Beer n Pretzels Rant + Shadow War Armageddon vs Kill Team

My painting goal is now 66 out of my 100 minimum for 2026.  Which is good; as I've got +12 Bloodbowl in, and am about to have +80 or so 15mm arrive (I count them as .5 each). Must keep ahead of the incomings!

 

There are some space skaven (from Mantic judging by the bases); I have no idea what project I originally intended them for but nevermind; space rats are cool. 

My current d12 Infinity project had me dig out some 40K models and give them a quick basecoat. After thinking about how specific Zone Raiders was (to the point of having difficult-to-fulfill model requirements despite being minis agnostic) I wanted to make sure the rules encompassed popular models - or rather everything I have lying around the shed. These Eldar were only basecoated but I'll count them as I also tidied up/detailed an equivalent amount of other models (Necrons, IG, Tau etc).

In my "chuck out rules to make room" I came across these 40K rules which I looked at for reference.

I reckon Shadow War got done dirty. It was a 2nd edition(?)/Necromunda published in 2017 to allow kill teams to fight in a hive city.  You could use your 40K models (Kill Team) for not-Necromunda, basically, and the one book had profiles for every faction - everything you needed. Kinda both games combined.

GW promptly squatted it, releasing Necromunda later that year and Kill Team in 2018. Guess they couldn't make enough from SW:A rulebooks (a core+house rulebook for Necromunda in Australia is north of $200; add $88 each extra faction you want...) and it was too easy just to play with the 40K models you had. They probably couldn't monetize it effectively...

 

I had a lot more guardians but I swapped them years ago for some of those fur-hat coated Guards (Vostroyans?) in metal. I should dig em out and paint them - they're probably worth a squillion dollars now....

I'm not a fan of SW:A's IGOUGO and I'm not claiming it is peak game design or some hidden gem (it isn't - it's rejigged 2nd ed), but I have 2018 Kill Team too (I noped out in... 2021? once they got hitpoints and special rulers) and I find them an interesting contrast. Kinda a good example of the 'boardgameification' of wargames. 

Kill Team 2018 (presumably based on... 7th ed? 40K) had so much of the detail and narrative removed to make a more streamlined pick-up game/fairer competitive experience. It's smoother but blander.

There is more gimmicky 'gamey' strategems added as a layer on top; the weapons are more samey and abstract; the skills you can gain are very limited - restricted to only as few models and locked into minimalism path A or path B 'trees' for ease of balance. Kill Team finally moved away from IGOUGO into phases - but even then it was weird; each side moved all their models in the move phase, but alternated in the shoot phase. You can see the boardgame-y soullessness creeping in.

I'm not going into vast detail: I'm sure most readers have played a bucketload more than the few games of either I tried; but contrasting them side by side (published within a year of each other) was pretty interesting, as both seemed based on very different design philosophies/goals within a theoretically similar system and theme.

What is a beer and pretzels game?

I see it being bandied around a lot when I'm searching up new games to play. Wikipedia (the source of all wisdom) says:

A beer and pretzels game is any of a class of tabletop that are light on rules and strategy, feature a high amount of randomness and a light theme.  

This is in direct contrast to Eurogames, which involve complex rules and emphasize strategy over randomness. 

The term was originally coined to describe relatively simple wargames that did not require extraordinary focus to play. The name was then adopted by gamers to mean casual, short and easy to play games in general. 

Bold bits added by me.  I'd question that should complexity=strategy and simplicity=randomness as the quote seems to read. Some thoughts:

- Light on rules, easy to play (=easy to teach/learn/little reference to rulebook? Can be taught on the spot?)

- Light on strategy/more random than average (=not an insurmountable gap between veteran and newb)

- Short (obviously shorter than the average 2-3hrs)

- Casual, relaxed vibe (i.e. not super competitive Warmachine)

- Does not require deep focus to play (you can chat, drink etc and still 'keep up.')

For example, I often hear BLKOUT described as 'beer and pretzels.'  Games are short (30min or so). It has simple(ish) mechanics but it's activation sequence may be unfamiliar to the average 40K-raised wargamer. 

BLKOUT isn't random. Stand in the open; expect to get shot. A misplay will be lethally punished - you need focus. There's definitely strategy and difficult choices. You're unlikely to randomly roll your way to success.

I find it a bit irritating: for me, beer and pretzels is something light, casual, quick, random and requires little thought - kinda exactly in the first part of the quote. But every game I look up seems to be described as "beer and pretzels." It makes the term meaningless.

Is it a codeword for "there's nothing to this game?" or "random dice rolling" or "takes 30min or less?" Or does it mean you need to drink a lot for it to be fun?  Or is it saying how you played a game i.e. stuffing around with mates, drinking involved? A low barrier to entry? A game that allows you to chat by not requiring full mental commitment?

Is beer-and-pretzels just a state of mind? If so, stop using it to describe games!

Question for the audience: What are some examples of a beer and pretzels games for you? What leads you to class them as such? 

Annual Rules Clean Out 2026

As I add new rules (mostly home bound and printed PDFs) I must needs move on old rules (at least to a plastic box at the back of my shed).

Here are some of my discoveries who are heading to the "out tray."

Category: What the Hell was I thinking? 

 Daimyo

I have never got into rank and flank games. And a rank and flank set in ancient mythical Japan? With monsters, ninja and geisha? Circa Legend of Five Rings? Actually sounds kinda cool when I put it that way...

 ...Anyhow it's a proper hardback rulebook circa 2000 by Wizards of the Coast. Huh. Who knew. I'm not inclined to delve deep into its 300+ pages (has paint guides and everything) as I know I will never play it (heck having looked at how fiddly samurai armour is I'm procrastinating painting a skirmish warband) and I also doubt there is any innovative game design ideas I'm missing.

Anima Tactics

In my defense this was a friend's idea. The anime tropes of androgynous, edgy emo guys with giant swords and distastefully barely-pubescent girls are not my thing - I associate them with teenagers doodling in their textbooks - and that's about the art quality of this book. 

The minis were high quality though - finely detailed in a way that only Infinity at the time rivalled, and a nice change from the potato-headed giant-fisted GW designs of the time.  

The game itself was one of those overcomplicated wannabe CCGs where managing mana, hitpoints and triggering the powers of your 3-4 mins was the gameplay focus. Bonus points for using symbols instead of words where possible to necessitate flicking back through the book.

There are plenty who do like this sort of thing; so I am surprised it has vanished without a trace. 

 War Rocket

Futurama rockets vs flying saucers must've sounded good at the time. Movement was asymmetrical - each had a different means to travel a bit like Eldar vs Imperials in BFG. But each race only had 3 designs - big medium and small - and the damage system was weird. You placed handfuls of hit counters on the target THEN looked at a table THEN rolled a dice to see if the target was stunned or killed. It just seemed like terrible design - lot of hit counters cluttering the board to then use a table to just get a simple stunned/killed result. A convoluted and messy way to get something simple. After a test play I decided not to order the minis.

Category: Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time... 

 

 AE: WW2 - Weird War II with mutant gorillas, zombies and rocket troops - even had a sci fi spinoff which I played. It had alternate activation (in an era it was rare) and units had more actions the better they were - i.e. rookie 2 actions, a veteran 3 and a hero 4 - instead of being human tanks which was also common in that era. They had 180d facing. There was the odd multi-wound monster but no HP. For its time, it was quite progressive.

So why did I drop it?  Well the minis were weird. Some good, some really bad. I occasionally still find them in my bitz box. You know that weird health food your wife bought back in COVID but you somehow still find in the pantry? Yeah like that. Second reason is: I shortly after discovered Secrets of the Third Reich - which played skirmish AND platoon level with a style like 40K - so easy to remember - but better. I got use out of it - but it's time to move it on - and what made it 'good' is merely average now.

Random Thought: There was no 'good old days' of wargaming. We're in the golden age NOW. Rules, minis, etc - all amazingly accessible and improved on the 1990s and early 2000s stuff I remember.

Rezolution

Before Cyberpunk 2077 there was... Rezolution.  

Ninja, vampires, gangers, zombies, hackers - with alternate activation and even opposed rolls - a 'modern for the time' feel. The patchy model quality killed it for me. It was like a better Necromunda gameplay wise, but with much worse models  and no campaign system - so there wasn't enough reason to get people to swap to it, and no reason to collect models for their own sake. It might have done better today if launched with 3D print support etc.  Like AE:WW2 I still find random mis-proportioned models in my bitz box.  

Helldorado

The concept was epic. In the devastation of the Thirty Years War the literal mouth of Hell opens and conquistadors descend into the underworld to do battle with demons with pike and musket, to find saracens and Chinese already there. Various mercenaries and demon factions round out the roster. Hmm, I wonder if we could do a WW1 vs underworld version. I reckon we could call it Trench War.

The models were good (except the lizard demons which ironically are the minis I still use most). It was a bit too much special rules-and-hitpoints for me to enjoy it and I was busy making my own home rules when the rug was pulled and the game just.. vanished? 

A cool concept that did not commercially survive for whatever reason. 

 

 

 Dark Age: Genesis

Another alternate-activation skirmish (I always hated IGOUGO) which I bought because of the Dragyari -a caste of cool flea-like warriors who have something to do with slaves and ice? I liked the models. Unfortunately I disliked all the other models which seemed mostly in the leather S&M vein. I mean, what is it about the post-apocalyptic type worlds that attracts this? So many spikes, whips and unpleasantly phallic clubs with armour that looks like you ran a big magnet through a junkyard.  I'm pretty sure there has been a few attempts to re-launch this game as I've seen lonely box sets online in random clearance locations - even relatively recently.

Tomorrow's War

Along with Infinity, this launched my interest in activation/initiative and reaction systems and was one of my most-played games for years. So why is it on the discard pile?

It's basically Stargrunt with reactions - roll d6s, 8s or 10s (depending on your troop quality). Opposed rolls to see if you can react/who goes first; then for combat attacker rolls and keeps any 4+ rolls; defender could fire back/use armour (roll saves) and could cancel hits by equalling or beating dice. Simple yet innovative and interactive mechanics.  The game deliberately aligned to many metal 15mm minis which were cheap and great (GZG, Rebel, Khurasan). For $50-100 you could have the equivalent of a giant 40K army with lots of tanks and mechs.  

Besides a horrible rulebook that was almost impossible to use (the example page above is RULES not fluff!) the clever concept bogged down a lot in practice. There was convoluted reaction chains (reacting to reactions - ugh!) and a surprising amount of tokens/recording. For example, casualties were not as simple as removing models - at the start of each turn each mini hit has to roll on a casualty table (serious, light wounds) which again have various effects and have to be tracked. Fine for skirmish but not platoon level rules. Units ability to return fire could degrade throughout the turn, etc.

The game was a great concept that got bogged down by confusing rules and a terrible rulebook. Each turn had a lot going on - three turns of TW might have more action and back-and-forth than six turns of say Bolt Action or FoW. However each turn took so long to resolve you may as well play six turns of the other games and have a usable rule book to boot, and (perhaps it was just my games) once the bullets started flying the units took cover/ground to a halt. There wasn't much fun maneuvering and tactics. Realistic perhaps, but not fun. And in sci fi, 'realistic' is relative.

A fallen favourite - great in concept, but I just don't have the time for this sort of game any more, nor the patience to fight with the rulebook. 

Nostalgia Goggles

My son has been playing Blood Bowl 2 on PC. I blame him for the peer pressure for these purchases.

While spectating him, I pointed out he needed to make all your non-risky/non dice moves first then go for blitzes or passes and that his cage was flaky. I then had to explain the cage then unwisely mentioned there was a tabletop version I played heaps as a kid (I had my own 6-team solo league using models I cut from ice cream lids - yes I was a poor kid). 

....A visit to the hobby shop later, and he has sand skellies and I have norse. I'm not au fait with current rules but looking at the team sheets I reckon the norse have more useful toys to win with. We both went with "what looked cool." Though he claims it was the ball-cats that decided him. At least neither of us got dwarves. They were never fun to play with or against. I think the pdf I have is the second-to-last rules version. 

 

....Not a huge fan of the 7+ piece models that build exactly the same linesman. Unlike say Necromunda where you at least get lots of variety in exchange for hours of farting around. It is nice to have pieces which fit neatly though. (Glares at Wargames Foundry yari on workbench).

Bloodbowl was, alongside Battlefleet Gothic, the GW game I played most as a kid. I think it aligned in time to 40K's 2nd edition.  In terms of other 'official' games, I had Battletech and Starfleet Batttles but I spent more time photocopying record sheets than playing either....  I think this is where I acquired my hatred of recording hitpoints...

Last year I bought some 3D printed Battlefleet Gothic minis off eBay - there's plenty of available/free STLs and they do lend themselves well to 3D printing, but I kinda found them a bit draining and fiddly to to paint. Also got that kinda decision paralysis when I (a) couldn't work out which weapon loadout for my cruisers (b) was too lazy to try to solve this by irksome job of drilling/magnetizing them. They currently sit in my 'procrastination pile.'

I've also had a mind to revive Mordhiem as the kids and I have played a lot of Vermintide 2 on PC together and atmosphere inspired me. I even printed out the rules and bought some secondhand Skaven off eBay; as well as some Frostgrave cultists. Unfortunately I re-read the rules after these purchases; and decided I was less enthusiastic than I thought: so they are also on the procrastination pile.

Finally on the 'GW nostalgia' pile of shame: I bought an Imperialis Aeronautica box as well. I could never afford that as a teen as well, but as soon as I indulged those GW swine "Squatted" my Tau before I even got to paint them so I kinda lost enthusiasm - I'm not paying a squillion on eBay to expand my now OOP faction. I feel I'm not at fault for this one.

My nostalgia-fueled purchases have not had a good strike rate so far, so we'll see how Bloodbowl goes. 

A possible pending distraction is my homebrew post-apoc 1930s pirate tank rules - my son and I like to vroom around with our 15mm tanks. My new MDF - the 3rd terrain collection since the start of the year - has revived this one. Current barrier is: I need some 15mm zombies and civilians/scavengers that I can afford. Some US manufacturers make them, but they are usually $50 for the minis and $50 P&P....

In other news, I have been distracted by making a homebrew Infinity-lite, using d12s, which are my new favourite dice size. D20s feel too swingy, and d12s have the advantage for being able to translate easily from d6s (modifiers etc are just doubled) if you want to use other existing games as a baseline, as well as converting from Infinity's +3/-3 modifers (15%) to a +2/-2 (16%) quite neatly. They also have lots of room "on the dice" so you can have very different stat lines and variation for different models without being confined to 3+, 4+, or 5+.

I downloaded Infinity N5 with the intent of playing it with my kids, but while there seems to be attempts to make it more accessible since N3 (my last foray); it is at best a learning wall rather than a learning cliff.

Zone Raiders should have 'the one', but it's curiously specific in terms of minis and weapons; and doesn't really have opposed roll/duel reactions which my kids would enjoy. (They like the opposed fight rolls of ME:SBG). I could have created my own weapons and stats, but that was a less fun exercise.

My aim is to vastly simplify the rules and mechanics, and change a few things that annoy me. I'm cutting the modifiers to 2 or 3 each for shooting/melee, and range bands to just three - "effective" "long" and "CQB" which groups by class; rifle, SMG, pistol etc - not individual sub-types having unique range bands. Having 10 different ammo types is also a no-no. The 100+ skills are being condensed to 20 or so and aligned with Necromunda so my daughters' Escher minis will work.

The vaunted Infinity activation is just IGOUGO disguised mostly by the lethality of reactions, and I'm not a fan of cheerleading or the convoluted fireteam rules. So they'll get tweaked.

The aim? An 'Infinity-a-like' my kids can play, and I can use any common sci fi miniatures. If I don't get distracted I'll run a playtest soon and post it up the battle report....

2026 Goal Check:

1. Terrain. 

Create 3 more terrain sets, but must be storable in A4 IKEA boxes. Already done!

2. Minis 

c) Buy minis for one new system, project or rule set but only after equivalent minis painted

I'm usually pretty good at this... 

3. Rules

a) Design and play-test one new home-brew system. I'd like to do a battle report.

d) Print out an existing old-school OOP rulebook or free indie set. Quite a few. Yet to review any in blog. 

4. Blog

Two posts per month.  So far.

5. Paint

a) Continue to follow my rule: Paint equal or more existing minis before I get new purchases i.e. if I paint 101 minis, I can buy 100 new minis.  24/100 minimum goal. On track.

 6. Budget 

On track. $65 spent so far (Bloodbowl team); +$20 binding various PDFs

7. Downsize/Storage

Get rid of 4+ A4 IKEA boxes of rules, minis, old terrain etc. 

Already done, but I'm eyeing off some rules boxes. Maybe I'll do a post "why these are getting the chuck?" My son has made some cool setups as he has 'acquisitioned' some old cardboard terrain on its way to the bin....

Boardgames - like Wargames but worse...

This is responding to a discussion in comments on a previous post ("why no boardgames or RPGs") and a parallel discussion I was having with my kids; who like me are unwilling participants in my wife's love of boardgames. So here goes. A rant article with little effort to appear even-handed in my coverage :-P

1.The toys suck.

I have a giant elephant with archer turrets. You have some wooden blocks.

You have a flat painted map on a piece of cardboard. I have a towering ancient city. 

We are not the same.

Even little kids know the difference. Unfortunately my 10 year old discovered this early and now rejects his expensive LEGO as not cool enough in order to use my equally expensive but much more fragile dad toys.

Boardgames can be cool too!  No they aren’t. They are wooden meeples and painted bits of cardboard about stuff like birds. If you insist on regarding painted 2D cardboard as artistic or cool, then I suggest a visiting a museum. Or collect Magic cards, if you want to ease storage as well as faster removal of your money.

But some hybrid boardgames - like Kingdom Death - have epic models! Well, if that’s your kink I’m not stopping you but a) a single 28mm model for $50 is GW territory b) it is still abstract, yet also very complex, token heavy with lots of book-keeping (see below). There’s better ways to get a cool toy fix.

 

With wargames, the toys are better.... 

2. Boardgames are better if you just want have a worse experience to play, not paint!

a) The hobby aspect is kinda vital to wargaming so you are obviously a filthy casual – the sort of person who takes their Toyota 86 to the track but can’t change the oil and should be thus gatekept

b) if the key aspect is ease of play – can I present videogames? Your humble mobile phone has you covered if you are not a member of the PC master race. But wait - people rarely play boardgames on their phones or PCs because – they’re not very fun!

The myth of the all-in-one expensive convenient box… You know who does this in tabletop wargames? Games Workshop. They also charge $300+ for the contents of the box. If you don’t enjoy the idea of working out a fun army and prioritise instant gameplay over hobby elements, I refer you to my point about mobile phone games.

If the box does have cool toys in it, expect to play more, for less quality. If it’s full of wooden meeples and printed cardboard, expect to pay a surprising amount anyway.

The boxes aren’t all that convenient, either. I can usually fit quite a 3-4 armies in the same space taken by a single boardgame. Given you can choose your own mini boxes, (unlike boardgames) they can be chosen to fit optimally in what is available.

If the best thing about a boardgame night is the players… can I just say lots of people can make anything seem cool. Even sports like volleyball. I mean, just hitting a ball over a rope and not letting it touch the ground? No wonder they introduced a bikini beach version. 

But boardgames were invented so socially inept people could pretend to interact while distracting themselves from the terror of conversation. A nerdy safe space, making it easy to gather the socially awkward. So if having lots of players is the selling point of a boardgame… ..who are you attracting?

On the other hand, playing regularly is often impossible. Then your 300 boardgame collection is worthless. That ‘ease of play’ and ‘everything in a box’ is pointless. In contrast, wargames have a vast ‘out of game experience’ – you can be having fun even when you’re not playing – collect, paint, kitbash, list-build, terrain.... Some boutique wargames even focus on this.

You’re lucky if you can play, though. Boardgame rulebooks are awful. They are incomprehensible pieces of folded A4. If you don’t have “that guy” to teach you you are screwed. Contrast this with your choice of glossy coffee table book or full colour digital PDF. Even the worst wargame rulebooks are leaps ahead of the best boardgame rulebooks (and RPG’s - but that’s a topic for another day…)

When you do play, boardgames are not as cinematic or memorable. My kids remember rounds of Hunt Showdown (PC game) from months ago. They recall specific incidents from wargames from years ago “the time we teamed up against dad and chased his Uruk Hai off the table” “When dad climbed over the wall with the goblins but we killed his troll...”

….You know what they don’t remember? Boardgames.
At best, it’s always a general observation about the game itself like “Cockroach Poker? That’s the one where mum loses cos she can’t lie well.”

3.Boardgames are about lame topics

Laying down tiles in a mosaic pattern. (grouting tiles!)

Birds, eggs and habitats (birdwatching! Even less cool than stamp collecting!)

Collecting wood, grain, bricks and sheep (chores!)

Trying to stop a disease (I’ve lived through COVID, so pass)

While these are a testament to people’s creativity imagination (and the wide spectrum of what people consider ‘fun’) I present to you an 8ft metahuman in armour sawing an alien in half with a chainsword. Yes, a chainsaw sword. I rest my case.

What about war board-games? Axis and Allies? They have boring toys and are too abstract. They are like proper tabletop wargames with the cool factor dialled down.

Even the ‘cutsiest’ wargame is cooler than a boardgame. Quar? Anteaters fighting WW1 with messenger squirrels driving mobile home tank tractors? Rather easily competes with Ticket-to-Ride's building abstract train lines.

4.Boardgames are too abstract

My 10 year old even recognizes this. He removes the RISK men off their official board and builds them bases out of LEGO so they can shoot and grapple hand to hand rather than swan about in an abstract way, zipping across a black line on a world map from Alaska to Siberia.

But you use Go as a good rules example all the time!

A bikini is also great example – e.g. of how to show everything while covering the minimal required. But I don’t wear a bikini either (except on dress up night). Go is a great example: of minimal rules, maximum strategy. But black and white pebbles on a square board still sucks. It was fine in 2000BC before injection-molded plastic.

5. Boardgames are the worse aspects of wargames

Collecting and arranging tokens? Counting up scores? These are the worst aspects of wargames. Sometimes, with boardgames, they are the whole game. It’s like saying the best part of motorbike riding is putting your helmet and all your gear on or off. In a boardgame you're sometimes literally a worker in an assembly line, maximising productivity. It’s busywork.

Board games align more with the competitive “meta” aspect of wargaming – which is what most people claim to enjoy less than narrative play and memorable moments. In fact boardgaming has slowly infiltrated wargames which were – originally – some dudes with an umpire mostly ad-libbing, with cool unexpected things being randomly added. Winning may be salvaging some troops from an unwinnable battle - not an even battle over points. Popular-but-bad games like 40K actually edge in to boardgame territory.

Boardgames are more about winning or losing than cool narratives....

“No they are not!” “Insertname is a great co-op game”

Boardgames tend to be either a (a) largely random (b) social engineering or (c) an optimally solvable puzzle. I see this with family – after about the fourth play though a meta (optimal) playstyle has emerged; once they notice it* the game tends to be abandoned. It’s like those citybuilder PC games. Once you’ve ‘solved’ the game there’s not much point lingering if there isn’t the hobby aspect (collect, paint models, build terrain etc.)  *No, I wouldn't point it out to a 10 year old, to sabotage the game because that would be wrong.  While wargames are a puzzle too the board (terrain) and often the sides (pieces) are usually random enough - usually the "meta" is to build around the strongest pieces. 

Tape measures are messy. Line of sight and coherency is not precise. There isn’t a grid or hex where figures are precisely fixed. Wargames are more fluid and ‘real’ than the sterile abstraction and ‘gameiness’ of boardgames

Boardgame gameplay can be very samey. Boardgames have exploded in popularity (and become more mainstream) but also stagnated. Often new games are just old ones with a bit added or removed. I can say to my wife “x is just the drafting phase of y game but with cavemen cards instead of a pirate theme.”

Of course you can claim this about wargames, but unlike boardgames they are not relying solely on gameplay mechanics but tend to be driven by the fluff/background/universe. No one is doing a deep lore dive into the Sagrada universe. No one is making a movie about Monopoly (OK they did about Battleships but the only thing in common with the grid game is the word ‘battleship.’)

---- 

...I could go on (and I might) but this is actually a pretty long rant already and I've had my fun and want to go skateboarding. I may pop back on and add more to this; so bear in mind this is subject to change, if I decide to more seriously expand on the topic.

Obviously this is pretty tongue in cheek; but the actual aim is it might provoke interesting discussions:

Can wargames learn anything from boardgames? Are there concepts and mechanics that would benefit/could be borrowed?   Or are boardgames just irremediably lame?

Game Design #113: Design Goals, Inspiration Blurbs and "Miniature Agnostic" vs "Completely Generic"

Underworld

Land of Darkness. Land of the Dead. Land of Ice and Fire.

In the deep abysses of the earth, there is another realm. It has many names:

Tartarus. Sheol. Yomi. Nifelhiem.

A place where the rules of death and death can be bent – and sometimes broken.

Where the natural and supernatural overlap. Where belief and will shape reality, and dreams and nightmares can take physical form.

Atlantis. Lemuria. Mu. Avalon. Lyonnesse. Ys. Shang-ri La. Agartha. Minonans. Mayans. Olmec.

It is a land of lost and forgotten things. A land of myth. A land of terror.

<---> 

 

I've now finished 1 of 3 terrain tables and 26 of 100 minis from my 2026 goals...

When I make homebrew rules I make myself a "inspiration blurb" and a set of "design goals."

This inspiration blurb is to give me a "feel" for the rules.  The above is an inspiration blurb for my current set I'm experimenting with. Kinda like the tagline of a movie or the back cover of a book. I wanted a reason to paint my vikings, samurai and Greeks and a "game world" where I could use them all together, on my new foam mat terrain. I'm kinda motivating myself with invented fluff. Luckily for me I only make games for myself so I don't need to worry about how cringey or terrible my prose as long as it inspires me.

Notice I'm making my fluff match my miniatures. Not always a consideration, but an important one. Are there actually suitable miniatures for what you are wanting to play? I'd love a urban horror Underworld vampires vs werewolves game but vampires and werewolves with machineguns (while some do exist) are not affordable nor readily available. So that project sits shelved.

 Making a "better 40K" was probably the first step of most game designers and there's a reason for that (besides the base 40K rules beg for improvement) - you and your mates already had access to the minis.

<--- >

Completely Generic Rules

Maybe 10-15 years ago there was a flood of what I'd call completely generic rules. Usually they trumpeted "can play anything with these from Roman soldiers to Napoleonics to Star Wars - One Ruleset to Rule Them All."  This concept is a little flawed and does not work all the time. 

While players like what they like (and not having to learn new mechanics is good!) and can be popular a la Insertname Rampant or the Noungrave of the week I'd say games that focus on melee vs those focussed on shooting probably should differ on a base level. So while Star Wars/40K fantasy sci fi can share a base with fantasy rules, viking shieldwall skirmish should probably not share the same mechanics/activation as a modern fire-and-maneuver squad shooter. 

The second issue is: if you have 101 generic rules - why should I play yours over the others?  Usually they have some sort of mechanics advantage - maybe it's a streamlined 40K with alternate movement and d10s. Maybe it has a cool push-your-luck activation mechanic. Maybe it has a super comprehensive army builder and point system. 

However the main reason we play games is we get hooked by the fluff/shiny things. The cool backstory. The weird. Like the idea of Napoleonic cultists in armour possessed by turnips?  A WW1-era ubdergrimdark crusades where you fight demons with swords and Lewis guns?  Some games seem to get by on merely a cool art style.  Having a rulebook that has NO fluff (reason to play) and merely "solid mechanics" kinda misses the motivation of most players. 

Usually fluff drives our gaming so that's why I create my own to drive my homebrew gaming and painting. That's the purpose of my inspiration blurb.

<--- >

...before I forget, let's back up to an earlier point: Are there actually miniatures for your game?

Eric reminded me of this in a previous post on projects. I call this the "Zone Raiders conundrum."  Zone Raiders is probably the Necromunda replacement we've been waiting for. The simpler Infinity (OK, now BLKOUT may have stolen this). But you'll probably never play it. (And may not even have heard of it)

Zone Raiders is not a generic game. It has great fluff - a strong anime vibe that borrows heavily from the Blame! manga of a giant planet-sized megacity full of strange mysteries and killer guardians. A theme as strong as Necromunda, but with better rules. It has a good campaign system. The physical rulebook is great and the PDF is shiny - and it's all in the one book. No $200 of extra books like Necromunda. Winner, right?

But though the game is "miniatures agnostic" aka "use whatever you want" the game is weirdly specific. 

There are not the usual laser rifles, blasters and automatic weapons used in 99% of games from 40K to Star Wars. Instead it only uses Blame!-specific weapons like single-shot javelin spike airguns that have to be crank-reloaded. This means your 40K armies are probably useless (or at least kinda ridiculous for WYSIWYG) and half your Infinity models too.

The miniature profiles are also very specific with special rules. They ain't generic stereotypes you can add gear to based on what you have available; but the gear and traits come premade; in very specific configurations.  You can't just get heavy, medium or light armour which you could just eyeball approximate models to - no, no you get rigs, where that heavy armour automatically comes with jump jets and grapnels - which again narrows down the suitable minis.

Yes, you could say the AK47 on my Infinity Haqquislam is a singleshot compressed air rifle... ...but it just seems off. Why bother with such cool fluff if all your models and scenery contradict it? 

Another very cool aspect is the fights between warbands can trigger harvesters/reapers/immunocytes - robotic guardians who are sent by the world's AI to cleanse it of human parasites. This is very cool for scenarios however:

a) you need to have quite a lot of these robots of various types - extra cost

b) these robots are not readily available for sale - can't source them

Could I use Necrons?  Maybe, but again the profiles don't really align. 

In short, Zone Raiders is a good game, but there isn't the miniatures for it. It's got good fluff, and in theory it is miniatures agnostic "just use anything" - but in reality the very specific weapons and unit profiles in this "generic" rulebook are better suited to a game with a supported miniature line or at least a STL series. It's miniatures agnostic - if you happen to know how to source a specific type of miniature! 

If ZR had added more generic unit archetypes with more generic weapons (chainswords, laser rifles, shotguns, etc) rather than only overly setting-specific characters, weapons and gear it would be way more popular...  This is an example of good rules, good fluff - but no miniatures!

In contrast, with my homebrew rules I like to have a very clear set of miniatures in mind; in this case, Perry Samurai, Victrix/Gripping beast vikings, Fireforge undead peasants, Frostgrave cultists, Greek Wargames Atlantic skellies - maybe toss in some 3D printed mythological creatures like gorgons and yokai - which I've already checked my local 3D printer can provide. 

<--->

  

Design Goals 

Back to my own Underworld homegame, I also like to have clear design goals before I start.  I just realised I may have discussed this before - yep!

Since I've already devoted a big post to this (see link in sentence above); I'll expand on some points - re: the underlying math and how it can save you time.

If you can't be bothered to playtest much - use what already works! 

Since I don't like reinventing the wheel, I like to find rules that already do something similar to what I am attempting, especially ones I like. If it's a medieval game, maybe MESBG. WW2 tanks - Flames of War. Preferably a well-tested set where the math already works or you know the "feel" of the game.

Many GW-derived games have a 4+ to hit up to say 24" then maybe a 4+ to kill. That's 25% lethality. If there's a 4+ cover save, then that's 12.5% lethality.

So if I use a d12 (my current favourite) for Underworld I can say a 7+ hits and a 7+ kills. That's 25% lethality. But because we are using a d12 we can dispense with the extra cover save. Maybe cover just becomes a -3 modifier on the 7+ hit roll. If cover is 10+ to hit, 7+ kills the lethality is still 12.5%. Identical to MESBG.

Shooting may use different dice and mechanics but will play exactly the same - and is based on a very tried and tested melee-based fantasy/medieval rule set. That is based on a 6" move and 24" missile range. Obviously if I change these moves/ratios the feel will change - but I can still predict how the game will play. 

Usually I prefer to find the simplest rules possible. It's always way easier (and more fun) to add more crap in then to remove or simplify a process. As you'd know if you've ever sat in a work meeting...

So my design goals may also read: "Use MESG % as a base, but alternate activation?" - this gives me a starting point for how I know the game should play. 

For example I've been thinking about Zone Raiders and I could say "make a new game: uses traits, weapons and gear from Necromunda & Infinity (guaranteeing easy mini alignment) and BLKOUT/Zone Raiders simple mechanics and math adapted to d12" in the design brief to build a combined ultramodern/sci fi skirmish game. The underlying math could be ported from either game then modified to suit.

I prefer to fit the game mechanics to the setting. For example, reaction moves/shooting may fit a modern SWAT team game well, but may be tiresome for a mass skirmish game focussed on melee.

In my Underworld game, I may have groups of models move/shoot together (or divide into move/shoot phases like MESBG) to allow my viking/Greek shieldwalls to move together.  Whereas my d12 Necro Raiders hybrid would probably have individual soldiers moving and shooting; with either hold moves and/or limited reactions (to take cover/shoot back).

Design goals usually include:

"How do players take turns (activation/initiative)?"

"Melee vs missile focus/gameplay focus" (covered above^ i.e. what games/genres do I borrow from?) 

"Unique hook" (why don't I just use existing commercial rules?)

"How many miniatures/how fast play?" (You can have more details for 10 minis per side than 40..)

"Key decision points" (what agency/risk-reward/resource management allows players to influence game) 

...and a brief description of how the game should play in my mind. I.e.

"Focus on melee combat but minis move individually.. maybe together if within 1" coherency of another grunt or 6" of a hero... heroes have stamina, health and magic stat which can be drained - like a PC RPG - indicate by placing a green, red or blue counter under the mini if drained...  ...3-5 "heroes" RPG style, rest can be 10-12 simpler grunts who have no special bars or abilities and die in one hit. Heroes can roll against stat to sprint, do power attacks, heal etc and if fail roll it is drained until recover by rolling next turn..."

As I've covered design goals before in more detail - and my kids are invading my room to play games - I'll sign out... 

Game Design #112: Revisiting Cards & Custom Dice

 I have been recently looking through my unpainted minis. Since many are long forgotten projects, I have been viewing rulebooks to see if I am inspired. My biggest unfinished projects are:

Quar. Samurai. Greek. 70YW/ECW. Weird War II. Infinity. Confrontation 3 (fantasy). These all have 50-100 minis to complete. 

I'm looking for impetus to get them on the table - so I'm building terrain, sourcing and printing rule-books.  While browsing these genres I came across Mortal Gods. Greek skirmish. Mythic expansions. Good reviews. Sounds interesting; then I notice custom dice. 

I hate custom dice.

1) "You can do more stuff with custom dice"

Maybe. I can't think of too many examples off the top of my head where I went "Man, I'm glad I'm using these expensive custom dice instead of those damn ordinary d6s."

When I see custom dice, I tend to assume gimmick/laziness/chasing extra profits. 

You can do a lot with even the most basic basic d6. You can  roll two d6 and create a bell curve. Or you can throw buckets of d6 with a certain number scoring a hit - say 4+. Or what about crits? Maybe a 6+ counts as two hits?  Maybe heavier weapons crit on a 5+? Lighter weapons hit on a 3+ but still crit on a 6+? Maybe you can compare the stats - if stats are equal, 4+, if greater /less could be 3+ or 5+?  Or you can add a dice roll to a stat and compare to a target number? Or maybe a contested roll using a range of methods where the defender can try out-roll the attacker...  

....And that's ignoring the fact that d4, d8, d10, d12 and d20 are readily available thanks to the inexplicable popularity of D&D. Yeah D&D is a clunky, bad RPG. *Bangs sacred cow with stick*

Point is, I tend to regard game designers who need special dice to make their game work as lacking in basic problem solving and mathematics. 

2) Symbols or custom dice are not always more intuitive either. Looking at Bloodbowl dice reminded me of how I wished they just had words instead of exclamation mark explosion, explosion, explosion skull, skull and arrow. Which symbols did Block and Dodge effect again? It's be just as easy to have a chart that says:

1 = attacker falls over

2 = both attacker and defender falls over unless either have block

3,4 = defender is pushed back

5 = defender is falls over unless he has dodge

6 = defender falls  over 

Voila! No special dice required. I just saved you $37. I could memorize what the numbers do just as easily as the explosion or skull symbols or combo thereof.

Card Mechanics - a tricky balancing act

 Card mechanics can be thematic (in a cowboy game, for example). Just like pulling Go pebbles from a bag might be a fun way to do samurai initiative...

In the Savage Worlds RPG (I've been looking at it for  the baseline of a horror Western skirmish game) cards are simply drawn and randomly assigned to heroes or groups to ensure a completely random activation. 

That's kind of a waste. Is using cards even needed? It's using cards for the sake of using cards. Even then, it's kinda cluttering;  if you're putting down a card for each mini/squad - where are all these playing cards being put on the table? 

And do we really want truly random activation anyway? I prefer controllable risk. Where you are always uncertain, but you can take steps to "massage" the odds in your favour. How could cards play along with this idea of controllable risk?

Maybe each player has a colour (red or black suit) and can choose the mini they activate when their colour comes up. Maybe some cards like Aces or Jokers have an additional effect; boosting stats, allowing re-rolls, or ending the current turn - whatever.

Maybe a poker hand where each player hold 5 cards and plays them to see who activates a mini next. Maybe only some cards (2?) are visible and others (3?) are hidden.

Maybe heroes activate on face cards AND number cards whereas grunts only activate on number cards.

Maybe a player can skip an activation and swap out some/all of his cards.

A strength of cards is the ability to add on extra effects. I.e. activating on a queen of diamonds might be +2 defence, but a queen of spades +2 attack. You can kinda weave interesting events and variables into the cards as it's like rolling 4 uniquely different 13-sided dice. 

There's lots more obviously, but if you are going to use cards, make sure you are getting use out of them....but wait:

....on the flip side, even  good, 'cool' card mechanic risks becoming the 'whole game' (or the main focus of the game). You don't want to turn your fire-and-maneuver wargame into an abstract Magic clone.

This applies to using cards to resolve combat too.

I kinda like the idea that each player has a deck of cards and thus has the same amount of "luck" i.e. each player has 4 Aces, 4 Kings, 4 Queens etc - that may come out at different times, favouring one or the other; but overall it's not like one player rolling nothing but 6s all game and his opponent rolling nothing but 1s.  The total value of each hand is random, yet equivalent overall. Once you've pulled your lowest cards your bad luck is over and things will likely "even out." I like predictable randomness.

But is drawing and showing cards quicker or slower, mechanically, than tossing a dice?  I suspect usually the latter. Does cards really add anything to the game? Or does it add too much to the game?

I dislike boardgames but my wife loves them. Ironically, I do most of the reviewing and purchasing (and some test playing) as I tend to be able to quickly identify the key mechanics and gauge how it will play (and whether my wife will like it).

I notice many popular board games have simple rules but complex decisions. In Courtesans, you play 3 cards, giving one to an opponent, keeping one, and placing one out on the table in a way to influence the value of your hand. There is only 3 decisions in your turn - simples! - but they have a strong effect and there is quite a lot going on as you meddle with your opponents' plans.

A wargame has decisions too, like: Where do I go? Who do I attack? Who do I avoid? Adding a complete fleshed out card game on top of this risks detracting from those decisions (or giving decision fatigue) and making the card game aspect paramount. 

Some boardgames have several things going on - perhaps in Sagrada you need to know what stones to collect AND then arrange them for maximum scoring. Sometimes there are two strategies or areas you are working on to achieve success. Sometimes a boardgame has too much going on and these tend to be those that eat up an entire evening(s) - and not necessarily being more fun or tactical than a shorter game with more basic choices/mechanics.

Too complex a card mechanic (be it for initiative or resolving combats) also risks bogging/slowing a game down by layering card complexity on top of the wargame's innate complexity.

It's kinda dammned if you do, dammned if you don't. If the cards effect little or the purpose could be accomplished by other means - the question is why bother?  If the card mechanics are interesting, deep, engaging and strategic they risk taking over or bogging down the game.  Cards could add a thematic layer to say a Wild West game, but they straddle a tricky divide. 

Note I'm talking ordinary, readily available playing cards here. Custom cards, like custom dice, can just get stuffed. Go play Magic or similar CCG if you want to exchange colourful pieces of cardboard for large amounts of money. 

Are the cards actually needed? Or are they just for the sake of a gimmick?

Do the cards add something to the game that the usual dice do not easily allow? (i.e. using the suits to trigger ingame effects, some sort of bluffing or minigame, allowing better luck management etc)

How much time/complexity do the cards add? 

Is it pulling too much emphasis from the main combat/maneuver?

Is it a naked cashgrab "custom deck" for $30 each?

While cards do have their applications, I tend to be very skeptical when they appear in a game...

Organising Wargaming Projects: Overcoming Inertia

 I've done a big shed clean over my school holidays. Although I'm a pretty energetic painter (though 2025 was not great) and my project "drawers" - each unfinished task resides in a removable drawer - has reduced from 32(!) to 10, I've found a few big incomplete projects - big being 50 or more 28mm equivalent models. 

Some date back 10 years. So why have these been ignored when I've painted thousands of models?

To avoid more boxes of unpainted plastique, I've asked myself: What makes me complete a project?

-- 

1. Do I find assembling/painting the minis satisfying? Do I have enough for a decent game?

Whilst I hate Warmachine as a game, I find the sculpts weirdly fun and quirky to paint.  I've played about 5 games, have no desire to ever play again, but own perhaps 300 minis across 5-6 factions. 

My ECW plastics are not compelling. Designed for rank n flank, they are kinda samey and bland. My Perry samurai are great but have an unpleasant amount of small detail. Infinity models make me feel inadequate. I hate painting lots of flesh and sandals are lame. 

My Robotech are horrifically complex to assemble and you need to build all 3 flight modes (i.e. 3 models to represent one on the table)...  but I loved kitbashing Hot Wheels for Gaslands.

While I get ease of storage and cost reasons, some scales are just too small to be fun. Some are in a weird spot - my force is too small (Imperialis Aeronautica) but they are OOP so it's not worth adding to them.

Furthermore, while the odd hero is fine, I dislike 3D prints forming the core of my force. They're just too fragile and explode-y when dropped.  So anything relying solely on resin is out. 

It's about $5-10 to print and bind a set of rules; which can inspire you to get unused minis on the table. When overseas P&P can add $30+ to a $50 rulebook, I've resigned myself to not having pretty things...
 

2. Do I have terrain and fun/acceptable rules? 

Without either, it ain't going to get any playtime. I'm too old to enjoy tissueboxes for buildings and books under a sheet for a hill.  Without plausible too-scale terrain, a game ain't getting on the table.

If the terrain is difficult/complex or pricey to source - then that game is on hold, indefinitely. 

I know pdfs on a iPad are probably sensible and the way of the future, but if I don't have a hard copy of a rulebook to browse on the toilet to study at my leisure, the chance I actually play the game drops to only a few percent.  Also, charging $20-30 for a digital copy means there are many good games I just refuse to buy. 1490 Doom caught my eye but... $80AUD for a few pdfs? Come on.

Poor rules can also slow me up. I love Battletech but enjoy neither original or Alpha Strike rules, and I struggle with indie rules that don't follow the lore/universe. I was super excited about Trench Crusade but are kinda underwhelmed by the rules and the models sit unpainted.... 

3. Does the project capture my imagination in some way?

I roll my eyes at blue Space Marines but can picture mini-submarines dogfighting like Korean War jets in undersea trenches at 300kph.  I find regular WW2 infantry dull, and Napoleonics lines immeasurably more so, but love the French Indian Wars so much... ...I added velociraptors to it. Necromunda is not cool, just a grubby cringe 80s Judge Dredd rip-off. I love MTBs speeding in a shower of spray hammering away with automatic cannons.While I love Biggles, WW1 biplane models are boring.

This is where I'll step in and make homebrew rules if needed. If no one has made Hellgate:London in 28mm I'll just have to do my own thing with Infinity Nomads and GW Khorne, right? If there is no game where sci fi stormtroopers get possessed by demons? Fine. No one has vikings fighting zombies in frozen buried skyscrapers in a post-apoc future? OK then. 

4. Cost

This is pretty obvious, but I'd say it's less absolute cost, and more: "can I try it cheaply and add to it in increments." I'd love to play Titanicus, but as I'd need to buy both forces we're talking $500 upfront. My home-made Tankmunda games with 15mm tanks cost $100 for a dozen tanks per side, and each new tank costs ~$10 not $70-100.  I've probably got $500 of tanks now, but I have dozens and dozens collected and painted over years of gradual acquisitions. So anything with a big buy-in (most stuff GW) is out. $220 for something like Bloodbowl (regarded as cheap in GW circles) is significant chunk of hobby cash. If I need to buy another $150 of minis to make a game shine/work, we're heading into sunk cost fallacy territory. Aussie postage is a killer too. When a $100 game costs $50 postage there's a big impact on the per-mini cost.  If it's from USA, I probably will never own it. I've been been printing PDF rules but the cost there is not cheap either - it's a hard no if a freaking pdf I have to print and bind myself is $20 or more.... 

An old rubber mat saved me $97 on a Blood Bowl 7s pitch....

 

...and forms the base of medieval ruins. It's free terrain and even helps clean my shed!

So how am I overcoming inertia?

I've been going through incomplete projects and listing the barriers. 

No good rules? I've recently been printing out pdf rules of free or OOP rules and covering/binding them. These are not random but targetted at sets of minis or projects that are unfinished, to encourage enthusiasm and remove a barrier to play. 

No suitable terrain? I'm trying to identify most "needed" terrain to enable the most game systems and scales. I'm using found materials and MDF to keep cost down and throwing out old terrain that is no longer fit for purpose. It's amazing how good, suitable terrain inspires you to play. E.g. if I make small scale coastal islands and ports I can re-ignite my modern jet rules, age of sail and coastal forces with one fell swoop. A good forest will be good for most skirmish wargames. My current medieval ruins/undercity will be good for grimdark necromancers, Weird War II cultists as well as dwarves...   I enjoy my Tankmunda homebrew rules but having better, non-cardboard terrain will encourage more playtesting...

Is the project cool? Are the minis fun to paint? I'm struggling with some - like ancient Greeks as I'm not a fan of sandals and togas - so I'm holding off. E.g. the Nolan movie Odysseus may boost my interest. As long as I've got storage (downsized from 7 to 5 shed bays but I'm still good) selling is a bit of a no-no - as my son would loooove any donations and given my small town location there's not a lot of swap-buy-sell. My son is not an enthusiastic painter sadly, so donating them doesn't clear my backlog though...

Cost. This is just by focussing on free terrain or rules - like my rubber mat ruins or the freebies in the photo above, and avoid big boxes or premium brands.  For example, I can play Bloodbowl for $130 not $220 if I print my own rules, avoid the box set and just buy two teams of my choice. Or reviving old (2012!)  projects like Quar - the new free rules printed out and bound for under $10 reinvigorates a big set of unused minis. Another focus is more big generic plastic box sets like by Wargames Atlantic or Frostgrave where I can use the boxes for a range of projects i.e. I bought a packet of Victrix vikings for both LOTR Dunlendings and my vikings vs zombies homebrew. 

I'm also trying to be selective in my purchases - by applying the above criteria to any prospective purchases i.e. do I have rules or terrain for it already? Do the minis look fun to paint or is there (at least) a manageable number of them?  Is there a low buy-in with the ability to incrementally expand? Can I avoid overseas P&P.

Do you have an old project that beats my 2012 Quar? What's your biggest incomplete project? And is there a "must have" set of free/cheap rules you've tried lately? What about recommended multi-use terrain type for those wanting to get away from 40K corner ruins?