The Rule Book
The Arcane Legions website describes the game's rules as being "easy" and "clear-cut." I think those terms are justified. The complexity of the game is definitely on the lower end of the spectrum for miniatures games. And note well: I'm using the word "complexity" here strictly in the sense of "How complicated are the rules? How difficult are the concepts to grasp, retain, and apply on the gaming table?" and not in the sense of "How deep is the game play?" Also note, for me, saying that a game is not very complex is a value-neutral judgment. I do not see low complexity as a praiseworthy characteristic in itself -- I'm perfectly happy to play a moderately or highly complex game, if it's a good game.
The game's rule book is 32 pages long. The first seven pages are devoted to background material describing the game world ("fluff"). The last five contain variant scenario setups, a very brief FAQ, and a glossary. That leaves 20 pages of actual rules content. Those 20 pages include a fair number of diagrams. The bottom line is there's not that much actual rules text -- you can pretty easily read it in its entirety in a single sitting.
There aren't any particularly difficult concepts in the rules. To be sure, there are some passages that I had to give a couple of close readings in order to get clear in my head -- but I'm chalking that up to the fact that the game introduces some concepts that are completely new to me, rather than any inherent difficulty in the actual rules themselves. Without a doubt, the thing I had the hardest time grasping was the method for calculating the movement cost for turning. Again, it's not because turning is inherently difficult to do or complicated to understand. It seems as simple as can be to me now, but it took some puzzling on my part when I first went over that section to get it straight.
Though generally clear, the rules certainly aren't perfect. There were a couple of instances where the phrasing of the rules immediately raised what I consider to be obvious questions. Consider the following passage (from page 18) regarding the procedure for moving a unit straight ahead:
Simply slide the unit forward until the leading edge of the moving unit lines up with the edge of the measurement base. This should move your unit one step . . .
OK, fine. But what if I don't want to move one full step? Can I do that? Not by the letter of the rules. The rules flatly say that you move the unit until its leading edge has moved a full step. If I stop short, I have not done that and thus violated that rule as written. But (as I remember thinking, upon my first reading of that section) that can't possibly be the intent there, can it? And indeed, it is not, as disclosed by the online FAQ. So, good job on the FAQ, but still, that was an obvious point that should have been addressed directly in the rules themselves.
The preceding paragraph notwithstanding, however, the rule book is mostly fine. It deserves special praise for avoiding a particular pitfall that seems all too common in miniatures rulesets: it doesn't mix fluffy digressions and "witty" commentary in with the actual rules. I hate it when books do that (I'm looking at you now, Flames of War). The rules should be the rules, and that's it. AL gets it exactly right on that score.
The Play's the Thing
OK, on to the gameplay itself. Certainly, the thing that most sets AL apart from other games with which I'm familiar is the way it defines and handles its basic units. In other games, the basic unit is the individual miniature. That is to say, whether a mini represents a tank, a single lizardman, a small group of soldiers, whatever, each miniature is a discrete entity with its own set of game characteristics. This stand of infantry might get a lot of shots per turn because they're armed with machine guns rather than basic rifles. That big lizardman hits much harder than that smaller lizardman. Whatever the case may be, differences in performance arise out of the fact that individual miniatures have their own inherent characteristics. Certainly, in some cases, game systems require groups of individual miniatures to act collectively -- for example, large blocks of infantry figures might be required to move and fight together in relatively rigid formations. But even in such cases, the characteristics of the collective unit are ultimately determined by the characteristics of its individual constituents. So, for instance, when you charge your block of soldiers into an enemy block, the number of attacks you get might be determined by adding up the attacks of the individual figures who get to fight.
It's fair to say that Arcane Legions completely abandons that conventional model. In AL, far from being the basic unit of the game, the individual miniature is almost completely irrelevant -- except in so far as it functions as a kind of record-keeping device. AL's basic unit (literally called a "unit" in the game's terms) is the collective group. An individual miniature has no inherent characteristics of its own. A unit's characteristics at any particular time are determined by the specific formation occupied by its constituent miniatures.
Each unit in the game is physically formed from three components. First is the base, a plastic movement tray, essentially. Bases come in two sizes, 80 mm squares and 80 mm x 160 mm rectangles (80 mm is ~ 3 1/8"). The bases have a grid of round slots to accommodate the pegs on the bottom of the miniatures. Next is the unit card, printed on glossy card stock. The unit card has holes punched in it, so when you lay it on top of the base, it covers most of the base's slots, but leaves some open. Also, all of the unit's characteristics are printed directly on the card. Finally, the miniatures themselves come into play. The minis get slotted into the holes left open by the unit cards. A key point, however, is the fact that there are always more holes than there are miniatures to fill them. A combination of a base, a unit card, and miniatures equals a unit.
Here's where the really innovative (to me, at least) part comes in: each miniature in the unit contributes to the unit's overall characteristics, based upon which specific slot on the unit card the miniature occupies -- not based upon anything about the miniature itself. So, a legionnaire in one slot might give the unit two attack dice, while an identical legionnaire in another slot might instead contribute one defense die and a movement point, for example. And, by giving the unit a "regroup" order, you can reconfigure minis on the base/card and thereby change -- sometimes radically change -- the unit's overall characteristics. Damage against a unit is represented by removing miniatures from the base, one peg per damage point (some minis have more than one peg). Damage thus degrades the unit's effectiveness, since empty slots contribute nothing.
Now I have to say, I find this mechanism remarkably appealing. The question of how to best configure your troops, as battlefield conditions change, adds an entire layer of tactical decision making to the game. Similarly, deciding exactly which minis to remove as casualties -- and hence, exactly which unit stats to give up -- adds something that just isn't present in other games that I know.
The decision to focus on units rather than individual figures also has a number of notable effects on gameplay, generally simplifying various game processes. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Line of Sight rules. LoS can be a very difficult issue, and some games' approach to it is downright absurd (I'm looking at you now, 40K). But, in AL, you never have to worry about exactly which of your guys can see exactly which of his guys, because the individual figures simply don't matter. You always judge LoS from one unit to another. There are even notches on each side of the base that define exactly what point you measure from and to. I honestly don't see how you could make LoS any simpler or easier to apply (unless, of course, you simply take LoS out of the game and declare that everything can always see everything else, as in Monsterpocalypse).
Similarly, movement is pretty easy, because you measure and move the entire base, with the individual figures' positions being, again, irrelevant. (Rearranging the figures on the base, or "regrouping," as mentioned above, is conceptually entirely distinct from actual movement -- except in that regrouping can be used to alter a unit's facing direction.)
Combat is simple, and it looks like the system will tend toward fairly high lethality. Close combat occurs between enemy units that are in direct contact with each other, while ranged combat (generally) can be conducted against targets within three rectangular base lengths. Both the attacker and defender roll six-sided dice. The number of dice each side rolls is, as described above, determined by the arrangement of the figures on the unit cards involved. Each side arranges its dice from highest to lowest result and then compares them -- e.g., my highest result vs. your highest, then my second highest vs. your second highest, etc. Ties do no damage to either side, but all non-ties inflict one point of damage against the side with the lower die roll (exception: defenders against ranged attacks can't inflict damage against the attacker). If one side gets to roll more dice than the other (as usually will be the case), the excess dice are compared to "ghost" dice, which are presumed to have a value of 2 but cannot themselves cause hits (i.e, a roll of 1 set against a "ghost" die is a "no damage" result). There aren't very many combat modifiers, but those that do exist all function by adding to or subtracting from the number of dice rolled, never by modifying a die's result (unless there is some funky special ability floating around out there that I don't know about).
All in all, combat feels pretty risky. (See what I did there?)
There is only a single "round" of combat in each turn. If neither side is destroyed in the dice-off described above, the units involved simply remain in place. Note that there are no combat effects or results beyond removing miniatures from units as damage accrues -- there are no "morale checks" (more on that shortly), units can't be forced to disengage, nothing like that.
The terrain rules are also very simple. There are only two types of terrain in the base rules. "Blocking" terrain blocks LoS and thus prevents ranged combat, while "hindering" terrain allows ranged combat but imposes a penalty on the attacker. Both types completely prevent movement through them. The base rules simply contain no provision for other common terrain concepts that miniature gamers might expect to see. For example, there is no "rough" terrain that hinders (but does not prevent) movement and has no effect on LoS, nor any provision for something like water features that might prevent movement but also not affect LoS. Obviously, such things would be easy to "house rule" in, or they might be included in specific scenario descriptions, but they aren't covered by the base rules.
The turn structure is much more fluid than a typical IGO-UGO, movement phase/shooting phase/assault phase setup. Each side gets a number of "order points" (8 per turn in a standard game). These points are spent by giving individual units specific orders. Pretty much nothing in the game happens automatically -- you have to give your units orders before they will do anything. (As an example, as I described above, it's possible for you to begin a turn with one of your units in direct contact with an enemy. No combat will occur there, however, until you give that unit a "close combat" order.) The five orders are move, close combat, ranged combat, regroup (mentioned a couple of times previously) and use special ability (which not all units have). Giving one unit one order costs one point, except that combat and movement orders cost two points for units with large bases. Within the limits of the number of order points you have available, on your turn you can give any unit any combination of orders in any sequence -- there are no "phases" within a turn. The only restriction is that a unit takes one point of damage if you "push" it by giving it the same order twice in one turn, and you can't "push" a unit more than once in a turn (and you can't push to give a second special order). Thus, you could have a unit make two close attacks in one turn, but you'll pay a price for doing so. You can spend all your points on one unit, or spread them around your army.
I quite like this system, with some reservations. I like the tactical flexibility it brings to the table. Again, here is a game feature that adds an entire layer of decision making as compared to the conventional model where you get to move, shoot, and assault with every figure every turn. On the other hand, I'm a little bit concerned by the fact that your order points are fixed throughout the course of the game. As the game progresses, and you lose units, you do not lose order points proportionately. As you get down to your last handful of units on the table, those guys will all of a sudden get super peppy. I'm even more concerned that this model might tend to unbalance the game in favor of spending your build points on fielding fewer, more powerful units (the kind that, I bet, happen -- purely coincidentally I'm sure! -- to come in the blind-buy boosters). After all, if it costs the same amount of points to give an order to your Super Stompy Unit of Death as it does to give the order to your Just Plain Guys, you're getting more bang by fielding more SSUDs and a lot fewer JPGs. Just speculation at this point, I hasten to add. There may well be other factors that counterbalance this tendency. Time will tell.
A final comment on the game rules. Except, possibly, for some units' special abilities, the concept of "morale" (or, indeed, any type of "psychology," as it's referred to in some systems) is completely absent. Within the restrictions of the order point system described above, your units will always do exactly what you tell them to. They will always fight to the last man. They will always ignore the closer target to shoot at a more distant one (if that's what you want). They will never involuntarily fall back or rout in the face of overwhelming casualties. They will never become "pinned down" in any way.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. I think, frankly, that morale is handled in entirely too heavy-handed a way in some games. I'll pick on Flames of War (one of my favorites, actually) again and use it as an example. Morale checks can absolutely dominate that game. While that may or may not be realistic, it certainly isn't fun for either side when that happens. So I'm entirely open to the idea of de-emphasizing morale, at least as a game-dominating factor. But to eliminate it entirely...? I don't know. That's probably going too far, frankly, at least for my tastes.
In conclusion, my initial take on the rules are that they are indeed "easy" and (mostly) "clear-cut." The heart of the game is the way units work, which I find both innovative and extremely compelling. The unit system also appears to greatly simplify various game processes. I also like (with some reservations) the order point system. The game is overall quite simple -- which is fine, in itself -- but I'm afraid the designers may have gone too far in that direction in some regards (e.g., the absence of morale rules).
So: What About Value?
Early on, I made much of the low cost of the starter box as being an important factor in my decision to buy the game. But low cost is no virtue if the product is also low value. So, how does Arcane Legions stack up on that front?
Let's look at the starter armies you get. The rules define a "standard" game as having 7,000 points (per side) worth of forces. The starter comes with 40 miniatures, arranged into four units, for each of the three factions. Here's how their point totals break down:
- Roman: 850 + 850 + 700 + 550 = 2,950 total points
- Egyptian: 700 + 650 + 650 + 550 = 2,550 total points
- Han: 750 + 500 + 250 + 250 = 1,750 total points
In other words, the starter armies range from 25% to about 42% of a "standard" army.
The first thing that leaps out about those numbers is: wow, that's a large disparity between the Romans and the Han. I was under the impression that the whole point of including each of the factions in the starter was to allow for play of a two-player game right out of the box. You certainly can't do that by just setting up all your guys and having at it, at least if the Han are one of the sides. Even if the Romans left one of their strongest units off the table, they'd still be 350 points (20% !) ahead of the Han. That strikes me as a very strange packaging decision. I don't think the three sides should have been carbon copies of each other, but surely they could have done a better job than that at balancing the forces in the starter.
On the other hand, if you're looking at focusing on Romans (as I am, completely coincidentally), the starter puts you in pretty good shape. Getting 42% of a standard army right off the bat is a pretty good deal, in my opinion.
The bottom line is that you get a large number of adequate, but unspectacular and smallish, minis, some necessary accessories, and a rule book for your $35. You do not get three evenly balanced forces. You also get only a quarter of a standard army if you're going Han. In the end, I'd call this a fair-to-good value. I'm not regretting my purchase, but on the other hand, I don't think it was the incredible deal I thought it was when I decided to buy.
First Impressions / Final Verdict
Here's a quick summary of my first impressions of all the categories I've discussed:
- Miniature quality (sculpts): adequate
- Pre-painted mini paint jobs: poor
- Rule book (clarity/layout/etc.): good
- Rules themselves: simple, with a couple of compelling innovations
Given all of the foregoing, I feel quite confident that I will spend at least a little more money on this one. I intend to buy (again, at least) some Roman cavalry (unpainted commons) and a booster or two to see if maybe the quality of those prepaints is any better than the ones included in the starter.
I really want to get this one on the table to see if it is as fun to play as it looks like it could be. There's every chance that the gameplay could be good enough to make all of my quibbles fade into Bolivian, as Mike Tyson would say.
My final recommendation (take this with a grain of salt because, again, I haven't played it yet): There is a lot of potential in the rules. That, coupled with the physical contents of the box, justifies a purchase, given the starter's low price. If you're looking for a low-complexity miniatures game, or you're a veteran minis gamer looking for something new and different, I say give this one a shot!
No comments:
Post a Comment