Game Design #38: Reactions (Medieval and Fantasy)

This will be part of a broader topic about the "in thing" - reactions (and when/where they are best used).  However this post is a lot more specific as it follows a train of thought I've had about fantasy/ancients games.  Reactions seem pretty rare in this genre.  Do reactions even belong in fantasy?

REACTIONS in Fantasy:  Balancing Missile & Melee

Most reaction fire rulesets are based on the WW2/modern/hard sci fi area, where cover based shooting dominates.   Reaction firing makes sense here - i.e. pinning and locking down fire lanes etc. 

Reactions are fun, and allow both sides equal involvement in a turn.  I'd like to see the interaction and decisions of reactions in a fantasy game.  However is the principle of reactions one fundamentally unsuited to melee-oriented warfare?

Lords & Servantsallows you to "set aside" some actions in order to react. Kinda like saving "overwatch points".  You sacrifice actions in your own turn in order to interfere in your opponents - which limits total reactions.   Pretty sensible. But what if we like unlimited reactions?  Can we make a cinematic, medieval Infinity, or is this simply too fundamentally different?

Whilst I want models without shields/armour to think twice before crossing open ground in front of an archer, I don't want machine-gun like barrages of arrow scything down models before they can charge into contact.  Neither do I want to give the active player a major advantage in archery duels. In fact, the weighting should favour melee as the "decisive" factor in battles; whilst allowing units and models to be reacting almost constantly to opponents actions.

I'm going to start with the standout "extreme" reaction system - Infinity.   EVERYONE can react to an activated individual or unit who acts in line of sight, if they beat them with an opposed roll.    Missile fire is very lethal and wise use of cover is paramount.  The benefits of being active - the active unit gets two actions, and reactees get only one.  Infinity also favours the active unit by giving it a higher rate of fire. One side is active, then the other - sort of an IGOUGO but with the opponent given unlimited overwatch.  It's a really interesting system and it's also free, so check it out here.

Fantasy Reaction Problems:
* Balancing the rate of fire and lethality of bows so they do not dominate like a modern M16/SAW

*Differentiating between the loading methods bows and crossbows - and to a lesser extent slings, javelins etc. Traditionally bows in IGOUGO do things like "half move to fire"- bow  or "move or fire" -  crossbow but this may not always mesh with our activation system.

*May make the game too passive (i.e. waiting around to react, rather than acting - having the "initiative" actually being a disadvantage)

Possible solutions:

*Bows etc do weaker damage at long ranges, as well as lower hit chance

*Keep the ranges low (the traditional 24" or less)

*Shields and armour are effective, especially at long range (shieldwalls = effective)

*Restrict the rate of fire/reactions (which is the simplest/best way to do this?)

*Change the reaction system itself (which radically changes all aspects)

For a start, let's work with the extreme (unlimited Infinity-style reactions) and see if it can be adapted.

Let's Go Hypothetical

A bow traditionally fires 24".  A normal foot figure could move 8" (4+4")  meaning it could be exposed for 2-3 shots if a reactor can fire every move.  Maybe 3-4 shots if the figure is slow - 6" . 

The first shot would be 50%, -20% at long range (30% to hit); with about 50%, -20% long range (30% to damage) on the first shot.  I.e. about 10% chance of fatality.  At closer range, the chance would be 50% to hit, and 50% to damage.  About 25% chance of a fatality.   So combining both shots, it's basically a 1:3 chance to survive crossing open ground and get into melee.  Far too deadly? It is a peasant in a loincloth, though...

...so what if we gave them some basic armour which reduced the damage chance by -20%?

We'd  have 30% and 10% on the first shot (3%) and then 50% and 30% (17%) on the other. About a 20% (1 in 5) chance to make it into melee.   Still a bit deadly? What else can we do?

The Opposed Roll

If a reacting player loses the opposed roll as the attacker runs towards him he doesn't get to shoot at all. Presuming equally skilled opponents, this naturally cuts shots down a further 50%. 

Skirmisher Special Rule

Archers must test morale to shoot if an enemy activates within charge range (i.e. 8") or their move MUST be to fall back away from melee contact.  This might reduce the amount of deadlier close-range shots.

First Strike

If an archer tries for a point-blank shot at a charging but fails and an enemy moves into contact, the charger gets an unopposed strike.  Again, this would make archers think twice about close range shots and consider drawing a sword instead.

Snap Shot

Maybe penalize reactees a further 10% in "to hit" and also "to damage" - for hasty, half-drawn shot.  This simulates the lower RoF of reactees like in Infinity upon which we are basing many of our concepts.

Counter-charge

It's important that reactions don't solely revolve around shooting.  Meele has to be advantageous. Perhaps you can also react by moving 4" into contact.  This means melee units under fire can react by steadily closing on the missile troops.  Also, perhaps there is a counter-charge bonus which means it might be better for missile troops to charge into melee rather than try for that last shot. 

Weapons - Rate of Fire/Damage

I could play around with this a lot more. If we have loaded/empty we'll need tokens to denote that which I'm not overly fond of.  

Bow

Takes 2 actions - you must draw (load) and fire. This would halve the fire rate to only 1-2 shots.

Active: Shooting takes an entire action

Reactive:  If you fire, you'd skip a reaction reloading*

Crossbow

Takes 2 actions to load.  But one action to fire. This would pretty much limit the crossbow to one reactive shot.

Active: Takes a complete activation to load, but you can move+fire.

Reaction:  Can fire with no penalty, but then skip two reactions to reload.  

So looking at our rules so far...

Hmmm. Not too keen on the weapon rules, but it's a start I guess.

 Again, this isn't so much a serious attempt at rules as a "think aloud" to how concepts which seem so good in WW2-modern could be adapted to a different setting, bringing the cinematic fun and decision making of reactions without compromising the melee-oriented gameplay.

Don't focus on the mechanics I've outlined, so much as the broader concepts.  I.e. how can we make a unlimited-reaction system that is not to missile-heavy or enourages passivity? Or should we restrict reactions to say 1 per turn (or simply reduce active actions, like Lords & Servants?)

I'm sure better ideas will emerge in the comments as usual!

EDIT: An reason the "fantasy Infinity" won't work well is perhaps because of the activation pool system.  Basically a player has as many activation points as it has models, but can spend them as they choose.  A single model in a 8-man warband could spend all 8 APs and activate 8 times in a row while the other 7 did nothing.    This means a model could potentially travel say 8 x 8"  - 64" in a single turn.  If it activates that much and charges all over the map it deserves to attract some reactive missile fire... in an Infinity a model would be restricted by the lethality of weapons and the availability of cover. In fantasy getting the balance wrong could see a model charge the length of the table.    Maybe limiting units to a single move each per turn with perhaps a LOTR-ish "heroic move" might be useful.  

The other issue is the basic Infinity tenet - "one action, many potential reactions" i.e. a single soldier moving could see potentially 10 guys reacting to him.  In a cover based game like modern warfare, this isn't an issue.  But having guys cross an open field 1 by 1 to be greeted with massed archery fire (or even a massed counter charge) means the initiative would be a thing to be dreaded.

Warmachine - Magic the Gathering meets 40K?

This is not really a review - I suspect few will need to be introduced to the phenomenon that is Warmahordes (Warmachine + Hordes, its compatible sister game).   The "regulars" of this blog will be aware I hold it up as something of a poster child for "victory through memorizing/exploiting millions of special rules" but the intent of this article isn't to have a go at Warmachine, but rather to look at what it does (and doesn't) do well, from a game design perspective.  My recent foray into Magic the Gathering has reinforced my opinion that Warmachine has many CCG elements, and prompted a re-assessment of my opinion of the game. (You can view it as an annoyingly gimmicky/cheesy wargame, or a very cool CCG with miniatures)

When working on my sheds, I 'discovered' two unpainted Warmachine armies.  On a whim, I've painted them over the last few nights.  They are pleasantly easy to paint to 'tabletop quality' - (compared to the many Infinity models I am avoiding) and I can knock over a dozen a night while watching TV.

What is Warmachine?
Warcasters (tough-as-nails battle wizards) control giant steampunk robots (warjacks). Besides toting stonking big swords and flinging fireballs and what not, casters can allocate magic (focus) that allows the robots to headbutt, stomp, and fling opponents, amongst other things.  They are supported by solos (powerful non-caster heroes) and units of 6-10 troops which include undead cyborg pirates led by a dragon, gun magicians (think the Matrix/Equilibrium); knights with flamethrowers, knights that shoot lighting from their swords, and elves with beards and anime-style mecha.  Plenty of cool man-toys, in other words.

Why is it popular?
Quite a lot of 40K players (especially competitive ones) have  migrated to Warmachine. This is because the rules are a lot "tighter" than 40K, and relatively more balanced* (*more on this later.)  (I'm not familiar with 40K beyond 5th ed, but pretty much anyone with an internet connection and enough money could come up with a "killer army" as 80% of  'tactics' came in the list building and deployment phase and in-game decisions are rather limited).  In Warmachine, factions are more balanced, and victory comes more through remembering how the rules interact, managing your resources, and pulling off combos. As assassinating the enemy warcaster usually wins you the game, victory can be snatched from defeat with the right moves.  It's a lot cheaper to start (a $50 battle box is indeed enough to play), far less minis are required overall, and they come with unit cards (with stats etc) which mean you are not forced to buy 'codexes.'  Privateer Press tends to update all factions simultaneously anyway, which means you don't get the 40K-style codex "power creep" which invalidates certain factions.   

The undead Cryx are useful for other games too - these Mechanikthralls are going to serve as Nazi abominations in Secrets of the Third Reich.

A Brief Summary
The basic rules (~80 pages) are pretty clear and well laid out.  The mechanics are pretty universal - roll 2d6 + stat to beat a target number.  It gives a "bell curve" of results which are somewhat more predictable than a single d6.   The game is designed to heavily involve melee, and weapon ranges reflect this.  (I'm cool with a flintlock pistol shooting 10", but a heavy anti-mech sniper rifle shooting 14"?  Puh-lease.)

Activation is IGOUGO (ugh), and a key gameplay aspect is the allocation of a warcaster's focus (magic) points.  He can use them to buff units, boost nearby warjacks, or even cast fireballs and the like  directly.  Managing this resource is important to success.  In addition each warcaster has a very powerful 'feat' which it can use only once, but if used right can swing a game.

Hordes (which I haven't played/owned) has an even more interesting mechanic. It's more risk-management than resource management - instead of focus you have fury - basically wild beasts replace robots, and the beasts can build up too much "fury" doing boosted attacks etc - so and the warlock has to remove fury from his beasts (or lose control of them). The more crazy stuff you do, the more you risk failure - a bit like the turnover mechanic in Bloodbowl.  From what I can see, Hordes (developed later than Warmachine, with the benefit of hindsight) seems to have slightly better gameplay, but both games use the same core mechanics and are compatible with each other.

Page 5  "Play like you've got a pair"
The famous game design notes.  It basically says "play aggressively, not rules-lawyer-y, and don't whinge if you lose."  Sadly, the tongue-in-cheek way it is written  comes off like the smack talk of a 12-year old. 

I have quite a few Mercenary character models. I think I had intended to use them for generic skirmish like Song of Blades and Heroes.

So Many Special Rules
You saw this coming. While models have a reasonable-but-slightly-on-the-large-side 7 stats - Speed, Strength, Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Defence (how hard to hit), and Armour (how tough once hit) and Command (willpower, leadership, training).   There are also 19 generic special rules, 4 immunities, and 14 weapon rules.  These rules are so commonly used they are replaced with a symbol on the unit cards, which presumably one memorizes.  That would be easy enough, if each model did not have extra special rules beyond this. I'm not about to go through every rulebook and expansion counting every special rule for every model in every faction, but it's safe to say there are hundreds.  A warcaster might also have 5-6 spells, a "feat"(a one-shot gamechanging ability) as well as a few unique special abilities and magic weapons.  I'd rate this as very much RPG/CCG territory.

Knowing your special rules, and your opponents' special rules, is vital to success in Warmachine and gives a distinct advantage to experienced players.

Terrain No More
Warmachine seems to struggle with terrain.  This is both physically (paper 2D terrain is common as many warjack models are bulky, metal and top heavy) and game/rule-wise, as it doesn't handle terrain particularly well for a skirmish/battle scale game.  Warmachine games seem to be designed to use even more sparse terrain than even 40K, and I suspect too much (or the wrong sort) of terrain can wildly unbalance certain units and factions.  Infinity it ain't.    Interestingly, the models themselves often act as the "terrain" - screening other units (especially your warcaster, which is like the 'king' in chess) is an important tactic.  Warmachine is a game of very narrow margins, and blocking that attack on your warcaster by moving that heavy warjack 1" to the left might be the difference between victory and defeat.

Due to the chunky models, I have been experimenting with some rather aggressive edging/highlighting.  Whilst they look a little weird up close, I'm trying to make the models "pop" from actual gaming distances....

*Balance through Unbalance
This sounds very zen, but basically every faction in Warmachine has such BS overpowered stuff it kinda balances out.  You won't lose because your opponent had a better army, but because you forgot to trigger your Magic Nuke of Doom or didn't trigger it before your enemy froze your guys with his Universal Stasis Field.  I call this balance through unbalance.  The alleged "weaker" factions aren't 'weaker' per se - it's just trickier to use/combine their powers effectively. So there's not really weak factions, so much as beginner-unfriendly ones.  When everything is 'broken' it's quite fair.

The CCG Connection
Warmachine's gameplay strongly reminds me of a CCG-feel, and indeed I think Privateer Press have indeed recently released their own CCG based on the franchise. The emphasis on resource management (focus = mana) is similar to a CCG. I think the victory conditions also increase the similarities. In Magic the Gathering, you use mana to power attacks by your creatures, who both shield your wizard and attack your opponents' wizard.  In Warmachine, you use focus to power attacks by your robots, who both shield your warcaster and attack your opponents' warcaster.  In Magic, when your wizard dies, you lose, regardless of your creatures/minions). In Warmachine, when your warcaster dies, you lose, regardless of your units/minions.

Even the way players usually lay out their armies is familiar.  Players often "layer" their forces (warcaster shielded by other units) which reminds me of the layout of a Magic table - you know, your 'hand'/focus generating area (caster) and a 'battle ground' in the middle of the table where creatures (warjacks, units) clash.  In both games, you attack and defend with units in the middle of the table, and only enemies who are not defended (or have some special ability) can get through to your wizard.

In a CCG, knowing when to play a card is important, and maneuver is non-existent. In Warmachine, even though you have maneuver, again knowing when to attack and activate special abilities with a unit is very important. Maneuver is important so far as it means positioning yourself to deliver your combo, but conventional sweeping flanking maneuvers etc seem relatively rare. 

Basically, getting off your special move at the right moment is important. The ability to chain combinations of special attacks (and to recall both your own special moves, and anticipate your opponents) is also a key ability.  Experience and knowledge matters. 

In Magic, building a deck with synergy (cards that compliment each other) is very important.  Unit synergy is likewise important in Warmachine and certain casters and combinations of units increase each others' effectiveness.  Having the right models is important for setting up that wtfbbqpwn combo.  In Magic, when building a deck, you need to balance your mana production against your  potential mana use; in Warmachine, when building an army, you need to balance focus production against your potential  focus use.  

Magic has many tournament formats and it actively encourages tournaments, and so does Warmachine. Both games have 'cookie cutter' decks (army lists) and both have game modes to encourage creative list-building (for example, Warmachine allows bonus points for specialists if you use non-standard warcasters). Both also have 'beginner leagues'' where you can use the contents of a starter kit.

 I need to get around to basing them, but I'm busy powering through the painting.  Chunky, heroic details are sooo quick and easy paint compared to the realistic but tiny details on Infinity sculpts...

Not bad.... so much as different....
 Warmachine tactics aren't so much tabletop tactics rather than CCG tactics. There is still depth in gameplay, but it's different depth.  It's less about sweeping flanking maneuvers, and more tactics using tricky combo/special abilities.
"You thought you were about to kill me?  poof - I'm invincible for a turn." 
"I throw your minion out of the way, clearing a path for my Focus Fire feat, which I'm boosting with Lethal Damage for +2"
I think that sort of thing can be seen as a bit dubious by many traditional tabletop gamers, but it's part and parcel with CCGs.  What sometimes looks like a big ruck in the middle can sometimes be the execution of a cunning, complex plan.

TL:DR
If you judge Warmachine as a tabletop game, it may frustrate with its deliberate gimmicky, power-gaming focus.  However, if you view it as a CCG with miniatures, it's quite interesting.  Whilst less 'conventional' it's depth, balance and buy-in price compares very favourably with 40K, if you want a game with readily-available opponents.  It's a very different flavour of wargaming, for sure, requiring a different skill-set - and needs to be judged against a different standard.

Warhammer 9th Edition: Skirmish?

I've noticed a few rumours going around about Warhammer Fantasy.  Probably the biggest discussion is going on here.  Given that most people who read this blog are, like myself, far from GW fanboys, I'm wondering what the thoughts are.  For those who couldn't be bothered, here's a quick summary:

*The setting is getting a complete reboot (more grimdark, more skulls?)
*Races are getting amalgamated, new religious "space marine"faction added
*The game is shifting from mass battle (aka painting 100 minis to shovel off a movement tray) to skirmish/Warmahordes scale
*Round bases (though WoTR style trays to house them in if needed)
*Unit rules in the box (so less reliance on codexes); limited runs for special model types
*15+ Army books shrunk to ~4 compendiums which are more regularly updated
*Rules change, new mechanics, special rules reduced

I'll take it with a hefty pinch of salt (or perhaps cocaine, which most of the rabid forum denizens of Warseer/BoLs seem to use...)   ...however there are a few points in favour of this move....

*Warhammer Fantasy has to high a buy in (so shift to smaller, but more regular purchases)
*It is relatively stagnant - a dying user base, and small (~10%) of revenue - it makes sense to breathe new life into it
*Space Marines sell big so fantasy space marines make sense
*Forces players to get new minis (most WFB I know already have all the models they need)
*It makes a good test run for 40K changes
*Though GW resist change, they don't seem to mind outraging their fanbase in pursuit of profit
*They sell more $$$ "heroes" and annoying to paint less rank and file (i.e. more tanks, less infantry)
*Cycling products means you can save on molds/shelf space and pump out more new shiny things
*Doesn't necessarily supersede 8th Ed but provides an alternate way to play
*Cleaner WoTR/LoTR rules were intended to be used for Fantasy

I must admit, given I like LOTR (but dispair of ever getting reasonably priced models on eBay any more*) the idea of a LOTR-style game with a bountiful secondhand market (from all the rage-quiting 8th ed fans) somewhat appeals.

Anyway, ignoring that this is probably pure nonsense:
If Warhammer was "Warmachined" into a 40K-size or smaller game with cleaner mechanics, would you try it? 

(*GW does seem to be succeeding in trying to be a "collectible" company. I impulse-bought a few big boxes of LOTR stuff years ago when it was dying off - you know, 50 orcs for $10 kinda thing....  I think my collection amassed for about $200 would sell for about $1000 now... Some metals (which I refused to pay more than $5 for) eBay now for $15-$25ea. Now I wish I''d "invested" in more.)

(Review) Of Gods and Mortals - Mythological Skirmish Rules

I bought this to compare against 7th Voyage.  At only $18 (a third of the price of its rival) how does the Osprey title measure up?

Well, for a start, it is a Song of Blades & Heroes spin-off.  This has a few benefits - a familiar system with an interesting activation mechanic, the ability to faff around creating warbands from random and cool models, and to run a 3-4 game campaign in an afternoon.  A simple toolbox of fantasy fun.

That said, it is pretty much the same game as any other Ganesha title - I can probably copy & paste chunks from my old reviews as they will be just as valid here.   It also shares its flaws - a tendency to lump diverse attributes into two stats, then replace the stats with zillions of special rules - which is problematic in fantasy and sci-fi where the unusual is the norm.

Of Gods & Mortals is quite a tidy book for its price point ($18)

Presentation (The "Shiny")

One of Osprey's new softcover wargaming series. 64 pages, with quite a nice standard of art (I think borrowed from Osprey's new mythological series).  Quick Reference included (not that you need one) but no proper index for looking things up (something I've noticed quite a few rules omit.)  Quite pleasant for its $18 price tag, I'm quite satisfied. 

Mechanics

What I liked about SoBH is that all key info could be noted on a small triangle that also served as a measuring stick.  Allowing only 3 ranges - short, medium, long (approx 7.5cm, 12cm and 18cm) is limiting but is rather easy to remember.

All models had a Q (kinda a 'Quality' or skill) rating (of usually 2-5) - which was important because rolling over this number determined how many activations you got.  Unsurprisingly, Of Gods & Mortals uses the same formula.  It is a pretty nifty one as it adds an element of tactics/risk vs reward every time you activate a model.

Basically, you choose how many dice to roll against the Q, and each success allows an extra action or move by the model. But the more dice you rolls the greater the chance of failure, a double failure means you lose your turn and the initiative passes to your opponent who gets to move until he too fails (or moves all his models).

Of Gods and Mortals updates this a bit. A single failure gifts your opponent with a "reaction" by an equal or better soldier before you act.  In addition, you can choose not to roll the dice and get a free move if no enemies are within  range.

Gods, Legends & Mortals
Miniatures come in three tiers - gods, legends and mortals.

Gods (like Zeus, Thor, Anubis etc) are the most powerful - fast and hard to beat.  Sometimes you can only kill one with another god or by destroying his followers.  Legends (heroes, monsters, or magicians - like Grendel, Medusa, Jason, Hercules, Gilgamesh) are powerful enough to challenge the gods, but are more vulnerable to mortal attacks.  You are allowed up to five legends.  Mortals are the grunts - ordinary crew and footsoldiers, or mythical creatures on par with humans (Amazons, Satyrs).  Mortals come in groups of 4-8, and fight in close (better combat) or open (better mobility) order. 

Gods and Mortals have a synergy; the mortals can perform invocations instead of activating  This can summon the god, give a god extra dice or bring him back if he is slain.  The God can inspire his mortal followers, improving their morale.  He can give them extra activation dice if he is close by.  A god is weakened if his mortal followers are lost, who in turn have morale issues if they see their god slain.

Some of the interior art was quite good.  I liked the Kali vs Anubis (by Jose Daniel Cabrera Pena) which evoked Frazetta covers

Movement

Terrain rules are pretty vanilla and modify movement and firing in simple ways. Movement is either short, medium or long.  One noticeable feature is all movement is in a straight line - if a model wants to turn at all (say to dodge an obstacle), it must spend another action.

 Combat

Troops add their C (Combat) skill to a die and compare them.  Each 3 you beat your opponent by inflicts 1 casualty (a bit different than the old SoBH resolution).  The side who takes the most is pushed back.

However gods killed by lesser ranks (legends, mortals) can pass a Q check and simply be knocked down instead.  Legends can similarly "save" against hits by mortals.   Gods who tie in a clash with other gods create a blast of energy as they crash together that may knock down legends or awe mortals nearby. 

Firing works in a similar manner, only with different modifiers.  (Also, the target cannot hurt the firer back.)  Extra activations can be spent on Aimed Shots or Power Attacks to add +1, +2 etc bonuses to rolls.

Morale
A check is made in certain situations. i.e. lose 50% of models, their god is killed, etc. Three dice ar e rolled - one or two fails results in 1-2 fleeing moves, but three fails sees the unit removed.  I miss the old SoBH "gruesome kill" rule though - if a combatant tripled his enemy's score, he killed him so messily every enemy nearby had to take a morale test as they were splattered with gore/dismembered body parts.)

Special Rules: Traits & Abilities

 I often have a swipe at Ganesha for their stats-v-special rules ratio.  Unit have only two stats - Quality (which is used for morale, reactions, initiative and agility - pretty much anything that isn't combat)  and Combat (which is strength, shooting, weapon skill and dodging missiles). As you can see, they are very broad categories, with some very disparate abilities.  Pretty much all Gods are Q2 C4-5, Legends are Q3 C2-4, and Mortals are Q4 C2-3.  Accordingly, a lot of detail or "differentiation"is lost, and like SoBH the game relies on its "special rules" to differentiate between races/units - most units have 2-4 special rules.  Where most games have an overall total of 20-30 special rules or 'abilities', Of Gods & Mortals has 75.

Although it isn't hardback, I liked the interior better than the pricier 7th Voyage. I enjoyed the ideas of gods from different cultures duelling - here Odin attacks Tezcatlipoca.

 Scenarios & Campaigns, Unit Builder

 There are a few, rather limited scenarios - fighting over temples, sacred groves, sacred cities.  Most Ganesha games shine at short campaigns (3-5 games) which can be completed in an evening due to the fast-playing nature of the rules.  Very simple campaign rules are included - the nature of the game mechanics means you can't really level up stats though.  There are sample warbands for various pantheons of gods, legends and their mortal followers - the  Greeks (Zeus & Co), Egytians (Anubis, Set and the gang), Norse (Odin, Loki, Thor etc), the Celts (Balor, Cerunnos, Dagda). The lack of a proper campaign/progression system is a bit of a drag, as Of Gods & Mortals lends itself well to playing a series of quick games.

However the star of the Song of Blades series is always the simple unit builder, which allows you to stat up any model in your collection.  It's like a box of LEGOs - I reckon I've spent more time creating warbands and painting them for Song of Blades than I've actually spent playing the game.

TL:DR

Activation system is tactical and balances risk vs reward - this is a cornerstone of the successful Ganesha formula. The lack of a good, fleshed-out campaign system is noticeable, and I think the "two stat, million special rules" system is not an ideal choice for fantasy, but the gameplay is simple and cinematic, and can be taught to a new player in a few turns - they are a great series of rules to teach to kids or new players.  The book is pleasant and priced very competitively for an overseas buyer ($18 vs $60 for 7th Voyage). 

+ simple rules, easy to teach/learn
+ great unit builder; stat up random models for a custom warband
+ quick games (~1hr) - play a 3-5 game campaign in an evening
+ interesting activation decision
+ cinematic
+ good price
+ only 10-20 models needed, and about 3x3' of space

- lumping random stats together makes units too similar
- stats lumped together do not always make sense (morale, and agility? strength and archery accuracy?)
- lots and lots of extra rules to compensate the lack of stats
- more of a casual pick up game than a gaming "staple" 
- needs to use a d10 not a d6
- no proper campaign system
- scenarios a bit sketchy

Recommended: Yes.  Though not perfect by any means, it is a good casual game, with an interesting activation system. The unit builder is great fun. Although you could easily play mythological games using Song of Blades, Of Gods & Mortals is different enough from its parent to be a worthwhile standalone.  It nudges 7th Voyage into second place in the mythological skirmish sub-genre. 

7th Voyage - 7TV Crooked Dice Game Review

I've been seeking a skirmish game to go with my newly-arrived Warlord Greeks.  I was thinking skirmish games, with a warband that could explore and do battle with various mythological monsters as well as human warbands, so Crooked Dice's 7th Voyage looked very interesting.  With my PayPal account bulging with birthday loot, I unhesitatingly pulled the trigger on the $60 (gulp) rulebook.  A good decision?

The Shiny
It's a well-presented 90-page hardback.  It's easy to read, with cartoon silhouette art and the odd miniature picture thrown in.  Kinda slender for the cost, but solid production values. A quick reference sheet, photocopyable templates and unit sheets and a range of creature/unit types in the appendix.  The game is meant to mimic TV shows, so the terminology uses "cast" for warband, and "stars and co-stars" instead of heroes. 

The artwork is similar inside. 

Mechanics
It uses the same action:engine mechanics used in other Crooked Diced games like their 7TV spy series.  Stats are extensive:
Move
Defence
Hit points
Strength
Agility
Intelligence
Morale
Attacks

Game Engine
The players roll a dice to see who starts first in the turn.  The difference in the dice becomes the audience appreciation score which is shared 50/50 between the players.

The audience appreciation is a resource which can be spent to add +1 to a dice roll, or extra activations. A simple form of resource management that adds interest to the game.

Units get activation tokens equal to half the models they have, rounding up.  So basically half your models can activate.  Once activated, a model can take two actions (like move, shoot, aim or melee). Some actions (like going prone) are free and do not count.

Players can also have a hand of three event cards which they can play at times to influence the action - usually to give extra cinematic events and drama to the battle.  

Except for activation, the rules are pretty simple and generic.

Movement
Nothing new here. Units move their "Move" stat - or 1d6" if in tough terrain/jumping.   Charging models get a melee bonus.  There are rules for climbing (and naturally, falling), swimming, and dragging other models.

Combat
Minis roll to hit, i.e. 5+ on d6, or whatever their skill dictates. Identical to games like LoTR - simple and familiar. Melee works the same - roll a d6 and score say a 4+ to hit. Units can roll an extra dice but their enemy gains a free counter attack.  Super simple and both sets of rules are a paragraph each.  Quite a few modifiers though. I will probably sound a bit snobbish when I say these are similar to a rule-set I wrote when I was 12 years old.  Oh, you can choose to push models back or knock them down, but I can't imagine that many circumstances where I would prefer to do so. 

To check if a model is wounded, you roll on a table which indexes the attackers' strength and the defender's defence.  I'm not sure if this chart is identical to the ones used for 40K/WFB/LoTR, but I wouldn't bet against it.  Unarmed attacks usually stun rather than wound the enemy, and you can capture foes instead of killing them.

There is a roll you can make to perform special actions (like pull a lever) and morale rules which are similar to the usual i.e. test if you have isolated minis, have lost half your models, or you face an enemy that causes fear.  There is a victory point table for defining the margin of victory.

Magic
Models get a magic pool of d6 which they can spend in their turn.  You can choose a number of d6s from the pool, and add this to your Intelligence stat.  If it equals or beats the difficulty of the spell you succeed.   Summoned creatures must be purchased at the start of the game, but require a successful spell to bring onto the table (and can be banished off it as well.)  If models have "Luck" they can spend it to re-roll dice.

Weapons
There is a solid list of 28 melee and missile weapons that cover everything you need - spears, clubs, swords, daggers, bows, slings etc. Even tails and tentacles.  These have a "strength", range, cost and special effects, like parry and thrust.

Special Effects
These are the usual special rules, traits and abilities.  There are 44 (69 if you count the monsterous and otherworldly traits). Some cover areas like combat, knowledge, physical traits - and may include disadvantages like slow or weak willed. Plenty of descriptive traits, and explained clearly enough.

I'm a sucker for pictures of miniatures in game

Unit Creation
There are a bunch of archetypes.  Each group has a star or co-star. You can amend their stats and abilities to an extent, as well as weapons. spells and equipment.  Not a true "create your own character" from scratch like Song of Blades and Heroes, but quite customizable. 
Dashing rogues, favoured champions, wise elders and enchanting beauties, deadly assassins, vile tyrants and brutish bodyguards - there's quite a bit to choose from, though I'd have preferred a bit more freedom.  

The rules for "Extras"i.e. the non-hero grunts and minions, include a range of civilians, soldiers, sailors and monsters - covers most of the "generic" characters but may not cover all your needs.  Not a big deal, given I can't see 7th Voyage being played competitively - you can simply mod other similar characters or creatures.

Scenarios & Missions
Jason & the Golden Fleece, Gorgon, Sinbad's voyages, the Thief of Baghdad are missions with pre-made "casts."  The sides of good and evil can have a straight up fight, but there are scenarios you can dice for (battle, escape, race, skirmish, steal, assassinate) and there are also random terrain generators (though you'd have to own a wide range of terrain for these sorts of things to be useful.)
There is a list of magical items/costs and spells /difficulty, as well as a list of event cards. 

TL:DR
I think it suffers for its $60 price tag.  I look at it, look at the Song of Blades pdf for $8, and think "I could have had a spare $52 to buy miniatures."  It has no better rules or content than $18 Osprey books like In Her Majesty's Name, for more than triple the price. 

+ Simple, easy to pick up and play
+ Interesting activation - audience appreciation points is a good addition
+ Generally solid rules

- Very expensive for the content
- You feel like you could have written the combat rules yourself
- No "advancement"or "campaign" rules
- Unit builder is not as comprehensive as similar games

In fact, I've ordered the mythology-specific SoBH spin off by Osprey - Of Gods & Mortals ($18) - which will make for an interesting comparison when it arrives.  As it is, I regret the money I spent on 7th Voyage - it would have been O.K. for $20.  (The pdf is ~$22 but even that is a premium where most pdfs are ~$10; I'd expect a printed rulebook for that) EDIT: Review Of Gods & Mortals is here.

Recommended: Not really. Whilst there is nothing wrong with these rules, unless you really love the "we're pretending this is a TV show" vibe, or you like paying a premium for a hard-backed rule book, there's plenty of other games that do the exact same thing or better for much, much cheaper.    

Traitor's Blade - Sebastian de Castell

Quite a few people have likened this to "Dumas meets Abercrombie" but I'd say it's closer to "Dumas meets Gemmell" - though I'm not sure which is a bigger compliment.

Basically, its a gritty fantasy Three Musketeers (there are even three main characters) following heroes who were once Greatcoaks, basically travelling magistrates-come-swordmasters who dispensed the king's justice in the corrupt dukedoms.

For some reason the cover reminds me of the videogame Dragon Age. 

That was in the past. Now the Musketeers Greatcoats are reviled as traitors, cowards who let their king die. Distrusted by the avaricious, grasping usurper Dukes, they live as sell-swords - and when the story begins, they have just been framed for murder.  The novel follows the leader of the Greatcoats, Falcio val Monde, both in the current timeline, and in telling the story of how the Greatcoats came to be.

The story had witty swashbuckler-style banter, and Joe Abercrombie-style quotable lines:

"The first rule of  the sword - put the pointy end in the other man"

It's fantasy, but magic doesn't play a major role.  There's some sorts of paralysing powers used by ninja-style assassins, fae horses (which I did find a bit jarring) and the odd bit of prophecy. I was a bit annoyed by said magic horse, the healing prostitute/nun. Some of the young noblewomen were a bit precocious and a torturer started speaking like Tarzan. But in a book where 6 to 1 swordfights are the norm, I might be being a bit picky.  But there are demented evil villainesses, transcended sword saints, nude female assassins, duplicitous villains, fisticuffs and, of course, swashbuckling. With rapiers. Lots of it.

This book is fun. Whilst there are sad and dark moments, it's fun without being silly. Fun in the style of Retribution Falls.  The best debut novel I've read since Name of the Wind or the Musashi coming-of-age story Child of Vengeance.  If you'd like a more modern Three Musketeers, this Is the droid book you've been waiting for.

Gaming Inspiration: Godless World Trilogy

I really liked the underrated "Monarchies of God" series by Stephen Kearney. Not only are they a good read, the world of conquistadors-crusades-and-werewolves is very inspiring for gaming (and in fact got me collecting 70YW/ECW minis).

Another series which flies under the radar is Brian Ruckley's Godless World series. 

The first book, Winterbirth starts with a heroic, outnumbered rearguard sacrificing themselves to allow their women and children to escape.  They are religious refugees - followers of the "Black Road" - but will return hundreds of years later to be the antagonists of the story.

The story is set in a rather grim, realistic dark age world.  The "Thanes" rule the "Bloods" or clans who have a Saxon-ish flavour.  The Krynnin are basically cut-and-paste American Indians/elves/forest folk.  I'm thinking Perry/Warlord American Indians to face off against my Gripping Beast Saxon plastics.

I initially found the names of the different clans of Haigs/Bloods annoyingly confusing as many sound similar, and there are quite a few of them.  The overarching plot is not too complex, however - basically, the "Black Road" refugees from the prologue return to get revenge, aided by a mentally-unstable half-elf/Indian mystic. The "good guys" hold the fortresses and technically outnumber them but spend a lot of time squabbling and plotting against each other, and thus mostly get their butts kicked by the numerically inferior but elite Black Road warriors and their "not-Indian" Kyrnnin allies. 

Magic is rare. Only half-breed na'kyrim can practice magic, and it tends towards the "realistic" such as sensing and communicating with other magic users and sensing lies or - in the more extreme cases - compelling others.  No fireballs or dragons here.

The main issue I had with the books was the main character/hero was rather bland and I was indifferent to his fate - I actually found myself more interested in the bad-guy "invaders" - there was quite a few "shades of grey" and they had more interesting characters and motivations.  

I've been impressed with Warlord Games - they may be attempting to become the GW-style Evil Empire of historicals, and their kiddy-style Bolt Action rules make me go "bleargh"- but their pricing and postage is good (free if over $100 worth which is great if you're an Aussie like me), and they source a wide range of plastics.  I've bought a lot off them lately.

Recommend:  Yes, with some caveats.  It's a well-written, solid series.  However, the names can be a bit confusing at first, and main character's storyline can drag a bit. You'll probably enjoy it if you like fantasy leaved with realism - in fact it has more in common with historical fiction than much traditional fantasy. Quite a hefty series - 3 x 500-page books (Winterbirth, Bloodheir, Fall of Thanes)- so not so much for casual readers.  The relatively small-scale nature of the battles and the Saxons vs Indians means it would make for interesting gaming, with very accessible miniatures. 

Battle Games of Middle Earth: Hobby Magazine

I was always aware of their existence, but never owned any. Recently picked up a set of issues #1-#25 from a local secondhand shop for $12.

Wow.

I'd call them "What White Dwarf Could Have Been."

Modelling guides show simple, achievable paint schemes with 4-5 colours, and introduce "advanced" techniques like drybrushing later.

What impressed me were the painting and hobby articles. The paint jobs shown were very simple, achievable paintjobs, not masterclass works by Golden Demon winners, that occasionally added in (and explained) "advanced" techniques such as shading paints, drybrushing and washes.   The simply painted miniatures were used in the battle reports as well.  

The hobby articles actually showed how to MAKE stuff cheaply out of household materials like cardboard and paddlepop sticks, not just how some studio artist painted the latest $100+ premade plastic gothic ruin.

Modelling guides show how to actually make things from simple stuff like tape and cardboard. Not simply how to paint the latest $100 GW terrain piece.

Why this enthusiasm over "average" worksmanship?  Well, I know we all need something to "aspire" to, and there are some incredibly talented painters and modellers out there.  Whilst these people are well-represented in online blogs, I'd estimate they actually make up less than 10% of gamers you actually meet and play against.   In fact, a far higher percentage (I'd estimate 30-50%) of local fantasy/sci fi players I've met think nothing of fielding units in black undercoat or bare metal.  A common excuse is "I can't paint well, so I don't bother."  I'd argue magazines like White Dwarf fuel this rather defeatist, lazy attitude by setting impossibly high standards the average gamer cannot hope to achieve.

Inspired by the "low standards" shown, I rebased some old, rather simply-painted goblins I had painted years ago, using simple techniques shown in "Battle Companies."

People often talk about the "price barrier" to games like 40K but I wonder if Games Workshop is also accidentally adding a perceived "skill barrier" through their own advertising catalogue ahem, hobby magazine.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, I found the "Battle Games" articles with simple paintjobs and home-made terrain very inspiring, in the "I could do that" sense.

After reading half a dozen articles, I actually dug out my old LoTR models to repaint them. I then took more care in basing said models (usually I am very lackadaisical with basing), due to a simple article I saw in the magazine.

Not exactly Golden Demon material, but an improvement on what I had.  I mean, that's what a "hobby" magazine should do, right? Get you involved in the hobby and out there painting and building?

Furthermore, I went and bought some more LoTR miniatures (OK, they were eBay ones) - something White Dwarf (essentially a glossy ad for Games Workshop products) has failed to do for 5 years.  So if you see more LoTR content in this blog over the next few weeks, blame it on Battle Companies.  A hobby magazine that actually encouraged "the hobby" rather than "The Hobby"(tm)

PS: If anyone has issues #25-#75, I'd give them a happy home...

In Which I Say Nice Things About a Games Workshop Ruleset

..actually, it isn't as remarkable as you might think.  Blood Bowl, Epic and Battlefleet Gothic all have rule mechanics I admire. But they are all Specialist Games that got swept under the rug. We kinda expect GW to deep-six any interesting rules, rather like Fox cancels good TV shows, so they don't count.

Actually, it's (surprisingly) one of their current Big Three. Specifically, Lord of the Rings. The Strategy Battle Game, of course. Not the mass-battle War of the Ring they pushed on us to sell more miniatures. I'm talking old school LoTR, (not the "Hobbit" reboot as I consider paying $90+ for a rulebook...   ...well let's just say "more money than brains" doesn't even come close.)

My dwarf warband - normal dwarf warriors and Khazad guard upgrades for Battle Companies

"Clean" Rules
I remember reading somewhere one of the LoTR authors was proud of how "clean" LoTR:SBG had remained through dozens of sourcebooks and expansions and I have to say I agree.   In contrast to the convoluted bloat of, say, Warhammer Fantasy this is even more evident.  The stat line is descriptive, familiar and simple and "special rules" are kept to a minimum. So you won't be losing due to forgetting an obscure rules combo *cough* Warmachine *cough.*

Whilst you can min-max in any points-based wargame, LoTR has more a focus on playing the game rather than winning by building the "uber army" list like, say, 40K.  This suits me as I don't think pre-game decisions should be the ultimate factor in winning the game. I want the best general to win, not the best army builder/recruiting officer.  Whilst LoTR does have powerful units and heroes, and indeed gameplay revolves around them, there aren't really any "must have" inclusions that will singlehandedly steamroller the enemy force, and a hero can usually be reliably bought down by equivalent points worth of grunts, due to the limited nature of his heroic "might." 

Your in-game decisions tend to determine if you win or lose, rather than how you deployed your armies at the start. Rather than being decided in 4-6 turns like most GW games, LoTR games can often go to 20+ turns, giving more time for the battle to ebb and flow. 

The rule mechanics are simple - you can pick them up in the first few turns of a game - and thereafter you would almost never need to refer to a rulebook. 

Solid Mechanics
Whilst not boasting anything as revolutionary as Infinity's ARO system, the initiative system (side A moves, side B moves, side A shoots, side B shoots) is more adaptive and organic than usual IGOUGO fare. There are far more player reactions and decision points within a turn. In addition, spending Might Points allows you to activate units and act out of sequence, adding a layer of both gameplay and resource management, and making the game more fluid and less predictable.  It's a lot harder to cheesily halt a unit 1" out of enemy charge range. 

There are rules for all sorts of skirmish-game things like climbing, jumping and falling but they all use the same simple, consistent mechanic - roll a d6 and "1" = a bad result, "2-5" = is an expected result and "6" = is a great result.   In addition, different races move at different speeds - which does have an impact on the game.

With only a dozen spells, magic is simple and apart from the usual offensive spells ("transfix" an opponent in place, or blast them with missile-like sorcery) most revolve around buffs/debuffs such as raising the courage of allies and causing terror amongst foes, hampering missile fire or the like.  It's powerful, but not overpowering.

I like how the winners of a fight "push back" the loser which means losers who cannot retreat are more likely to die (realistic in that they are hemmed in by a crush of bodies and don't have room to fight) but this also can open gaps in enemy formations. The 1:1 modelling means you can form realistic formations like wedges, hollow squares, double/single lines - pretty much anything you can imagine.

My painting style emphasizes speed over elegance. But I never ever field unpainted miniatures, so I count myself amongst the righteous

Resource Management
My favourite part of the game is how heroes use of "Might," "Will" and "Fate". These stats have a finite supply, adding a layer of resource management and more "decision points" to the game.  Heroes ARE powerful, but they impact your game in more ways than simply being close-combat killing machines with huge stats.

Do you use your Might to re-roll dice and slaughter your foes in close combat? Or do you use it to move your allies into combat or fire off a volley of arrows before your opponent?  Do you use Will to cast spells or resist your enemies' magic?  Get bogged down in a fight for too long, and eventually your heroes' Fate will be depleted, leaving him more vulnerable to wounds.

Might is especially useful and I like using it to meddle with the initiative sequence and set up advantageous combats for my warband.  However spending my Might thus leaves me vulnerable to 1v1 combat with an enemy hero who has conserved his Might for his own combats.  Heroes are powerful and can have game-changing effects, but they get tired as the game goes on and their stats are drained.  

 The OOP Khazad Guard ($5ea!) I bought drove the price of my Battle Company up to $30 - most of my other forces cost $10 to $15. That's a very low entry point for a GW product. 

Campaign Games: Mordhiem/Necromunda Fan? Meet Battle Companies Redux
Found in White Dwarf #311 and #312 (and also free online here) this is a LoTR skirmish campaign with ~12 models a side.  You can recruit new soldiers, level up your heroes, and buy equipment. Think Mordhiem with better gameplay, less cheesy warbands and simpler/less complex advancement and equipment (and less superpowered heroes/wargear combinations).  You can play a game in 30-40 minutes - a campaign in an evening. When I review fantasy skirmish rules, people often ask me "is this the new Mordhiem?"   I wonder if they have heard of "Battle Companies."  It's a concept so good (and cheap to play) Games Workshop quietly shelved it. That's a pretty good recommendation by my book!

Considering LoTR:SBG also spawned historical skirmish campaign games "Legends of High Seas" (pirates) and "Legends of the Old West" (cowboys) as well as numerous derivative works ranging from steampunk to samurai, it has pretty good "skirmish campaign" pedigree. 

...so you're recommending a GW game - wait what?
Actually, yes I am. Whilst evolutionary not revolutionary, it represents a positive step forward from 40K and WHFB. It's a clean, simple rule set with familiar stats and mechanics yet some surprisingly subtle naunces, in particular the initiative sequence and the use of Might, Will and Fate. Your battles will more likely be won or lost by your in-game decisions, not in the list building or deployment stages.

The commonsense mechanics are used in a range of other rule sets for many different eras and the game scales well - from 10 minis to about 50 (after which it starts to bog down).  Furthermore, if you're seeking a way to get your Mordhiem fix, but don't love the complexity or cheesiness of certain wargear/hero builds, then Battle Companies offers a legitimate, affordable* alternative.

I know a lot of people who played LoTR briefly and tossed it aside as too "simple" or "bland."  I'd encourage you to dig it out and look at it with fresh eyes.  
 

 -------------------------------

*Although you WOULD be mad to pay the actual GW prices (it's $35+ for 12 plastics by the same Perry brothers sculptors who sell their own similar medieval models at $30 for 40+ plastics) - there is a thriving secondhand market.   A dozen secondhand plastics and some metals for a Battle Companies army would set you back $20 or less from eBay.  The softback A5 rules booklet from the Mines of Moria boxset (secondhand ~$10) and a Battle Companies pdf (free) and "voila!"

(Good) Fantasy Skirmish Wargames

I was staring at my unpainted lead mountain today, considering fantasy games.  Unlike space games, there seems to be a broad spectrum of approaches to this genre. Rather like I did for space games, I'd like to look at elements that I think would make a good fantasy game.

The First Rule:  Many Difficult Choices, Few Easy Rules
Games rules should be simple and easy to remember, whilst presenting the maximum number of difficult choices at every opportunity.  A shining example is Mayhem, which at every opportunity you have to make a dice roll, you can either automatically claim half the dice (say 3 on a d6, 4 on a d8) or roll the dice and take a risk. Not a hard rule to remember - but it constantly requires a player decision.

Statlines vs Special Rules
At lot of current games have minimized stats.  For example, Song of Blades has "Combat" and "Troop Quality" as its only "stats." It then differentiates between units by adding a zillion traits or special abilities - exceptions to the rule. It's false economy - more rules are needed because of the smaller stat line.  Oversimplifying has actually added complexity. 

Whilst a game of modern combat (where all soldiers are human and most carry 5.56mm automatic weapons) allows generalisations, fantasy - which can encompass lizardmen, ogres, hobbits, dragons, goblins and gargoyles - tends to have very different troop types.  Having a sensible stat line keeps the "extra rules" managable.

I find LOTR: SBG surprisingly underrated - perhaps too subtle boring for the average GW powergamer

Initative - the Ignored Factor
IGOUGO doesn't cut it anymore.  Games should involve players. Troops should not just wait like dummies to be scythed down.  A lot of games ignore the initiative sequence and miss out on an opportunity to present players with tactical choices. An interesting option - the card activation of TFL games - where activation is random, but better leaders have more/better opportunities to act; and troops without inspiring leaders tend to act last. Or Song of Blades and Heroes "risk vs reward" activation where a player can roll dice to take more actions but risks failing and losing the initiative.
Again, I mention LOTR: it has a modified IGOUGO sequence that heroes can "interrupt" to seize the initiative. This not only makes the move sequence more tactical, but makes heroes into actual leaders, not simply walking tanks.

Movement
The "all units move the same distance" lead by 40K just doesn't cut it. A dwarf does not move as fast as a werewolf.  Yes, you can say it represents them "advancing cautiously at combat speed, weapons ready" but this is another unneeded simplification (most players can remember how far a unit moves) which removes flavour.

Choices in Combat
Combat in 90% of skirmish games is just move up, roll dice. There isn't much decision making in it. Something that has interested me a lot lately is the concept of "Dice Pools". Bushido has a dice pool, (free rules here) where players can allocate melee dice to attack or defence, as does Havoc.  CROM takes the dice-as-a-resource concept further allowing you to "burn dice" - losing dice (ability) permanently for short-term gain.  Alkemy uses cards for attack types - certain attacks counter others more effectively, others do more damage, etc. Even LOTR allows a choice of one handed attacks, two handed attacks, and defensive posture.

Song of Blades did a lot of things right in making fantasy skirmish fun - but the biggest strength is its unit builder allowing the use of random cool models to create a custom warband...

Results of Combat
 I liked Song of Blades - losers were either knocked down (tip model over); pushed back, or dead (removed).  Plenty of cinematic moments, but no record keeping, or even counters to clutter the table, or (God forbid) hitpoints to tick off a unit card a la Warmachine or Malifaux.

Sensible, Interesting Magic
Magic should steer between the two spells of Song and Blades (freeze, and missile attack) and the fireballs of doom-that-decimate-a-regiment of some Warhammer fantasy editions. There should be a sensible range of spells to allow most generic magic attacks as found in movies, TV shows and books, but it also should be limited in power so the game does not simply become a wizard duel.  Making magic a finite resource might add a layer of tactics as well. I quite like how the warcasters in Warmachine are used although they are a poor example as far as the "don't min-max or overpower stuff" are concerned.

Heroic Moves, Cut Scenes
Rather than tank-like demigods with 3 wounds, 10 Defence and 7 Strength 9 attacks, I like games where heroes can influence events around him (again, allowing player choice) rather than decimate a entire regiment solo by virtue of superior stats. In Havoc, when initiative rolls were tied, "named" heroes could act while the rest of the fight was paused around them - just like a Hollywood cut scene.
 GW's much maligned LOTR was also good this way - heroes could spend  a finite amount of "Heroic Actions" to move friendly units out of sequence, get in the first blow etc.  This was also a "Resource" to manage as they could also use these heroic actions to re-roll their personal combat results. Basically, heroes should be heroes because they have special heroic abilities. Not simply because they are unkillable walking tanks with impossibly high stats, who can absorb two fatal wounds and fight on...

Resource Management
The command point system of diminishing returns in Mayhem (which reminds me of clicking in a RTS); the order pool in Infinity, your hand of cards in Malifaux.... all these add a layer of strategy and tactics.  If done in a way that does not add excessive complication or record-keeping, this can add a final layer of depth to the game.

There are a lot of people waiting for "the next Mordhiem" (or still playing the old one, 20 years on) - showing the value people attach to campaign-based play

Unit Builder
Obviously to be avoided if you are trying to tie the rules to a specific product line, this does make a ruleset more versatile and instantly shoots it to the top of my "buy and try" list.  Song of Blades is a great example - it has simple, fun gameplay, but it can be a little shallow - it's real depth is the ability to "stat up" random models and create your own custom warbands using a free Excel spreadsheet.  Providing a good reason to paint up old models or cruise the net looking for cool random minis, the unit builder is definitely "value added" to any rules set.

Campaign Mode
Death match "to the last man standing" rules get old after a while.  Scenario books and supplements can address this partially, but there is a big crowd of people who think nostalgically of Mordhiem. Hands up if you wish there was a modern replacement for it. Yup, thought so. Exasperatingly unbalanced  at times, the campaigns with random battles kept things from getting "stale" and developed a sense of narrative to games.  Having heroes "level up" and gain new abilities (or be crippled by wounds) creates a genuine attachment to your force.  You know, that badly painted dwarf model you hate the look of, that just would never die, and has killed two enemy champions?  Now you're scared to repaint it in case you break it's lucky run.... Campaign rules add a completely new layer of depth to any skirmish game, and allow it to attract a wider range of gamers. 

Random Thought: The Lonely d10
I notice games are increasingly using numbers of d6 to "flatten" the probability curve, often with attack dice cancelling out defence dice or similar. The other day I saw a video of an ex-GW games designer spruiking a new Kickstarter game (it's here somewhere) and he was waxing eloquent about how the game will be awesome "cos it used a ten sided dice."  I laughed at that - no wonder GW is remaking the same game, 25 years on... they only just discovered d10?  The 80s just called - they want their leg warmers back...  Why do game designers stick with d6s?  I've always thought a d10 had many inherent advantages... it's not like they are the sole preserve of D&D basement-dwellers - I bought my last set at the local ToysRUs.

In Closing
I don't think my "ideal" fantasy game exists yet, though many have strong traits that recommend them. Song of Blades has good initiative, combat results and a stellar unit builder; but it's two-stat/million special rules makes it shallower than it needs.  Havoc scores high in gameplay but its limited troop types, lack of unit builder and campaign holds it back.  LOTR scores surprisingly well as an all-rounder, but has trouble shaking a feel of all-round "blandness." Mordhiem has a strong (albeit unbalanced) campaign element, but has dated IGOUGO gameplay.

Come across any games that meet (most) of the criteria? I'd love to hear about them.