I was fortunate to have played the game with one of the playtesters who is also credited with writing up at least one of the army lists. It did not catch on with our gaming group as WRG 7th was king at the time.
It also had some game mechanics that felt like quirks to some of our gamers new gamers found that they could pin their own units quite easily as maneuver in the rules is quite limited. I have refrained from mentioning other rules systems other than in passing and offered an opinion based on the type of rules that the initial question asked.
As another poster mentioned, Impetus is a viable option and it similar in style to Armati. However, from what I have observed, there is a larger player base for Armati and the rules have been developed to a degree that they don't need a refresh. Of the two, Might of Arms was better received by my gaming group but is certainly not perfect.
To me, Might of Arms has stood the test of time. It is still supported and has some optional rules that mitigate two of the minor flaws I have found in its mechanics. I have not seen Tactica 2 and can't comment. My subjective non-scientific opinion based on playing both rules and seeing reactions of other players is that Might of Arms is more satisfying than Tactica. MOA is too dissimilar and has a different complexity level to fairly compare it to Armati. You either like more detail in your game or less.
If you like less, then you will prefer Armati. I have not mentioned other rules systems as I don't feel that they share as much similarity in gameplay.
In the end, we all have our opinions. Mine are based on actually playing all of the games and being honest enough to mention when I haven't played a particular rules system enough. Armati can be played with pretty much any army matched up against another. Tactica is meant to be played against historical opponents.
Not once did I see this critical feature difference mentioned by any other poster which leaves me to believe that most have not played both games? Might of Arms does handle non-historical matchups. If you do like a more granular game, then I feel it is a better choice than Tactica but neither system has as large of a player base as the newer games have. Conversely, as another poster mentioned, I lean towards Impetus rather than Armati.
Impetus has a decent sized player base that appears to be growing. FoG is at least one or two levels higher in complexity than Tactica and has a much larger player base. I don't feel that any of these games share similarity to Tactica or Armati. I have played Warmaster Ancients and find the game to be good. HC has a larger player base than the questioned rules of the moment. If you feel that offering only opinions about the rules asked about should be offered, my counter would be why shouldn't my answers offer opinion that is still within the implied scope of the question?
In other words, I have had the benefit of experiencing more than the asked about rules systems and have opinions that might save the poster a bit of grief. In the end, it comes down to: "can you get an opponent? I have also been forthright in saying it is my opinion and have interjected others opinions where warranted about Armati and Tactica.
A full game would have about 3 to 4 times as many figures. Tactica 1. More granular game 2. An evolution based on WRG 6th Edition 3. Was developed to handle historical opponents as the norm 4. Is awaiting an update publishing with Tactica 2 6. Fixed army lists for this edition.
Armati 1. Less granular game more streamlined mechanics, less steps per turn 2. Shares some similarity with DBA at the basic level but is assuredly a different game as it is a bit more complex. Developed to handle historical and ahistorical opponents. Is apparently also awaiting some sort of a newer edition as well??? Flexible army lists both in size and scope of game. I can't comment on Tactica 2 as other have as I haven't seen it. I also can't comment on further development of Armati to include Armati 2 as I haven't seen it either.
If you want more choices outside of the two rules sets you mentioned, re-read my other posts. If not, feel free to ignore my opinions :- The list of comparisons previous should help you decide between the two ;- Hijacking over and clear!
Well, some of us are a bit sensitive. If someone gets worked up about offering an alternative to Armati then I think they probably have bigger problems on their radar. If you need to find out information or make comments this is the best place to provide information. Armati in that sense is a dead system not actively supported by its author. Tactica is a bit different since Arty Confliffe seems to be a big fan of this set. My suggestion about looking at Impetus as a system revolves specifically around interest in Armati.
When I migrated to Impetus I did so because the two sets shared many of the same approaches to ancient gaming even down to basing. The difference is that Impetus took Armati concepts and continued to develop them along some new, fruitful lines. And it is supported by the author and has a strong following. But as I say, Armati is a different story. Speaking personally, I don't mind seeing slightly off topic posts, including when I start a thread — I see the TMP forum as an ongoing conversation, and so rather unpredictable.
What I would say, though, about the topic now under discussion is that both games work well in any scale — my own preference for any set of rules is 25mm because that's my collection. I did move away from Tactica to Armati when the latter came out, mainly because Armati and then Armati II gave more playing choice for historical opponents than did the original version of Tactica.
I have now moved back to Tactica II because the playtest version gives as much variety in a way that my poor brain cells can handle on a Tuesday evening after a long hard slog working in roasting hot Scotland.
Having played both, I find very few similarities between Armati and Impetus. Additionally, though it has some good ideas, compared to Armati, Impetus is too complicated. Anyway, I don't think we should greedily keep all the Impetus stuff to ourselves. Phil btw I have also played MoA, but that was in a game at Historicon a few years back. Like many an Historicon game, it was pitched at beginners and was played quite slowly. Impetus in my opinion is a let down. Look at the battle reports.
Units seem half-hazardly scattered across the table. It allows for an interesting baseing system which is ruined by many players cutting severely back on figure count such that most of the reports I see here look like skirmishes. Im glad it never caught on big. And my dog peed on my copy. Of course if you were using Basic Impetus you could just print out another copy.
We've had a campaign going on for the past three years based on Sabin's Lost Battles boardgame using BI, played tons of battles and while it is true that sometimes your units get scattered across the battlefield this is rarely hap-hazardly. Its true of any accurate set of rules. Holes in the line appear where you have lost units and you try to plug them. Over the past thirty years or so various of my cats have peed on practically everything up to and including me while I lay in bed reading about the Thirty Years War.
I still have a turning curve that one cat shat on spectacularly some years back — but it rarely gets used these days. Lewisgunner, hopefully without detracting from the thread but since you ask, I play Impetus and am based in Didcot, near Oxford. Always happy for a game. Never played Tactica, but enjoyed Armati. Phil, how did you feel Newbury played? So this week we fought a larger game and restaged the Battle of Zama.
This was the final battle of the 2nd Punic Wars and pitted Scipio Africanus against Hannibal uncomfortably close to the very gates of Carthage. The Romans and Latins deployed in their traditional 3 ranks supported by a strong force of Numidian cavalry. Hannibal deployed his infantry in three ranks Mercenaries, Citizens, and then Veterans with elephants in front to disrupt the Romans. The Armies For the refight we few compromises were required due to the figures available.
They were preceded by a first line of javelin armed skirmishers and supported by 2 units of Triarii. The largest comprise was on the flanks, as we only had few units of Numidian cavalry. So the Romans had 2 deployed facing the Carthaginian 1.
Ideally we would have doubled or tripled this. We ignored the Numidian infantry mentioned by several authors that appear not to have fought on the day. Latins on the left of the line Romans on the right of the line Numidian's on the right Italian cavalry The Carthaginians deployed in three main lines with Hannibal's veterans forming a reserve at the rear.
The first line was composed of elephants and supporting skirmishers. To allow our elephants to stretch we used just one model per unit. The second line was composed of Celts and Celtiberian's with the third line of Spanish foot 6 [1] 0 and experienced citizen infantry 6 [1] 0. Again all infantry deployed in width. Punic right - citizens and celts Right of the Punic line Left of the Punic line Punic left flank Special Rules The main special rule applied to the elephants.
Also breaks in this division did not reduce initiative as this was expected to be a largely sacrificial force. It is the movement phase that is one of the most complex due to the values of your units. Your heavy units, for example, can only move a distance of 2 inches whilst are able to move a little further. The combat phase is also straightforward, and the rally phase is short and requires simple rolling of dice. In effect, Armati Is quite simply the best-written and arguably the best overall ruleset that covers the Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance.
Well-written enough to comfortably draw in beginners yet with enough complexity in its execution to entertain hardcore wargaming fans, this 2 to 3 hour game relies heavily on clever tactics in your initial formation as well as paying close attention to your movement on the battle board. The result is a game that is really difficult to fault, striking a balance between enjoyable complexity and accessibility.
0コメント