Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
joshuaslater

Warlord/Chronopia comparison

Recommended Posts

For some time now I've been the cynical, jaded old gamer who regularly posts around here, and in Beekeepers, and I'm starting to feel like Stadtler and Waldorf from The Muppet Show. For those of you not old enough to remember, they are the two old guy muppets who sat in the balcony making snide remarks about the show going on below them. It is not my intention to come across like this, and hopefully, in discussing where Warlord leaves me flat, I'll encourage polite discussion and maybe offer some insight into why some gamers may not be drawn to Warlord, despite the great things about it.

 

I'll take you through a game of Chronopia, and you can decide if there are elements that Warlord could use, borrow from, be influenced by, or flat out ignore. Mind you, this is the 2nd edition of Chronopia, which was vastly improved over the first, for those following along.

 

Army construction: Both games are skirmish games, but have different army construction. In Chronopia it's simple. You may take 40% of your point total as missile troops. You may take one individual (solo, hero, monster) per unit. That's it. Like Warlord, you may run an all melee army. You may however, run an army with no individuals. You may run an army with small units to maximize the numbers of individuals. Unlike Warlord, the troops are organized into units of the same type, like real world armies. If you look throughout history, all ancient armies had organization like this. Archers are trained to work together to maximize their effectiveness. I may play wargames in worlds occupied by Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, and Ogres, but I like the military organization of these fantastic races to at least resemble real world armies, to better help me suspend my disbelief. If you dig the idea that you can take a mix of archers, melee, magic, etc. all in one unit, then Warlord will be your choice. This is not something that was so dramatically different to me to turn me off of Warlord, and in fact, was a breath of fresh air for a time, but it got stale for me, as the idea of every unit being able to attack from distance with magic and missiles to close later became hokey to me.

 

Deployment: Here is where things get really wild. In the Chronopia game, each units' statistics are written on a unit card. On the back of the card is the symbol of the force you are playing. Each solo gets a card, each unit gets a card, and for every 500 points of game, you get a dummy card.

 

Alright, you've got a force, you've got a handful of cards, and a d20. Game on.

 

Initiative: Each player rolls a d20, and adds the highest Leadership value that they have to the number to see who goes first. If you win in the first turn, you get to place a unit card in your deployment area, or pass, making your opponent go first. At this point, play goes back and forth with the placement of the unit cards (statistic side down, obviously) until all the cards are positioned where you want them. At this point, unlike so many other games, you have no idea what your opponent is manoevering at you to destroy you. Warlord, to me, will never steal my heart up against the double blind deployment of this game. In Warlord, you pretty much can set up to counter your opponent from the first. In the time I was playing, I would always set up my fast movers and spell casters to take out those pesky Elven Archers, or put my burrowing spawn in position to do the most damage. In Chronopia, you have to lay your cards down in a way you feel your army can maximize the terrain, and hope your deployment and plan last longer than initial contact with the enemy!! The dummy cards can have your opponent thinking you've got troops behind that piece of terrain that aren't there at all. You may place Hidden markers on your dummy cards, as well as on the unit cards with the ability to Hide. Warlord has no means of stalking models other than a burrowing marker.

 

Activations and Available Actions: Here is where the games really differ. Both games try to capture the idea of each model acting out their part in the battle. In Chronopia, I decide to activate my Dwarven Axemen. Each model takes their two actions, then the next, until all members of the unit have activated. They may move, run (1.5 their move), spot hidden models, go on wait, from which they may countercharge an incoming model, dive for cover from AOE spells, template weapons, and Trampling models. If missile troops are activated, they may shoot one arrow each action, or spend the first action aiming to increase the chances of hitting and do more damage with the second action. There is none of this in Warlord. It seems hokey to me that the unit in Warlord all moves together, maximizes their stacking bonuses, then swings in the same activation. To me, the fluidity of battle is captured better when each model goes and does its' thing.

 

Play alternates back and forth between the players until all models/units have been activated. Then initiative is rolled again at the beginning of each turn. Alternating activation ended up being how we played Warlord for a time, as we just got tired of the draw system.

 

Mechanics: Chronopia uses a d20. That's it. An attacking model compares his Close Combat score, adds modifiers for charging, ganging up, etc. and compares this to the defenders Defensive modifier. My CC is 12, I'm charging, it goes to 13, and you have an Orc Swordsman with a -2 defensive modifier. I need an 11 to score a hit on the charge. My damage is 8 for my Dwarven Swordsman, 9 on the charge. Against your 17 armor, you'll need an 8 or less. All of this information is on the unit card. Each model has a Strength rating, used to calculate how hard they hit with their particular weapon, how effective they are at breaking down a door, breaking out of a thrown net, or magic spell, or in opposed strength tests to break away from Close Combat. Armor ratings and saves are what make me feel a game has been thought out. A Sons of Kronos barbarian warrior may be wearing a loincloth, having a low Armor rating, but good luck hitting him in close combat with his defensive modifier. I feel Warlord has no means to capture this idea with their Defensive Value. It is strictly an armor rating, and has no indicator of how hard it is to swing a sword at them.

 

To Reaper's credit, I will say they have listened to people on the forums here. I recall one post I made to this idea, wondering why my Isiri Warrior in his leather pants with a shield had the same Defensive Value as more armored Dwarves. All of this seems to be changing with the data cards, but I feel the mechanic is too simplistic to capture what I love about Chronopia.

 

Back to mechanics: A 1 is a perfect success, and a 20 is a fumble. I don't enjoy a game that has perfect successes but no catasrophic failure, or fumble. Autohits in Warlord may speed up the game, but how much in life is certain, much less in battle?

 

Special Abilities and Magic: Here is where the games really differ. Some models in Chronopia have Ram Attack, meaning a successful hit and a failed armor save leave the defender prone on the ground. Trampling models!! We've got Chariots, Myrmadons with a howdah full'o'goblins, and Abyssal Crawlers, all able to run over and squish their enemies. Every army has its own spell list. Warlord is catching on to the idea that magic should be different for each faction. We've got Brace. This means your Elven Spearmen can form a hedgerow of braced spears to impale incoming models. We've got Leap!! Almost the entire Stygian army has it. It allows these models to leap over terrain, into the back ranks of squads, and strike first in a charge/countercharge. The stat lines and special abilities are what separate each army. No army special ability like the Pain Cage or Mercy is needed. I played Darkspawn with the Pain Cage, but found it tedious. I found Mercy silly after reading about the Crusades and watching The Kingdom of Heaven. The Warlord army special abilities are a turnoff for me, and I have no constructive criticism for them.

 

Getting to the crux of the biscuit: Warlord is fun, but will always be more of a beer and pretzels skirmish compared to Chronopia. I like having more options. I like having an incredible armor save come out at just the right time. I like forty pages of engaging fluff that set Chronopia apart from other games. When I talk to other gamers in my region, they can't find the "hook" behind Warlord. The fluff is very generic, but the Bloodstone Gnomes may turn things around. The fluff that was given to the playtesters that was posted gave me some hope that the game setting will get something original.

 

In closing: I think I've laid out everything for why I choose to play an unsupported game rather than Warlord. I will continue to support Reaper by buying their models, and I hope this has been more constructive criticism and comparison than some of my other posts.

 

Last May we organized an event around Warzone and Chronopia because one of our forum members was in the States from Sweden on business. We had nineteen players from as far away as the midwest, one even flew in from California. This year we may see thirty players. I ask them about Warlord, but our crowd just doesn't seem to dig it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, can't say that there will be enough changes to make you choose Warlord as a first game instead of what you are happy with now, but

I can see a few interesting items here that I think are worthy of discussion in terms of how they might or might not be incorporated in some flavor or another...

 

Thank you for the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say I have played Chronopia and Warzone (was even a Heartbreaker Freelancer )and while they were fun for a while , it didn't last and got old pretty quick . I never liked the initiative thing with it so you'll will never sell me on any of those ideas . <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deployment systems sounds really cool. I really like it, and it even has room for incorporating stuff like the Warlord Spy SA in a cooler way. What if Spy gave you the ability to turn over one enemy deployment card instead of what it does now in WL?

 

From your description I do prefer WL initiative system though. I don't like the idea of being able to see the results of one models actions before having to decide what the next model does.

Edited by vejlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getting to the crux of the biscuit: Warlord is fun, but will always be more of a beer and pretzels skirmish compared to Chronopia.

While the bias in your post is clear, why exactly is the quoted statement such a bad thing? Different games exist to appeal to different people. You prefer Chronopia to Warlord; from your description, I prefer Warlord to Chronopia, for the converse of many of the exact points you made. What a wonderful world we live in where both games exist, to suit each of our personal tastes. What I fail to understand is why, when you have one game that you enjoy so much, that you seem so bent on criticizing another that is not what you want...

 

~v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all of the criticism I have offered over the past two years or so has been constructive. I've seen the game evolving from the first edition when I excitedly bought the book and played, and tried to bring others into it. The suggestions I've made to Reaper regarding the stat lines seem to be bearing out, I'm sure from many others who felt the same way. My suggestion for seeing the Dark Dwarves bore fruit in some very original sculpts. My criticism of the fluff is now being matched by incredibly detailed descriptions like the history of the Bloodstone Gnomes.

 

To get straight to your question, just because Warlord is my second choice game, and I already have a favorite, doesn't mean I won't ever play the game again, or want to see it go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the well-written description of the key differences between the games. I like some of the things that you brought up from Chronopia and they sound like they might fit well with Warlord. The only concern I have would be making Warlord overly complicated. As many other people have said before, one of its strengths is its simplicity; I very rarely have to consult the rulebook during play. If new rules that add to the depth and fun of the game can be added while still allowing for a "rulebook-free" game session, then I'm all for it.

 

Unlike Warlord, the troops are organized into units of the same type, like real world armies. If you look throughout history, all ancient armies had organization like this. Archers are trained to work together to maximize their effectiveness. I may play wargames in worlds occupied by Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, and Ogres, but I like the military organization of these fantastic races to at least resemble real world armies

 

My understanding of a skirmish-level game is that it is decidedly different from an army-level game specifically in the number of actual models involved and how they are organized. To me, "skirmish" implies a small number (50 or less, generally, and most of my 1,999 point games don't go much over 30) of soldiers, leaders, elites, and monsters involved in a small-scale, disorganized battle. Having entire units composed of one type of soldier makes sense for an army-level game because larger numbers of soldiers are more effective when they are more rigidly organized. I could be wrong, but it just seems that trying to have the same level of organization and unit composition that you would have for an army of 500 soldiers wouldn't hold up well with a warband of 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you're open to a comparison of systems, if just as an excercise for gaming. Both games can claim their simplicity as a feature. The only time one has to look at a chart in Chronopia is when the effects of Dread are encountered (only one model in the whole game causes it), or for a Rampaging Summoned unit.

 

I don't expect Reaper or the Warlord community to change the entire game to accomodate my tastes!!!

 

If Chariots appear, or Large monsters, Trampling rules would be cool. I hear Leaping models are being worked up. I think these things can be put in the game without changing the entire mechanic.

 

If Warlord gaming is in my future, I know I will try the Savage Worlds initiative system, where each unit is dealt a card. We'll have to figure out how Spy and Tactitian will fit into that. I'd be willing to bet any group testing this would find it as exciting as my group does for Savage Worlds. We ran a huge combat in an RPG on Sunday that went as fast as any Warlord game.

 

The fluff is improving with the Overlords book and the BSG material. The range of course, is brilliant. If Reaper put out a Savage Setting of Adon, it would allow for tabletop and roleplay in one book!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's even more fun playing triple blind for a scenario, where both parties shuffle their unit cards and deploy without looking at them, for that, ignorant armies clash by night battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking some more about the first post, the one thing that I really would like to see incorporated into Warlord is trampling or overrunning. Why does a hill giant have to stand there and fight a line of goblins that has him surrounded; why can't he crash through or squish them underfoot instead? <_< Give the goblins defensive strikes as he does this and I think it could be a workable game mechanic. This would be a neat ability for heavy cavalry to have too. The improved stats of the Lion's Lancers and similar models and the revision of the Shock SA with RC '07 went a long way towards capturing the feel of a devastating heavy cavalry charge, but I would still like it if there were some way for a mounted model to crash into an enemy soldier and then use his momentum to keep moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High point cost Solos are one of the problematic models in the game, the Hill Giants and its ilk arn't as cost effective as they should be.

 

A trample Special ability isn't a bad idea. Nor would be giving Solos a points break/reduction simply because they have to perform unsupported, or possibly a special ability that allows certain models to make two combat actions in a turn rather than one combat and one non-combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chronopia has a mechanic for Ram attacks, which knock models prone, and Trample, for running them over with an Armor save to live or die, or the defender, assuming his models are on Wait, may attempt to dive for cover.

 

I don't know how Warlord could incorporate this kind of manoever.

 

While we're on the subject of Hilly, if he was a Chronopia solo, he'd undoubtedly have three actions, and be able to use two to grab an enemy model of smaller size and throw it at an opponent. There's one model in Chronopia that has that ability, but if there was one in Warlord to be able to pull this off, it'd be Hilly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chronopia has a mechanic for Ram attacks, which knock models prone, and Trample, for running them over with an Armor save to live or die, or the defender, assuming his models are on Wait, may attempt to dive for cover.

 

I don't know how Warlord could incorporate this kind of manoever.

 

While we're on the subject of Hilly, if he was a Chronopia solo, he'd undoubtedly have three actions, and be able to use two to grab an enemy model of smaller size and throw it at an opponent. There's one model in Chronopia that has that ability, but if there was one in Warlord to be able to pull this off, it'd be Hilly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a nice read, josh. The blind deployment sounds brilliant and well worthy of house-ruling into pretty much everything! You titled half of the Deployment as initiative though. Did I miss something? Is initiative static after the first turn? Oh, sorry, you did address that, my bad.

 

Army construction, I'm kind of thinking, "OK, that's two ways of doing it." I'm not sure I see anything compelling either way. (EDIT: same for initiative, except that I like randomised initiative, personally)

 

Special Abilities: "I found Mercy silly after reading about the Crusades and watching The Kingdom of Heaven." Wellllll..... WL Crusaders are about as far from any historical army as you can get. Personally, I think "Convert or die" is an inherently immoral proposition to offer a bested foe- In Real Life. In a game where Good and Evil are right there on your card and Angels and Demons smash each other to pieces in open battle, perhaps my normal approach to morality needs some adjusting. In a game with teleport spells and armoured bikinis, ditto for expectations of gritty realism.

 

Armour Saves: I hate 'em. Needless fussing with probability in my opinion. However, I am noted as being somewhat unusual in that regard. Also, I find gambling intensely boring. I think I'm just a bit deviant when it comes to ideas of luck and probability: I just want to know if the guy's dead, I just want to know if I've got more money now than ten minutes ago.

 

"If Warlord gaming is in my future, I know I will try the Savage Worlds initiative system, where each unit is dealt a card." Defiance does that too, if I read you right. Try this: at the start of the initiative deck, assign the Tactician card to a unit. The unit may ignore the Tactician card when it comes up, but may not ignore its normal initiative card. Under no circumstances may a unit activate twice. Now, in Defiance, there would be ONLY ONE primary "tactician", and his card could go to any unit. Any further tacticians could only assign their card to their unit or to themselves, until the primary tactician dies, when they may choose to become the primary. This still leaves spy in the lurch; perhaps a spy gets a similar deal but its "tactician" card may only ever be applied to itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...