The Quest for Fantasy Skirmish Rules

Many moons ago, I started out as a fantasy wargamer (WFB 1st edition!). This was my first foray into miniature wargaming, after a healthy diet of Avalon Hill boardgames. As a result, I have amassed hordes of fantasy miniatures over the years. Sadly, they haven't seen much use during the past 10 years or so.

Due to the success of our Antares campaign, in which every player controls one squad in a continuing series of special operations, I was tinkering with the idea of doing something similar for a fantasy setting.

The idea would be that all players control a warband of fantasy personalities and monsters, all camped in the city. This city is located on the edge of the civilized world, from which expeditions are mounted into the Desolated Lands, in the hopes of finding treasure (this setting will be based on our fantasy cmpaign world Dor, which we developed for the Dutch FRP Schimmen & Schaduwen 25 years ago).

Anyway, the question is what rules to use. As in Antares, I really like it when we develop our own rules as we go along. This results in a ruleset that focuses on those aspects that most participants like, and never develop the ballast that never gets used anyway.

However, I recently learned about two new rulesets that might fit what I am looking for. The first is Dragon Rampart, a variant of the medieval Lion Rampart rules, and the second is Frostgrave. I think both look promising, and I will certainly check them out.

Gridded games

The latest issue of Miniature Wargames with Battlegames (issue 385) has a nice column on gridded miniature games. Various wargamers make extensive use of gridded games. Just one example is the blog Battle Game of the Month. Another is the renowned Wargaming Miscellany. Both have excellent visuals as well.

Now, I have proclaimed my love for gridded miniature wargaming before (on this forums and others), and it remains a mystery to me why not more wargamers are taking up this trend.

AquaZone - our Crisis 2009 game, and a prime example of hex-based rules.

 My thinking on gridded wargaming also has evolved over the years, and I will not delve into an extensive explanation of how and why my thinking evolved (I do a lot of thinking!). But I can state my current opinions about gridded wargaming.

1. Speed of play. Ranges for both movement and firing are measured in hexes or squares. No fiddling with tape measures. When using a high enough resolution (e.g. Kallistra terrain), spatial resolution on the battlefield is good enough for most types of games. This is the most significant advantage.
2. Footprint of a unit. Many rulesets have guidelines w.r.t. the basing of troops. When playing on a continuous gaming field, this is understandable, since the base of a unit determines it footprint and its front arc. When using grids, the footprint of a unit is determined by the gridcell, and basing becomes irrelevant. This allows troops based in different manners to be used in the same game without any problems.
3. Line of sight: A common misconception when using grids is that LOS also has to be aligned with the grid. This stems from boardgames, in which LOS is usually measured hex-centre to hex-centre. But this does not need to be so. E.g. in a skirmish game, LOS can still be influenced by terrain pieces at a finer resolution than an individual hex, and LOS can still be measured figure-to-figure, altough movement and ranges are measured in hexes. It is perfectly acceptable to use sub-gridcell resolution when placing individual figures.
4. Orientation: In unit-based games (e.g. Horse and Musket period), orientation of units (front, sides, rear) might be of importance. One can imagine that orientation is decoupled from the grid, just as LOS could be, but this poses problems in practice. Best solution is to allow for 8 (squares) or 12 (hexes) degrees of orientation. In case of hexes, this means a unit can face the sides or a corner of a hex, with slightly different definitions of what it means to be in front or in the flank. We have used rules in which half-hexes in the fire-arc can be shot at at half fire-power, to compensate for the fact that fire-arcs might be larger in one orientation scheme or the other.
5. Terrain alignement. This is something I still struggle with. Human constructions such as buildings, roads etc. tend to be in rectangular grids. When using hexes, a rectangular area such as a field cannot be delineated that easily with walls or hedges. Two solutions: either make all your areas parallellograms, or allow half-hexes to be used. It is more of an esthetic issue than a game-playing issue, but it still irritates me now and then.
   Another terrain alignment problem is the placement of linear obstacles (rivers, obstacles). Do you place them along the grid lines, or across the grid cells? When placed along lines, it makes it easier to place "defending troops" behind the obstacle. When placing inside the cells, actual placement of troops inside the cell matters. In practice, I usually go for what works best with a given ruleset.

Overall, I still like gridded (and in particular hexagons) for playing miniature wargames - although I am less dogmatic as I used to be.

Papierslag - our Crisis 2011 gamae using Kallistra-hexes.

Wargames Soldiers & Strategy 78

The new issue of WSS arrived in my mail this morning. Always a good read, but this issue is special. An irregular column, written by yours truly, is published in this issue. It always feels good to make a little contribution to the world-wide world of wargaming.

With our little gaming group, we started writing articles for the glossies (Wargames Illustrated, Battlegames, Miniature Wargames, and now WSS) a few years ago (although our first publication in Wargames Illustrated goes back to 2005). So far, we published roughly 10 articles, written by Bart Vetters, Eddy Sterckx, or myself. This is not nearly the number that some more prolific authors publish, but variety in the magazines is a good thing. I always considered articles in the magazines a nice way to get a peek into how others approach the hobby.

Recently, I started to reread some of the older issues of Battlegames, and I was surprised I found good stuff in there that escaped my attention before. So, even after many years, it pays off to reread your stack of magazines. A specific article, or rules idea, or scenario, might not seem useful the particular week the magazine arrives in the post - and you might not make a mental note of it as a result - but perhaps after many years it migh come in very handy. That crazy idea that some wargamer wrote about, might just hit the right chord many years later.

And that's what a hobby should be all about: sharing ideas and experiences! 

A few finished miniatures

I have to admit wargaming activity has been on the slow side lately. I barely managed to do any painting, and due to a variety of reasons, actual number of games also has suffered.

Anyway, here are some finished miniatures.

First, some old Runequest miniatures which I identified earlier in this blogpost. From left to right: Smitten Broo, Broo with Mace and Orlanth Adventurer. The Broo with Mace required a small repair, since the mace was broken off.

Second, a large siege engine from Games Workshop, published several years ago as part of their Lord of the Rings range. I originally bought this set in 2005 or 2006, for the Lowenheim game, but I only got around painting it now.

Third, not really a paintjob, but a hangman stand put together. This set is produced by 4Ground. The figure is one I had lying around, and was (is?) part of Foundry's Old West range. Time to play some more Shootist games!

First playtest of fantasy skirmish rules

Yesterday we had a first playtest of our, yet unnamed, fantasy skirmish rules. The idea is that we will start some sort of warband-like campaign set in our fantasy world of Dor (dating back over 25 years), developing our own rules as we progress through various games. Such a scheme has worked well for our scifi Antares campaign. Instead of trying to foresee every possible feature needed in the rules, we just adapt the rules as we progress from game to game. Less stress, more fun!

Why not use commercially published rules? The only answer I can give is that developing rules is something I enjoy. But there's also a philosophical argument. I have always seen the wargaming hobby as building and designing your own game, and that includes writing your own rules. The  commercial side of the wargaming hobby, in which you buy into a set of rules with associated army lists and figures is something I consider as a less fullfilling experience.

Anyway, here are some pictures of our game from last night. The pictures are not of terribily good quality, for which I apologize. I really need to learn how to make better pictures ...

Some scribbled notes for the first playtest.

Lay-out of the table, based on the tabletop teaser published in Battlegames #13.

The table from the other corner of the room.

Stronghold of the Barbarians. Old GW Townscape cardboard buildings.

More Barbarians.

Even more Barbarians.

Facing the Orcs, commanded by a giant.

Now as seen from the giant's side.

Bart is contemplating his next move.

Still contemplating ...

State of the table when we quit the game.

SciFi Dreadnoughts

It has been silent on the blogging front. As usual, blame real life ...

Anyway, to break the silence, here's a quick picture of a recent acquisition. I bought (online) some 2nd hand Warhammer 40K Imperial Dreadnoughts, released during the late eighties. See also the pages from the 1988 Citadel catalogue, and 1991 Citadel catalogue.

They will feature in the ongoing Antares 2401 campaign, but I am not sure yet whether they will act as reinforcements for StarMarines SpecOps, or rather as the enemy ...

ACW game, Battle for Sawmill Village

Last night we played a quick ACW game, using our house rules (see link to our ACW page if you want to see the rules).

I used scenario #41 from Charles Grant's Scenarios for Wargames as the setup. This is a fairly standard encounter battle, where two sides, evenly set up, both want to take control of the same village in the centre on the table. I didn't have much time setting up the table, so it was a bit on the minimal side w.r.t visuals.

A few things we observed:

• Battles that have both armies fighting for control of a relatively small area tend to become crowded and messy affairs. All units converge on the same area. The result is a lot of fiddling with frontages and facing, and sometimes outcomes of fights depend solely on the fact that you couldn't place your figures they way you wanted 3 turns ago. Even though we swore off the competitive aspect of wargaming many eons ago in favour of a more gentlemenlike apporach to the game, it still gave me some headaches.
• Our rules do not work that well when units are occupying single buildings, so we might have to work on that.
• Specific rulesets are usually designed with a specific type of scenario in mind: lots of cover, no cover, many units, fewer units, etc... Deviating from these hidden assumptions often stretches a particular ruleset to its limits.

Anyway, here are a few quick and dirty pictures. Not of too high quality, I'm afraid. I am still not used to taking photographs when wearing reading glasses ...

Game from the Union side. The casualties in the lower-right corner are casualty markers.
We use them to indicate when a unit needs to take a morale check.

Bart's giant moving hand picking up some Confederates.

Confederate Battery deployed on the hill.
Game -winning tactic, as it turned out several moves later.

Union Battery deployed on the wrong hill.
Smoke marker from Early War Miniatures.

Both sides try to take control of Sawmill Village.

More Confederate troop moving going on ...

Battle for the village in full swing.

Just to show off my Featherstone signature ... :-)

A Gentleman's wargame is not complete without some whisky or bourbon.
This time Jack Daniels Silver Select.

"To the friends of the Schild & Vriend Gentlemen's Wargaming Society!"

Oldhammer: Orcs and Goblins

In preparation for a replay of the Ziggurat of Doom, the initial WFB1 scenario, I decided to bring out and clean up my Oldhammer Orcs&Goblins. I didn't repaint the figures, but redid the bases in an 80s style - grey flock and some simple tufts of grass and small rocks.

Note that the Orcs and Goblins are not painted green, but Orcs a brownish flesh, and the Goblins a fleshy orange ;-) Sacrilege to some, creativity to others.

Identification of some of the miniatures I have labeled as "Ral Partha" is still uncertain, but I am working on it. Any help appreciated.

All Orcs & Goblins around the Ziggurat of Doom.

Goblin Wolf Riders by Alternative Armies. See this page on Lostminiswiki.

Goblin warriors - all Citadel Miniatures

Goblin Fanatics - Citadel.

Various Orcs - Ral Partha 11-409.
The one in front looks suspiciously like the Ral Partha Bunny of Doom.
The one front left probably from the Orc Legion of Death 02-083

Orc Warriors - all Citadel. Some Alternative Armies goblins in the foreground.

More Ral Partha Orcs.

Catapult (including crew) is from Prince August.
Bolt Thrower Citadel, crew Bolt Thrower probably Ral Partha

Grenadier (Classic Fantasy Blister #327) Orc General, Citadel goblin.

Citadel Orc Archers.

Citadel Goblin Archers

Old Minifigs

I started with miniature wargaming during the 2nd half of the eighties, but only started to acquire the bulk of my wargaming figures somewhere around 1989 or 1990.

Hence, I am quite unfamiliar with ranges from the seventies. However, I have started to develop a certain fondness for old wargaming figures, and although I am not a hardcore collector, I try to pick up some figures here and there when another veteran wargamer sells off some of his stock.

This week I came into the possession of a couple of scifi and fantasy Minifigs, thanks to fellow veteran wargamer Wim VDB. I do not think I ever owned Minifigs before, although I am aware of the legendary status of this brand. So, I am quite happy that now I do have some old charming Minifigs in my growing collection of old-fashioned wargaming figures.

For identification, I turned to the excellent Lostminiswiki. Not all acquired minis are shown in the pictures below.

Some unopened packs! In this case, figures from the range Aurelea Rococo,
Knights of the Silver Rose.

Science fiction figures. A selection the Central Galactic Force, Samain, and Zarquin.

Some figures from the renowned Valley of the Four Winds range.
This range was really exceptional, in the sense that it captured a Breughel-like fantasy world.

Next up on the painting table: Elves

My plan of moving through my pile of unpainted lead and plastic is nicely moving along. I try to group my painting into batches of thematically linked figures, e.g. all medievals, all scifi, etc. This doesn't always work for the odd figure here and there, it mostly provides a nice coherent feel to most painted units. Especially since I paint to a (some might say crude) gaming standard, it is important that the troops look visually as if the could belong together.

Next up are the Elves. Over the years, I never really collected a lot of Elves, apart from some figures for roleplaying, but below are the main units I plan to paint in the immediate future.

The plastic Elves from the WFB 4th edition boxed set. These were released in 1992.  I bought the box, but was already moving out of Warhammer at the time. Hence, these figures never got painted, apart from 8 spearman that I once needed for the Siege of Lowenheim game. The original pastic sprues also are listed in the 1992 catalogue.

An old set, but a recent acquisition, is the Ral Partha Elven Chariot, designed by Tom Meier. The first reference I could find is in the 1982 Ral Partha Catalogue. I bought this set a couple of months ago from Wim VDB, a fellow Belgian wargamer, who also has been in the hobby for quite a few decades. I really look forward to putting this one together and painting it.