"Hostile Realms Review" Topic

This is a review of Hostile Realms, which is a set of fantasy wargames rules. It is part of the Piquet stable of rules, and uses broadly the same card driven mechanics as other Piquet rules. It is an element based system, designed to represent large scale battles.
I have not played the rules, and will not be playing them (for reasons outlined below), so this is a review based on reading the rules. Hopefully it will provide enough information to help others decide whether they would like to give these rules a try.
The rules cost around £25.00 GBP and for that you get a 160 page paperback book. Included in this are 60 pages of army lists and 6 pages of spell lists. There are a few black and white photos of figures, but they are not particularly inspiring so don't really add much to the overall presentation. You also get the cards you need to play – sequence decks and relic (magic item) cards. These are printed on thin card sheets and need to be cut out.
I will give now give an overview of what for me are the main positives and negatives, roughly in order of significance.

Positives :
1. Card driven play.
This is the mean feature of the Piquet set of games. A set of cards (the Sequence Deck) which are customised to each army (to a certain extent) are used to determine what actions the army can (or in some cases must) undertake. In HR, each player rolls for initiative, the highest choosing whether to act first or second, but both players will have the same number of initiative points. Each initiative point allows one card from the sequence deck to be turned over and acted on. Certain cards allow units to move, melees to take place, missile troops to reload, wizards to cast spells, leaders to rally units, or may require morale checks or other negative consequences. Everything is driven by the play of the Sequence Deck. The army lists specify what cards go in the Sequence Deck for each army, so you get a particular flavour for each army depending on the make-up of the deck, along with other special rules for each army. This is the main feature that made me want to try some of the Piquet games, as it creates uncertainty, fog of war and interesting command decisions.
For more information about the mechanics, and about Piquet games in general, this is a good source :
link
There is not much information on the Piquet website about their games, and this surprises me. It doesn't seem like the publishers are trying to sell their rules very much.
2. The rules are well written, with mechanics clearly explained and no obvious holes or ambiguities.
3. The rules cover a wide variety of troop types, including pretty much everything that is required in a set of fantasy rules.
4. There are extensive army lists, covering a variety of the common fantasy armies.

Negatives :
1. Unnecessary overcomplication.
If we were to play this in my gaming group, it would not be our regular game, so we would want something we can pick up pretty quickly. I would probably be the only one to thoroughly read the rules, so on reading them I was considering how easy they would be to explain, and how quickly we could get playing.
Some of the mechanics are elegant and straightforward, and I think they all could have been kept this way, but there are layers of extra complication added that are in my opinion unnecessary. A card based game like this could be written such that most of the rules can be summarised on the cards, with some straightforward rules for combat and morale, and then it would be possible for beginners to get playing straight away.
I will give some examples of this overcomplication.
The main mechanic for many events is opposed dice, with different dice used depending on situation and unit quality, etc. So one side might roll a D12 against the other side's D6. The difference in results determines the outcome. The situation changes the dice, so a Unit that normally used a D8 could go up one level to a D10 or two levels to a D12, etc. Quite an elegant and straightforward mechanic. Each unit has a Dice type depending on its quality, unit type, etc. To my mind a single dice type could have incorporated nearly everything about the unit, with a few special abilities tacked on. However, each unit has three different dice levels, one each for Missile, Melee and Morale. Each unit also has weapon type and armour level.
I like to play games that can be played without constant references to tables and charts in the rules. It is quite possible for a set of rules to keep things simple enough for this to be possible, whilst still being a challenging and interesting game. I can't see this being possible in these rules though, and I'll use missile fire as an example. In the table showing how your base dice is modified for missile fire, there are 10 lines in the table, each with 6 columns. You look up the situation in each line in the table : Firer's Angle, Firer's status, Firer's formation, Firer's Wounds, Range, Cover of Target, Target Formation, Dexterity of attached character, Relics, Armour of target. For each line you look along to the column that gives the correct situation for your unit and apply the relevant dice level modifier (from down 3 to up 2). There are 20 different missile weapons, each with 4 different range bands. That sort of thing cannot be easily committed to memory. The melee combat process is similar, although with not quite as many lines in the table.
Another example of over complexity is the magic rules – in other fantasy rules there might be one or two pages detailing the magic system, along with a few pages of spell lists. Here there are 9 pages of rules on how to cast spells !
The morale system is also unusually complicated, but I'll deal with this further on.
2. Pre-game preparation required.
The preparation required prior to playing – rolling Leader Quality, dicing for and choosing character attributes, rolling for relics, etc, will take some time – I would guess half an hour or more. Personally I don't want to have to go through all of this before playing the game when time is limited on our wargaming nights.
3. Significantly flawed points system.
There is a points system and that you can build your own troop profiles from the formula given. However, there is a lot that is not accounted for within the points system. For example, there are army special rules, and the make-up of the sequence deck varies, so the inclusion of certain cards gives advantages or disadvantages to each army. These have not been designed so that each army is balanced. For example, the Goblin army seems very weak – 4 Lull cards, -2 Leadership Quality modifier, other "bad" cards such as Ineffective Missilery, no particularly good special rules. Yet their troops cost the same points as any other army, so a Goblin army will be inherently worse than say, a Wood Elf army. The rules designers have confirmed that this is the case, and that you would need to give the Goblin army more points to make a balanced game. We are not told how many more points though.
Given the individual nature of each army, with particular special rules and sequence deck, I think it would be better if there was no points system at all included in the rules. I can't see the point in having a points system that cannot possibly be expected to give a reasonably balanced game.
Also, the fact that you roll for character Leadership Qualities, number of abilities and Army morale chips could potentially imbalance the game before you even start playing. For example, an army of 20 units will have between 15 and 25 morale chips, depending on a dice roll. The armies might be equal points but if one has nearly double the morale chips of the other, or much better characters, then it isn't going to be a balanced game.
I would prefer it if these were things you could choose rather than dice for, and cost an appropriate amount of points. In addition to being more balanced, this would also help with the pre-game preparation issue, as it could be done by each player before game day.
Also there are some anomalies in the points system for creating troop profiles. Sword and Spear cost the same, yet Spear is better. Spear beats Sword in the order of weapons, and Spear has advantages against cavalry. Given the choice, you would always choose Spears over Swords. Given that the cost of each is 3 points, it would have been easy to make Swords less points. Or the weapons could be balanced by making spears better against cavalry, but swords better against spears, thus giving advantages and disadvantages to each.
Another example is that Light and Heavy Chariots cost the same points as Medium and Heavy Cavalry respectively, yet they are worse in melee and less manoeuvrable. Cavalry are two melee dice better than chariots to start with, and if cavalry fight against chariots they go up another dice. So you would never choose chariots over cavalry.
These examples seem so obvious and so easy to correct (make chariots less points than cavalry and make swords less points than spears) that it makes you wonder how thorough the playtesting was, especially of the points values, and what other issues you would find on actually playing the game.
4. Oddities and counter-intuitive mechanics.
There are a few things in the rules that just don't seem right. Here are some examples :
Cavalry movement distances seem very low compared to infantry : 8cm for extra heavy cavalry and 10cm for heavy or medium cavalry vs. 8cm for infantry. Light chariots move 8cm – the same as infantry ! Heavy chariots only move 6cm. Most rules would give cavalry a much higher move for cavalry and light chariots than infantry.
Rather than being more manoeuvrable and useful for getting on enemy flanks, thus having a specific battlefield role, cavalry in these rules are just better in combat.
The Morale system is rather unusual. I know some players like this part of the Piquet group of rules, but it seems wrong to me. Each army has a set of Morale Chips which represent army morale, and as these are reduced it represents a breakdown in the morale of the whole army. That's all fine, and it's good to have an army level morale system in place so that battles aren't fought until the last unit breaks. But in most games, certain actions trigger a unit morale check – losing a combat, seeing friends break, etc. But in these rules such a morale check is only taken if the opponent chooses to spend a Morale Chip. This doesn't make sense to me. I shouldn't be able to choose when my opponent tests for morale, and why does it reduce the morale of one army when the other army takes a morale check as a consequence of losing a battle ?
5. Proof reading errors, such as references to page "XXX" or troops equipped with Shields in an army list when there are no rules for Shields. In an already complicated set of rules it doesn't aid your understanding when you are trying to look up rules that aren't there.

My overall impression is some elegant mechanics (card driven actions, opposed polyhedral dice for combat and morale), with detailed and thorough army lists that give a different flavour to each army, but spoiled by layers of extra complexity, a flawed points system, and some very counter-intuitive aspects.

Ok, I'll chime in. I am a fan of Piquet in general but Field of Battle in particular. Hostile Realms is a mixture of the two sets. I guess my first thought is that reading the rules will give you a broad overview of how the rules work. Making observations that you need time to roll up the characteristics of your army are correct. Overview of what the mechanics are can also provide some insight as well as noting some proofreading errors which seem to be present in just about every set of commercial rules to one degree or another. Also mentioning things that jump out at you about the points system can have some merit. However, I am always a little surprised that gents who have not played a set of rules want to discuss how this rule or that is cumbersome or why didn't the author do it another way.

Lord knows how many sets of rules I have played in almost 40 years of gaming. But one thing I am absolutely positive of in that time. You gotta play em to accurately gauge how well the rules work! I had real problems trying to understand Piquet 1st edition by Bob Jones. My buddy Ed had tried out the rules and had a handle on them. I was skeptical by simply reading them but was attracted to them based on their chaos and his recommendation. So we played several games and I was hooked. Bottom line is to know how elegant or not game mechanics are and how they all interact you MUST play the game. Failure to do so means I discount your review and I'm sure many others do as well.

Maybe the rules aren't what you wanted. That's fine. However, please understand that doesn't mean you have a handle on HOW the rules actually work in on table play.

Thanks,

John

+1

Bottom line is to know how elegant or not game mechanics are and how they all interact you MUST play the game.

I'm sorry but I don't need to play the game to know that heavy infantry should not move faster than chariots. And I know I don't want to look up combat factors in 10 different lines in a table. I know four range bands for missile weapons is unnecessary because other similar scale games work fine with one or two range bands.

Failure to do so means I discount your review and I'm sure many others do as well.

You might "discount" my review but since you are already sold on the rules, it's not really aimed at you. I'm sure anyone thinking of buying them will find it useful, and take it for what it is – a review based on a thorough reading of the rules.

please understand that doesn't mean you have a handle on HOW the rules actually work in on table play.

I never said I did. I'm sure if you have a group that is willing to put the time into learning them, and can accept or work around the issues I have mentioned, then they could give a good game.

I'm curious, what large scale multibased figure Fantasy rule set with a DIY system does all these things you describe? I'm aware of a couple that are set close to the same scale. But none do everything that HR does. I'm not saying the these rules don't have something in them that may not appeal to everyone. Few sets do. There are even a couple of things that I have wondered about. However, I still will say that reviewing a set of rules mechanics and how they interact during gameplay are 'inherently silly' when you haven't played the rules! Commenting on those things unrelated to actual gameplay are fair. But you have no clue how the actual mechanics operate during a game. I don't even have a problem with folks who based on a quick read through decide the rules probably aren't for them. Different strokes for different folks. I do tend to question them when they start pronouncing how morale is wrong, need to constantly reference charts, points values, magic and a host of other things while never actually trying any of these out in a game. For the record, the reference charts are actually only glanced at during a game once you have played a time or two and even then usually only a few factors apply.

I do agree that anyone thinking about buying the rules will likely take it for exactly what it's worth, you having not played a single game.

YMMV.

Thanks,

John

As far as movement is concerned, cavalry and chariots move 8 inches, infantry move 6 inches. However, on a Move card, units can move 1 to 3 move segments. So an infantry unit really can move 1 to 18 inches, cavalry/chariots move 1 to 24 inches depending on how many move segments they roll.

And choosing when morale checks are taken makes sure the player is encouraged to make morale challenges when it really matters. It eliminates most of the needless morale checks and encourages only the most significant challenges.

As far as magic is concerned, it is recommended to play with low magic and no relics when first trying out the system.

I suggest you try out a low magic game and see how you like it. 12 units per side and don't use the undead because without magic relics they'll be touugh to beat.

Mark,

Thanks for taking the time to read through the rules and give a rather lengthy and detailed analysis. I do think that HR, like most Piquet/FoB related games, is fairly unique compared with the majority of wargames rules, and a set of rules that is harder to really appreciate without actually playing than the average set of rules, *especially* if you've never played a game in the Piquet/Field of Battle family before.

Having said that, if you're looking for a set of rules that you can use to quickly set up a generic, evenly balanced action with a minimum of fuss, I'd readily admit that HR is probably not the choice that you'd want to make; it is not targeted at that sort of game (or gamer) to begin with. There are plenty of other sets out there that do that job well, HOTT being one of many excellent examples. Piquet/FoB related games inherently contain inequalities at multiple levels, along with considerable uncertainty that you will need to manage in a variety of ways; Gamers who don't like that sort of thing will probably also not find the game to their liking; fair enough again. Personally, it is exactly those kinds of challenges that I find fun to manage in the course of the game. Games of Hostile Realms tend to be dramatic rather than attritional, and require the gamer to make many more decisions than most "conventional" rules sets.

Production values – well, no question HR isn't "Hail Caesar" or "Black Powder", a sets of rules I find gorgeous to look with, well written and produced, but almost lacking in any new ideas. That doesn't make them bad rules by any means – they've been very successful, I own a copies, have played them, and would play them again. Would they be my preferred sets? Heck no, too bland for my tastes! Hostile Realms are rules that you would buy for the very different ideas and style of game it produces, not the pretty pictures. Piquet Inc. is very much a small scale but enduring (15+ years in business now!) operation dedicated to producing original wargames across the spectrum of the hobby… a casual browsing of the website (just recently changed to "piquetwargames.com")

piquetwargames.com

will give some idea of the broad spectrum of history (and fantasy) covered, with the generally rules sharing a common gaming philosophy.

The magic system In Hostile Realms is fairly in depth – something we debated about considerably in developing them. The rules contain guidelines for simplified rules, and strongly encourage players to start out using them; many may want to just stay at that level, which is again more than fine with me – it's your game, and your choices to make. Once again, actually using Wizards in the game is lot easier than it sounds, except when you try to cast a blockbuster spell (usually Level 4) – that is a decidedly risky business, with great potential benefit but also uncertain outcome, including some risk! Again, that's a design choice that one can agree with… or not.

I dislike points systems in general, but they are necessary for at least some basic guidance for players in balancing such diverse forces, especially for rules that are new to the player(s)and have no strict "history" to draw orders of battle from. As for some of the points balances being questionable, I think that's true of any rules set, and I'd be the first to say change it as you see fit with my blessing! I won't haul you up before the Purity Police. To address the Chariot issue, yes, Cavalry are probably a better deal than the corresponding type of chariot – indeed, there were plenty of good reasons why historically they were largely supplanted by Cavalry fairly soon after decent cavalry arrived on the scene. OTOH,Chariots *are* a better missile platform than horseback, and once fantasy elements such as unusual beasts drawing them, scythes, etc are thrown in it becomes very much an apples to oranges consideration. Finally, it usually *isn't* a matter of choosing between one or the other, because the lists will only allow you so much flexibility in what you choose, and deliberately so. Of course, having said that, the lists are simply guidelines for your use (this is *fantasy*, after all, and even most historical wargames lists for pre-1550 forces are pretty close to fantasy at times!)You're also correct that some of the other differences between armies (they are many) may outweigh the strict points costs, which is yet another reason not to obsess much over minimal differences in same!

What you *will* find in HR is armies (and heroes, beasts, spells and unit types) that have a unique and distinctive character to them. They aren't just *called* different things, they act very differently from one another. That does add to the complexity, although I don't think the modifiers are really all that difficult to work with in play after a little practice; again, that's matter of design goals between lumping together for simplicity, and differentiating for richness and flavor. The individual gamer will have to decide if the design choices made appeal to them or not.

Thanks again for your time and interest, Mark!

Peter Anderson (author, Hostile Realms)

As far as movement is concerned, cavalry and chariots move 8 inches, infantry move 6 inches.

I was quoting movement rates in battle order formation, you're quoting line I think. But the relative difference is the same.
And yes, there are different movement rates depending on the formation the unit is in. Another thing that other similar scale games (and I'm talking about large scale ancient and medieval games, not just fantasy) seem to do fine without.

I do tend to question them when they start pronouncing how morale is wrong

OK, if it's not wrong, maybe you could explain it to me. Why should I decide when my opponent takes a morale check ? What does that decision simulate, and how does it relate to reality ? And why is my armies' morale reduced when I want the opposing army to take a morale check ?

I'm all for interesting decisions in wargames, but I like them to have a basis in reality. This is why the card driven aspect appeals to me – it represents uncertainty and confusion on the battlefield and creates command and control issues which need to be dealt with. But I can't get my head around what the morale system is meant to represent.

OK, if it's not wrong, maybe you could explain it to me. Why should I decide when my opponent takes a morale check ? What does that decision simulate, and how does it relate to reality ? And why is my armies' morale reduced when I want the opposing army to take a morale check ?

Sure, Mark. I actually wrote a blog article about just this topic. It was aimed more at pure Piquet, but it applies to Hostile Realms also.

link

That blog post gives a good explanation of how the morale system works but it doesn't answer the questions I posed above – what does the decision to require my opponent to take a morale rest represent, how does it relate to reality, and why does it reduce my own armies' morale level ?

And yes, there are different movement rates depending on the formation the unit is in. Another thing that other similar scale games (and I'm talking about large scale ancient and medieval games, not just fantasy) seem to do fine without.

Okay, but I think that most wargames have different movement rates depending on the formation of the moving unit. Your problem with 4 range bands instead of 2 also seems to simply be a personal preference.

The rules were never designed as a tournament/competition rule set. The points system is a system that allows some point differential between units and armies.

As far as the Goblin army goes, they do have some advantages. A closer look at the list provides some insight.

Pros: Goblins in Battle Order can melee without a Melee card. They also have units that can form Pike Blocks and Shieldwall. Their leaders never rout and the competition in their culture produces more individually talented leaders. The army also has discounted (25%) access to creatures like giants, trolls, etc.

Cons: Bad sequence deck cards reflecting their bad command and control. The army tends to be impetuous, especially against Elves and Dwarves.

Mark, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion about the rules. My only hope is that since you did buy them, you would take the time to play them. You might be surprised at what you find there. Some of the best aspects of the game system aren't immediately apparent during a reading of the rules.

Dave

That blog post gives a good explanation of how the morale system works but it doesn't answer the questions I posed above – what does the decision to require my opponent to take a morale rest represent, how does it relate to reality, and why does it reduce my own armies' morale level ?

Most rules have certain situations where a unit has to check morale: seeing a nearby unit rout, losing a certain number of casualties, etc. Piquet (and Hostile Realms) puts the decision of when the enemy checks morale into your hands. Because it costs a morale chip, players are less likely to force morale challenges unless that have a good chance of successfully causing a morale failure.

So if you shoot at a unit and cause no stand loss, you COULD force a morale check, but you probably wouldn't because your challenge die would be so low. You would probably save your challenge for a moment when you caused several wounds on an enemy unit and could use a larger challenge die. The morale challenge system gives you some control over when checks are conducted, but builds economic efficiency into the system because there is an associated cost.

Morale challenges are a game mechanism, but the end result is they reduce the number of morale checks down to those morale moments in the battle that really matter.

And when your army is on the ropes and has no more morale chips left, you can no longer force morale challenges. It's as if the enemy can sense the morale swinging to their advantage and their units are less likely to be routed or shaken by setbacks on the battlefield.

The point of the Morale Challenge system is, rather than have a great many morale/reaction checks over the course of the game, most of which just take time and are easily passed, the player is forced to decide, at a cost, exactly when they want to have their opponent check. Usually, this is when their probability of failing is high (just took heavy losses from Magic or missile fire), but sometimes it's because your army is in a bind, and even the small chance of the challenged unit failing is worth the cost. The Courage! card mechanism also introduces some non player triggered checks in the presence of Fearsome units, but the timing of those is determined by the play of the cards and the situation on the table. What does it "simulate"? The flip answer is "Morale". The mechanism itself is simply, IMHO of course, a very elegant, clever way to do so (and it wasn't my idea, but rather that of Bob Jones himself in the original Piquet rules). Indeed, using the challenges wisely can have a significant impact upon the outcome – too few and you don't "press the enemy"; too many or too recklessly used, and you drain the "Morale Reserve" of your army. Like any other new mechanism, you sort of have to try it in practice to get a feel for how it works.

To address the movement stuff, there were reasons for choosing the numbers as they are, but seriously, if you don't like them, change them to suit your preference… It would take only a few minutes to change them to accommodate your own particular viewpoint. Ditto for formation modifiers. It will change the game a bit, but it's unlikely it will seriously unbalance it.

The rules do include an introductory scenario, with both armies pretty much set up for you, along with a detailed walk through of how the game plays out. I felt that was important, particularly for players new to a Piquet/FoB style game, just because it *is* so different from most conventional rules. It also makes it pretty easy to set up that first game on the table and have at it and explore the system first hand. If you like the approach and it pushes all the right buttons for you, fantastic. If you like some things and want to tweak some others, I won't object for a minute. If you borrow some ideas and apply them to your favorite rules set, hey, that's great too. And if they just aren't you're thing, fine also; I own dozens of rules sets in multiple genres/periods, and very seldom has one of them not given me some inspiration and food for thought, even if I ultimately decided not to actually play them, or played them and decided they weren't going to be my main set. Regardless, it's a game, and a hobby, and both should be fun above and beyond all else!

Okay, but I think that most wargames have different movement rates depending on the formation of the moving unit.

Most Napoleonic and 18th Century rulesets maybe. I'm not aware of any ancient, medieval or fantasy sets that do.

Your problem with 4 range bands instead of 2 also seems to simply be a personal preference.

Of course it's a personal preference. A review writtten by me is my personal opinion. And in my opinion, one or two range bands is enough to represent the effect of missile weapons in large battle games. And they can be committed to memory fairly easily.
Do you know every range band for the 20 different missile types in Hostile Realms ?

Most rules have certain situations where a unit has to check morale: seeing a nearby unit rout, losing a certain number of casualties, etc. Piquet (and Hostile Realms) puts the decision of when the enemy checks morale into your hands. Because it costs a morale chip, players are less likely to force morale challenges unless that have a good chance of successfully causing a morale failure.

So if you shoot at a unit and cause no stand loss, you COULD force a morale check, but you probably wouldn't because your challenge die would be so low. You would probably save your challenge for a moment when you caused several wounds on an enemy unit and could use a larger challenge die. The morale challenge system gives you some control over when checks are conducted, but builds economic efficiency into the system because there is an associated cost.

And how do you think that reflects the decisions a general would make on the battlefield ?

(disclaimer: first time post)

I do not play Hostile Realms nor Fantasy rules in general but I have played "classic" piquet for a number of years. RE: the morale system reflecting decisions on the battlefield. I think that the morale system is a very clever way to model a general's "maximum effort" for lack of a better term. By making morale a mechanism of prioritizing the decisive area of the battle I think it models battlefield friction very well. All wargames use mechanisms that simulate battle…real battle and real leadership have nothing to do with wargaming. If it doesn't feel right to you that is understandable but it is an elegant and challenging system that has produced many great wargaming nights for me. That said, people either LOVE or HATE Piquet you never get a meh…I think that is a good thing.

Andy

"How do you think that reflects the decision a general would make on the battlefield?"

It doesn't. It's a GAME, Mark… and, without being snobby (I did start this hobby in Napoleonics, after all, LOL), a FANTASY game at that. It is a fun, efficient, and thought provoking mechanic… although in a fantasy setting, in semi-seriousness, it could represent the hurling of insults, personal challenges to combat , etc, if you wished to conceptualize it thus.

How does your wizard deciding what spell to throw and when reflect a decision the General would make on the battlefield? It doesn't. See the above. Same for many other game mechanics in HR and most other wargames rules.

If I might paraphrase the late Brigadier Peter Young, writing in "Charge!, or how to Play Wargames"… "It is the need for each detail to be internally consistent that is the bette-noir of the professional simulation designer. Rather, our criteria were different – does the end result lokk and feel like a [Fantasy] battlefield? Are proper tactics rewarded and unwise ones punished?". To that, I would add, above all, is it FUN to play?!

Thanks again for making the effort to read HR and write about it at length, Mark. It seems pretty clear that it isn't the set for you; no problem. Not surprisingly, several years after I finished the final draft, there are a few things even I would change about it, which I'll probably post to my blog fairly soon.

Good gaming,

Peter

Peter – thanks for your comments. I appreciate the fact that you've made very fair and reasoned responses without becoming overly defensive.

Hi Mark. I'm impressed. You certainly put a lot of effort into the review and the various posts. Peter did his usual good showing and it was great to see so many pro-PK posts. Yep. I'm another pro-PKer. I'm the 1 who did much of the magic system. I like it and I don't mind if you don't. It's padded a lot with examples; has a starting page that just says don't use it if you want it; and has 2 pages of what happens if a spell goes wrong. Take those away and the guts of it are about 4 pages. It does follow the up and down PK combat model and semi-RPG feel of HR. if you don't like that model or feel, you won't like the magic.
I like the PK morale system. The major morale check more or less equates to the "let's check morale because everything is going down the drain" system. The challenge system provides for the "being charged by scary troops" and other such morale checks. I don't mind players choosing when to challenge – it does away with lots of useless checks. Anyway, it was interesting to read your review and the posts. If you've bought them, try a game. Use your own lists. Customise the card deck. Hope you have fun.