[Rhoderic]

Space pirates and gang wars, two excellent themes for sci-fi gaming. I like the idea of a sci-fi ruleset that demonstrates its versatility through the inclusion of scenarios for a whole range of themes and genres. Gets the reader’s creative juices flowing. Any plans to feature photos of the scenarios in action (with miniatures and terrain) as eye candy in the book?

As an aside, you may know this already, but the “ti”-sound is rather alien to the Japanese language so, though they can spell it in katakana if they have to, I think most Japanese (today) would pronounce the name of the ship as “Chitan-maru”. But, I suppose anything is possible in the far future.

[Rhoderic]

Norm S wrote:

I think an interesting facet is that most of us would genuinely say that we hate war itself and the misery and suffering that comes from it

Very true (or so I hope in regard to all other wargamers). I like to think that wargaming is a peacetime activity. I want to keep on wargaming.

Although, I am a bit ambivalent toward that specific word, “wargaming”. Much of the gaming I do is not so much miniatures wargaming as it is miniatures adventure gaming. Admittedly it’s still about armed conflicts. Here in Sweden I sometimes hear the word “konfliktspel” (“conflict games”) used in place of “krigsspel” (“wargames”). It may be splitting hairs, and it may play to the comical stereotype of my nationality as fainting-couch persnickets (fine by me – haters gonna hate and all that), but I slightly prefer “conflict games”. It’s broader and more open. Frankly, “adventure games” is what suits me best. Even when gaming wars, I think of those wars more as adventures than large-scale killing sprees (in the way that, for instance, the Aubrey-Maturin, Hornblower and Sharpe books are more “adventure stories” than “war stories”, at least to my mind).

[Rhoderic]

Crafting for me, especially making terrain, and especially with a view to world-building and “being a demiurge”, if that makes any sense. Making worlds come alive in miniature is what keeps drawing me back to this hobby. That said, I also consider it important for everything I make and paint to be practical for gaming – I’m not very interested in being a “fine scale modeller” or a “diorama builder” or whatever the enthusiasts of that separate hobby like to call themselves. To me, worlds come alive when stories unfold in them. The point of the gaming aspect (aside from the socialising, obviously) is making those stories happen. Still, the crafting aspect is the fundament of my hobby. The gaming aspect follows from that.

I’m often daunted by the research aspect, at least in regard to military history. There’s a lack of beginner-friendliness there, I think. Too many “experts” bickering over historical details and ambiguities, generally expressing (what comes across to me as) a disdainful attitude toward anyone less knowledgeable than they. Not a very inviting community. Conversely, one type of research I enjoy is that which relates to terrain-building. I love studying what the world looks like and how to emulate it in miniature in a way that’s both visually pleasing and practical for gaming. I have a strong and growing layman’s interest in the Earth sciences, as evinced by this recent rambling post I made at “that other place”.

When looking at pictures of other people’s games I tend to fixate on the terrain. I can never have enough terrain-building inspiration. The same goes for photos in rulebooks. Other gamers will fixate on rules mechanics when they read a new rulebook. Me, I mostly just stare at the trees, shrubs and hills in the photos, figuring out the techniques they used, appreciating the style and theme they went for, and evaluating them against my own terrain-building efforts.

[Rhoderic]

I must stop reloading the front page so often. Sweden is conspicuously high on that ranking 

Seriously though, glad to hear TWW is doing well. I’m just getting invested in this place.

[Rhoderic]

Awesome! While I’m not very familiar with the usual D&D-style hobgoblin fluff, I think the sort of hobgoblins represented by your figures would make great mercenaries (and thus versatile troops for fantasy gamers). Militaristic, but also (I imagine) opportunistic enough to travel around fighting for pay.

Damn, now I’m wanting to collect a 15mm mercenary army based around a core of humans and hobgoblins, with some of the other usual suspects (ogres, etc) thrown in.

[Rhoderic]

Although I tend to prefer more poses per weapon type (for massed battles, at least), these look very nice all the same and 15 poses overall is a lot. They’ll make a great skirmish warband.

I really like what you’re doing for 15mm fantasy. The range just keeps growing and growing.

[Rhoderic]

I use plain old denatured alcohol for stripping painted miniatures, both metal and plastic. That’s partly out of my frustation with all the usual tips of regional products like Simple Green and Dettol – I can’t be bothered with figuring out what the local Swedish equivalents of these products are, if they even exist.

I’ve tried “proper” paint stripper, and will not go near the stuff again. While it’s well known to be death to plastics, no one had warned me it can even ruin metal miniatures if you leave them in too long. Imagine my dismayed surprise when I found I was able to scrape the face off one of my metal 28mm figures with a fingernail!

[Rhoderic]

I like what you did with the whole Kyushu thing. I might just steal your idea of an astropolitical shift pivoting on the independence of a breadbasket colony.

Out of curiosity, what do your Amalgam Combat Organisms look like? Mutated humans? I’m imagining something like the Necromorphs from the Dead Space games.

Ivan Sorensen wrote:

Who knows? Amalgam scouts might well show on the Fringe of Unity space

By the way, “Fringe of Unity” would be an excellent name for an interstellar sci-fi setting 

[Rhoderic]

Here are three of my favourite environments:

Savanna. I don’t see it done often, even in fantasy and sci-fi, which has made me determined to build my own pseudo-African style savanna board with terrain to go with it. After a few false starts and failed experiments making acacia-style trees and tall grasses, I feel I’ve learned enough to get it right next time. I’d mainly use it for my 28mm and 12-18mm sci-fi and fantasy projects.

Wetlands. Another case of my wanting to do something that I haven’t often seen done by other people (that is, an entire landscape of wetlands, as opposed to isolated patches of marshy ground which are common enough in wargaming). On those occasions I have seen it done, I’ve studied it closely. I’ve progressed a fair deal with my own wetlands terrain project, but it’s a big project. The plan is to have enough interchangeable terrain pieces to let me represent any kind of wetland from the treeless tundra peatlands of the Arctic to tropical alien swamps. This, too, would mainly be for my 28mm and 12-18mm sci-fi and fantasy projects.

Red planet. Actually, there’s two environments I like that partly overlap under the “red planet” theme. The first is a VSF “Barsoomian” depiction of Mars as a place that’s kind of like a redder version of northern South Asia; a world of red scrublands and exotic old architecture (think spires, domes, decorative finials and all that). This is mainly for my Martian Empires project. The second is the planet of Caprice in the Heavy Gear universe; a “beautifully ugly” planet of rust-red deserts and blackish mountains, sparsely dotted with brutalistic-looking resource-extraction facilities and the occasional military installation or research station, and having no indigenous life beyond some primitive lichen-like vegetation clinging in scant clumps to crevices in the rock. A very austere, astringent, monochrome kind of setting which nevertheless keeps buzzing in my mind. It’s a bit like the planet of Sunsa in VOTOMS, from which HG draws much of its inspiration. This environment, of course, is mainly for my Heavy Gear Blitz project (not that I couldn’t use it with my other sci-fi and fantasy figures).

[Rhoderic]

I must say I’m really positive to the arrival of 3mm historicals onto the miniatures wargaming scene in the past few years. A very exciting development.

Now someone start painting 3mm 17th-18th century armies so I can be further inspired! 

[Rhoderic]

Thanks for posting!

Here’s another scatter material for those who are interested: Noch fine leaves. This material may well exist under other brands as well, but I’m only aware of the Noch brand as it’s what Antenocitis Workshop sells. LINK to the relevant section of the Antenocitis Workshop store. Whether it qualifies as “flock” or not is splitting hairs, I think. Of the four scatter materials displayed by AB, I suppose this stuff is most like the sawdust, but whereas sawdust tends to be kind of “sharp and chippy”, this material has been stamped to make flatter, rounder shapes. It’s also more uniform in size than some sawdust flocks I’ve worked with. A fairly decent approximation of leaves, IMO. One downside (for those who, unlike me, don’t overpaint everything) is that it’s entirely monochrome, but that’s hardly a unique flaw to this material, and it does come in several colours so you can make your own polychrome mix if that’s important to you. It’s maybe a tad on the expensive side, but not outside my comfort zone and I’m a fairly low-budget hobbyist.

Here’s a photo of the stuff (front and center) next to some other scatter and terrain-making materials, for comparison. Also a small (unfinished) jungle plant I’ve made with the stuff as an experiment to get a feel for how best to use it. I’ll also be using it for basing/ground cover. Please excuse the very poor lighting in these photos – terribly overcast day today.

I hope someone will find this helpful.

[Rhoderic]

For 6mm sci-fi, the Dirtside level of granularity is just right for me.

I’d sooner use a simplistic “tons of tanks” sci-fi ruleset with unit-based actions for GZG’s 2mm range or Oddzial Osmy’s 3mm range.

[Rhoderic]

I’m gradually moving away from points systems in my rules preferences. It’s kind of a big sacrifice to make as it essentially means not even trying to make games balanced in the sense of either side having a 50-50 chance of winning (whereas with a points system you’re at least trying, even if you fail), but I don’t really mind these days. It’s all about the narrative to me. Rick Priestley got that thing right with Black Powder and Hail Caesar (before the army list supplements).

I don’t care for the idea of each player being allotted the same number of “slots” for specific categories of characters or other army elements, with no leeway for variation between armies. With your example of the one magic user, one commander and two sub-commanders (if it were in a generic ruleset that purported to allow players to invent their own factions) I’d be badly hampered if for instance I wanted to copy the Tower faction from that classic gold-standard PC game Heroes of Might and Magic 3 – a faction themed around ivory-tower wizards and their magical servants. Such an army should naturally have a high proportion of magic users among its characters. I can’t comment on Pride of Lions as I haven’t played or read it, and from what I understand it’s not a generic ruleset, but I’ve seen the same sort of slot system used in other rulesets and in those cases I’ve disliked it.

There’s something to be said for the Priority Level system of the previous edition of Heavy Gear Blitz. You would build your force not only to a Threat Value (army points by another name) but also a Priority Level which you normally were allowed to choose yourself unless it was dictated by a special scenario. A higher PL force could take more elite units and had more support choices (airstrikes and the like) but also had to perform better in terms of victory objectives and victory points in order to win. Unfortunately it clashed with the TV system and made army building overly complex, so they’ve removed it from the latest rules overhaul, but in a game without points values it might have more relevance. That said, I’m also moving away from victory points-based gameplay. Without victory points a PL system would be rather difficult to implement.

Regarding points costing with a rock-paper-scissors relationship, I imagine some sort of “relativity modifier” for determining victory conditions might work. A mainly-rock army would have to work harder to count a trouncing of a mainly-scissors army as a true victory, because it has a natural advantage and therefore expectations ought to be higher. This solution is not directly to do with points costs (other than having the point values of different units determine what is a “mainly-rock army” and so forth), but I think it helps when you integrate points cost systems into a wider system that also accounts for victory conditions. It’s not something I personally would bother with, but there are other gamers who consider this sort of rules design to be perfection. During the previous edition of Heavy Gear Blitz this kind of rules design issues came up quite frequently in the Dream Pod 9 forum. Everyone had their own idea of how army-building quantifiers and victory quantifiers should integrate and relate to each other in order for the game to be “perfectly balanced”.

[Rhoderic]

Heh, nice! I occasionally use thin plasticard for basing myself.

How’s the sand texture gel? If it’s durable and easy to work with I might get some.

The first photo also looks like something I would expect to see in an issue of Adbusters 

[Rhoderic]

Another vote for the Brigade ones. I have them (still unpainted) and they’re very characterful. IMO, they have just the right look. While I’m a big fan of GZG, their power armour never really did it for me.

[Rhoderic]

Oh, and I would second Fredd’s suggestion of texturing most of the surface with a mix of PVA, plaster and paint, especially for a microscale board where grainy sand can look out-of-scale. While it’s still wet, try dabbing it with a balled-up sponge to get rid of brushmarks and achieve a more natural texture.

Say, Fredd, how does a mix of PVA and plaster work out for you? I like experimenting with materials but haven’t tried anything to do with plaster yet. I do want to find some way of giving PVA glue more substance and “fill”. I find that a mix of PVA and wall filler tends to crack as it dries, and that a mix of PVA and powdered papier-maché is unruly to work with (although it has its uses).

[Rhoderic]

Other than the warping and the width of the road, are there other things about the board you’re not happy with?

Regarding the warping, try painting glue over the opposite side of the board. That often works. That said, foamcore is generally a far-from-perfect material for wargame boards. It may be lightweight and easy to carve, but it’s pretty much guaranteed to warp unless you reinforce the underside with something more rigid (and even that might warp it, if you’re attaching the reinforcing material with PVA).

I’d also suggest that you keep things modular where you can, unless it’s very important for you to achieve as “seamless” a look as possible. The oasis and road have to be integral if you want them to be sunken into the board for that realistic look (although if you’re ambitious enough, you can cut out a slot and do separate insets that allow you to swap out the oasis for clear ground or another terrain feature), and if you want a seamless, continuous landscape of undulating hills, valleys, canyons, wadis, scrubby slopes, etc then that’s probably best to make integral as well. But there’s something to be said for having those discrete outcrops and bits of scrub be separate pieces. Another thought along those lines is to make a big, separate hill or other raised terrain feature that will entirely cover the oasis, for more variation. But if absolute seamlessness is a priority to you, disregard this paragraph 

Is the oasis finished or do you mean to fill it with a water effect resin or something along those lines? And the road, is that finished?

Regarding the sand, I can’t quite tell without a close-up shot, but you might have wanted to paint the board a sandy colour before adding the sand. Personally I overpaint all my terrain (I leave nothing in its natural colour, not even sand), but that’s just a personal preference based on my general “philosophy” for painting and terrain-building. We all have our own philosophies in this regard.

I also get the impression that you used quite a coarse, gravelly sand. Maybe, for 1/600, you might want a finer-grain sand and use gravel more sparingly, perhaps in patches to make areas of rougher ground?

These are all just friendly suggestions and I claim no expertise in the field of terrain-building. I just like to experiment a lot with terrain-building techniques and materials, and have arrived at my own conclusions for I personally like best.

[Rhoderic]

I have to say I’m feeling really inspired by your various microscale projects on this forum.

I’ve been unhappy with the 6mm fantasy ranges currently available, but that’s mainly because I’ve been assessing them from a massed battle point of view. As miniatures for a micro-skirmish project they’re rather more interesting. Your posts are making me see them in a new light. The dark elves, lizardmen and evil humans are my favourites among these.

[Rhoderic]

Personally I have an aversion to the use of most “effect markers” (magical or otherwise). Unless done really well (so as to make them “meld” visually with the miniatures and terrain) I find they tend to cheapen the visual effect of the game and jolt me out of the story that’s unfolding on the tabletop. For instance, most of the Litko Aerosystems markers are too plastic-y and two-dimensional for my tastes.

[Rhoderic]

“Brainburn”. There’s a word that makes me wince. Wouldn’t want to be a wizard in a world where there’s brainburn 

Although, it also sounds a bit Scottish… Brainburn whisky, anyone?

[Rhoderic]

I’d favour a system that limits magic in a less predictable way than a set number of max spells, ie some sort of dangerous “overload” mechanism that makes heavy reliance on magic a foolhardy enterprise. Some “game within a game” aspects (mental duelling between opposing magic-users, deflecting enemy spells back at the enemy or absorbing their power, and so on) would be alright if it doesn’t go too far. Magic items would be useful to that end, but the sheer amount of items in WHFB (at least back in 5th and 6th edition when I was playing) is too many for my tastes.

I’d want some variety in spells between magic-users of different allegiances/”themes” so that not everyone is chucking the same fireballs at each other.

If a ruleset purports to be generic and customisable, I’d want it to let me “modulate” the degree of manifestness or subtlety of magic to fit the setting I’m going for. For one setting I might want wispy, intangible-seeming magic, and for another I might want teleportation and lightning bolts.

All of that together is a big ask, I know. It’s my hypothetical ideal ruleset I’m describing here. In practice I can settle for less 

[Author]

Posts