Analysing RPG Characteristics

There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of (mostly) good RPG’s since D&D emerged two thirds of the way through last century.

They all share several cornerstones of design, one being character defining “characteristics” as a mechanical measure of “self” in the world.

In their simplest form (and several games use just these), they are used to quantify the characters Mind, Body and Spirit.

Many games expand on this to follow the workable D&D mould of Strength/Dexterity/Constitution, Intelligence/Wisdom and Charisma or something close (most d100’s add Power and Size, some have Education, but drop Wisdom) and some even go into a 10-15 chr design path (Warhammer, The Witcher, Iron Kingdoms to name a few).

Some games, like the double barrelled Iron Kingdoms RPG and Warmachine minis game cross-over, even need two complete stat sheets.

Regardless of how many characteristics are needed to make the respective games work, sometimes the word play can be mind boggling and confusing, often just to end at the same place as those who came before.

Of course, it is not just the actual wording used, but the intent and their application as well.

Let’s look at physical characteristics first.

Strength seems to be pretty much a common denominator unless the all encompassing “Body” is used (The One Ring changed from one to the other in their new edition simply to confuse it seems).

Constitution is often changed to Endurance or rolled into Strength. Very occasionally it gets re-worded into something like Toughness, Grit or Guts, but the intent remains the same.

Dexterity holds strong or is split into Agility and Dexterity, sometimes Poise, Adroitness, Aim, Reflexes etc, but generally minor name changes mean little. Splitting them to define gross and fine motor skills makes sense.

I admit, Dexterity has been my biggest headache and it seems the same with others, The Witcher and Iron Kingdoms RPG’s for example have as many as three characteristics in this space.

Size sometimes becomes a characteristic, sometimes not, but is always a mechanical point of relevance (bigger is bigger after all).

Finally, depending on the systems needs, Appearance may be counted separately from Charisma as a purely physical characteristic, which may result in a change to the roll of Charisma.

Mental.

Intelligence in its many forms may just be that, but if that is the case, then “Mind” is likely cleaner and more flexible. Splitting Intelligence into a logic and instinctive or raw smarts and wisdom pairs makes plenty of sense as we all know people who are bright, but relatively unaware or are wise and sensible but average in intelligence. It also allows for supernatural alignment and animal intelligence.

Education popped up relatively early in Traveller and Call of Cthulhu, so deserves a look, but since then, its role has mostly been covered by skills, or backgrounds etc.

Spiritual.

The grey area that is spiritual or personal, or basically not clearly physical or mental characteristics takes many forms and are often seen as soft or useless stats. Even D&D has had to find uses for the flexibly defined (or vague) Charisma stat.

Power, which is even less clear to me and only used in d100 games stemming back to the earliest, is a bugbear of mine. I just do not like it. It is not a mental or physical descriptor, so it smacks of magical or supernatural alignment, which is fine if that is part of the game, but odd if not.

This brings us to Luck, Fate or Sixth Sense. Should this be an active or passive stat, or a trait, derived value or skill. Many feel this is actually the province of the role-player and their dice, but interpretations vary.

Charisma, one of the original six and probably the single most “role-playing” of all, can be interpreted a few ways, but generally it is seen as a positive projection of personality, appearance or leadership. So what about projected evil or command through intimidation? I have been intrigued over the years how different designers have assigned Charisma to various monsters, many ignoring the reality that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some give them commanding presence, others give them nothing at all with the assumption that bad equals “nothing to like here”.

Traveller also added in Social Standing as a stat, that never really sat well with me as I felt it was even more of a relative stat, not an all encompassing one (The latest Traveller Companion does even address that to some extent adding options like luck as well as or instead of Soc).

The first thing is to set parameters;

• Do you want chrs to be part of a set or flexible skill tree.

• Do you want chr tests to be instead of skills, with skills only adding the ability, not the mechanic.

• Do you want skills to be the primary test criteria, with chrs only as mild or passive mods.

• Do you want the primary chrs to lead to secondary or derived chrs.

• Do you want chrs that add up to others, break down to more.

• Do you even want chrs in their current form or skip them to go to raw abilities themselves.

For my own very long journey to making a role playing game, I have looked at far too many combinations, but just recently, assuming a simple set of six core ones and some derived, combat ones fits my game mechanics, which will use either a combination of 2 chrs or chr and skill, I have finally settled.

The concepts are simple enough on the surface, but harder to implement in practice. I decided that for my uses characteristics should have the following;

• Each characteristic should stand on its on feet. there should be no hero or dump stats. Dex or Int tend to be the favoured stats for skills in most games, Str for warriors etc. This can be avoided at several points.

• Each should have an exception, an opposite side of the coin that makes balance important. They can be paired as each others yin/yang, meaning it is hard to e exceptional at both.

• Each should be able to mesh with any other logically as needed by test/circumstance. Any possible derived chr needed can be made from the base. Want strength, combine Prow and Resil, but these are also flexible in interpretation. Skills may even be aligned to different chrs by task.

• No chr should have open ended potential (like size), that breaks the testing procedure. All chrs should conceivably be shared by any sentient being.

• Each chr can be interpreted logically but flexibly to suit character concept, not railroad the player into pre-conceptions just to make the chr value work. Charisma is an old favourite here. This one is critical, because the chrs in a game do define our pre-conceptions. The addition of one can mean a shift of persieved role for another, like Str and Con instead of just Strength allows you to visialise two distinct types of physical might, but if there is only a single term, the player has an open court to play, but with less guidance.

• They should not be static. We are not set in stone in real life, so why should our characters be.

Physical

Prowess.

This is overall athletic ability and fitness. It combines muscle conditioning, agility and flexibility, but not fine motor skills or inherent toughness (see below). High Prowess can be indicative of a well rounded physique, sinewy build or average type and just hard work. It may decrease with ageing, but can also be increased with effort.

Dexterity.

This old friend covers fine motor skills, aim, reflexes, and finesse displayed in physical movement. Dexterity is less down to fitness so is harder to increase, but is also slower to decline. A few months of couch surfing may really hurt your Prowess, but you Dex would likely be the same, maybe even better if you game a lot!

From these we can differentiate the physical reality that is a snake from a spider, a powerful and athletic type, cursed with sausgae fingers or a wheel chair bound card shark.

Personal/Spiritual

Resilience.

This one is one of two cross-over characteristics and concentrates on inner strength, be it physical, mental or a combination, as they are hard to separate in reality. Added to Prowess or Reason, it can be a measure of a more mental or physical resistance, but on its own it covers grit, focus, determination and will. Resilience may well get gradually better in the middle years, tailing off somewhat later in life, but can hold strong if mental fortitude is dominant.

Presence.

This is the other mixed Chr. It is a measure of projected strength of character or personality, be it in the form of charm, impressiveness, intimidation, sheer size, oddness, command or appearance. Interpretation of what makes someone “fill the room” is varied, as is the role of Presence. How presence is developed with skills and abiiites will determine the over-arching personality that evolves and as the character ages, this will become more defined. Old age will inevitably show a physical decline in Presence, but the stronger it gets, the longer it will last.

Character takes many forms. Strength of will may be hidden behind quiet and brooding, outgoing personality may disguise personal frailty. These two are especially good at handling the “vagueness” of magical and psychic abilities.

Mental

Reason.

Measuring logic, memory, cool headedness, retention and sensory perception. This is in the box thinking, left hemisphere style. Reason will generally increase until age possibly starts to chip away at it. Schooling can increase it along with the knowledge and skills that come with it and the wisdom that comes with experience is likely to add to it.

Intuition.

This is the instinctive, creative side of intelligence and the opposite of above. It governs awareness, empathy, insight, the ability to think outside of the box and if relevant, sixth sense. Intuition tends to be defined early on. Experience may increase it and it is possible to learn how to read a situation, but if it is innately lacking, it is hard to teach. Often increasing Intuition is an act of re-finding inherent abilities or learning to trust lost instincts.

*

The derived chrs are a homage to the brilliant stat as damage points system from original Traveller, but more abstracted rather than literal. These will be determined using several chrs and some other factors like Size etc.

Not yet fully settled down yet, they will be something like;

• Initiative (Int, Dex and Prow), being general combat awareness and speed determining who goes first (and most). I am looking at a staggered init system, so faster characters (while they remain so) will get more actions overall in a linear sequence of phases. This can be reduced by physical damage, circumstances or environmental factors.

• Strength (Prow, Resil and Size), for swinging stuff and stuff and for how long. Blood loss, fatigue or physical damage will reduce this, so it is basically physical hit points.

• Will (Pre and Resil), which is Courage really and speaks for itself, but is rarely taken into account, especially for PC’s. A tough one to add, but the reality is, once action is joined, how anyone will react is an unknown, so a tough one not to add. It is assumed PC’s will make brave types, but is every hero always a rock under pressure? Failing Will tests or reducing it even, may take several forms from uncontrolled flight to hesitation, but it drives a story any way it goes.

These can be reduced, sometimes recovered and are effected differently by different damage types. As damage is short or long term, the actual effect on core characteristics will be varied, but the effective result is applied directly to the stats above when taken.

Something I really find odd in most RPG’s is a lack of diminishing ability through damage or fatigue. D&D is the standard offender, allowing a character full capabilities until they are abruptly incapacitated. WTF!? Life does not work like that. What about shock, limb damage, fatigue, or fear?

I have used several examples in my explorations to help in settling these down.

Spock vs Kirk.

Spock is highly intelligent, but lacks empathy. He is also very strong, reasonably dextrous (through physical discipline and clear thinking), very resilient in a robotic way, but exhibits a restrained personality. Through the series and movies, Spock learned to tap into his half-human Intuition and even gain some small sense of humour.

Kirk on the other hand is better rounded, lets his instincts rule his intellect if needed, is highly resilient but also flexible and projects top tier leadership skills. Where he outshines Spock is in balance, human stubbornness and versatility.

Darth Vader vs the Galaxy.

Darth Vader commands a room-even from another room. He does not however have any real Charisma in the likeable sense, so a strictly positive measure is pointless. Twisting Charisma to fit is also illogical as most skills related to it are charm or persuasion based, which often means a separate set of skills better aligned to the opposite end of the spectrum. This can work, but with a less defining chr.

Timber Wolf vs Android.

One is high on instinctive intelligence and self preserving awareness, the other rules the world of linear thinking, with little capacity for fear, empathy or indecision. Neither can do the others job without evolutionary tampering or advanced systems.

The Dragon vs The Slayer.

If size and strength alone are measures or power, a Dragon is simply too much for most. Is it possible to give the lowly Slayer an edge?. If the Slayer has small size and agility as an advantage in some circumstances, is smarter and less ego/impulse controlled, is quicker and more patient, then yes, the Slayer can triumph. A blinded, disorientated or rattled Dragon is less of a threat as well.

The Lone Hero vs The Gang of Miscreants.

What makes a hero a hero? Being right should be enough, but Hollywood aside, balance is the key. The gang of thugs would likely have the smart, but obsessed and out of control boss, the huge but dumb and slow muscle, the quick and sly guy and the tough, characterless right hand. The Hero of the tale though will be more disciplined or intuitive than the smart guy, more flexible than the tough guy, faster than the big guy and tougher than the fast one, but most of all will have courage of their convictions and courage.

How are they used?

In my system as it stands, the basic test procedure is as follows;

A test is a number of d6 rolled against either a pair of chrs, or a chr and skill (or rarely 2 skills). These will range from 1-10 for normal levels with a weighted average for chrs and escalating cost for skills.

Depending on difficulty 2 to 6+ d6 will be rolled with 3d6 being a standard challenge vs about 10 as the average test value. Under or equal to the test value is a pass, over is a fail. All 6’s is always a fail, but not necessarily a fumble as a safety net.

Doubles, triples and quadruples of 1’s and 6’s will grant increasingly dramatic effects, regardless of the pass/fail dynamic, which means it is possible to fail a tough test, but still impress or gain advantage with a feat of brilliance or the opposite is true of course.

A mundane, 2d6 test can have a double pass/fail, meaning a soft critical success like added damage or reduced time or a mild fumble, but as the difficulty increases, so does the effect of multiple die critical. For example, a success with 4x 1’s could result in an insta-kill of a massive creature by a single character, but if it fails as badly (3x 6), the characters sword snaps uselessly on its hide-end scene.

This also allows the character to raise the odds of a test to try to gain some needed advantage, be it more likelihood of a double or even a triple or better. This means highly skilled characters can push their luck.

A simple system but nuanced.

Life And Death In The RPG Landscape

Role-playing games come in many sizes and shapes. Some players like the over the top, player as world beating hero (or super hero), some prefer their character to be a minor player in their world, overcoming more realistic foes and hurdles. Either way, the processes can be similar. Create character, confront obstacle, overcome obstacle (or less often not), regather, repeat.

I come from the old school, non D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, Stormbringer, Warhammer 1e heritage of RPG’s. These all share similar player expectations.

• They do not guarantee character survival, indeed Traveller did not guarantee character generation survival!

• They eschew levels and class abstractness in favour of realistic character advancement and free form skills.

• They never make anyone or anything “safe” from anything else. The lowly character could best a Dragon, however unlikely, the same hero could be undone by a lowly Goblin scout. Reality people, it’s a bitch…with a sword.

Combat is usually inevitable in RPG games. It is part of the process of “adventure” and one of the things that creates risk and promotes problem solving. How that risk manifests on the game table is a crucial mechanical factor and often determines the feel of a game.

One of the main differences mechanically between more abstract style RPG’s and simulation-ist games is how character “damage” or physical harm is handled and as an extension of that, how subsequent healing is managed.

In D&D, “hit points” are used as a very abstract measure of physical damage, character toughness and pain management, sometimes even including the benefits of luck and experience and all other forms of general damage mitigation (except those that are accounted for by the other abstraction, Armour Class). AC is a bigger stretch in a way, allowing for the reduced likelihood of a hit getting through, but not reducing its effect in any way, when the more likely scenario is damage being as likely (maybe even more so due to character encumbrance), but reduced in effect. Try putting up with a hundred hammer blows while wearing a suit of armour. You will feel the effect of every one and make a nice static target at the same time. This is basically the opposite of how D&D handles this. This very struggle has been at the core of most edition changes, but remains mostly unchanged, with the exception of 5e’s bounded accuracy, partially limiting the range of results from weakest to strongest.

It usually does not matter how many times a character in a D&D style game is hit, they recover in the short term, heal fully in the medium term and get back to life basically unscathed. This helps with the “legendary” feel of adventuring and really fits higher octane versions of the game like 13th Age. This allows characters to push and push, always able to come back (even from dead) and empowers risk taking. It also allows the designers some license when it comes to what “damage” actually is.

13A for example can even simulate abstracted damage/stress/collateral effect inflicted on a technical miss. It holds, that in some forms of story telling, even a lost limb would be largely ignored in a gaming sense, only used as a story hook.

Missing a limb he may be, but in a game sense it matters not!

It also however reduces player fear and can allow a “kill it now, take your short term licks and think later” mentality. All combat is a risk, but in D&D it tends to be fairly “soft” risk, with few unlikely surprises. Combat becomes math, with the odds very much in the players hands.

A characters “legend” comes from their overall achievements over a lifetime of adventuring expressed in experience levels gained and gear acquired. Sometimes it can even become a bit of a race.

*

In a d100 style game (an example of the polar opposite philosophy), hits are often expressed as purely physical damage. In some games it is still generalised into a hit point like grouping, but often with a separate, but intrinsic critical hit mechanic. In others, it is allocated to specific body locations including the possibility of lopping off or permanently maiming said body part, with the expected consequences.

In a game like Warhammer, Mythras or Legend, a character can quickly end up arm-less, lame, missing the odd finger, an eye or other handy appendage (this often helps you find a fitting nickname), so fighting is often seen as a risk not worth taking. The chance of disaster is ever present and the odds have shifted to the house.

In Traveller, especially the original versions, characteristics are directly reduced by damage. This brilliant idea highlights the non-abstract effect of combat wounds these game champion.

In a D&D hack I tried once, we reduced actual stats on crits. Not popular with die hard D&D gamers, this elegantly added in some combat realities. I think we used it in an E6 Pathfinder game (characters limited to 6th level, based on a theory the Gandalf was only 6th level), but really, we should have just switched systems.

Black and white line drawings and often black and white results. Fail a muster roll, survival roll or enlistment roll and your character is suddenly not what you anticipated. Such is life.

Risk your health or even life for a small reward? Unlikely. Role playing is empowered, because just killing stuff is a pretty short term game plan. Pushing hard for the greater reward, taking what comes as the payoff? More likely. This can make the story telling deeper and increase player pay-in, with climactic fights after unsuccessful gentler interactions have stalled. It gives the player a real feeling of achievement, because they are genuinely afraid for their character.

I first noticed the extra player pay-in when I played Call of Cthulhu (probably 2e?). The monsters in that game are always more than you can handle and madness is often just around the corner. It is no exaggeration to say your first encounter could have a lasting effect on your character. How many D&D players can say that? Decision making actually means something when character death or madness is likely, not just a consequence of bad luck and often reversible.

It can also deflate a player when that all too likely character ending happens, specially if all precautions were taken and just plain bad luck intervenes, so balance is key. Players should never get the feeling of imperviousness to any threats, but they also need the sheer elation of overcoming or surviving something that should have beaten them. When anything can end you, all victories are richer.

The character “legend” now comes from surviving a few close calls as information is gathered, then fighting when the time is right, slaying or outsmarting a particularly big and powerful enemy and gaining possession of a powerful item.

This difference is often why d100 and 2d6 games are considered “gritty” and lethal, while d20 games are seen as “softer” and more forgiving. Their mechanics, in effect define the feel of the game, its mood and expectations.

So, where do you sit with this?

As stated, with the exception of the d20 Paragon 13th Age, I tend towards the harder, more realistic games, like d100 or 2d6 games like Traveller. I find that they make play more immersive, because of the same realities we all face. D&D is far too escapist for me.

13A is an exception. With that game, the expectation of legendary character development is the norm, not the exception, even more so than 5e. Crunchy combat mechanics and long term wounds get in the way of that style of play, but with 13A, I can deal..occasionally….in small doses….on a Thursday.

The other exception and a favourite, is Adventures in Middle Earth. This uses 5e as its core*, but removes player controlled magic, insta-healing, short term levelling (it promotes “adventuring seasons” with levels aligned to these), and a darker, more realistic feel, which all help prove that it is not the actual mechanics of D&D that are where its distinct flavour comes from, but the more specific rules and parameters.

Something worthy of mention is the general lack of shock, fear and trauma in games. This is something i will be looking at later.

*You only need the “playing the game” chapter of the free intro rules with the AIME core books.

Roleplaying "Hump"

There are more role playing games out there than D&D.

This has always been the case from just after D&D’s first edition, through times good and bad until now when both D&D and its various competitors in as healthy a position as they have ever been. I was introduced to RPG’s by a friend very early on, but must confess, D&D never sat well with me, no matter how hard I tried. It was always the foreigner on the shelf, never the old friend. GDW Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer and Warhammer 1e, yes, but not D&D.

I am having trouble however making any decisions deciding which to play. It is not that there are not good options, or that I lack a decent selection of them even after several massive clean-outs, but without a healthy group to play with, analysis paralysis has been nearly insurmountable.

D100 games are my usual go to. I prefer their realistic approach, making play more about always potentially lethal choices at every turn, than abstract team monster bash-fests with all to low fear thresholds.

As I recently wrote though, d100 games for me need some (reasonable and easily implemented) house rules to be applied these days. The original mechanics of most are just not cutting it. This is easy enough, indeed so easy as to be a strength of d100 games, but still, I would love a fully harmonious experience.

D100 still has a very strong draw when it comes to options. Mythras, Bare Bones or BRP each offer great sci-fi, pulp, fantasy, historical fantasy, historical horror, supers, renaissance and more and all with nearly identical systems.

Basically, there is nothing in any d100 game that cannot be fixed easily enough, but none that I own (dozens), that are perfectly right as is. The core of every game is basically the same, with nothing new age or untried to throw you, but also nothing ground breaking. I think what I also like about d100 games is their old school “roleplaying before mechanics for everything” design ethos.

So many titles, so little time…..

This brings me to the brilliant, but flawed Warhammer 4e. The issues are small, but they are there. This game, more than most actually tools the players up with in-built mechanical options, many to my liking, but the density of the rules make it a slog, especially when you need to apply tweaks.

Mouse Guard is probably the most polished and “perfect” of the systems I own and the last I will part with. It is elegant and gorgeous, but a bit mechanically prescribed. Combat with cards is good, but a more free form game appeals (which can be done). It is always appealing in theme and support material, so a strong contender, especially for new players.

The One Ring (1e) is similar. It is gorgeous, but heavily controlled with sub-systems for every major aspect of play like Mouse Guard but even more so. Some love it, some hate it. I sit in the middle, wishing it was a little more flexible, but enjoying the intent and execution of the bulk of it. The second edition is apparently a little more forgiving, but not fully compatible. It is totally possible to use the lovely books and do a d100 game with them as the theme and power levels are similar, all you need to do is role-play a little. D100 games (Mythras, Legend, Magic World etc) can easily do LoTR style games and there are even some out there already.

My first great love was GDW’s 2d6 Traveller. I have the new and old Mongoose versions and the lush and generous Warmachine RPG that uses a similar mechanic, but has a strong miniatures emphasis (which I have tubs of, unpainted).

Savage Worlds? I just wish they would hurry the f%#k up and publish the new versions of the Supers and Sci Fi books (SW editions are not overly compatible). Too long hanging guys! You are making Cubicle 7 look speedy and that is saying something. Seriously though, SW has never been a perfect fit. I prefer my pulp done with a d100 system, which like most things is fully possible, but the thought of a Guardians of the Galaxy style sci-fi/supers hybrid is surely possible with this system..

Going in another direction, back to D20, 13th Age is always tempting. It seems odd to go for a D&D spin-off, instead of 5e, but I just like the game and the good humour it is written with. It is like a D&D heart breaker, piss-take and love letter all in one. It is more over the top than any edition of D&D, which is actually ideal as D&D only works for me when it is treated as an abstract gamers game, not a representation of reality.

Relenting and letting “the monster in”, I could be persuaded to do the new 5e Iron Kingdoms Requiem, Symbaroum and my extensive (almost complete) Adventures In Middle Earth collection. Each has its merits in the 5e landscape and strong history with me, but avoid being ordinary 5e (or do they?). I have owned the basic books for 5e and traded them as new for a couple of X-Wing ships, but AIME especially only needs the “Playing the Game” chapter of the free starter rules. I have actually owned every edition of D&D from the old typed first edition, the Red/white boxes, 3e through Pathfinder, too much 4e etc, but just cannot come at it. Maybe with a more palatable front?

As usual writing about it has helped me make a choice (hearing me say it to others usually does).

This is the order of bucket list RPG’s.

1. Some sandbox d100 one off games (M-Space, Destined, Legend Historical, CoC, Clockwork and Chivalry, Wuxia, Deus Vult, Delta Green) with my own one-sheet universal and unifying house rules.

2. A 13th Age Stone Thief/Shards based campaign. This just wants to play itself. I already have three characters just from tinkering with ideas. If you are in the mood for D&D, 13A really does carry you away.

3. AIME (but no other 5e systems) through the three main campaign books (at once?). There are two massive campaign books for either side of the Misty Mountains and an equally deep linked adventure book, so tons to go on with over a 30 year campaign. I would really like to do this “blind style” also, where the players have no mechanical character sheet, only an indicative one. This would be the best system for that.

4. The Warhammer 4e Enemy Within Campaign (I am up to the third book of five). Systemic issues aside (Advantage, shields etc) and I intend to put them aside using mostly in game suggestion like the simplified test roll and limited Advantage options, this is a rich and engrossing world.

5. A late addition, the deep and polished Witcher RPG, which has gone from soon-to-be-gifted, to front rank.

6. My own system which uses a simplified 2d10 system, which combines the advantages of d10’s with simple math than % games.

Seven Wonders Back To "Full Noise" Plus.

We are back in the swing, 7WD was played with both the Pantheon and Leaders expansion last night with a trio of interesting games.

Game one saw my game change to full-on aggression. I drew Caesar, Horace and Semiramis, and I also grabbed the Colossus Wonder, so warfare was front of mind, which is a change of role for me.

So many variants on the core principals. Favourites are Leonidis, or Caligular who can potentially strip an opponent of 14 coin in one turn! Also, Tomyris and Semiaramis who act as potent discouragements to war, ideal for a builder or science fan.

Totally abandoning any though of winning any other way, I dismissed resources, science (no Strategy or Poliorcetics tokens to be had), or most blue builds, but did score Mars. Red, red, red was the name of my game!

Meg saw it coming, but too late as after consolidating in the Second Age with Caesar and later Mars, I bought Horace for the Third Age, building the Colossus and drawing a triple shield first round (going first is one advantage of having no VP). All over bloodily and quickly. If it had drawn out to a points decision, I would have been embarrassed with possibly less than 20pts to my name.

Playing single mindedly can bite you, when the fall of cards just fails to serve, but sometimes there are just too many incentives. In game two I fixated on Science for the same reasons and bombed dismally.

Game two, felt more dynamic than our regular base games, which is the Pantheon thing, and was won comfortably by Meg on points.

Game three was an unlikely science victory for me, not because I am not always on the lookout for one (see above), but because none of the usual prompts where there (No Law, Ishtar or Re-draw options). Like the Military victory, I decided to go all out, gaining three solid tokens late in the game (Architecture, Urbanism, Masonry), but they probably would not have saved me.

A Science victory, partly disguised by my late decision to try for it and the lack of the normal indicators, came with the third last card. Again failure to secure a science victory would have led to a solid points loss. This was a case of prioritising pairs, the bulk then disguising the impending full set.

Our feelings on this format are much like the previous incarnation.

The Pantheon makes the game more mechanically dense, but much more dynamic. In Megs words, “her pulse quickens” with this incarnation of the game, where the base game, even with Leaders is more mechanical and procedural. In one game, we bought useless Gods three times between us in the last turns of the game, just to switch up the turn order (you always feel there may be a way out of trouble, a bit like calling check mate, then analysing unseen options).

In the base game, the end could have been predicted mid Third Age.

Adding in the Leaders offers a further level of unpredictability, but unlike Pantheon, the Leaders are less volatile in their use. A good Leader combined with fortuitous Gods can make for a powerful combination, but the Leader is mostly a luck based element (you will see each about 1 in 15 or so games), the Gods are more influential (coming up about 1 in 3).

Even though many Leaders are as powerful as a God, Wonder or Progress Token and often easier to get (Caesar/Mars, Minerva/Aspasia, Horace-Imhotep/Anubis, Solomon/The Mausoleum or Hades etc), their limited and programmed introduction and their relative rarity mean that at most, Leaders may lean you towards a strategy (see game 1 above), but will rarely get you over the line on their own.

An area I favour is Science. Often under served and compared to Warfare (above), is still a little thin, the Leaders on offer do however add welcome opportunities. Plato and the Maths token can make even dabbling quite useful (12 VP for 2 tokens!) and Archimedes with Euclid or Ptolemy, a re-draw and Ishtar or Law can make a science win almost automatic, especially if your opponent does not play green.

What the Leaders do bring though is more variety of effects. Warfare has several twists especially defensively, chaining is well served, VP can be gained from various sets of suits or mixed cards which gives you some motivation to diversify or intensify your builds (I recently gained 15 VP just from Justinian). These are all viable strategic motivators that help to round out the game.

The Leaders do in fact help abolish any remaining game un-eveness through sheer variety and density of choice. It is not a coincidence that both Meg and I have been playing out of character lately.

The Leaders add a comfortable padding of variety and mild unpredictability, the Pantheon adds volatility and strategic dynamism. You can also ignore them all and just play for points!

On a final note, I am always impressed by the games balance and logical approach to such a deep subject matter. For example, we always felt the Gold cards were less useful than others, Meg usually avoiding them, leaving me to take them as an alternative to missing out on Browns (then not often being well healed enough to buy the needed resources).

We missed the rule where you get 2+ coin equal to your Gold builds when cashing in a card! This balanced the game out again and now we both take gold cards with more enthusiasm. After a lot of games, we instinctively felt the imbalance, that as it turns out was not actually there.

Seven Wonders Duel Renaissance

My cunning plan has worked!

A seemingly intransigent malaise regarding 7WD has been broken with the introduction of the Leaders expansion (free print and play rules and cards, but we have the optional Etsy ordered cards). If you P&P on thick photo paper, like I did with the 2 Wonders, then sleeve them, you will save $30au odd, but me being me, I had to get the cards :).

After a couple of games finding our feet again*, the base game with the 40 basic Leaders and the removal of Guilds, which we both find pointless and flow slowing, we have played up a storm.

The Leaders can add as much, but with a much less “epic” feel than the Pantheon expansion and with a great deal more variety. Without Guilds, all of the Third Age cards are dealt, but with Leaders, their effects can are often varied.

A cast of dozens, all with well balanced effects.

You can access most abilities available in the Pantheon (and Guilds), but without the mechanics required and a lot of new ones as well. There are chaining, VP benefits (including collecting various card combos), warfare, wealth, Wonder building, card burning/breaking/stealing/changing, turn change-ups, build mitigations, gaining/taking/stealing coin and others.

This means the straight base game with its ease of play and fluidity are basically left alone, but with many subtle (and some not so subtle) changes that can be introduced as your strategy allows.

Where it differs greatly from the Pantheon expansion, is in mechanical process and player awareness. The Pantheon expansion adds a very free flowing game, one that can literally flip the game in one players favour. The ability to purchase Gods at any time in the Second and Third Ages can offer some left field strategies. The Leaders, who can be as powerful, are much less dynamic, only coming at three fixed times in the game (an optional rule could be that you can play one at any time in an age).

Game processes however is far more straight forward than the Pantheon equivalent. The Pantheon adds several mechanical processes, which on related plays can be tiresome and the games footprint becomes noticeably larger.

Variety of Leader powers is comprehensive. Like Pantheon duplicates, many Wonders with God powers, they are further mimicked here and many more besides.

For example in warfare alone, you could get Caesar and Hannibal (shields), Cynisca (VP for avoiding invasion), Caligular (double enemy coin loss), Alexander (double VP for invading) Aspasia (cancels one conflict pawn move in either direction), Nero (gain coin lost by opponent), Semiranis (counter attacking shield after an enemy scores a victory token), Tomysis (your invader loses same coin as you) and Telesilla (dumps an invasion token). These effects match the 4 Gods and offer plenty of other effects as well as often being ongoing, while giving a more grass roots feel.

Some tend to define (telegraph**) your strategy from turn one for better or worse (often the military or chaining ones), but unlike Pantheon, they are at your discretion and are not mandated by the fates or connected to convoluted processes and also, they tend to be more balanced in effect.

You can strategically sit on a good leader and see if the required builds eventuate, play it up front for added edge or just burn it for coin.

They are your secret weapon to use or not.

We have modified the play sequence slightly.

We deal out 3 random Leaders face down each before any other game process, so the emergence of the great names of the past are not pre-destined. This seems to make sense to us and changes little in reality. The open dealing and player choice with a 4th Leader, in the rules as written, seem to be a way of adding some “fog of war”, but we feel 3 just dealt secretly does the same. Player choice of Wonders feels right as the aspirations of a society are likely baked in, but leaders are born, not chosen. We have also decided not to increase starting coin. Seven is plenty as the Leaders, if worth getting at all are a genuine strategic gambit or free coin. Some are even free.

Some games have been greatly effected by them, one was won entirely thanks to a pair of them and in some games, they just get cashed in (Meg tends to cash them in, I use them more, with mixed benefit).

Of course, there are other Leaders we have not tried in the Pantheon expansion, but we now feel like we have several quite different games at our disposal;

• Duel “Classic” with basic Leaders (Guilds optional),

• Duel “Mythic” with Pantheon only,

• Duel “Legendary” with Pantheon and all Leaders,

• Duel “Civil War” with Agora and optionally the basic Leaders.

• The yet to be tried “Epic” with everything (including Guilds mixed in to Age 3 with Temples).

Most importantly, a game favourite is back in play.

*In our first game, we tapped out the bank (109 coin with the new metal ones), making me think we needed more, but that went away next game. Not sure what happened there. Since then most games have been decided by a less than 10 point spread, showing us that the Leaders have retained the basic games balance.

**Like the game where I played Archimedes for free Science chaining symbols, so Meg grabbed two pairs/tokens out from under me as a foil and I ended up with two only. The end result was Meg gaining more love for the greens!

A Fix For "Mathy" D100 Games

I like d100 RPG’s for the realism, flexibility and ease of play, but I constantly hit a wall when reading and playing many, as their systems seem to be far too clunky or mathy*. These are the ones that also generally fuel the d100 detractors and solidify their belief that d100 games are less user friendly than mechanically simpler games like DnD.

The reality is, d100 games are no more difficult in concept than any others and indeed are far more logical than most, but often lose their natural ease in application. This contradiction frustrates me. Theoretically, d100 games should be the most intuitive and teachable of RPG’s, but in reality, they often trip over their own convoluted systems.

Mythras is one example.

The basic principles of a d100 game, including Mythras are;

Roll d100 under or equal to a skill or characteristic. Under or equal is a pass, over is a fail.

Where they vary is in two base mechanics within that process.

1) Measuring critical successes and failures takes many forms, often simply coming down to a 0-5 or 96-100 range, sometimes though using a % value more or less of the base skill, which adds a ton of un-intuitive math especially when NPC’s are introduced. I dislike both systems. One is overly simplistic and illogically fixed, the other is overly complicated and mathy.

2) test difficulty is also applied in several different ways. Mythras uses the half or double skill system, meaning that again you need to work out fractions and multiples as you go, others (Openquest etc) simply add or subtract a value from the skill level, which is not a totally rational approach, just easy to apply. The Mythras one is a real bug-bear for me, being simply the most cumbersome of those out there, even if it is a little more logical.

Without a fix, I would probably avoid these excellent books, doubly disappointing as the very similar Legend series, Traveller killing M-Space and the anticipated Mythras Destined all sit in my sweet spot.

I propose (and usually implement) a simple set of fixes, which are an amalgam of several ideas from past and current games and some older ideas of my own. These can be applied to any d100 game, usually only needing difficulty levels re-worded.

Basic principles stay the same, but a hard limit of 99 is set for all characteristic and skill test levels (this can be worked around using the parent systems fixes for +100% skills, but is cleaner if capped).

Critical success and fumble chances.

Doubles are critical results, good or bad (1 in 10, usually similar to the original systems math, but requiring none). Doubles in the pass range are critical successes and doubles in the fail range as fumbles or worse.

This can also use a table for a scaled effects linked to the actual value, avoiding the common; criticals used consistently as an over the top effect. For example 00’s (or oooh’s) are a simple, embarrassing fumble, but not catastrophic. 11 to 33 fails would have catastrophic ramifications (especially under pressure), reserved for unskilled types meddling where they should not and monumentally screwing the pooch. Similarly a passing 11 is a basic “better” result, while a 99 pass is a very unlikely legendary success reserved for grand masters of a skill showing off their superiority and further adding to their legend.

This doubles system fixes several issues.

It does not need any pre or post math. The roll determines if, the skill level determines what. A game master may also rule that NPC’s are immune to the benefits of their own crit rolls, making things even easier.

Test Difficulty is also handled differently.

Instead of dividing skill values (fiddly) or adding/subtracting from rolls or skill values (creating illogical curves), the players simply apply the rolled values in a specific order depending on difficulty. The terms used below for difficulty are just descriptive for this example and can be re-worded as needed to suit the game they are applied to.

A Mundane task uses the base 2d10, with the player deciding the best order for the rolled values. This means that generally a 50/50 chance has about a 74% chance of succeeding, but also, the player may apply the higher or lower rolled value as they need to determine who wins a contested roll.

A Standard test uses 2d10 in a pre-determined order, much as any system now. This means 50/50 is just that.

A Challenging task always takes the worst combination, which generally means a 74% chance of failing a 50/50 test.

A Daunting task uses 3d with the worst combination of 2 taken.

An Imposing task uses 4d etc.

I have not done the math comparing this with the other systems, but it works well enough and feels right. We use blue and red dice, reds being bad (and 10’s in Standard tests), blue being good (and 1’s). The GM only needs to hand the player their dice and they know what they are up against. The GM also has the option of handing the player neutral dice and interpreting the roll based on what they know, that the players do not!

Experience.

Difficulty also has an effect on earned experience points.

Standard test have a chance of earning an experience point (+1% skill). If a critical success is rolled, the character may attempt to roll over their current skill to add +1 to that skill if successful. This is normal learning through success in a characters career.

Critical pass rolls (any) rolled during a Challenging or harder test are an automatic experience point for the skill. The GM may even add +2% for Improbable passes. Fumbles at this level also offer a chance of learning, but require a roll.

These tests can be applied immediately, or in character down time.

The above system does not break any d100 RPG and many have some form of these systems already. They do however make systems like Mythras more enjoyable and easier to grasp for most, which is never a bad thing. Very rarely a situation comes up where a test or effect does not mesh directly, referring to the original system mechanic, but this is easy to change on the fly as are most things in d100 games.

The only issue this system can cough up is a habit of point generated characters starting with double value skills, but that is fine really, as it simulates “turning points” in a characters development. This is where edgy failures start to turn into equally edgy successes. Also character development from then on is usually achieved in single increments anyway, so after a session or two, many skills with be 1-3% over their starting double.

This has been successfully applied to Warhammer 1 and 4e, Mythras/M-Space, the BGB and other Chaosium games and to games that share some of these ideas already like OQ, Bare Bones Fantasy or Wuxia.

My own d100 RPG in the works, uses a slightly modified version, using the Mundane model as the Standard test, with higher base skills, but generally lower maximums. This version has a greater chance of a 50% test passing and base skill levels are closer to that mark, but skills over 80% are rare.

*To be clear here, the maths is not advanced degree stuff, but enough to put many off. The actual math can be solved quickly with a table or a calculator, but the type of math is not player friendly. I have found people are much happier to add simple mods to a single roll than divide a larger value to find a target to roll under. The latter tends to be a double negative.

An X Wing Favourite Emerges

I am on record at various times, espousing the virtues of 1st edition X Wing in its various “reduced” formats.

One that constantly comes to the fore, especially for newer or casual players, is the very harmonious “Classic”.

Classic has only the ships from the movies, with all upgrades except EPT’s (pilot abilities rule) and Modifications, which just don’t feel right in this space. Crew is also limited to named crew and some small liberties have been taken expanding the Rogues into their after stories a little.

The Rebels get the;

• X Wing as the base line fighter

• A Wing as the fastest ship in the game with Green 5 and Boost

• Y Wing as Ordnance carrier and Turret ship, with Optional Bombs

• B Wing as the superiority fighter with Barrel Roll, Cannon and Systems

• and the Falcon (title) as the Brute/Support/Command ship.

The Imperials have the;

• Tie Fighter as bog standard swarmer, fast and furious

• Tie Interceptor as a super swarmer with Boost

• Tie Advanced as a true line fighter with TL & Shields

• Tie Bomber for Ordnance

• as well as the Lambda support/command ship.

The Scum are limited to the bounty hunters from the films, their likely extended universe additions with their actual (title) ships including;

• Zuckuss and 4-Lom in the Mist Hunter, with stand outs of Systems, Roll and a Tractor Beam

• Boba in Slave 1, with all Ordnance, Evade and dual arc primary.

• Bossk in the Hound’s Tooth with the Pup, a wide arc Primary and lots of Crew

• IG 88A in the IG-2000, sporting the most agile manoeuvre dial with S-loop, twin Cannons and IG88D for ability sharing (all but one other Scum ships has a crew slot).

• Dengar in Punishing One with its 3d primary, S-Loop and lots of other upgrade options.

These are often squad defining, the cheapest of them coming in at 28 pts, the dearest at 47.

What makes this work should be obvious and is two fold.

1) The ships are the ones most people, even casual Star Wars watchers can identify with. Even the more obscure pilots are accepted into the fold as “extras” as long as the ships make sense.

2) The game is in a happy place, with balance and logical match ups. The Rebels are generally slower but tougher, the Imperials fast and fragile and the Mercs are tough and tricky.

Upgrades are pretty basic, nearly Bare Bones, with a few exceptions.

Titled ships are used, exclusively when relevant. Tractor Beams are available to a few, Illicit to all Scum and Systems are there, but rare.

Crew are basically limited to movie linked named characters and faction specific, like Rebel Captive, Nien Numb, Greedo etc. The mercs in particular are fun, with great combos of Pilot and Crew.

There are no TLT’s, Ion Turrets, Harpoon Missiles or Unguided Rockets, nor any of the Ordnance related Mods except Bomb Loadout.

Each faction gets at least one ship with Boost and 2 with Evade. They all have a flavour, and at least one manoeuvre champion.

The Mercs can be taken with either faction, or they can team up on their own into a Krayts Claw themed squad.

It just feels right and for casual games is well controlled.

This is basically the game as originally designed.

Carrots Or Radar?

Yesterday I weighed into an argument I am not really informed enough to join.

The ROAD (Random Over After Dial) initiative changes AMG are introducing to X Wing have split the community into the haters/ambivalent/rare supporters, but also effects people who have never, but may play the game. These last, AMG hope will find it and find it to more to their liking thanks to these changes.

Chasing the unwanted changes out of town or the haters leaving with the ball under their arm?

I personally do not like the artificial nature of “bids”, but never play tournaments, so it does not ruin my play experience (we usually just randomly determine init, a scenario dictates or the newer player gets it). If taken as a game only, then fine, but if any realistic rationalisation is applied, it falls over. Points are a game mechanic, not a simulation of reality.

Did a WW2 fighter pilot pocket a few “points” before lifting off hoping to get the edge on their opponent? If so, then what did these points represent, more carrots or radar? Was the Battle of Britain won by good squad building economics? Certainly the Death Star battles were unbalanced fights. If we care at all about simulation over gamesmanship, then a more realistic way of simulating the differences between pilots of the same level is needed.

As a simulation-ist I came out pretty much in favour of the idea of random order initiative as a way of simulating the frantic free-for-all fighter combat would be, but on reflection, based on reading two, much more informed blog posts and having a night to think on it, I think I prefer a different way of implementing it on the table.

ROAD randomises the turn order after committing to dial selection, which means it introduces player courage to the game, which I like, but this courage is the nerve to commit to an action and then be forced to execute it. Courage to take a chance that luck will decide with possibly dire consequences. Does this simulate the courage felt by a pilot in real combat or does it simply make the game a crap-shoot? It is close, but I can see how serious players find it too luck based.

If randomness is introduced for the right reasons and at the right time, then will it do its job as well as or better at a different point in the game?

I have a lean now towards ROBD (Randon Order Before Dials). Random by turn and still a bit seat-of-your-pants, with the constant risk of favouring one side over the other game to game (as any dice based game will), but at least the players have a heads up how to plan for this turn, just not the turns after. This reduces the pre-determined nature of some games and to me just feels closer to reality. Skill plays as big a part as before, but the “Now I apply plan A (offensive) or B (defensive) for the duration of the game” mentality of bidding is gone. Squads need a little of both A+B to win*. Squad building for a bid will not be game defining so all 200pts can be used without consequence.

Another idea I quite like is the idea of a tie breaker roll if there is an initiative conflict. Any game phase where pilots of the same skill are present and in possible conflict requires a tie breaker roll. This applies to the move/ action and fire phases and to each skill level separately, so the sequence is very fluid. Similar to ROAD, it further randomises the initiative flow during the turn, but unlike ROAD it does not potentially penalise one player’s whole squad for the duration of a turn. This is possibly better for those of us using 1e still as the larger spread of pilot skill levels reduces the need for a roll.

A last thought is the idea of simultaneous play. If pilots share the same skill, then they move simultaneously (requires bumping rule changes) and fire simultaneously. Actions are revealed simultaneously also by stating the action with a token etc then executing. The Action choice is the bit where brinkmanship comes in. Bit thin, but interesting.

*Looking at it from a purely simulation-ist perspective, ROAD means a commitment to a manoeuvre and forced execution of that manoeuvre, which seems a little robotic and fatalistic, where ROBD is closer to reading the situation and flow of battle and reacting to that. I think I like the latter.

The ROAD To Perdition

There is a lot being said at the moment about AMG’s inevitable rules changes to X Wing. These are a first world problem that never the less has the potential to further fracture the already struggling community, but conversely, might just save it in its current form.

First up, I have little interest in this for my self. X Wing and Armada are for me small parts of a wider hobby that to honest, is taking a back seat to my main hobby/career of photography and videography, but obviously, I still glance their way occasionally or I would not be writing this.

The general feeling as I see it is a gradual warming of sentiment towards something new and radical. One Podcast (Carolina Krayts) said when announcements were made, ROAD (Random Order After Dials) seemed like such and outlier, they at first dismissed it and moved on.

This possibly explains why, on the tournament circuit, it is seen as a shift in perspective second only to the launch of 2e.

My thoughts, not educated, not invested, not possibly relevant;

1) The added randomness it brings will even the playing field for the large group of casual to semi serious players and may occasionally even make some casual players ascendant over champion level players. True champions will go the extra yards to ensure they can cope with a run of good or bad luck as well as can be expected (and for some a heightening of difficulty they may appreciate). For most, the “softening” of predictable tactics will remove some of the pre-determined nature of the tournament scene and may even promote some more experimentation. .

2) This randomness has to be taken into context also. Dice are random, player draws are random and perormance on the day can be a bit random to. Such is life.

3) This brings me to my next thought, realistic simulation over gamesmanship (that old axe). A few people have said they perceive the ROAD dynamic will shift play from “make the best squad and tactics before you get there” to “make the best moves on the day”. To my mind this is ideal, far more realistic and a better test of skill than having it all planned out ahead. There are no guarantees in life and there should be no guarantees in any game mimicking life. To be brave is now a players role as much as their on the table avatar’s.

4) The actual mechanic is likely not as important as some have postulated. If squad diversity is embraced (the removal of the “bid” will possibly promote the addition of “filler” ships), then for some the guarantee of predictable move order through lower base initiative is still part of the squad design process, just not an artificial squad building mechanic giving Fenn the edge over Soontir with the saving of a point or two. If everyone turns up with 2-3 Aces, then things will be interesting, but for the want of a point saved should one squad be disadvantaged all game? Ironically, in 1e it is even less effective with its expanded Initiative range.

5) For casual play, it is largely an irrelevant change. It is a mechanic pure and simple and a perfectly reasonable one. If designed in from the start of 1e, we would not even be talking about it. I am sure plenty have house ruled worse.

6) Most likely the biggest critics are the very players who spend far too much time building squads based on prior knowledge of what is out there in the tournament circuit already. This is akin to pilots becoming mechanics and pit bosses. If this is stripped back just a little, then those people have to think harder about their choices and deal with the fact that some (more) things are out of their control, but it is a reality that some players addicted to high immersion games may find that difficult*.

7) The reality is, the game is one the decline. COVID and AMG aside, sales and interest have been dropping, mostly because this is the way of things, but partly because of built in design limitations becoming stretched. These limitations made the game accessible, but also enveloped its scope. The “Star Fleet Battles” and “Advanced Squad Leader” communities are tiny by comparison, but iron willed due to their near to real rules encyclopaedias and super deep history. This is one path and they have managed to thrive within their small scope, but X Wing tackled a simpler, more regular pathway, a thin and perilous path to tread it is if successful. The fact is, success breeds decline, eventually.

For me the roll mechanic will switch to a simple d6 roll with ties meaning a switch of initiative.

*I myself have made a mini hobby out of dissecting the 1e game, so I see the attraction.

Seven Wonders Duel Revitalised

Regular readers will have noticed that 7WD has disappeared from this blog over the last few months.

It is not that it has not been played at all, but to be honest, the “burn” has diminished. Neither of us want this, with hopes that over the summer holidays we will play more.

Everdell is a hit with me, but not so much Meg and Wingspan has been put on the occasional list. Both lack the relentless, focussed and cleanly balanced play of 7WD, but at least Everdell can be (and is) played solo and it works well, so no harm (7WD can be played solo also with a free fan made print and play expansion).

In an attempt to revitalise the game for us I have taken measures to add to the experience.

First up, the Agora expansion has been purchased. The intention with this one is to change the core game into a more realistic and cutthroat political-military (actually Roman civil war feeling) game. We both feel this expansion is an alternative to our usual game (usually played with the Pantheon expansion), not an addition to it. The two extra progress tokens and Wonders add specifically to this expansions mechanics and add some variety.

I feel the Agora expansion will be played maybe 1 in 5 five times at most. As an alternative to learning and playing a totally different game of political intrigue, it is ideal. I am sure we will give a game of “full noise” a go using all the options, but not regularly as we both predict that will simply add too much clutter to such a clean game.

The more exciting expansion is the one that arrived the other day, ordered on Etsy (delivered super fast from Lithuania against all the odds at this time of the year). This fan made Leaders expansion, a free print and play or in our case a pair of print and play Wonders and a set of very nice 63x88 cards (60 odd, but it varies depending on the shape of your game), is a 7WD version of the Leaders expansion from the original 7 Wonders multi player game. The art and game balance are well thought out and consistent. I have printed the Wonders out on photo paper and you cannot see the difference sleeved without turning them over (we slip them into the Agora sleeves when that expansion is not being used for better subterfuge when shuffling).

To give fair warning, the cards cost as much as the Agora or Pantheon expansions, which seems steep, but they add just as much content.

47 that are always in play, 2 for guild games or 10 others if the Pantheon expansion is used. The cards are thick, texture free, matt-waxy feeling playing cards that fit in nicely.

I have sleeved the cards in black backed sleeves, with a mat front surface for the bulk, but glossy fronts for the optional ones (16 for a Pantheon or 2 for a non Pantheon game), just so I can sort them out quickly.

Selected like Wonders, each player gets to alternately choose 4 from 8 randomly drawn Leaders at the start of the game with a normal maximum of 3 to be used per player. One can be chosen or cashed in at the beginning of each Age. The leaders are a mix of expensive and powerful to cheap and situational, but they cover the gamut of 7WD effects in all forms* with a few new ones to boot. The 2 Wonders add some interesting options also like the ability to “bury” your leader for extra VP or gain another from the deck.

With very little extra setup or play disruption we now have another way of breaking play flow, synergising effects and gaining victory points, but with a usual maximum of only 6 in play they are not game breaking. Both players get to see which ones are on offer at the start, but from then on, they are secretly selected or discarded.

With a lot more on offer than other elements of the game, they are far less predictable than Wonders or Gods, so hopefully we will never grow tired of them. We are also interested in their potential to spice up the base game alone, much as the Pantheon expansion did, but with much less process involved.

Finally, the Agora expansion uses plastic cubes for its Senate board, that unfortunately come with a reputation for flaking and feeling cheap, so I ordered some metal ones on Etsy at the same time as the cards. To be honest, I am not bothered by the plastic ones that have come, but I guess they may age badly. The metal ones are a good match also for the coins I bought recently (originally for the Role Player game). These were well priced, small in size and numerous enough (100+ value in 1’s and 3’s), and look right as long as you can ignore the slightly pointy ears on the Elven 1’s. We both love the “chink” of metal.

Weighty propositions.

Our preference based on a short time with all of these in the house is:

• The base game with Pantheon and the Leaders is our favourite as of now, replacing the Pantheon only. The extra leaders included for Pantheon add to that expansion nicely.

• The base game with Leaders is similar in feel to just the Pantheon, but is much quicker to play and smaller on the table, if a little less dynamic. It adds enough to re-balance the base game. The game feels very grounded and “mercantile” in this form and is ideal for travel.

• Base game and Agora has a totally different feel for those days when a change, that is not a major a change, is ideal. We do not like it with the Pantheon expansion, but the Leaders work well and even match in with the big black cards for Agora.

• We have not tried the “full noise” option yet.

*Chaining builds, extra VP for sets, colours, Wonders and Science tokens, Shield and Conquer tokens, discard draws, card kills, turn skips, build proxies and exceptions etc. More on these at a later date.

The Rule To House Rule, As A Rule

Opinions on rule rigidity are many. I fall int the “fix it if it is not working for you” camp.

Let’s face it our games are ours from the minute we buy them.

They are obviously the toil of another, but creative providence, within the limits of our own game space is from that point, up to us.

I have played military miniature war games and RPG’s for as long as I care to remember and the consistent theme is; if you do not like a rule, change it. This is followed up with the concept that the game has to be fun and fulfilling or it will not get played, so balancing all these factors is the primary goal of rules changes.

To be blunt, if I am going to spend the better part of a weeks wages, many hours painting and playing, then I reserve the right to make the game anything I want it to be. Weighing this also against the size my fairly small and insulated gaming group, little harm will be done.

Examples of the types of house rules I mean are;

• Card activation for ships/planes in Wings of Glory or X Wing etc to allow for solo play.

• Leader command zone range (equal to their stars) and single figure stacking in Heroes of Normandie for more realistic unit compositions and command and control simulation. This also allows for solo play with a revised turn sequence and makes leaders lead from the front which is a systemic loop-hole in HoN.

Zombicide Black Plague looks like it is going to be a winner, blending a stunning board game with a semi RPG vibe and the co-op/solo synergy I have grown to like.

One of the most common threads when researching the game however, is one of regular house ruling. The game is fine as is, worts and all, but there is a strong lean by most players, veteran or new, to fix or modify several elements of the game for better balance, fun or both, especially when you go past the base sets. The designers have left the door open here, making a system that has room for easy changes and it seems has plenty of need/opportunity to do so. Nothing is perfect, but some things feel more mutable than others.

Here are a few I have come across and will likely use:

• The Ballista can only be used/activated by one character a turn.

• The Ballista has limited ammo (6 bolts).

• The Ballista cannot kill spectral zombies (which are considered to be incorporeal spirits, a different way of raising the dead). The way the game is going for me, each Necromancer is going to have their “pet” undead, so maybe Mizar will be the keeper of spirits?

• The Ballista cannot go into a building, but can fire into one (the shot does not travel through the building zone).

• The Ballista will do damage differently to different targets, hurting big ones a lot more if specifically targeted, or capable of taking out multiple targets over several zones (as written).

• The Spectral Zombies are treated more as ghosts, so they can only be hurt by Dragon Bile, magic or magic weapons, or simply avoided. Zombies that are not zombies? Does not sit right. Ghosts on the other hand add much.

• They can also move through walls treating all zones as clear for moving. This makes them more dynamic and they effectively replace the Crows. This also makes them a different threat.

• The Dragon is going to be an Abomination, just bigger and scarier (a blend of the best bits of the Bosses pack and its current self). This comes from my dual desire to add a bigger nasty (with the new Abomination rules, see below), without getting even more figures and to use the Dragon that I already have in a better and less abstract way. I will give it different attack types, randomly rolled including spawning (regurgitating) zombies as an option. It feels a little toothless at the moment and the building crushing rule, effectively taking a victory marker out of bounds (instant game over), seems poorly thought out.

• For added variety, Abomination abilities may have randomly generated abilities on spawning (see necromancers below).

• Abominations are now Multi hit point (likely 6 using a d6 as a marker) with an armour save based on threat level. The characters get 1 XP for each hit they inflict, sharing the victory. The Dragon is tougher than the others (more hits or tougher armour or both), the Wulf-bomination faster, but maybe less tough. This allows anyone to possibly hurt an abomination, but one attack kills are much less likely. If I do not get the Wulfzburg expansion, there will not be a lot of 3 hit weapon and character options available, so this evens that out somewhat and makes Abominations a little tougher overall.

• The Wulvz and W-bomination are used on a scenario basis as replacements for runners and standard Abominations, likely with Faolan or Falstaff, who may be able to re-animate them if destroyed (I only have the Huntsman pack of 3 and 1).

• Deadeyes will need to roll to hit (4+), just like everyone else. This seems logical as they are mechanically steady handed and cool headed, being dead, but are also less instinctive and slower, so why would they hit everything they aim at?

• The party will always be made up of random characters (I have 30 to chose from). This makes sense. You cannot pick who survives after all. This may create some tough games, but each will be interesting and it avoids the same favourite/tough/synergic characters hitting the table over again. Players will however be allowed to swap out their drawn character with another player.

• I will make up a roster for the Necromancers, allowing them to effectively be any Necro in the game (maybe even random abilities rolled for during the same game?). They are powerful NPC’s after all. This mixes up the enemy without chasing more figs. I may even come up with a few of my own. Some of the nastier survivors may be pressed into service as necro’s to, like Falstaff (who is based on Dracula, renamed “The Impaler”) or Mizar (who is just evil looking and may become “The Reaper”). I do after all have nearly 40, so shifting a few makes sense.

I have plenty of figures for this game and the thought of buying more quite expensive extras when they really only add more painting and minor mechanical changes does not sit well. House ruling allows me game variety while staying within my purchase envelope and will give several figures more use.

The intention is to make a single spawn deck with necromancer based add-ins with every creature represented. This means avoiding or changing the crazy strong ones and diluting the deck logically. I may even replace the spawn deck with a progressive table (is there no end to my meddling?). Progressive tables reduce the fully random nature of a flat table as nothing can be rolled again until the table has been completely rotated through.

All of the above can be printed out on a master roster for all players to see, replacing the rules book versions.

Crossing The Line

So I said last post that Zombicide had a threshold of sorts.

You can either play it “frantic”, with normal survivors (relative to their environment, which is a little more “heroic medieval” than most) or you can escalate it to a more zombie-smash game, adding in uber-heroes from either the guest boxes or ultimate hero pack.

The guest packs were tempting once I got a handle on all of the different ones and then cross referenced that knowledge with their very limited availability.

I immediately fell for the two Paul Bonner boxes, especially #2. I quickly gave up on that after a fruitless search for #2 and the first without the second felt a little pointless. The Scandi style Ogre/Orc sculpts were great and the dwarf on a giant mount really appealed. These also added super strong characters, that looked super strong.

The two Kopinski boxes (different people) have a nice vibe, fitting in well with the look and feel of the base game/Huntsman pack, offering an optional Necromancer in each set. They are scarce to near mythical. I am not obsessed enough to go chasing $100+ packs. If it gets that bad, I will proxy figures.

The Simoletti box popped up on the radar next. This added four characters that were lower octane types. One had Marksman and one +1 melee damage at blue level, which made them on the whole more powerful than most, but not over the top. I bought it, cancelled it, bought it again, cancelled it again. It seemed poor value after the Huntsman pack and by comparison to the “No Rest” set below.

The Adrian Smith #2 would be awesome, but again, realms of fantasy.

There are sooo many to chase (Thrud the Barbarian anyone?!), but the reality is, they are mostly OTT and inconsistent to the base theme overall, as well as rare as, so decision mostly made for me.

I bought the No Rest for the Wicked pack (first to arrive and very nice it is to), which for only $25 au more than the 4 fig box and gave me 35 new enemies in three types and one heavy weapon, all of which need some house rules to work, but add several different “shapes” to the game.

Nice minis, needing a little cleanup and a metho wash, but otherwise good.

This was an escalation of sorts. The baddies are varied, the big weapon very powerful, but all with house ruled limits or even re-works. I can now make a spawn deck that is both varied and near bottomless and my intention is to have 1 deck that works always.

The hunt resumed for the Bonner #2 and one magically turned up, in Oz and at a reasonable price.

This gives me an over the top monstrous barbarian Orc, Dwarf on a giant…..thing, a driven zombie hunter and a really nasty Necromancer. Xuxa from the Huntsman pack is also a little over powered, so these “heroes” can be the other, more heroic way of playing, each counting as 2 standard survivors in a mixed group (another common house rule) or a party of 4 playing as six.

I then found the #1 Bonner on Amazon for a full set and went for the Simonetti again and…………did not cancel it this time! I really like the character mix.

The Simonetti box adds 4 more normal survivors. These are strong, but can be added into a normal group without breaking it. They also take the normal weapon options available in BP. The Bonner box is more fanciful.

The reality is, the big boxes are the best value, but they have the potential to overwhelm. Specific cards hidden away in these are a problem (the Bonner set needs a couple from Green Horde to be at its best), but I can house rule if needed (Hammer instead of Dwarven Hammer) or mock them up.

Wulfzburg is calling, mainly for the characters and cards, but I have a cooling off tool. I have to paint 150+ figures already and coming from a fairly lack lustre period for me creatively. With a Wulf-bomination and three Wulvz, I can play them as slightly up-powered options, which appeals more than having 20+ of them (maybe a Necromancer with the ability to substitute these and resurrect them when lost?).

I did however pick up a reasonably priced box of Deadeyes, which are considered the best additional enemy. I was not sure how I felt about their ranged ability, but the crowd response is almost unanimously positive. I will house rule these guys to needing a role to hit, which seems fair and makes them less brutal (they would be mechanically efficient and cool-empty headed, but slow and un-intuitive also).

This means my potential enemies for my 30 heroes are;

A Dragon, who will be looked at, most likely as a better Abomination (maybe with some of the Bosses pack abilities mixed with its own).

1 Wulf-bomination and 2 regular Aboms.

21 Deadeye, 40 walker, 18 runner and 20 fatty zombies with 3 wulvz as relentless killers.

18 spirits (ghosts-rules to come), 15 rat swarms and a variety of Necromancers. Necromancers are an area worth exploring, adding another element to the game, but are frustratingly hard to come by. I may give necromancers random abilities (based on some un-obtainable ones) or random selection and press a couple of evil looking survivors into the role along with Evil Troy (Mizar, Falstaff etc).

Well out of control already for a single game.

Life After Death (Well Un-Death Maybe)

Well, the year 12 students have moved on, studying for exams and their release from uniformed learning. I will miss them. They are an inspiring group of people, some have become genuine friends and as a whole, they were a pleasure to work with.

To help fill the void, I have decided to tentatively dip my toe into the world of Zombicide (no pics yet as I have nothing at hand).

The Black Plague edition calls. I like the minis (and have another use for them, with my horde of Warhammer Skaven) and I have covered WW2 (Shadows Over Normandie, Axis & Allies & Zombies, Achtung Cthulhu), modern (Tiny Epic Zombies and several RPG’s) and even Futuristic/Steam Punk after a fashion (Hordes/Warmachine). TEZ is a surprise, regularly coming in in the top 5 of all Zombie game lists. Little power packet.

Zombicide is one of those “big” games, like Gloomhaven, with an avalanche of glorious minis and tons of support, but I am more than confident after a ton of research, that the base game and the Huntsman kickstarter (available from Miniature Market at the moment on sale) will be enough to go on with.

This is based on the many threads I have read, all unanimous in saying that the base game is heaps and more is just more of the same but different with this one. Get more if you love it, but the need to is low and value can be a stretch if you are not careful. The Huntsman set has lots of character variety and some extra baddies.

The options available to me with just these two sets are;

• The base game scenarios and free down loads in the GG site (about ten more for BP only and plenty of others that can be adapted).

• 9 basic tiles (18 sides, multi layout, plenty of variety).

• 23 survivors (one can “go dark” see below). Lots of combos, the secret of a good co-op game.

• 4 Necromancers, 2 standard “acolyte” types, 1 stronger leader type and 1 survivor gone dark/traitor.

• 76 human Zombies over three types.

• 3 Abominations including the wolf-bomination that is tougher (no card but it just has 3 actions).

• 3 Wolfz, which again come with no card, but are simply runners with another action.

• 66 spawn cards. The lack of Wolvz cards is overcome on a scenario basis (third set spawned, first level up or escalation etc).

• 71 equipment cards. This is the only minor weakness, lacking much choice in vault or magic items, but this is a game of grass roots survival, so maybe it is for the best, especially considering the number of survivors available.

The main thing here are survivor options. This will add to the re-play value enormously and the Wolvz are a slight escalation if needed (replace normal abominations/runner spawning at set times). My intention is to randomly draw survivors and keep them dead as lost until run completely through.

I just added the Marc Simonetti guest pack;

• 4 slightly stronger survivors including Red Hood Rodney (name-sake!) with +1 damage and Cadence with Marksman skill at blue level. These may count as 2 characters each.

cancel that, I went with the No rest expansion instead for only $20 more.

I have looked at other options and read plenty of opinions, leaving me with the following thoughts.

Wulfzburg is just a lot more wolvz, a couple of tower tiles adding height as a variant (but they are also dead ends!), 4 new survivors and some items, including the maybe overpowered Magic items. This one may be skipped as a few wolvz are plenty for variety and some balance issues are known to show up. If I get it, I may have to house rule the magic items etc.

The special guest survivor packs are a complicated area, too complicated right now. I like the Bonner packs (#2 especially) with their OTT Nordic style Orc/Ogre look and the dwarf on an ogre mount is cool, but I will see, if they are ever available that is. The two Kopinski ones are also interesting. Both sets have Necromancer options also. These bring up the question of how you want to play the game. If you want the scrambling, frantic and fragile feel of a traditional zombie story, then stick to the base gamed its limits. The guest packs bring out a more heroic, zombie smashing play style, with more baddies needed for balance.

No interest in the optional super Zombies/Adominations etc even if I could find them. They are stronger, countering some survivor empowerment, but I am avoiding those pitfalls as well.

Friend or Foe is Green Horde biased (toxic Gobbos), so probably not. This is a shame as it has some useful bits, but I know I would not use the gobbo zombs outside of Green Horde and that is well down the list.

No Rest for the Wicked (purchased) is fully compatible with BP, but only adds more nasties and the Ballista, no heroes, tiles or items. The term “house rule” comes up a lot with this one. The Dragon is both underwhelming in itself and sudden game ending (nerf coming). The Ballista needs serious curtailing (no indoor use, one shot per turn maximum, limited to 6 ammo, or limited targets etc) and the “wraith” like zombies, act/look like ghosts, but are then technically not (poorly conceived I feel), so more “etherial” rules applied (like no killing with the Ballista!). This is a maybe, because of the rats (love rats), but with house rules applied to the other elements as above.

Like the idea of the Rat King and Troll box, but again, none around.

The Green Horde tile pack is tempting if I can find one, with 14 different tiles (rules for them downloaded from their site) could open up a lot of possibilities. The trick here is finding one cheaper than buying the whole Green Horde base game!

The BP tile pack less so, as it only gives you the option of using both sides of the same tile.

Green Horde adds the most, but goes in a direction I am not as keen on. This would make sense with the No Rest or Friends and Foes expansions, and there goes the escalation trigger!!!

Absolutely no interest in any other periods, as they play much the same and I have them covered other ways.

I have a plan for painting them also. I will base in a predominant colour (Zombie flesh, cloth brown etc), then highlight specific details like leather, metal, skin, then dip.

Things learned;

The game is fine in smaller doses, not much better when swamped by options. Variety is the spice of many games, but the variety added can come with inconsistency and too much repetition.

The game is open to (needs) house ruling. Rules I am looking at are;

• Abominations getting more hits (scaled to threat level) at 1:1 to XP and 1 armour or armour rolls, so they cannot be one shotted and are vulnerable to more characters, even if not by much). This makes them a longer term, but surmountable menace, rather than the all or nothing one they are now.

• The house rules cited for the No Rest expansion (my most likely future purchase).

• Character selection and item allocation.

I am tiring of the whole kick starter, rare figure chasing, fomo completist thing. Enough! FFG and HoN broke me here so my tolerance for this is waning, no matter how much I like a game. The MM special on the Huntsman pack was the trigger, but it would not have worked the other way around.

13TH Age Character Concepts

13th Age has some unique character creation elements.

One is literally unique.

The “One Unique Thing” gives the player, no that’s not right…...empowers the player……….no, still not right……..compels the player to come up with a cool reason for being who they are and explain why they are going to be some of the great movers and shakers of the world.

Think on this for a moment. You are given full creative license to come up with a very good reason to be special, to pay into story building, even world building. This is not a mechanical advantage. Those come from your class, race, level etc, which in 13A are generally more powerful than in regular D&D, especially 5e. It is a story driving element.

But wait, there’s more!

The background system (aka skill system) is open to (aching for) creative interpretation as well, which means you can mix the two together to make a really strong backdrop for your character to hang their story off.

Cool huh?!

Well, guess what, there is even more!

Icon relationships tie the characters to their world through it’s movers and shakers. The big names of the default world (or your own, using the same Icons, or not), are connected to your character either positively, neutrally or negatively and act directly or indirectly. The big names of the neighbourhood are part of your legend.

That is a lot to think on, right from the get-go.

A character is developed over only 10 levels, so they can have a relatively meteoric rise (or not) and each level is considered a major turning point. Starting power is higher than D&D’s normal assumption that a character is a cookie cutter clone of a type, relatively weak and expendable. In 13A, your character is an established force from level 1. Their story should reflect that. Destined is probably the right term.

I like to think of the whole process like a series of novels or a TV series, like Supernatural of the Dresden Files for example. Both start from humble beginnings, progress from instalment to instalment with character growth and a heightening of the character’s importance in their world. In series 1 of SN, the boys are scared to death of “Yellow Eyes”, a relatively serious demon type. By the 10th+ series, they are conversing with his boss, expelling or destroying many like him and have an Angel as an ally (and it turns out God as their puppeteer).

The Dresden Files is similar with Harry developing from respected, but minor force to major event shaper (he destroys an entire species of vampire!).

The assumed trope that the main characters of a story are destined to be major forces in said story makes sense, so 13A gives you the tools from the ground floor to pay into the long term growth of the story, which it is assumed, revolves around them.

Here are a few examples;

Kor’gai’kerix. is a White Dragonborn Necromancer who was the “chosen voice” of a Mausoleum (White) Dragon, tasked with oversight of the Great Necropolis, built on the ruins of an ancient holy city near Axis, the capitol. His task was to usher the souls of the dead to the afterlife, make the restless dead less restless and generally make the place run well. He has 5 background points in that (Necropolis Guardian and Death-pathway Usher) and 3 left for a shorter background as a Dragonborn Messenger (his first job).

For Icon relationships, he could have a negative 2 relationship with the Lich King as his philosophy on death is directly opposed to the LK and a positive 1 with the Emperor for services rendered.

His link to my campaign (based around The Stone Thief campaign) is the loss of a large part of the Necropolis to said Stone Thief, including the disappearance of his patron/master, Unkor’Un’Korax the Mausoleum Dragon.

*

Uuru-um (literally “Left Side-Sentinel” in a lost ancient tongue), an ancient construct (stone Golem like, maybe Dwarven, maybe not) Fighter created to protect an important Tomb from a bygone era (last age, maybe earlier). After an age of barely lucid awareness (5 BP “tunnel traffic”), it is woken to defend the Tombs contents against raiders, and prevails, but is forced to destroy the tomb, burying the raiders and its own companion wardens inside. It wandered the underworld for a while before finding an entrance to the surface.

After wandering the surface for a similarly unknown period of time (time means little to a tomb guardian, it’s part of the job description), spending some of that time in it’s native statue-like state, (generally avoiding contact with others), but always watching and listening (3 BP “silent world watcher”). It is compelled to return to the tomb when the Stone Thief threatens it. The actual location of the tomb is a always known to Uuru-um, but it struggles to articulate where, simply heading in the correct direction as able. Our-um’s sword is sculpted on to it’s right hand, making it impossible for it to hold anything else in that hand.

Its Icon relations are 2 conflicted from the Dwarf KIng (curiosity-possibly obsession regarding where it came from and what it was guarding), 1 negative from the High Druid as he sees this construct as an abomination from an ancient age (maybe he knows more than he lets on).

*

“Pebble” is a Human (maybe an Assimar or Teifling, maybe something else), class unknown to the player, who awakens on a vast plain with no memory of who she is or where she came from. Background and Icon points are left to the GM to make up and disseminate as relevant to the player. The player has no knowledge of their class, background or OUT, but it comes back as used, so develop as needed by the GM.

She has no idea why, but the Stone Thief calls to her.

*

Murimell Mordok (“Angry Little Mountain” in her barbarian tongue) was a Dwarven child, taken by Orcs as a slave/play thing after a losing battle between Dwarves and Orcs (3 BP “surviving in an Orc war camp”), until she was rescued by a Barbarian raiding party of human mountain dwellers who bought her up (5 BP “Mountain barbarian”). Never fully content in her adopted home and nursing a deep hatred of her Orc captives, she strikes out to find her true place in the world. The Stone Thief is a known thing to her, a legend of her adopted clans lore and a challenge to be overcome when encountered. She feels her fate and its are somehow intertwined.

The Orc Lord hates the thought of a Dwarven slave-survivor doing well, so 1 negative pt, the Crusader feels she should be compelled to work for him, 1 conflicted point and the Dwarf King is intrigued by her mixed existence 1 positive pt.

Turbulent Times For 1e X Wing

X Wing 1e for us takes many forms.

Recently these have had a bit of a shake up, so here is a little run down of their ever developing “shape”.

Flight School

Flight school is an introductory game, a simplified tournament set and optionally a super compact way of travelling with the game (ships can be substituted with cardboard dial tokens on bases).

• Player A chooses 2 Resistance XT-70 fighters ranging from 48-62 pts total.

• Player B chooses a number of Tie/FO fighters up to the same value or less (can also make init bid). A soft rule of only ships from the same Squadron can also be applied.

• There are no upgrades, just ships and pilots (optionally they can be included, but maybe later, and limited, but try to stick with the concept). BB-8 is there in spirit :).

• The game is played on a very portable 2x2 mat with 0-2 obstacles placed each player.

These two ships with 8 pilot choices each (multiples of the base types, but “Aces” and “Leaders” are unique), represent the core of the game’s concepts in a neat and balanced way, ideal for teaching the game. You have Focus, Lock, S-Loop, Talon Roll, Evade, Boost, K-Turn and Barrel Rolls all covered with tough and forgiving ships with the added bonus of using ships that are not included in any of the other 1e games below. The pilots also bring to the table many of the mechanical realities of the game.

Skeleton Crew

The original nemesis (Lord Vader with his wingman “Back Stabber”) kings of the low upgrade game.

This is the current favourite around here and the closest to “pure” early 1st ed X Wing and first trilogy Star Wars. Squads are 60-120 points and generally kept to theme as much as possible (scenarios are preferred).

• 21 different ships (no duplicates across factions), giving each faction it’s relevant representative(s) of the Interceptor, Fighter, Multi-role/Ordnance platform, Support and Brute roles.

• The Rebels get the A/B/X and Y wings, YT1300, YT2400 and HWK-290. The A-Wing, is king of speed, the B Wing is the only small ship with Systems and Droid/Pilot/Crew team work synergies are strong.

• The Empire get the Tie Interceptor/Fighter/Advanced/Aggressor and Bomber and for bigs, the Lambda and Decimator. The Interceptor is the manoeuvre king, The Decimator is the brutiest brute.

• The Scum get the Head Hunter, Star Viper, Kihraxz, Scurrg, YV-666, FS-31, and JM 5000. The Scum boast the S-Loop and Talon Roll with lots of Illicit tricks., living up to their “slippery” reputation.

• Basic 5 action ships only with stress as the only real negative effect (apart from damage).

• Basic upgrades including relevant Crew (see ships and effects), basic ordnance (no special effects like Ion, Tractor etc), Illicit (no cloak, or EMP devices), Droid (no TFA, Flight Assist or Targeting) and limited Systems.

• All Turrets are limited to R1-2 and no R1 bonus with does much to curb their strength and add some tactics to their deployment.

This is a pretty sparse environment for Actions (3 native Boosts, 5 Evades and even Barrel Rolls are a little thin on the ground), but the ships and pilots with them stand out from the pack, as they should. Action economy rarely goes past 2 layers and effects are kept simple (no Ion, Tractor, Cloak, Jam etc). Pilots are the real heroes, offering the bulk of the “exceptions”, which I love. The idea is to offer a new player (or jaded veteran) enough to create a varied squad, but without overwhelming options. They then fly their squads within the synergies available. The original Star Wars feel is kept intact (with a few ringers from the Expanded Universe).

Basic Bare Bones

This is the original “Bare Bones” format. The balance of ships are added within the same limitations as above, but a few more upgrades and effects are introduced.

• The Rebels gain the Z95, VCX-100, ARC-170, E Wing and Attack Shuttle as well as the Crew that come with them (the “Rebels”) and the Y Wing may now take Bomb Load-out. This increases the Rebel offering considerably and adds some new combinations (Droid-Crew, Droid-Systems, Crew-Systems), plus 2 Rolls and 3 Evades.

• The Empire gains the Tie Punisher, Prototype and Defender. System and Cannon slots are now available on non-large base ships. The Tie Advanced can take Advanced Targeting Comp (only and at 5 pts). The Empire get a couple of Systems options and the only ship with a white K-Turn.

• The Scum get the Fang, GA-1, Aggressor, Y Wing, HWK-290 and Scyk. Scum now have Droids and more Crew. Nym can swap out “Genius” for his Crew slot. The Scum get the most ships and the most variety, which add several manoeuvre actions, a line ship with Salvaged Droids and a Crew-Illicit-Systems build.

• Ion weapons are now in and the twitchy Illicit Cloaking upgrade, but still no other effects like Jam etc.

• Rebel and Imperial squads may optionally take up to 1/3rd of squad points as Scum mercs, bounty hunters etc., but in factions only, with the Empire choosing first and scum may only maix two factions as allies, but may have as many mercs as they want.

This is much the same as Skeleton Crew, but with about double the options. The main restrictions are still the 5 core Actions (although more ships on balance now have them) and limiting of most of the more complicated effects. For example the Rebels go from 2 Rolls and 1 Evade, to 4 and 4 respectively anf Y Wings get Ion Turrets.

Expanded Bare Bones

This is nearly “full noise” 1e X Wing and can feel close enough to it (for better or worse). The only elements missing are EPT’s, generic Titles and Mods, which may seem like a lot, but with named ship Titles, all Actions and some selected Huge ships included, it increases the options enormously without going into late 1e action economy or balancing pain.

• The Rebels get the U and K Wings, Sabine’s Tie, the Sheathipede, GR-75 transport and Auzituck with the upgrades that go with them (no TFA period).

• The Empire gets the Tie Striker, Reaper, Phantom and Gozanti, again with relevant mods. The Empire can now access the S-Loop on two ships.

• The Scum gain the Lancer, Kimogila and C-Roc.

• Huge ships are kept to the three single card models and get Titles, Hard-points, Crew, Teams and Cargo (but no Mods).

• All named Titles are included, but no generic ones. This gives the legendary ships their full capabilities outside of mods, in effect making them even better by contrast and the Huge ships get their pilot equivalent.

• All effects and their upgrades/Actions are now included like Jam, Reload, Cloak, Reinforce etc and all Ordnance get a go.

• Still no EPT’s or Mods, which keeps the ships and pilots pure and curbs action economy layering.

Close to full 1e, but avoiding the things that can so easily break it. Players now have a greater sense of variety and control, special ships are special and the bag of tricks is vastly expanded. Action economy spread is similar to Bare Bones, just with more available.

Nasty at the best of times, but in “Fight Club” they get fully nasty.

Fight Club

This takes a very different tangent and is greatly expanded from the above versions. This is the “all you can eat” 1e, warts and all for those who find it hard to let go of their favourite aces with full empowerment. The control comes from limiting the ship options to four factional representatives (Interceptor, line work horse, superiority and wildcard).

• The Empire get the Tie Advanced (X1), Tie Defender (D or X7), Tie Interceptor (Guard option) and Tie Fighter, all now with EPT’s and Mods. Manoeuvre is still the Imperial “thing”, but the X1 opens up Systems and all ships are substantially better than in any form of above.

• The Rebels get the X Wing (S-Foils included as a free “configuration” mod and the Renegade Refit option), A Wing (Test Pilot and Chardaan), B Wing (no E2 option to exclude Crew entirely) and the E Wing, with all possible Droids as their edge.

• The Scum can field the Kihraxz (Vaksai), Star Viper (mk2 and Virago), Fang Fighter (Concord Dawn Protectorate) and the M3 Scyk (all three configurations). They have Illicit and exotic manoeuvres as their edge.

• All upgrades that these ships can take are available, with some minor factional limitations for flavour.

• Squads are limited to 60pts, which helps keep the madness in check, but still allows 5 basic Tie or Lt Scyk fighters, 4 Chardaan A Wings and 3 Cartel Kihraxz, or Refit X Wings and at least 2 of the rest (making sense of all of their late game point cost cuts).

Action economy reaps the greatest benefit here, opening the door to the best of the late game madness, but the limited choice of ships and smaller squads help keep things in check to some extent. A “perpetual” roster of pilots is used (once “killed” they can no longer be used until the whole thing is re-set, basically when everyone has had a go) and the winning squad has to face off against the next challenger unchanged, but may be swapped out if they win a second time. This allows for a better counter build.

Second Edition

So, you want to play with all the options on all of the ships?

Do your self a favour and go to 2nd Ed. Lets be clear, 1e with no restrictions on upgrades is fundamentally broken. The late game 1e band-aid measures do not fix the core issues, especially in competition games. These go back to the earlier game evolving well past its built-in restraints.

EPT’s, secondary weapons, titles, mods and others are all heavily rationalised in 2e, with much of the later meta integrated into the ships effectively removing the worst EPT and Title offenders. It is overall a better game, if deeper and with more moving parts. The strength of 2e is the ships and pilots, who are ascendant again, upgrades are supplements only, not ship defining. It’s back to you flying well, not necessarily building better based on known winning combos.

I like it, but have to admit, with no point values printed, regularly changing values, the 200pt squad and the depth of each ship alone, even without upgrades, 2e has not yet allowed me to unleash my enthusiasm fully. The clean simplicity of 1e still calls, just heavily re-cleaned.

Flight School allows players to experience the full range of, manoeuvres, pilot skills and the yin-yang of ship types.

Skeleton Crew is all about squad and pilot synergy and player flying skill, with upgrades adding variety, but not effecting that base line greatly. It hopefully captures the feel of the original movies (with extras).

Bare Bones slightly expands that by adding Ion weapons and more ships and pilots. Otherwise the Keep It Simple Stupid approach of above is intact.

Expanded starts to creep into 1e full noise, but is still restrained in the most important game defining area, Action economy. The main changes come from added Action options and ship Titles (named only).

Fight Club is the 1e, no holds barred version with the major exception of the number of ships included. It is a little bit of self indulgent retrospective madness, focussing on the ships that benefitted most, effectively playing them as their later 2e versions.

The later game meta became Action economy obsessed. The game is one of positioning and Actions, but that can come in too many layers. Skeleton Crew has one layer with exceptions, BB has a few layers, Expanded has many more, Fight Club the most, but the shackles are never completely released. The difference is in play style, feel and player pay-in.

Experienced 1e tournament players often had a very short list at any one time of the winning combinations (it changed regularly as new products and resulting nerfs came out), often meaning tournaments had the same pilots and squads playing off against each other and these were most often not the ships (or pilots) we all know and love, nor did they fundamentally make much sense.

The Future Guided By The Past

When I got into Armada, it was, I felt, for two good reasons (maybe justifications is closer, but bare with me).

First, it allowed me to enter the “Prequel” Star Wars story stream in a cheaper and more comprehensive fashion than through X Wing (I felt at the time).

Secondly, it allowed a “contained” route into Armada, offering a new game and style of play but a limited upgrade path (again, at the time).

Both good, sensible reasons. A sound plan.

Logic rules.

Of course I know me, but I forget what I know about me.

I often manage that it seems.

Armada grew into a more “comprehensive” build, now boasting (ah, he boasts, the sad fool!) two almost complete and well balanced Imperial and Rebel fleets as well as two (much smaller now) Separatist and Republic ones.

A small showing by comparison to my later period fleets, but still a full game with options. I kept some clear bases for this mat, a Deep Cut 4x4 Orbital, the rest are space black.

Here is the rub.

Asmodee have unofficially scrapped future Armada releases with quite a lot still missing from the prequel period and no mention of TFA period ships, so even if I wanted to continue my prequel fleets, there is no more variety I can add (2 more starters maybe for depth?). On one hand going into the main period now makes more sense, but………

If I had actually just bought the prequel X Wing fleets, I would be done by now and at half the cost and have the ships that will never now come to Armada.

Lesson to be learned here and one I often preach, is to aim for where you are going to go and go there only. Go straight, do not take a circuitous route, because you will only end up diluting the process, spending more (time/money) and end up there anyway.

Three times this has cost me big time;

1. Buying Old School Tactical and several games from the Lock N Load Tactical series instead of Heroes of Normandie, which I now have a full collection of. It took longer and cost more and LnL and OST fell away in the mean time as it was too large a commitment on top of so many other choices. I did also dabble in Combat Commander, which I will keep, but LnL and OST it turned out, were a wonderful waste of resources for me.

2. Buying Star Trek Attack Wing instead of X Wing, then going into X Wing anyway during the 1e>2e transition period. This doubly hurt, because I actually prefer 1e, but largely missed that boat as well. Attack Wing is fine, but not the same intensity as X Wing (and the models are not even in the same galaxy). I also have to remember that I have a lot of ADB stuff that covers 4 (!) different Star Trek games at once. X Wing 1e, with early movie fleets only would have done.

3. Buying into Armada prequel fleets to avoid prequel X Wing, then getting comprehensive fleets anyway, then regretting (with Asmodee’s current direction) going into the prequels at all. Armada main period fleets or no Armada and instead Prequel X Wing, both would have worked and cost considerably less.

Hindsight is not often a friend, but lessons can be learned. Main one is to call enough for now. I have more than I will ever play (Full collections of Sails of Glory, Wings of Glory WW1&2 and a huge Fed Commander list also), so now it is time to finish things and play more, not continue to collect.

As for blogging, there is much to explore and share.

My main aim is to finish my WW2 20mm rules that have been an on-again off-again project for many years now.

A Perfect Union?

After a seemingly endless wait (‘cos I clearly have the worlds troubles on my shoulders :) ), 13th Age Glorantha arrived yesterday and with some excitement, mixed with a little trepidation, I gave it a quick glance.

Glorantha is more than a little weird, a reality that had put me off it in the past. Initially I thought it was Bronze Age Greco-Persian influence, then maybe an Indo-Persian one, then American Indian-Persian, then Celtic….Persian?. It looks like it’s actually all that and more, so jumping in on the strength of the 13th Age window alone may seem strange.

13th Age is also a little weird in a kind of awesome way. It took the relatively ancient D&D rules set and, before 5e was even launched and offered us a play style that two of the designers of the game use to play their own games, which it turns out is quite different to the way they designed their “other” games (3e and 4e). It strips back, fleshes out and generally shakes up the old game, making it equal parts “old friend” and “new age” indie style game.

You know that feeling you get when you just want some of those annoying clunky rules mechanics to not be there anymore. Well they did just that and it works. House rules rule.

Join these two forces together with the style that 13th Age oozes (conversational designers notes and empowered creative license) and you have, for me, the perfect, possibly the only palatable launch platform into this particular gaming world.

Bonkers-gonzo weird meets bonkers-gonzo, a little over the top with a big smattering of “you can do it your way”.

My first inkling I was in for a good ride with this came quickly. Randomly opening the book I came across the Troll Warrior. That entry alone set the scene. Open, revealing, original and more than a little hilarious (these guys eat their own equipment, or friends even if pushed).

Broo, the original Beastmen. Love the pencil style drawings.

One of the things that makes 13A so accessible to me is the game refuses to take itself too seriously. I doubt I could take either D&D or Glorantha in a more serious, drier form after this.

This is the best of both worlds, creating a super-additive formula resulting in an opinionated, vibrant and flexible gaming experience.

Presentation is interesting. It looks like the book is done to the new standards of Chaosiums offerings, using semi gloss pages of a slightly lighter weight than 13A’s standard high gloss and heavier than usual-weight and the font and layout make for a more mainstream looking product. It is likely closer to Call of Cthulhu 7e (I have not seen yet) or D&D 5e (that I had) than vanilla 13A, but the content is still light and open in mood.

The less tight looking 13A layout. No preference, just different.

The illustrations are mostly from the Chaosium Glorantha archive with a few by the standard 13A artists. All good and the cross-over is seamless.

The differences in presentation and feel are fine, helping set the scene for the two worlds. It is, if anything, a little denser, tighter and more mature looking.

My plans of lifting from this for my normal 13A campaign have possibly gone out the window, because to be honest I think I want to play this world as it is.

The Strangest Thing........

So, dogs.

Love ‘em to death.

They sometimes chew things. Sometimes a shoe (never the pair, just one of each), maybe the odd furniture corner, occasionally a John Sexton Book (not a favourite, but it turns out it would cost $300+ to replace!).

Scheming? Likely not.

Today Lucy, who in her defence has been given the odd X Wing and Armada counter surround to chew, was gifted two open doors to the mother load and decided to chew 7 (!) Armada ship tokens, which oddly named as they are, are the cardboard base panels for the ships (kinda mandatory for accurate play and you only get one!).

Butchers bill;

• Both ISD tokens pretty much munted, with warping, chunks missing and puncture marks all over.

• Onager, same but not as bad (stripped corner) I may cut it off or colour it in with black pen.

• Both Gozanti’s, my only Raider and my Munificent, were slightly damaged, but mostly whole.

• 1 stand, usable, but not pretty (plenty of these, although a medium, so less common).

Things were said.

Chance to count my blessings?

You bet.

The (currently) irreplaceable and far too expensive at the time Raider model and super fragile Munificent were both on the floor undamaged and at least another half dozen ships were within reach, but it was apparently only the cardboard she wanted.

Ok, so on the net I go. Not only is it nearly impossible to find any tokens, sans ship that is, but even getting an accurate, ship-less image I can print out seems impossible. Photoshop? Likely, but to be honest pushing my skill set.

Ring at the door.

Chimaera expansion arrives.

Enthusiasm a little reduced considering, but oh well, new toy.

I open the box, consoling myself that there is at least one presentable ISD base panel in my collection and one I can likely copy and PS.

Punching out the cardboard I spy another sheet with another base panel! This is the only time I have ever received 2 in a box. I assumed FFG decided you may want to upgrade more than one of your ISD’s to refits? I go tell my wife the good news and of course she arranged a parade, cancels disaster relief, arranges a press release etc :). Well, maybe not, but she was happy the mini disaster was partially averted.

I returned to my unpacking and lo-and-behold, there was a third! Go FFG. I now have all three ISD’s properly based even if I have to ignore some of the printed info. Just means I have to use the ship cards, not the bases, for basic ship info except for the much needed fire arcs, that are thankfully the same for all the ISD’s.

Not a big adjustment process and I guess FFG could even have designed them like that in another universe, so all good.

The rest of the bases are being pressed flat under some books, then maybe a slight trim if needed, but are otherwise not too bad. I paint my bases black, so if I trim the munted ones, then use a black marker to finish them off, they may look like I meant it.

From initial fears of an expensive and inconvenient (hobby based = minor) disaster, almost all was salvaged.

Weird how things work out, and they usually do.

More Armada

More Armada!

I felt that three CR-90’s would be fun and mixes up the 2/2/2 evenness of my small ship Rebel fleet, and because I like to keep a balance to things, a third Gladiator also.

“Wolf packs” comes to mind in both case, one a hit and run, the other a close quarters mauler.

Is it just me or does everyone get a little spend-happy in Spring?

I resisted the two MC-80’s, because I still struggle with their scaling and look. The Starhawk, Nebulon, MC-75 and Assault Frigate all share the hanging Jowls or cocktail sausage look the MC-80’s lack and are all in acceptable looking scale to each other. I also have the upgrade cards (Admirals etc), so nothing really missed.

The upgrade card pack is still the single best purchase for Armada. No matter your ships, you get the entire updated upgrade range in one go. Print out the ship cards from Cannotgetyourshipout or similar and proxy the ships and any fleet is possible.

I have also bought some more fighters, because I feel I need some “spares” for paint trialling. I am struggling. I want them to be much the same quality as the bigger ships, but that is vexing. I have felt a little stressed painting the ones I have, so some extras to practice some ideas on will help (and some more would be nice anyway).

The Other Skeleton Crew Killer Squads

Aces are Aces, god love ‘em. All speedy and lethal or tanky and….lethal (just lethal really), but in Skeleton Crew, an Ace only has so many edges to load up with.

The other killer squad is the humble base model deployed-en masse. The formula below is pretty simple. The offensive dice x ships - defensive points (agility + hull + shields) and Ordnance x ships (#)

Catch me if you can.

Rebel

Y Wings x5 10-45 5 Grey Sqd pilots with Autoblaster Turrets (10)

Y Wings x5 10-45 5 Gold Squadron Pilots

X Wings x4 12-28 Rookies + a HWK 1-6 Rebel Operative blocker

B Wings x3 9-27 Blue Sq Pilots + A Wings x2 4-14 Prototype Pilots

A Wings x5 10-35 with Proton Rockets (25) Prototype Pilots.

Imperial

Interceptors x5 15-30 5 Avenger Sq Pilots or 4 Alphas and Carnor or 2 Alphas and 3 Sabres

Tie Fighters x8 16-40 Academy pilots with a Black Sq or an Ace of some sort

Bombers x3 6-24 3 Scimitars with Plasma Torps (9) and Seismic charges (*) + Aggressors x2 4-14 Seinar with Dorsal Turrets (4-6)

Aggressors x5 10-35 Sienar Specialists, Dorsal Turrets or 2 Onyx Escorts + 3 Sienar, Unguided Rockets (6).

Obviously, with so many cheap Tie’s the Empire can mix this up quite a bit.

Scum

Kihraxz x5 15-35 Cartel Marauders.

Star Viper x3 9-24 Blacksun Enforcers + Head Hunters x2 4-12 Blacksun Soldier, Binayre Pirate.

Head Hunter x8 16-48 Binayre Pirates with 4 points of Illicit or Missile upgrades sprinkled through them.

Scurrg Bomber x4 12-44 Karthakk Pirates Bomblet Generator and Bombardier for 1.

Headhunters make great fillers for most squads.

Anyway, you get the idea, the swarm is back!