D100 Stumbling Blocks

When I started gaming ADnD was the king of the block, 1e Traveller (little black box), 2e Champions, 1-2e Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls, Elf Quest, 2-3e Call of Cthulhu were the outliers. I was never a fan of DnD, it just did not sing to me, its concept were too abstract and the game felt “soft”, meaning my high level character dying seemed like a choice not a fear.

I preferred the other more grounded and realistic games out there so I naturally gravitated towards Cthulhu and Traveller. This was just how I felt at the time. I have since bought almost every edition of DnD, but it always felt alien, weird and pointless, so now I only have 13th Age, a derivative of the system with lots of clunky edges filed off, but even then, I only keep it as a “if you insist on playing DnD, I’ll give you DnD” game.

The most common denominator was the venerable D100 game mechanic, which powers a lot of TTRPG’s, more than any other mechanic outside of D20, but they have many detractors, so lets look at why and some fixes as we go.

The games are too lethal.

This is not a D100 mechanical imperative, more of a habit of design. Because D100 games are often skills based, they are by extension not level based and therefore more grounded. This more realistic nature leans into combat as the possible undoing of any character of any experience level by any protagonist.

First up, this is not always a problem. Keeping players involved and even scared of the consequences of their actions in TTRPG’s can be hard. One of the easiest ways is to raise the stakes. There is nothing more boring to my mind than a swarm of minions attacking a group of near god-like heroes who can basically just wade thought them swinging.

Choosing to fight should not be sport without consequence, it should be one of several options to get things done and the results should be a reflection of those choices. It makes your wins more meaningful, not just an addition to your kill count. It can be a memorable stepping stone on the way to your legend.

Lethality is also down to a lot more than a simple core mechanic. What happens when a character takes damage, how are they effected? Is it brutal and every hit has an effect or can they soak a certain amount of damage before something sticks?

These factors are all in the control of the designer and nothing to do with the core mechanic. D100 game have chosen to take the “real licks have real effects” path over the years, but there is nothing to say a DnD style abstractness could not be used with them.

The math is too much.

D100 math is not hard, but can be made harder. Ironically, % based systems are very intuitive by nature a 25% chance meaning more to most than 1/4 or .25, but setting various difficulty levels and applying mulpiple mods on the fly is on a larger scale than D20 or 3d6 games by definition. Some older games are also a little counter intuitive with some odd chance slopes.

Games like Warhammer FRPG 4e is a prime example of making the simple less so. It requires levels of success derived from rolls vs targets compared to opposition rolls and gets quite convoluted, even offering a simpler option in the game and many just use more basic D100 systems.

There is no need for this and many D100 games have simple fixes. Difficulty can be a matter of reversing the dice (the D10 and D1 dice are usually pre-assigned, but this can be flexible), giving the players a roughly +25 or -25% chance of rolling better than 50, with a curve and no extra math required.

For my own games a basic test (not a 1v1 contest or a test under duress) is “dice read best way” giving a curve and room for levels of difficulty to be added. For “worst roll” Red dice are used and blue for “best combo” pools, one of each if pre-designated. This also lets the game keep skill levels under control and the player may choose any combo that works for them (i.e deliberately fluff a roll for story diving need).

Exceptional results can simply be all doubles rolled, pass (good) or fail (bad), giving the characters a 10% chance of something outstanding happening, but these can also be aligned to the value rolled, a 99 fail being trivial, a 99 pass being unbelievably legendary, because only 99% skill characters can even roll it and so on. If “00” is a flat fail, then no character has a 100% chance of success. These can also be aligned to the difficulty, the 99 fail on a mundane task is negligible, but on a difficult task becomes more brutal (all this needs is a simple chart).

Contests can be as simple as “highest passing roll wins, a pass vs a fail gives advantage” etc.

These are a few ideas floating around currently and they basically remove any math outside of reading the dice.

The games are skills based (like life), not level based (like a game).

Not much can be said here. If you like the inherent suspension of reality that level based games provide, then I guess D% or any skill based games are not for you, but don’t level that at D% games only as plenty of other games go there. When DnD ruled the early years of RPG’s, basically by being the first, almost all of it’s competition went in the skills/abilities direction.

One of the many areas DnD has always fallen down is a decent skills system and support for non-combat role playing. It seems churlish to dislike the systems that actually support these things better.

Hit points, armour class, level based bonuses are closer to a video game than reality, so as a game mechanism, they make sense to many, but most RPG’s aim to recreate the world they are based on, DnD actually fails at this dismally if you compare the story line of almost any fantasy stories it claims to emulate to the reality of the game, even the DnD movie.

The linear nature of D100 is more swingy than dice pools or addition systems with a curve.

True, they can be, but the easy fix is the above mentioned roll best/as allocated/worst combo system. This means there is a curve for mundane or standard tasks, a linear chance for challenging and contested tasks and a curve against for difficult ones (and more dice can be added making thing exponentially harder).

The D20 is also linear, the curve in some systems can be tricky to make work (mods becoming more and more powerful over a smaller range) and pools can be accused of regularly producing bland results.

The roll under system seems negative and limiting, roll over is more positive.

I see this one a lot and I get it to a point. Throwing a ball as high as you can seems limitless, where rolling it along the floor to get as close to an edge as possible without it going over seems like a game in itself and one that requires restraint and some decision making.

This is very much down to your interpretation I guess. I like the high as I can within a limit envelope.

No right or wrong here. One thing I do is by using the “read them the best way” curve for basic tests, skill levels can be lower and still be effective and truly exceptional skill levels are rare and powerful. Advancement can be aligned to skill. For example, if a critical result is rolled (good or bad), the player may later test against their current skill and a roll over adds +1%. So, as the character gains skill, their progression slows, something Dragonbane does to great effect, if less incrementally.

Meeting a 97% skill swordsman should be an event, hopefully with a good ending.

If a system allows for more than 100% skills, these can be used to reduce opponents skill or allow a second safety roll after a flat failure.

The mechanics are dated.

I roll my eyes at this one. DnD is older, but nobody calls it dated. The real reason it may get this label is the consistency of the system, one that has fundamentally remained unchanged for over 40 years means it is directly linked to some games much older than the players playing them, but compare that to the revolving door of DnD and most other RPG’s that seem to have to re-invent their core mechanics regularly.

Try playing 1,2,3,4e DnD with 5e rules. Impossible.

Then give Call of Cthulhu or Runequest a go with their first and last editions mixed. Not so hard.

Easy to think of older games as old mechanics, but D100 games are a dynamic and ever changing group of games, that still share a core mechanic that is nearly unchanged and almost any D100 mechanical idea you have can be blended into almost any D100 game with little harm. Find RG:G too hard? Use BRP systems instead.

There are other negative points levelled at d100 games, but in most cases, these are simply down to “I don’t like them” worded another way. I don’t like D20 level based games with massive over simplification of details in abstract mechanics, which I feel is a more valid reason to dislike something than “just because”, but that is me, you need to be you.

I guess the question comes down to whether you like the game itself and if you do, will you accept the mechanic that powers it? I like D100 games so much, I convert other games to them.

Height And Width, My Take On A Generic Game System.

This post is hopefully going to spur me on to finishing a project that at one point basically wrote itself, but that was a while ago and it has gone a little stale.

The idea was to create a super hero skirmish game that played fast and furious with lots of dice, but also smoothly and with quick results. The result was a system that could potentially handle any type of wargame, TTRPG or a hybrid of both.

It worked really well and as I said, it basically wrote itself at a time when for me, writing games was a laborious and usually fruitless task to say the least.

The core is a pool of dice, usually of one type, a “DOT” system, which is a measure of strength (the number of dice), and of skill or quality (the height or value of the dice).

The quantity is from 1 up, with 5 being normal human maximum (or 1-2 if in a supers games to reduce the range).

The quality/speed/skill/accuracy of the equation is the type of dice used. Normal human range would be d4/6/8 with superior being d10 or 12, super human would be d16 (they make those) to d20. The pool may also have extra dice of the same or different value representing other elements, such as tools or the help of others.

For supers games, although this is only a thought bubble, the height x width of the roll could be the points cost of the “pool”, so 60 Pts could be 6x10 or 10x6 and flexi powers could be a combination of the characters choosing, like Green Lanterns ring at 80 pts.

Example;

The Hulk might have a fighting characteristic of 10d8, meaning 10x8 sided dice rolled (sounds excessive, but it makes sense below). This represents extreme strength, but only above average skill (relative to other supers). Hulk can throw stuff as a ranged option (a range x damage flexi-pool weapon).

Thor, is slightly weaker, but more skilled, so he might be 8d10 fighting. Fewer dice, but better. They each have a damage multiple, Thor has two, one with, one without his hammer. Thor also has a ranged attack (Hammer).

Captain America might be 4d16 with a x3 AP factor from his shield and an ability to defend only with his shield at d20. Cap can also use his shield at short range or as thrown a multi attack.

Granny Potts could be 1d2, so bottom end of both (an average Joe might be 1-2d6). She has no damage mod, even with a brick in her hand bag, but could still drop a single normal.

Groups of minions act as a single character with 1-2d/wounds per figure active in the group and skill ranging from d4-d8. Their only restriction is they must stay close to each other, but can split into smaller or larger groups easily enough as there is no paper work to track.

A bunch of Hydra thugs would be 1d8 each in shooting and fighting, so five of them would be 5d8.

Are all these dice an issue?

To resolve a task, two dice pools are compared (if no direct adversary, the GM assigns a difficulty pool or a set value possibly with number of successes or effects needed).

The pool with the lowest best value (or fewer of the best value if tied) is the looser.

If both pools roll an identical number of highest value dice (two 6’s one 9 etc), it is a draw.

The winner then tallies up all the dice that exceed that value including excess tied dice.

Example;

Thor rolls 10, 9, 7, 7, 6, 4, 3, 2 (winner by three dice)

vs

Hulk 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1

Thor keeps his 9, 10 and one 7, all the other dice are discarded as they are either matched by Hulks 7 or are lower. So, lots of dice but quick determination and you still get to roll big numbers.

There is a curve, a feeling of genuine power, but no cap on possible outcomes. It is theoretically possible that 1d2 Granny Potts could get the drop on the 10d8 Hulk, but to little effect other than their mutual surprise.

In one test game, Thor landed in a group of low rent thugs and failed to roll higher than a 6, which the thugs matched, the result being a shocked group of thugs and bemused Thor, but little else. The next turn was predictable as the thugs took flight, but it added an element of story driven drama.

The winning dice then have an effect modifier (damage multiple or penetration value), that is compared to the defenders defence/armour and then applied to hits.

Let’s say Thor hits with a x3 value with his Hammer (but no AP as it is a blunt weapon) and the Hulk absorbs x2 hits per hit dice meaning Thor inflicts 3x3 = 9 - 6 for 3 hits total.

Damage is layered and effects body and mind pools that can sometimes regenerate.

If a character looses half their physical or mental hit points, they must ignore all even dice as they are bloodied/dazed (or damaged if not organic).

If the character suffers a stun or confusion effect, they loose their odd dice (so both effectively incapacitate).

If a character is entangled physically or mentally, they loose all the dice that fail to beat the entrapment pool roll or value and can only fight it with their remaining active dice. If they struggle, things may go either way.

Movement is the same, with strength and speed rolls applied after actions are nominated, the best dice used as a movement increment (possibly failing if contested, like jumping or pushing through). A tiny flying character may have an unpredictable but fast 1d20 move, a monster like the Hulk uses their current physical condition x move dice, but may also jump, fly, swing or climb by character.

A team has an action roster, with their actions assigned to one of 6 action phases then rolled and assigned to one of 6 sub-phases (some are leader or assist options affecting others). Each initiative turn is rolled randomly and figures acting in a sub-phase order. The team generates this before the game. This allows for some player agency and team work, with randomness.

This is the skeleton of the system, but it works well, a rough draft giving a friend and I a fun Marvel based game where everything just worked, we had some fun results and in his words was the best supers game he had played up to that point (big Crisis Protocol player now).

A Batman heist scenario. Batman is a 4d16 fighter with a pool power of tricks (utility belt). I managed to track down D16’s but D20’s, re-rolling when needed also work. In this scale an average character is 1d6, a thug 2d8, Joker 2d12 (with lots of special tricks) etc.

For more grounded games, it is possible to scale the game. Normals in the supers game are generally used in mook or bystander groups, with 1d/hit per figure, but in a regular level game normals may range from 1-5d and skills from d4 to d12.

If supers or other high powered characters are introduced to a normal game, effects may be stronger per dice, using fewer dice to smooth things out (and allow for more long shot rolls), such as 6d10 x5 effect.

Making power pools and flexi powers proved surprisingly simple.

Some Ramblings

Bought Travel Battles the other day, then a couple of bits to flesh it out (you can basically buy it in parts, which I did, then realised I could have probably just bought two sets).

I now have two slightly different armies (hate symmetry in these things), a slightly Infantry heavy British and more cavalry and artillery endowed French force, so I can do the stubborn thin red line vs the grand battery and massed cavalry charge dynamic.

The French have 13 foot (3 elite), 4 heavy and 4 light cav, 4 artillery and 6 marshals.

The Brits are 15 foot (4 elite), 3 heavy and 3 light cavalry, 3 artillery and 6 marshals.

I also have four boards for size and variety.

The slight numerical advantage the French have is balanced out by the extra elite foot and the defensive nature of the British army.

My intentions is to paint them, but not do the “thing” that is common and rough paint then wash them. I will black undercoat and dab paint, which to be honest, is likely quicker for me. I have a habit of doing my “to be washed” paint jobs too well and often, should have just painted them better. I also do not like how the board and figs often do not match with figs washed dull and the boards not.

The boards will get a go over, my original intention was to do them as the Peninsula campaign in sandy browns and white buildings, but the figs are not a great fit (heavy cav are a bit off for that period and no Spanish Bicorns-unless I buy their metals), so a more textured green and straw colour dry brush, then some colour to the buildings etc.

My WW2 game is settled (finally). Single bases, usually with single figs, but sometimes small teams like FO’s, dual moulded’s and crews that cannot be split will be based as one, but will count as a single figure/weapon and casualty in the game. My whole set will be fully interchangeable also, which I like.

I compared all the mechanics I liked in both element and singles games and it turns out, singles is just a better fit all around and I have flexibility to do what every I want from there using sabot bases or “clumped” figure elements like Battlegroup Panzer Grenadier suggests.

There you go, only took 20 years!

I picked up Undaunted Stalingrad and Callisto 2200 as well recently. Callisto appealed on a few levels, solo play being one of them. I remember a few years ago waiting for a wave of Stalingrad games to be finished or reprinted, Old School Tactical the main one, then I sold the whole system (lovely maps), then the Lock n’ Load (whole collection with deluxe mats), which I also sold en mass as I disliked the “jargony” rules, but I do miss the Mogadishu version where it started, then the Combat Commander scenario pack, which was really hard to find at the time, then Heroes of Normandie which is a favourite game and finally Undaunted, the one that never seemed to come.

I have played Undaunted before and did not rate it, but it was not a great time to try something new as I was time pressed and distracted (and I did not like the art), so the game got setup, then nothing much happened.

Gotta live a board game with miniature game aspirations.

Stalingrad seemed to want to be my Stalingrad it seems.

Captains Chair the expansion and second core set are both coming after a very long wait. Hope it lives up to the hype (have not bothered with the original out of apathy until the set is a bit more fleshed out with logical opponents for all players).

Star Trek Attack Wing, The Universe And The Game

So, after madly collecting, splitting out and sometimes hacking cards, I have several really solid sub-genres of the game, each enough honestly to be enough.

Enterprise pre-Federation.

All of these factions the Terrans, Andorians, Vulcans, Vulcan Rebels, Xindi, Klingons, Romulans and Drones, some Tellarites and Tholians and optionally Borg, Species 8472 , and Gorn, have 200+ point fleets to draw from. The Vulcan Rebels are a theoretical split away group based on several options in the series making the most of 6 alternate paint job D’Kyr and tons of upgrades

The Original Series and The Animated Series.

The TOS period was hard to fill out, so hacking, some theoreticals and the Animated series were needed, but again 150-200+ point fleets for the Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Tholian, Mirror universe and Gorn along with optional Borg and Sp 8742.

Kelvin timeline.

The Kelvin set, a thin offer with some of the best crew upgrades and ships has been fleshed out with upgrades and ships. The set only had two of each bespoke ship model, but I have made all 4 cards for each faction into named ships, the Excelsior, Sovereign, Kreeh’ver and Somraw.

Great set, just a little lost in the overall Attack Wing offer.

The Original Movies.

This one was gutted in my clear out, a period I felt the least affinity with, but the “These are the Voyages” set with its horrible gold ships, paid a great deal of attention to it, enough to even chase up the Reliant and Changs BOP expansions as well as several I had not seen before. In retrospect, this period has probably had more spent on it proportionate to its size than any other.

Khan has both available sets, the Klingons over a dozen ships, the Feds even more, tons of crew, lots of my favourite Elites like “Cry Havoc” and “The Game’s Afoot” making this probably the most thematic of all sets. I double bought the TatV expansion and have spread the cards inside across several periods, this one as much as any others.

The Next Generation (Battle).

This is massive, really massive. Big ships only, lots of everything, lots of actual ships, named and not. I have split this into a unique set and generics, because of a slight points disparity, which is fine. If I want to I can do huge battles with generics and simple combat mechanics (no cards, standard hits vs shields, crits vs hull). The lower upgrade count and vanilla ships allow for 5-10 ships a side to be played out reasonably quickly with 1-3 special abilities per ship.

DS9 (skirmish).

This is all the smaller ships from the TNG period. The Intrepid is the brute of this set, most ships more agile but less robust than above, this game coming closest probably to X-Wing in dynamic. Most ships are named, but there is, like above, a generic option.

My issue with this set was having 8 Jem’Hadar attack ships 6 from the Alliance campaign pack 1’s which I picked up three of, but no dials, fixed by them being the same as the D-7 and other ships.

Voyager.

Voyager is a set that has massive variation in ship size, named vs generic balances and bespoke factions, so it has had some fleshing out and has been raided for other periods, because there is no chance of duplication. The Hirogen captain Karr for example has been adopted into other factions as a decent elite leader and even the Kazon have helped with weaker fleets.

I used this set to absorb the blue-white ships in this scale and period, the DS9 set got the silver ones.

Theoretically there is some crossover between DS9 and Voyager fleets.

Exotics.

Some factions have a habit of jumping around the Trek series as it suits writers looking for something new (or old).

The Borg are known to travel through time intending on changing history, Species 8472, come from Fluidic space, the Tholians mysteriously appeared in Enterprise series 4 and even the Krenim have shown they have little respect for linear history and there is always the influence of the Sphere Builders.

These can all be used to bulk up different periods, for instance, I missed out on the Xindi “Weapon Zero” from Enterprise, so the Borg Tac Cube (acting as a scout) makes a decent substitute and the Kelvin set gets three or more new opponents.

Standouts in this process have been cards like the Somraw and Gr’oth, which have representatives in almost all Klingon fleets in name or ability.

The Noble Art Of Re-Basing And Other Nonsense

About 15 years ago, or maybe more, I have a series of game ideas, I bought figures, started the laborious (pen and paper era) task of writing and re-writing rules, you know, the stuff you do when a hobby consumes you.

Things were settled in many ways. I knew what I wanted in the scale of the games, the feel and look, even the mechanics in many ways.

So, what happened, what went wrong between there and here?

The first/main problem as I see it has been one of priorities. I have been trying to write the perfect rules before I have finished the figures, or more to the point I put the rules cart before the figures horse. This means that I had written myself into oblivion, never settling or being able to “visualise” the end product.

The fact is, I like toy soldiers to look like that, little men doing their thing in nice scenery, which is what got me into the hobby in the first place, but many games require element basing, and although that is admittedly easier in many ways, I struggle to commit and my analysis paralysis has become habitually cyclic.

Too many options, too much second guessing, too many reviews and unfortunately buying other peoples rules, only to cherry pick out a few ideas and add them to my own. Such is the hobby I guess. Some follow a path with conviction, many hesitate to their peril, neither is wrong or right.

Part of my issue is and I know this to be true, that I do not play in others “sand pits” as often as I should which not only clarifies preferences and highlights dislikes, but it also takes the preciousness out of the process.

I know players who will ignore unpainted figs, inconsistent basing (or even scales) and happily sub-in completely inappropriate figures or even don’t use figures at all, just to get a game going. I could learn from that.

I don’t and it shows.

WW2 games in particular are vexing.

I like “old school” singles and tend to lean towards “naive” toy figure gaming. Respected and excellent systems like Dave Brown’s “O Group” or Battlefront WW2 are better at simulating the reality of war, but not always the wargame I want to play. The closest I have come to the perfect simulation using element bases is Crossfire, but these also have issues.

Singles look right to anyone, but require more handling and some dual moulded and crewed weapons do not play well here. Guns can be used by multiple armies with the crew provided separately, figures fit into terrain and generally look natural, even if some games require a lot of accepted abstraction in scale to succeed, like Rapid Fire at 1:15 scale, a single tank or two figures representing a platoon.

Team or section bases are more mechanically sound with a single element being a command, casualty and combat unit, the actual fig representation meaning little and dual moulded and crew weapons are absorbed naturally, but the game tends to look a little board-gamey.

Visual abstraction, or abstraction of scale?

So much consternation over so little?

Which sells it better, 6 loose figures, 3 dual fig elements, a mix of both? Also a chance to look at the new “Fields of Glory” mat from Geek Villain.

I think I actually like the 1-2-2-1 look as it seems denser, maybe more interesting and it sits better with dual moulded figs. The other factor of course is does the platoon have to be fixed? It is a group of figs from a parent company, so it might be more, might be less.

5 that are 5 or 6? Maybe better with a mix.

The various abstractions and practicalities cut both ways.

Something that surprises me on reflection is that a loose gathering of figs as a platoon can often be less mechanically weighty than controlling each individual element on its own, so to simplify that, I have basically written the same system for each, the mounting of the figs being the only point of contention and at the same time effectively irrelevant.

Singles mean the circumstances of every figure can be resolved on it’s own for determining cover saves etc, but the whole unit can fire as an abstract group and the effects of morale applied to all. Elements just make each base a discreet “figure”, so fewer active bits on the table, but also larger attrition “steps”.

Apart from handling, minor mechanical differences and scenery fit, I am hair splitting really, it makes little difference, it comes down to what I want to be looking at and the core family of mechanics I will be adhering to most.

A mix of the two (1’s and 2’s) helps with handling and terrain fit, but it looks messy, no matter how much I try to convince myself otherwise.

My Britannia 20mm WW2 collection was meant to be used as 1:5 scale Rapid Fire-like games, 6-8 figure platoons acting as the tactical unit. In RF, I cannot vibe with the 1 Piat for a Battalion thing and my bought figs fit into my OB’s in number only, not specific weapon representation.

Britannia figs have two clear divisions for my needs. One group have dual moulded and linked together crew served weapons, another sub-set have figures that can all be mounted totally independently (USMC, Ger Jaeger, US Rangers) with no “joined” figs.

The 1:5 company (platoon units) feels closer to the look and feel of the game to me than the 1:15 battalion (company units) and I prefer a battalion sized overall battlegroup to a larger force (usually, I dabbled with 1:10 for a while, 12-18 fig companies sitting quite well).

Then I looked at maybe element based Crossfire (at teams level) with my smaller unit forces. I really wanted to do teams level modified, which fixes a few scale abstractions in that game I have really come to dislike, but again, figs as bought did not fit that mould, so to speak (not enough LMG’s for one).

Turns out, I have basically flipped this to small unit singles and large unit elements.

Some small unit games like my Vietnam, Pacific, winter in Stalingrad/Berlin and Commando raider games are fine as singles and can give me my “old school” fix and some of these are already done, but the larger scale 1944 western Europe “operational” games are where I bog down. Importantly, these look right don’t they?

My lean is towards a platoon of a mix of single and dual figs for larger units, making a platoon unit acting as one with various conditions applied. This might or might not include attrition and removing figures.

The company is the actual command unit, bases just being grouped for initiative and combat efficiency into patrols, platoons and detachments.

I could also do my CF teams game at a pinch with sabot bases. If I want larger units, I can still mix in my singles and most singles games will allow these with casualty markers.

Next.

My ECW 28mm figs were to be in diorama based regiments or battalia, using Principles of War or a similar regimental level game with no figure removal. POW was not a perfect fit, but it felt like a good starting point, maybe slightly down scaled, more tactically nuanced, some other bits added for flavour.

Plenty of figures painted or partially so, then nothing.

The 28’s have a partner in my less exotic but more numerous 18mm Museum ECW set all mounted for DBR or any number of other games, so these are able to handle the bigger armies and battles. My more varied 28’s seem well suited for a semi-skirmish scale, the small wars like Cornwall, Wales, Scotland.

The Pikeman’s Lament got me excited, then not as the game is too loose and small scaled for me, it lacks the right feel and I struggle with some mechanics. Very Civil Actions by the Perfect Captain with a major re-write, or a set of my own making. TPL is still an option, I just need to look at some annoyances like scale, fig removal/unit condition and a lack of pike blocks.

My 28mm Gripping Beast Arthurians were to be the same, diorama bases like the old GB adds I fell in love with at the time (MW-early issues in the double digits) and an unknown set of rules.

I managed to get 40 odd figs painted a lot more started, have mounted and re-mounted them and maybe I have settled on Dux Bellorum and my preferred game with large diorama bases.

Yep, don’t get comfortable boys, the bases maybe are coming off….again. It does seem a shame to re-base them but it turns out on inspection, I have already started.

These three, the worst offenders and my guilt spaces over the years have become habitually ignored.

The rules;

1. Always mount figs for the most flexible application of rules and scales. Think of them more as a flexible resource, not a cement shoe one game choice.

2. As long as they suit your desired look, because if you don’t like the look of them, who cares in the end.

This may sound like a contradiction, but it is possible.

What does it mean in real terms?

Mount almost all figures for singles games then use sabot bases as needed.

My operations level WW2 figs will all be mostly mounted as singles for games ranging from 1:1/3/5/10, then sabot bases can be used to suit various more “modern” element based games.

Some units will have no duals and be mounted as singles, which makes them ideal for skirmish level games. Any issues raised by moulding etc can be sorted, they always have been.

I already have sabot bases made and have even used them successfully.

I love this game, it is as close to a minis game any “flat” game has every been for me, but when my minis start to look like that, I am less enthusiastic.

Coins may also be used as bases as ironically, metal coins cost less than plastic bases and give more heft. The cheapest bases I can find as plastics come in about 10 to a dollar , so the same as a metal 10 cent piece or over $1au for a 40mm!!!!. Ed. some wooden bases, 200 for $10 have been found.

This means that most forces will have 30-160 odd combat elements on the table depending on scale and the rules depth will decide what that means. Rapid Fire for example can handle a 1:15 brigade, Chain of Command a 1:1 platoon with supports, a simple system of my own can do battalions at 1:5. I will intend to have coherent OB’s for specific units, a “best use” option as many were bought to be 1:5 battalions or 1:1 skirmish, but plenty of flexibility from there.

The reality is, most element based games can be played with clumped singles and element bases severely limit how harmoniously the figures fit with their scenery (hate that leaning base look or sitting on top).

Every set of rules I have can be used from 1:1 Chain of Command or Bolt Action to Rapid Fire at 1:5 or 1:15 to Battlefront WW2 or Cross Fire on sabot bases or just clumped.

So,

• Looks good

• Fits all uses as a resource, not painted (or mounted) into a corner.

Ok, next.

My 28mm ECW figures will be mounted 3 foot or 2 horse on a 40 to 50mm square base, a departure from circular, which surprisingly I find too irregular and bulky to form cohesive units in units of 2-6 bases.

I was sorely tempted to go with singles again, then use diorama sabot bases but there are really no singles-only based games I want to do in this period.

This might be a size thing, my 45mm circular bases not clumping together convincingly with the convex edges pushing figures apart too much and looks like success relies on some 1’s and 2’ to fill gaps and the assumption of small scale “mobs” at skirmish level, not arranged units. Ideas I had for circles allowing a less rigid formation have given way to the need to actually be able to form them.

Also, after cutting and hand carving a dozen circles with irregular edges in hard 3mm foam, with still about 80 to go, I think it would be easier to cut squares and there is nothing to say my squares have to be perfectly regular, or the units perfectly lined up, or the figs rigidly placed. I can then also use movement trays.

Yet another mounting idea, this one for Pikeman’s Lament, which I have gone cold on and it turns out, the big circles are of limited value for convincing formations or most other games. I do like the 3’s, 4 figs looking too parade ground perfect.

This means I can use (re-written) VCA, modified TPL, my own rules, several of which have been penned, and any other rule sets capable of smaller, skirmish-like actions like FH, WHECW or P&S. At worst, I would need some casualty markers, at best they are ideally suited in regular elements.

My 18mm ECW will remain on DBR bases as I have started them, which suit every large scale rule set I have (PoW, VWQ, Forlorn Hope, P&S, DBR, FoG).

The 28mm Arthurian armies might not go this way, not even singles with large sabot bases. I have some mounted as singles right now, but doing my original intention of diorama bases is still appealing on several levels.

Fixed diorama bases reduce flexibility, increases handling risk (dropping a fixed base of 6-9 figs could be heart breaking) and it requires commitment to a base look which may not match all my mats. It also forces scale and abstraction and scenery becomes partly irrelevant as bases will move around it, but not into it, but the reality is, I like them for this scale and they are the norm for Dux Bellorum.

They look lovely, but are not overly table practical and I can mimic them close enough with good sabot bases (which can be done to suit several scenery styles), but I will go with them for this period alone.

This is a case of the exception that proves the rule, a commitment to one game and staying the course.

My sabot bases (many already made) will not be the perfect circles-in-the-hole type, but harmoniously edged ones with a “clearing” in them for bases of many sizes and any density.

Sorted? I really hope so. I just ordered 300 25mm circular bases.

If not, the next option is gifting the lot and moving on.

*This would suit not only these rules, but also other rules and I could also take my Dark Ages Viking figs and use them for the same game.

Game Mats, Flat Out Great (With Added Lumps)

I struggled for years with a gaming table the suited multiple scales, eras and terrain needs.

I made panels, large and small, even had a massive 5’x 8’ grass “box” of textured brown-stone paint and loose grass over the top with a 4” retainer wall around the outside (the idea was to hide terrain joins and make roads by using a blower to shift the grass).

Things came and went, only a few bespoke 4x3 boards for specific games surviving.

I then moved to neoprene, and some vinyl, but these had the usual issues of finish, often slippery, sometimes shiny and always flat like a croquette lawn. This is fine for some games, perfect even, but regular land battles always looked wrong and worse, boring.

I then discovered soft fleece.

Fleece has several advantages.

It stores easily, the creases, if they show, can be ironed or steamed out, or often just disappear if you lay the mat over a velvet rug and place some terrain, it can be washed and figures get a soft landing should accidents happen. You can use all the mat or fold it and just use a small part.

They can roll or even scrunch up for transport and storage and do not weight much. I have 10 in a single plastic storage box and intend to add more. A similar number of vinyl and neoprene mats take up a whole corner of my games room.

The surface is (usually) low sheen or true mat, which is a good match for modellers mat finish, that paint/grass/dull coat look and reality. The images printed on them range from “pop” art to photo realistic. I have found most mats match most things I have made over the years more or less.

This also makes pushing large diorama bases easy enough, reducing handling.

I based these figs and scenery 15 years ago, the mat fitting quite well with them. This is an older style mat, CB have started to do slightly more photo realistic, plush and shiny ones lately, but these still fit many styles of game.

The main thing I love about these and there is no better fix I have seen, is their natural looking undulating hills and valleys. Almost nothing in the natural world is perfectly flat unless it is man made or a medium that levels it (water, snow, sand), so playing on a perfectly flat game board is unnatural and unrealistic and equally, the sharp edged drop off to flat of “stepped” hills is unnatural and gamey.

All you need to do with these mats, usually oversized to accommodate this and retain true 6x4 dimensions, is place some shaped foam under the mat and you have gentle slopes, shallow trenches, hills where you need and they are naturally graded and unlike most placed scenery, the slope can be so subtle, it is a natural, almost incidental look.

Perfect.

If you want really sharp drop off features, they still probably need to be placed on top to avoid odd creasing, but these features usually have rocks or open dirt faces anyway, so they need more detail.

This sniper is on a small rise that makes a difference. The mat is Cigar Box “Town of Liberty” with roads.

Lastly, but still a thing, you can place most scenery on them more naturally. The subtle texture of the mat, the dull finish, muted colours and slight plushness, all allow scenery to settle well, even cut out roads and River nestle better.

Most of my basing and scenery was made years ago, but still manages to blend with a variety of different mat looks.

The only genres I do not find them overly useful for are flat surface games like space, air or water, where neoprene or vinyl and bases with rubber feet to reduce slipping work best. City scapes can be either-or, and I have several.

I started with Cigar Box, because at the time they were the only makers of any note. Coming from the U.S. freight was crippling, but I bought in pairs to reduce that and built up some decent options thanks to some later Australian suppliers (mats were dearer, freight cheaper).

One of the better new ones and one I hope the Geek mats are similar to it. This is near perfect except it has a river running right through the middle, so it does not suit every game. Again, 20 year old scenery fitting in ok. The Geek mat Stoney Grass looks to be very close to this.

I used their Redwood Forrest for my jungle games, grabbed a few of the older, more stylised field and crossroad mats, a beach, city scape, a new river and others I forget (nothing is wasted, I even scored a repeat of the “Waterloo” mat and intend to mark it with a grid for “To the Strongest”.

Redwood Forrest equals jungle to me.

The reason for this post is the discovery of another maker, one that has added just the couple I needed to round out my set.

Geek Villain of the UK make mats of (it looks like, not got them yet), the same quality, slightly lighter, different looks.

A bit of Fields of Glory, which sold me when I noticed the subtle pathways.

I bought “Fields of Glory” a good generic, any season, any European or American location, scale or period with a hint of a usable trail or pathway and “Rocky Grass”, a semi arid looking mat for anywhere from a northern snow valley in summer to Afghanistan.

I have tended to have either grass, jungle or desert. This one looks to fill the gap.
I am also very interested in the cut them out yourself roads, but they were out of stock when I ordered.

They are both cool toned, slightly magenta compared to the more yellow based CB mats, but either suit my basing, the GV ones maybe even better.

Looking at Cigar box again, they are even now doing 15’ wide mats for epic games.

Show, Don't Tell

When it comes to GM-ing a Horror or really any adventure based TTRPG, maybe even a table top minis game, a lesson can be taken from TV and Movies, one driven home to me recently.

“Show, don’t tell” is an axiom from the film and stage industry meaning basically “don’t treat your audience like schmucks, let them work it out” and in murder mysteries, it is the core of it.

As an example, I watched the first series of Penny Dreadful and was impressed by the acting, attention to detail and depth of story. It made sense, it was restrained and the characters driving it were excellent, the whole thing hinging on existing legends re-visualised, but also reinvented.

The thing that made it compelling to me was the very real mystery and fear the series generated by keeping the “big bad” just out of reach, always a threat, hinted at, not exposed, never predictable or even quantifiable, letting the viewers imagination fill in the spaces as each of them wants. It was a perfect balancing act of pre-formed expectations meeting the unknown.

When and how would it strike the protagonists, what did it want, was it even what they supposed, is anyone ever safe?

In series two, the evil is front and centre from moment one, the machinations of its plot also laid bare for us to digest and peripheral stories branching off to distract. This is disappointing because the big bad is bigger and badder, but feels cliched and its delivery through mundane types with their own issues is dare I say, disappointing, maybe even boring.

A totally unsatisfying experience by direct comparison.

Series three started better, some semblance of mystery reintroduced, then second episode we are back to full exposition, mystery gone. Worse than that, they are revisiting Vampires, but differently to series 1.

No amount of special effects, cool makeup, evil deeds done or ominous plot delivery can recover the loss of a simple “fear of the unknown” dynamic that does so much with so little.

When Spielberg made Jaws, the shark refused to cooperate with the script. It rolled, sank, or did nothing at the worst times, or did it.

Spielberg revealed afterwards that he learned the lesson of “less is more”, taught to him by a crude and malfunctioning mechanic carnivore. Some scenes were even made by working with what they had, like the boy to shark “eyeball” scene in the Pond, cut from some versions for being too scary.

The lesson is, don’t underestimate the power of mystery or your players ability to fill in the gaps. You do not need exposition to fill in gaps, to reveal secrets or even answer questions that characters would not know with straight or unambiguous answers. Some very successful mysteries are tackled in literature and on screen, but never fully answered.

For Call of Cthulhu games, retaining mystery can be hard. The Franchise is so often explored, even people who have only played the odd themed board game or read one story can often guess the protagonist simply by location or first clues (or from the name of the game!), but can or even should they expect to?

Why not throw something at them they have no idea about, even something mundane (after all Man is often the worst monster), something that may act like “X”, but turns out to be “Y” and even when escaped from or vanquished, “Y” may still remain a mystery?

The Haunted West, A Cold Stone In A Silk Glove

First up, The Haunted West was an auto-buy for me, like stumbling across a long forgotten Attack Wing faction set at a good price, or a classic lens in a boot sale for pocket lint.

Diversity, inclusion, historical accuracy and pulpy cool with comic book graphics, kinda sums up the experience.

It was D100 “modern”, even with layers and options. It is sumptuous, comprehensive, engaging (all those pages absorbed at such a busy time), it is a work of historical importance (well, for the market it is serving, who may not be looking for some truth, but get it). It is a true “seminal work” in its genre.

This one book manages to provide the gamer with a deep history of the true west, not the Saturday afternoon serial or even the “hard” west of more recently work (The Thicket comes to mind), with several game style options to use, all while fulfilling the “everything you need in one book” promise.

Why the heading?

Ok, I have two small issues with it, one practical, the other less easily explained so bare with.

First up, it is massive, I feel too big to be one book and I also feel, and this goes to below, that it is too much information for one book to hold in a game-practical sense.

The two book idea can be seen as a money grab, but the reality is, there is a “critical mass” to these things and even games quick to brag about their “all in one” accomplishment like 13th Age, adopt the two book model eventually (13th Age 2e).

I have several larger books in my collection and they all share one thing in common, they tend to sit (flat) on a shelf, with me reluctant to handle them too often or loan them out and/or, I have a duplicate, sacrifice copy like Dragonbane (or WHFRPG 4e, another one that could have been two).

I assume the single book idea was to reduce costs and that does make it a bargain buy for a huge 800 page tome ($135au, when most 250 page books are $80-100). It is cheap for what it is, effectively three Call of Cthulhu books for the cost of less than two, but if you are a player only or just want to take it somewhere to read on the train. Not gonna happen.

I bought the physical book, then I bought the pdf for the only reason I ever do (outside of when it is free with the paper copy), which is to save the physical copy from damage. I will learn the game with the pdf, saving it from the majority page turning and spot reading (on the train….).

If the book was split into two, maybe a player book with char-gen and needed core (conventional) history intertwined and the core rules of the game in the back, then a separate Balladeers source book with the monsters, deeper and unusual history, special rules, exceptions and other GM stuff.

Another advantage of the PDF is, I can print out a “players” copy of just what I want them to see.

Apart from anything else, the sheer range of weirdness and theming is harder to keep focussed if the players have access to all the ideas in the book, all the time.

This is then especially useful for theme segregation, meaning there are a lot of weird options available to you in HW, so it is important for the balladeer to be able to choose what, when, why and how much, even if any weird at all is in their game.

You may want a mundane world, or one with a single or rare strangeness as an exception, or a full Weird West approach, but that is for the Balladeer to decide and the whole unknown thing hues closely to the reality that these times were mysterious, scary.

For me, I want a mostly mundane world (the real history included is strange enough for most) with a hint of sometimes real or often imagined supernatural. This is close to reality and just the right tone. People with guns are plenty scary, you only need a hint or legend to push it over the top.

The West was a superstitious place, let’s assume most is imaginary………. .

The second issue would also be helped by splitting the books, but for another reason.

The Haunted West is up-front and unapologetic about its desire to right the historical inaccuracies of the past, so much so that it places race front and centre.

The reality is, white people were only a relatively small and late to come part of the Wild West’s long and epic history. Most cowboys were Mexican, many soldiers were black, the huge Asian population were mostly sidelined and gender was more fluid than even in later periods.

If a group wanted to have an all white character group for example, maybe a family of European settlers or an organisation that was only ever historically represented by white people, not just one not as hijacked by 1950’s popular culture, then they may find that the game pushes back, or at least their conscience does.

This is your cast of characters, every race and gender and some real surprises await.

This is as it should be, but it is as obvious as the reverse being true.

If the game book was split into two still massive 400 page tomes, or maybe even a three book set, with the setting with all its truth telling as a third book (saleable as a historical work on its own), then the Balladeer and players could choose their play style, their “vibe” with a greater sense of freedom, because as is, even that is a little confusing.

On one hand you have a pulpy, weird west D100 TTRPG with all the trimmings. Aliens, Euro-horrors, legendary beasties, mundane nasties, Asian and African myths, even an alternate history and I guess with little effort Cthulhu could drop by if wanted. It reads like a grown up version of Savage Worlds Deadlands (a game I have owned but never really gelled with), it’s maybe the game I had been looking for to fill that gap.

On the other hand you have a Ken Burns style hard-history documentary work with hundreds of sobering facts dropped in your lap.

Maybe the movie Sinners is closest to covering the pulp meets horror with historical clarity vibe.

Possibly the need to keep it in one book came from a fear that gamers would simply reject or neglect the serious bits, but the fact is, they still can and many will to access the pulpy goodness, they just need to stump up for this encyclopaedic work and ignore a huge part of it to do so.

I will never regret purchasing a TTRPG like this. It is all things good in the RPG world, that as I have written even recently is tending to hand us games on a platter that are threatening to nullify free form imagination. I would though, and this really goes against the grain, possibly recommend this in pdf form or as a bundle or even on its own, simply for the logistics of it all.

From the PDF, you could easily print out that players char-gen and potted history sub-book.

This adheres to old school gaming, meaning imagination first, system constraint second, while empowering that older style with newer system ideas and even has, if you feel you need it, a new age PbtA hack in the back.

The book is currently out of stock with the creator. Maybe time to look at either a split or maybe just a Players book option?

Regardless, it’s great value and a great read (in either form) for as long as it holds together.

A Find, Then Another.

Some things in the Attack Wing universe have been let go.

The Romulan, Dominion and Borg faction packs from a few years ago and the third Dominion War set for Alliance are four and I accept that unless I am insanely lucky, I will never see them, but that is ok, I have plenty.

Another one that did get away and I remember having it in several carts, but never jumping was the Animated Series Faction set. The short run Animated series from 1973-74, the unofficial fourth series of the TOS period and a link to the movies, won an Emmy, helped keep the series alive and even broke some new ground in the world of early serial sci-fi animation, then dropped off the face of the earth.

It adds several ships including another Enterprise, two Klingon and a Romulan D-7 (bit rare that one), as well as several Captains and Crew with Weapons, Tech and the odd Elite. It fleshes out the TOS quite well, if you are ok with the animated character art (the other card art is mostly irrelevant).

Mildly interested in an end of financial year ad, I followed my nose and found not one but “3+” Animated series sets at half retail clearance price. On the open market these things are going for well north of $300US used!

What t do with a pair of TAS packs (yep bought 2, why would I not)? The Klothos, Devisor and Talon are all too cheap, I assume to be in line with later tournament costs, so these will have to be adjusted.

I can take the second Talon name and Devisor card as is with a picture change into the Enterprise era, but the second Klothos, a cloaking D-7 in the mid point between TOS and TNG is actually going forward to the TOM period (D-7’s are thin up there). Which gave me an idea.

I have a Vulcan/Fed TOS Intrepid coming in a repeat Vulcan faction pack and the second TAS Enterprise at 20 pts with shield repair which is a beast and too cheap and powerful for the TOS set, so these are going TOM (the other Ent will be point adjusted in TOS). The Enterprise refit was done early in the movies, so it stands to reason the older ships would have been in this universe as well (Excelsior, Miranda and Oberths all made it to DS9).

Looking to fill my cart and with a recent review of the Kirk expansion for Away Teams, I stumbled over that, the Scotty set and the “Q” expansion. The last one adds a lot of variety and different play styles with some needed randomness.

I am also keen on the terrain expansion, so we will see if it even actually comes up.

These seem to have evaporated, but the Q competition pack was a win.

Fun times.

Can It Be?

I have, I kid you not, probably a dozen sets of ECW rules, which may seem a lot, but like most periods of war gaming, maybe more than some, it is a tricky period to settle on.

I also have two sets of figures, a comprehensive Redoubt 28mm set, covering the Montrose and English campaigns, great for small actions and skirmishes up to medium and a decent 15-18mm Museum minis set with a more conservative range of figures, no clans, no Forlorne Hope, no character figs, but ideal for small to medium field battles.

So, what have I decided in for these two platforms?

A Very Civil Action, a free set from the Perfect Captain, modified a little, but not much, really just a re-write from the parent Spanish Actions, will cover the element based 28’s.

The elements will be a rough-semi irregular square either 40 or 50mm depending on type with 2-3 figures mounted. A compromise between a circle and a square, tapered edged and irregular to blend with the table top.

I have found after some experimenting, that consistent circles are actually difficult to create regular looking formations with. This works ok for TPL where shape is nearly irrelevant, but not VCA, which is set to a slightly higher scale and is more formation specific. The 3-2-1 system favoured for Pikeman’s Lament is better, but does not suit this game.

I can also play Pikeman’s Lament with these bases.

For the 18’s, I will do the other free set Victory Without Quarter, again with some mild re-writes to suit my needs and collection.

The main thing is perception of scale. I am going to use the term Battalia, meaning a regular sized unit made up of all of or part of a regiment, or several small units combined, like they actually did it.

These rules are clean and flavourful at a scale I like (small field actions), but lack the variety of VCA, which suits my Museun range.

The other departure is to retain DBR-style element basing*. This has several benefits.

• It is more flexible and recognised. I can basically play any set of rules with these bases.

• It allows for more logical unit composition and formation shapes. It can represent 1:1 ratio units with a third pike row added, something VWQ as written struggles with. It can form a multi facing pike and sheltering shot block (also allowing pike or shot only units to represent awareness of a threat to the rear) and open order can be more open, not just elements spread, but in depth also.

• I have the bases and a unit already mounted for them (so sick of rebasing).

So, after all these years, all these rules, so much time and money wasted, I am going with two free sets of rules.

Who knew?

Also a surprise has been my library. Struggling to find the information I have been chasing, the internet coughing up the same sites with the same articles over and over, I discoverered, partly by chance, my own extensive library while looking for something else.

I have some great books, and quite a few. Turns out I have been adding to the library well past my reading period, turning more and more to the web, ignoring some excellent resources.

*40x20 with 3 shot, 4 pike, 40x40 3 horse, 3 dragoons (mixed mounted and dismounted) and artillery. The extra depth of some means little, especially at larger DBR scale.

Attack Wing, Why I Like It Better Than X-Wing.

My first science fiction love was Star Wars, the original movie, first time round the block when I was about 10, watched at the beautiful old the Princess Theatre Launceston. I can even remember (roughly) where I sat, up in the stalls left hand side.

I went in with I know not what expectations, possibly none, I certainly don’t having remember any, but I came out changed.

Science fiction that looked real, looked like it was the history of another place, lived in, like it actually happened, not the weird, super clean, strangely fanciful fiction I had seen up till then.

Star Trek came later, a constant flood of series from various generations, filling the void Star Wars left between the original trilogy and the things that came later, movies I did not even bother with until recently.

I found Trek a little boring at first. The old stuff was old and looked it, I viewed it like a teenager looks at a child, too close to their own recent past as to feel familiar, but alien, the newer stuff was that clean, unlikely future I had rejected in the past.

It grew on me. The big ships, variety of encounters and sheer saturation won in the end and Star Wars became the “other one”, a world of pulp fiction and many series I had little awareness of. Somehow Star Wars lost it’s special place, it revealed its simpler ideas and less developed story lines for what they were, pure Space Opera.

Ok, the point.

I bought into Star Trek Attack Wing early to get into a game type that was not admittedly my preferred style (pre-painted, semi board game), but an itch that needed scratching and going AW meant avoid the larger commitment of the more popular X-Wing. I also knew more about it and familiarity is a thing.

X-Wing still happened, then Armada, both just completed as their respective games wound down. They became an obsession and I even sold off some Attack Wing to help soften the blow of chasing some weird and rare X-Wing and Armada ships.

That was a mistake.

If I could wind the clock back, I would have avoided X-Wing all together or stuck to my guns of only doing the TFA period (bought cheap on clearance), something the 2e upgrade packs would have perfectly fit with and also probably avoided Armada or more likely avoided the Prequel sets where I started. These were never completed, which still annoys.

That would have let me complete my AW range which was still clicking along in the background (missed the Romulan, Borg and other Faction packs and 3rd Dominion War solo set, now going for hundreds) and chase up some OP’s when they were plentiful. I would also have kept what I had and ended up with, I think, a more enjoyable game for a casual and non-competitive player.

Why is AW better in my eyes?

It’s not the minis, they are all over the place in quality, paint job and scale*. Unlike XW, the ships are actually secondary to the cards, which may sound odd, but this will make more sense as we explore further. They are however robust on the whole. XW ships can die easily on the table, AW ships are mostly bullet proof (Enterprise Refit-looking at you).

It’s not the core game play, because AW uses basically the same system as X-Wing. There are differences which we will get into, but at the heart of it, it is the same core game bought under license.

Opinions vary as which theme bests suits the mechanics better, but I feel the subtle mechanical differences allow both to fit the game perfectly, or at least differently.

So, what is it?

The AW game straddles an interesting place between the small ship X-Wing dogfight and huge ship Armada fleet battles. AW gives you the feeling of flying a larger ship, one less agile than in X-Wing, but also one that is “squishier”, more robust and deeper.

The dials and Action bars are less interesting, but that also matters less. Manoeuvre is important, but unlike X-Wing, not all important. In XW, Actions are all important and add to the zippy, darting and weaving fighter vibe. Ships like the Interceptor or A-Wing rule their “space”, at least until upgrades to other ships even out the field.

In AW, Action bars are much less about repositioning manoeuvres, only offering Cloak and Sensor Echo (a great handling of cloaking), or Regeneration.

Captains are separate from ships, meaning vastly more variety up front, a Captain, named ship and Elite Talent provide a triple synergy and there are often multiple choices of better known Captains.

This can lead to odd combinations in open competition play, so again, sticking to timeline and faction limits helps make it feel right.

There are more upgrades, especially named Crew. X-Wing tends to be a Pilot/Elite Talent/payload squad build with “Action chains” all important. The second edition worked to reduce that dynamic, but it is still there. It does a great job of simulating that single seat fighter fragility and it’s dynamic with larger ships, but AW has a different feel.

In AW, there are near countless combinations of exceptions, mitigations and additives, all designed to give you the feel of ensign “X” saving the day by pulling off a miracle manoeuvre or fixing a used/broken/stolen/”not installed til Tuesday” upgrade. Some upgrades can even be added “just in case” and used to absorb unpleasantness if needed.

It is, as I eluded to above, a “squishier” game, with fewer alpha strike and premium build options, less of a “I have the most agile ship until you upgrade to be my equal” and is more aligned to scenario play. The need to build to adapt to what comes rather than build to outgun at the start. There is a community and they do have ideal builds, but if you avoid the free-form space, you can make almost anything work and stick to theme.

The core sets are another prime example of the difference in the games.

The X-Wing core provides about a third of a competitive squad for each side. One X-Wing vs two Tie Fighters was never meant to be a competitive set, only a start with about 30-35 points a side. As bought, it is crying out for more and some major figures in the franchise are missing, like Vader.

XW needs several ships just to make a squad, many of these coming with upgrades that are ship limited and quickly you are staring at a 10-15 ship collection just for needed variety. Want three X-Wings, that’s a Core or two and one or two expansions and while you are getting them you are building up Tie Fighter squads (up to 8), like it or not.

The three capital ships in the old AW Core set can provide multiple combinations, you get Picard and two other named Captains, plenty of named Crew, named and plain ships. The upgrades can be mixed freely if you so desire, even a three way game can be played.

Although there are not enough ships for a 100pt competition squadron (unless you combine them), the game is not so hung up on that, it is ok with a 50 point build (x3 in the set) and a decent scenario (also in the box). It has far more options than the XW set provides and for many probably enough.

Building an AW fleet is a matter of adding maybe 1-2 more ships to the three factions you have started or looking wider, which provides plenty of options and tactical directions, each ship coming with enough upgrades to open up a myriad of tactics, even within a faction.

For a brief moment, I had retained a small TNG period representation of all the factions (2-3 ships) and I was actually happy, but then I got the fever again when clearances started to appear. Clearance cost you money, it’s a thing.

This was actually pretty satisfying, a small TNG fleet for all the factions made up of single representative ships and select cards after my clear out. It did not last.

Story telling is integral in AW, each ship coming with a scenario and many faction packs with a short campaign. XW has only started to support this in later iterations, to their detriment.

When I want to play AW, my mind goes straight to a scenario idea, a mini story. When I play XW, I build a 100pt squad (still playing 1e here) and have at it. Oddly, scenarios in XW are often popular, but only appear in later releases or off book.

I see a story here (probably a short one), something XW needs to have added. This is a rare but plausible departure from canon.

The range of personalities available are many more in AW and they mean more (contentious), but every Captain or Crew card adds a personality and a face. In XW, the Pilot is basically a ship, the Crew far fewer in choice and available slots and as often than not, they are generic.

In AW Crew is everything, which is as it should be. X Wing 1e has issues with Crew like Leia Organa being an over priced ability available only in an expensive Huge ship expansion. In 2e there are sometimes overwrought and convoluted abilities.

It is safe to say, I prefer the overall dynamic of upgrades in AW.

I have lists of XW upgrades I pore over, most committed to memory, but in AW, there are so many I don’t even try. Most upgrades in AW are bespoke, be they Tech, Crew, or Elites, there is little repetition in Weapons and that is down to the reality that there are not many weapons in Trek and unlike XW, there is little “added” by the designers, Trek I guess offering more to cover.

Weapons are needed of course, it’s a combat game at heart, but they do not dominate. In AW, it is logical to take Torps or their equivalent, maybe something more faction aligned, but you can fly a decent game without. Ships are tougher, mistakes less precipitous, other things matter as much or more. The Enterprise*** of any era is not strong because of an Action bar or Weapon upgrades, it is Crew that makes the difference.

In XW, ordnance is much more varied and can be brutal, but it is often a one-shot strike.

Something AW also does well is disabling of upgrades, not spending and removing them. XW 2e did add the “charges” mechanic and 1e some half baked ideas, but AW has always allowed Photon Torpedoes to be replenished, or busy Crew cards to be re-enabled. It fits the theme and makes for a longer lasting game.

The Elite Talents are similar, but with Captains and named Ships also sporting abilities and most Talent being unique, the mix is softer and more flexible, there are literally thousands of combinations.

Many EPT and Pilot combinations in XW are often not even considered optional and create very powerful combinations used in multiples, something AW avoids with more choice and less repetition. In 2e as there was little point denying them, many combinations even became standard.

Tech is a good way of upgrading any AW ship, Sensors, Mods, Droids, Illicit do this in XW, but are limited and there are clear favourites.

It is not for nothing I cut back 1e upgrades in XW, not using EPT’s, Mods or Titles, which just seem to even out the field and de-throne the stand out ships. In AW, the overall softness of upgrade effects and the less brittle ship abilities defuse this, basically I obsess over one, barely give the other any thought.

Edition wars are less painful. No 2e mass-migrations, just some annoying point value changes*, a polishing of the core rules and clarification of some exceptions. Wizkids were not as tight in their roll-out of AW as the XW custodians were, but the game was also less brittle by design.

It is a gentler introductory game. For all the reasons above, AW is a soft landing, a fun afternoon, no sign of gamesmanship or power building early on, no sudden death choices and if you avoid competition play with its “anything goes” dictum, every upgrade can find a home.

A last thing and something I will happily own as mine and mine alone is hacking AW cards. Thanks to the bespoke nature of many Crew and Ship cards, you get a lot of excess and repeats when you build larger fleets, but thanks to cosmetic consistency, it is easy to cut and paste (literally, not technically) and increase your choices. I have built up decently deep genre sets using this technique, like more than doubling the ship choices in my Kelvin set, reusing otherwise wasted Mirror sets which were cheap and plentiful in the later stages, even filled some holes, like a missing Chekov in the TOS range. By my count, I have probably 200 more ships, Crew and Captains than I originally bought.

No, they will not stand up to competition scrutiny, but yes, they do add to the game for casual play.

Your milage may vary, probably does on average as XW is by far the more popular game, but for me AW was where I went first and looking back was where I should have stopped.

It is still my obsession, even after stripping my collection bare and going again, even after spending more on both Armada and XW respectively.

I will keep my X-Wing and Armada collections, why would I not, but AW is the favourite.

*I fix this by keeping my fleets to strict faction and timeline sub-sets, even splitting DS9 and TNG and some repaints. One thing that I am always aware of is the fragility of many X-wing ships. They are lovely, but I have spare X-Wings for a reason. Simple and chunky AW ships rarely suffer from this concern.

**I have mostly dealt with the PV’s by keeping to faction limits and making a choice on either dearer or cheaper values, “hacking” cards as needed.

***A great example is the humble Enterprise NX (pre-Federation), on paper a Tie fighter at 2-3-3-0, but add four Crew (with Archer) and with them some more Weapons and Tech and that little ship can stick around for a while, not “pop” like a swarmer Tie. You can have 8-10 abilities on that little ship, the Tie gets a Pilot, maybe an EPT and Mod.

Fleshing Out The Kelvin Timeline.

The Attack Wing Kelvin timeline set was excellent, but a little sparse if kept on its own.

I have expanded it slightly, giving me the chance to play with two ships per faction, all named by “hacking” the generics (Enterprise, Enterprise-B, Excelsior, Sovereign* vs Suvwl, Amar, Kreech’ver, Somraw), but that still limits ideas and the actual ships are gorgeous, so what is the potential?

Scenario 1;

The Enterprise is sent to the aid of another ship found eerily empty, but intact on the far side of an asteroid belt. The Crew are split to help get the other ship back home, allowing the player to use other captain and crew options, but the ship is of curse, a trap.

Four Romulan (??) intruder drones (Enterprise Romulan Drones) are using this as a test case and intend to take on the two ships as either captured research vessels (two better than one and the Federation response is important) or simply to temper their combat potential.

The premise is that they are either those drones, nt recognised or seen before, or simply not those drones, maybe a more obscure source.

Hmmm, maybe too late?

Much slower than the Federation ships, they are considerably more nimble, quite resilient and pack a decent punch. They are also pack hunters and care little for their own safety.

On paper, they look fairly matched, the difference in movement and tactics is the crux.

To change this up, I have seven Tholians, enough to wrap up even these more powerful ships.

Scenario 2;

The Borg travel to (in) the Kelvin universe in the TOS period, sending a Tactical Cube (a scout at this scale) to feel out the Federation (and/or Klingons). Two Federation ships are shadowing it until they realise what it is up to and have to stop it escaping back to its own time.

Same points values mean a 70-80 point Borg Cube, so all the toys, massive fire power and regeneration.

Simple scenario, destroy them before they can either assimilate/destroy the ships or escape with relevant information through a dimensional gate before it closes. Like the first Kelvin movie, this may result in a noble sacrifice.

An option to this is using Species 8472, in a two to six ship fleet, maybe taking on both the Federation and the Klingons and possibly flip the scenario to a Federation escape.

*Other options are available, I am waiting for my second These are the Voyages pack.

This English Civil War Thing.

I am struggling with this ECW thing.

Two sets of minis, two scales, two simulation ideals, still little idea.

The Redoubt 28’s have been partially remounted, about 30 figs, just what I have ready and about the third time they have been unceremoniously ripped from their bases, using 45mm circles, rough by design, placed in threes. I will use 50mm for looser troops and horse.

Why circles?

I feel that ECW battles are often portrayed by perfect blocks and files, all very neat and organised, but almost every illustration or reinactment I have seen, including the covers of almost every set of rules on the period has a rough group of pike or shot mid battle and it does not look neat by any measure.

Swedes, not English, but this only goes to my point, the English on the whole were even less well drilled!

Circles allow me to form decent shapes, but they have a softness, a malleability that lets presented pike fit in gaps, unit sides to turn slightly in reaction to a threat, even form a decent looking pike block.

They can be used for Pikemens Lament, Very Civil Actions, Forlorne Hope, WABECW, 1644 etc. Any game where large figures may be removed in single or more amounts (casualty counters used). Sabot bases can be used to tighten these formations up, the round bases still adding variety and a naturalness to their look.

Th

The 15-18 Museum have been harder.

I like the idea of DBR, the element basing also very malleable for basically any game I have, but square bases for VWQ are in the mix. I will go with DBR though for the following reasons.

• They can create standard Battalia for POW-R, VWQ, DBR, any of the above using sabot bases or not.

• The pike ratio thing in VWQ, is hard to fix with their own square bases, but it is an easy fix with DBR elements, simply add a third element for higher pike ratio units, so 2/2/2 for 2:1-ish (12 shot, 8 pike), 2/3/2 for 1:1 (12 shot, 12 pike).

• I intend to re-write the DBR rules in a softer, more characterful tone, omitting the irrelevant bits, renaming the troop types (and supplying unit cards for each), making a more thematic results table. It will not change at its core, but it also will not resemble the original. I will also retain the 1st edition Battalia or 4el maximum command width.

• I already have a regiment based and I like how they look.

• DBR can be played at condensed scale, allowing very big battles to be simulated.

• The DBR game allows for single elements to function as well as larger units. I favour small to medium engagements, scenario and terrain driven, so endless “demo” videos of massed regiments lined up on a bowling green have done little for me. Give me single elements holding a rear guard bridge, forlorne hope ranging wide, horse running rampant in the rear, beleaguered regiments being ground-down and making a stand, the battlefield degenerating into a dozen micro battles, but mostly, give me a story! Oh, and spare me all the dice.

I really need to paint another regiment, fourth time I have used these I think. They look right in several favoured systems, a sabot base is an option, but really not needed.

Really need to get on with this.

Ed. I had one of those “wrote itself” moments with a set based loosely on the VCA scale, but very different mechanics, more to come on that.

It Is Decided (Maybe)

It is decided (maybe a good name for a set of rules?), basing my 18 and 28mm ECW figures will be done two ways to suit two “families” of rules.

My 15-18mm Museum figs, enough to make about 30 units are already started (1 unit), as DBR style elements. This is also decent for Forlorn Hope, Principles of War, Fields of Glory, Impetus Baroque (don’t have, but might get), WAB ECW, but most importantly Victory Without Quarter, becasue it actually fixes a problem there.

VWQ has quite rigid needs as written and uses square bases. There are fixes for pike ratios etc, but not really as they, as the author even alludes to, break the games balance and make mounting using the recommended system problematic. DBR basing fixes this. For 1:1 ratio units add one row of pike (which may be drawn from a “generic” pool) and for small units, simply make up a mixed Battalia of parts.

The Battalia now becomes the base unit like the cavalry squadron, a regiment of almost any size can be used to make anything from a part of a Battalia, to three complete ones.

I can then place the Battalia onto a sabot base and move it in one go.

DBR element mounting used with VWQ are fine for facing. It also makes forming a pike block more attractive as you can spread the shot around the block.

This is basically a 1:1 ratio VWQ/POW/DBR battalia, 1 or 2 occasionally 3 of these make a regiment (or brigade), but they can also be made up of mixed elements from the same army.

DBR (re-written) with its flexible unit sizes and combined attrition and morale and VWQ modified with different unit sizes and pike to shot ratios represented, are favourites at this point.

My 28mm Redoubt figs will be based 2 or 3 on circular bases, enabling slightly modified** Pikemans Lament, Pike and Shotte, A Very Civille Action, Forlorn Hope, WAB ECW, etc, basically any singles or “unit only” system or my own take on the bits I like from above.

I can sabot base these as needed, but the circular bases still add facing and handling benefits.

TPL recommends 1-2-3 basing, but I intend to modify the rules as written, using elements for condition and attrition rather than full'/half unit conditions.

The point of divergence is the rigid facing of the long-thin DBR style bases as opposed to the flexible circular basing better for handling large figures, which can both use sabot bases if needed.

*3 Pike or Shot on 4mm bases, 2 of looser types (or 3 on larger 50mm bases), Dragoons and horse on larger base. The bases will vary in size for Artillery and other oddities. Some figs, like personalities and leaders may be either separate or included on the base and in play or ignored as the scenario and game require. Some big guns will get a second or even third Crew base. Still some stuff to iron out there.

**TPL will get the element base modification (attrition levels and combat dice counted by element, not full/half), VCA will get a few treaks, P&S, WAB, FH etc are do-able options.

More Faction Limited Problem Solving

My STAW hacking has nearly wound up, because basically, I have almost no cards left to cut and paste (real cuts, real paste, no tech talk here!).

The Kelvin timeline pack is interesting, well more frustrating really.

The ships are physically bigger and more powerful than their standard timeline equivalents (as in the biggest Federation ships in the game), their stats read like late TNG battleships and they are fast, so mixing them in with the other Feds is not a choice.

I did ponder a USS Vengeance-like cross over, the model is actually big enough to dwarf the TOS Enterprise like in the movie.

You get the whole crew as double sided cards, so a real win, very thematic and adds to the hectic, “always options” feel of the films.

The Klingons do not, but their actual presence in the movies was limited, so fair enough.

The upgrade cards are thin and some are a stretch, the Feds not even getting a single Elite Talent for their several captains with a slot, but that is easy enough fixed, I have raided a bunch of cards from my other discarded Mirror packs, the ISS Avenger, Dauntless, Regents Flagship etc, and some mainstream Fed and Klingon packs.

I also added another Klingon captain, Krell from the TOS set with a suitably mean looking Klingon face and the Somraw Commanders ability.

You get two named Klingon ships drawn from canon and two generics, and two Fed generics and two named ships, but they are both the Enterprise (which could also have been a double sided card!?), so as it comes, your second ship has to be a base ship with reduced stats and no special ability.

I had a spare Excelsior card (think I have bought this one five times!) from a recent clearance grab and as one captain option in the Kelvin set is Sulu, I could not help myself (although Pike or Spock probably make more sense).

The Enterprise only has two Crew slots for seven of the best and most fun Crew cards out there, so this means more can be in play, but choices still have to be made. With a second TatV set coming, I may even add an Enterprise-B to this set.

The Klingons get the Kreechong, a bit of a mash-up name. I wanted to use the Somraw again, but the name text came from the Somraw Captain card and was a little big and the Mirror Starship name plate was quite wide.

I was low on ship abilities, as in-almost nothing left, but I had the Enhanced Hull Plating card from the Mirror Avenger, and as I had added that upgrade card to the Kelvin set, it made for a lucky coincidence.

I now have to track down a 4 Shield icon from my last orders coming (A third Vulcan faction pack, the Aj’Rmr, “Yesterdays Enterprise” OP, Turret Terror OP, 3rd Wing Attack Ship, Trap Travesty OP, a huge OP card pack, a second These are the Voyages pack* and a D’Kora card pack). Should be ok.

I now have (if House Rule 1** is applied), enough to make a 130pt Federation fleet.

The problem is, two full strength Federation ships are too much for the Klingons.

Being a split in the timeline already, I thought that maybe I should look to the other races that tend to jump around a bit, this being modern Trek after all, where set timelines are only a suggestion.

Species 8472 come from fluidic space and can potentially connect with any universe and time. Four 38 point named ships are tough for any faction, even the more powerful Kelvin Feds, so a great opponent and scenario base.

Potentially 5 of these. Nasty.

This led to The Borg, also capable of jumping around time and space like race assimilating Daleks. A first contact scenario with the Tactical Cube 138 (acting more like a scout) vs two Federation ships?

I then added the Tholians, who appear in TOS, Enterprise and it’s Mirror episode (with a Constitution class) and are mentioned in other periods, are not a stretch at all. They are weak, but six of them vs a lone Enterprise, maybe coming to the aide of a stricken generic?

Then this;

What if the Kelvin Enterprise had to track down an unknown threat near Romulan space and came across one, then two Drone ships creating havoc? These are slow but agile and tough (maybe too tough for the Enterprise era). This has a slight third movie vibe, with a small and agile semi-swarm vs a single big target and flips the usual Feds vs the Behemoth role. The Romulans could have tried this trick against any period Feds. The models are some of the best STAW has and in their home time line, they are a power house.

Ed. I have bought two more drones and will run them as a 4 ship faction-less, unnamed independent “drone” force of unknown origin (could be Romulan, might not be?).

My “Q” pack has some interesting bits like the World Eater.

Finally, this “thought bubble”. The Krenim from Voyager, who are strong, especially in numbers and bend time and space by inclination, sometimes badly. What if a Kelvin Enterprise was drawn into their failed experiment or, they by choice or error send a small fleet to the Kelvin timeline?

These can also pose a threat to a hastily allied Federation/Klingon alliance if needed.

Suddenly the Kelvin set has some legs and some adversaries that are often a tough fight for other factions, maybe the strong Kelvin fleet can pull something out?

My intention has always been to keep the original cards and ships intact as bought (unless they became officially redundant, like the early Voyager or NX-Enterprise cards), adjust points totals and then make each time and faction limited set as self sufficient as possible with the left overs, be they hacked cards or simply repeats.

*Wizkids had a sale ok! In can make another named Constitution class, the two “red” early Vulcan ships add to my rebel fleet, a Vulcan civil war spin-off I have been pondering based on the events of the last series of Enterprise and the Nebula will flesh out that class, not sure of the name, but USS Kuvak, Soval, T’Pol or another Vulcan sounding one makes sense. The TatV pack has the useless gold ships, so thickly painted I don’t think I can re-do them, what a waste, but over 100 cards, some of the Elite Talents alone can and should be spread far and wide, the Kelvin set in particular!

**House rule 1, applied in low ship count games is that Upgrades can be bought beyond the Upgrade bar limit, but a ship may only have Upgrades up to their bar active at any one time. A Captain may buy more than one Elite, a ship may have several Weapons etc, and sometimes even the same Captain or Crew member may be bought more than once for the same ship (obviously). but the following applies;

• If an Upgrade is disabled, it may not be re-enabled if it is not active. No disabling while it recovers. Time tokens also stay in place on disabled cards (but this is also flexible).

• If a duplicate Crew or Captain card are disabled or lost, their fate is shared by all their shared cards. This is basically the rule for the Kelvin set anyway and I usually sleeve them back to back. The benefits of multiple Crew Upgrades are mitigated by their actual abilities being cost balanced like any other.

• A point limit may apply (usually the ship cost), which is usually plenty, but stops tiny ships getting massive upgrade hits.

• If a card adds something to the ship’s capabilities, it leaves with the card, such as an extra active Crew or Tech slot. You do not loose the Upgrade, just the ability to activate it.

• You use the Captain skill of the currently active Captain.

• If a card contradicts any of this (like Kirks multiple Elite Talent play), either amend the rule or do not play the card or the House rule.
  
  

Mersey To The Rescue, Or Go My Own Way?

My eternal quest for, or more accurately inability to decide between ECW rule sets is ongoing.

The main issue is committing to a basing style that fits with a chosen game system without limiting future changes or dissatisfaction with rule set “A” over “B”. My WW2 rules vexations are similar. Weighed against this is the need to get on with it.

The ECW period has been a problem from day one, which is interesting as I actually have forces fielded in two scales, 15-18mm Museum and 28mm Redoubt, so I have two chances to stuff it up…. !

Rules I have looked at (and own).

Big and glossy, lots of eye candy, but lacking what I need.

WH ECW is too…. Warhammer. I can still do it with either scale, but it lacks the right feel.

Pike and Shotte is too big and also fails to feel right. I can do it, but likely will not.

1644 is another beauty and nice to flick through, but unfortunately I do not like the rules.

The Kingdom is Ours were interesting, but not a contender apart from their eye candy. I may be one of the few gamers I know who own enough dice! Lots of eye candy even if an advertising forum for the publisher.

Field of Glory; Renaissance, is probably the modern equivalent of Forlorn Hope or advanced DBR with lots of polish, lots of books, but without the character. Being a rules heavy and rigid set of rules, no temptation there. Beautiful books, a long way from my happy place, but I bought them (lots of them) cheap on clearance the lists and pics are excellent.

Old school, for better or worse (mostly Pete Berry titles).

Forlorn Hope is close and a favourite of many, but a bit old-school clunky. A great resource and I have most of the scenario books, which are a great and insightful read for any system.

File Leader is about the right scale, the rules are slim, but needlessly convoluted.

Push of Pike, not bad, light and breezy, but again a little old school.

Once upon a time in the West Country is another old school game focussing on 1:1 skirmishes. Too small a scale.

Outlier ideas, system evolutions, oddities.

DBR may be a 15mm option and I have mounted my 15’s for this out of habit. This surprises me, as I have never really engaged with DBM/DBR, preferring DBA if anything, but this one is starting to emerge as a contender after researching other’s recommendations and I am happy my 15’s are mounted for it. It seems to handle mutual support, depth, the push and pull of these battles and the scale medium to large battles on a regiment as tactical unit basis is perfect (100 men a base, may be scaled down to 50 odd for smaller ECW regiments).

Basically, against all the odds, these rules feel right. One element can go it alone, unit composition is reasonably flexible, but regiments can fight together with support. Attrition and morale are integrated, long lines are discouraged in favour of regimental sized facings (from V1), but formations are possible, depth and flank support are key tactics and (after I rename them), all troop types are covered.

The battlefield also looks suitably messy.

I will give them a more approachable and ECW specific re-write, their legalese style does my head in (not alone there) and there are nuances I can add as well as general classes can be called out for what they are like Clubmen rather than Hordes, Gallopers instead of Pistols-fast etc.

Looks right, plays well. My short list of changes includes shifting scale to 50-70 men per element making this unit above about 350-500 men.

Principles of War Renaissance is an old favourite, possibly a contender for 15mm’s as the armies are a little large (12-20 units minimum) for 28mm figs. Basing is fairly irrelevant, so DBR style works.

Victory Without Quarter a free set (although I own the rest of these anyway) and probably my go-to for larger actions with 15mm figs. Simple and logical, easily hacked, looks and feels right. I can use my DBR mounted 15’s and arrange them as suits on sabot bases.

The Pikeman’s Lament. An Osprey “Blue book” by Dan Mersey, a favourite rules writer* (love Dux Bellorum for Arthurian), these are really close to perfect. The simplification of unit sizes and conditions and the loose to no connection of pike to shot are not insurmountable obstacles, but are there.

Very Civille Actions, another free set is another favourite. The game is about right, mechanically ok, but perfect to scale. It is hackable and has some lovely unit cards. It has element removal (a favourite) and morale is more of a consideration (most units broke before they were utterly destroyed, but it can still happen). The rules are written strangely, almost a Q&A, but they are up for a re-write anyway.

The colonel of an idea for my 28’s is developing somewhere between the two above.

Polemos ECW is another big battle set, but designed for 6mm figs. I can push these into play with my 15’s, but I probably will not.

See a pattern here? Lots of options for battle scale element based 15’s, nothing solid yet for my smaller scaled 28’s.

What am I chasing?

For 15’s I am happy enough with several sets of larger scale battle rules (VWQ/POW/DBR).

For my 28’s scaled for smaller actions in Scotland, Cornwall, Wales etc, I am after something that covers these actions but not at 1:1 skirmish level, something more tactical and situational, but not that small.

I would like to field a full regiment in all its parts with attached supports, but not much more.

My Covenanters for example comprise about 50-60 shot and the same in Pike, 6 dragoons, lancers and gallopers, a regimental gun, some command. About 150 figures give or take, so at say 1:5-10, maybe 750-1500 men, perfect for those important but small actions in far flung places, many of them scantly documented.

These figs also have handling issues, being large Redoubt figs, so factoring in pikes etc, a cumbersome if impressive table presence.

Originally, VWQ was of interest, with POW as an option using large diorama bases. These handle well (although single drop can be a heart breaker), but these are bigger scale games.

Very Civille Actions is closer to right, just needs a few rough edges filed off. TPL added some clever ideas and showed the popularity of these small battles.

One area most small scale games fall down on as written is the interaction of pike and shot, such as sheltering or the “Hedgehog”. This seems to be a trend. The Hedgehog, where a block of pike shelter shot under their pikes, seems to be in limbo with many rules of this scale, meaning pike need to intercede a horse charge or the shot fall back, rather than form the Hedgehog. The fact is, there is a lot of dissent on what really happened in the ECW, how well and how often a Hedgehog was formed if at all.

Basing.

I like 2-3 figs on a round base rather than 3-4 figs on square ones. This gives the unit a more “hodge hodge” feel, with more subtle facing and it is flexible when two pike blocks connect. This is always an issue, large element bases are one fix, setting the pikes back so they do not fight the terrain or other units, but “soft” round edged bases can also fix this.

With round bases, you can form rigid formations (the figures on the base are as important), but you can also adapt to odd terrain shapes, contact with the enemy, less rigid facing and the more realistic looseness of most ECW era units.

Movement trays can also be made with “plugs” for the elements rather than being filled up entirely (or not) by square bases. The bases can also be set at slight angles, looking less rigid and more realistic, almost no illustrations of ECW battles show perfect Napoleonic style lines and blocking. It is a natural reaction for the outer files to curl back in self defence and for shot to shoot at slight angles.

This base limit, also facilitates the benefits of small aggressive Forlorn Hope or assault companies working well in confined spaces.

The VCA rules use square bases, but really, they do not need to and my basing nets me 25% more foot bases.

In TPL, a unit with 7-12 figures gets 12d6, a unit with 6 or less get 6d6. I know this is more of a condition measure than actual casualties, but I struggle with it. Disordered units also get a drop and dropping to 6 or fewer figs assumes disorder, but this 6 to 12 jump is too severe for me, I prefer more incremental drops with morale as a separate thing, so if each base has 3d6 fighting capacity giving a 3/6/9/12 (or even 15/18 with bigger units), it feels more realistic and falls in line with VCA. Basing in 3’s helps facilitate this.

Maybe elements could have varying attack dice depending on their attacks efficiency against different defences (Horse v Pike, Horse v Shot etc). Wheels are turning.

This also helps with situations where only bases that can see/contact can fight (probably 2 deep is the limit, maybe at reduced effect unless pike), like contesting a bridge, cramped street or hedge lined road? It even allows for actual base contacts to be accounted for rather than the looser “all figs are engaged” rule of TPL.

If not, I would actually prefer a more abstract “unit condition” system.

The other thing that is troublesome is the Hedgehog formation. If the unit successfully forms up in one (not guaranteed), the Pike defend for both, but casualties can come from either.

I can finish the Covenanters (4 pike, 6 shot, 1 Dragoon, 1 Lancer, 1 Forlorn Hope, 1 Gun, 1 “Mosser”), then the Montrose force (4 Irish Pike, 4 Irish shot, 6 Clan, 1 Mounted, 1 Forlorn Hope), then a Blue and Red regiment, some mounted and a gun or two for the English and I am basically set for any combination of scenario based games.

The reality is, I will probably go with something of my own making (as is often the case with me and many others, hence the plethora of rules out there), using 2-3 fig round bases and a cross between VCA’s element combat determination and loss, VCA/PL’s stat cards, a mix of both activation systems, PL’s less formal formations and a more story telling morale mechanic.

Some core ideas;

• Each element is used to determine fire power and melee values, which is for me flexible than the 12/6 PL system or singles.

• Each element is a strength unit with a stamina or constitution value that has to be beaten in one attack phase to be lost. An element loss also forces a morale test.

• Figures are mounted on circular bases to allow for semi-rigid formations.

• A limit of two ranks involved in most combat (impetus may change that). This is slightly more rigid than PL, but not much so and supporting ranks may help engaged ones.

• Activation should be card draw for units or commands (2-3 units working together under one commander), then a command test for various actions, which allows aggressive, timid, disciplined, untrained troops to have their space (like TPL and VCA’s tests). Some actions would be easy or automatic to apply.

• Discipline and formations would be close or loose, effecting movement and combat and simply expressed as bases touching, bases close but not in contact, so individual element facing matters.

• Morale should be fluid and flexible. This is the fun bit. I want to show the ebb and flow of a battle, the positive effect of victories over defeat, inspirational leaders (or their loss), notable resolve and uncommon valour, contrasting with moments of infectious cowardice and craven leaders etc. When a heavily depleted unit is standing firm or turns their fortunes around, I want to know why! Both VCA and TPL have excellent “character” points, but I feel they lack these in morale. Morale would be a story telling tool.

• Units will not be fixed like TPL, but more stepped like VCA with 2-8 elements.

I could use either published set with the above mods and well might.

My usual aversion to rules as written is a common reality with wargamers, me suffering at least as much as most, but with a 80-90% workable core, the easy path is the hack a little, usually fully ok with the rules writers and an accepted, even expected practice.

https://edmwargamemeanderings.blogspot.com/p/pikemans-lament-resources.html.

Switching to elements allows for fewer dice, slower reduction and the greater likelihood of a morale collapse, while retaining some attrition. Elements may well “melt away”, but that is usually pre-catastrophe.

The main thing is, I can commit to mounting as TPL, VCA, WHECW and Forlorne hope will all take the style.

*Other favourites are Dave Brown who writes rules I feel make sense and covers periods and scales I like. They are tight and solid, but can get immersive (a double edged sword) and sometimes feel “mechanical” until you get used to them. Nothing for the period unfortunately, because if he did, it would likely fit with my way of seeing things.

Arty Conliffe shakes things up and breaks with convention, but sometimes things just do not work as advertised. His Armati rules with their Renaissance expansion just cover the period, but only just. Feels pushed. My 15mm DBR mounting fits this system.

The Sordid World Of Card Hacking.

My Star Trek Attack Wing (STAW) card hacking is done. There is literally nothing left to cut, past or discard.

The idea was to make every redundant card useful, flesh out my sometimes thin factions (I only play series aligned, so no illogical* cross overs of timelines or factions), no power builds of bizarre non-canon mixes.

This meant that after my small purge a few years ago, some periods like The Original Series or Movies or Enterprise, were uneven or just plain……plain.

My rebuild into the STAW universe, a product of holding on to just enough of some periods and basically all of the less popular ones, kept the fires burning and then came some clearance and new releases. It has been a dramatic revival to say the least.

My TNG Fed “battle” fleet for example had about four ships (one Galaxy, One Akira, One Excelsior and one Nebula), which has now expanded to about 20!

There were more ships out there, but at post STAW high tide, they had become scarce and expensive, some of which I had sold for little only recently! What is out there is the same old range of unwanted ships, usually DS9, Enterprise or Mirror universe options. I just bought another clutch of them for $10 a pop, because, well, you will see below.

Ok, too many useless cards, too many holes in my collections and some imbalance has crept in over time in points values specifically.

Scissors and glue, a little black pen run along cut lines and some self imposed rules;

• no repeats in the same time line,

• all changes need to feel right,

• balance needs to be retained, which with AW is not that hard as the system is quite “soft”. Doing this in X-Wing could seriously break the game,

• time moves (mostly) in one direction, meaning you can use old tech in a later period, but not the other way around.

The TNG period is split into DS9 (small ships), TNG (large ships) and Voyager. This helps spread some repeats without change, DS9 in particular getting some young Picard and Riker cards, then TOS and TNG are split, finally the separate Kelvin timeline and Enterprise are sets.

What did not need changing?

Many cards can be split over timelines, meaning duplicate TNG period personalities can appear in TNG, DS9 or even Voyager sets and some long lived races like Vulcans or Romulans might appear one time line earlier or later (Tuvok already does).

Weapon and other non named upgrades are fine with multiples, but some are unbalanced with others (like Photon or Plasma torpedoes at different costs to effect), so care has been taken to split these into different periods like dearer ones into DS9 or an earlier period, cheaper into TNG “battle” for example.

What hacks well?

First up, STAW hacks well because the components are consistent for the most part and the game is a lot less rigid and tight in its approach than X-Wing or Armada. Many mods and abilities are repeated over the range already, most effects are far from game changing and there are fewer “power builds” available.

No Soontir + Palpatine + PTL for example or “Fortress Han”. The game, especially if limited to series aligned sets, feels more like a story telling platform than an alpha strike brawler. I know there was a competitive circuit out there and favourite card combos, but when the game is faction limited, many of the auto builds simply evaporate.

Basically, mistakes in play and Wizkids in design, can be absorbed into the game dynamic and the tidal wave of options tends to drown out lone beacons.

Points values are an easy and often necessary fix. I have run out of usable numbers, one of the things stopping any more changes (but more cheap buys will address that).

Wizkids have not been kind here, changing to much lower values in later ships, splitting some periods into the early and late groups. This is especially annoying with generic ships (see another solution below).

Upgrade bars can be changed easily. This can help minor point discrepancies and other annoyances, like the Tholian Patrol ship with a single weapon slot, meaning it can be either a web spinner or an attack ship (WTF?) or 1-2 point differences in generic ships, where the dearer one can be expanded or made “special” with upgrade options. Generics on the whole can also be spiced up with more variety, making some of them genuinely attractive.

Captains, Crew and Ship cards are generally easy enough. Some can be a melding of two halves, the “fake” laid over the base, which the Romulan and Klingon fleets benefitted from most.

Ship stats are a mix of ideas.

I dislike the generic ships having 1 less shield value. It makes no sense and the often 1-2 point cheaper ship seems of little benefit when you lose both 1 shield and an ability as well as the inconsistency of “0” value ships having nothing to reduce.

In some periods (TOM and earlier), I have made these consistent, in TNG and DS9, generic and named ships are treated as two separate games (and their point costs support this also), Voyager is the exception, things left as they are, seeing as most ships are named and the ones not are used as lesser “filler ships” only as Wizkids intended.

Sometimes things that just bug me are fixed.

The Tholians have had their agility changed to 3 from 2, which seemed off for their small and nimble design as well as adding a single Agility 3 ship in TOS.

The Xindi Insectoid is now 3-3-3-0 for similar reasons, as they “popped” reasonably easily, but should be at least as agile as the NX series.

The NX series were problematic, being relatively small and nimble, but slower and tougher than the bulk of the Xindi and the Romulan Drone ships. I toyed with the idea of changing them from 2-3-3-0 to 2-2-4-0, but will sit on that a while as it makes them quite a bit weaker (Hull points are less effective than either Agility or Shields) and they have several other ways of being a little more robust.

I had fun with my assimilated fleet, boosting some Primary stats and point costs across the board, pretty much every later faction getting a representative (except the Kazon of course).

I have little use for Mirror universe ships generally, often don’t even watch the episodes, their cards being absorbed into main stream sets or bulking out the two Mirror periods I have retained, the Kelvin and TOS original. Both of these have benefitted greatly with some genuine options (the Kelvin did not even come with any elite talents). This gives me a TOS Chekov, a second Yarr and some others like Captain Black for the Enterprise era.

A few others had their abilities re-homed. Captains like the famous but anonymous Romulan Commander (TOS), Charvanek, Picard, Kirk, Archer, Sisco all have alternates from captains of other periods.

I especially like the “desperate” Kirk (Mirror card with Karr ability) or “undercover” Sisco from the mirror set and “Xindi war focussed” Archer (a simple skill 7 Hirogen). These allow you some surprise value while fielding favourite commanders.

A few generic Captains got promoted as mid to low end leaders with abilities because often in limited period sets, Captains are either skill 6-9 or 1, with not much between. This is not unprecedented (Somraw Commander, Romulan Commander, Xindi Councillor etc), allowing all those generics to be a little more interesting. This re-homed the huge redundancy of Kazon, Vulcan, Klingon and Romulan leader abilities.

I find it easier to replace the top picture and faction icon than try to cut around the icon and ability panel.

Obviously if there are going to be clashes like Mirror Kirk v Re-purposed Kirk, the original takes precedence (or maybe they should be the same?).

The Borg, a little weaker than most overall, now have a fleet of assimilated TNG re-paints, mostly ships that did not match the later paint schemes anyway.

Ship names were fun.

The USS Ni’Var for example which means “of two worlds” now appears in TOM (ex-Pegasus) and DS9 (ex-Sabre class).

For exotics, there is a bioship Delta and Theta and a couple of Borg scout cubes extra.

The Enterprise era gets the Voyager NX-04, Federation NX-10, a dawn of the Federation flagship. The Xindi get Insectoid Xindus Prime, Reptilian Dometus, lots of Vulcans (including a rebel faction), more Andorians which are very thin and the Romulans and Klingons, are bulked up with excess ship names from other periods. Captains for the Terrans include Black and Soval from the mirror pack, both considered logical call-ups for a Romulan or Klingon war scenario.

I probably had the most fun with the DS9 small ship fleet. A surplus Sao Paulo with a printing error became the Independent, I added ships to most factions like the Romulan scout Ra, Bajoran scouts Rassin and Bajor, Interceptors 2, 3, 4, 7 and 11, Marquis raider Hiro Kyan, USS Hunter (Sabre class).

These all got points adjustments to the older levels for consistency and as they are in an enclosed space, balance is retained.

The TNG or “battle” fleets are played as either generics or named ships as I have so many, generic ships preferred for big battles.

In generics, they have been either point adjusted and in some cases their upgrade bars changed for balance and variety.

In unique ships I have added as many as I can justify, USS Dominion (Galaxy), Dreadnaught (Prometheus), IKS Mulan, Gath’Oth, Gornar, Ves Batlh (Enterprise era), Reman Shinzon (Scimitar class), Ferengi Lurins Raider, Cardassian Pringor, the mirror universe ship Prakesh, Dominion Gor Nistas.

The TOS period, always a favourite but not favoured by Wizkids has increased somewhat. The Intrepid is represented twice, the newer Vulcan aligned one has been renamed USS Soval, better fitting its Vulcan-centric role. I also made a Dauntless, a Romulan Praetus, Klingon Kronos One (new K’Tinga flagship with the only 4 Primary in TOS but no cloak) and D7 Somraw, Gorn Gos’Orass, the modified the Tholians (see above). The ISS Avenger adds to the Mirror faction (see below) meaning I can easily make 100 pt fleets from any of these factions. I was tempted to make the Avenger the Spectre, but the process was already done and some strong glue fought me.

The TOM period was pretty sparce, being the favourite of the guy I sold some to, but not mine, but thanks in part to the 10th anniversary pack, it got a good fleshing out and is probably stronger now than before. The Enterprise refit now has a sister ship the Spectre, a heavily armed Klingon war variant like the USS Vengeance from Into Darkness (I toyed with the idea of using one of the giant Kelvin ships renamed).

I thought a war-like option could be fun, especially as a Khan hijacking would be tough enough to take on the Enterprise head to head, no sneakiness needed. I also added the Cerberus and Vulcan to the Excelsior class, Ni’Var to the Oberth, and Federation to the Miranda.

The Klingons, being the main protagonist in this period have a huge fleet, as many ships from this period as I could find, some duplicates from the last Klingon boxed set, but minus Chang’s BoP (had it, sold it, but I have managed to replace the bulk of the cards and its effect), so 2 Bop, 2 D7, and no less than 7 K’Tinka class.

This period can now easily field up to 250-300pts a side.

Voyager series, basically intact as the buyer was not a fan, is decent in both Federation and hypothetical allied fleet. I can play a true mixed fleet of options from the Val Jean surviving, two Delta Flyers, the Dauntless becoming a friend and asset, the Prometheus as an alternate or possibly sent to help, or the Raven or Equinox surviving their encounters.

Lots of Hirogens, Kazon, Vidiian, Krenim, Sp 8472, Borg and through a curious Adversaries of the Delta Quadrant duplication of one cardboard panel, but missing the other, resulting in Wizkids sending me a replacement half set, I managed to make two Nasari and Numiri ships and captains.

This set was a little annoying with no generic captain for these factions.

By my calculations, about 50 more named ships, the same in useful captains and by splitting the game into sub-games, more uses for my many other duplicate cards. Probably 200 cards put to use and more options in more periods for more factions with some minor quibbles resolved.

I do not play tournament, usually supply the entire game as it goes and nothing was done to deliberately break the game. If someone has an issue with this, I can just field official cards.

*logical being Borg, Species 8742, Tholians etc who did cross time lines.

An example;

The TOS Mirror timeline, when played time and faction limited is thin, basically most slots are set so no surprises or variety. There is some choice in captain (2 + a generic), weapons are Photon Torps and Phaser Barrage etc. It is really only crew that has some depth.

So, what could I do?

First up, three ships, the basis of a decent 100pt+ fleet.

The ISS Avenger from Enterprise (I only used the original and Kelvin mirror sets, the rest were raided for parts) and a generic with a shield bump.

The generic is changed from an all too squeaky clean Pike to the slovenly Decker (also fixes duplication). Quite a bunch, cold, stressed, mean and apathetic.

Now they need captains, so the three are increased to four with a stray Gardner with a suitable snarl on his face. I also have a Tellarite generic, but I do not think he would be tolerated in that empire.

More captains need more Elite talents so I got creative.

The ISS bought with it Sabotage, to go with Tantalus Field and a special making use of a spare Marlena Moreau card.

Moreau is a crew card but there is a synergy here and as Kirks wife, she could be considered to be an edge for his ambitions.

All suitably thematic and the Moreau plays to her “power behind the throne” role.

House rule #1* is “multiple cards of the same character may be used as long as they all take the same effects, so if Moreau Elite is disabled, both are (place the crew card under the elite until it is re-enabled).

The Moreau Elite is the homeless “Intendants Orders” from the Regents Flagship. Nice Synergy and the cost cut Moreau imparts on herself is balanced out with both cards being disabled if the Elite is played.

There is a short fall in Weapon upgrades pictured with potentially 6 slots to fill, so I found another Photonic Torp.

Crew are also a little thin, only just a full fleet, but with the Orion Tac Officer (likely serving under duress), and a very dead Red Shirt that I forgot to photograph, I have fitting additions.

One option could be to change the upgrade bar on the generic ship?

Maybe only a devious Orion could find a place in this twisted reality.

Finally Tech, where I am over supplied.

Two of the above came from the ISS Avenger (I had two, the other cards went to the Kelvin set).

So, from a single ship with a limited choice in Captains and Crew and little else, I now have a triple ship fleet, almost completely loaded out and capable of even fighting within it’s only ranks (Kirk v Spock) with some substance.

*Rule #1 includes “if a Captain is duplicated, only one of its Captain variants can be used at one time” and they all suffer the same condition (or the dual card rules from the Kelvin pack). Multiples of the same character of course have to be on the same ship.

Rule #2 is the option of “fielding more upgrades than the bar, but only having active as many as the ship’s action bar allows (not counting Elites)”. If a Captain or Crew card add any slots, this increases the active options. If Disabled, an upgrade can only be re-enabled if it is in the active group. This allows the player to field for example, the entire Enterprise Crew in the same game, but decide which to play as needed.

It's All In A Name (or Generational Blindness)

I read some of a very long thread about the USS Intrepid, a TOS series Starship named with 1960’s sensibilities, a Constitution class, crewed by an all Vulcan Crew.

The original question was “why an all Vulcan ship, named as an Amero/Anglo-centric human ship name?

Comments ranged from “maybe it was lend-lease” or “A Vulcan captain might choose an all Vulcan crew”, “maybe it was translated from Vulcan”, to “these ships have a long life and are re-purposed”.

The actual ship itself, taken from the Vulcan faction pack, probably about to meet a similarly sticky end as the one in the series.

I was intrigued that every answer took the historians approach of “it has to have a real and logical answer in the Trek universe?”.

The obvious answer is, it was written in the 1960’s for a TV series aimed at broadening the thinking of, but also having to be harmonious with, middle American post war ideals. Most of the writers and crew had served in WWII or Korea, some on ships like the Enterprise, Intrepid etc. It made sense to them.

Simple as that, it was generationally mandatory that the ship be named after a ship type that made sense to a post war English speaking audience.

It still happens too often.

I very much doubt the writers, even as open minded as they were and known for pushing social boundaries at the time*, had the foresight or even vernacular to think 50 real years ahead.

Ironically, it is the general acceptance now of all things Trek that has elevated even those dated ideals to canon, thus seeming to need real answers for real assumptions.

*Including having Russian and Japanese crew, trying to get a female first officer on the bridge and the first interracial kiss on TV.

Two Very Different Ways Of Segregating 1e X-Wing

I tinker with 1e X-Wing regularly. It makes me happy, keeps me invested and connected.

Two segregations that have become popular around here lately are deliberately polar opposites, but both equally satisfying.

Everyday Heroes uses only generic ships pilots.

The hump that needed to be smoothed was one of PS for the various ships. The Rebels were severely nobbled here with a scattering of PS4 pilots, no 5’s or 6’s. The Empire has a pair of 6’s and several 5’s, the Scum a decent showing of 5’s (a product of limited names to draw from, resulting in a need for better generics like Imperial Guard pilot and Black Sun Ace).

The fix is elegant and simple. The “PS” value becomes a load-out value, which can be spent on EPT’s and Mods only, two upgrades we generally avoid to fix the broken bits of 1e. These are effectively free, factored into the cost of the ship, so a bought benefit, but a benefit no less. If a ship also has an EPT slot, that can be used to buy any value EPT, bought as normal.

Crew and Droid upgrades are also limited to generics and upgrades generally are quite conservative with no Ion effects for example.

“0” cost Mods and EPT’s are obviously removed as are any that pertain to PS variants, limitations or effects and Titles, named or generic are also out.

Initiative is changed to “random order after dials are set”, the d6 roll winner choosing to move and fire first or second in order for each, both having advantages, the first mover/firer obviously gets first shot, but the second gets to manoeuvre in response to the first mover and the Snapshot EPT becomes a big deal.

The Rebels could be accused of being less interesting, less “modified”, but that is fine, it all evens out with larger squads etc. The weaker-cheaper pilots are more predictable, less interesting, the stronger ones can be quite capable and unpredictable.

The Red Sqd X-Wing for example has 4 points to spend on Engine Upgrade (faster), or Expert Handling and Vectored Thrusters (jouster), or maybe Wingman and Selfless (support Biggs), Deadeye, Munitions failsafe and Stay on target (payload Luke).

The PS 6 Imperial Guard pilot could go with Stealth Device and PTL or maybe Targeting Comp, PTL and Lightning Reflexes (faux Soontir) or Autothrusters, Predator and Crack Shot and that is before taking another paid EPT.

The Black Sun Ace Kihraxz, lacks Vaksai, but can still sport 5 points of upgrades and an EPT, so up to 9 points of EPT’s and Mods.

The ships are clean, the mods stand out as points of difference, every missing name can be mimicked.

*

The second group is “Legends”, which only uses named Pilots, Crew and Droids as well as named ship Titles. These are quite literally the stuff of legend.

Legends assumes mundane Droids, Crew etc are always present making the world go around, it just calls out the names that make a difference.

Time for the ships with few or no generic options like the two Phantoms or Captured Tie to shine.

PS is used as usual, but no EPT’s (there is an experimental option) or Mods (the named pilot abilities are the difference). This translates into more mixed squads, just like the movies, which is fine.

Legends also increases the range of options including Ion effects and combat is resolved as normal.

Legends feels like a platform for mixed squads with interesting combinations and still allows for many of the power builds of open X-Wing (Han, Chewie, C-3PO and Falcon Title or Palpatine and Soontir).

If I had to choose, Everyday Heroes could easily be my one ride here, but all options are good on their day.

Last Years Orders Start To Arrive

I have a few things coming for various games, most ordered last year. For some it seems like an eternity ago for some and they are all late (I get why). This week two arrived.

Please excuse the mini rant about long drop times, something only one person is responsible for and it is a first world problem.

The BRP UGE Creatures book. This one was only about a three months since random discovery to arrival, but an auto buy as the core BRP system is still my pilot point for RPG’s.

Not as much a monster manual as a guide to making monsters by class or type and across genre, it is compatible with basically every D100 game I have (with conversion notes for the Chaosium ones). It is colour, nicely presented, as comprehensive as a medium sized, universal system support book can be and I hope they follow it up with a Powers and Gear book of the same quality in the near future.

The second item was an avalanche of TMNT Unmatched boxes.

I went for the lot or I guess in pizza theming “the works”, realising that if I did not, it would never feel complete.

I was there at the beginning of TMNT. I had some 1e comics, went to the movie (original one), even got the Palladium TMNT RPG (still have a pdf of that somewhere). I have not kept up with them more recently, but it is safe to say, I am an early adopter.

The core box “with extra cheese” is the second Unmatched collaborative set, allowing for solo or team play and it is comprehensive. Two villains, two big boards, the Turtles and their sidekicks, various minor henchmen and even peripheral characters handled as events in the initiative deck.

These look true to the comics. The alternates look like later versions.

The “cheese” is an alt-art version of the main play deck, the one that handles the villains and co in the larger game. I have no need for this really, but it is cool to have.

The second box is a little pizza box full of 16 alternate character sculpts (some of the best Unmatched offers) and all the minor characters. This was a must have for me as I have decided to get minis for all sidekicks, so the official ones were a must.

A morning outing with the alternate Turtles. Action poses and more detailed than the originals.

I bought the separate card packs for Shredder and Krang so they can play normally. They will make great enemies and it completes the offer. Interestingly the core box has a hole for these, in fact as usual with Unmatched the box holds all the cards with sleeves on, so way to go Restoration Games. The only thing I have no place for is the alt-art core deck, but I will tuck that away.

Sidekicks. I shot this angle to show Splinter’s tail.

The bad crew, Shredder and Krang alternates, all the henchmen. The Alternate sculpts are better than the core ones, but also more over the top.

The last bit was an underwhelming looking plastic bag full of cool bits. 24 “Hand” Ninjas and other upgraded components (plastic traded for cardboard). These minis are up to the standard of the rest, just smaller, less varied and purple, but a huge upgrade from little marker discs!

I will continue to collect Unmatched sets, the Bruce Lee/Ali set is on the way now and Hellboy is an auto-buy. I was luke warm warm on Lee vs Ali, but then I thought I missed Lee the first time around and he and Ali are the ultimate “who would win out of…” characters that kind of define the system.

Ali vs T-Rex, Hellboy or Luke Cage, Lee vs Electra, Daredevil or Shredder, plus a temple and boxing ring. All good.

Only Captains Chair (months late now), DCeased Gotham Knights (even more overdue) and the standee upgrade box for Cyclades, disappointingly absent when ordered before Christmas.

Soon Grasshopper, soon.