clutter it up with extras? It has been given new editions as the game required rather than to a set timetable for releases.

When was the last major update for Chess? Aren’t they overdue for a new Black Army Book? I mean, white has all the advantages, what with going first and all. Clearly broken… yet people still play it.

My question, I suppose, is this: if a game is complete, and the model range is all there waiting, what else do you want? What else does the game actually need? Surely you just get on and play it. Why must it be continually fiddled with? Very, very often this commercially-driven flurry of expansions will make the game itself (as a playing experience) worse rather than better. As an extreme example of this ridiculous behaviour I was told by another designer of a time they were asked by a publisher to produce an expansion for a new game. He said there was no need as the game was designed to be complete as it was, but that he’d be happy to design another game if they wanted. No thanks, said the publisher, who then cut the original game in half so that they could release part of it as an “expansion” later, releasing the first half of the game in a state that essentially didn’t work and made little sense.

Personally, I think some games need expansions and others don’t. As I’ve said before, I see my own designs as a whole. Depending on how big that whole is, they might need to be chopped into 2 or 3 parts to be viable commercial products. DreadBall is a good example of my vision of the whole game being bigger than a single boxed set, hence Season 2, Ultimate and Xtreme. Other games, like Tribes of Legend, are complete as they stand. You can always add things if you have to, but what I’m talking about here is the natural size of the piece.

Now there is a big difference between this way of expanding a game (where all the expansions are part of the overall design from the outset) and the one that GW, Privateer and others seem to be using which is that you simply go round forever, doing new editions and replacing things in sequence so that you always have something new and shiny to sell. If that works for them, then that’s cool. I just don’t think it should be seen as a requirement because when you come at things from a stance of wanting the best game rather than steady products then it isn’t all that helpful.

My thinking is that there are always more cool games to make, and that you can easily maintain a series of shiny new toys by producing new things instead of unnecessarily faffing about with the old. For Mantic I have done DKH, DKH2, DKH3, PP, DreadBall, Season 2 and more is in the pipeline. We haven’t simply revised the first thing we thought of, nor is there any need to.

So what am I saying? It’s simple: GoB will have all the support it needs. ToL was supported by Foundry producing a complete range of models for every army and game in that set (the book has 3 games in it). As far as I’m aware there was nothing outstanding – in fact they made more things for several armies than were even listed. I don’t really see what support they were failing to provide.

Now that Foundry has a new management I can’t say what they will offer in support of God of Battles. What I do know is that just as with Tribes of Legend they have made models of everything you need for all 10 armies, and if they aren’t out now then I’d expect them to be released over the coming months. Naturally, with that many armies there will be variants, vignettes and other things that can be added in due course, but these will be small in number when you compare that to the work they’ve already done.

Many months ago I discussed a possible additional book with the previous management, but have no idea whether that will still be on the cards. Even so it is far from essential. God of Battles was written to be a complete, stand-alone product and it needs no add-ons. An extra book would mainly focus on adding depth to the background in a campaign.

Of course, whatever Foundry choose to do, I will be providing support here for God of Battles in the form of continued articles and a FAQ. I’ll also be doing articles on building an army or two and if I happen to play a scenario that might be fun then, well, you get the idea.

What’s the Difference?

I can, and will, go on at length about this, but I expect you want a summary. Actually, I’ll start with the summary that Ben posted in response to Minitrol. He is comparing GoB to KOW having played both games:

Both games are mass battle fantasy games and have some overlap in which armies they allow you to use (not a bad thing IMO). Both are unit-buy systems and utilise unit leaders for measuring distances and LoS (albeit in different ways) and both have streamlined movement and magic systems in comparison with WFB. Both games can also be played in a couple of hours or less. These are the similarities.

The primary difference between them as I see it is a fundamental difference in their approach to gameplay. KoW is an abstract system that provides its players with perfect information and is the nearest thing that a mass fantasy battle system gets to chess. GoB takes a more narrative approach and uses mechanics such as scenarios, strategems, alternate unit activation, weather, and the card-activated miracles system to achieve this. I certainly don’t see how anyone could play both games and conclude that the experience was the same. That said, given the overlap between some of the army lists you can easily play both games with the same army and get two entirely different playing experiences for the price of one. In that respect both systems are a bargain and I’d urge anyone playing KoW already to pick up GoB as you’ll likely be able to dive straight in.

I’d quibble about a detail or two, but on the whole I think Ben’s pretty much on the money there. Much the same could be said for HOTT as that is also a perfect informaiton game. GoB is decidedly not.

I think I’ll leave it there for now.

A Personal View

Is God of Battles the ideal fantasy battle game? For me, yes it is. For you?

When I designed God of Battles I was given almost completely free reign to make the game I wanted. Foundry needed a fantasy game to support their ranges, and as long as they could use it to bring the ranges together and give them a home then they had no particular axe to grind about the mechanics. I wrote a brief and then a short piece about key concepts and they were sold. Part of this ended up at the start of the book, and it might help to quote some of it here. This was what I was thinking when I sat down to design it:

“The key concepts that I wanted to focus on in God of Battles are:

1. A simple set of rules that is easily memorable so that, during a game, players can get on with playing and not have to look anything up.
2. Constantly evolving challenges that require interesting tactical decisions from both players throughout the game.
3. The constant involvement of both players with minimal waiting between turns.
4. Battlefields that are as characterful as the armies, and for them to be integral to the game instead of being an afterthought.”

So that was the plan. Did I achieve that? I think I did. You need to try it out for yourself to know for sure. And I’d recommend trying it out, not just reading it. You really won’t see the excitement of the game and the challenge of the decisions on paper.

There’s lots more to why I like the game, though it all flows naturally from having the opportunity to design what I wanted. I like games to come to a natural end and not just stop because it’s turn 6, or we’ve had 90 minutes each. GoB does that. I like there to be an ebb and flow, for people to be able to outfox each other and for there to be a healthy lack of certainty – just like there is in real battle. GoB is like that. I like games that tell stories, and GoB does that too.

I suppose that one of the more telling facts is that of all the many, many projects I have pencilled in for my own self publishing efforts, a fantasy mass battle game is not one of them. I simply have no need.

Foundry have added God of Battles to their website, so if you want to grab a copy now you can!

I’ll be posting some more articles on various aspects of the game design over the next few days. As ever, if you have any specific questions about it then ask away 🙂

Great to see it finally available!

One of the core concepts for God of Battles is that all units fall into one of two broad types: Formed and Loose.

Formed units are the sort of regiment you’ve seen in Kings of War, Warhammer or any other game where troops fight in ranks and files, shoulder to shoulder (base to base). In God of Battles this has a fixed formation of 4 models wide with the Leader in the front rank. Depth depends on the number of models listed as part of the unit. This formation only changes as a result of losses in battle.

Loose isn’t a reference to their morals; it simply describes the unit’s formation which is loosely scattered. The models simply have to remain within 4 inches of their Leader and their positioning can change every turn. Easy. This is the classic skirmish unit and works equally well for the nymphs in Quithnilian’s armies and the psychotic beastmen of the Blood Gorged tribes.

This picture shows a unit of mercenary ogre gunners (Loose) facing a couple of units of City Guard (Formed), deployed side by side to form a continuous line. The visual difference between unit types is clear, regardless of the exact models used in each unit. Rules are always easier to remember when they reflect something that’s plainly visible on the tabletop.

In the game the concept of Formed and Loose underlies many rules. Movement is more restrictive for Formed units, arcs different, numbers of models who can get to the front to fight change, and so on. As it makes a vast difference in how individuals fight in reality, so it does in the game. It’s also an excellent shorthand for other units like chariots and cannons. Small, light things generally count as Loose for movement, whilst heavy and cumbersome things count as Formed. It’s all straightforward and easy to remember and allows me to reduce the number of extra rules I need when adding war engines, chariots and monsters.

Loose units are easy to use with the ability to move in any direction and no flanks to worry about. They are fast and flexible. Formed units tend to be bigger and slower. They take more generalship to get the most out of, but when you know what you are doing with them you can shut down a predominantly Loose army completely.

Part of the trick with Formed units is understanding Threat Areas and how to use them. These are an imaginary area which every unengaged Formed unit projects 8 inches directly to its front. Within this zone an enemy unit can only move directly towards or directly away from the unit that projects it. This ability to pin and control the enemy units can be very potent indeed, though it takes a bit of practice to get the most out of it.

View From The Top

The interplay between Formed and Loose units within an army is an interesting puzzle. How many Formed units do you want for a battle line? More is better, but all will be vulnerable. One word: flanks. Dropping back the end unit of a Formed line can protect the flank of the next unit with its Threat Area, and this use of deployment in echelon works very nicely. But who guards their flank? The reason that most Ancient armies included a few light (Loose) troops is replicated here as they perform their historical duties of flank protection and baggage raiding.

One thing that has worked out very well in GoB is this mirroring of real tactics. Obviously it’s still a game with myriad abstractions, but in the main it is proper tactics and considerations that will help you most. The simple Formed/Loose breakdown allows that to be memorised early, and after that you are left to think like a general.

Command your army, not your men.

And armies are the level to consider this. One major difference between the various armies is their mix of Formed and Loose units. Some are entirely comprised of Loose units, such as the Blood Gorged or Godless. Their battle lines are fluid and ever-moving, adapting to the enemy’s actions like water round rocks. With less ability to hold a fixed line securely they often focus on attack.

A few armies are almost all Formed. Quithnilian’s elves are an example of this. However none lack even a single Loose option as these are so important for flanking duties. In the case of the imperial elves it is the nymphs who perform this duty. Even so, these armies rely on their Formed units to fight the bulk of their battles. They suit generals who want more predictable armies who follow set plans. Controlling the battlefield and the enemy is often an aim of such forces.

The majority of armies allow you to choose the mix of Formed and Loose units when you select the army from the list. There are enough choices to pick the kind of force you want to fight with today, against this foe, and you might find yourself tinkering with the army composition frequently, striving for that elusive perfect balance.

I was going to write some more about God of Battles, the design philosophy behind it, rule specifics, and so on. Rather than just ploughing on regardless like normal, I thought this time I’d ask if anyone had anything particular they’d like to know about. Or, perhaps, if you already know the game, if there was anything you thought particularly worth talking about and explaining to the uninitiated.

Of course, if nobody speaks up I’ll just have to ramble on at random…