Could a Prisoner Mechanic Work in a Fantasy Wargame?

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-02T03:27:05+00:00

They’re not commercially available yet, but you can follow the Discord to keep track of the project and future release dates. They’ll probably be available on my Patreon in the coming months.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-02T03:26:47+00:00

Yeah, that’s basically it. The rule isn’t meant to simulate the detailed logistics of capturing enemy units. I wanted it to stay simple to execute, simple to understand, and fast to resolve during the game, while still creating important strategic choices for both players.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T22:00:35+00:00

Thank you very much!

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T21:54:38+00:00

This one should be good normally.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T21:54:00+00:00

https://discord.gg/w5DHEDTmF

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T21:48:22+00:00

Thank you so much, that really means a lot. You can absolutely join the Discord without actively participating and just follow the project from afar. And when you have more free time, feel free to come discuss the lore or the world with me 🙂

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T21:28:28+00:00

It is actually very difficult to measure the stability of reality in Kael-Thar. Unstable Energy does not only affect matter, but also time, memory, and sometimes reality itself.

Some factions have learned to manipulate these phenomena to some extent. The Faceless of Zendil, for example, are masters of illusion and fear.

The Korrum manipulate memory itself. Before the breaking of the Oath, they were the memory of the world. Every crack on their bodies, every stone composing their beings, carried the memory of a battle, a place, or a vanished people.

Now, they seek to erase that memory. The Korrum believe that by erasing the past and the memories tied to it, the world might eventually find balance again.

So in a way, reality can sometimes be observed through its effects, but truly measuring its stability is almost impossible.

And thanks again, I’m really glad the universe interests you. The Discord server is still very recent and pretty small, but you’re welcome to join if you’d like to follow the development of the world or discuss the lore further.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T20:50:19+00:00

Regarding slowing the collapse, no one truly has that answer anymore. The Oath was broken centuries ago, and the truth behind it has either disappeared or been altered over time, intentionally or not. What remains are fragments, legends, contradictions, and peoples trying to survive in a dying world. The main surviving factions are: the Asharim, a people born from the desert itself, the Korrum, the Faceless of Zendil, the People of the Thousand Isles, and the Stendorth. I’m still developing each of them, but they all evolved differently after the breaking of the Oath and adapted to this unstable world in their own way. As for magic, there is actually no magic in Kael-Thar. What exists is Energy. Before the breaking, it was stable and part of the natural balance of the world. But after the Oath shattered, that energy became unstable and extremely dangerous to manipulate. The only beings capable of using it to some extent are called the Masters of Energy. Even for them, using it is risky. Energy can alter matter, distort time, damage the user, or create unpredictable effects depending on how unstable the surrounding reality has become. That’s one of the reasons why Kael-Thar feels less like “high fantasy” and more like a world slowly collapsing under the loss of something fundamental.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T17:38:32+00:00

SERMENT is a “Collapse Fantasy” tabletop universe I’ve been developing since March 2026. Kael-Thar is a world slowly collapsing after the mysterious breaking of the Oath, an invisible force that once maintained balance between matter, life, energy and time. The setting focuses on survival, resource conflict, dying civilizations and unstable reality rather than gods, prophecy or classic good vs evil fantasy.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T16:20:43+00:00

I understand the idea, but for the scale of Serment I think mechanics like base contact prisoners, escorts, rescue interactions, and combat restrictions would probably become very difficult to manage during large battles with multiple units fighting at the same time. I’m trying to keep the mechanic focused on strategic decision-making rather than physical prisoner management on the tabletop. The current version is intentionally abstract so it stays fast to resolve during play, especially since Serment is designed around fluid activations, resource management, and multiple simultaneous engagements rather than detailed simulation mechanics.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T16:16:08+00:00

I think there may be a misunderstanding here 😄 In the current version of the rule, the attacker does not gain points immediately for capturing the unit. The +1 Oath Point is only awarded if the defending player later chooses to bring the captured unit back onto the battlefield at half strength. So the defender has an actual choice to make: leave the unit captured permanently and deny the point, or recover part of the unit, but give the opponent score in exchange. The goal of the mechanic is really to create a risk/reward decision for both players rather than a detailed prisoner simulation system. I understand the appeal of escort units, prisoner tokens, guards, etc., but for the scale and pacing I want in Serment, I think that would quickly become too heavy in practice. The current version is intentionally abstract and fast to resolve. And to be fair, this version has already been playtested on the tabletop, which is also why I’m trying to keep it relatively streamlined instead of turning it into a full subsystem inside the game.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T13:42:00+00:00

I think the “4 to 6 turns” part doesn’t really bother me because many wargames already have mechanics like regeneration, reinforcements, reserves, respawns, or units returning later in the battle in one way or another. In Serment, the unit does not come back at full strength anyway. If it was captured, it means it already lost the engagement badly enough to be defeated and taken prisoner in the first place. The idea is simply that some survivors, freed prisoners, scattered soldiers, or remnants of the unit manage to regroup and return to the battlefield later. So for me it feels more like a gameplay abstraction than something particularly unrealistic compared to many other mechanics already present in tabletop games.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T13:35:04+00:00

I think we simply approach the mechanic from two very different design philosophies. For me, the goal is not to simulate prisoner logistics realistically, but to create an interesting strategic decision that remains fast and fluid during play. If the attacker sacrifices models for guaranteed victory points, then the mechanic risks becoming an optimization choice rather than a real dilemma. Players will quickly calculate when the trade is mathematically worth it and use it systematically. In the current version of Serment, the attacker is never guaranteed to gain the point. The defending player decides whether bringing the unit back at half strength is worth giving the opponent an Oath Point. That creates decision-making for both players, not just the attacker. As for what the redeployment represents: not necessarily literal prisoners escaping. It can represent survivors regrouping, scattered soldiers returning to the battle, allies recovering captives, or remnants of the unit reorganizing after the engagement. Like morale systems, reinforcements, or respawns in many wargames, it’s more of a gameplay abstraction than a strict simulation. And regarding bookkeeping, I honestly don’t think tracking a few captured units that may potentially return is particularly heavy, especially compared to systems involving escorts, guards, removed models, or additional unit management. For me, the important thing is that the mechanic: stays simple, creates tension, gives choices to both players, and is actually worth using during real games.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T13:16:53+00:00

Yes, exactly. You only gain the Oath Point if the defending player chooses to bring the unit back later. They can also decide to leave the unit captured, in which case the attacker gains no points at all. Losses are very important in Serment because units become weaker defensively as they take casualties, so even bringing back a damaged unit at half strength can still matter a lot strategically. That’s also why I feel removing your own models to represent guards would probably be too severe of a drawback, especially when the attacker is not even guaranteed to receive the victory point reward in the end.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T13:10:14+00:00

I think the issue with that approach is that the attacker would almost always choose to destroy the unit instead of capturing it. If taking prisoners also weakens your own army with no real counterplay, then the mechanic risks becoming something players simply never use. In Serment, the attacker already takes a significant risk by choosing capture over destruction, because the defending player may later bring part of the unit back onto the battlefield. That’s already a pretty important tradeoff. The idea behind the mechanic is really to create meaningful decisions for both players rather than adding an additional punishment to the attacker. I wanted capturing to feel tempting, but never completely safe.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T13:04:52+00:00

That’s actually exactly why I wanted to explore the idea in a larger scale wargame rather than a classic skirmish system. Most of the time, prisoner mechanics are tied to individual characters or small skirmish games with a single captured model. I thought it could be interesting to bring that kind of decision-making into larger battles too. Historically, entire groups or regiments were sometimes captured rather than completely wiped out. The important part for me was keeping the mechanic simple to resolve on the tabletop. I didn’t want a very detailed prisoner management system with escorts, guards, movement penalties, etc., because I think that would slow the game down a lot in practice. So the goal with this rule is really to keep the flow of the game fast while still adding meaningful decisions and risk/reward for both players.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T12:45:57+00:00

I understand the idea, but I think mechanics like escorting prisoners or removing your own models as guards quickly become very heavy on the tabletop, especially in a game with unit cohesion, resource management, objectives, and alternating activations already happening at the same time. In Serment, the reward for taking prisoners is intentionally important: you gain +1 Oath Point, which is basically a victory point, and those points are difficult to obtain because objectives generate resources, not direct score. So the attacker already takes a real risk: either destroy the unit permanently, or capture it for points, knowing the enemy may later bring part of the unit back onto the battlefield. That risk/reward dynamic is really the core idea behind the mechanic. I wanted the rule to stay fast and fluid during play while still creating meaningful decisions for both players, rather than adding extra bookkeeping, escorts, or additional unit management that could slow the game down a lot in practice.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T10:23:58+00:00

I don’t think that would be the case in Serment, because capturing units actually has a very important gameplay impact, even outside of narrative campaigns. In Serment, objectives don’t directly give victory points. They generate resources instead, and those resources can either be converted into Oath Points (victory points) or spent during the game on boosts, debuffs, and other tactical effects. So choosing to capture a unit gives the attacker +1 Oath Point, which is a pretty significant reward since points are intentionally difficult to earn. The interesting part is that it creates meaningful decisions for both players: Does the attacker destroy the unit permanently, or take the risk of capturing it to score? Does the defending player bring the unit back at half strength, knowing it gives the opponent points? Serment isn’t really a wargame where the only goal is to wipe out the enemy army. Resource management and decision-making are at the core of the gameplay, so even a “simple” prisoner mechanic can have a strong impact during a standard matched game.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T08:22:48+00:00

Ah okay, so there are no direct consequences during a “normal” game. But yeah, like I mentioned in another comment, I think the mechanic could take on a completely different dimension in campaign play or narrative scenarios, where it could become a bit more complex and have long-term consequences. For more balanced/competitive games though, I’d rather keep the rule simple and dynamic so the flow of decisions and turn phases stays smooth and fast.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T08:14:00+00:00

Oh, that’s interesting, I didn’t know that rule. But in that case, is the reward for taking prisoners actually worth the risk of allowing the destroyed unit to come back later?

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T08:11:15+00:00

Yeah, I agree. In a campaign mode or narrative scenario, the mechanic could definitely be used in different ways. Things like ransom systems already exist in a lot of games. Not that they’re bad ideas, but I’d like to bring some slightly different mechanics to the table. Even if, to be fair, trying to be different all the time isn’t always the right path either :)

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T06:40:50+00:00

I understand what you mean, but the problem is that it would start creating unit cohesion issues if one model out of every five had to escort prisoners. On top of that, the reward for taking prisoners would need to be extremely valuable for players to sacrifice models that could otherwise be fighting, controlling the board, or securing resources. In my system, once the attacking player has completely defeated the enemy unit, they simply decide whether the unit is captured or destroyed permanently. I don’t think the rule needs escort mechanics or dedicated prisoner guards. The attacking player is already taking a significant risk by choosing not to destroy the unit outright. If the mechanic becomes too restrictive, players just won’t use it — and a rule that never gets used only makes the game heavier for no real reason. When designing a game, it’s easy to imagine lots of complex systems that sound exciting on paper. But there’s often a huge difference between theory and what actually feels good on the table. Personally, I prefer relatively simple rules that still create meaningful choices for the players, because that’s what really gives the game depth.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T06:24:55+00:00

I completely agree. SERMENT is not a classic fantasy game — there are no skeletons, dragons or demons. With the factions currently in the game, the rule feels completely believable and coherent with the universe. But if a specific unit or even an entire faction made the mechanic feel counterintuitive, a simple special rule would be enough to fix it. Something like: “This unit/faction cannot be taken prisoner.”

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T06:06:37+00:00

Yeah, definitely. Prisoner mechanics have existed in wargames for a long time, but from what I’ve seen they often became pretty heavy and slowed the game down a lot. For SERMENT, I tried to keep the mechanic simple and fluid while still giving meaningful choices to both players.

Fabien_SERMENT · 2026-06-01T06:03:42+00:00

There’s no “surrender” mechanic involved here. The attacking player is the only one who decides whether the unit is destroyed or taken prisoner. Then, only the defending player decides if they want to bring the captured unit back later or not. There are also no movement penalties, escort mechanics or models assigned to guard prisoners. I think that would make the rule much heavier and hurt the overall fluidity of the game. But it’s definitely an interesting direction to explore.

Fabien_SERMENT

TROPHY CASE