Quantcast
Channel: Dale's Wargames
Viewing all 135 articles
Browse latest View live

BattleLore on Vassal

$
0
0
New Reader Welcome

Welcome to new reader David. I hope you enjoy the blog. I welcome and appreciate comments.

BattleLore on Vassal

Despite the number of games that I document here, I tend not to post every battle report. I simply would not have time to do all of that, and to be honest, not all of the games are that interesting. I try to limit it to those that show a point or highlight new rules, especially ones that I am reviewing or developing.

All that said, I still find BattleLore to be one of my favorite games. That is unfortunate, as I have not been able to entice too many people locally to try it, so I end up playing all of my games on Vassal. (In fact, the only time I pull out the board and figures these days is for solo gaming, and that is probably for only half of the solo games of BattleLore that I play.) If I remember correctly, the primary complaint from my main gaming buddy is that there are too many things to track in BattleLore, compared to Memoir '44, Battle Cry!, or Command and Colors: Napoleonics. That is true. Not only are there the Command Cards, but there are Lore Cards and Lore tokens. Added to that there are weapons modifiers to the unit types, which none of the others really have. BattleLore is unique in that regard.

I was reading a thread on BoardGameGeek where one BattleLore player was discussing how he doesn't play with Lore (magic, for those that are not BattleLore players) anymore because it increased the setup time and slowed down the play, turning a 45 minute game into a multi-hour one. I thought that statement was interesting, and probably correct, but this touched upon a discussion that my BattleLore gaming buddy and I had at the end of our last game, which is that sometimes the use of Lore allows a player who is behind to come back and win. Removing Lore, to us, lowers the chance of being able to coming back from bad luck or play. (If it is me it is bad luck; if it is my opponent it is bad play. You know how that goes!)

A recent game of Goblin Chevauchée illustrates that. At the end of my opponent's sixth turn, his Mounted Charge and Fireball left him winning at 3-1, with fewer weakened units than me and in a position to continue to threaten those units until he eliminated them.


Fortunately for me, I was able to play the Forest Frenzy Lore card (which allowed me a free attack against all enemy units in or adjacent to Forest hexes). The Forest Frenzy eliminated one unit and weakened two, allowing Lizard-riding Hobgoblins to run amok and ride both weakened units down. All of the sudden the game was 4-3 in my favor. My opponent's personal morale was shattered and the last of his cavalry was trapped fighting desperately for their lives.


Although he did shoot down my lizard riders (who were definitely Most Valuable Unit for the game), my opponent has lost most of his offensive punch and all of his fight. I administered a coup de grâce with a BattleLore Command card and a Mists of Terror Lore card (which changes his stout Dwarven morale to that of a sniveling Goblin, like what most of my troops have…), giving me four dice each with a 50% of inflicting a hit, and needing only one hit. You can see the roll below (ouch!).


Although my opponent lost, he thought the game was very exciting (if a little demoralizing, as his dice went cold at the end there), and that he still had a chance to pull out a win. And let's face it, 6-4 is a close, bloody game.

I don't fault the gentleman on BoardGameGeek for wanting to play more games of BattleLore with his wife. If removing Lore is the way to do that, however, I agree with another poster and would rather play half as many games where I could find the time to cover the longer setup and game times.

One final note: if you have tried Vassal in the past and thought it too clunky or limited, you should look at it again. It is free and it has hundreds of board, card, dice, and miniatures game modules for you to play, for free. (For those of you surprised by "miniatures" play on Vassal, there are usually 20+ people playing Warmachine/Hordes every evening, along with another 20+ playing Warhammer 40K, and 10+ playing Advanced Squad Leader. Email me if you want to try BattleLore!

The Real Sagas

$
0
0
For those playing Saga, you might be interested in reading real sagas, in order to get inspiration, ideas for scenarios or campaigns, or just because you are curious about how they read. I did a search on Amazon for sagas available on the Kindle, for free.

Told by the Northmen: Stories from the Eddas and Sagas: This is probably something more along the lines you were thinking of. Half of the stories are myth and half of them about the heroic actions of men. The second story (of about 20) is about Thor dressing up as a woman and wandering amongst men. Here is a list of the stories:
  • How All Things Began 
  • How All-Father Odin Became Wise 
  • How the Queen of the Sky Gave Gifts to Man 
  • How a Giant Built a Fortress for the Asas 
  • The Magic Mead 
  • How Loki Made a Wager with the Dwarfs 
  • The Apples of Youth 
  • How the Fenris Wolf was Chained 
  • How the Pride of Thor was Brought Low 
  • How Thor's Hammer was Lost and Found 
  • The Giant's Daughters 
  • The Story of Balder the Beautiful 
  • How Hermon Made a Journey to the Underworld 
  • How Loki was Punished at Last 
  • The Story of the Magic Sword 
  • How Sigmund Fought His Last Battle 
  • The Story of the Magic Gold 
  • How Sigurd Slew the Dragon 
  • How Sigurd Won the Hand of Brunhild 
  • How the Curse of the Gold is Fulfilled 
  • The Boyhood of Frithiof the Bold 
  • Frithiof and Ingeborg 
  • Frithiof Braves the Storm 
  • Balder Forgives 
  • How the End of All Things Came About
Beowulf: An Anglo-Saxon Epic Poem: Note only is this a translation of a classic epic, it includes discussion, historical information, has a glossary, and a summary of the tale.


The Sagas of Olaf Tryggvason and of Harald The Tyrant (Harald Haardraade): classic Viking saga about famous Vikings. This looks like the first one I will tackle.

The Saga Hoard Volume 1: This is a collection of Icelandic sagas. From the publisher: "The Icelandic Sagas are histories written in prose, describing life and events that took place during the Icelandic Commonweath period, around the 10th and 11th centuries. They are stories of families, adventures, feuding, deal-making, political maneuvers, wars, treasure amassed, great journeys, geneology, tribute given, kings, freemen, history, and myth. They are stories of the Norse and Celtic settlers and their descendants in Iceland during what is sometimes called the Saga Age."



The Story of Burnt Njal from the Icelandic of the Njals Saga: This Icelandic saga may be a little harder to get through, according to reviewers on Amazon. Probably one I will leave for later.

A lot of reading to do! I probably won't get through it all, to be honest, so if anyone reads through any of these, let me know if you found any gaming inspiration.

News from the rear

$
0
0
New Reader Welcome

Welcome to new readers Cesar Alfredo Paz and Natholeon. I hope you enjoy the blog. I welcome and appreciate comments.

Gaming News

I haven't written much on any of my blogs of late because I haven't been miniatures gaming in a while, although I have been gaming a lot. We just started a BattleLoretournament over Vassal and although I have only 1½ games done, there has been a renewed interest in BattleLore, so I have been getting a lot of practice games in. So much interest, in fact, that I played a game last Saturday, and one each night Monday through Thursday. (I am taking a well-deserved rest tonight.)

The games have been exciting, even those where I was teaching a new player both the BattleLore rules and how to use Vassal. (He picked up very quickly.) A recent play of the Neville's Cross scenario almost ended in a complete reversal of fortunes, as I alluded to in a past post. In this game my dice were extremely cold, resulting in only one hit the first half of the game. We were heading towards the end, with my opponent leading 4-1 (it is a 5 Victory Banner scenario), and I was desperately trying to find a Center card so my Knights could charge when I drew the necessary cards and my Knights quickly overran three units, bringing the score to 4-3. I drew a Mounted Charge and attacked with my two cavalry units. The Knights quickly overran their target, bringing the score to 4-4, but the other cavalry unit, with four dice and 33% chance to score a hit on each die could not get a single hit. Had I gotten that hit I would have won, coming behind from a 1-4 game. As it was, my opponent targeted a weak, stranded unit and picked it off the next turn, ending the game 5-4. It was a real nail biter, for sure.

What was disappointing about the game was that I had played it as a practice, as the scenario is one we all play in the third round of the tournament. Because my dice were so cold, and my cards so badly in the wrong section, I was always on my back foot and never able to put forward my own plan. So in the end I had no more of a clue about how to play the scenario than before. Sometimes games with such wildly bad then good luck skew your thinking about how you should play the scenario, when actually using those moves as a strategy is, well, a losing proposition. So, I played it solo (okay, so I did not take a break from BattleLore tonight…) and I think I have a lot better idea of what to do when it is time to play the real thing.

Basing

I have been painting up miniatures a bit lately, mostly my woodensoldiers, and as I was casting about for a certain color of paint the veil raised from my eyes and I noticed that all of the clutter was a number of un-based troops crowding my painting area. I had done a basing spree in order to get my Aztecs up and running for Saga, but I had more to do … a lot more. I think it was triggered by the arrival of painted 6mm Spanish troops from Thailand (DJD Miniatures painted them and they look gorgeous; pictures later). That and my wife complaining that I had too much stuff scattered about the house and not enough down in my gaming room (a guest house, really).

I started by hot gluing light metal sheets to the bottom of Sterilite storage boxes (I use the small and large clip boxes for 15mm and 28mm troops, and the deeper medium clip boxes for my 40mm wooden soldiers and tall troops in other scales). I then use business cards magnets on the bottoms of all my bases so the figures stay in place. I actually started going crazy with all of this and started magnetizing the bases of my BattleLore and Battles of Westeros figures so I could arrange and organize them, should I ever play a face-to-face game with those rules.

I did so much basing, in fact, that I ran out of bases and had to place an order with Litko for more. These days I pretty much stick to 40mm wide basing schemes for multi-figure basing and ½" wide bases for 15mm, 1" wide bases for 28mm and 40mm infantry, and 1½" wide bases for 40mm cavalry when basing singly. Speaking of which, I am getting to the point where, if it is not 6mm, I am strongly considering basing the figures singly. If I want to do a skirmish game I am all set with singly based figures, and for mass battle games, I can use metal movement trays (as my figures have magnets on the bottom). In fact, I found some interesting flanged steel movement trays from Shogun the other day. I may have to buy some and try them out. Of course, if I go this way, I will suddenly have a huge re-basing effort with my 15mm American Revolutionary troops, as most are based multiply on 40mm wide bases. (I will probably keep my DBA troops mounted as they are though, but who knows.)

Battle Reports

I hope to write up more soon, but I am not sure if anyone would care about me writing up a BattleLore battle report. I did one for the second round of the tournament, if anyone is interested. You can see my incredible luck!

Tlaxcalan Battle Board for Saga

$
0
0
Reader Scott Mac has posted a few comments about my doing a Meso-American version of Saga. On a The Miniatures Page thread on using Saga in other periods another reader has been emailing me about my ideas for Meso-American gaming. All of this – and the fact that it snowed today here in sunny Arizona, USA – prompted me to finish one of the battle boards.

I am still stuck on what abilities to give the Aztecs, but I like the ideas from both readers about giving the Aztecs a "Capture" Saga ability. I am thinking that after the melee the opponent takes additional fatigue if they lost at least one figure in the melee, representing the stress of having a fellow unit member captured by the Aztecs. An interesting twist might be to play out the imprisonment, allowing the other side to rescue the victim. That may be too involved for general rules, however, and might be better for a "Flower Wars" scenario.

Tlaxcalan Battle Board
Here is the Tlaxcalan battle board I have come up with so far. Needless to say, they are heavily focused on bows!

Most of the abilities are duplicates of other factions, with no real modification to the ability or dice required. There are a few exceptions, however.

The Attack Pool was initially for Shooting only, but I later thought that they might be too crippled in melee, so added the ability to play it in Melee.

The Harassing Fire ability is modeled after the Welsh Holy Ground, except that you can slow enemy unit movement only if they could be fired upon. This represents using ranged weapons as a movement inhibitor, something I think is a clever idea. However, as I added a limitation I lowered the dice requirement from Uncommon to Common, which may end up being too powerful. (That is why this is a "draft"!)

The Show of Strength ability is stronger than the original of the same name. In the original you have to win a Challenge in order to trigger the ability. As this "just works" I decided to up the dice requirement from Uncommon to Rare.

The question becomes, are the abilities in total too powerful? Although they are almost all exactly the same as existing abilities, their combination is what can make something "broken". Another question might be is there too much focus on shooting? If the enemy gets within range to charge, are they too vulnerable?

The faction abilities are:

The Warlord is equipped with an atlatl and darts (acts as a Javelin-armed Warlord).

The Hearthguard are the Zoomorphic Suit wearers (crocodiles, jaguars, coyotes, etc.) and are armed with melee weapons and shields.

The Warriors are either armed with bows (Armour value of 3 instead of 4 against shooting only1) or melee weapons and shield.

The Levy are either armed with slings or bows.

I hope to get a four-point test game in today and answer some of those concerns. I will still be playing my Aztecs as Anglo-Danish, so I have access to two-handed weapons, but those Norse-Gaels are starting to look mighty interesting! Challenges seem like they might fit right in with Meso-American warfare. I may have to switch.

If you are a Saga buff and you have an opinion on the strengths or weaknesses of this battle board, feel free to comment. I also welcome comments from Meso-American buffs who have an idea on what should be modeled.

Speaking of the model, I consider using the Saga rules for this type of warfare not so such as representing skirmishes, but to represent a small slice of a large battle. This warfare was very much a battle line like the Dark Ages, where groups would surge forward and fight for 15 minutes or so before they would fall back and be replaced while they rested. A game of this represents one of those surges.

1 I realize that the Franks set a precedent that bow-armed Warriors have an Armour value of 3 against both shooting and melee, however they are shieldless troops. It also seems, to me, that it is unbalanced against the crossbow, which also has a reduced Armour value, but in turn reduces your opponent's Armour value. So it seems that bow-armed troops are penalized more than slingers or crossbows. As my troops have slung shields while they are firing (think something similar to Cretan archers, as shown to the right), I give them the Armour penalty against shooting only.

Added a Forum to the Blog

$
0
0
At the suggestion of Bowman, who has been emailing me about my Meso-American Saga variant (and coming up with great ideas and discussion), I have created a forum to discuss topics on the blog. Although I have long encouraged comments from readers, I have noted that sometimes people ask questions and their profile does not have an email address associated with it (for example, Jonathan Freitag, who posted a comment about my AWI adaptation to Neil Thomas' rules1), so I cannot really answer them directly, except through a blog post. But also, to a lesser extent, a blog is a medium for directing a message, whereas a forum can go in any direction (including towards spam, flame wars, etc.).

So, in the interest of enhancing a conversation about "A Meso-American Saga", and other variants of Saga that interest me (i.e. I already have figures for), I have created a Saga Variants forum on Nabble. (I am pretty sure you will need to create a Nabble account to post, but maybe it accepts other profiles like Yahoo and Google.) To make it easier to get to this forum, I have included a link to the Blogs and Forums Pages at the bottom of this blog, below the Blog Archive. Click on the Saga Variants Forum link and it will take you to the Nabble forum, embedded within the blog.

So, you can use the link at the bottom for a basic experience, or go to the Nabble forum directly and get a full-featured interface. In the meantime I will be transferring some of the comments and email exchanges to the forum so everyone else can see the conversation and join in, if they wish. If you do not want to create yet another account to keep track of, you can always read the discussion through either link without logging in and then comment on the blog. (I won't guarantee that I will transfer the comment to the forum, however.)

So, I hope you enjoy the forum. Right now it is an experiment to see its utility over a Yahoo forum. If it works out I may create a forum for the AWI and a general discussion about the blog. As I am considering focusing more on game and rules reviews, with battle reports to illustrate the points in the review, a forum to discuss future topics might be warranted.

As always, comments appreciated.


1 In answer to your question Jonathan, I have not played AWI much lately as I have been caught up in Saga. Whole unit removal is easy: use hit markers as you do with the base rules. For every four hits use one less base in firing and melee. On the 16th hit, remove the unit. This allows you to continue to use four bases per unit, if you want to show formations, or use one base per unit and use formation markers or just assume the best formation for the moment.

Updated Tlaxcaltec Battle Board for Saga

$
0
0
I have updated the Tlaxcaltec battle board (no longer Tlaxcalan – I have been convinced of the error of my ways) for Saga with a lot of input from Ralph "Bowman Stringer". We are working on an Aztec board. You can always see (and participate in) the discussion on the new forum.

The primary changes are:

  • The Heavy Arrows ability was removed as being ahistorical.
  • The Take Prisoner ability replaced Heavy Arrows. This increases the melee-to-missile abilities ratio slightly.
  • The Massed Volley fire has been re-worked and no longer looks anything like the Norman ability of the same name.
Take Prisoner

This is a cool new ability that most Meso-American peoples will have on their battle boards. Taking enemy warriors prisoner not only gave the priests more fodder for sacrifices and appeasing the gods, but conferred rank and privilege upon the warrior who made the capture.

If you play this ability and an enemy figure is removed during the course of a melee, it is considered captured and taken prisoner, as opposed to being killed. The figure is still removed1, but the player gains Prisoner points for the capture. The number of points awarded  depends upon the figure removed. Levy garner 1 point, Warriors 2 points, Elite Warriors 4 points, and Warlords 8 points.

This allows you to create a new set of scenario victory conditions centered around taking prisoners. You could, for example, play until one side reaches at least 20 Prisoner points.

Massed Volley

Ralph didn't like the "2 x L" range for bows, as per the Norman ability. The idea is that the unit lays down a barrage of arrows and thus is more likely to damage the enemy. In order to accomplish this, however, the unit cannot move either before or after the volley.

Due to the space limitations on the board, it is probably necessary to have some clarifying rules. By "no movement" it is intended that the player not have activated the unit for a Movement action prior to playing this ability and not activating for Movement after the ability. If the enemy plays an ability that forces a unit to move, that would not necessarily count.

That is how I am going to play it on this draft. I think the easiest route to take is that the unit cannot take any action other than Resting that turn when using this ability. This gets away from exceptions on moving, future abilities that move a unit without using Movement actions, etc. and also does not allow a unit a Shooting action either before or after the ability. As the intent is for the unit's entire turn to be taken up with delivering a barrage of arrows, represented as a single Shooting action at a single target, something cleaner like that might be better. But, I need to test it as it is first. The whole doubling of Attack dice might be too powerful as it is. Especially when combined with Aimed Volley (which allows you to re-roll missed Attack dice).

I think this faction is starting to look pretty characterful. It already means a change to my FSM program for playing the Tlaxcaltecs solo!

In Other News

The Russian expansion for Command and Colors: Napoleonics arrived yesterday. As always the GMT Games components look great. I have not looked over the rules yet, but I started adding stickers to the wooden blocks when I needed something mindless to do. If the Command and Colors: Napoleonics on Vassal tournament for North America ever gets off of the ground, I will start playing those rules again. I just need to keep the differences between those rules and those of BattleLore straight.

Speaking of BattleLore, I finished my third game in the six round BattleLore on Vassal tournament. I currently sit at 12 VP, or 4 VP per game, so unless I come back with three straight wins, it looks like I will not make the semi-finals. [cue The Gong Show music]

My BattleLore on Vassal gaming buddy and I played a game last night that was an absolute blast, however. It is the round six scenario and it was to be practice for both of us. In all honesty, I played that scenario solo three times before, and each time I got a worse result. My opening moves were just awful and I was still searching for a strategy for when it came time to play the actual tournament round.

But as the game progressed my vulnerable troops hung on and my card hand kept getting better. I was finally able to move my cavalry into position to charge – I had been holding a Mounted Charge card since the beginning of the game – when I drew a second Mounted Charge! I played the first and really hammered the enemy units, bringing us even in score. I then drew a Counter Attack card to replace my first Mounted Charge card and what should my opponent play but Counter Attack. This meant he got to pull off a Mounted Charge of his own (it duplicates the previous card played), but it now meant that I could use my own Counter Attack to get the equivalent of three successive Mounted Charge attacks. Given that I had two Red Lancer Knight units, that hit on 6 dice with Mounted Charge, I would be able to throw 36 dice over the course of three turns, just with those two units! Added to the fact that I also had two Blue Cavalry units also charging, that would have been 60 dice total in three turns! As it was, the enemy could not withstand even two turns of that kind of horsepower (pun intended), so I turned a 1-3 game around to a 5-3 win.

In case you are wondering what the image to the right was, that is an odds chart for BattleLore. It came in really handy for understanding the odds of success for any given attack. It has a table for each type of attack (hitting on one face, two faces, two faces but ignore one shield, and three faces), listing the number of attack dice and the percentage chance of getting a hit. What is interesting about the chart is seeing the difference between hitting on two face (banner color and sword-on-shield) and hitting on two faces but ignoring one shield. Given that most attacks are either three dice (Blue infantry or cavalry) the chance of obtaining any number of hits goes down from 70% to 48%, a substantial drop! Something to remember when groaning about your "bad dice" after you attacked with all that Blue infantry against the enemy cavalry and came up empty.

Also interesting is the Critical Hits chart, which shows you the chance of killing a creature. Let's see my charging Red Lancer Knights can kill a creature 29% of the time or wipe out an enemy unit with strength 3 32% of the time; hmmm, which should I do?

Feel free to pilfer it. It works for all Borg designs. (For example, for Memoir '44 hitting infantry uses the Hit on Three Faces table while hitting armor uses the Hit on Two Faces table.)


1 Prisoners are considered to be immediately removed. As capturing prisoners was a large part of Meso-American warfare they had it down to a science. People were assigned the specific task of binding, collaring, and escorting prisoners away when they were captured. So, no figures from the unit need be assigned to guard or move prisoner figures (which were often unconscious or wounded); they are simply removed and points awarded.

Draft Aztec Battle Board for Saga

$
0
0
New Reader

First off, let me welcome new reader James Brewerton to the blog. Glad to have you on board. I welcome and appreciate comments. Now that I have a forum for Saga, feel free to post and join in the conversation.

Saga Updates

The Search for a Larger Army

The Mesoamerican Saga variant is humming along. In fact, I am digging this so much that I went out and bought some of the Tin Soldier UK Aztec miniatures that I don't already have. (I bought a painted collection of 450+ Tin Soldier Aztecs.) Now I am on the hunt for compatibly-sized miniatures.
  • I bought some The Assault Group (TAG) Aztecs and Tlaxcallans (hey! that is what they call them Bowman) and although they are nice, they are 28mm and would be big lads in the unit. Maybe okay for a separate unit, but not for mixing.
  • I bought some Ral Partha Aztecs on eBay, but was later told that they are puny and will not mix well with Tin Soldier.
  • The sculptor of the Eureka Miniatures 28mm Aztecs told me that his figures would not mix with Tin Soldiers either; they are too tall. Too bad because the Caymen "Knights" look really nice.
  • Monday Knight Productions has some 25mm Aztecs and [Conquistador] Native Allies, and as they are relatively inexpensive and in the U.S. I decided to order a handful.
  • Outpost Miniatures have a really extensive Mesoamerican range, but are listed as 28mm. I am hoping someone will know how they compare before I order some from the U.K. They look pretty chunky, but then again, so are Tin Soldiers.
  • I was told that the Foundry Miniatures Aztec line, although about 2-3mm taller, have the same body proportions and so should mix well.
  • It looks like no one sells Naismith Designs 25mm Aztecs anymore. They are supposed to be "true 25mm", which means that may be a little thin for Tin Soldier, even if I could get my hands on some.
The problem with Tin Soldier's figures is that they are almost too "characterful". They often have exaggerated poses, and because each figure type has only a single pose, they look like units of dancers. Sort of like the old Airfix figures and when you tried to make a battalion out of those guys that are charging.

I know that "Saga" and "large army" sounds a little out of place, but what if I want an eight-point army of (almost) every variation? Okay, so it won't be that bad. Besides, I am re-painting some of the Tin Soldier figures to be Tlaxcaltecs, and adding bits and pieces to get some variety. I am not sure if I am going to try any head swaps, however.

The Aztecs

Ralph the "Bowman Stringer" (or just Bowman) and I have been working hard thinking up ideas for the Aztec battle board and faction rules. So far I have all but four Saga abilities defined, although Chili Fires may be dropped if it proves inadequate or unworkable after testing.

By the way, this Mesoamerican Saga "supplement" will include a pronunciation guide!

The Aztec Tlacatecatl (Warlord) is armed with melee weapon, shield and atlatl. It has the same statistics as the standard Saga warlord.

The Cuauhocelotl (Hearthguard) may be armed with one of the following combinations:
  • Melee weapon and shield
  • Melee weapon, shield, and atlatl
  • Two-handed melee weapon and shield
Like the Vikings, you can purchase one unit of Cuachiques/Otomitl (Hearthguard) and promote them to 'Berserkers'. These figures are armed with melee weapon and shield.

The Yaoquizqui (Warriors) can be armed with melee weapon and shield or two-handed melee weapon and shield.

The Macehualtin (Levy) can be armed with sling or bow.

Two-Handed Melee Weapons

These are exactly the same as Danish Axes, with the attendant advantages and penalties.

Atlatl

This weapon operates just like a javelin, in that the unit can take a Movement action and receive a free Shooting action on the same activation. How it differs from the standard javelin rules is as follows:
  • The unit may only take a Shooting action (whether combined with a Movement action or not) when the unit is activated with the ability Weapon of the Gods. This means that only one unit1 may fire per turn.
  • The weapon can be fired to M range, but if fired from VS range the target's Armour value is reduced by 1.
Chili Fires

When the Chili Fires ability is played, the designated Macehualtin (Levy) unit indicates a target within L of it and rolls a D6. If the roll is a '2' through '6', the target unit takes one FATIGUE must retreat away from the Macehualtin unit. If the roll is a '1' the Macehualtin unit takes one FATIGUE and must retreat S towards its board edge.

There was a bit of discussion about whether this ability is appropriate or not. The "Chili Fires" weapon represents a unit of Macehualtin throwing chilis onto a fire when the wind is blowing in the correct direction and "tear gassing" the enemy. The basic problem with this idea is the thought of walking around with a ready-made fire while you are out on a raid. Looked at from that angle, it does not really make sense to have this weapon (and attendant ability).

However, the concept of a Dark Ages skirmish is not really that viable in Aztec warfare either. If you come at this with visions of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto in mind – Mayan warriors on slave raids – it might make sense. Instead, I am trying to use the Saga rules to play out a small portion of a larger battle with larger forces. Rather than repeat it all here, you can read my concept on what the game models on the Saga Variants forum. If you come at it from that angle, then committing the Macehualtin (Levy) to your force means you may also have them bringing their fires and chilis with them. As it stands, the unit can either fire L for damage, or use an ability to force you to retreat (and take a FATIGUE) … maybe. I think most people will choose to damage, at least until the unit gets whittled down and cannot do any real damage with their missile weapons.

I still have four abilities to fill for the Aztecs. (Actually, probably five, because the more I ponder the "utility" of Chili Fires the more convinced I am it is not worth allocating dice to it.) So if you have any ideas, either comment on the blog or the forum.

More Walkerloo Figures

I used to be a strong advocate of paper figures, as their cost is just so low it is easy to test out a new period or set of rules by printing up an army. I pulled away from it largely because I moved out of living full-time in my RV and bought a house and land (and a guest house, taken over as my semi-permanent Game Room). Having all this space let me collect armies, rules, terrain, etc., etc. Gone was the need to minimize the storage space of figures (paper armies store flat in envelopes). Gone was the limitation of having no painting or gaming space. Gone was my primary reason for using paper figures.

Of course, no matter what I do I cannot seem to get my act together, either in figure scale or rules, when it comes to Napoleonics. For figure scale I have more 6mm than anything, but I cannot decide on a basing scheme. I have about three or four I am currently using, thus it is really hard to do anything with them. As for rules … forget it. I really liked Drums and Shakos Large Battles, but gaming buddy Don did not.

I saw Chris Walker's Walkerloo figures quite some time ago. They are 1/35th scale Napoleonic paper figures for the Battle of Waterloo, and they are pretty good. The problem was he was selling the actual paper figures, not the digital files so that you could print out your own forces. (He even had a fun name, "printfantry", but that was only a few select figures that you could print out yourself.)

Eventually he realized that his business model was off (he wrote on his blog that he lost money on the venture) and finally decided to sell PDF files on Wargame Vault. Not only were there French and British (and a single Prussian Silesian Landwehr unit), but the Russian government commissioned him to create Russian figures for some promotion about the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Borodino (if I got the story right). Well today Walkerloo released not a Bavarian unit, but the Bavarian Corps. It includes line and light infantry, cavalry, artillery and commanders. All in one PDF file for $4.95.

Did I mention that I had already bought into the Walkerloo collection? Although I do not really have the same storage problems that I had in the past, it is still a great way to quickly get an army up and running if you want to try out a rule set. I own Lasalle and Napoleon at War and I have played neither, because the basing scheme for both is neither what I have, nor what I want to use (unless these rules turn out to be really good). Also, I still have this fantasy of playing someone using the Chef de Batallion rules.

Tournaments on Vassal

The BattleLore tournament on Vassal is still running. I have finished three of my six rounds, but have not been able to get anyone to play a tournament round all week. Everyone wants to play practice games or else they are people that are not in the tournament. This tournament has stimulated the online BattleLore on Vassal community, such as it is, and thus there are more people out there playing than in a long time. This week there were nine separate games, whereas before the tournament had started there were ten games the previous month, and Chris and I accounted for five of those!

I know, the numbers sound low, but we are talking about a "dead" game after all. Anyway, this has spurred other games to start tournaments on Vassal. I was originally signed up for a Command and Colors: Napoleonics on Vassal tournament, but due to an administrative error, ended up on the reserve roster (in case someone drops out). There is a signup sheet for Samurai Battles on Vassal and a second BattleLore on Vassal tournament also. I have signed up for the first, but am still thinking about the second. I need to make sure that the CCN tournament doesn't get me wrapped around an axle; they play two games per round.

Don owns Samurai Battles and although we have not played it, I have mixed feelings about it. First off, the figures are in pieces, literally. They are multi-part Zveda 1/76th plastic figures from their newly re-branded Samurai Battles line. Apparently once you put on the back banner (which identifies which side the unit is on, red or yellow) you are not going to get it off. (I have not looked closely at the figures, but my first thought was "magnets".) Secondly, I have heard of problems with missing cards and misprints. Richard Borg went online and published the corrected scenarios and has already posted an FAQ.

Interestingly, someone has posted a sheet to print stickers, so you can use wooden blocks for the units, just like GMT Games' Command and Colors series of games (Ancients and Napoleonics). I can see myself doing that, which means Don will never get his miniatures put together.

What draws me to Samurai Battles – other than a fascination with Samurai when I was young, compounded by my time spent in Japan while I was in the U.S. Marine Corps – is that it is very much like BattleLore. It has "Dragon" cards which are much like the Lore cards, only the effects are not so magic-oriented. More like dirty tricks, traps, events, and power-ups. I am reading the rules and will let you know what I think once I give it a try.

Well, that is about it for now. Good gaming!


1 If using the Weapon of the Gods ability on the Tlacatecatl (Warlord) it may also use its We Obey special rule to allow a Cuauhocelotl (Hearthguard) unit armed with atlatl to activate for a Movement action and also fire. This is the only exception to when more than one unit can use this ability in a single turn.

A Reader Responds

$
0
0
I got a great email from reader Simon Wright about my article on smoothing out activations in the Song of engine (from March 2011 … wow, was it that long ago?). Rather than keep the conversation in email, I thought I would post his original email, and my response. Simon wrote:
Hi Dale,

I've been reading your blog for the past few months, which I greatly enjoy. I've got some ideas I'd like to share. A year or so back you made a few posts about altering some of the Song of Blades and Heroes mechanics to allow for 'smoother' gameplay. In other words, tweaking the game slightly to avoid frustrating situations where the majority of a player's Warband (especially poor Quality models) do absolutely nothing for several turns (this can happen even when rolling only one die for activation, as an average Quality model still has a 50% chance of not getting an Action). While I (like many players) personally love the risk/reward concept behind the SoBH engine, like you I feel that it needs to somewhat less random so as not to lead to frustration due to randomization that's out of a player's control.

So here's my idea (well two, actually).

1) When a model activates, it can always perform one action. However, before this 'default' action is performed, the player can choose to 'gamble' for up to two more actions. To gamble, the player takes a Quality check on three dice. On two successes, the model gains a second action. On three successes, the model gains a third action. On two or more failures, the model gains no bonus actions, and after performing its default action, the player's turn ends.

2) Now I remember you were talking about how the turnover mechanic punishes the rest of a player's Warband, and not the model that caused the turnover. Well I was thinking, what about if the turnover just ends the model's activation, and not the player's? So when gambling for more actions as per above, if two failures are rolled, the model cannot perform any actions on that activation (not even the default action). Bear in mind that if the player wants to gamble for more actions, they would need to do so before they perform the model's default action.

I haven't done a whole lot of playtesting with the second idea. From what I have seen so far of the first idea though, it does the job of allowing low Quality models (like that Q5+ Troll that only ever seems to stand around and then suddenly bolt off the battlefield during a morale check) to actually do something without requiring constant Group Moves/Orders from a nearby Leader. This may make large hordes of low quality models too powerful though, and I'm working on coming up with something to fix this if it becomes a real issue. In the end this might change the game completely and require limitations on the amount of models in a Warband.

But that's it. I'm interested in hearing your opinion and criticism. Let me know what you think Dale, and keep blogging!

Kind regards from a new reader,

Simon
So, Simon brings up a really good point, that something really needs to be done to make lower Quality warbands more viable. It has been discussed a little bit on the Song of Blades and Heroes forum on Yahoo, but it seems like most people poo-poo the idea, or simply say "yeah, that is why I don't use low Quality warbands".

Let's Look at the Math

I can imagine some people has just skipped to the next blog …

Suppose you decide to always roll two dice, without fail, for every activation attempt with every figure in your warband. The chance of a turnover, by Quality, is as follows:

QualityChance to Turn Over
23%
311%
425%
544%
669%

As you can see, the odds do not go up linearly. It gets worse when you consider the number of times you roll for each quality level.

QualityChance 1 Can ActChance 2 Can ActChance 4 Can ActChance 6 Can Act
297%95%89%84%
389%79%62%49%
475%56%32%18%
556%31%10%3%
631%9%1%0%

Hopefully my math is not off that badly … just a lot of rounding in there.

You can see that larger, low quality warbands do not stand much of a chance of getting all of their models activated (at least with two or more actions) and smaller, high quality warbands really are not gambling all that much. I strongly suspect that the points system does not take these percentages into account, but in the end would it really matter? If you could buy 23 Quality 6 figures for every one Quality 2 figure (representing the ratio of turnover), you likely could not activate them enough to make those numbers count.

Option #1

Looking at Simon's option number one he is basically granting one action for free, but making it statistically harder to get a second or third action. I actually like that. With one free action Quality 6 archers will pin cushion a Quality 2 force. Hmmm … maybe that swings the pendulum too far the other way against Quality.

The problem is that the mechanism gets away from a core design concept of Andrea's that not everyone can act, even if they get to roll for activation. Even if you roll only one die, failure may not mean a turnover, but it does mean you cannot act. It seems like we need to keep that concept in.

What you need to do is describe the effect you would like to see, then develop the formula that creates those effects. So, if I were doing this, I would say that I want at least a 33% chance of performing one action, and the rest goes down from there. In order to accomplish this, I could roll one die of one color (let's say red for this example) and up to two dice of another color. If you add +1 to the red die's score you have increased the chance of the first success, but if the person gambles with the other dice, then so be it; they are at the normal Quality roll. Don't think it should be only 33% chance for one success? Fine, add +2. In all cases, a natural '1' always fails, even with the modifiers.

Option #2

The concept of applying the failure to the one that failed, rather than the rest of the warband, definitely changes the odds of the game because more people will mostly gamble with three dice for everything. Think about how many games where you automatically choose to roll three dice with the last figure in the warband for the turn. Why not? Even though you have increased the change of a turnover, who cares, because everyone else has moved.

The idea I had was to mark all units that "turned over" and they would forfeit their chance of activation the following turn. I think it is simple and elegant, but rather marker heavy, for those that don't like junk on the table. (I use a circle punched out of grass green colored foam sheet, so it tends to blend in pretty well, but not too much that you miss them.)

Well, I may have to try all of this out with a game. Give me a break from working on Mesoamerican Saga or playing BattleLore online.

Thanks again to Simon Wright for writing and the kind words. This is the kind of thought-provoking feedback that I enjoy.

New Aztec and Tlaxcaltec Battle Boards

$
0
0
New Battle Boards

First up is the revised Tlaxcaltec battle board. The names of the Hearthguard, Warrior, and Levy have been changed to Nahuatl equivalents. The name for the Hearthguard is still probably incorrect, in that it means "Eagle-Jaguars", and that is more related to Aztecs. I just don't like the term "Zoomorphic Warriors" and using "Elite Warriors" when all of the other names are in Nahuatl would look strange.

The real change is the Take Prisoner ability, which is now only triggered if your unit won the melee (i.e. the other side disengages). Originally I had intentionally allowed it to be used, win or lose. But I began to consider that a player might throw weak Warrior units at Hearthguard simply to score one kill and gain a valuable prisoner. Given that the concept of this ability is that you have captured an unconscious or disabled foe and have brought people up from the rear to bind the captive and take them away (and thus is the reason you do not have to lose figures guarding or escorting prisoners), you would really need to drive off your opponent and hold the ground where the captive foe would be.

So from a narrative point of view, a unit disengaging should not be able to take advantage of this ability; only the unit winning the melee should. From a gaming point of view I don't think you want units throwing themselves into combat with, say three Warriors against eight Hearthguard, in a hope that they can score a lucky hit and thus gain more prisoner points than their opponent (who only capture a lousy Warrior).

The design philosophy of the Tlaxcaltec abilities is that they are good at shooting and have a few melee abilities. Some of the abilities (Shoulder to Shoulder, Shielded Volley, and Common Efforts) model the use of paired archers and arrow catchers. Here are the ideas behind each ability.

Harassing Fire: This ability models using concentrated fire to halt an enemy unit's advance or drive them back. By being within range of a missile-armed unit, one enemy unit's movement activation is canceled.

Shoulder to Shoulder: This models the archer/catcher pair in huddling together, thus increasing the unit's armor rating, or simply closing ranks prior to melee impact. The figures are not physically moved, as this causes all sorts of additional rules; the abstract use of the ability is sufficient and simple.

Massed Volley: If the Tlaxcaltec unit does not move at all in a turn (either before or after using this ability) they can perform a "sustained fire bombardment" on an enemy unit, earning double the Attack dice as normal. (Remember, a unit may not increase their Attack dice to greater than double the base dice, so unless another ability comes into play, this one ability maximizes the dice count for a unit.)

Aimed Volley: This represents taking more care to aim. Despite it being another "type" of volley, there is nothing to stop a player from using both Massed Volley and Aimed Volley in a single shooting action.

Eye of the Eagle: This represents sharpshooters in a missile unit getting a particularly effective result. It adds three or four Attack dice, so is better suited for using on smaller units. It is also effective stacked with Aimed Volley, but note that it cannot normally be stacked with Massed Volley.

Take Prisoner: This represents the propensity for units to capture prisoners in melee, rather than simply trying to kill everyone. This is one of the abilities that give these factions their Mesoamerican flavor.

Shielded Volley: As with the Byzantines, where this ability first appeared, this is a way to model units that were mixed between shielded and missile firing men. Rather than breaking the core rule of "everyone in a single unit is armed and armored the same", two separate units are created with one being the shield bearers and the other with the missile weapons. The shield bearers are placed in front of the missile weapons, allowing them to protect the missile unit and take the casualties while this ability allows the missile units to fire through (over) the shield bearers. Although some situations may look strange, it is a simple rule to model a concept logically without building in a lot of rules and exceptions.

Show of Strength: This represents a unit, perhaps behind and off-board, rushing to support a unit attacked in melee, and thus causing the charging unit to "balk" and back away. Rather than forcing the movement of troops and such, this models that abstract event resulting in this effect on combat.

Common Efforts: Another Byzantine ability, this represents one unit's close presence providing relief – in the form of transferring FATIGUE from one unit to the other – to another unit. This encourages keeping units close together and to form a second line of reserves.

Loose Arrows!: This models a signal from the Army Commander (higher up than the Warlord on the board) for all units armed with missile weapons to fire a barrage at the enemy. Good for a missile-oriented army.


I decided that the focus of the Aztec battle board would be on inflicting and controlling FATIGUE (fear), with some shooting (atlatl) and melee capabilities thrown in. Here is what I settled on, but it is no way final:

Orders and Orders/Reaction Abilities

Tlamemehque Bring Water: Allows units not activated to recover FATIGUE for free. Same as the Anglo-Saxon Truce, but does not have the option of recovering two FATIGUE (yet it costs the same). This represents porters moving up to refresh the troops with water and such. As they will not move up too close to the enemy, this is represented by only servicing units that were not activated. (Rationale being that if they activated, they must be close to the enemy…)

Relieve the Line: Allows you to move FATIGUE from one unit to another. This represents the concept that the units are not as rigid as imagined. Some men from one unit move into the other unit, allowing some of the second unit to fall back and rest. Rather than worrying about each specific figure, the two units simply need to be close enough for this "relief support" to occur. Same as the Tlaxcaltec ability Common Efforts, but a different rationale.

Ambush: The Aztecs tried to use quick double-envelopment movements to trap enemy. They also used a number of stratagems to ambush the enemy, such a hiding troops in holes covered with grass, then rising up after the enemy moved past them. This sort of "mass terror" is modeled well by this ability.

Activation and Activation/Reaction Abilities

Weapon of the Gods: The atlatl requires this ability to fire. As the dice are the same as for activating a Hearthguard unit, all this ability does is limit the use of the atlatl to one unit per turn. That said, the atlatl has the capabilities of a javelin but with crossbow penetration at VS range, so that is the reason for using a "right-side" ability.

Veterans Advancing: This represents the enemy seeing the banners and colored suits of enemy veterans off-board advancing towards this sector of the battlefield and thus causing a unit to "balk" (lose its activation).

Beat the Huehuetl (Drum): Better than a similar Viking ability, but recovers fatigue within L of the Warlord instead of M (and thus one costs more). Essentially the Warlord is banging his drum and calling out the names of heroes, giving orders, and providing encouragement.

Melee and Melee/Reaction Abilities

Lords of Battle: I like this ability as it combines adding dice to the conflict and increases the enemy's FATIGUE. Combined with No Mercy (below), an enemy unit can get Exhausted very quickly. Part of the theme in using FATIGUE as a weapon.

No Mercy: Like the Anglo-Danish Unforgiving and the Arabs Merciless abilities, this causes your enemy to take an additional FATIGUE at the end of a melee. Part of the theme in using FATIGUE as a weapon.

Cuachiqueh Trick: This ability allows you to cancel an enemy ability if it uses only one die. As this is a Melee/Reaction ability, it fires in Phase 0 and thus trumps Phase 3 Melee abilities. This can really upset someone going into a melee expecting to use an ability.

Take Prisoner: Part of the Mesoamerican theme of taking captives for glory and promotion.


Rules Variants for Saga

I have created a new sub-forum on the Saga Variants forum: Rules Variants. This is where you can toss ideas regarding rules variants for Saga that are not tied to specific factions or abilities. I've created a subject about doubling up on the size of Saga units, and what impact that might have on the game. The idea is that those that might have large collections – say if you play Warhammer Ancients Battles you probably have large collections of singly-based figures that are ideal for Saga – and want to put more figures on the board, how can you accomplish that without breaking the system. Doubling the size of units, both minimums and maximums, might be one way to do that.

As always, I would love to hear your comments on the blog or the forums.

Onslaught Miniatures 6mm Sci-Fi Figures

$
0
0
There was a post on The Miniatures Page about a "new" company making 6mm sci-fi figures: Onslaught Miniatures. I took one look at their "Legion" line (not-Tyranids) and thought: "okay, I need to pick up some of those." I have a bunch of 6mm Games Workshop Epic Space Marines, Orks,  Chaos Marines, and Eldar and the one thing that has always been out of reach for me have been Tyranids. Seems like every time they come up for sale the price just goes too high for my taste.

But Onslaught has some figures that will definitely stand in for them. Here are their Gashers (not-Hormagaunts), Stalkers (not-Termagants), Prowlers (not-Genestealers), Winged Stalkers (not-Gargoyles), Overseers (not-Tyranid Warriors), and Mantis Beasts (not-Lictors):
As you can see these little guys look pretty cool! Well, the figures came in pretty quickly and darned if they don't look better in person. I quickly started basing some up for a new game (don't ask!) and for some In the Emperor's Name skirmishing. I got to finish painting one of the Matis Beasts (which is really quite tall) and it painted up very nicely. Next will be the Prowlers, which are quite small. We will see if those continue to be as easy to paint. I am fairly certain they will as the detail is very crisp and well raised.


I painted the figures white, then washed the figure entirely with Citadel Purple Wash (the older stuff, not the new ones). I then picked out the white areas with a small spotter brush, leaving the purple wash behind in the crevices. As you can see, the deep recesses of the figure make this quite easy to get a decent effect. I then painted the armor plates purple and the claws red. I make use a brighter red at the very tips (I am still thinking about it).

Note that this figure is about 10-12mm, as it is a giant in 6mm scale. But all in all, very detailed, quick and easy to paint, and a fun looking sculpt. To get a sense of scale, here it is beside GW Epic Eldar (new sculpt) and Space Marine (old sculpt) figures:



What has me drooling are the not-Tau:


The not-Crisis Suits:


The not-Dark Eldar:


And the not-Vespids:


They all look very fun to paint!

At $7.50 for 25 figures (of the smaller models) they are certainly more expensive than Baccus 6mm (you would get about three times as many figures for the same price), but I think the quality is better.

So, if you are an GW Epic 6mm fan, head on over to Onslaught Miniatures and check them out!

More Onslaught Miniatures

$
0
0
I painted up a stand of Onslaught Miniatures' Prowlers with an Overseer. I thought it would look good to have an Overseer with the whip "leading" the Prowlers into battle.


I used the same technique as I did with the Mantis Beast. I painted them white, washed them with purple, then picked out the white (flesh), red (bone), and purple (chitin) areas with a spotter brush.


Basing is a little white glue on the base, coarse sand/fine volcanic rock, then a heavy coat of Matte Medium or Matte Varnish (both about the same consistency) to fill in the cracks (but not too much). I then painted it with craft paint (Cocoa), washed it with Army Painter's Strong Tone (the new inks, not the older varnish – I cannot stand the smell of the latter) before flocking it.


Here you can see a comparison shot with the GW Epic Space Marines and Eldar. The Prowlers are shorter, because they are stooped, but a bit chunkier. The Overseer is definitely taller.

The proof in compatibility will be when the not-Tau are released. Those should be the same size as the newer Eldar sculpts, hopefully. Maybe Don Carr (owner of Onslaught Miniatures) will comment and tell us!

UPDATE: Here are more comparison pictures, using unpainted miniatures. In all of the photos:

  • A – Ork Stompa.
  • B – Space Marine/Imperial Robot
  • C – Chaos Dreadnought
  • D – Chaos Minotaur
  • E – Space Marine (new sculpt)
  • F – Space Marine (old sculpt)
  • G – Eldar Guardian (new sculpt)
  • H – Eldar Guardian (old sculpt)

Prowler
The Prowler is 8mm to the eye line (9.5mm overall, not counting the base). The Space Marines are 7.5mm (8mm overall) and the Eldar 8mm (10mm overall).

Overseer
The Overseer is 9.5mm to the eye and 10mm overall.

Mantis Beast
The Mantis Beast is 15.5mm to the eye and 27mm overall. The good thing is that if you are careful, you can bend the scythe 'arms' into other positions.


New Idea

As if I did not have enough projects on my plate…

I have a lot of GW Epic figures. I started collecting them in one of my 6mm collecting binges and I will break them out every so often and wonder what to do with them. I used to play Epic Armageddon, but I did not like the tournament-style play, nor the "capture the flag" style victory conditions of the rules. Everyone I played would not deviate from that style of play, it quickly got very boring (especially as I had a Eldar Jetbike army, and mobility is King), so the figures went into a box and languished.

I tried Baccus' Command Horizon, but was not really a fan. Future War Commander was out because I do not like the Warmaster-style command and control rules. Really, until In the Emperor's Name (ITEN) came out, I did not find a use for them. Of course, something wasn't right with ITEN: it did not use enough figures! What was I going to do with my multi-figure based troops? (Please, no recommendations. … Ah, what the heck. Go ahead.)

I saw a blog post of a gamer using 6mm figures for Command & Colors: Napoleonics – he was using based figures directly onto the game board, nothing fancy – and it really looked good. As I have been playing a lot of Command & Colors-type games of late I thought: why not make a Sci-Fi version of Command & Colors? I could use my standard 40mm wide basing (fits in the 50mm/2 inch hexes of the boards) and use tokens with numbers on it for strength points, the way that Lee (of the Napoleonic Therapy blog) did. Either that or use blast markers to show hits.

Of course, as I have pointed out in previous blog posts, there are a number of "variants" to the Command & Colors rules that Richard Borg has come up with over the year. (And I have not even take Samurai Battles into account in that old blog post.) So, I have to figure out which bits and pieces I want to take from each game.

I know that support and formations will be a part of the game, but I do not want really high troop density, so I have to think about that one a bit. My main gaming buddy does not like managing a lot of different resources – one of the primary reasons he says he does not like BattleLore and the reason I think he will not like Samurai Battles – so I think I want to mix non-command "combat tactics" cards into the main deck. Of course, is a player gets his hand clogged with non-command cards that could be problematic, but I think I have an answer for that too. Mixing those cards in one deck – and in the single hand the player has to manage – will make it less cumbersome to manage.

The main change I want to make is the scale of the game. I am almost thinking a 1:1 scale (i.e. one figure on the stand is one man or vehicle), but will have to think about that too. It could also work with one stand (unit) as a platoon. The main thing is it would allow a little more detail, such as allowing an infantry unit to mount up into an adjacent transport (altering its defense profile), flyers (moving over enemy units), and other crunchy details like that. I think it will also make scenario creation easier, as you can simply take any number of commercial historical scenarios and convert them.

What I want to get away from the the GW math. Space Marines have a certain level of power and resilience in Warhammer 40K and I don't think I want to maintain the balance (or perfect imbalance, as was discussed in a Second Founding podcast) as it would require I buy all the books, which sort of defeats the purpose for me!

So, expect some ideas to float around every so often.

I've gone 6mm Sci-Fi crazy

$
0
0
Welcome to new reader Eric. Hope you enjoy the posts.

So, I've gone a bit 6mm science fiction crazy at the moment. The figures from Onslaught Miniatures came in and I really liked them and they spurred an idea that had been brewing in my mind. I am not so wedded to the GW Warhammer 40,000 universe and fluff1, but I think it makes for a good basis for games. I would probably add Space Elves, Space Dwarves, Space Orcs, and Bugs no matter what.

The idea is to use Richard Borg's design for Battle Cry! (his American Civil War variant of the Command & Colors game family) – one of his simpler designs – and make a science fiction version on it. I am not going to focus on the rules this post mostly because a big – well, actually, small – package of miniatures. I am making up an order of battle still so it is not Onslaught Miniatures this time, but those from Microworld Games (MWG). MWG not only has the Dark Realms Miniatures (DRM) line, but its own science fiction and fantasy 6mm lines. Although I think the fantasy line looks very nice, one thing at a time.

MWG Foundationists

Actually, I did not buy any of these as the basic infantry were sold out.

MWG Lizard Riders

I did not buy any of these either. They are an interesting play on the Feral Orks, and their use of beasts in war, but I was not interesting in figures of dinosaurs with battle cannons strapped to their butts.

MWG TEF

I did buy some of the TEF figures, but they were vehicles, not infantry. I will include vehicles photos, with comparison to the GW vehicles, in another post. I may try out some of their infantry later.

MWG Kreen

First up is the Assault Infantry.
The figures have nice little wings and interesting weapons. Most figures have light weapons, but there are a few heavy ones. As you can see they are a bit chunkier than the GW figures, but not terribly so. At 40 figures for $7.50 they are still more expensive than Baccus, but less than Onslaught.

I did not get any of the other Kreen infantry.

The MWG figures seem to have a lower tin content, thus the figures are duller and less crisp. But for 6mm, they are fine.

DRM Pax Arcadia


First up are the Light Infantry. Interesting figures, sort of US Infantry with padded chest armor. Still compatible in size with GW infantry.


Next up are the Scouts. These guys definitely have the Eldar Ranger look going on. Nice figure with cloak and draped camo on the weapon. The Scouts come in packs of 20, not 40 like the rest of the infantry, and thus are only $3.60.


Next are the Regular HQ troops. It consists of officers and special weapons troops, like grenade launchers or shotguns (it is hard to tell in 6mm, or better yet, it is what you say it is!).


Here are the standard infantry. I must have pulled out the officers, with their two pistol weapons. Either that or there was a mix-up in packing. I also seem to have lost my comparison picture, but they are basically the same size as the rest of the Pax Arcadia infantry.

Unless otherwise noted, the Pax Arcadia infantry are in packs of 40 figures, and are $7.20 per pack.

DRM Kraytonians

First of the Kraytonians are the Heavy Monitors. Basically this is a reptilian race, but the monitors are so heavily armored and suited, you cannot really tell. They have some heavy weapons and ar very chunky. Nice for a difference.


The Medium Monitors are a little less bulky, but not much. Their squad weapons are more like under-slung automatic weapons.

Finally, the Light Monitors are less bulky still, but not by much. Honestly, it would be hard to distinguish by looking at just the figures; you would need some marker on the stand. (In fact, I am not sure whether the figures without the special weapons are not actually the same!2)

The Monitors are 30 figures for $5.60.

The above figures are labeled Karrok II and Guard, so it appears to be some leader and the bodyguard. These are the bodyguard figures, with the very large swords on their backs. (Maybe reptilian is not the right word to describe their race…)

This pack contains 39 Guards and 1 Karrok II figure for $7.50.


Adding yet more diversity to the Kraytonians, they have the Torakk Riders. You can see these are nice, tall figures, but still to scale with the GW figures. Torakk Riders come in packs of 4 for $6.50. At $1.62 per figure, they are a bit on the expensive side I think, so I probably won't be buying hordes of them. Then again, I cannot be them being an especially effective weapons platform either…

Of course, I bought these figures for this one:


When I saw this figure it just immediately reminded me of the movie Wizards. The rider is probably a little too big.

DRM Andrayada

These looked too much like Power Armored Space Marines of a different flavor, so I skipped them, for now. They can always fill in as Chaos Space Marines, to give my figures some variety.

DRM Skyth

I mainly bought some of the Skyth figures to see how well they would mix with the Legion figures from Onslaught. The quick assessment is that they will not look good mixed in a unit together, but as larger creatures in a Bug army, they look fine.


The Claw Beast makes for an interesting two-armed not-Carnifex. (I am not a Tyranid expert, so maybe it looks like something else too.) As you can see, the figure is not as tall as the Onslaught Mantis Beast either in the body, or when "stretched out". You get ten Claw Beasts for $12.60, so at $1.26 apiece, they are a little on the expensive side (all things considered, in 6mm land).


Last but not least – of what I bought; there are a number of other Skyth figures you can buy – is the Skyth Beast. I was hoping to use it as a not-Hive Tyrant, but it is too big for that. Instead, this makes for a good big, ugly bio-Titan. I am looking forward to painting this in the same paint scheme as my Legion figures, but with a glowing ice blue plasma look in the gun and the head.

Well, I hope you found that useful. I'll show some of the DRM vehicles I bought next time. Maybe something will even be painted!


1 Which means that I can change it when it does not suit me, such as when I want to use figures or races from other manufacturers.

2 I did look at the pack descriptions later and the Medium Monitors were 18 Light Monitors and 12 Medium Monitors, so the latter appear to be "medium" because they carry the Squad Automatic Weapon. The Heavy Monitors pack come with 12 Monitors with heavy weapons and 18 with light weapons.

UPDATE: Chief Lackey Rich on TMP asked for a comparison shot between the medium Skyth Beast (I assumed the Claw Beast) and a 15mm figure. Here is the Claw Beast threatening a cringing Battlefront WW II German infantryman. How's that for Weird War II?

Munchkin - The Cure for Stress?

$
0
0
It looks like I am getting close to two milestones: my 100th reader and my 250th blog post. Hopefully I will hit both of those soon. For now let me welcome new readers Michael (a.k.a Angel Barracks) and Carpet General (I like the sound of how you game, Sir). I hope you enjoy what you read, and as always I encourage comments, even though the blogging medium is not really conducive to a conversation.

A little news: Ralph (Bowman) and I continue to plug away at "A Mesoamerican Saga", my Saga variant for Aztecs and their enemies. I played one test game (partially written up on my Solo Battles blog) and have come back with some changes and new ideas. Ralph had a good idea for the Flower Wars, based on a Skraeling ability. You can find out more on my Saga Variants forum (see the link below this post).

I have started writing up a new science fiction variant of Command and Colors that I call C4ISR. I already have a few ideas brewing that will make this a little unique from other variants in the family. It will also be at a lower scale than the others, probably a squad or platoon for each unit. I already have my 6mm Science Fiction figures based (but not painted) for a game. Now all I need to do is created the card deck.

Munchkin

Today, for the first time, we tried Munchkin, a card game from Steve Jackson Games that parodies fantasy role-playing games, particularly those with power-gaming players and "Monty Haul" style dungeon masters. It is well know for funny art and bad puns.

I purchased a copy of Munchkin Fu – a Kung Fu/Chop Socky themed version of Munchkin –  probably four years ago at an annual 50% off sale at a local gaming store, and it sat on my shelf read, but unplayed. Although I was interested in Hong Kong action/martial arts films, the game mechanics just did not grab me. I could see they were relatively easy to play, but somehow that simplicity was lost on me. I then got a copy of The Good, the Bad, and the Munchkin – a Western-themed Munchkin game – for free, from someone who no longer wanted it, about a year ago and it too sat there read, but unplayed.

Then one day I was scrolling through the gaming podcasts in the iTunes Store, looking for some interesting material to listen to while I paint or commute to work when I came upon a podcast called Munchkin Land. I have always wondered what gave Munchkin such staying power, enough to give Steve Jackson Games reason to make a dozen variants and probably two dozen expansions. So I downloaded a single episode, the first, which promised to explain the rules. After downloading it and listening to the first part of it, I realized that these guys were going to actually play a game as the podcast. (Apparently this is a new sort of podcast where people record their gaming sessions – usually role-playing though – and other people are duped into listening to them. Count me in as duped!) I was pretty sure that I was going to dislike listening to people play a card game, but I figured at least I would get a better idea of how the game played and what was fun about it.

Don't get me wrong, I had two different variants of the game and I could see the cards were funny – jokes, puns, and funny pictures – but I figured that would wear thin pretty quickly. There had to be more to it than that. No one is going to play a $25 game three times or so (or until the jokes become stale), then buy the next one for another $25 worth of jokes.

So I listened to the podcast, laughed a lot, downloaded all the rest, and decided I needed to get the original Munchkin. (Actually, I bought the Deluxe version, which contains a board, six miniatures, and all the rest of the stuff that comes in the normal Munchkin set. As it is only $5 more for the Deluxe treatment, it seemed like a deal. (It is.) You get a game board and miniatures for the players, which is really a large, visual way to easily see what level everyone is at (very important in the game), plus a big box to carry the cards and expansions you are sure to buy.

The game itself is pretty simple. The goal for the player is to be the first to reach 10th Level. Each turn the player plays their cards, kicks in the door (to see if their are monsters or traps in the room), kills any monsters he finds there, loots the treasure from the dead monster, or loots the room if there isn't one. Every time you kill a monster, you go up a level (some big ones are worth more). You must win your 10th level by killing a monster; you cannot go up by buying a level or playing a level up card.

That description above is why it did not sound all that interesting to me. But this is a game about playing interaction, card combinations, working together with other players when it makes sense, and turning on them when it does not. The tremendous variety of cards available in the series is what makes these interactions interesting. It really is hard to describe it all in short, simple terms.

I strongly recommend the Munchkin Land podcast. They play each of the base sets, so you get an idea of what each is like, and they use some of the expansions so you can see how, well, it expands the game. As time goes on they promise to mix games (i.e. use more than one base set, such as Munchkin Fu and Munchkin Impossible to get a martial arts spy game, or Space Munchkin and Munchkin Cthulhu for Cthulhu in Space, etc.) so you can see what that is like. I honestly did not think I was going to like listening to other people game, but these guys are funny, and for the most part remember that we cannot see what they are doing, so explain the cards they play and read the text off of them.

The good thing about this game is that I was able to drag in a buddy that I used to play role-playing games with, about 20 years ago, away from his MMORPG computer games and I could see that with eye rolls, laughs, and cackles, he was starting to have some fun. In fact, I sense another game when we can get four (or more) people again. Things have been getting a little frustrating at work of late, and some good back-stabbing fun with a lot of laughs was pretty much what I needed. I am strongly considering inviting co-workers next weekend for a pizza party and some "blowing off steam" fun. That will help me see how much fun it remains, after a couple of plays.

All that said, I am still unsure about playing the game with people you do not really know, or have not gamed with. At its heart it is a game of ganging up on the leader and backstabbing people so you can win, and I think that goes down better with people you know and like than with those you don't know at all. If you have played Munchkin in such a setting, or even at all, I would like to hear your thoughts and comments.

Samurai Battles

I am involved in a tournament in Samurai Battles using Vassal to play online and I have to say that the game has some interesting new ideas. As part of the Command and Colors family it is probably closest to BattleLore. It allows the player to collect tokens from die rolls (Honor instead of Lore, however) and use them to play special cards (Dragon instead of Lore) which affect the battle. What differs in Samurai Battles is that Honor is spent on one more thing: retreating units. When units retreat, it costs you Honor tokens. If you do not have enough Honor to pay the cost, you take four dice in damage to your force.

This one little fact makes for quite a different game. You cannot spend Honor without worrying about whether you will run out after a particularly bad roll. This is further exacerbated by the fact that leaders can spend an Honor to add a battle die to an attack (or battle back), so you have that much more of a reason to run low on Honor.

In the practice games and tournament round I found my opponent liked to play it very close to zero, so it prompted me to press the attack hard in order to roll those Flags, force a retreat, and cause a catastrophic loss of Honor. In two games, in particular, my opponent had to have his leader commit seppuku in order to avoid the Honor loss.

All in all, a very flavorful game.

Draft Conquistador Battle Board

$
0
0
First off, welcome to new reader InChigh74. Your 20mm WW II figures look really nice. Other might want to check it out on his blog, 1914-45. As always, I hope you enjoy the writing – even if the subjects are all over the place – and comments are always welcome.

Ralph Krebs (Bowman) has been working on some Saga battle boards for our A Mesoamerican Saga project. I drafted up a graphic from his specifications, but have not had a chance to try it out (mostly as I have no figures for them). Comments are welcome, as always, and discussions can be found on the Mesoamerican Saga Forum.

I need to create a template for the faction rules, but here they are for now:

Conquistadors

  1. The Capitano (Warlord) may be on foot or mounted. (See the Mounted rules from other factions for the effects on a Warlord's stats.)
  2. The number of units (not points) of Hildago (Hearthguard) you may have depends upon the theater of operations. If you are playing the Caribbean, Mexican, or Floridian theater you may only take one unit of Hildagos. They may be on foot or mounted. If you are playing the South American theater you may take up to two units of Hildagos, one of which must be mounted. (See the Mounted rules from other factions for the effects on a Hearthguard's stats.)
  3. If you are playing the Mexican theater you must take at least one unit of Tlaxcaltec Yaoquizqui (Native Warriors) and at least one unit of Tlaxcaltec Macehualtin Archers (Native Ally Levy).
  4. If you are playing the South American theater you must take at least one unit of Incan Auqua (Native Warriors) and at least one unit of Anti Indians (Native Ally Levy).
  5. If you are playing the Caribbean or Floridian theaters you may take no Native Warriors or Native Ally Levy. Use Conquistadores for Warriors and Slave Archers as Levy. You may not use the Advance the Allies ability.
  6. Any remaining points are to be made up of Conquistadors (Warriors).
  7. One unit of Conquistadors may be armed with crossbows or arquebuses. These two weapons have the same specifications; just field the figures you have handy.
This board definitely needs playtesting. With five of the ten right-side abilities requiring two dice, two of them require two rares, this will be a tough faction to play. Let us know what you think.

Other News

I have enough 6mm science fiction figures based (but not painted) for a test game of C4ISR; now I have to work on the Command cards. I will probably just use the Memoir '44 deck to start though. Part of the concept was to have specialty cards embedded into the single card deck, then having rules to allow a player to make sure his hand was not clogged with them. Really, it was about having to manage only one hand, and this came from a complaint that some of the complexity of BattleLore was in having to manage two hands and a token pool. As I think about Memoir '44, however, we sometimes manage two card hands (Command and Combat), but no tokens to "spend". So maybe the line is that two hands and a token pool are too much to handle but two hands are not. In any case, moving to two hands removes a bunch of rules designed to make sure you don't end up with an unusable hand.

Part of this has come about by playing Samurai Battles. In that game you get a spendable token each time you roll the "miss" symbol (the "Honor and Fortune" symbol in Samurai Battles, the "Lore" symbol in BattleLore, the "Star" symbol in Memoir '44, etc.), but you can also get either two tokens or one "Dragon" card (equivalent to a "Combat" card in Memoir '44 or a "Lore" card in BattleLore) every turn. If you get "lucky" with your misses, that means you can rack up quite a hand with "Dragon" cards, something not possible with BattleLore (which imposes a limit on the number of "Lore" cards held) or Memoir '44 (which limits your ability to draw "Combat" cards). As all of these cards represent combat buffs and game changing events, games of Samurai Battles tend to be a bit more raucous than the others in the Command and Colors family. I want something with more impact than "Combat" cards, less than with "Dragon" cards, and more like the impact of "Lore" cards, but without the token pool management.

And therein lies the problem. Lore strategy centers around the cost of playing Lore cards (i.e. do you play a lot of low-cost, but low-impact Lore cards or do you play fewer high-cost, high impact ones). So if you take out the token pool management aspect, you reduce high- and low-impact cards to the luck of the draw. I am not sure I like that, so it requires a little more thinking.

Draft Inca Battle Board

$
0
0
Two Milestones Hit

Well, I finally made it to 250 posts! Not only that, but I hit the 100th blog reader milestone too!

So welcome to new reader Howard, who put me over the top. I hope you enjoy the "eclectic" style (read: "schizophrenic") of the subjects, and as alway, comments are always welcome. (By the way, I like your profile icon; very Tekumel looking.)

Here Come the Incas

Ralph (Bowman) has been hard at work drafting up the Incan faction rules and Saga abilities and I finally got some time to make the battle board. As always, remember this is a draft and it all needs to be play tested.

I decided to put some effort into this one, as I wanted to move away from the template provided by Tomahawk Studios and come up with a more "Mesoamerican" themed board. Also, I started standardizing fonts and element positioning. It was a lot of work, but the board looks a lot cleaner. (I dread going back and redoing the Aztec, Tlaxcaltec, and Conquistador battle boards in the same way.)

I started with searching for an Incan textile pattern. In hindsight, I probably should have blown the pattern up, making it larger, rather than using the smaller pattern and repeating it. As it is, you really have to look close to see the repeating, as so much of it is covered by the abilities.

On to the faction rules!

Saga: Inca


  1. All Inca (Apu, Huaminca, and Auqua) are armed with a champi (a 5-starred stone or metal warclub) or a thrusting spear (the original Quechua term is not known), with a canipu (metal breastplate) and a polcana (shield).
  2. The Apu (Warlord) may be on foot or carried in a War Palanquin. If in a palanquin he is considered Mounted. Due to the large size of the model, use the body of the palanquin for measuring. This corresponds roughly to a large Warlord base size. The figures carrying the palanquin are only for decoration and have no effect in the game.
  3. You may take between one and two Huaminca (Hearthguard) units. If you decide to take two units then one unit will be from the Upper Huaminca and the other from the Lower Huaminca. (Upper and Lower pertains to the neighborhoods in Cuzco City.) These units are very competitive and antagonistic and they suffer from the Animosity Special Rule.
  4. Animosity Special Rule: If during the game the two Huaminca units finish their turn within M of one another, both units instantly accrue a FATIGUE marker.
  5. Huaminca soldiers are armed with a yauri (halberd), which is treated as a two-handed Danish Axe.
  6. The Auqua (Warriors), in addition to the equipment listed above, are also armed with the huaraca (sling). They may fire with their slings if they do not move in their turn. (Note that not being able to move on a turn they fire is their penalty for having both ranged and melee weapons and combat values.)
  7. A unit of Auqua may be exchanged for a unit of Cunti. They have no slings, but carry a two-handed macana (sword). Treat the macan as a two-handed Danish Axe.
  8. Auqua may use the "Bolas" SAGA ability. A single Bolas shot strikes two foot figures or one Mounted figure within M range. Against Mounted figures, the bolas is -1 to shoot. (Note: I need clarification from Ralph on exactly what this means.) As with a sling, the bolas cannot be used if the unit has moved in the turn. Further, the unit cannot move after firing the bolas. As with a sling, using the bolas for more than one Shooting activation accrues a FATIGUE on the second and each subsequent Shooting activation.
  9. The Inca warband must take at least 1 unit of Anti or Chuncho (Forest) Indian Levy.
  10. A guanca (or huaca, or waka, depending upon the source) is a collection of stones that had magical and spiritual qualities that Inca soldiers could draw upon in the battle. Make some rocky terrain that is based on a Warlord-sized base (about 40mm). At the beginning of battle, before any troops are deployed, the Inca player may place the guanca on the battlefield.
Now if only I had some 25mm Incas to try these rules out with. (I do have some unpainted 15mm Incas that I received as a gift, however. No 15mm Conquistadors, however.)

Update on C4ISR – Science Fiction Command and Colors

I decided that, to start, I am going to have to use the Command deck from Memoir '44, if I want to get a game going in some reasonable amount of time (i.e. this weekend or next week). I am also probably going to have to use the Memoir '44 Combat decks, and their attendant rules, until I come up with my own science-fiction themed events and combat buffs. Not that either of these is a problem, it just won't look as good until I have it all done. (As the figures are not all painted, the cards are actually the least of my worries.)

I have been developing a list of differences between C4ISR and Memoir '44 and other Command and Colors games.

  • Units will represent far smaller units, probably platoons or squads/sections.
  • Units will be allowed to move through friendly units, although they cannot remain in the same hex. (There are exceptions, such as a transport unit transporting a foot unit.)
  • Aerial vehicles will be units, not abstract cards.
  • Aerial vehicles can be eliminated by anti-air units (whether ground- or aerial-based), eliminating the ability to call in further aerial attacks.
  • Support will allow a unit to ignore one retreat.
  • Artillery and Command units can provide support from farther away; they will not be required to provide support to a unit by being adjacent.
  • Artillery will be easier to eliminate by direct attack.
  • Close Assault will be deadlier. Actually, ranged fire will be less deadly than in Memoir '44. I am going to allow the Grenade to hit only in Close Assault, rather than always.
  • Units can only ignore one Retreat, or all, depending upon circumstances. Command units, support, digging in, etc. will each grant the ability to ignore one Retreat, but unlike other Command and Colors variants, they will not stack. Other elements, like fortifications, however, might allow you to ignore all Retreat results. So it will be one, all, or nothing.
  • Foot units will be able to mount transport units, which allows them to move faster and may change the unit type from Infantry to Armor or Aerial (depending upon the transport type) while being transported.
Let me know what you think, or if you have any ideas of your own.

C4ISR

$
0
0
C4ISR is the modern US military acronym for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (and is actually C4ISR, but I am too lazy to superscript the '4' each and every time) and is an appropriate name for a science fiction variant of the Command and Colors family of games as it hints at the command and control aspect of those rules, in a modern setting.

I played my first test game today – if it really can be called that, as it was basically an all infantry fight – just to see what sort of kinks I needed to get out of the system, and areas that I needed to think about. Although I am strongly looking at the Memoir '44 style of dice symbols1 for combat, I like the Command and Colors denotation of Red, Blue, and Green for Heavy, Medium, and Light. These designations seem to fit well with armored protection and hitting power, and I think these aspects of science fiction combat will come through.

I am considering using six combat ratings for each unit (yes six): speed, ranged firepower against soft (anti-personnel or AP) targets, assault power against soft targets, ranged firepower against hard (anti-tank or AT) targets, assault power against  hard targets, and ranged firepower against aerial (anti-aircraft or AA) targets. These will be reflected as a series of colored dots on the back of the unit's stand. The values would be:

RatingWhiteYellowGreenBlueRed
SpeedNo movement allowed.Move 1 or battle.Move 2 and battle.Move 1 and battle or move 2.Move 1 and battle.
Ranged APNo ranged fire allowed.1 die2 dice3 dice4 dice
Assault APNot allowed to initiate assault. 1 die otherwise.1 die2 dice3 dice4 dice
Ranged ATNo ranged fire allowed.1 die2 dice3 dice4 dice
Assault ATNot allowed to initiate assault. 1 die otherwise.1 die2 dice3 dice4 dice
Ranged AANo ranged fire allowed.1 die2 dice3 dice4 dice

Here are the initial values that I used for the Legion (not-Tyranid) troops.

UnitSpeedRanged APAssault APRanged ATAssault ATRanged AA
Flying BugsGreenGreenGreenGreenBlueGreen
ProwlersGreenWhiteBlueWhiteGreenWhite
Overseers with SwordsGreenWhiteRedWhiteGreenWhite
Overseers with GunsBlueRedBlueGreenBlueGreen
Mantis Beast2BlueWhiteRedWhiteBlueWhite

I am using four hits for each infantry unit (with the Mantis Beast being an exception with having a single hit) and three hits for each armor unit. Infantry fire at a range of three (too short for the scale, in hindsight), but with no diminution in dice with range. (Note, however, that the Grenade symbol only hits when in Assault (adjacent).

Here are the stats for the Kraytonian soldiers.

UnitSpeedRanged APAssault APRanged ATAssault ATRanged AA
Light MonitorsGreenGreenGreenWhiteGreenYellow
Medium MonitorsBlueBlueBlueGreenGreenYellow
Heavy MonitorsRedRedBlueBlueRedYellow

Please note that all of these are preliminary values. They need playtesting.


1Memoir '44 uses two Infantry symbols, one Armor symbol, one Grenade symbol, one Flag symbol, and one Star symbol for its six faces.

2 The Mantis Beast is like a Tiger tank in Memoir '44 or a Creature in BattleLore in that it has a single hit, but requires that all hits scored against it be confirmed by rolling a Grenade/Sword on Shield symbol in order for the hit to take effect. Any other result on the confirming roll results in no hit being scored.



Playtest Game

Okay, the pictures are pretty ugly (as the miniatures are not painted), but it shows the concept as well as any Command and Colors game, and gives an idea of what it would look like with 6mm miniatures. Of course, you can always go for a game mat with larger hexes and figures and better terrain.

I flipped through the numerous Memoir '44 scenarios that I have, looking for an interesting terrain setup. Ironically I picked The Battle of Villers-Bocage just from the terrain before I recognized what the scenario was about. Villers-Bocage was an ambush by German Tiger tanks, led by the famous Tiger Ace SS-Obersturmführer Michael Wittmann against a British armored column. (I have a few books that are tactical studies of WW II battles, and The Battle of Villers-Bocage is one of those few.)

I thought that this would be a good scenario to convert to science fiction only I did not want to jump into armored combat yet, and I wanted to use the Legion figures ("the Bugs") from Onslaught Miniatures. So, the Bugs became the Tigers and the Kraytonian infantry (from Dark Realm Miniatures) became the hapless British.

In the original Memoir '44 scenario there were two less German units, but as they were Tigers, they were pretty powerful. I gave the Bugs two extra units. I substituted ½ of the British armored forces for Heavy Infantry and the remaining ½ for Medium Infantry. The British infantry forces became Light Infantry.

Originally the scenario called for a six-card German Command hand and a three-card British Command hand. I increased the Kraytonian Command hand to four and left the Bug hand at six. Also, the Germans needed to achieve only five Victory Points while the British only three, but I changed this to both sides requiring five Victory Points for this game. The Bugs would move first, just as the Germans do in this scenario.

One other key point of this scenario that is unusual is that all woods and building terrain are considered impassable. Where the Bugs start in woods, they can move out, but once out they cannot move back in.

One final note: I did not treat the Mantis Beast as indicated in the rules above for this scenario. I simply treated them as a four hit infantry unit.


The picture above shows the initial deployments. The Kraytonians (blue) are strung out along the road across the entire board. There is no left flank security whatsoever. The Bugs (red) are attacking from the top-left corner.


Turn 1: The Bugs start off with a great card, able to move all of their units on the left side of the board (their right flank). They quickly engage the Kraytonians on the road, sending one unit fleeing, leaving another crippled.


Turn 2: The Bugs continue to press on the left, getting their Overseers with Swords in amongst the rear of the column. The cripples Kraytonian Medium Infantry is eliminated, making the score 1-0 for the Bugs.


Turn 3: The Bugs attack starts to peter out under the massed fire of the Kraytonians. The Mantis Beast is felled under a hail of slugs from the Heavy and Medium Infantry in the center. The Light Infantry in the center is badly crippled forcing a second Light Infantry unit to jump into the fray with the Overseers with Guns in order to cover their retreat. The score is now tied at 1-1.


Turn 4: The Overseers with Guns back off and blast the Kraytonian Light Infantry while on the other flank the Overseers with Swords fall under a hail of slugs from massed Kraytonian fire. The score is now tied at 2-2.


Turn 5: A massive push (using the Infantry Assault card) by the Kraytonians brings a huge amount of firepower to bear, eliminating another Bug unit (the Overseers with Guns) and pushing a Prowler unit to the baseline. This ambush is not quite going the way expected… The Kraytonians lead 3-2.


Turn 6: As the out-numbered Bugs try to regroup, the Kraytonians continue to hammer the Bug units. Of the four units, one has three hits, one two, and one has one hit. On the other side, four Kraytonian units have three hits, but as the Bugs just cannot move through the wall of slugs coming at them, they cannot eliminate any of the weakened enemy units.


Turn 7: The Bugs continue to struggle and make no headway. Ironically, the Kraytonians make a heroic effort (they play the card Their Finest Hour, allowing them an extra die in combat) and eliminate the two weakest Bug units, winning 5-2.

Analysis

Until I put bigger Bugs on the board, I will probably use the Mantis Beast like a Memoir '44 Tiger unit or a BattleLore Creature. In BattleLore terms, the Mantis Beast should be something like the Giant Spider: fast, great in the woods, but not very hard hitting (relatively speaking).

The problem with the Bugs, of course, is their lack of ranged weapons. Part of that is my collection. Time to send an order to Onslaught Miniatures and get the rest of their line, which happen to be the ones that have ranged weapons. I need to find or make a Bugs leader and base up the huge Skyth so I can use them as artillery pieces and add a new component to the game.

I like Command and Colors, of course, so as a game it felt a bit better than Memoir '44, which is probably the simplest of the rules (we are speaking of the simplicity of the core mechanics; Memoir '44 has added a lot of rules in all of their expansion), but still very simple. That was largely because I was using all infantry, and a small attacking force at that. Further, using the cover of terrain was not allowed.

I don't want to change too much based on this one play. After all, it played all right, although I have to re-think the ranges. Of course, extending the ranges will make it even deadlier for the Bugs, so I may need to up the speed of the Bugs or just understand that I will need a lot more of them on their side.

Special Abilities versus Standard Rules

$
0
0
News from the Rear

As my gaming buddy has been traveling, and Easter forced us to take a break, I have been mostly learning new rules, thinking about my own game designs, and playing some solo games. Playing board games online over Vassal has kind of cooled off. I think everyone had such a system shock from concentrated BattleLore gaming that it has affected the other online tournaments. Of the players in the BattleLore tournament with me some are in a Command and Colors: Napoleonics tournament (I think there were two running at the same time), a Samurai Battles tournament, and possibly a Battle Cry tournament. We are trying to get a second BattleLore tournament going, but it has not made yet. I have so many things on my plate that I may just drop my name from the list.

So what have I been doing? Reading a lot of forums and Yahoo groups, and generally wasting time. Oh, and trying to figure out what makes Munchkin such a wildly successful game. It is not the puns and inside humor. It is … well, that is what this blog post is about. Not all about Munchkin, but about a trend in game designs.

In the Beginning …

If you look at 'Old School' rules – and I am talking Featherstone, Grant, Bath, and Lawson here – you will find very generic mechanics. Both sides basically fight the same, or rather the units types on each side fight the same. Grenadiers fight like 'Grenadiers', whether Austrian or Prussian. The rules were more about unit types and morale than about who they were fighting for. The difference between two sides were in the composition of the armies … well unless one of those sides were British of course. Then the British would have a +1 (in everything).

… and Then There Were …

Next came 'National Characteristics'. This is what happens when you start adding those "+1 because they are British" rules. It was also how game designers started adding 'period flavor'. I really got started with a set of rules from this era. It was called Column, Line, and Square and it was a tome on Napoleonics wargaming that still had Old School elements – artillery bounce sticks, canister patterns, and burst templates – but included loads of rules on National Characteristics (which, if I recall correctly, was what the rules section was called). Militia Light Cavalry with lances were poor troops, but Cossacks, well that is a different story.

In the end, what all of these National Characteristics did was to add more exceptions to the rules, and almost always in the form of a die roll modifier that you had to remember. I hesitate to use the word complexity – a term which is over-used on the forums – as there is really nothing hard to understand about the resulting rules. It just gets harder to memorize all of the exceptions and all those modifiers tend to make combat resolution take longer.

Don't get me wrong, I revelled in the detail when I was young. Something about the way young boy's mind work, I suppose, but now that I am older, I find that those details are annoying and bothersome – probably because I cannot always remember them.

Today, you see the same sort of rules, only now they are called 'faction rules' or 'special unit abilities'. I think this is one of the reasons I gave up on Flames of War; you had to remember which units had the special traits, find the rules for it, and remember how to apply it correctly. You could not simply play the rules. Contrast that to Memoir '44– at least the base game1– where infantry is infantry. You roll 3, 2, or 1 battle die based on the range to the target. Your chance of hitting is built into the die itself. Simple and clear.

So, if you have been following for a while you might be thinking "but what about Saga?" I think Don said it best after our first game: the great thing about Saga is that the special rules are all written right there on the battle board. Once you memorize the basics, all the special stuff is easily accessible.

Which Brings us to Munchkin

So, how does my playing Munchkin bring all of this on. Well Munchkin has few basic rules. Basically five small pages in large type, and that is including the puns and jokes. (Yes, even the rules have puns and jokes in them.) Once you learn those rules, you are set. If you buy another base set – Munchkin Fu for martial arts action, Star Munchkin for science fiction action, etc. – you might learn an additional rule or two, but the core rules are exactly the same. Where the differences lie, and why you buy the expansions, are in the special rules embedded in the cards.

But, just as with Saga, it is finding a set of abilities, in combination with a move or an attack, that sets the players apart. The ability to envision a combination three moves ahead, and plan for pulling it off, or recognizing when the stars aline and the time is ripe, is how you tend to play. In a way it reminds me a little of chess, when I was a kid. You read books about chess moves, openings, gambits; really about patterns to recognize. When the pattern emerged, there was a series of moves to make to exploit that pattern. Of course, it is a little more complex than that (and it shows you why I was never a great chess player), but that was the basic idea behind being a better chess player when you were starting out. But it was really about memorization of patterns.

As I get older, and my memory goes, I cannot hold as many rules in my head and I cannot remember as manner patterns to exploit. But, I definitely like it when my core rules are simple, and my special rules are spelled out on little cards in front of me. How about you?


1 Even Memoir '44 has started going this route. The Japanese have their special rules, as do the British, and then there are Elites, Ski troops, snipers, etc. Of course, you don't have to add all of that at once and there are loads of scenario to play that just use the basics.

Barks' Gameboard - Wow!

$
0
0
Every so often I go through the list of people following this blog and see what blogs they have and follow. There are some really good blogs out there. In fact, most of the blogs I follow come from that list of readers' blogs or blogs they follow.

I looked at Barks profile and found his Wargaming with Barks blog and was immediately struck by the appearance of his gameboard. (By the way, Barks has an interesting series of articles on painting the Battlefront river terrain pieces, making them look even better. You should check them out, especially if you have those terrain pieces.)

Back to the gameboard. It really has a good look to it. So I started searching for an article to see how he made it. I was shocked to learn that it was a Citadel (GW) Realm of Battle Gameboard, which I had never heard of. Barks' article on how he did his gameboard is really interesting. Even though Citadel's gameboard is $300, for what essentially looks like a 6' by 4' injection molded plastic model, it looks very tempting, especially when you see the results Barks obtained.

Which brings me to my point. We tend to spend quite a bit of money and time on our figures, and even to some extent on basing those figures, but it is the rare person that spends that time and money on really good terrain. In the end, is $300 really that expensive for the 'ground covering' of a 6' x 4' table? (You can extend the table size by getting two 2' x 2' squares for an additional $100.) Granted, you still need to get woods, buildings, rivers, and roads, plus some extra hills might be nice.

This also hearkens me back to an old What Would Patton Do (WWPD) podcast with Shawn Morris (The Terrain Guy) where they discussed the idea of gaming on static gameboards. (By the way, the Realm of Battle Gameboard is not exactly static. As shown on the web page, it can be rearranged a number of ways to add some variety.) Although Shawn made a compelling argument about using static gameboards, other than Jon Baber's Arnhem gameboard, it does not sound like the WWPD really took to the idea, in the long run.

I've seen a number of your blogs, and battle reports for those that do them, and I see most people do it like I do. Lay down a game cloth or mat (I have an old US Army blanket, some grass green micro-fleeces from Wal-Mart, and a Citadel Game Mat that I switch between), plop some terrain down, and then game. The conclusion is that terrain variety seems to be more important than, say, a cohesive set of terrain pieces that actually look like they go together. (That is more a comment on my terrain, dear readers, and not on yours! In my AWI games you can unfortunately see tank tread marks in the muddy roads!)

So, is that true? Do you favor terrain configurations and variety over a cohesive, but static or semi-static vision? Has anyone every played a fair number of games over the same terrain, but with different scenarios, goals, and objectives? Can you shed any light on what it is really like?

Special Abilities (Part 2)

$
0
0
The original post on Special Abilities versus Standard Rules got some good responses, and I thank everyone for that. The sad part is that I clicked the Publish button before I was done with my rant. The wife called me away for a "Honey-Do", which was quickly followed by a scheduled online game, so I forgot to go back and add more. But here it is.

Rules that use special abilities are not in and of itself bad, I think, it is how some approach it that seems to rub me the wrong way. Take four examples of rules that use special abilities: Warhammer 40,000, Flames of War, Saga, and Munchkin. (I know, you are probably getting tired of me mentioning the last two.)

Warhammer 40,000 (WH40K) is the epitome of what some have termed "The Codex Creep". Essentially, in order to play any force you are required to buy at least one "codex", or a book of units stats, force composition rules, special abilities, and special items that can be purchased. Some "factions" get codices more frequently than others, leading to more options and special abilities, all more finely tuned for competition, and thus desired by gamers wanting that "tactical edge". In Episode 23 of The Second Founding podcast the guys talk about GW's "creeping imbalance" and intentionally maintaining a "perfect imbalance". Now some may call these guys cynics, but their theory is that GW's figure and codex designers are beholden to their Corporate Lords and thus they generate new, cool figures that people will want to buy while the codex designers make them the Next Big Thing so that they have to buy them (and not just one) in order to remain competitive.

The "creeping" part of the imbalance is that the latest codex produced tends to be the strongest. This generally pushes people to at least purchase the codex, to see what they are going to face in games. I remember the second time I got back into WH40K I bought the Tau codex, a battle box, and a couple of extra blisters to flesh out the forces. It was an escalation league, so forces were small. But it quickly became obvious that I needed to buy more stuff if I wanted to be competitive. The Chaos Space Marines pulled out some gizmo with a special rule and caught me unawares. The Space Wolf Space Marines attacked with surprise from the rear because they had a special rule I was not aware of. The Orks … well let's just say this sort of thing went on and on we every opponent; they each had their tricks and special rules, and the only way to really be aware of what they were capable of was to buy and study their codex. So, as I said, even if you did not buy an army for whatever new codex came out, you really needed to buy the codex itself, at the very least, so you would know how to fight it.

So as time wore on, and people came to realize that The New Badness could not be countered by your army with its five year old codex, they started collecting new armies. However, this is where the "perfect" part of the imbalance starts to come in. The example the podcast gives is that once upon a time Chaos Space Marines were the things to have in the Chaos codex, but then a new version came out and it was the Obliterators. So you loaded up on Obliterators (or whatever) and the next codex comes out and Obliterators are now nerfed, with no real explanation. However, the army is still strong (it has a new codex, after all) but it is this new Chaos Heldrake – which is a $75 model, by the way – that is The New Badness, and you can buy two of them in a standard point army!

The net result of all this is that it produces codex sales, then army sales, then unit sales for the players in it for the long run. Of course, if you read The Miniatures Page, or about any other forum, including WH40K fanboy forums, you will have already read all of this. GW has their model, and to be honest, they draw new people into the hobby. As their business model eventually puts off most of their gamers, and some of those who quit join the ranks of historical gamers, we should probably be grateful. My point, however, is not the grinding aspect of their business model, but how that model is supported by adopting a fairly thin set of core rules and adding layers of special rules and exceptions through specially purchased expansions. I will give GW props for one thing, however: unit special abilities are now codified as names ("Infiltrator", "Rending", "Fearless", etc.) and the rules for those special abilities are in the main rules. You still need to codices to know who gets these special abilities, but if your opponent tells you in the game that he has a Fearless character with Infiltrator and a Rending weapon, at least you have access to the rules ahead of time. There is still a little problem of special weapons and wargear, but hey, they can't fix everything in a single edition. They still need you to have a reason to buy the codices.

Of course, there is nothing to stop you and your buddies from buying one army and one codex apiece and then playing the heck out of that and having fun, not getting caught up in the spiral of the creeping, perfect imbalance. But honestly, it is hard finding two balanced armies at any point in time, and a new codex will upset that balance, so players would need to agree to freeze their codexes to a point in time. Not likely to happen.

Now we move to Flames of War (FoW). One could say that their army books are codices. They contain force compositions, unit stats, special rules, and exceptions to the normal rules. A big difference between FoW and WH40K, however, is that there are generic army lists with the main FoW rules set (not the mini-rulebook, however) and they generally are competitive. The books are really only required if you wish to start a new period (Early-, Mid-, or Late-War), theater, or campaign. As the older books contained force compositions for both sides, it was an automatic buy if you were interested in that period, theater, or campaign. However, when they went the way of separate Axis and Allied books, some people did not buy both books. It will be interesting to see if they go back to books that contain something for both sides, to induce everyone to buy it.

Generally speaking, FoW is much more forgiving than WH40K, in that there are fewer surprises in the book, it is generally easier to get unit stats without buying every book, and the unit special abilities are in the main rules (e.g. "Awkward Layout", "Semi-Indirect Fire", etc.). Like WH40K the codices primarily give you access to the highly competitive lists. Again, you and your gaming buddies could agree to play generic lists, or find balanced lists and freeze them, but that is not likely to happen for very long. Variety is the spice of life and both WH40K and FoW promise a lot of variety over time.

Saga is an interesting study, because each new faction that comes out is unique in some way, sometimes creating completely new rules (Irish champions, for example). However, the exceptions to the core rules are usually very short and have to be gone over before a game. For example, when a player with Irish Champions runs three single figures around, the opponent is going to know something is up. As you almost always have to run through your forces at the beginning of every game, pointing out who is Hearthguard, Warrior and Levy, and discussing armaments (not everyone has duplicates of their Hearthguard with and without Danish Axes), that is a good time to go over the few special rules a faction may have. There are some, but they are generally very few.

Where the main difference lies is with the battleboards. What I have started doing is making a photocopy of each battleboard (for personal use only!) so that each player can play on their own battleboard and use the copy of their opponent's battleboard as a reference sheet. That way they can see every trick their opponent can pull and can ensure that they are pulling it legally! (We are still learning, so sometimes we try and play an ability in the wrong phase. Purely unintentional!)

So, if a new expansion comes out, not everyone has to buy it. At the start of the first game playing against a new faction the owning player would go over the troops used, as normal, and cover any special rules, if any. They could then hand them a copy of their battleboard (for use during the game only – I am not suggesting they let their opponent keep that copy) for reference during the game. Although your opponent might be a bit surprised by something the new faction possesses, you probably don't know how to properly play them either, so it quickly comes out in the wash.

The difference is that only those who are interested in the new period, theater, or campaign has to buy the expansion. Even if you don't share a copy of the battleboard as a reference during the game, the battleboard's composition itself is not kept secret, so your opponent can always read up on the abilities; everything is out in the open and available to your opponent without having to have everyone buy the expansion in order to remain competitive.

Finally, we get to Munchkin. Each card contains the special rules. When the card is played, the special rule kicks in and everyone sees the rule. Yes, you might play better if you knew all of the cards of a given expansion and thus knew what was possible, but given the highly random nature of the game (random card draws, etc.) there is really no way to plan or take advantage of that knowledge. Essentially this is a game full of special rules and exceptions, but essentially near-complete transparency for the players.

Special rules, in and of itself, is not the problem. It really is about the dissemination of that information to all players. Does it require the player to invest a lot of time and money in order to get "perfect" information about what is possible for your opponent? Does that information change at a rate that seems excessive (in terms of time or money invested to keep up)? Does the lack of information lead to outright game losses or merely momentary disadvantages? Do these special rules act as "tricks" that allow the player to win despite bad or poor gameplay? All of these factors lead to one's enjoyment of the game.

I see games that have core rules and nothing else as "pure", but not necessarily a better gaming experience. For me, these sort of pure games require some form of scenario (which in turn has scenario special rules) in order to ensure the game does not quickly get stale. Whether it is giving one side more points, better force composition, a terrain advantage, or a task to complete, something has to give. DBA is a good example. All core rules with all of the army lists in a single book. The army lists themselves give force composition advantages (or disadvantages), but also give a potential terrain advantage (in the form of an Aggression rating, used to determine who sets up terrain). But let's face it, some army match-ups in DBA will result in one side winning the majority of the time, because it is designed to be historical. DBA is a fun game, but instead of buying multiple books and expansions for the same figures (as with WH40K and FoW) you buy multiple armies to get the variety. (I probably have more than a dozen armies and I think Don said he had more than 60. The Schmidt's, who introduced our club to DBA had more than 160, if I recall correctly.)

Maybe this is where my American Revolutionary and Napoleonic gaming has been falling flat. When I was a kid our Napoleonic gaming was fun because we played a big battle scenario every month. The club had upwards of 20 members and had a collection numbered in the tens of thousands of 25mm figures. There was a points system that ensured variety in the force composition (although the French Cuirassiers seemed to make a lot of appearances) and the terrain always varied (and yet was always the same; to understand that riddle I refer you to my Tactical Exercises and Micro-Games post), plus there were almost always some kind of scenario special rule, like when the reinforcements came on or what turn an objective had to be taken by in order to gain extra victory points. In that kind of setting it is not hard to get variety. Now, however, the only collection is mine, and I provide both sides. I usually provide the terrain also, so all the options are fewer. I think that gaming FoW and Saga, and others like it, have led to gamers expecting equal-point scenarios. This makes it hard to replicate the gaming successes of the past, which were never equal point games. (They weren't always balanced affairs either, but we tried to make them that way.)

It is ironic that we can play an unbalanced scenario in Memoir '44 – play it twice in fact – but cannot do so with Flames of War. I know that the primary reason we can do that with Memoir '44 is because we can play once on each side in a single gaming session, but that was impossible with Flames of War. We could have played it once for each side in two gaming sessions however, but that never seemed … right.

The board gaming industry does not seem to have a problem putting out game with unbalanced scenarios, but so much of the miniatures rules industry does have a problem with playing games where the perception is that the sides are not balanced. Sure, there are players that don't use points systems and there are people that play unbalanced scenarios (I do not mean "missions", a la FoW and WH40K when I say "scenarios"), but they really are few and far between. In fact, I cannot think of a single set of miniatures rules that I play, or do not play but is played locally, that do not use equal points as a means of producing a "fair" game.

Ah well, let's leave points systems to a rant for another day. Sound off! Let me hear you thoughts on how points systems have changed gaming, for better or worse.

Taking Better Pictures with the iPhone

$
0
0
To be honest, many times the pictures in my blog are with my iPhone. Not only does my iPhone have a better camera than my (admittedly) 10 year-old digital camera, but it has a better camera than my iPad. Also, the iPhone is easier to handle and maneuver than either my digital camera or my iPad. What is does not have is a good interface for editing photos and then posting them to a blog; the screen is simply too small.

When I got my iPad I paid for some photo-editing and blog posting software for the iOS so do it all on one platform. If all I needed to do was crop a photo, especially where high detail was not necessary, the iPad was fine. The problem was that I usually did do more to the photos than crop them. I would edit out the backgrounds, add text or arrows, and change brightness and contrast. So in the end, despite the dream of doing it all on the iPad, I abandoned the software packages I bought and did all of the photo editing and blogging on the Mac.

This left me back at square one, which was which device to use for my photos. As I said, I phone has better quality, but the two areas where my digital camera beat it were: wide angle shots (say, a 8' wide table); and very close-up photos (a macro feature). So, whenever I wanted to do shots of painted figures, especially 6mm ones, I tended to pull out the digital camera. Now, I will probably pull out my iPhone.

One of the things I do with my iPhone camera is take pictures of drawings on white boards, and snaps of pages of documents. The problem with the latter has usually been that I am not perfectly parallel with the document and I wobble a little while trying to take the picture, so the writing is skewed or slightly out of focus, making it hard to read and harder to successfully use optical character recognition (OCR) software with. One day I ran across an ad for the StandScan, a stand that allows you to use your iPhone to scan documents. The stand is designed to keep the iPhone parallel and at the right distance for pictures of document pages. I decided to buy it and give it a try.

The StandScan comes in a small package. As you can see by the graphic in the photo, the document goes in a tray at the bottom and the iPhone is place on top, lining up the lens with a hole in the top of the box. The box is made of plastic-coated cardboard, and thus has some "give", meaning the top will not be perfectly parallel to the bottom. I was thinking about stiffening the stand with wires so that it would be, but that is for later.


Through a slick method of folding the product, it forms a box. It stays together because their are about a dozen rare earth magnets embedded into the cardboard at key points so it 'snaps' together.


This shows the hole in the top where you place your iPhone's lens.


I bought the 'Pro' model, which has LED lights on the inside, allowing the document strong lighting for a clear picture. You can see how bright the LEDs are by comparing the darkness on top of the box to the inside.


The picture below shows the LED lights on the inside. The StandScan comes with a battery pack, but you can buy an AC adapter for $4.45.


The StandScan Pro is $29.95, so it is not too expensive, although you might think so as it is basically a cardboard box! (The version without the LED lights is $19.95.)

In another post I will report on how well it does. I can already see some gaming uses. I once wanted to use photos of my miniatures for a digital game, but as it was necessary to take perfect top-down shot of the miniatures, I needed something like this to make all of the angles consistent.

While I was trolling around the StandScan web site, however, I noticed that they had a 3-in-1 lens for the iPhone that provided a wide-angle, macro, and fisheye capability for $24.95. (I have no use for fisheye shots, but they had no cheaper lens that was only 2-in-1.) Here is the package.


Basically the lens clips onto the corner of the iPhone over the camera lens. I was mostly interested in the macro lens. Below is a shot of a 15mm elephant painted by DJD Miniatures in Thailand. That mythical beast on the side of the apron is hand-painted. (I have two such elephants from them, all with the same design, one on each side, and due to the variations in size and strokes you can tell they are hand-painted and not transfers.) This photo is the best the iPhone could do, which is pretty good if you ask me. But I could not move the camera closer without losing focus. And because the camera was far enough away, the iPhone 'flash' did not provide a lot of lighting. (In fact, I had to tweak the brightness and contrast of that photo to get it brighter.)


Putting on the lens at first I thought it was broken or dirty. Nothing would come into focus. Finally I put the camera about 1" away from the elephant and it all came into focus. Because the iPhone is so close its flash is much brighter. This photo has not been manipulated at all, save for cropping it to a smaller size.


Not only is the painting pretty darn impressive, but so is the photo. I will definitely be using these lenses in the future.
Viewing all 135 articles
Browse latest View live