GW Skirmish vs Hinterlands

[Mr. White]

I'm vary familiar with Necromunda and Mordheim and I understand Hinterlands is similar to those in ways.

My question is...as a new AoS and Skirmish player can I get a proper run down on how Skirmish and Hinterlands compare? Can I use the Shadespire battleplans in the Skirmish book for games of Hinterlands? Skirmish has warbands getting larger, but Hinterlands has them staying around the same model count (well, a few additions, but not blowing up like Skirmish).  That is, in Hinterlands, I can buy the Ironjawz skirmish warband and be pretty much good, but Skirmish would require more models as the warband grows...correct? Does Hinterlands work well?

Basically, what are the pros and cons of each of the two?

Thanks!

[Trout]

4 hours ago, Mr. White said:

I'm vary familiar with Necromunda and Mordheim and I understand Hinterlands is similar to those in ways.

My question is...as a new AoS and Skirmish player can I get a proper run down on how Skirmish and Hinterlands compare? Can I use the Shadespire battleplans in the Skirmish book for games of Hinterlands? Skirmish has warbands getting larger, but Hinterlands has them staying around the same model count (well, a few additions, but not blowing up like Skirmish).  That is, in Hinterlands, I can buy the Ironjawz skirmish warband and be pretty much good, but Skirmish would require more models as the warband grows...correct? Does Hinterlands work well?

Basically, what are the pros and cons of each of the two?

Thanks!

In my opinion, Skirmish is better for pick-up games. You can show up at a store or club with a handful of models and quickly play against another player without much hassle. It's also easier to run events with these rules since there is very little bookkeeping.

 

I have not played Hinterlands, but it seems like a great game for a group of players who get together regularly. It requires far more bookkeeping, since each model has its own level and injuries, so it's not really a great system for pick-up games or events.

 

As far as the size of the warbands, if you go by the Skirmish campaign rules, then you aren't going to start with everything in the skirmish warband box,  you're going to start with only about 3 of those units. By the time you finish the campaign, you may be using all of them, but it's unlikely you would need more than that.

[someone2040]

Skirmish is better for pick up and tournament games as well as growing warbands into armies. Hinterlands in general, is a better and more fleshed out Skirmish game.

If I had to say, both are trying to achieve different things. Skirmish wants you to buy more kits, and slowly grow your warband into an army. It's a game that's built fundamentally around that, and hence, generally works best playing a smaller number of games (say 10~ish perhaps) before moving into AoS proper.

Hinterlands tries to be a better Skirmsh game using the AoS Warscrolls and game system. It includes things like models dying, gaining experience, and powering up throughout a campaign. It also changed more core rules to prevent abuse, so you could argue that it's more balanced as well.

 

Overall, I don't think it largely matters what you play. @bottle has mentioned that future versions of Hinterlands will be looking to expand the AoS: Skirmish ruleset rather than be it's own things, so I wouldn't be surprised if the initial version is adding in all that Hinterlands goodness on top of the AoS: Skirmish rules anyway.

[ssharkus]

Hinterlands is definitely better than skirmish. If you play more narrative-oriented games - only Hinterlands should be your choice. Leveling and character injury or death are such awesome features. If you play consistently with a group of people it really feels like a good rpg. You get to love your characters, your opponents fear some of your old and expirienced guys and a death of some of your most cherished champion is a real tragedy and a celebration for your enemies.  In comparison to all this fun stuff Skirmish is just an regular Aos game with fewer models. 

[wayniac]

18 hours ago, Auticus said:

Hinterlands is pretty cool and well put together.  Like many fan projects for AOS, I feel it is pretty solid.  The downside of Hinterlands, from my own experience, is that because its not official I could not get anyone to play it.  However, skirmish I can get players for because its "official".

I find Hinterlands to be superior in quality overall so if you can find a playgroup for it, definitely pursue it.  

This is my thing too.  Nobody in my area knows/wants to know about Hinterlands because it's not official material (also mainly playing in a GW store puts the kibosh on using unofficial rules) while Skirmish is officially from GW so people will play it.  So I really like Skirmish, just I find it pretty unbalanced (like most GW products).

[Warboss Gorbolg]

My local GW has no issues with anyone playing Hinterlands.  Have you actually asked yet?  You might be surprised.

[Mr. White]

The thing about playing official vs non-official... I never really got. I mean if I'm DMing an RPG most of the material is going to be DM generated...no one has a problem. I mean, it's not like folks _only_ play published modules. However, when it comes to wargaming there's such a drive to stick to the Rules as Written that a lot of flexibility and opportunity is lost.

Much like players in a D&D campaign are using the published D&D rulebook, but in a DM's chosen setting...is how I see playing something like Hinterlands. You're still using the AoS rules proper...just in this case adding in a particular setting or style. No different than the RPG analogy...except...perhaps a desire to win being the driving motivation in wargamers and not role-players.

[Mr. White]

I hear you. I'm not a store player (yet), but if I were to post up an ad at the local saying that I'm running an AoS Hinterlands campaign...all players would be working under the same ruleset...so does it matter if those rules were written by someone under GWs employ or just a major fan? You can still play to win (competitively) and surely not every game of AoS needs to be tourney practice.

I dunno...different mindsets I suppose. Maybe due to age? I'm 42. I grew up gaming in the heyday of RPGs/Rogue Trader/Warhammer 3rd etc so providing a home brewed, narrative framework for all the players to game under is as natural as rolling dice.

[Trout]

3 hours ago, Mr. White said:

I hear you. I'm not a store player (yet), but if I were to post up an ad at the local saying that I'm running an AoS Hinterlands campaign...all players would be working under the same ruleset...so does it matter if those rules were written by someone under GWs employ or just a major fan? You can still play to win (competitively) and surely not every game of AoS needs to be tourney practice.

I dunno...different mindsets I suppose. Maybe due to age? I'm 42. I grew up gaming in the heyday of RPGs/Rogue Trader/Warhammer 3rd etc so providing a home brewed, narrative framework for all the players to game under is as natural as rolling dice.

A lot of things have changed in every game genre. It used to be that if we were playing a D&D campaign and most of the characters were level 5, then when someone new joined, we'd have them make a level 5 character. Nowadays it seems people view levels as something you must earn and the new guy has to start at level 1. I find that view ridiculous, but it's the new mentality. I would imagine it has to do with the influence of video games.

 

 

Having said that, I haven't actually encountered this attitude Auticus spends so much time complaining about. This may be a regional thing. I wouldn't go to the store expecting to run into this if I were you. People where you live might be really into trying out custom game modes.

[Trout]

3 minutes ago, Auticus said:

heh back in the 80s and 90s we made you start at level 1 if everyone else was level 5.  Today it seems the opposite lol, we could never play D&D with part of the group being level 5 and the new players level 1.  That'd never fly today.

So, perhaps that's regional also.

[Trout]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Perhaps.  When I went to Gen Con people complained about it there too and that was a collection of a large volume of players nationally though.

Wouldn't this support the idea that it's a regional thing? If it were a national thing, there wouldn't be complaints, everyone would expect things to work a certain way. The fact there is complaining supports the idea that there is a disagreement on this.

[Trout]

32 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Well - because I hear people complaining about the same thing (in this case, that a DM that tries to make new players start at level 1 when his players are at level 5 is a bad DM) at a national-level event - I assume that the issue is at a national level as opposed to a regional.

Same thing with WAAC play.  When I go to tournaments etc the general overall consensus matches my local play, which is why I don't think its just regional.

I don't think you get it. If it's a national mentality, then there wouldn't be any complaining; everyone would just assume that that's the way it is...you start at level 1. The presence of complaints supports the idea that this view is not universal.

 

When you go to tournaments, you run into competitive players. What kinds of players would you expect at tournaments?

 

There was a poll on this forum. The results didn't support your view. Results showed only about half the players here play Matched exclusively.

 

[Lord Cedric]

I hear you. I'm not a store player (yet), but if I were to post up an ad at the local saying that I'm running an AoS Hinterlands campaign...all players would be working under the same ruleset...so does it matter if those rules were written by someone under GWs employ or just a major fan? You can still play to win (competitively) and surely not every game of AoS needs to be tourney practice.
I dunno...different mindsets I suppose. Maybe due to age? I'm 42. I grew up gaming in the heyday of RPGs/Rogue Trader/Warhammer 3rd etc so providing a home brewed, narrative framework for all the players to game under is as natural as rolling dice.

(Off topic) I'm 42 as well and am looking at starting up my own game store locally. Though I have an associates degree, it's been over 20 years and decided that small business college classes is my first step. Best of luck in your endeavor! Im quite excited at the possibility of starting one.

(On topic) there is definitely a place for all 3 game types. But, at least here, its the competitive crowd that buys the most and helps keep the store open. Narrative brings in players, which is healthy and fun. But they don't tend to buy as much. Open play is often used as demos.

- Cedric

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[bottle]

On 10/07/2017 at 3:23 PM, Mr. White said:

I'm vary familiar with Necromunda and Mordheim and I understand Hinterlands is similar to those in ways.

My question is...as a new AoS and Skirmish player can I get a proper run down on how Skirmish and Hinterlands compare? Can I use the Shadespire battleplans in the Skirmish book for games of Hinterlands? Skirmish has warbands getting larger, but Hinterlands has them staying around the same model count (well, a few additions, but not blowing up like Skirmish).  That is, in Hinterlands, I can buy the Ironjawz skirmish warband and be pretty much good, but Skirmish would require more models as the warband grows...correct? Does Hinterlands work well?

Basically, what are the pros and cons of each of the two?

Thanks!

Hi Mr. White, thanks for taking an interest in Hinterlands, and thanks to others for the kind words about it

 

Can I use the Shadespire battleplans in the Skirmish book for games of Hinterlands?

Most definitely. Hinterlands has some rules that allow any Age of Sigmar battleplan to work in the campaign. Essentially you play the battleplan as normal and then tack on a "Campaign Outcome" for the winner and loser. There is a default Campaign Outcome in the rules that allows players to quickly play another battleplan on the fly but I would also encourage you to come up with your own.

Personally I think a great campaign outcome for Shadespire Battleplans would be: The winning player earns 25+D6 gold coins. The losing player earns 10+2D6 gold coins. In addition both players can roll on the Shadespire Treasure Table. The winning player gets to roll 3D6 and choose any two of the dice as their score. The losing player rolls 2D6 as normal.

This would allow you to incorporate the Shadespire battleplans and also the Treasure Table. The Table often gives extra renown but it is simple to convert renown into gold coins as both work on Age of Sigmar points values (1 renown = 5 gold coins)

 

In terms of what's better. I couldn't say but I think users in this thread have done a good job of listing the pros and cons. I really like the GW Skirmish system and think it is well done. There are a few things that obviously jump out at me that could be improved upon:

The AoS Skirmish campaign is only built around 6 games and 2 players. Hinterlands works better if you want to play for longer but doesn't have a defined end. 

The warbands grow in size rapidly in AoS Skirmish, especially compared to Hinterlands. The main reasons being that your models will never die whereas in Hinterlands a 1 wound grunt has a 1/6 chance of permanently dying every time they are slain in battle. Secondly in the core AoS rules there is a big disparity between the cost of a hero and a non-hero. Hinterlands addresses this by making heroes half points and wounds (although that opens up balancing issues) whereas for AoS Skirmish the result is you start with an incredibly small warband (often 3 models) but can quickly amass a horde over the 6 games (with most grunts only costing 2 renown). Lastly Hinterlands has a straight cap of 15 models which is something I have played since the days of Necromunda to stop "Scavvy Factories" and keep the games quick and playable.

This means Hinterlands is better suited to "eternal campaigns", ones that go on for longer, especially ones without a end where players can drop in and out over the months. 

The AoS Skirmish campaign has a shelf life of 6-10 games in my opinion at which point your warband could be 100+ renown easily (which is like 500 points of AoS), and so is played best when there is a definite end to the campaign. The only problem being there are no scenarios in the book fitting to end the campaign on if you have more than 2 players.  This is actually the first thing I set to making for my own (in the works) expansion to Skirmish; a series of multiplayer scenarios for groups to end the campaign on in a thrilling a climactic manner. 

I have actually put my expansion on hold for the moment. With the Path to Glory book coming it's basically an expansion to AoS Skirmish in its own right. I foresee that the problems of AoS Skirmish having no ending scenario for multiple players and warbands escalating in size so quickly, to not be relevant as the expectation will be after everyone has played 6-10 games, the whole group migrate over to Path to Glory to continue on wards with. So in the meantime I am actually working on 40k content instead.

 

I hope this gives you a useful comparison. In my opinion if you want to have a blast over a weekend nothing beats AoS Skirmish. I recommend getting the Convergence of Fate battleplan to end the campaign on. It's the best multiplayer scenario so far for AoS in my opinion.

If you want more grit, more crunch, and more RPG-esque experience. If you have fond memories of Necromunda or Mordhiem, then you would probably prefer Hinterlands.

 

Cheers!

 

[Mr. White]

^ Cheers for stopping by and responding! You've done a great job laying both of them out and they both sound good enough to try, but I've now got a good sense on which may be more appropriate given time and opponents.

Where do I get the Convergence of Fate battleplan?

[bottle]

Convergence of Fate was given out in mail orders in the first few months of AoS. I liked it because it was a true "open play" scenario that worked well without points. Players could gang up against the strongest and as soon as one player was eliminated the game ended meaning the weakest player would only be taken out by a player in a winning position.

Because it was a gift/freebie and never sold you'll have to dig around on the Internet for it (or maybe a friend of yours has it). If you can't find it, any of the multiplayer scenarios in the GHB could be a good way to end a campaign, but if you can track it down I definitely recommend Convergence of Fate because it has some great mechanics!  

[Kramer]

http://baddice.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Convergence-of-Fate-.pdf

There you go. As it was a freebie I assume this will be fine. 

[Mr. White]

I plan to play multiplayer, has anyone done the Skirmish or Hinterland battleplans with 4? Any tips?

[KnightFire]

2 hours ago, Mr. White said:

I plan to play multiplayer, has anyone done the Skirmish or Hinterland battleplans with 4? Any tips?

I played some hinterlands with 3, we used the triumph and treachery 3 player rules and scenarios from the GHB. It worked really well and should work equally well for Skirmish.