Delta Vector

What we gamers term "Fluff" tends to be the preserve of sci fi or fantasy games, but could equally be applied to historical games (the word"background"would probably be preferred by historic gamers.)

In this specific sense I am talking about "fluff" it is as the background and attached history/stories of a game setting. The "crunch" is the rules themselves. The "fluff" is the universe attached to the rules.

Fluff - How to present it
Sometimes, like in Malifaux, it was in large chunks interspersed through the entire book. A terrible idea, it made the rulebook difficult to navigate. Should it be in the front or the back of the book? It really depends. The most important thing is fluff is "tight" and not needlessly descriptive and rambling (more on that later.) Some people love fluff, but others don't love paying $40 for a rulebook which is 20% rules and 80% poorly written fiction. A method I prefer is a small "taster" of no more than a page or two at the front of the book to "orientate" me to the setting, with more fluff buried at the back where I can read it if I choose. Even better - put the majority of the fluff on the website. If it is that engaging, I'll go looking for more. Darkson Designs did a short, 3-4 page per episode series called "Over the Wire" for their Weird War 2 game, in which they regularly released army lists, scenarios and fluff. I thought that was a great idea. It was like White Dwarf without the advertising.(Actually, White Dwarf without the advertising WOULD be only 3-4 pages long.) Wyrd go a step further and have a large, rather well-produced free e-zine. If only they could have confined their "fluffy" efforts within their rules....

The weirder the setting, the more useful the fluff
The weirder and less conventional your game, the more useful "fluff" is to orientate your reader.
E,g, if you have nazi zombies, you need to explain how or why they are in your game. If you have a steampunk-Victorian-sci fi-horror-Western game like Malifaux, fluff is essential. Gamers will find it easier to "identify" with factions and armies, and it may give them creative ideas. Bear in mind many gamers are "obsessive compulsive" and will slavishly follow your fluff. Your "fluff" can set the tone of the game.

Fluff is handy to "orientate" a gamer to a new or unusual background

When Fluff takes over

I'd regard the Games Workshop games as major culprits in this area. Gamers are so bombarded with "proscribed" paint schemes, unit histories, they find it impossible to think "outside the box." When was the last time you saw a 40K army in traditional "army" camo? They tend to slavishly follow paint schemes put forth in the "fluff." Gamers kinda do it to themselves though. I think it is a kind of "gamer" OCD. How often do you see a miniatures paint scheme that is not a copy of the one shown in the rulebooks or on the box? Sometimes, too much fluff can stifle creativity. That said, the Warhammer series are a great example of successful fluff.

Successful Fluff
Like or hate Games Workshop, their rather cliche "fluff" - which borrows heavily from a wide range of sources - from Starship Troopers to Aliens to Terminator - has spawned a huge range of novels. When your fluff makes your target audience ignore how tedious and lame your rules are, you've done well. When your "fluff" has its own publishing house, you know you've made it to the top.

How much is too much?
The answer is "it depends." I review several dozen rulesets a year. The average rule length is ~30 pages. The average rulebook length is 80+ pages. Even allowing for army and equipment lists, I'd estimate about 1/3rd of any given rulebook is fluff. With "mass market" glossy rulesets by companies such as Games Workshop or Privateer Press, the proportion of fluff is much, much higher.

Fan Fiction
There is a vast different between a good rules writer and a good story writer. Sadly, the rules writers themselves do not seem to recognise this. Being able to write clever, innovative rules does not automatically make you the next George R.R. Martin. This may be harsh, but I can't recall reading one "story" in a rulebook that had even a shred of entertainment value or merit except in the writer's mind.

Most read like teenage fanfiction or a "Boy's Own" story. Which some people might like. Your mileage may vary. Writing is an art, and it is a sad fact that like all art, some people are much more talented at it than others. There is no good reason to inflict terrible fiction on the wider public, just because it is "fluff."

I'd estimate the vast majority of rulebooks are edited and checked by a small circle of friends or acquaintances, rather than by professional editors at a large publishing company. And this is pretty darn obvious.

The level of fluff writing in most rules is about the same as the average Twilight fan-fiction

Here's my advice to budding "fluff" writers:

Your wife/mum/dad/kids/playtesters/friends/gaming buddies can proofread your layout and spelling, but they are biased. They do not count as "literacy" critics. It is the rules buyers (who don't know you, nor care about nurturing your budding "literacy" career) who judge you. They do not enjoy being your "guinea pigs" as you hone your writing craft. Just because they buy (or continue to buy) your rulebooks does not indicate their endorsement or approval of your "fluff." In fact they may be buying your rules in spite of your fluff. In the case of Malifaux, the overuse and poor layout of fluff strongly detracts from the useability of the rules themselves.

Furthermore, keep the fluff "focussed." Fluff typically tends to ramble on, and have excessive or unecessary detail. This is typical of (a) less skillful fiction writers (I come across it a lot when marking literacy tasks at my primary school) and is magnified by (b) the writer's over-enthusiasm for the "world" he has created - which is not necessarily shared by everyone. We probably don't care if the space marine captain misses his girlfriend from Xaltos 9, or what colour hair she has. Or the exact texture and consistency of the chunky bits when he is blown apart by a vortex mine. (OK, maybe some teenagers would think this is awesome) When you become as famous like J.R.R. Tolkien, then we may choose to buy and read books which are specifically about the worlds you have invented. But you need to assume most people bought your books for your wargame rules, not your imaginary world or budding literacy efforts.

Remember to keep in mind your "target audience."Warhammer has done this superbly. Sometimes your audience will be as twisted as you - witness the success of the Kingdom Death kickstarter. Other times you will alienate your audience. "Yes, this is all commonsense," you say. But let me give you a real example. I'd suggest rape is seldom a popular topic for any work of fiction, and homosexual rape probably even less so. But I have read rules fluff that contains this, and then boasted as a selling point that it was an "adult" game. No, it was simply an overly-detailed skirmish ruleset, with some poorly written fluff about a very unpleasant topic.

Sometimes the most twisted fluff will find an appreciative audience, aka Kingdom Death. However, most people will find it a turn-off.

So should we ditch fluff?

No. Fluff is important.

You don't need fluff to play a game, and it certainly should not detract from the clarity of the rules themselves. But it shouldn't be the primary focus when designing a wargame. I'd be annoyed to find a ruleset wasn't balanced as well as it ought because the rules designer was writing fluff instead.

Fluff makes a difference in why battles are fought, and gives a "background" and context to battles. If you are simply fighting competitive/encounter battles, then "fluff" is very useful in this role. Games like Battletech are rather clunky, but solid fluff keeps them perambulatory. The Warhammer series skillfully uses fluff to disguise vapid game design.

Sometimes "fluff" changes how people play a army. This sort of "role playing" is fun and is a welcome respite from the win-at-all-costs approach (we all know someone who is like that!) Fluff can inspire you to get painting and modelling project finished and can provide "inspiration" when you need ideas.

I tend to view wargaming as a "story" - we can be refighting history or creating our own. Without fluff we might as well play chess. In fact, even historical games could be considered to have "fluff" - why do the Germans have Tigers in 1944 but not in 1939?

I use this "Dad" analogy when talking about summaries but it applies equally to fluff. Fluff should be like a bikini. It shows everything that's interesting and covers only what is necessary.

If you want to ramble on, get a blog. So....

Fluff IS good. BUT

1. Fluff should not interfere with the rules themselves. Fluff should not be the majority of the book.

2. Not everyone writes great fiction. And no, you are likely not an unrecognised literacy genius

3. Fluff should not be edited by your mum, dad, wife or hot cousin. They are not good literacy critics.
4. Fluff should not be overly descriptive; not everyone is deeply fascinated by your imaginary world
5. Not everyone likes fluff, nor paying for you to publish your fiction under guise of a "rulebook"
6. Fluff should not be "prescriptive" i.e. Ultramarines must always be blue - as that discourages creativity

I don't want people to be discouraged from adding background to their games. Far from it! There are awesome websites and forums devoted to fluff, some wonderfully eccentric and inventive. The VSF and imagi-nations crowd are particularly ~~strange~~ awesome. There are some amazing sources of inspiration and creativity out on forums, blogs, yahoo groups and websites which you can choose to visit.

What I am opposed to is the propagation of excessive, "bad" fluff - which is done at a rulebook purchaser's expense.

With the advent of modular terrain I see a lot of raging about "pre-measuring" using the grid-like nature of tiles, which has inspired me to explore what is apparently a surprisingly emotive topic.

OK, first let's define them:

Pre-measuring
You may measure any and all distances on the tabletop BEFORE moving, shooting etc

Guess-the-range
Basically, if you announce an action (usually a shooting or "charge" action), you must take that action, even if it may turn out to be beyond the range of the weapon, or the maximum move, thus "wasting" a move or shot.

Ease of play.
I'd argue both are about the same speed - people can waste time estimating ranges or endlessly measuring. Slow players will always be slow. I'd say using a ruler is something people can pick up faster, but guessing works slightly better with large numbers of units. However, I don't really think either system offers significant advantages over the other with regards to simplicity or gameplay speed.

Claiming pre-measuring turns wargames into a math exercise ignores many other variables.

Pre-measuring
On one hand, it seems ridiculous that a soldier would not have a good idea of the effective range of his weapon (or that he can use ranging shots), or how far he can travel when loaded with combat gear - even ignoring modern or sci fi equipment. A modern Abrams gunner would be able to "pre-measure" not only the exact range, but also temperature, wind speed, etc.

In addition, pre-measuring offers choice. You can choose to use it or not. However games that ban it are limiting a gamer's options, and thus the game's broader appeal. In addition, the more "clinical" nature of pre-measuring might make a game easier to balance (though this assumes both players are equally good at choosing when/where to measure, which they aren't.... and argument on what makes a "fair" point system or indeed even if one is possible is one for another post). In addition, pre-measuring which removes "uncertainty" makes rules situations more clear for both parties.

It's not like wargames don't already have uncertainty, pre-measuring or not. Pre-measuring does not suddenly make a game "like chess" or 100% boringly predictable. (And even chess, with its x will always do y, is still far from predictable)

Against Pre-measuring
The rebuttal would be that there are lots of historical accounts of soldiers shooting to soon/too high/too low, and although the "grunt" has a fair grasp of ranges etc, the"commander" doesn't (or didn't listen) - and in most cases, the player is the commander not the individual grunt)

Pre-measuring does remove uncertainty, making the game more predictable and "mathematical." It removes an element of "risk vs reward." It increases the feel of the "player-as-god" (with far more precise control than historical commanders) and allows faster or better ranged units a much stronger advantage as they can more precisely take advantage of their abilities.

The precision allowed by pre-measuring can make certain players who are skilled at using it very hard to beat. "Guessing" is equally a skill, but still allows an element of uncertainty. The "guess" camp would claim pre-measuring will reduce games to their most clinical, mathematical level.

Apples are easier to pick up and eat, but do they give the best juice?

Philosophy

"Guessing" is more intuition, estimation and "feel." Pre-measuring is more about simple math. In one, there is more information (arguably, a level of information generals wished they had, but didn't). Whilst I'd argue an individual soldier would know the exact distance he can move or shoot in x amount of time, the general (you) would not, relative to him, other members of his force, and every enemy on the board. The average wargame already has unrealistically low "fog of war" and pre-measuring removes even more of it. The near-perfect precision of pre-measuring should be, according to its opponents, reserved only for "boardgames."

On the other hand many prefer the more "set" world of pre-measuring. Miss-guessing range and thus messing up a vital charge may be frustrating. Also, with pre-measuing, both sides can "see what is coming" before actions are taken and dice are rolled, leading to a more relaxed game. With guessing, any arguments about measuring will occur AFTER the decision, dissenting players are seen to be "wriggling out of" or reversing an already finalised situation, making contentions more "emotional."

Guessing Mechanics
Weapons that require you to "guess" the range to score hits I unequivocally do not agree with. One reason is simply because there are some gifted individuals who can guess with uncanny and unhistorical accuracy. It seems a bit unfair to pick on what is undoubtedly a "skill" but game balance flies out the window when an AoE template can be dropped on targets with monotonous and devestating efficiency. Generals did not win battles by their ability to individually man and fire each shot of artillery.

The other reason - to have all weapons but say artillery dependent on unit stats and dice, then another dependent on "guessing ability" is simply it is illogical and inconsistent. It is as inconsistent and annoying as in Warmachine where you can pre-measure around the caster but must guess everything else. If we are going to use radically different, non-stat based mechanics, why not replace the "guessing game" with mechanics that involve firing rubber bands or rolling marbles at the target?

The all-seeing nature of most wargames, where players see all their own and enemies units, and can equally control companies or micromanage individual soldiers, has a bigger impact on "realism" and gameplay than pre-measuring ever could.

So which is "right?"
I'm going to please no-one and go with "neither." To be honest, I think there are other issues at play here, which (for me anyway) have a bigger impact on games than pre-measuring. It's hard to view a single game concept in isolation from the rest of the rules. Even a mechanic like vanilla IGOUGO - which I dislike on principle - I acknowledge it has merit for some games such as Warmachine where "combos" and chaining attacks is an integral part of the gameplay. Here's some from my personal list:

-Fixed movement (the general knows every infantry will move 6" predictable, every time.) There are many games that control movement with dice i.e. 3D6" move. Even WFB uses this. This removes the alleged "complete certainty" that comes with pre-measuring, but allows some "calculation of odds."

-No graduated firing scales i.e. "All damage or none" - when a unit fires with maximum damage (say 10 attack dice) to 24" - then the bullets vanish magically and it does NO damage at 25"+,. Not only is this nonsensical and "gamey," but pre-measuring is made unrealistically powerful.

-Time Scale/activation and "reactions". Dividing the game into fixed "turns" has an unrealistic nature in itself. Troops don't move for x amount of time and "freeze" to allow their opponent to have their turn. There are different approaches to this - Ambush Alley presumes troops within 2" of cover to count as "in cover" presuming troops will move to cover if fired upon, TFL often games divides their "turns" into phases of variable length. Other games allow units to "react" by moving to cover. If troops can "return fire" or move in response to foes, it removes a lot of the "gamey-ness" of premeasuring i.e. waiting 1" beyond missile range then moving in to shoot when it is your turn.

Take vanilla IGOUGO - where one side remains completely static and passive while the other resolves all their actions unhindered - that is a very common system, that makes a bigger difference (for me) than pre-measuring.

-The players. I'd say this is the #1 factor. You get over-competitive or overly fussy jerks no matter what system you use, or what game you play. Others are "fluffy" role-players. I'd say players have 10x more influence on the speed, drama and unpredictability of the game than this mechanic.

I know I am very clinical in "pre-measure" games and whilst (at least I'd like to think so) I am relaxed and laid back when gaming, it can be unpleasant to have to "declare" a game a few turns in as you are being obviously eviscerated. However many players who can pre-measure (in a game that permits it), don't. I find it interesting that both players have access to the same information, but some choose not to utilize it. I also find pre-measuring encourages me to "plan ahead." So "pre-measuring" could be argued to be a skill all of its own. And if "pre-measuring" is a skill, then so is "guesstimating." People who are good guessers have a similar advantage - although it might be harder to master. So really we are choosing which skill we want to be most important in our wargame.

-The sort of game it is employed for. It's a bit like the boardgame vs tabletop game argument. Some games lend themselves to pre-measuring, and other do not. It seems a bit snobby to claim certain mechanics "belong" to one genre or another actually. It's almost like saying you can only use d6 for fantasy games and you can only use d100 for RPGs. The only thing that makes a "boardgame" or "tabletop" game is one is played on a board, the other on a table with terrain.

-The "command level." The player controls everything in most games - he controls the overall flow of the battle, as well as micro-managing individual heroes and squads. In reality, a commander might work with unit structures "one up and one down" i.e. a platoon leader might interact with company HQ and his squad leaders, but he would not be directing every fire-team or individual within a squad - his sergeants or corporals would be doing that - neither would he be controlling the actions of other platoons or companies. The "player controls everything" could be argued to remove even more realism, drama and uncertainty than pre-measuring ever could.

-The All-seeing eye. Being able to see all the units, all the time is a far more powerful ability than pre-measurement. Most games have a very limited representation of "fog of war" - most games have none.

I always find it interesting when one side in a debate is more militant than the other. In this case, I'd say it is the pro-guessers. I don't think I've ever seen a post or article insisting a game MUST be pre-measured. Neither have I seen one saying how guessing distances "ruins the game" is "skill-less" or "sucks."

Really, what is right is what you enjoy.
I've pointed out that most successful mass-market games give players a unrealistically high level of control (i.e. IGOUGO) and obviously many players do enjoy it. Luckily there is enough options out here that you can choose either method - or, if you have relaxed opponents, you might be able to choose what you prefer regardless of what the rules say.

Whilst it is a fun debate, for me, the worst possible outcome would be that either side of this debate triumph, leaving us in a world where either pre-measuring was banned, or forced upon everyone. I choose option "C" - we should be allowed to choose both.

OK, the title is a bit misleading. The premise of this article is that there is no such thing. In fact, I think a truly balanced point system is impossible. Why? It's those blasted players who insist on playing the games.

Different players get more or less "value" for their points out of different units or indeed, different factions

You know that player who is awesome with slow, tough dwarves but sucks with speedy flimsy dark elves? So do I.

In Infinity, there are two rather powerful abilities. One is thermal camouflage, which enables you to move around the board with a good chance of remaining completely unseen, and get the "first shot in" - invaluable in a game where weapons are long-ranged and lethal. The other is advanced airborne deployment - you can walk on the board edge of your choice or make a roll to parachute in anywhere on the board you want, and gun down your enemies from behind. Both very powerful abilities, right? Both cost far more than a "vanilla" soldier. However, players will usually be better with one method than the other. You might use advanced deployment brilliantly, but not get the full benefit from your camouflage units, or vice versa. That's because the "average" player is not "the same" in how he utilizes a unit or ability. Thus some abilities or units are worth more (or less) depending on who controls them. That's the first problem.

Players themselves are a reason points will never be precisely "balanced"

Broken Units & "Lists"

Sometimes units can become overpowering when they are "min-maxed" i.e. an all-camoflage army.
This may be very powerful against a "normal" army - therefore the "camoflage" (which was balanced under the expectation of having only 1-2 stealth units per side) is worth far more than its points cost suggests.

It also might have a "hard counter" i.e. an army with "X-Ray Vision" units which completely ignores camouflage; or one that uses all AoE weapons. In that case, the camo is worthless, and the whole army is suddenly extremely overpriced. Sometimes, "less is more" - having a single off-board "airborne" unit or "stealth" unit can create uncertainty, messing with your opponents' battle plans far more than the actual points cost or combat value of the unit.

Even with a relatively balanced force, having "to many" of xy units as a ratio to other units can have an unbalancing effect. I.e the ability for a vehicle to transport a infantry squad is useful and well worth the points - but what if you have more far vehicles than you do "squads?" The points are wasted as you cannot utilise them. Other units rely on others - without a "scout" or "forward observer" to direct it, that artillery may not be worth its "points." That's why you see points often used in conjunction with army lists i.e. "you must have 2 vanilla units for each camo unit" - to prevent the wilder extremes.

Other abilities seem rarely used - I have never used the "Zero-G" ability of my Nomad minis, simply because I've never had a vacuum-based game board. If I played on a vacuum-based map every week, they would no doubt be "overpowered." But as it is, any points towards this ability are effectively wasted. In all games terrain has a dramatic effect on game balance. I'm using Infinity as an example, due to the lethality and range of weapons, and the ability of units to "react" by shooting at any enemy movement (even when it isn't there turn.) In a open map, sniper rifles and HMGs would be ridiculously overpowered - most enemies would die on their base table edge. In a "good" table with terrain every 4" or so (that's a huge amount of terrain, by "normal" wargame standards), shotguns, flamers and melee weapons at least have a vague chance at success. So the "practical" value of weapons, stats and abilities can also vary wildly depending on a game board.

Broken Factions

Like in the "camo" example, some factions naturally have a "rock" to their "scissors." Anyone familiar with competitive-focussed games like Warhammer or Warmachine would be familiar with "flavour of the month" or "overpowered" builds. I suspect this is because units are costed in "isolation" and do not always consider the other units in the army, or the opponents.

As I've noted, certain unit combinations work well with each other - a faction that possesses artillery AND forward observers will do better than one with just artillery. However if all the other factions have access to airborne troops able to "drop in" and quickly neutralise the artillery, then the artillery is less valuable as a faction "strength." Having lots of "scissors" can be valuable of most enemies bring "paper" but less so if most opponents are "rock." Having no access to "scissors" at all could place a faction at a severe disadvantage against more balanced factions.

So there are a lot of variables to consider. Do you think the average "point system" actually covers them all?

So Broken, it's Balanced

It annoys me how game companies keep their points formula a secret.

This is no doubt to stop people making up their own "proxy" units instead of "official" miniatures but I also think it is to disguise how much "fudging" is done by designers in order to "balance" some of the variables given above. Being "open" about game balance is also being "open" to criticism, and we all know gamers are a bunch of whingers. However they are also missing out on community help (i.e. free playtesting) to help balance their game.

Sometimes, a game can be so "broken" by weird special rules, unit "synergy" and wildly differing units and factions, it becomes "balanced" simply as there are so many options a gamer can use to succeed.

I'd cite Warmachine (a game which rejoices in cheesiness and min-maxing) and the ever-more-complex Infinity. There are so many possible units, stats, variations and combinations it would be impossible to balance them all, and I suggest the designers long ago gave up the attempt. But it doesn't seem to have an effect. Why?

Because "special abilities" in these games are so powerful, a player's ability to remember and utilize his abilities and know the possible actions of his opponent, means a "good player" will tend to beat a "bad one" every time, regardless of precise "point costs." I'd argue this has more to do with having "secret knowledge", good memory and a card-game-like ability to perform combos than true "tactics" but that is an argument for another post.

So some games are so broken, they are actually balanced!

Sometimes "abilities" or stats have a good synergy with others that make them disproportionately powerful

Players or the Points System

It's easy to say"players are cheesy min-maxing bleeps" but if the rules allow it....

In a PC game I play called World of Tanks, people often whine about "gold ammunition." Basically, it is a tank shell with ~25% more armour piercing ability. Using "gold shells" proportionately reduces your "reward" at the end of the game. So basically you are improving your chance of success, for an decreased reward if you do succeed. It is a completely intentional, deliberately implemented feature of the game, but people who use gold shells are alleged to be "cheating""skill-less" and "cheesey" as they can kill tanks more reliably, and now certain tanks can take down other tanks that they were not originally designed to be able to penetrate. But is it the fault of the players, or the game system?

I'd suggest many "points systems" are not particularly carefully playtested. Many rules are written and published (and playtested) by a small group of family/friends, who are not typical of your normal competitive tournament gamer. Even if you do not design your game for those players, those players can and will play your game.

That said, whatever system you come up with probably will be exploited by someone.

The other method might be "go with the flow" and make army building integral to the game itself. I'd argue Warhammer is 50% army building, and only 50% wise deployment/tactical skill. "He smashed me with an killer list."Building "killer" lists (and min-maxing thereof) is an even bigger, actively encouraged component in Warmachine. This promotes the "collecting" side of the hobby which miniatures manufacturers love.

If you make the points system "part of the game" there is less justification for complaints when players do "min-max" - because they are simply being good "players" seeking the best army "build."

So should we abandon points systems?

The games that don't have points systems, tend to rely on (and aggressively preach) scenarios. However they seldom explain how to design and balance said scenarios. The irony is that it is much easier to balance scenarios when you have "points" to work with. In addition, a "points" system is much easier to pick up and play. "Balancing" a points-less scenario can be tricky, as you have to understand how well each unit works, BEFORE you can play a balanced game. No "points" system makes the game less accessible and harder to "pick up and play."

(OT Rant: Everyone hates paying for "codexes" and "army lists" in addition to the rules, but no one ever seems to mind paying for "scenario books", which, for scenario-based games, are effectively doing the same thing - adding variety and content that could (or should) have been in the original rulebook)

I'd say "points" should be well-nigh mandatory for sci fi and fantasy. If the game is designed simply to replay historical scenarios, then yes, you could skip a points system, but that does minimize your target audience, many of whom were introduced to wargaming via games with points. Again, it comes down to "accessibility." Not everyone has the time or ability to organize scenarios or missions in advance.

I really like how some games (like Dropzone Commander) are based on "missions" which add flavour and different ways to win, but (as in videogames) you can usually kinda ignore then and just "kill em" all if you wish. I noticed this in the PC game Mechwarrior: Online where "missions" usually turned into "kill em while they are distracted by objectives."Yeah, we hold no "objectives" - but if you are all dead, we can capture them at our leisure. Even then, "missions" are not balanced - for example faster armies have an advantage in "capture" missions.

Its hard to avoid "points." They tend to exist in most games, sometimes indirectly. In fact games that allow players to choose forces are by nature "points" games - "bring 2 squads and a support squad" or "bring 12 elements" or "your team can be worth 300 gold" work the same as "bring 1000 points."

So summarising some of the thoughts above:

1. Different unit/army abilities and stats are worth more or less, depending on the player using them

2. Sometimes having lots of x unit makes them proportionately more powerful (stacking)
3. Sometimes only having a single x unit can create problems disproportionate to its value
4. A enemy "hard counter" can render certain unit abilities (and thus points paid for them) worthless
5. Certain units "improve" or magnify the effect (value) of other units

6. Certain armies have more advantageous combinations of units (as per #5) than others
7. Certain armies have combinations that specifically cancel out the "advantages" of their foes

8. Terrain can have a major impact on abilities, stats and weapons

9. Most units are "costed" in isolation without consideration of synergies between units/enemies
10. Most "points systems" are inadequately playtested (or not "tested to destruction")
11. Most "points systems""fudge" points in an attempt to account for variables
12. Given the huge amount of variables, it is probably impossible to consider them all
13. Someone will always find a way to "break" the system

As you can see, "points" have a lot of problems. A truly balanced points system is, I suggest, impossible (unless the game is simplified to a "checkers" level). However there are no real user-friendly alternatives - for example pure "scenarios" or "missions" are harder to organise and even benefit from the inclusion of points. Points are fundamentally flawed, but remain a handy balancing tool regardless.

So in conclusion: Points are inherently unbalanced, they will always be "exploitable" but it's the best we have to work with at the moment

This is something I was discussing with my wife on the way home last night.

Zombies are proliferating in books and on screen to an almost painful extent. But apart from the lighthearted Evil Dead spinoff Army of Darkness the undead tend to confine their uprisings from the 1970s onward into the near future. Why haven't zombies ventured into the past? It seems like they are shuffling about everywhere else. Alternate history, for all the avenues it could explore, tends to rather unimaginatively revolve around the Nazis winning WW2, or an American Civil War dragging on into the 20th century, with occasional ventures into the Victorian era.

A medieval setting seems purpose-built for the zombie apocalypse. 90% of fantasy tends to mimic a medieval aesthetic, so setting undead weirdness in a medieval times seems a great "fit."

The Middle Ages already has its own "apocalypse" - the Black Death - which killed 30-60% of Europe's population - an estimated 75 to 200 million people - effectively dropping the overall population from 450 to 350 million by 1400. It took 150 years to recover from this devastating event.

Replace plague rats arriving from the Far East around 1346 with "zombie rats" or "patient zero" and voila - the alternate history almost writes itself.

Just after I wrote this article, I came across this. It comes with a whopping 1.5 star recommendation.Obviously classic cinema, to be enjoyed alongside epic moviemaking events like Sharknado I'm on eBay in another window as I type this.

But how might the "medieval zombie apocalypse" play out? Well, we have almost infinite variations of zombie, but we'll use the "transmitted by blood/bite" viral version to keep with the disease theme. We'll also dismiss the fast, scary 28 Days Later style "ragers" (aka simply blood-crazed humans) in favour of the "proper" shambling undead kind. Something most zombie movies fail to address is if the "zombie virus" can be transmitted by animals - we sometimes see undead animals in cages and labs but we don't see them running around during the actual apocalpyse. Amusing as it would be to see a Monty-Python-esque rabid rabbit (bubonic plague can be transmitted to cats, dogs and various rodents), I'm going to dismiss zombie animals as not sufficiently "canon." I'm also going to ignore the fact zombies would freeze stiff in winter, rot into immobile piles of bones, or get eaten by wolves or wild dogs. I.e. these will be the usual, extremely durable, "official" movie zombies that crave brains and are best killed by destroying their brains.

Population & Spread of the Plague
The average villager seldom travelled further than the next town. Some weren't even allowed to leave their village. The infected aren't going to be spreading via plane or train. So the plague wouldn't travel rapidly. News of the plague would probably be carried on horseback by messengers, so even without Twitter and Youtube the locals would probably be aware of the menace before it arrived.

Even then, it might be not so menacing as you'd think. Although crowded cities might be devastated, like in the Black Death, the relatively spare population means it would be harder to get a "proper" zombie horde going. Remote villagers might simply get random zombies wandering by every now and then. And even then, the average peasant probably wouldn't stand around with his mouth open while his mates got eaten.

Game of Thrones, whilst fantasy, is what I'd term "gritty" or "hard" fantasy. Therefore, you could almost count these "White Walkers." I believe next season may see them in battle.

Dealing with the Undead
Since the average peasant firmly believed the dead could return to life, there would be a lot less hand-wringing and a lot more decisive action. Rapists, murderers etc were often buried with rocks in their mouths to prevent them "coming back." Witches were decapitated, dismembered or burnt.

The average peasant, undoubtedly capable with an axe, pitchfolk or billhook (a farming implement so effective it became a standard infantry weapon), many of whom were expert hunters and bowmen, accustomed to being called out for military service by their local lord, would probably be far better equipped, and mentally prepared to deal with the undead that the average modern householder.

The zombie virus might be blamed on the devil or evil spirits, but the elimination and disposal of zombies would no doubt be energetic and thorough. They wouldn't be rocking wide-eyed in the corner waiting to be eaten, stammering "but that was Aunt Martha"- they'd be grabbing the nearest pointy stick.

The civil authorities' response would also be pretty decisive. The nobles killed 300,000 peasants in a revolt in Germany in the more "enlightened" 1500s, so I doubt any medieval nobles would hesitate to raze complete towns and villages suspected of being "infected."

After mentioning the rabid killer bunny, I had to include the relevant clip. Prime the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! (If you don't know who or what Monty Python is, please stop reading this blog and never come back)

Knights vs Zombies
Although modern firearms are undoubtedly superior to bows, there would probably plenty of villagers versed in their use (i.e. peasants were supposed to do archery practice on the weekends) and ammunition is both easily manufactured and re-usable. The padded or leather armour used by the medieval footsoldiers would also offer fair protection against zombie bites. Polearms would offer great "reach" for zombie splattering. In fact most medieval weapons, designed to stab, bludgeon or hack their way through armour, would make short work of a zombie skull or neck (and remember, zombies are notoriously squishy.)

A fully armoured knight, on a bad-tempered warhorse would not doubt do even better at killing undead. Against a huge horde, he'd eventually get dragged down and have his armour pulled off and juicy bits gnawed, but if he could keep from getting "bogged down" he could wreak considerable havoc.

Shotguns (called "Boomsticks" in traditional texts, were a powerful zombie hunting weapon even in the Middle Ages.

Collapse of Systems
A key issue of the modern zombie apocalpyse is the loss of infastructure such as power, running water etc. It's probably a metaphor for... something. Basically, it's a big deal to us to lose all the things a medieval peasant never had anyway. The average peasant wouldn't be have to travel to the big city and risk the undead hordes to scavenge for supplies - they farm and live off the land anyway. Not a lot would change, except maybe the tax collector from the local lord might not turn up that year. Village life might get better!

Castles - maybe not as cool as they seem
Thick, high walls, sturdy doors, and moats - designed to deal with siege machines and ladders, would surely prove impenetrable for the average zombie. However, although designed to withstand prolonged siege with plenty of supplies, zombies are besiegers who don't need supplies. Letting zombies "build up" around a castle might be a problem, as once they reach critical mass the zombie horde could simply wait out the defenders. So castles would be a good base, but regular sorties would be needed to keep the local zombies manageable, especially if the castle was based near a large town.

The book "Stronghold" with Welsh zombies - was supposed to become a movie a year or so back. Sadly, nothing became of it.

Anyway, there seems to be a distinct lack of historical zombies out there on the net. Although I could find these "Zindians" (zombie Indians) which I am absolutely going to buy, Medieval or not - I can't find any proper historic zombies. Only poxy fantasy zombies (and magical animate skeletons which we all know are implausible, unscientific, and frankly ridiculous) with ridiculous gothic bling.

These zombie Indians will spice up my French and Indian War games.

So if anyone finds good historic zombie miniatures out there (from any era pre-WW2), let me know.

Or send a copy of this post to the Perry twins, and tell them there are some medieval miniatures they missed in their Agincourt line.

Miniatures Sales Determining Game Design
I've posted elsewhere on how "Warhammer" has changed its design philosophy. Originally it was designed to provide a way to game characterful RPG-style adventures on alien worlds you could make up yourself. Now, its aim is to be streamlined enough to push large quantities of miniatures around a table, with a very low "entry point." Official miniatures and terrain, mind you. Don't go getting any creative ideas.

I know a few people who liked the "streamlining" of 40K that took place to fulfil this new design philosophy - but that's because they were wanting to use it with more miniatures anyway. The people who wanted to play games with bucketloads of their miniatures and vehicles were, arguably, looking for a different style of game than the old RPG-lite style early editions to begin with. Those people who want to play with lots of toys are exactly the target audience you want, if selling said toys is your business.

Using generic rule mechanics is good, because you can sell miniatures from different eras and genres more easily. The "learning curve" is quite mild, and the comforting familiarity means it is easy to convince gamers to start gaming (and more importantly, collecting minis) in a new period or genre.
Does your fantasy game use the exact same tactics as your sci fi game? Excellent.

Sometimes games have extra factions "jammed" into them simply to sell more miniatures. Other times, (poorly selling) factions quietly disappear. "Necrons" were not original 40K lore. Squats (space dwarves) were, and I haven't seen them featuring in any codexes lately. Miniature sales can also drive the "lore" or "fluff" of the game. (A feeling which will be familiar to Star Wars fans)

This article was in part prompted by finding these 40K codexes in my rules shelf. They date from circa ~1996. Utterly pristine, and utterly useless. Unless I can find that one guy who still likes 3rd edition best. Built in obsolescence - it makes great business sense.

(Only $110 to replace them with "current" ones - bargain)

Collecting armies = Miniature sales = Profit
Other times, factions or units are unbalanced deliberately. I notice this with new releases. How often do you see a new release that is "underpowered?" No, instead they are given powerful traits that make them doubly desirable - shiny, new and easier to win with. Once everyone has rushed out to buy them, and enough have been sold, then they can be "nerfed" - or better yet, an even newer, shiny, more overpowered faction introduced, so the process can begin again.

Specific miniatures or units can be "unbalanced" - ugly or "meh" models might have their stats boosted to make them must-haves for any competitive army. Releasing new models that look nothing like the old ones creates "built in" obsolesence. Most people dislike "mismatched" armies - if the new space elves look completely different to your old army, and yet you really want to field a (deliberately overpowered) unit only available in the "new elves" design, the compulsion is there to replace all your elf miniatures with the "new" pattern so they match up.

Making "army building" important to winning makes great business sense. This emphasizes the "model collecting" side of the hobby. If you can win simply by owning the right models, then you can make buying models very appealing. Gamers don't need much of a nudge to buy more minis, but if you can tie miniature ownership to winning - well, collectible card games make a lot of money out of the compulsion to field a "killer card deck" (aka army).

This whole thing is most rampant in sci fi and fanfasy, where the miniature manufacturers are unconstrained by history. On the flip side, if you game more limited conflicts like the American Civil War, there is little chance of it being invaded and "commericalised" as there is less lattitude for factions - as selling "blue" and "grey" army books separate to the rules is a tad too blatant, though you could make campaign and scenario books I guess.

As you can see, I think miniature sales are driving (most) game design, and have been doing so for quite some time.

The Circle of ~~Supplements~~ Life
This is the cycle of going round in cycles, updating rules. What Warhammer Fantasy are we up to? 8th edition? 9th? I find it ironic when games companies update their rules more energetically and often than most encyclopedias and medical textbooks. Then they produce accompanying "army books" which themselves need to be updated to keep current with the rules. They update things simply to create for themselves a steady stream of products. It makes sense - with inbuilt obsolescence you create your own self-sustaining market.

By changing to a "new" rulebook you tend to force all your customers to switch as well. Yes, you can cling defiantly to your 2nd edition Warhammer 40K rules, but you're restricted to your mates playing at your house. Imagine if, as a car manufacturer, every time you produced a new car model, it forced everyone who already owned your brand of car to buy that model, or be unable to use their old car on public roads. It would be bad business not to change the model regularly, whether the car needed improvements or not.

However, why not make new shiny things, instead of always regurgitating the old? Heck Games Workshop even reduces its lines - it focuses on the three "earners" - Warhammer Fantasy, 40K, and LOTR - although I can see LOTR getting the chop after the Hobbit movies run their course. Games like Blood Bowl, Mordhiem, Epic, Space Hulk, Battlefleet Gothic etc have been quietly pensioned off. That's what a lot of fast food companies used to do - minimise the variety of products, and maximise their production.

I find it interesting that Mantic, which obviously got its start by offering cheap GW-style minis in a very un-original manner, and offered similar, pretty bland games in Warpath (40K) and Kings of War (WFB) is now is branching out - Dwarf King's Hold, Deadzone, Dreadball, Pandora Project - which are expanding to fill "niches" abandoned by GW, with games that are increasingly creative and "different."

I really wish GW would just tear up their mechanics and start afresh. This will never happen, as using old mechanics is "familiar" to their audience and gradual change is the key to retaining them. However, there is only so far this "evolution" can take you. You can tweak and tune the engine of a tractor, but sometimes you've just got to bite the bullet and buy a purpose-built race car, if winning races is your dream.

Mantic have surprised me - they stared out as very bland and deriative, but seem to be getting more original as they go. It helps that they have perhaps the only ex-GW author (Jake Thornton) who actually writes new rules (instead of rehashing various GW mechanics). Deadzone seems aimed at the skirmish-campaign "Necromunda" market which GW abandoned and I admit I am tempted

The Success Trap

Most "good""fun" interesting rules usually start out with a small, enthusiastic group - usually friends, family, guys from the local gaming club. They want to make games they enjoy. Even Games Workshop would have been like this once. Then, as it becomes more successful, the "business" side creeps in - you need accountants, advertising managers, business managers - often people who don't play the game or aren't interested in wargaming, period. It becomes more about the "bottom line" and less about a "good game" - although the "good game" is what what brought the success in the first place. I think the balance of power shifted to the "business" types in Games Workshop a long, long time ago - and I can see other companies heading down the same route. You can't argue with their results though - every year I think their business model is unsustainable, and yet every year they churn out huge amounts of cash.

The eternally unfinished game - "Well supported" = "Incomplete?"
When is a game actually complete? According to Games Workshop, the answer is "never!" as long as people are willing to pay. There's always some supplements or codexes to "update" to the latest edition of the rules. They call it "supporting the game" but I call it "good business sense." After all, why take the risk creating something new when you can simply remake the old and proven? There's a reason 90% of Holywood movies are sequels or remakes.

Its a bit like education reform. There is always some "new" way to teach kids, and always a new curriculum or "magic bullet" which is better than the last. The curriculum designers and educational experts will never say "that's good enough" or "this system works OK" - because they'd be out of a job!

But perhaps it is the gamers' fault.

A question I often hear asked when a new rules set is released is:

"Does the game have support?"(which sounds like they want to be reassured supplements will be available) Should it need support? What is missing from the game that needs "supporting?"

My question would be

"Is the game complete?"
-Does the game come with scenarios or missions (or a campaign) to give good replayability?
-Does the game have enough factions to give variety?
-Are these factions "complete" and have matching miniature lines?

The Ambush Alley (rules) GZG (miniatures) partnership works well. Because both companies are successful, and independent of each other, they can mutually benefit without "compromising" their focus (i.e. making good minis, or making good rules)

So, in the grim darkness of the 21st millenium, there is only commercialism

The evil crystal ball of Saruman the pessimist reveals:
*More generic rulesets play the same, regardless of era/genre, and use identical mechanics
*Games that are overly simple and not terribly challenging to keep a low "entry level"
*Games that emphasize collecting miniatures aka "army building" over tactics
*An increase in "supported" (aka incomplete) games that require a steady stream of supplements
*Rulebooks changing edition on a regular cycle
*A repeating cycle of unbalanced factions or units in competitive games

Unsurprisingly, the most commercially successful rules seem to share many of these traits i.e.
Warhammer Fantasy/40K, Warmachine, Flames of War, Bolt Action

So, to put a positive "spin" on this - what are some companies or games who DO NOT take this route? I'd nominate Bombshell Games and Two Fat Lardies as rules publishers that seem to go against the "flow." Games without a specific miniature line to "sell" tend to score well. For example, Ambush Alley Games now has a lot of "licensed" miniatures, but the miniatures came AFTER the rules, and thus did not drive the game design.

Miniatures manufacturers tend to want to "hitch" themselves to a ruleset. Having a set of rules associated with your model line obviously helps sell miniatures. The danger is when the balance shifts and the rules simply becomes a vehicle for selling miniatures. When your design philosophy is simply making your game "accessible""easy to learn" and "generic" and to emphasize "miniature collecting" - rather than aiming for "tactical""challenging" or "historical" - then that is what you'll get.

Miniature sales benefit from rulebooks - but rulebooks don't benefit from miniature sales

The more things change, the more they remain the same. (Jean-Baptiste Karr)

There is nothing new under the sun (Solomon)

Most games have four "main" elements - movement, missile, melee and morale. I've argued games should always have a 'fifth element' to make them interesting - be it command and control/activation, resource management or simply a cool magic system. I think this 'fifth element' is important to make a game "stand out", as there are only a certain amount of ways you can do the "four Ms." (Perhaps even six elements - I actually think activation should also be "equal" in stature and an automatic inclusion alongside the 'four Ms' but I've already discussed this elsewhere)

A lot of game designers put a lot of time and effort into novel ways of doing the "four Ms" - which is a bit tricky, given that there are a lot of games out there already, and a lot of people who are trying to do the same thing. Unsurprisingly, there are a lot of games that share similar (or identical) game mechanics, be it unwittingly or intentionally.

Game designers spend a lot of time trying to reinvent the wheel - or at least, come up with a wheel no one has seen before.

I'm not sure exactly how copyright law works (I think I read somewhere you cannot "patent" a game mechanic, but perhaps the specific terms and wording?) and I'm sure the grey areas vary depending on what lawyer you talk to or how much money you are willing to spend. Given Games Workshop's energetic "defence" of its IP (or even attempting to snag copyright on words like "space marines""space elves" and "eldar" that came from other works, such as Tolkien) I'm surprised we don't hear more of this.

Should game mechanics be patentable? We tend to frown on the outrageous "bullying" of Games Workshop of "smaller" entities (but everything in the wargames world is smaller than GW), but what if THEY completely ripped off a rules set from a small indie designer and used it to make a squillion dollars?
Would that be better or worse?

Would more energetic patenting of game rules and mechanics increase creativity (as designers are rewarded for their ideas) or - as I suspect - decrease it (designers are too "scared" to use a good but similar mechanic lest they be sued; or everyone has to lodge a flood of "defensive" patents to keep as "ammunition.") My concern is that copyright law seems to follow the Golden Rule - i.e. he who has the gold makes the rules - and the hobby (note, I didn't say The Hobbytm) is increasingly heading towards dominance by "supermarket" companies - Mantic and Warlord seem to be en route to joining Games Workshop, Privateer Press and Battlefront at the top - which have market dominance (and thus financial clout) in a wide range of genres.

I remember some furore years ago about Magic the Gathering patenting the word "tapping" (i.e rotating a card sideways). Lots of other games use this mechanic - turning a card to show if it is used. But they can't use the word tapping. I also remember D&D having a "free d20 open system licence" - but was it actually even "closed?" Probably the only thing that was actually "closed" was the words'd20 system.' I'm kinda curious. When we run out of describing words, do we have to stop making games?

You may turn or rotate or crank these cards sideways, but do not call it "tapping"

The Universal Basics
Things like alternate activation and IGOUGO have been around for a long time. Halving a unit's movement in "difficult ground" or doubling movement when charging or running... ...these seem pretty "universal." I'm ignoring these, as most designers happily share these mechanics and it's hard avoid using many of them.

Dice Mechanics & Specifics
This is where you see game designers try to get creative. Sometimes they roll dice to beat a "target number." Other times, both players roll dice in an "opposed roll." Currently popular is when a player rolls a handful of dice to "succeed" and the other rolls dice to "save" and block his successful rolls. Other times, designers use different types of dice, or resort to cards. Even so, there are only a limited number of permutations and similarities will no doubt be present. It seems inevitable there will be duplication at some stage.

So when does a game (in your opinion) sail to "close to the wind?" When does "inspired by" or "shares mechanics with" infringe on intellectual property?

I think this an increasingly pertinent question for game designers, as (a) the "supply" of "original" mechanics and terminology is finite and increasingly dwindling and (b) wargaming is increasingly becoming the province of large companies, who are more capable and willing of legal action than the traditional "backyard" rules designers that drove game design in the past.

Every now and then something comes along that surprises you in a good way.

The Eylau Sequence is a wargaming universe that does just that. It focuses on combat between MGVs - Miniature Ground Vehicles - tiny tanks that are only millimetres long. The miniatures are larger than life at 20:1 scale, which is certainly novel. The MGVs are basically tiny drones - difficult to spot, and capable of intel gathering, sabotage and combat. The best way to hunt down the enemy MGVs is to field your own.

Terrain can include dead insects, oil patches, fungus and other objects which are "supersize" compared to the tiny MGVs. This would make for some fascinating tabletop setups and allow for a fair bit of imagination.

The "upsized" 20:1 minis allow for some fascinating terrain ideas. The pebbles could be liquid such as "oil drops" and I can see MGVs navigating a dead ant. (All photos linked from the WTJ Gallery)

The MGV designs are quite unique. They might make for interesting 6mm sci fi hovertanks or even spacecraft. They even have a paint guide.

The "factions" do not involve sci fi elves or an Empire of Mankind - nor the thinly disguised WW2/Cold War factions beloved of "hard" sci fi games i.e. the neo-Germans, neo-Russians etc. No, instead we have Selangor (a Southeast asian alliance) and Australia as the primary players in the "war", with Australia's ally the Medditeranean states (capital city: Malta!). California, and Japan (with super-powered MGVs) are neutral but protect their own interests.

The MGVs have active camoflage and are equipped with with a primary and secondary weapon - which could be kinetic cannon, energy weapons or missiles.

I'm not going to review the rules as they are free here - in fact they come in two levels - one "skirmish" level which might have half a dozen or so units per side generally in hunter-killer
pairs; and an "operational" level game where there could be dozens of MGVs on each side in large "formations".

After whinging a lot about "generic" games the Eylau Sequence is a breath of fresh air.

The miniatures came about based on an e-book of the same name, by the founder of the War Times Journal. Annoyingly I don't have a Kindle but at $1 it would be worth it for the "fluff"factor, which DOES interest me.

Anyway, check them out at the War Times Journal site. I already have a million incomplete projects but these minis are tempting me a lot - and have a unique universe I am actually interested in learning more about. I don't usually promote miniatures or a game I haven't tried myself, but this sort of creativity deserves recognition.

I did my usual prevarication over whether or not to invest in "Heavy Gear" and as usual concluded they are ridiculously overpriced. So instead I resorted to 6mm to get my mecha fix.

Iron Wind Metals are a great source of 6mm mecha. Their "Battle armour" for their 10mm Battletech line are a perfect fit. Just look in their Online Exclusives section. The range is huge and has more options than pretty much all the 6mm manufacturers combined.

Left to Right: Brigade tank, GZG Fatboy, Brigade infantry, IWM Asura, Sei'irim, Nephilim and Shedu battle armours. The small power armour suits are Brigade.

I found the prices (50c-$1ea) good, but postage to Australia was steep - $17+ $9 packing fee meant that the postage added 50% to the cost of the mechs. As you can see the 10mm "battle armour" make perfect 6mm mecha.

The GZG "Fatboys" have a definite VOTOMS vibe. If you haven't watched it already, VOTOMS is a very "realistic" and gritty military mecha series from the 1980s.

These are all Demon series battle armours from the Word of Blake "Shadow Division" from Battletech lore.

Another comparison shot that shows how well the IWM battle armour matches up. This time a GZG "Hound Dog" is shown in comparison.

More Hound Dogs as part of the OpFor.

I also really like the Brigade power armour. It has a real MaK vibe.

The infantry is also quite good, and is well-priced.

A decent-sized 1:300 force will cost around $30 - 20-30 vehicles for about the cost of 2-3 10mm Heavy Gear models or Battletech mechs.

The buildings are also Brigade models. They are also quite well-priced.

Even a small 4x4ft table leaves plenty of room to maneuver in 1:300 scale....

I'm also working on a way to abstract the zillions of hitboxes in Battletech using the bell-curve percentages of 2d6 (the possibilities are quite interesting - I might do a separate post on this). I've tried the new Battletech fast-play rules "Alpha Strike" and found it too simplistic. I still want to know if individual arms and legs are blown off - but I don't want to have to "scrub off" say all 40 hitboxes of leg armour before I can actually damage the mech's legs. It's kinda silly really - in reality shots either penetrate armour or they don't - they don't have to remove every last bit of armour before they can start to do internal damage. I'm also experimenting with using the Fistful of TOWs modern rules system (it has vehicle design rules that I can stretch to cover mecha).

Stay tuned for more mech action...

Most people use dense insulation foam (either pink or blue) for modelling but for some reason I have found it impossible to get hold of.

However, whilst in the hardware store I found some expanding sealant foam. You know, the stuff that comes in a can for about $7. You spray it into cracks and it swells up to 3x the size.

Ingredients: Foam can, craft paint, sand, PVA glue.

#1. I sprayed the foam into messy heaps, chuckling in an immature way (you could also make a good fake dog poop from it I think!). It takes about 4 hours to dry.

#2. Then, I used my wife's serrated kitchen knife (after a bit of experimenting, I found this was the best cutting tool) to cut flat sections to rest the models on. I also had to cut underneath to level out "bulges" of foam that appeared under the foam lump. This took the longest time to do.

#3. I painted the sides with a single coat of $2 acrylic craft paint (remember, don't spraypaint foam unless you want it to melt!)

#4. The hardest bit was painting the top with PVA glue. It was pretty messy. I sprinkled sand on top and "voila!"

You can see how the foam does not quite sit "flat" on the table. I can pile sand up around it, but this could be an issue on a "normal" table.

A few thoughts:
The foam on the bottom of a piece "bulges" as it dries so you have to cut it flat underneath as well. This was a bit of a pain to cut level. I considered using a hot wire cutter but the foam is apparently "highly flammable" and I didn't want to "gas" myself with poisonous vapours.

Obviously, a second coat/drybrush would make the painted sides look WAY better. However I was already pushing my 30 minute deadline.

By the way, the can made double as much as what I pictured here - this was the first half I did as a "trial run." One can of $7 foam made enough "hills" to easily fill a table, so I reckon it is good "value."

Some close-ups so you can see the finish, warts and all. Miniatures are a 15mm hovertank (GZG) and Iron Winds mecha (they stand about 15mm tall).

Obviously as second coat of paint and a drybrush in a lighter shade of brown would make it look 100% better. However this was a quick trial run before my wife forced me to go shopping...

Here is what is looks like with 28mm models with the whole table set up.

When experimenting with expanding foam, I realized how effective it could be for Infinity, a game that relies heavily on terrain.

*This is a complete 4x4 table of LoS-blocking terrain for $16 (2x $7 foam cans, $2 craft paint.)
*It took only an hour to make. (excluding foam drying time)
*It has a coherent theme.

It is very cheap.

You get plenty of foam from a can. I actually have 4 more leftover terrain pieces I'm using for another project. (It will be a lava hell-world)

Sure, it isn't the usual omgwtfthisisamazing Infinity diorama, but for someone who prefers minimum effort and cost for maximum result, I'm pretty happy with my 1-hour + $16 investment.

The "palms clumps" were Chinese H0 railroad trees from ebay. You can see the MDF coaster they are based on.

Beyond the bare minimum....
*The trees were $10 for 30 from eBay and sit on 50c MDF coasters. However it adds to the cost.
*Obviously you could add in foamcore buildings, but the investment in time climbs sharply.
*Drybrushing the paint on the "cliffs", and adding small scattered gravel-sized rocks would improve it a lot.
*If you want to make the board mobile, you can glue the sand to the baseboard by painting it with 50/50 PVA/water mix.
*You could easily adapt it using white sand and grey paint for a "snow" environment.
*The whole sand table cost me $22 and 15 minutes to make.

As you can see, plenty of line-of-sight blocking terrain makes this a solid Infinity table. It would work equally well for Heavy Gear, Tomorrow's War/Force on Force or any game that requires lots of cover.

I'd welcome ideas for other cheap, easy-to-make tables. Put a link in comments?

Just a few shots of a table that builds on a few other posts I've done in the past. It was extremely fast to build.

The new sand table is so transportable I took it outside for a game.

"Submarine fighters" are from EM4 and cost about 30c each.

Indoor Sand Table
I like sand tables but the chance of sand escaping onto the floor stop them from being used indoors (an issue in the cold weather). You occasionally can also find sand annoyingly adhering to crevices in minis.

So I knocked up one of my 20-minute tables, and painted the bottom with a 50/50 PVA/water mix (a spraybottle would have worked better but I didn't have one to hand).

I "liberated" the wife's flour sieve and some sand from my 1-year-olds sandpit and sprinkled it lightly over it. After it dried I turned it over and banged off any loose sand (using the wife's dustpan to brush away any remaining crumbs - she doesn't know how much she unwittingly contributes to my projects). Now there was no chance any sand "falling off". I duel-wielded two spraycans over it (which also helped "seal in" the sand) and "voila" - indoor-friendly table.

The table is only 4x4.

Random thought: The spraypainted fine sand would make decent bitumen/asphalt roads for 28mm games.

Expanding Foam - yes, you can spraypaint it
I had some leftover expanding foam cliffs from my desert table. Someone pointed out to me that expanding foam DOES NOT melt when spraypainted like polystyrene, and they were right - it took me under 5 minutes to make the cliffs (cut, glue sand on the top and spray). I love spraypaint.

Overall it took me 20 minutes to make the table itself from MDF, 30 minutes to PVA glue sand to it and spray it black, and 2hrs for the spray-can-lid buildings and various terrain pieces. Total cost ~$40 and about ~3hours.

What is it meant to be?
Well, the table is serving a dual role as a "hellscape" - for my Conquistadors-invade-hell skirmish game (basically, I'm borrowing the concept of Helldorado, without their expensive minis or convoluted rules). The second use is as pictured - a "undersea" board where 300-knot sub-fighters duel amongst giant kelp forests and spray-can-lid undersea bases.

The expanding foam spraypaints fine. However it "bulges" underneath and does not sit flat.

The "kelp forests" are aquarium plants from the $2 shop and would make good alien jungles for a land game.

Undersea sub game?
I've adapted damage mechanics similar to Check Your Six but it should have more of a "WW2 PT-boats/MTBs" feel where subs sneak around slowly undetected at under 20-kts then "go loud" when attacking, engaging supercavitating rocket engines in 300-kt WW2-style dogfights.

I hate writing down orders, so each pilot chooses 3+ action cards (turn left, shoot, climb etc) and rolls above a target number with 2D6 to see how many actions he can actually perform. Better pilots naturally have a better chance of performing more actions but whilst 2D6 gives a predictable "bell curve" there is no "absolute certainty" pilots will act at all - a failed roll means the sub continues to move straight ahead, simply showing the pilot did not react within the "snapshot" of time that the turn represents.

..actually, it isn't as remarkable as you might think. Blood Bowl, Epic and Battlefleet Gothic all have rule mechanics I admire. But they are all Specialist Games that got swept under the rug. We kinda expect GW to deep-six any interesting rules, rather like Fox cancels good TV shows, so they don't count.

Actually, it's (surprisingly) one of their current Big Three. Specifically, Lord of the Rings. TheStrategy Battle Game, of course. Not the mass-battle War of the Ring they pushed on us to sell more miniatures. I'm talking old school LoTR, (not the "Hobbit" reboot as I consider paying $90+ for a rulebook... ...well let's just say "more money than brains" doesn't even come close.)

My dwarf warband - normal dwarf warriors and Khazad guard upgrades for Battle Companies

"Clean" Rules
I remember reading somewhere one of the LoTR authors was proud of how "clean" LoTR:SBG had remained through dozens of sourcebooks and expansions and I have to say I agree. In contrast to the convoluted bloat of, say, Warhammer Fantasy this is even more evident. The stat line is descriptive, familiar and simple and "special rules" are kept to a minimum. So you won't be losing due to forgetting an obscure rules combo *cough* Warmachine *cough.*

Whilst you can min-max in any points-based wargame, LoTR has more a focus on playing the game rather than winning by building the "uber army" list like, say, 40K. This suits me as I don't think pre-game decisions should be the ultimate factor in winning the game. I want the best general to win, not the best army builder/recruiting officer. Whilst LoTR does have powerful units and heroes, and indeed gameplay revolves around them, there aren't really any "must have" inclusions that will singlehandedly steamroller the enemy force, and a hero can usually be reliably bought down by equivalent points worth of grunts, due to the limited nature of his heroic "might."

Your in-game decisions tend to determine if you win or lose, rather than how you deployed your armies at the start. Rather than being decided in 4-6 turns like most GW games, LoTR games can often go to 20+ turns, giving more time for the battle to ebb and flow.

The rule mechanics are simple - you can pick them up in the first few turns of a game - and thereafter you would almost never need to refer to a rulebook.

Solid Mechanics
Whilst not boasting anything as revolutionary as Infinity's ARO system, the initiative system (side A moves, side B moves, side A shoots, side B shoots) is more adaptive and organic than usual IGOUGO fare. There are far more player reactions and decision points within a turn. In addition, spending Might Points allows you to activate units and act out of sequence, adding a layer of both gameplay and resource management, and making the game more fluid and less predictable. It's a lot harder to cheesily halt a unit 1" out of enemy charge range.

There are rules for all sorts of skirmish-game things like climbing, jumping and falling but they all use the same simple, consistent mechanic - roll a d6 and "1" = a bad result, "2-5" = is an expected result and "6" = is a great result. In addition, different races move at different speeds - which does have an impact on the game.

With only a dozen spells, magic is simple and apart from the usual offensive spells ("transfix" an opponent in place, or blast them with missile-like sorcery) most revolve around buffs/debuffs such as raising the courage of allies and causing terror amongst foes, hampering missile fire or the like. It's powerful, but not overpowering.

I like how the winners of a fight "push back" the loser which means losers who cannot retreat are more likely to die (realistic in that they are hemmed in by a crush of bodies and don't have room to fight) but this also can open gaps in enemy formations. The 1:1 modelling means you can form realistic formations like wedges, hollow squares, double/single lines - pretty much anything you can imagine.

My painting style emphasizes speed over elegance. But I never ever field unpainted miniatures, so I count myself amongst the righteous

Resource Management
My favourite part of the game is how heroes use of "Might,""Will" and "Fate". These stats have a finite supply, adding a layer of resource management and more "decision points" to the game. Heroes ARE powerful, but they impact your game in more ways than simply being close-combat killing machines with huge stats.

Do you use your Might to re-roll dice and slaughter your foes in close combat? Or do you use it to move your allies into combat or fire off a volley of arrows before your opponent? Do you use Will to cast spells or resist your enemies' magic? Get bogged down in a fight for too long, and eventually your heroes'Fate will be depleted, leaving him more vulnerable to wounds.

Might is especially useful and I like using it to meddle with the initiative sequence and set up advantageous combats for my warband. However spending my Might thus leaves me vulnerable to 1v1 combat with an enemy hero who has conserved his Might for his own combats. Heroes are powerful and can have game-changing effects, but they get tired as the game goes on and their stats are drained.

The OOP Khazad Guard ($5ea!) I bought drove the price of my Battle Company up to $30 - most of my other forces cost $10 to $15. That's a very low entry point for a GW product.

Campaign Games: Mordhiem/Necromunda Fan? Meet Battle Companies Redux
Found in White Dwarf #311 and #312 (and also free online here) this is a LoTR skirmish campaign with ~12 models a side. You can recruit new soldiers, level up your heroes, and buy equipment. Think Mordhiem with better gameplay, less cheesy warbands and simpler/less complex advancement and equipment (and less superpowered heroes/wargear combinations). You can play a game in 30-40 minutes - a campaign in an evening. When I review fantasy skirmish rules, people often ask me "is this the new Mordhiem?" I wonder if they have heard of "Battle Companies." It's a concept so good (and cheap to play) Games Workshop quietly shelved it. That's a pretty good recommendation by my book!

Considering LoTR:SBG also spawned historical skirmish campaign games "Legends of High Seas"(pirates) and "Legends of the Old West" (cowboys) as well as numerous derivative works ranging from steampunk to samurai, it has pretty good "skirmish campaign" pedigree.

...so you're recommending a GW game - wait what?
Actually, yes I am. Whilst evolutionary not revolutionary, it represents a positive step forward from 40K and WHFB. It's a clean, simple rule set with familiar stats and mechanics yet some surprisingly subtle naunces, in particular the initiative sequence and the use of Might, Will and Fate. Your battles will more likely be won or lost by your in-game decisions, not in the list building or deployment stages.

The commonsense mechanics are used in a range of other rule sets for many different eras and the game scales well - from 10 minis to about 50 (after which it starts to bog down). Furthermore, if you're seeking a way to get your Mordhiem fix, but don't love the complexity or cheesiness of certain wargear/hero builds, then Battle Companies offers a legitimate, affordable* alternative.

I know a lot of people who played LoTR briefly and tossed it aside as too "simple" or "bland." I'd encourage you to dig it out and look at it with fresh eyes.

-------------------------------

*Although you WOULD be mad to pay the actual GW prices (it's $35+ for 12 plastics by the same Perry brothers sculptors who sell their own similar medieval models at $30 for 40+ plastics) - there is a thriving secondhand market. A dozen secondhand plastics and some metals for a Battle Companies army would set you back $20 or less from eBay. The softback A5 rules booklet from the Mines of Moria boxset (secondhand ~$10) and a Battle Companies pdf (free) and "voila!"

RANT WARNING: The reason I say it is the ultimate DIY kit is because there is a LOT of "do it yourself." In fact, the models require so much "prep" work you might as well carve the robot yourself out of a chunk of pewter ore.

I took less time building the entire game table than I did some of the models!

I recently bought some Heavy Gear models at half price (i.e. "somewhat acceptable" instead of their usual "laugh out loud ridiculous/Games Workshop" level) - but I still feel a bit ripped off. With all the prep work to get the model to a reasonable standard, they should be paying ME. After all, I am doing most of their job for them.

Considering each metal 28mm miniature costs RRP $12+, I think the miniatures are squarely in the "boutique" range for pricing. But they certainly are not "boutique" quality.

Here are a few issues I have encountered:

Mold lines
On 2/3rds the models. Difficult to remove. Can't think of any good reason why the mold lines should exist. It's not as if the models are dynamic, intricate sculpts like Infinity the Game. They are pretty simple, staid sculpts, in multiple parts.

These are "general purpose" Jager/Hunter squads and required a fair bit of trimming and drilling. The fire support mechs were much harder to put together but the recon boxes were not too bad.

Tags of metal/bits of sprue miscast on model
Some are very large and chunky (i.e. so big they require tin-snips - you can't simply file them off.)

Sprue > Limbs/Weapons
Arms/weapons are flimsy compared to the uber-thick sprue they are irrevocably wielded to. Removing them from the sprue invariably leaves chunks of sprue on the arm/weapon, requiring more filing and unsightly marks.

They look so innocent now....

Arm joints/sockets are terrible
The arm sockets are never drilled out properly - you'll need to drill out each and every one yourself. In addition, the "plugs" that are supposed to fit into the socket always outsized and have to be laboriously filed down.

Lack of Instructions
A few times I had to go online to identify what a part did or how to put it on. If instructions like this are needed, it should probably come in the box. For $12+ a mini, I'd expect a full-colour data card. In the very least, the ability to put it together.

Distinctly Underwhelmed
Each 28mm miniature took significant prep work. I'd estimate at least 20-30 minutes to get each model to "acceptable" level. Every model needed lots of drilling, filing and trimming. Imagine the outcry if each GW Imperial Guardsman was so full of molding faults it took 30 minutes to assemble. If Dream Pod 9 advertise "made in Canada" as meaning better quality - then all I can say is no wonder Canadians are lampooned on American TV.

These are literally some of the worse models I've had to assemble (except perhaps for the miscast Firestorm Armada resins) and certainly #1 for poor price/quality ratio. When I compare the quality of a $12 "Gear" to say a Red Star/Empress 28mm modern trooper (~$3ea) - the discrepancy is glaringly obvious.

I've teetered on the brink of "getting into" Heavy Gear for years - lured by the interesting setting but put off by the price. If you are in a similar situation, I'd now say "don't bother."

You may recognise the "buildings" - they are mostly the plastic packaging from the models themselves!

TL:DR
If you are the sort of person who would happily whittle a perfect 1:1000 scale model of the titanic out of a log of firewood, or you are an advanced modeller who doesn't mind paying boutique prices for a incomplete product, then I can recommend the Heavy Gear models with good conscience. Otherwise, save your money and avoid the frustration.

I was always aware of their existence, but never owned any. Recently picked up a set of issues #1-#25 from a local secondhand shop for $12.

Wow.

I'd call them "What White Dwarf Could Have Been."

Modelling guides show simple, achievable paint schemes with 4-5 colours, and introduce "advanced" techniques like drybrushing later.

What impressed me were the painting and hobby articles. The paint jobs shown were very simple, achievable paintjobs, not masterclass works by Golden Demon winners, that occasionally added in (and explained) "advanced" techniques such as shading paints, drybrushing and washes. The simply painted miniatures were used in the battle reports as well.

The hobby articles actually showed how to MAKE stuff cheaply out of household materials like cardboard and paddlepop sticks, not just how some studio artist painted the latest $100+ premade plastic gothic ruin.

Modelling guides show how to actually make things from simple stuff like tape and cardboard. Not simply how to paint the latest $100 GW terrain piece.

Why this enthusiasm over "average" worksmanship? Well, I know we all need something to "aspire" to, and there are some incredibly talented painters and modellers out there. Whilst these people are well-represented in online blogs, I'd estimate they actually make up less than 10% of gamers you actually meet and play against. In fact, a far higher percentage (I'd estimate 30-50%) of local fantasy/sci fi players I've met think nothing of fielding units in black undercoat or bare metal. A common excuse is "I can't paint well, so I don't bother." I'd argue magazines like White Dwarf fuel this rather defeatist, lazy attitude by setting impossibly high standards the average gamer cannot hope to achieve.

Inspired by the "low standards" shown, I rebased some old, rather simply-painted goblins I had painted years ago, using simple techniques shown in "Battle Companies."

People often talk about the "price barrier" to games like 40K but I wonder if Games Workshop is also accidentally adding a perceived "skill barrier" through their own ~~advertising catalogue~~ ahem, hobby magazine. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I found the "Battle Games" articles with simple paintjobs and home-made terrain very inspiring, in the "I could do that" sense.

After reading half a dozen articles, I actually dug out my old LoTR models to repaint them. I then took more care in basing said models (usually I am very lackadaisical with basing), due to a simple article I saw in the magazine.

Not exactly Golden Demon material, but an improvement on what I had. I mean, that's what a "hobby" magazine should do, right? Get you involved in the hobby and out there painting and building?

Furthermore, I went and bought some more LoTR miniatures (OK, they were eBay ones) - something White Dwarf (essentially a glossy ad for Games Workshop products) has failed to do for 5 years. So if you see more LoTR content in this blog over the next few weeks, blame it on Battle Companies. A hobby magazine that actually encouraged "the hobby" rather than "The Hobby"(tm)

PS: If anyone has issues #25-#75, I'd give them a happy home...

I've already suggested a balanced "point system" is an impossibility, but I'd like to look at how terrain and victory conditions effect the value of a unit/piece/miniature, and how these are poorly managed in most rulebooks.

The impact of terrain and missions on gameplay are seldom well explained in most rule books. Most rulesets do not even mention their expected "terrain" layout - which can radically alter the gameplay and game balance between factions. Most rulesets offer only a very few alternate victory conditions (i.e. "scenarios" or "missions"), and even then, they are added as an afterthought. It's ironic that rules typically devote half their page total to "fluff" whilst neglecting factors that strongly influence theactualgameplay.

The value of a chess piece would change if the conditions for victory change. I.e. "kill half the enemy pieces" vs the usual "capture the king." Missions/scenarios likewise change the value of war gaming units.

Alternate Victory Conditions (a.k.a Missions/Scenarios)
Too many games simply have a "kill em all" or "deathmatch" gameplay where the game continues until one side "breaks" due to failed morale checks or simply gets cut down to the last man. Most games don't offer more than 4 or 5 missions at best, and usually it's obvious the mission part of the rules has been added as an afterthought.

Not only do scenarios add to the replay value of a rules set by adding interest and minimizing repetition, but they also alter the balance of units individually, and armies as a whole.

Let's use a chess analogy. Since in chess the "victory condition" is "capture the king" the king is... pretty much priceless. However, if the victory condition or "mission" was changed to "wipe out half or all the enemy pieces" then the queen, and probably also the bishop, knight and rook would be more valuable. Changing the victory conditions for chess would radically change the relative value of the piece.

In the sci fi skirmish Infinity, combat hackers are a useful option but not a "must-have" inclusion in most armies. In missions that require hacking, they suddenly assume paramount importance. It's not always so black and white though. In a mission that requires you to move to and seize objectives, fast units (and thus the armies that possess them) might have a substantial advantage.

Scenarios or missions need to be designed in such a way that accomplishing objectives is attractive. Too many times, missions devolve into a "deathmatch" anyway - when one player realizes it is simpler to accomplish his mission objectives when his opponent is dead. For example, Malifaux has a impressive array of scenarios, and also fun "side missions" where player secretly nominate an objective that their opponent is unaware of. However more than once when someone is spreading out his forces to grab objectives at corners of the table I've seen another player ignore his "mission" in favour of simply killing his opponent with a massed "blob" of troops, then accomplishing his objectives at leisure.

Dropzone Commander is a game that works well with scenarios

Missions/scenarios need to actually be playtested and balanced. Just like every other part of the game. I review a lot of rulebooks. The vast majority of rules have a "mission/scenario" section of two pages, maximum. Sometimes the missions and scenarios are actually written and released after the rulebook as a ~~moneygrab~~ expansion. It's obvious from the writing that most missions/scenarios are hastily "tacked on" after the rulebook was complete. I strongly doubt most commercial wargames rules are balanced around anything except "deathmatch" games. How often do you hear people say "oh, in XY mission faction Z always wins" or "in this scenario the attacker always loses." That's a sign of poor mission design. (Unless, of course, it is a historical scenario, a la Battle of Little Big Horn)

A "Good" Example: A game that does "alternate victory conditions a.k.a. missions) well is Dropzone Commander. It seems designed purposefully to fit with various scenarios - you tend to need infantry to capture and hold objectives. However infantry themselves are absmally slow and rely on dropships to get them to objectives. Since dropships can bypass enemy forces to go straight for objectives, and, once on the objectives, infantry are difficult to evict, you can't just roll around in a big deathball of mechs or mega-tanks killing everyone to win your mission. The game mechanics thus support the missions provided. I strongly suspect the designer would have been playtesting various scenarios at the same time he was designing the core game.

Lack of cover on a map means long range units will tend to dominate and be more "powerful" relative to their cost.

Terrain
Anyone who has played Infinity will tell you the importance of line-of-sight blocking terrain. For a decent game, you NEED a terrain piece every 4" or so. Without it plenty of cover, forces could decimate each other from their starting zones and HMGs and snipers would rule supreme. Their relative "value" would be much higher. Indeed, even one tall building can totally mess up the balance of the game, allowing one side to dominate the board with sweeping, lethal fields of fire. Close-range weapons such as shotguns and flamethrowers tend to be only effective on the most cluttered of maps.

In the average game of LoTR, a game where a usual 4x6 table would be very open, with at most 3-4 terrain pieces scattered at random on it, I notice that my terrain-heavy boards rendered archery very ineffective, and thus worth less than their listed value. My goblin army, which can climb over and around obstacles with no penalty, always did exceptionally well on these boards. My table changed the value of various units and armies.

Another example: I've been playing a PC game based on the Battletech franchise called Mechwarrior: Online. In this game, close range "brawling" mechs equipped with lasers and rockets can only work effectively on the very few cluttered maps where you can close to point-blank range. However, 80% of maps have very little cover and are full of wide open spaces which allows sniper mechs to easily out-range them and tear them up before they can close. On paper, the mechs are balanced. However due to the nature of maps (terrain), the sniper mech have an advantage the vast majority of the time, and thus in practice are far more "powerful."

On my typical cluttered gaming boards, my agile goblins punch above their weight against bow-armed elves.

Conclusions - Terrain
We can see terrain plays an important part of game balance between armies, and can change the nature of the game itself. However while all rules explain the bare mechanics of how terrain works "in rough going halve movement" and "-1 to missile fire through soft cover" they seldom explain how much and what type of terrain is required, which can radically impact gameplay.

Games like Infinity the Game need an entire chapter devoted to it, as setting up an Infinity table is something of an art, with great care given to the effective placement of LoS-blocking terrain. Playing Infinity with a industry-standard "40K" level of terrain would result in an unpleasant, bloody experience with the game likely over by the end of the first turn.

Most rules neglect to say what a "typical" table would look like and how you should set it up.
This article gives good rundown on how to set up an Infinity table. This information should arguably be included in a rulebook, ahead of "painting guides""fluff" and other things less essential to gameplay.

I'd like to see all rulebooks come with a "terrain placement guide" - which could be as simple as a rule dividing a table into 12" squares and making sure at least half of them have a terrain piece in them. Or it could be a dice-based "terrain generator" Or a series of top-down photos or maps of gaming tables explaining how the terrain impacts the gameplay.

"How a Warhammer player sets up an Infinity board"

(alternate title) "How the **** Did All My Guys Die in Turn #1?"

Conclusions - Missions (a.k.a. Alternate Victory Conditions)
As scenarios/missions can drastically alter how the game plays, and the relative effectiveness of certain units/armies, they need to be rigorously playtested and balanced just like any other part of the rules.

Scenarios and Missions need considered DURING game creation, rather than being tacked on as an afterthought.In fact, a player who is setting out to design a game should ask himself "what missions and objectives are going to be in my game?" and make sure his game mechanics mesh with those.

Care must be given to
(a) provide a range of missions that do not just favour one army or one unit type
(b) give both sides in any given "mission" a reasonable chance of winning
(c) make completing mission objectives more attractive than just "killing em all" so players don't just turn the game into a deathmatch anyway

As you can see, that is a pretty demanding set of requirements and would take more thought and explanation than a single page at the back of the rulebook.

TL:DR Whilst game designers like to think they are budding novelists, I'd like to see them put less effort into "fluff" and more into neglected areas like terrain layout and scenario design, that actually matter to how the game plays out.

These are books who put a twist on the usual fantasy genre. They often "crossover"with other genres like westerns, detective noir or pulp. If you are tired of noble heroes, impossibly beautiful princesses and mighty dragons you might try:

Red Country/The Heroes/Best Served Cold (Joe Abercrombie) Score 5 Stars
Whilst his initial trilogy is probably the best entry into his work, his standalone books are his best; each one a mimicry of a genre: war movie, a western and a revenge thriller respectively. He takes sly digs at fantasy tropes and his characters are interesting shades of grey. His crippled torturer antihero Sand dan Glotka is more interesting than Game of Thrones' Tyrion.

You'd take it: The best writer of grimdark realistic fantasy going; with interesting plots, great characterization and dialogue. A much tighter writing style than the somewhat bloated prose of GRR Martin.

You'd leave it: His somewhat dry grim tone can get wearing if you binge-read 3-4 books in a row, which you'll probably end up doing.

Nights of Villamanjur (Mark Charon Newton) Score 3 Stars
A rumel (nonhuman, reptilian?) investigator will discover a web of corruption leading into the heart of a dying empire.

You'd take it: Interesting ideas, themes and concepts. Banshees, birdlike garuda and rumel share a world with humans. Human hybrids and monsters stalk the streets. An otherworldly enemy approaches.

You'd leave it: A little on the weird side (China Melville-style). I only read 3 of the 5 books so I wasn't that enthused.

The Black Company (Glen Cook) Score 3 Stars
A bit of a cult classic, one of the original "gritty" fantasy novels about an elite mercenary company. Very down to earth, it is more a war documentary as told through the eyes of soldiers than a epic fantasy. Reading it is a bit like a box of chocolates - there is some dodgy flavours of chocolate but some good stuff too. Personally, I thought it was OK but not as amazing as I'd expected.

You'd read it: A weird modern classic that arguably launched the gritty fantasy genre. It has a realistic feel as the author was a Vietnam vet. There are many shades of grey - and no true heroes or villains.

You'd leave it: The writing is sloppy, choppy and has inane dialogue. It adds to the "realism" I guess, but can grate at times.

The Last Wish (Andre Sapkowski) Score 3.5 Stars
Tolkien who? This is the first collection of Witcher short stories, and in Eastern Europe Sapkowski stands above Tolkien and GRR Martin. Based on slavic mythology, some of his stories echo traditional fairy tales - I particularly liked the alternate version of Beauty & the Beast.

You'd take it: A unique style. The short stories are standalone, but if you enjoy the series 3 others are translated into English. A master of gritty fantasy, with a unique "voice."

You'd Leave it: The translation work missed the mark a bit at times.The other full-length books are even worse.

The Straight Razor Cure (Daniel Polansky) Score 3.5
The 'hero' is a disgraced intelligence agent, a sort of a 40K Inquisitor/secret policeman who has quit and become a drug dealer and local criminal boss. However when local children are found murdered, he plays a double game against his former intelligence bosses and the local underworld to find the murderer.

You'd take it: Hustlers, pimps, turf wars, corruption. Hard-boiled noir thriller, with a "twist" ending. Reasonable length book that works as a standalone and as the first in a trilogy.

You'd leave it: The drug-dealing antihero pushes the gritty boundaries. The book is a bit of a mishmash of ideas and is occasionally a bit sloppy.

The Lies of Locke Lamora (Scott Lynch) Score 4
Basically a medieval-fantasy heist movie set in not-Venice. Oceans 11 with swords. Gentleman con-artists fight to take over the local underworld.

You'd take it: The book is clever and witty and the world is well done. You like Oceans 11 and The Godfather, and you think mixing them with sorcery and Renaissance Venice would make them even cooler. You like good dialogue and plotting.

You'd leave it: You don't like the use of the f-word. The book has a bit of a "soft patch"early on.

Retribution Falls (Chris Wooding) Score 4.5
A glorious mish mash of tropes. Awesome airship battles, fighter planes, golems, undead, dune buggies. Six guns, sword fights and demonologists. It has the rag-tag pirate crew lead by a captain with a heart of gold. The author had fun writing this book, and strings cliches together in a polished way. Firefly meets Pirates of the Caribbean meets Stardust meets Indiana Jones meets The Last Exile meets Crimson Skies. A solidly written fantasy in an engaging world. Will not win a Pulitzer Prize but neither did Star Wars. Good old fashioned fun, which raises the bar in the pulp genre.

You'd take it: A swashbuckling romp full of pulpy goodness. No deep concepts - pure escapism. Easy to read, and if you enjoy it you can follow more adventures in the 4-book series.

You'd leave it: If you have no sense of fun. If you hate pulp/steampunk. If you only like serious highbrow arty books (like the stuff in high school everyone else thought was boring.)

I was looking into Magic the Gathering as a easily-transported game to play with my wife, and while researching it a bit, it triggered a few random thoughts, relating wargames to CCGs:

*Warmachine has, for me, a real card-game mentality. With its emphasis on special attacks and combos is certainly not my favourite wargame, but if I view it as a card game with minis it is pretty cool.

*MtG has a "collectibility"that Games Workshop would envy - players seem to obsessively spend hundreds if not thousands on pieces of cardboard* (*an even better return than finecast!), and talk casually of "budgeting" x amount of $/week to stay "competitive."

*Skylanders has mixed miniatures and videogames; admittedly only in a shallow, gimmicky way (you scan your miniature and 'import' it into the videogame as a playable character.) Could this be expanded on in a more meaningful way?

*Most CCGs have a resource management aspect, which seems to be filtering through into wargames (I'm certainly seeing an increase in the number of wargames that have it).

*The fun of "deck building" can occur even when you are by yourself, and it is an outlet for creativity and competitiveness - a game-within-the-game, of sorts. Players hunt down bargains of special cards on eBay and trade amongst themselves. You can discuss and share deck ideas online - it even has a social aspect.

It's the latter point I'd like to focus upon - the concept of having fun outside of the actual 'sit down' gameplay of a wargame.

Painting & Modelling
Obviously most wargames share the painting/preparing of miniatures. I'd point to this as a key differentiation from boardgames where everything tends to come "preprepared" in box ready-to-go; which is why I find it mystifying when players field completely unpainted metal armies week after week. The modelling aspect is quite important - nearly every "big" rules set has heavy reliance on selling shiny toys, and the shiny toys themselves help "sell" the game system. Though the increase in prepaints and the presence of "clix" style games blurs the line a bit, and you perhaps rename this category "cool toys". Assembling them, painting them, or simply "having" them. (Remember the wargamer's litany: he who dies with the most toys, wins)

....Army Building - aka "List Warriors."Made popular by Warhammer but arguably perfected by Warmachine(where finding broken combinations of units/abilities is actively encouraged). This occurs where players have an army builder. An example might be each army can have x points (say 2000). Each unit is worth a set amount of points - for example, a squad of 10 grunts might be worth 10, and a uberwtfbbqpqwn mech-of-doom might be worth 200. This army building usually further refined by "capping" certain types of units. For example, this might restrict an army to 1 HQ unit, 1-3 "core"(standard), units, 0-2 support (heavy/vehicle) units, and 0-1 "special/elite" units.

Players are then free to exercise their creativity within these strictures to "maximize" their army to create the optimum combinations, and "build" their armies toward a specific strategy. In more extreme examples, this can create a situation where games are won and lost in this "list building"stage; there is an obvious winner before a dice has even been rolled.

Unit Building aka "Stat up your random models". This tends to be a points system allowing you to create stats for a specific model or group of models. Ironically, although the potential for min-maxing is even greater, this tends to be less likely to be abused. The reason is that as the models created are not "official" it's harder to claim players are taking a legitimate strategic advantage rather than simply being a powergaming douche. This is far more common in indie games (Song of Blades and Heroes comes to mind as a prime example) where they are not trying to "sell" a specific miniature line.

Historical Interest. Obviously this is particular to historical games, but learning about a particular historical period can be very enjoyable. Wargaming can inspire historical reading, and historical researching can inspire wargaming. For example, I bought some 1:600 PT boat models, and while reading a rulebook came across reference to "The Battle of the Narrow Seas" (Peter Scott) - which is now one of my favourite books. In the reverse, reading the historical novel The Religion (Tim Willocks) inspired an interest in wargaming the Ottoman empire. You could perhaps lump this whole category together with....

....Fluff. In the more extreme cases, this can spawn a publishing house (The Black Library) with hundreds of titles, or perhaps consist of few novels alongside RPGs (The Iron Kingdoms). Sometimes it is simply included as a section of the rule book - or even as an "art book" (Infinity). In some cases, the 'fluff' is historical - WW2 games like Bolt Action/FoW can draw on a colorful selection of factions and units.

Anyway, I was thinking that most successful "games systems" tap into most of the above points. (The usual suspects - Warhammer, Warmahordes, FoW, Bolt Action, Infinity, etc). Even the most rabid 40K fan seldom holds up scintillating gameplay as the main attraction of the game - rather they praise fluff, army building and cool models. Even indie hits tend to follow aspects of this formula. For example "Tomorrow's War" and "Gruntz" are tapping into the increasing growth in 15mm sci fi to source their 'cool models.' Gruntz does 'unit building' well and kind of relies on the different models lines and the players themselves to generate "fluff."Tomorrow's War is more directly developing fluff in concert with independent 15mm mini manufacturers like GZG.

Looking at the "most popular wargames" I'm wondering - is deep, interesting gameplay even necessary for success, as long as you have a good "out of game" experience?

Anyway, I was thinking - are there other ways to create a better "out of game experience?" - since this seems a key factor behind popular wargames. I can see "e-rulebooks" with inbuilt video being useful, but wonder what place mobile devices (like smartphones) might play in the out-of-game experience. I've seen a few games with "apps" but so far, mobile devices seem an untapped resource. It's almost like they are a solution in search of a problem.

Anyway, are there any other "out of game" aspects that are enjoyable?

And more broadly - What else could wargames learn from CCGs? Are mobile devices a way forward?

I tend to make terrain by the quick and nasty method, so my problem is not making it, but storing it - even my small 4x4' tables of terrain take up significant amounts of space. This is especially so of 28mm, and is a good argument in favour of 15mm, which takes a fraction (maybe 1/5th?) of the space.

Anyway, as an apartment dweller in my bachelor years, I know the solution to "not enough room" is often to go vertical. I was looking at one of my daughter's dollhouses today and wondered "why don't we have more vertical wargames terrain?"

Usually multi-storey buildings work on a layer-cake principle (i..e lift off the roof to reveal minis on ground floor etc) but what if the building WAS the entire table?

This waist-high book cupboard (which I told my wife I was removing to "make more space in the bedroom") might make a solid framework. 28mm minis added for scale.

Obviously, it applies to more to skirmish games, but if you had removable interior "pieces" rather like a dollhouse, and a neutral interior paint scheme (grey?) it might be able to do service for a few genres - as a Resident Evil-style undergound bunker, a space station, a sealab, a Bavarian mountain retreat. At a pinch, it might be able to serve two scales (28mm and 15mm).

Anyway, I "liberated" small bookshelf which might make an easy start to a project. I might remove the back wall to improve accessibility, and I'm thinking adding a few more "levels" with generous ceiling heights to allow me to reach in. I could make the levels removable to increase configuration options.

The cupboard is small and light enough to be easily lifted on a table so everything is eye height.

Moving between levels? Movable elevator pieces whose location can be changed easily. Maybe a few "portholes" or airlock doors (circular, so I can simply use a circular drill bit instead of having to faff about getting square cuts for doors)?

The best thing is as long as the interior is relatively unmodified - it is still a cupboard. So I can actually store terrain in my terrain, yo.

Anyway, this is likely to be one of my whirlwind weekend projects (i.e. done in an afternoon, and damn the fine details) but I thought I'd air this scheme to my regulars for input before I start cutting and nailing. I'm sure its been done before but my google-fu is too weak to find any similar projects.

Terrible idea? Good idea? Try it, fail, and let us learn from your bitter experience?

Any ideas or suggestions welcome (proviso: they do not require a lot of fiddly work: I am a famously lazy terrain maker).

I've noticed a tendency for authors to have "fanboys" just as much as videogames or wargames. I feel these over-exaggerate their review scores. Admittedly this is from someone who views Harry Potter as solid but hugely overrated, and thinks Tolkien merely average (great world building but non-existent plotting) so perhaps I have my grumpy hat on. Anyway, time for the next selection:

Leviathan Wakes (James A Corey) Score 3.5
This is the pen name of Daniel Abraham, a very talented fantasy writer known for his excellent prose and rather slow-burning style, in collaboration with GRR Martin's assistant Ty Franck. A Firefly-esque bunch of miners lead by an idealistic captain and smart-mouthed crew discover a derelict ship - and a deadly secret. A world-weary detective is tracking a missing girl. Galactic conflict ensues, and a terrible threat to humanity is revealed.

Why you'd read it: Good writing, a well-thought-out plot, setting and characters. Space opera meets noir detective thriller. Characters have tough choices - and sometimes make wrong ones.

Why you'd leave it: It's 600 pages long, and the pace only picks up in the last 50 or so. Though it was well-written, I found it hard to get invested in the book. I feel this series only really kicks off with the sequel Caliban's War - and that's a huge time investment.

Eisenhorn (Daniel Abnett) Score 3.5
Most Warhammer 40,000 books read like a bad internet fanfic written by a teen. Dan Abnett bucks the trend and is actually a reasonably competent writer. The Eisenhorn trilogy (Xenos, Malleus, Hereticus) is arguably his best work for the Black Library (and has the distinction of being the only Black Library book I've read twice). A detective story of sorts, about a Inquisitor (basically a morally ambiguous Jack Bauer meets Sherlock Holmes meets Judge Dredd with an energy sword) and his team who hunts down chaos cults throughout the galaxy. Gothic space opera fantasy.

Why you'd read it: You don't even need to know anything about Warhammer to enjoy this book. It's a decent sci fi novel on its own, and makes me feel a bit sorry for the other 40K ~~hacks~~ tie-in writers. The individual books are shortish (250 pages) and good pulpy fun. First class man fuel.

You'd leave it: Because you'd be embarrassed to be caught reading a book based on a miniatures game. Whilst initially impressed, by the third book it feels a bit same-y. It also ends a bit abruptly. Whilst Abnett isn't your usual Black Library hack, his language and writing is a bit ropey in places. Abnett also overuses. Short sentences. For dramatic. Action scenes.

Risen Empire (Scott Westerfeld) Score 3.5
An Imperial frigate captain must rescue the Child Empress, sister of the immortal undead God-Emperor who has been worshipped for milennia. The enemy: cyborgs who worship AI hiveminds. It sounds corny, but here's the surprising bit - it's hard, hard sci fi. Time dilation impacts politics and space combat - which is among the most "realistic"and "relatavistic" I have come across. Most technology is extrapolated from stuff we have today.

Why you'd read it: This will be a pleasant surprise. A great deal of thought has gone into the combat and technologies and it's an interesting variation on the undead Emperor trope. Huge imagination and scope. I'd compare it to Dune and Lord of the Rings. It's unique.

Why you'd leave it: It cuts off abruptly - it needs its sequel and I'd strongly recommend you get the omnibus version. It's a bit too focussed on technologies, and moral concepts and left me feeling a bit - disengaged? A bit too much tech, too little character building. There were also a lot of different 'points of view.' It's hard-sci focus probably won't appeal to the Star Wars/Star Trek crowd. Also, the big secret isn't that big.

Dauntless (Jack Campbell) Score 3.5
Epic space warfare, between two great space empires. An officer, rescued from a lifepod after a century-long hibernation finds he must lead a trapped fleet to victory. Huge fleet battles? Reluctant hero? Interesting battle scenes? Check. The teacher in me cringes at the writing style but my inner wargamer rejoices. A guilty pleasure.

Why you'd read it: Great fleet battles that seem epic in scope but make you care for each ship. Entertaining, kick-ass space opera. I enjoy the factor relativity/lightspeed has on tactics - it would make a very interesting wargame. Easy reading with a bit of a 50s style to it. Probably my favourite space battles.

Why you'd leave it: Wooden, cliche characters. The writing has a lot of telling, and not enough showing. The book spends a lot of time talking about concepts of honour and morality, and how the war has become less "honourable" in the century since the hero was in cyro-sleep - interesting, but repeated so as to be tiresome and artificial. The hero broods and overthinks things a bit much. You can tell it's going to be spun out into a series.

Something that passes almost without notice, "True Line of Sight" has become one of the most common trend in rules. But is it an elegant simplification or a false economy - an idea that creates more problems than it solves?

What is "True Line of Sight?"
Basically, you put your eye down at model height and if your model can see it, you can shoot it. Usually, if you can see it to shoot it, it can shoot back as well. Allegedly eliminates all spotting/observation rules and arguments (ha) while being more realistic and cinematic. It assumes models are frozen in place at the moment of measurement. It also assumes all players possess decent, easy to use, LoS-blocking terrain (ha again). It also means a rules designer can ignore "vision" or "observation"rules in favour of a single sentence: "This is true line of sight, guys - if your model can see it, he can shoot it."

Abstract Line of Sight
This often has "size categories" where units are perhaps classed by base size or unit type rather than the actual height or pose of the model. Terrain features like woods are abstracted - you might only see 6" into the wood from the edge (or not at all) regardless if your 'wood' is only three trees on a base (which may have been done to make placing models easier.) It's more accessible than true LoS - heck you can use felt cutouts for forests if you want. Usually, models fully within a terrain piece have a cover bonus, regardless if bits of them are showing or not. The exact pose of the model does not matter, as models tend to be rated by base size and occupy a cylinder or cube of a set size extending up from the base of the model. Abstract rules are becoming increasingly unfashionable. Perhaps this is due to the perceived 'simplicity''accuracy' and 'elegance' of TLoS. Perhaps it is also due to the fact having a section on observation/visibility/spotting can remind one unpleasantly of some of the horrifically convoluted spotting charts/rules from games in the 80s/90s (WRG anyone?) Perhaps it is simply because were Games Workshop goes, 90% of rules designers follow.

Using true line of sight, the British soldier is not in cover at all. It kinda makes the 'woods' largely worthless, unless I fill them with so much underbrush it makes placing models impracticable. Using a more abstract system, he could be within the wood if he is on the brown base - which is actually more clear cut than checking if he is partially behind a tree or something.

The issues with True Line of Sight (TLoS)
I'd suggest True Line of Sight can create more issues than it solves. Apparently it makes things simple and solves all arguments - if you can see the target by putting your eye down at the "model's eye view" of your mini, then your mini can see the target. So simple, so elegant! ...in theory. In practice this is less clearcut. I'd say every game I play has at least 1-2 'iffy' TLoS occurances which have to be amicably agreed between players. In abstract systems it's easier to say a force is hidden in a building without checking if the top of someone's head is poking above a window, or deciding what part/fraction of a model counts as in cover. In fact, TLoS isn't strictly TLoS most times - often things are ignored like weapon barrels and flags - sometimes even arms. So why not go further and abstract the whole model? Even hardcore TLoS games like Infinity are now moving to abstract 'base templates' to combat the confusion created by TLoS when models have different poses.

You see, with TLoS, the sculpts of the models themselves make a difference. Kneeling or prone models are harder to see and may have a distinct gameplay advantage, just ftom the way they are sculpted. A cool leaping pose or a model on a jetpack might be easier to spot than a MBT. Even if the jetpck model is walking on foot, with TLoS he's still treated as being 6' off the ground because he's posed up off his base on a wire. True LoS tends to dictate bland, uniform model poses.

With TLoS the sculpt's pose matters. A prone model can take advantage of more low cover (and conversely have trouble seeing over it) than a standing model - an issue that Infinity has recently addressed by abstracting matters so all units possess the same vertical space, regardless of pose. It's also a bit insulting to assume wargamers can't imagine that the prone sniper can't get up or take other poses and has to always end his turn prone, just cos that's the way his sculpt looks.

True LoS also assumes wargame players don't have imagination.Which, given the slavish adherence to studio paint schemes I see, is probably the case. But it's a bit insulting nonetheless. I don't know about you, but I CAN picture those 3 trees as part of a forest (or at least, a small copse). Heck, I can imagine that painted metal statuettes are actual soldiers and units, which is why I'm playing the game in the first place. In fact, frequently stooping down to see if a model can see between a few trees or through a window breaks immersion somewhat.

TLoS can create a barrier starting the wargame due to terrain requirements. Infinity is notorious for needing a high requirement of LoS-blocking terrain for the game to even be playable. Not all players have the ability to make (or store) tablefulls of terrain.

No cover or hard cover? Under many TLoS rules, the British soldier probably still isn't in cover, as the stone wall is too low (only base height). He's no better off than the German who is out in the middle of nowhere! However it is ludicrous to assume a real soldier wouldn't go prone behind the excellent hard cover and enjoy a massive advantage. This highlights another issue - TLoS rules are often riddled with exceptions to the rule (i.e. half the model obscured counts as in cover, or 1/3rd the model, or 'only torsos - arms and weapons/flags don't count,' etc)

I'd also argue True Line of Sight is LESS realistic. In fact, our game tablesare by nature an abstract representation of a real battlefield. Most countryside I know has lots of dips and undulations in the ground - it's not perfectly flat like a bowling green or salt flats. Even 'open ground' has places for concealment. Yet 99% of tables are dead flat with the rare neatly sculpted hill. Battlefields are also usually notable for their noise, dust, smoke and confusion. Yet our battlefields are usually perfectly lit - and we have an unrealistic 'god's eye view' at all times. It's weird we abstract so much, yet insist on "true""accurate" LoS when it is often detrimental to do so. (And not even very realistic, true or accurate.)

Using TLoS, woods are seldom a barrier (unless we cram them with so much undergrowth that placing models in and around the woods is well-nigh impossible.) What's the point of making terrain that has little effect on the game and is (for many) a nuisance to build and a nuisance to use? A TLoS model placed standing on top of a pile of rubble or a burnt out vehicle is easier to see - where in reality he might be crouching amongst the ruins/wreckage and is in fact in concealment/heavy cover despite his elevated position.

TLoS, I believe, is a reason for our unrealistically short weapon ranges in many wargames. Remember the Bolt Action WW2 rifles that shoot only 24"(50 yards in-scale, and not even the length of Warlord's own Arnhem bridge model!) Short weapon ranges are a (lazy) way of balancing the power of weapons boosted by true LoS.

TLoS also assumes models are static - obligingly "snap frozen" or in stasis at the time of combat. In a era when IGOUGO is on the way out, and fluid reactions, movement and initiative sequences are in, it's not unreasonable to assume that a model is not obligingly standing in that precise location while every enemy empties their magazine at him. Heck - he might move a short distance to seek cover if fired upon, or (gasp!) even go prone without having to be specifically 'ordered' to by his general. This is especially true of "platoon" level games where the basic unit is a fire team or squad that may be occupying a general area rather than a specific location.

There are a few games that do this; where models are assumed to have a modicum of common sense, and are treated as being in some cover as long as they are within a few inches of cover. In fact this could even be made the 'normal' to-hit roll. Only if a unit is stranded way out in the open does it suffer a penalty to be hit (or if it is on a road or similar hard flat surface). Units totally within or behind a terrain feature are fully in cover and get extra defensive modifiers.

This might blow the mind of TLoS die hards, but you could argue the British solider is actually in cover despite being on the 'wrong' side of the ruin. Wait, what? Well, we could assume the soldier has common sense and will automatically fall back an inch or so into the ruin when the German advances, without needing the explicit instructions of his platoon leader. The German, however, is obviously outta luck as he is stranded far from any cover.

True line of sight is an attempt to simplify things, but like removing stats and replacing them with special rules, I'd argue it creates more grey areas that it solves. TLoS is not the Messiah, and it's not a particularly neat boy either.

This is not to say true line of sight does not have its place in some games - but I'd like to question the slavish, near-universal adherence to it (or what I call "Games Workshop sneezes, and everyone else catches a cold").

Game Design #9: Fluff 'n Stuff

Game Design #10: Pre-measuring and "Guessing" mechanics

Game Design #11: The Balanced Points System

Why not a Medieval Zombie Apocalypse?

Game Design #12: Commercialism - Game Supplements, Rules & Miniature Sales

Game Design #13: Is Originality Possible? Games with similar Mechanics

Eylau Sequence: Micro Tank battles in 20:1 scale

1:300/6mm Mecha - Brigade, GZG and Iron Wind Metals

Quick Cheap Terrain - Expanding Foam Hills in 30 minutes

Cheapest, Fastest Infinity Terrain Ever?

Undersea Terrain/Hellscape - Sand Tables and Expanding Foam 2.0

In Which I Say Nice Things About a Games Workshop Ruleset

Heavy Gear Miniatures - the ultimate DIY metal minis?

Battle Games of Middle Earth: Hobby Magazine

Game Design #14: "The Forgotten" - Terrain, Victory Conditions, "Deathmatches" and Balance

Book Roundup #2: Fantasy with a Twist

Game Design #26: Wargaming - The Out-of-Game Experience

"Dollhouse"-style Vertical Terrain?

Book Roundup #3: Science Fiction

Game Design #27: True Line of Sight - The Messiah or Just a Messy Boy?