Fred's 2016 Painting Diary

[Subedai]

Nice scribing on the Aztec pyramid. 2mm houses look tasty as well.

[fred.]

Thanks - I must get some paint on the 2mm bases. Should be pretty quick too.

The scribing on the Aztec temple has gone very well - I'm pleased both with the ease and speed. I'm trying to put a bit of 3d, to break up the blockiness, so I have pushed in a few 'stones' the black ones and will probably add a little bit of green stuff to a few to raise them slightly - perhaps more on the vertical walls than the floors. What was surprising is how quickly the foam blunts a pencil used to scribe them. I tried a sharpened cocktail stick (and bamboo skewer) but both seemed too sharp and tended to create a rough cut, rather than the pencil which makes a good impression into the foam.

[paulr]

A pencil for scribing, that is a useful tip

It also explains the grey around the stones

[fred.]

It does, and it makes it easy to see what you have done!

Others seem to use biros rather than pencils.

[fred.]

No painting again this week - too busy ferrying children around - what hobby time I have had was spent on rules tweaking following last week's game.

Got a game in last night, using our new rules - quite amazingly we only made one tweak to the rules!! So we might be getting somewhere.

The left flank towards the start of the battle

My pikes and dwarfs face off against rather a lot of goblins and trolls

The right flank - if rather blurry

My knights have been engaged by rather a lot of boar riders - and were soon to be obliterated.
While my shooters struggle to crest the hill. When they finally got into position - they did manage to shoot up a bunch of chariots, who tried to cross in front of them.

It was a good game - it initially was in the goblins favour, but I pulled it back a bit, then the goblins got their cavalry re-grouped and caused lots more damage to me, winning convincingly in the end.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Looks great!

[GrumpyOldMan]

Hello

The game looks great. Are you you going to do any write-ups on your rules? Being a rules junkie just the mention of new rules can set me off . It looks like your using 40 x 40 base?

Cheers

GrumpyOldMan

[FierceKitty]

Empty howdah?

[fred.]

Thanks chaps

Empty howdah?

Yep, and only 1 tusk! Really could do to get this model finished, its only been some/many years since it was first fielded!

The game looks great. Are you you going to do any write-ups on your rules? Being a rules junkie just the mention of new rules can set me off . It looks like your using 40 x 40 base?

Yes, 40x40mm base is a unit (often made from 2 40x20mm WM bases together). We have been trying to put together some home brew rules for quite a while now, trying to move on from WM which a couple of members of our group love (though in a rather abstract simplified form) and a couple hate, and I'm a bit in both camps. We put a lot of effort last year in trying to build some new rules - but the project ground to a halt under its own weight.  And we rather stopped playing 10mm Fantasy for a while, which was a shame as we all have lots (and lots) of figures.

At the start of this year we started playing Irregular Wars - which is a Renaissance set of rules around the exploration of the New World - this is a really good set of rules, and we tried to scale it up to play big fantasy battles - but its a small battle set of rules, and didn't scale as we wanted it to. This led to a revisiting of of the home brew rules - and over the last couple of weeks we have come up with a hybrid of many things - that seems to work.

We now need to share this with the rest of our gaming group and see if they think it works as a game  

So remind me in a couple of weeks, and I'd be happy to share. Not that they may be written anywhere near well enough to play from just the document!

[GrumpyOldMan]

Hello

So remind me in a couple of weeks, and I'd be happy to share. Not that they may be written anywhere near well enough to play from just the document!

It sounds great. I mean if you've got that amount of 10mm fantasy that is shown in the photographs, it would be a waste not to use them . 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.

I wouldn't worry about the clarity of writing, they can't be worse than some of the commercial sets I've bought .

Cheers

GrumpyOldMan

[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