• Registered: 2005-06-15
  • Posts: 94

Topic: thinking of trying Ares

Hi.  I'm considering giving Ares a try with Lord of the Rings figures.  I'd try the quick play variant (which is just reducing number of wounds, right?).

The rules for holding or borrowing actions seem interesting, but potentially cumbersome if any figure could use them.  If I wanted to apply those only to  heroes (who would be the few with an extra wound or two, mostly leaders of units, etc), would I want to apply some tweak to points?  I didn't see a special ability to disallow any of those rules.  If I didn't adjust, I'd be undervaluing basic troops, which wouldn't be able to use standard rules.

thanks
andy

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: thinking of trying Ares

I'd play out of the box to start with using the convesions that Kevin has supplied in the mj12games yahoo group.

Borrows don't take all that much to track, but realise that Ares isn't a mass combat style game, if you want that, try For the Masses, or I think there's still a mass-combat version of Ares in the Yahoo group.

  • Registered: 2005-06-15
  • Posts: 94

Re: thinking of trying Ares

I'm interested in the level above a small fight (the typical Ares scale, as well as Song of Blades and Heroes, etc), and smaller than a mass battle (For the Masses, Hordes of the Things, Warmaster).  I'd still call what I want to do skirmish--individually mounted figures, maybe grouped but not in formation.

There would be enough figures that I don't want to put markers by individuals in the rank and file.

So I'm looking at the fast play variant from the yahoo group (which if I remember correctly is just reduced wounds), and Kevin's conversions (he put them in for straight Ares and reduced wounds).

I think I remember John Leahy saying (a long time ago) that he didn't use some Ares rules for the rank and file.  Would that have an effect on balance?

thanks
andy

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: thinking of trying Ares

I wouldn't use ares for R&F games simply because each model has independence of others, plus For the Masses is the Best Game Ever(tm).

But you could have a single unit have the same characteristics each and one wound per model, that would work.

Again, I wouldn't discount the original ares for skirmishes, it is still a fine set of rules (Even if it doesn't have an index smile)

  • Registered: 2005-06-15
  • Posts: 94

Re: thinking of trying Ares

I shouldn't have used "rank and file" to mean the basic troopers, because I don't want them in formation, either.  I just want large skirmishes, with a bit less detail for most figures and more detail for leaders and some special figures.wound.

thanks
andy

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: thinking of trying Ares

That's the same idea, still, keep the individual soldiers with just one wound eah and the leaders get more.

There's an interesting gap there, between Mass-combat and skirmishes that FtM tried to fill, but might have gone too far into Mass combat.

Something like a mass-skirmish game.

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 330

Re: thinking of trying Ares

I see what your asking and I couldn't tell you how to 'price it' effectively considering most of the borrow actions deal with keep the said figure alive (parry, dodge, etc..).  That said, if there are limits to the number of heroes (who can borrow actions) per point total, it all should work out in the end.

Lets say that no more than 25% of a faction for your games can have multiple wounds and 'qualify' for the borrowing actions rules.

So, you and a buddy square off with a 300 point army.  Each team may only have 75 points worth of multiple wound figures.  If you are worried about still having too many, state that the maximum number of heroes per game is equal to 1% of the total (or 3 in our example).

-Bren

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: thinking of trying Ares

I'd guess that limiting the number of MW (multiple wound) models is going to be a self-fulfilling deal.  My guess is that 10x10 point single wound figures is gonna trounce one 100 point figure.

the trick would be forcing people to take some heroes because they need them for the army, and not because they're the killer shiznit.

  • Registered: 2005-04-04
  • Posts: 24

Re: thinking of trying Ares

Well, I'm real late to this party.

Andy, i ran the heck out of ARES 'fast play' for Lord of the Rings. I used only one wound for most figs. I didn't allow any borrowing of actions except for Heroes. The games were actually quite large skirmishes. We had a couple of hundred figs on the tabletop. The games played quickly. We had a great time using the rules. I only stopped due to sliding into a set that handled even larger battles. One of our players got thumped pretty handily in an early game and thereafter had a reluctance to use the rules. Each troop type felt 'right' during play. Dwarves were nasty in combat. Uruk Hai were extremely tough but not very numerous. Elves were deadly with bow fire. Orcs and goblins were cheap and packed into large units and died in droves. Trolls were scary to face. My son ran Gimli a few times. He was not someone that Orcs wanted to mess with. I liked the fact that the game was focused on regular troops. However,  named characters could cause some real problems for an opponent. You just had to make sure they were supported.

I may actually need to pull the rules back out. i have been slowly picking up a load of figs for LOTR. May need to fight out some new battles. Ok, now I gotta go print off all those lists again.

:-D

Thanks,

John

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: thinking of trying Ares

jimbeau wrote:

My guess is that 10x10 point single wound figures is gonna trounce one 100 point figure.

Not necessarily, especially if the ten 10 point models are in one unit.
Keep in mind the morale rules. You don't always have to "kill" cheap troops.
Making them rout off the board is just as effective.
Every model you kill off in a unit forces a morale check.
Eventually those cheap troops are going to fail their unit morale check(s).
Kevin