TSA Bring&Buy Encore

This weekend there was another "wargaming B&B" organized by the Tin Soldiers of Antwerp. As always, there was a good atmosphere, and it was a joy to talk with wargaming friends from other gaming groups you typically run into during these events.

So what was my loot?

Nothing too much this time.

• 2 old Avalon Hill games. Perhaps I might even play them sometime.
• A few old wargaming booklets.
• 2 volumes of the Funcken uniform guides from the 60s - always handy to have around as a painting reference.

As usual, a wargaming Bring & Buy always triggers conversations about the meaning of it all. "Aren't we simply shuffling old stuff around, as a merry-go-round?", "Will anyone ever play this stuff?", "What percentage of wargaming stuff bought is actually being used?" Etc.

But the best conversation I had was about the nature of wargaming rules. The number of rulebooks and supplements, big and small, old and new, simple and complex, ... that were on offer was staggering. So many rulesets that are sold 2nd hand without ever having been used ... These days, I don't bother anymore buying myself into the next "hot new ruleset". The illusion I once had that all rulesets were thoroughly researched and playtested before being published is long gone. I prefer writing my own rules, tuned perfectly to the needs or our own group. After all, aren't all the rulesets ever published not someone's houserules, written up as a booklet, and being offered for sale? And if so, it's much better to write your own ... :-)

Romano-British vs Saxons

Yesterday we played an Ancients game. The scenario involved a Saxon convoy, which was attacked by a force of Romano-British troops. Rules used were Hail Caesar - depending on who was looking up what rules in what version of the book, we used a mix of 1st and 2nd edition rules.

Bart D. and Bart V. (acting as plumpire) commanded the Saxons, while Eddy and me commanded the Romano-British.

The first half of the game consisted of the usual manoeuvring, before the close combat clash happened. Two rounds into the close combat we decided to abandon the dicefest and declared the game a draw.

Edit: Eddy has posted a report on BGG as well.

The usual pre-game activity: shooting pictures and drinking beer!

The Saxon forces.

The watchtower was quickly conquered by the Saxons.

The Romano-British village.

A view of the table, as seen from the Romano-British side.

The approaching Saxons.

The Romano-British village.

Manoeuvring around the bridge in the centre of the table.

Bart D. and Eddy discussing finer points of ancient infantry tactics.

Another view from the Roman-British lines.

More scholarly discussion about ancient warfare.

The lucky general - no not Eddy, but the Napoleon 54mm soldier in front. The lucky general is our meta-mechanic: you can reroll any roll of the dice, but then you hand over the lucky general token to the enemy.

The final clash!

The situation at the end of the game.

Tony Bath on Fantasy Gaming (1975)

Thanks to Zhu Bajiee (Realm of Zhu blog), we have another article written by Tony Bath to share. It's again an article from "Games and Puzzles", issue 39, published in 1975.

The article is titled "Fantasy Gaming" and outlines Tony Bath's view on the (at the time) new genre of fantasy wargaming.

Click here to see the full article

As with the previous article, we will analyze it further in follow-up posts, but for now, it's interesting to quote the last paragraph:

What is the reason for this sudden popular upsurge of interest not only in fantasy literature but fantasy gaming? We could say a little pompously that it is a revolt against the materialistic world we I ive in; this undoubtedly has something to do with it but I think it is more likely that, in these bleak and troublous times of unrest abroad and economic depression at home, we turn to the escapism inherent in fantasy. Once it was Cowboys and Indians or International Intrigue; now-as in the hard times of the 30s-Fantasy has struck the public imagination. What better way to escape from a world of strikes, pay claims and rising prices than to adventure through a mythical world, living by your sword and your wits, to trade spells and enchantments with master Wizards, and to drive through space and time in a mighty spaceship to fight the monsters from beyond? These thrills and escapes have long been available in the pages of fantasy literature; now they are also available in the form of fantasy board and table games and people of all ages and sexes are eager to try them.

You can still see all collected Tony Bath's materials on our Hyboria webpage.

Hyboria: article by Tony Bath (1974)

Thanks to Zhu Bajiee (Realm of Zhu blog), we acquired a scan from an article written by Tony Bath about his legendary Hyboria campaign. The article appeared in the magazine "Games and Puzzles", No.23 of March/April 1974. Realm of Zhu has discussed Hyboria before, but you can also find a lot of information regarding Tony Bath's Hyboria campaign on our pages dedicated to this early instance of imaginations and wargaming.

Click here for the full scan of the article.

The possible influence, or at least the similarity, of the ideas developed by Bath and original Dungeons&Dragons as published in 1974 has been well researched, most notably by Jon Peterson in his book "Playing at the World".

This specific article is interesting, since it was published in March/April 1974 (Original D&D was published in January 1974). That means this article was written *before* Tony bath could have known about D&D, and so it gives us some insights into the mindset of how "roleplaying" was already part of the wargaming community.

The article references many of the things that are familiar to fans of Bathian wargaming: the campaign chronicle, the personalization,  tracking everything on a large map ...

I will delve deeper into some aspects in later posts, but are some quotes I found enlightening:

The participants in the world of Hyboria, however, are enabled to project themselves far deeper into their roles, and the game goes on and on, each session leading automatically to the next, and affecting what happens in that next session. Because more time is involved, much more personality and reality can be introduced.

Players are of course required to act within the limits of their Hyborian characters. If they are given the character of an upright honest man they are not allowed to play dirty tricks or behave treacherously; should they attempt to do so they would be heavily penalized. Chance can always take a hand in their affairs, and from time to time I introduce a new element, just to complicate things, such as an embezzling treasurer, or an earthquake or a civil revolt I try to be as unbiased as possible in this - or, as one player puts it, hostile to everyone!

As a relatively new player in Hyboria, I have been particularly concerned with two aspects of the game system, 'The umpire as God' and 'the player in character'. In Hyboria, everything is controlled by Tony, who makes rules so that he can take consistent decisions and we players can _plan on the basis of past history. This very flexible system can open up entirely new facets of the campaign with very little difficulty. It does have its drawbacks, since no one can be absolutely impartial. As Warlord of the Varnar Confederation, I have to remember that God is an Aquilonian!

This doesn't sound like roleplaying, it IS roleplaying!

So, perhaps Tony Bath is the true inventor of the roleplaying game after all! :-)

Battle of Devil's Ridge (2)

After our last ACW game, I still had to "update" our campaign records. Not there's much updating to do, since this game was the first in what hopefully can become a long continuing campaign.

It's also not really a campaign in the traditional sense. Campaigns in which troops are tracked on a map, supplies computed, etc. usually die out rather quickly. That's why I'm much more a believer in "narrative" campaigns. The continuity over many games is established by naming units and commanders, and give some of them an upgrade or downgrade after each game. In the next games, those units or commanders have a history, which will be the record of the campaign. It's a  much more freeform manner of linking games together, which usually also lasts much longer than rue map campaigns. The same player doesn't even have to play the same side. It's the units and commanders that acquires new abilities, not the players.

So, after the "Battle of Devil's Ridge", the following happened:

• The commanders that took place on each side received a "battle medal" (in my ACW games, commanders are chosen pseudo-randomly from a deck of 12 cards). A "battle medal" allows a commander to turn a missed command roll into a successful roll, once per game.
  
• Each player could also name a unit that behaved heroically during the game. The following units received the following abilities (units selected by the players, but abilities by me):
• Maker's Mark Militia: +1 firing die
• Rebel Yell Rangers: minimum 2 hexes movement
• Elijah Craig's Cavalry: +1 charge activation roll
• The units that were routed, are now known by adding a numerical indicator to their names:
• Eagle Rare Rangers ==> 2nd Eagle Rare Rangers
• Woodford Reserve Riflemen ==> 2nd Woodford Reserve Riflemen

I keep track of these extra abilities by adding small post-it notes or stickers (I have a sheet of card symbols) to the cards representing these nits or commanders.

Overall, these are light-weight mechanisms to keep track of how units are doing during their careers!