Fred's 2016 Painting Diary

[Techno]

Looking damn fine, Forbes ! 

Cheers - Phil

[Womble67]

Looks really good fred

Take care

Andy

[Bodvoc]

I agree, all looks good to me

[fred.]

Thanks chaps.

I can readily understand that it can be hard to scale up a small scale rule set for large battles - different priorities, emphases etc. It's intriguing that the rules have come from a movement away from WM.

Several of us had become so fed up of WM games that we stopped wanting to play games, even though one of our group is still very keen on WM.

We recently had a discussion about what we would fix to make WM playable for us. The list was long, and varied, and really there was so much most of us wanted to change it really didn't seem to be WM any more.

I think the key things we don't enjoy any more would include:
* Too many failed orders - I know its a core part of the game, but the chance of failure is too high. And can continue for many turns.
* Too many passed orders - less of a problem, but can break a game when the Elven (its nearly always the elven) cavalry sweeps round the whole table.
* Knight type cavalry too strong.
* Combats too long winded and too fiddly
* The buttocks of death (where it is better for light troops, and especially flyers) to position themselves behind a combat, rather than joining in.
* and plenty more...

Its not to say that WM is all bad, it certainly can provide memorable games (or moments within games), but it also provides bad games.

For the new rules we have kept the idea of WM style commanders and brigades, but dropped the chance of failed orders to 10%, and capped successes at 2. This still provides friction and uncertainty but seems to play more smoothly (this is similar to Epic 40k too).

[Ithoriel]

Seems like a good game fred and looks good too.

However, I've been a big fan of Warmaster since it came out. Or, more accurately, since just before it came out.

I like the uncertainty of the Command system. High Elf command became much less certain as army sizes grew.

I found combat, if anything, too brief.

I had no problem with the "buttocks of death" as I was used to it from DBA days.

I LIKED the fact that knights were death-on-four-legs. It's fantasy not historical gaming. In the source literature noble knights pound the grubby footsloggers into the ground on a regular basis.

Also (pet hate), there are no real pikes or skirmishers in any of the fantasy I've read. Fantasy authors seem to have no idea how either of those work! So you don't need them in fantasy rules.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Thanks chaps.

Several of us had become so fed up of WM games that we stopped wanting to play games, even though one of our group is still very keen on WM.

We recently had a discussion about what we would fix to make WM playable for us. The list was long, and varied, and really there was so much most of us wanted to change it really didn't seem to be WM any more.

I think the key things we don't enjoy any more would include:
* Too many failed orders - I know its a core part of the game, but the chance of failure is too high. And can continue for many turns.
* Too many passed orders - less of a problem, but can break a game when the Elven (its nearly always the elven) cavalry sweeps round the whole table.
* Knight type cavalry too strong.
* Combats too long winded and too fiddly
* The buttocks of death (where it is better for light troops, and especially flyers) to position themselves behind a combat, rather than joining in.
* and plenty more...

Its not to say that WM is all bad, it certainly can provide memorable games (or moments within games), but it also provides bad games.

For the new rules we have kept the idea of WM style commanders and brigades, but dropped the chance of failed orders to 10%, and capped successes at 2. This still provides friction and uncertainty but seems to play more smoothly (this is similar to Epic 40k too).

Hello

These all sound like great additions/modifications. Being a solo player (mainly) I've also been looking at trying to graft on a Lardies style activation or maybe RRTK solo stuff. Just now going through WMA and WMMA to see what I can 'borrow' there . I've also come across Chronicles of Blood and will see if I can get my attention wandering sons inspired.

Cheers

GrumpyOldMan

[jchaos79]

Hi Fred, just as a reader of your Diary, can I ask you:

The three friends that do not like WM, which ruleset mechanic they like/propose/enjoy?

It is just curiosity.

regards, and hope you will find a balance to enjoy the hobby with your mates that is really what wargaming is about!

Keep posting the rules direction of your gorup!

[fred.]

The three friends that do not like WM, which ruleset mechanic they like/propose/enjoy?

That my friend, is the question!! And it's one that is very hard to answer.

The problem is that different people like different things in rules - and perhaps more importantly really dislike certain things. In trying different rules over the last couple of years, its often far more about how someone sees a rule and what it represents rather than any literal interpretation of it. Also it seems very hard for people to be able to express what makes a good set of rules and what makes a set unplayable - and this is all individual personal opinion - so when there is a group of 6 or more it gets pretty complex.

Ultimately what we all want is to get together to play big games with a few players a side, preferably finishing a game in an evening, as getting everyone together two weeks in a row to finish a big game is hard work.

Seems like a good game fred and looks good too.

However, I've been a big fan of Warmaster since it came out. Or, more accurately, since just before it came out.

I like the uncertainty of the Command system. High Elf command became much less certain as army sizes grew.

I found combat, if anything, too brief.

I had no problem with the "buttocks of death" as I was used to it from DBA days.

I LIKED the fact that knights were death-on-four-legs. It's fantasy not historical gaming. In the source literature noble knights pound the grubby footsloggers into the ground on a regular basis.

Also (pet hate), there are no real pikes or skirmishers in any of the fantasy I've read. Fantasy authors seem to have no idea how either of those work! So you don't need them in fantasy rules.

Its great that WM works for you, and your view of a fantasy battle. Many fantasy authors kind of gloss over the details of the battles - preferring the exploits of the hero in one little bit, so the 'source' material is a bit thin on details, hence why we fall back on historical stuff to try to give some depth to our understanding of what 'should' happen.

I think it was less a problem with any of the above individually in WM, just that they became the norm, and really the only way to win. With the compulsory infantry often just being seen as something to hide at the back to protect your break point.

One of the last games we played was 4 players tying to capture the middle of the table, and in the game almost no fighting happened as everyone kept failing command rolls, and couldn't get their troops moving. It ended with the Chaos player making multiple command success and conga lining a load of troops from reserve right into the winning zone.

We like the idea of command rolls, and a lack of certainty just not the rather high failure rate of WM.

GoM
I guess a summery of our latest iteration of the rules would be
* Commanders and Brigades from Warmaster
* Unit sizes, movement and flank attacks from Irregular Wars
* Orders, Stat Lines and Melee are from the first version of our rules. Stat lines are heavily influenced by Kings of War. Melee is fairly standard number of attacks, roll to hit, roll to wound - but d10 based.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Hello

GoM
I guess a summery of our latest iteration of the rules would be
* Commanders and Brigades from Warmaster
* Unit sizes, movement and flank attacks from Irregular Wars
* Orders, Stat Lines and Melee are from the first version of our rules. Stat lines are heavily influenced by Kings of War. Melee is fairly standard number of attacks, roll to hit, roll to wound - but d10 based.

This does sound very interesting, I'm looking forward to seeing them. I've read the reviews of Irregular Wars and was looking at them a few years ago, but not actually played them. They sound interesting and I'm just off to Wargames Vault (least I can do since my figures feature in some of the AARs ). I see that large games are the exception rather than the rule:-

http://irregularwars.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/big-battle-irregular-wars.html

But if they encourage you to drink then that is a bonus  :-



Cheers

GrumpyOldMan

[fred.]

Those are my figures 

But not my beer 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Those are my figures 

But not my beer 

You win some, you lose some

[fred.]

Got the main bits of the Mayan temple scribed, glued and painted. Gone for a brown shade, might lighten up another shade yet.



Also need to make the steps - but they seem a bit fiddly, so putting that off for a bit.


I've also finally got round to painting up some Epic Squats

Two Brotherhoods worth, one of Berserkers, with two pistols and red highlights, and one of Warriors, with blue highlights, rifles and rocket launchers.
These were super fast to paint - all done in a couple of evenings.
For my own reference the green is Vallejo Scorpion Green, and the Blue is Intense Blue,

Got lots more of these guys sprayed tonight.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Digging those Squats! Temple is great too!

[Bodvoc]

Your temple is looking really good.

[fred.]

Thanks chaps