Lion Rampant 'Hold on Tight'

With the prospect of a multi-player game at our last club meeting I had organised a game of Lion Rampant. As things turned out it ended up being a simple two player game between myself and my regular opponent Dave.

Lion Rampant lends itself to a club game, being quick to set up and play. While the rules are fairly light it still retains the feel of a historical wargame with enough unpredictability and nuances between the unit types to present some interesting game challenges.

We chose the 'Hold on Tight' scenario where both players vie for control of a terrain objective and need to hold on to it for five turns. In our case the objective was an important ford across a stream running through the middle of the table.

I would control a French retinue made up of:

Two units of Mounted Men-at-Arms (6pts each)
One unit of Foot Serjeants (4pts)
One unit of Mounted Serjeants (4pts)
One unit of Crossbowmen (4pts)

Dave would control an English retinue of:

Two units of Mounted Men-at-Arms (6pts each)
One unit of Foot Serjeants (4pts)
Two units of Archers (4pts each)

The key mechanic in Lion Rampant is unit activation and for this a player must roll 2D6 to see if the unit will perform the ordered action. What I like about this is the way that different units require different rolls to perform certain actions.

For example a unit of archers will fire on a roll of 6+, in other words there is a good chance they will do as ordered. On the other hand they will only charge another unit on a 7+. This makes perfect sense as most units will play to their historical strengths and not be inclined to undertake activities for which they are ill equipped or lack the courage. Units described as Fierce Foot, which covers a range of tribal types, will charge the enemy on a 5+, while a unit of reluctant Serfs will only do so on a 7+.

Aside from the unpredictability reflected in the rolls and the friction it represents it also requires the player to think carefully about how best to use each unit type. Not only that, but failure to activate brings the player turn to an immediate end. This brings a great element of tension to the game and keeps both players fully engaged as turns flip from one player to the other. Some will argue that this introduces too great a random element to the game but so far I've yet to see this have a major influence on any of our games. There are some people that simply don't like the idea that they can't activate all their units every turn and I suspect they don't like any set of rules that introduces this element of friction. Personally I have no issue with it and see it as yet another challenge to deal with in the course of a game.

For this scenario both players deploy from opposite ends of the table and move towards the objective. The unpredictability of activation means there is no certainty about who will reach the ford first. That alone requires players to come up with a plan about how they want to make their approach and to adapt that as the flow of activations dictates how their units move.

My initial thoughts were to send my foot serjeants to take the ford and have the crossbowmen on hand to help fend off any English attacks. My mounted units would act as a reserve ready to respond to any threats.

With that we started the game and both retinues made their way forward to the stream. The French serjeants (mounted and foot) taking the most direct route.

As the French serjeants move towards the ford they see English mounted men-at-arms approaching from the other direction.

Foot units on both sides worked their way through more difficult terrain that slowed their movement but offered additional protection from roving bands of mounted units.

English foot serjeants worked their way through the wooded area on the English right.

As is the way in Lion Rampant, the mounted men-at-arms proved difficult to command. These big boys don't like being told what to do and have an impulsive urge to charge off in to combat when the spirit takes them. As a consequence the men-at-arms of both sides showed a tendency to mill around looking important but not showing any sense of urgency to move forward.

English men-at-arms in the centre looking impressive but making it clear they move at their own pace.

Their compatriots on the other flank display a similar tendency.

While it's easy for the French to scoff at the indolence of the English aristocracy their men-at-arms prove no more inclined to heed commands. They bide their time while the eager mounted serjeants make a swift move to the ford.

The English foot serjeants are the first to respond to the threat and emerge from the woods ready to challenge the French advance.

This finally seems to spur the English men-at-arms to respond and move forward to support them.

I decide to take the fight to the English. The mounted serjeants attempt to drive off the English foot serjeants and so allow their foot serjeants to seize the ford.

I learn a quick lesson here. While mounted units are powerful, they are also quite brittle. Attacking a numerically stronger unit of sturdy foot serjeants is unwise and although I inflict several casualties I'm eventually thrown back with losses that severely weaken my unit.

Despite this the fight does buy the French time and allows their foot serjeants to hold the ford for three turns before the English are able to bring forward more units to respond.

Fortunately for the French the English men-at-arms are showing a distinct reluctance to commit themselves, most likely because the rough terrain of the stream puts them at a disadvantage. They await the arrival of a unit of archers who could make life quite difficult for the men holding the ford.

Those defenders cannot succeed alone and so French crossbowmen and mounted men-at-arms are sent forward to assist them.

Unfortunately at this point I became so engrossed in the action that I stopped taking pictures for a while and so I'll have to summarise some of what followed.

The English archers began to make short work of the men defending the ford who had to fall back eventually to avoid further casualties. The French crossbowmen were able to shoot back in return but were unable to counter the impact of two units of English archers.

Ultimately this tipped the balance and the English were able to take possession of the ford.

In a last, desperate bid for glory the French leader took his men-at-arms across the stream to harry the English, but they were not equal to the challenge and in a fierce series of charges were beaten and driven from the field.

A chastening defeat, but many lessons learnt. I definitely do not make the most of my mounted units with a tendency to commit them too early. For this particular scenario I didn't give enough thought to the threat of the archers. It seemed like a good idea to have my foot serjeants hold the ford. They can put up a very determined defence against any attacks from opposing serjeants and men-at-arms however they lack protection from missiles. Unless I could find a way to keep Dave's archers at bay there seemed little point in having my serjeants try to hold the ford under a hail of English arrows. In that sense I would have been much better off sending my mounted serjeants against those archers rather than the foot serjeants. That certainly cost me.

The balance of failed activations seemed to even itself out across the game. At no point did it detract from the experience and on most occasions it made for an amusing addition to the narrative, with both Dave and I offering plausible and implausible reasons for a unit's failure to act.

Subsequent rule sets by the author Daniel Mersey like The Pikeman's Lament use a similar engine to Lion Rampant to which there are added extra layers of rules. Some of these new rules carry across easily to Lion Rampant. I could certainly see some room to add to the existing rules for leaders and make them play a more significant role, but overall there's enough going on in the original rules to make for an engaging game.