Beastmen vs Skaven 500 Points WHFB 7th edition.

So, the planets aligned, the correct number of goats were sacrificed and the right cosmic powers appeased; I finally played a game of Warhammer Fantasy 7th edition: 500 points border patrol, my Beastmen against Rich's Skaven.

Chieftain (No Upgrades) (General)

21 Clanrats (Spears)  + Warpfire Thrower

20 Clanrats (Spears) + Poison Wind Mortar

3 Rat Ogres + 1 Handler

Wargor (Heavy Armour, Sword of Might) (General)

14 Gors (Shields, Full Command)

15 Gors (Shields, Full Command)

10 Ungors

5 Harpies

We played the 'Capture' scenario in the border patrol rules pack, representing the central objective with a small stone obelisk. The winner would be the one who controlled this objective (by having the highest unit strength near it) at the end of the game. The terrain and armies we're set up as follows:

Rich finished setting up first, but despite the +1 modifier to his roll I won the dice off to go first. My first turn consisted of advancing both units of Gors and the Ungors straight ahead, whilst the Harpies advanced up the flank using their 20" flight move.

Rich's first turn also consisted of advancing his army forward, with the Rat Ogres taking the centre ground, flanked by the two units of Clanrats. The Poison Wind Mortar attached to one of the Clanrat units declared a shot at my unit of Gors nearest the board edge (on my left). Rich rolled a a misfire, and a 1 on the misfire chart for the weapon, taking out both the Mortar and a few Clanrats in tow.

My second turn started off with declaring a charge on the Rat Ogres with both a unit of Gors and Ungors, which was successful. The other unit of Gors advanced further up the flank, whilst the Harpies flew behind Rich's army.

The combat resulted in five dead Ungors and 1one dead Rat Ogre. The Beastmen won the combat, the Rat Ogres subsequently fleeing, pursued and caught by the Beastmen. The nearby Clanrats passed their panic test.

Rich started his turn two by declaring charges with his Clanrats on both the Ungor unit, and the Gor unit on my right flank (which had just fought the Rat Ogres). The Ungors chose to flee and managed to successfully retreat through the woods. The Clanrats charging the Gors wheeled round into their flank.

During the shooting phase, the Warpfire Thrower turned around to shoot at the looming Harpy unit. Rich once again rolled a misfire, but luckily this time he rolled a 6 on the misfire chart, meaning that the weapon simply wouldn't be able to fire this turn.

The Clanrats beat the Gors in close combat, killing three Gors with no casualties in return. The Gors fled but were not caught by the pursuing Clanrats.

Beastmen turn three began with the unit of Gors on my left flank and the Harpies declaring a charge on the unit of Clanrats behind the wood. Both the fleeing Gors and Ungors we're able to rally, turning to face the Skaven opposition. The combat was resoundingly won by the Beastmen, the Clanrats fleeing towards their board edge; both Beastmen units passing the test required to restrain from pursuing.

At this point Rich chose to concede, partially due to time constraints, resulting in a Beastmen victory.

I think if we had continued the game may well have resulted in a draw, since the large unit of Clanrats in the centre would have contested the objective (assuming it didn't take too many casualties).

I think we are due a rematch - Rich had horrendous luck with his weapon teams (effectively wiping out a fifth of his points on his first turn). This game had a lot of rules referencing and rulebook reading; games going forward should be smoother and quicker.

I look forward to playing again!

Gathering the Beasts - Part Two

Human beings have an uncanny ability to underestimate the scope and time investment required from a task. 'Build 500 points of Warhammer Fantasy' I said, ' you can knock that out in a few months easily' I told myself.

That was a... while ago.

The train might be late, but what matters is that it got to the first station on the line - 500 points.

So how does one play a game of Warhammer Fantasy 7th edition at only 500 points? Surely you can build an extremely skewed list at such a small points level? Will the 6'x4' board be too big? What's to stop me taking huge units of cheap infantry? The answer? Border Patrol.

Border Patrol is the fantasy equivalent of the '40K in 40 minutes' rules guidelines, both of which were released in White Dwarf (remember when that was good?), the idea being to introduce a set of restrictions that would allow you to play small games fairly within a restrictive time period. The army restrictions are as follows:

• You must choose an army of no more than 500 points.
• You must have a single Hero to lead the force. They may not be an army standard bearer. 
• The army must consist of between 2 and 4 units, excluding the Hero.
• You must have at least one Core choice.
• You may take one Special or Rare choice, but not both.
• You must include at least one infantry unit of  at least 10 models.
• No unit may be larger than 25 models.
• No unit may carry a magical standard.
• No single model may cost more than 125 points.
• An army may have no more than one chariot or war machine.

 
The scenarios provided also restrict the play area to 4'x3', deploying along the short edges.

With these guidelines in mind, I put together the following list:

Heroes

Wargor (1) - 109
- Heavy Armour
- Sword of Might

Core

Gor Herd (14) - 137
- Full command 
- Shields

Gor Herd (15) - 145
- Full command
- Shields

Ungor Herd (10) - 50

Special

Harpies (5) - 55

Border Patrol looks like the ideal format for relearning how to play the game; the limited number of units will make sure its not too intimidating; we'll be able to complete multiple games within one session and can use this 500 points as a foundation for expanding up to 1000 points and beyond.

I'm looking to be playing against Richard's Skaven next week. This means I'll have to do some homework (or more likely we'll just bumble through the rules on the night). I will attempt to put together a battle report, or at the very least post some pictures, over on his site at Special Fried Dice, so stay tuned over there to see how badly we manage to butcher the rules.

Video Game Ruminations - The Darkness (2007)

I've been on a bit of a hobby lull for the past couple of weeks, so I figured I'd switch gears and get through one of the many video games that have been sitting in my library unplayed. I perused the vast collection and choose to play 'The Darkness', a game which unfortunately never made it's way to PC and was released exclusively on consoles (PS3 and Xbox 360) in 2007.  Having played through the game over the course of a week, I am able to say it easily makes my list of recommended games.

The Darkness (2007)

The Darkness tells the story of Jackie Estacado, an Italian-American hitman working for the New York mafia. On his 21st birthday, Jackie finds himself the target of an assassination attempt enacted by his adoptive father 'Uncle' Paulie Franchetti, following a failed effort to retrieve a large sum of money for him on a previous job. Jackie survives this attempt on his life, escaping to the nearby Trinity cemetery and hiding in the public bathroom nearby. Jackie subsequently finds himself possessed by a being known as 'The Darkness', an ancient entity inherited by every first born in his familial line which manifests on their 21st birthday.With this new found power, Jackie embarks on a crusade of revenge against Uncle Paulie and his associates.

 

The Darkness is a first person shooter at it's most basic level; Jackie has access to a range of different guns: dual pistols, shotguns and assault rifles amongst others which are picked up over the course of the game. The shooting mechanics are satisfactory for the most part, although at times can feel rather loose or floaty (especially when auto aim randomly interrupts your crosshair movements).

The unique gameplay elements are provided by the Darkness itself. Jackie can manifest two eel like tendrils which both defend him from attacks and possess a variety of abilities; 'creeping darkness' for example allows the player to control one of these tendrils, attacking enemies from around corners or accessing otherwise unreachable areas. Imp like creatures, 'Darklings', can also be summoned by the player to assist in combat and provide their own distinct brand of commentary.

 

Light plays an important role in The Darkness, Jackie can only manifest the Darkness if has been able to feed off 'darkness energy', present only in unlit areas. The player is thusly more powerful if an effort is made to destroy any light sources in the vicinity; the darkness is actively hurt in the presence of light.

So apart from being a middling first person shooter with some original mechanics, what makes The Darkness worth playing? Excellent storytelling and characterisation.

The majority of people in Jackie's world are deplorable, horrible people; murderers, crime lords, drug dealers. Yet despite this, they are all inherently likeable, they feel like real people. Many of the game's side missions involve simply helping people solve small problems; finding a lost bracelet, finding a lost friend or intimidating a bully. Even the Darkness itself is an enjoyable, if psychotic, character, suffering from a constant need for control and insatiable desire to feed on human life.

Jackie's girlfriend Jenny plays a pivotal role of the game's plot; she is the only character presented with any innocence. Upon first meeting in her new apartment, it is possible to sit with her and watch the entirety of 'To Kill a Mockingbird' on the television. You as the player actively want to care about this character.

A refreshing emphasis is placed on player initiative; the player must work out where to go in the small semi-open world (there are no big waypoint arrows) using street maps, sign posts and subway information terminals for directions. No hints are provided at particularly difficult puzzle or gameplay sections, the player must work out which abilities to use to advance. I will admit to having to consult a walkthrough at times, although I consider that a positive; too many modern games hand-hold and direct the player constantly.

The game deals with a number of emotional themes, combining these with both mundane and supernatural elements, leading to a satisfying, if not predictable course of events. The Darkness is well worth picking up if you want to enjoy a decent first person shooter with a more mature subject matter.

The Darkness 2 is also sitting in my game library; I look forward to continuing Jackie's story.

Centenary of the Battle of the Somme.

Today, July 1st 2016, marks the centenary of the first day of the battle of the Somme. 100 years ago, thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers left their trenches to attack the German lines. 

A week long preliminary bombardment, consisting of 1.5 million shells, had been carried out; the goal of which was to obliterate German defences, cut the barbed wire, knock out machine guns positions and prevent opposing artillery from conducting counter-battery fire. Many officers told their men to expect little to no resistance:

“You will be able to go over the top with a walking stick. You will not need rifles. When you get to Thiepval you will find the Germans all dead. Not even a rat will have survived.”

At 07:20 the mine under the German defenses at the Hawthorn Ridge redoubt, which had taken seven months to dig, containing 24,000kg of explosives, was detonated. At 07:28 the Lochnagar mine, containing 27,000 was detonated. These and 17 other mines of varying sizes contributed to what was then the loudest man made sound in history. The German soldiers in the tranches immediately above these explosions were vaporised.

At 07:30 officers all along the line blow their whistles to mark the beginning of the attack. Thousands of soldiers leave the trenches to be met with an alien landscape, scarred and deformed by years of artillery fire. The German defenses across the front are largely intact; German defenders soon re-man their positions.

By the end of he day it is estimated that were 57,470 British casualties (of which 19,240 are dead) and 10,000 German casualties. At the conclusion of the battle on the 18th November 1916, an advance of 6 miles along a 16 mile front had been made. The cost? 419,654 British casualties. 202,567 French casualties. 465,181 casualties.

Such terrible losses are almost incomprehensible; human lives reduced to mere statistics.

Statistics. A word all too relevant to the demographic that I belong to: miniature wargamers, specifically historical wargamers. Miniature wargaming has managed to reduce the carnage and horror of warfare to a set of rules, the movement of figures around a board and the rolling of dice. Is this not disrespectful? To dehumanise, even trivialise those who lost their lives in conflicts throughout history?

To some extent I think it does, but only if we allow it to.

It is our duty as wargamers to respect the history we are retelling; research the conflict we are recreating, find out what actually happened, the names of those involved, and most of all why it happened. By educating ourselves, we can educate others. We can tell stories in an interactive, compelling way unlike any other medium.

The next time you play a historical game, take a moment to think about the people you are representing. Lest we forget.

A reflection on the EU referendum campaign.

A monumental, historic event occurred yesterday; I feel I cannot let it pass without commenting. On June 23rd the people of the United Kingdom voted in a referendum deciding whether or not they wanted to remain a member of the European Union. A 52% majority voted to leave, 48% desired to stay.

 

The people have spoken; this is democracy in action. It was fantastic to see so many people exercising their right to vote (72.2% turnout). Democracy, however, is a strange thing; it is essential to modern civilisation, wars have been fought (and are still being fought) solely to to defend the right of the people to choose who governs them, but it isn't perfect. Democracy doesn't rely on a populace being able to make an informed choice. Many voters, whether wilfully or not, are often ignorant of the consequences of the choice they are making.

Politicians will often cultivate ignorance, it is in their best interests; pre-election promises that go unfulfilled lead to disillusionment (just look at the student fees debacle in 2010). The campaign leading up to the referendum was rife with this practise on both sides. Whilst I am disappointed with the overall result (and to an extent, genuinely worried about it), it is the campaign process that has concerned me more.

Both sides' campaigns resorted to appeals to emotions, appeals to fear, appeals to consequences. ad hominem attacks, straw men, exaggeration, cherry picking,  flag waving patriotism, oversimplification, assumptions, non sequiter reasoning and seemingly intentional vagueness. In essence, propaganda at it's finest. Many leaflets I received in the post had glaring inconsistencies and illogical lines of argument. Having studied critical thinking I was able to spot these fallacies; some even made me genuinely angry - do people really believe what they are reading at face value?

  
The whole campaigning process was an absolute shambles. What this resulted in was people having to vote based on either scattered contradictory information, gut feeling, patriotism, nationalism or worst of all, prejudice. The information presented by both sides was so contradictory it was impossible to make a genuinely informed choice. It was truly disheartening. I'm not sure which is worse; voting based on poor information or not voting at all.

 

My ballot paper should have had a third option:

'I cannot make an informed decision and wish to abstain'. 

I wonder how many people would have put a cross in that box?

What do we enjoy about miniature wargaming?

I realised a couple of days ago that the release date for Warmachine and Hordes Mark 3 (June 29th) had managed to suddenly creep up on me. The third version of Privateer Press' flagship sister wargames had been announced back in April, and they've slowly been drip feeding out information about changes to the game over the past couple of months. I'm going to take the opportunity to reminisce  on my experience with Warmachine and Hordes Mark 2 and how this lead me to think about the different demographics within miniature wargaming.

I first started playing Hordes back in 2010 just as Mark 2 was releasing. I picked up a Legion of Everblight Battle Group, mostly because I quite liked the aesthetic of the warbeasts (this is my usual rule for any new game; pick the one I like the look of). I learned most of the rules and over the next few years managed to amass a fair amount of models; enough to play a reasonably large game (although that rarely happened). The game offered the most tactical depth found in any skirmish level game at the time; every model was important, every move was an exercise in precision, every attack and spell cast had to be timed perfectly. The smallest mistake could spell disaster.

Then an interesting thing happened. I discovered that my enjoyment of the game was inversely proportional to how many games I played; the more I learned, the more stressful the experience became. I was constantly trying to play as best I could; I wanted to avoid mistakes and play as efficiently as possible. This isn't to say that I won a lot of games, quite the contrary; I lost most of my games. Losing wasn't the catalyst for my lack of enjoyment however, it was the acknowledgement that this type of game simply wasn't clicking with me. This leads me into another trail of thought: Why do we play games?

Video gamers are traditionally grouped into three camps: casual, core and hardcore. It is difficult to make a direct approximation for traditional (analogue) games, especially wargames; they appeal to a number of different dispositions: competition, narrative and hobby (as well as others, but I shall distil it down to these three).

• Competition appeals to those with a desire to win, to be the best they can be at their chosen game and to prove play against opponents of similar calibre. 
• Narrative appeals to those who care about the world their game takes place in, the story that it tells and the characters and events found within, either in a historical or fictional context.
• Hobby appeals to those who enjoy building and painting miniatures; this either means they want to make their army personal and unique to them, or desire to assemble and paint their models to the highest standard. Again this can be found in both historical and fictional contexts.

These three aspects are not mutually exclusive; most gamers will fall somewhere in between the three whilst some will be found at the extremes. A dedicated competitive gamer will be found attending tournaments, building the most optimal list possible, will study the rules and will paint their miniatures to the minimum standard required, if at all. A dedicated narrative gamer is more akin to a role player; they will immerse themselves in the game's world, research it deeply and theme their miniatures to a very specific style. Dedicated hobbyists share a similar world to scale modellers; they will be found honing their craft to the highest degree, entering painting competitions or building beautiful terrain.

These demographics should not be thought of as static, an individual wargamer may find themselves concentrating on different aspects during different periods of their gaming lifetime. Thus it should be though of as more of a malleable spectrum.

So where do I currently fall on the spectrum? I would personally describe myself as 40% Hobby, 40% Narrative and 20% Competitive.

My favourite aspect of the wargaming hobby is researching and building new armies. I love picking up a new game and researching the different models available, the background therein, the types of armies you can build and attempt to put together something I will enjoy building. For a historical game this translates to researching and learning about the time period the game is set in, the key events and eventual historical outcome. My love of speculative fiction is great in this context; wargames are the best medium for exploring it. I'd go as far as to say all historical wargames are forms of speculative history.

The small 20% competitive component boils down to my appreciation of rules sets. I find great pleasure in learning and understanding game mechanics; to study the cogs and gears that make the wheels turn. This doesn't unfortunately translate into a desire to actually play any specific game for any length of time, as described above in my experience with Warmachine and Hordes. I like to know how the car works, not race it around the track.
 
With Warmachine & Hordes Mark 3 on the horizon, I'm sure I'll build a new army, paint it to my liking, read and understand the rules, but not play too many games.

I'd be interested to know where my fellow wargamers think they fit in the demographic triangle.

Let me know what you think.

Video Game Ruminations - Portal (2007)

A few months ago, sitting in the pub with my good friend Rich (having spent the day smashing up his garden with a pick axe), the topic of video games surfaced. We discussed what we enjoyed about the medium, how modern practises have ruined them etc. (grumble...grumble...).

I said at the time that I'd send him a list of some of my favourite games from the last ten years or so (specifically more single player orientated). I never got round to coming up with a list, so I'll instead take the opportunity to present it here as a new series of posts.

I find myself playing video games less and less frequently in recent years; very rarely does a game come out now that I will actually devote time to sitting and playing from start through finish. The games I'll talk about in this series are those that met that quality. Not all of them are viewed as critical successes (though most will be), often times what I personally enjoy about a game will not necessarily lead to acclaim by reviewers. I will attempt to keep my thoughts spoiler free where possible.

Portal (2007)

Released alongside Hale Life 2: Episode 2 and Team Fortress 2 as part of the 'Orange Box', I had no inkling of what this game was at the time (I'd bought the Orange Box solely for Episode 2). I was subsequently surprised to find that this game was definitely the best of the collection.

Portal is a first person puzzle game; the player must solve a series of increasingly challenging  puzzle rooms using the titular portal gun - a tool capable of opening two linked portals, one blue and one orange, through which the player (and objects) can pass. The player may also 'see' through these portals, as long as both sides are linked.

Mechanics are slowly introduced to the player; initially the interaction between boxes (which can be picked up by the portal gun in a similar vein to Half Life 2's gravity gun) and buttons, to the concept of conservation of momentum through portals. Obstacles are also sequentially added; moving platforms, deadly acid pools, energy balls and disturbingly charming homicidal gun turrets.

 Whilst the puzzle aspect of the game is enjoyable in itself, it is reinforced by the environment in which it takes place and the characters (or lack thereof) found within. The player character, Chell, finds herself completely alone within a seemingly abandoned Aperture Science testing facility, save for the attentions of the sentient A.I. GLaDOS (whose dark humour I find particularly delightful). The game successfully creates an atmosphere of isolation, tension and foreboding; no-one is coming to help, there is no escape.

 The story is not overtly explained, it has to be pieced together via different clues: an abandoned office powerpoint presentation, letters, posters and, hidden in some of the test chambers, the insane scrawling of a mad man. This is one of my favourite types of narrative; you have to want to piece together the story.

A stand alone sequel, Portal 2, was released in 2011. Despite introducing many more mechanics and being arguably a superior game, it was ultimately flawed in comparison to the original. What made the original so great was it's lack of characters, it's sense of isolation. Portal 2 throws this out of the window; there is rarely a time where you are not accompanied by some type of companion character, the A.I. core 'Wheatley' being the prime culprit. Sometimes less really is more.


Well, that's my thoughts on Portal. Both Portal and Portal 2 can be found on Steam. They are both well worth playing for their rather unique gameplay. Oh, and remember:

The Cake is a Lie.