One of a few submissions I made to the Wargames Factory "Liberty & Union League" has popped up. So time for some shameless promotion...
http://wargamesfactory.lefora.com/2009/04/24/armoured-swiss-infantry/page1/
As I state in that entry, I've also made a separate submission for unarmoured infantry.
I don't know if it will get anywhere, but I like the concept of newer, inexpensive medieval pikemen that can also be built as halberdiers. The plastic figures would be ideal since there are a number of pike based medieval armies that require boatloads of them. I'd love a Swiss and/or Flemish opponent for my Burgundians (as well as a few more pike for them as well.) :D
The only comparable metal figures I know of are:
Old Glory: Inexpensive, but not great quality.
Foundry: Decent figures, but a bit dated, especially for the price.
Mirliton: (Old Copplestone "spearmen.") Similar to comments re: Foundry. Very limited number of figures (5).
Front Rank: (See my previous entry.) Very nice figures, but all in the same pose.
So, if you're interested in something similar, I encourage you to go "vote" for this entry, and the other one when it shows up.
http://www.wargamesfactory.com/BookingRetrieve.aspx?ID=50572
ZeroTwentythree
painting toy soldiers
fighting their battles
24 April 2009
19 April 2009
All Quiet... Painting & FoG
A bit quiet here. Been painting away but nothing to show for it just yet. I've been doing a bit of commission painting plus a "secret figure exchange" thing at Warhammer-Empire, so I haven't really worked on anything for myself. I assembled & primed some figures while waiting for paint to dry. That's about the extent of it. ;)
Friday night I played my second game of Field of Glory. I had late Republican Romans, my opponent had Indians.
This time we used the terrain rules from the book, and my first impression of them is that they are typical of the rest of the rules: too heavy on rules, charts and dice rolls. It seemed way too involved to me, but I'm guessing it's aimed at a more competitive/tournament environment. The end result seemed to place too much terrain on the table, as well. I even chose two "open" options for terrain. I was lucky in the terrain "deployment" though, and a lot of it ended up in our deployment areas (especially my opponent's.)
After playing two games now, I'm picking up on a few things. Light cavalry, for example, seem useless for anything but pinning other troops in place while avoiding contact entirely. Roman legion seem to be a cruise missile troop type. Spanish Scutarii aren't too bad, either. I must have been outnumbered at lease 1.5:1. I was concerned about getting flanked ans so went ahead and weighted one side, while trying to stall on the other side to prevent my opponent from hitting me. In hindsight I should have thrown all tactics aside, moved forward in a big line and blasted through the Indians (regardless of troop type I would be facing) and simply cause overwhelming casualties before the flanks could be turned. Instead I tried all manner of stupid manuver, and still blasted through anything they contacted.
The rest of the guys playing said it was a bad match up, which I understand. But something still didn't seem right with the game. By the end, I was getting the hang of the pages of charts, modifiers, etc. and didn't need to look at them half the time. But I still think the game is a bit clumsy. Ar maybe, at best, it simply "lacks gracefulness."
On the other hand, I'd still like to give it another try. If nothing else, FoG has got me in the mood for big battle type games again. As enjoyable as WAB is as a bit more of a "beer & pretzles game" (in my opinion*), I'd like to play something that feels more like a large battle.
Along those lines, I also picked up a copy of Warmaster Ancients. I won a copy of their Warmaster Medieval suppliment at Cold Wars, so figured I should pick up the core book. I've played the original fantasy version of the game, which I enjoyed, and the historical version seems to have cleared up some of the spots I had a problem with. However I have not tried it yet, and there are new rules thrown into the mix, so I'd have to play a few games before knowing whether I'll like it or not.
* OK, maybe not the best term. But it's sometimes hard to take WAB seriously, especially at 2000 points or less. Once you have larger games it does start to look and feel more like a big battle. At lower point levels, small scale gimmicks or a bad roll of the dice can determine the outcome of the game. The flow of battle seems really fragmented. Like you've got a half dozen tiny, fairly manuverable pieces, and that's it. This isn't to say I dislike WAB. I enjoy it for what it is. (And it's also a good excuse to play the scale of all right thinking people: 25/28mm.)
Friday night I played my second game of Field of Glory. I had late Republican Romans, my opponent had Indians.
This time we used the terrain rules from the book, and my first impression of them is that they are typical of the rest of the rules: too heavy on rules, charts and dice rolls. It seemed way too involved to me, but I'm guessing it's aimed at a more competitive/tournament environment. The end result seemed to place too much terrain on the table, as well. I even chose two "open" options for terrain. I was lucky in the terrain "deployment" though, and a lot of it ended up in our deployment areas (especially my opponent's.)
After playing two games now, I'm picking up on a few things. Light cavalry, for example, seem useless for anything but pinning other troops in place while avoiding contact entirely. Roman legion seem to be a cruise missile troop type. Spanish Scutarii aren't too bad, either. I must have been outnumbered at lease 1.5:1. I was concerned about getting flanked ans so went ahead and weighted one side, while trying to stall on the other side to prevent my opponent from hitting me. In hindsight I should have thrown all tactics aside, moved forward in a big line and blasted through the Indians (regardless of troop type I would be facing) and simply cause overwhelming casualties before the flanks could be turned. Instead I tried all manner of stupid manuver, and still blasted through anything they contacted.
The rest of the guys playing said it was a bad match up, which I understand. But something still didn't seem right with the game. By the end, I was getting the hang of the pages of charts, modifiers, etc. and didn't need to look at them half the time. But I still think the game is a bit clumsy. Ar maybe, at best, it simply "lacks gracefulness."
On the other hand, I'd still like to give it another try. If nothing else, FoG has got me in the mood for big battle type games again. As enjoyable as WAB is as a bit more of a "beer & pretzles game" (in my opinion*), I'd like to play something that feels more like a large battle.
Along those lines, I also picked up a copy of Warmaster Ancients. I won a copy of their Warmaster Medieval suppliment at Cold Wars, so figured I should pick up the core book. I've played the original fantasy version of the game, which I enjoyed, and the historical version seems to have cleared up some of the spots I had a problem with. However I have not tried it yet, and there are new rules thrown into the mix, so I'd have to play a few games before knowing whether I'll like it or not.
* OK, maybe not the best term. But it's sometimes hard to take WAB seriously, especially at 2000 points or less. Once you have larger games it does start to look and feel more like a big battle. At lower point levels, small scale gimmicks or a bad roll of the dice can determine the outcome of the game. The flow of battle seems really fragmented. Like you've got a half dozen tiny, fairly manuverable pieces, and that's it. This isn't to say I dislike WAB. I enjoy it for what it is. (And it's also a good excuse to play the scale of all right thinking people: 25/28mm.)
13 April 2009
More WAB photos
More photos of the WAB tournaments at Cold Wars have been posted:
http://www.wabnews.com
Don walked by with the camera just in time to capture a typical moment in my second game. This is one of those moments where Duncan needed to roll 6's to hit me...
http://news.vinceshomepage.com/NEWS/RP/WABplayers_2009CW/images/IMG_2703.jpg
;)
http://www.wabnews.com
Don walked by with the camera just in time to capture a typical moment in my second game. This is one of those moments where Duncan needed to roll 6's to hit me...
http://news.vinceshomepage.com/NEWS/RP/WABplayers_2009CW/images/IMG_2703.jpg
;)
08 April 2009
Mini-Sculpt
The short version...
I met with the guys from Black Orc Games, who I've discovered are only about an hour away from where I live.
They have this "Mini-Sculpt" deal, which allows sculptors (including non-professionals) to have their figures cast, get some of them back and . So I brought down some thing I had sculpted in the not so recent past, and discussed casting. I also brought some of my one-off sculpts for some critique, casting questions, etc. They were very helpful and seem interested in my figures, so I may have some figures in production in the future. I'm sure I'll post more info here as it develops.
I think this is a cool opportunity for someone who's still learning & refining their sculpting. I've been away from the green-stuff for a little while, so this has renewed my interest a bit. I've had a few ideas floating around in my head, so I hope I can get some time to work on them soon.
I met with the guys from Black Orc Games, who I've discovered are only about an hour away from where I live.
They have this "Mini-Sculpt" deal, which allows sculptors (including non-professionals) to have their figures cast, get some of them back and . So I brought down some thing I had sculpted in the not so recent past, and discussed casting. I also brought some of my one-off sculpts for some critique, casting questions, etc. They were very helpful and seem interested in my figures, so I may have some figures in production in the future. I'm sure I'll post more info here as it develops.
I think this is a cool opportunity for someone who's still learning & refining their sculpting. I've been away from the green-stuff for a little while, so this has renewed my interest a bit. I've had a few ideas floating around in my head, so I hope I can get some time to work on them soon.
30 March 2009
Spanish Slingers
Took a break from painting for a friend to do a few figures I picked up at Cold Wars. This is a pack of Spanish slingers from Crusader Miniatures. I'll probably add one of the figures from the ceatrati command pack to round the unit off to 9 figures.
I'm of a bit mixed opinion on the figures. For the most part I like them. Nice, clean sculpts. Decent proportions. But some of the faces seem a bit... Old Glory-ish. The eyes are sculpted well, but on one of the figures they are offset (one is higher than the other,) for example. The casting could have been a little better. No flash, but fairly prominent mould lines.
I'm now curious to see how some of the other Crusader figures look. I may have to do the caetrati next -- though I really need to finish the Romans and quit playing around with the fringe troops. ;)
I'm of a bit mixed opinion on the figures. For the most part I like them. Nice, clean sculpts. Decent proportions. But some of the faces seem a bit... Old Glory-ish. The eyes are sculpted well, but on one of the figures they are offset (one is higher than the other,) for example. The casting could have been a little better. No flash, but fairly prominent mould lines.
I'm now curious to see how some of the other Crusader figures look. I may have to do the caetrati next -- though I really need to finish the Romans and quit playing around with the fringe troops. ;)
29 March 2009
WotR Plastics
This has got me excited:
http://theminiaturespage.com/news/3926/
I've been hoping for some plastic medievals.
http://theminiaturespage.com/news/3926/
I've been hoping for some plastic medievals.
24 March 2009
More barbarians
Finally had some time to finish some more Celts & Germans, as I keep writing.
As always, click the photos to enlarge.
First is a comparison photo showing some figures I recently recieved, Celts from Wargames Factory and Renegade, and early Germans from BTD. I tried to include a couple different figures from each manufacturer, like the "fat guy" body from WF, and a command figure from Renegade. I should have included a shield armed figure from WF, but there are a couple in the next pic, below.
Styalistically, they're all over the place. WF seems to be going with smaller, more natural proportions, Renegade with an exaggerated "Cabbage Patch Kid" look, and BTD is somewhere in the middle. Each has its advantages. "Fat guy" aside, WF look the least cartoony, but then some of the detail is so small that it's more difficult to paint quickly, whereas the minimal detail and large surfaces on the Renegade figures paint up easy (with a larger brush, even.) Since I use more layering than washes when painting, the larger surfaces also allow a smoother gradient on the Renegade figures.
Still, as much as I like large detail (as previously mentioned in regards to the Foundry early Germans), the Renegade Celts start to step beyond the line as far as the "cartoony" look goes. (In their defence, however, I love the WWI Early War French that I got from them. But that's for another day...)
As I excitedly mentioned when I got them, I really like the BTD Germans. They've got a nice balance between detail and paintability. I think the Germans are more cleanly sculpted and better posed than their Celts (photos posted previously.) I prefer the Foundry shields, but I can live with these. I particularly like the pose on the guy on the right. My initial feelings about this line haven't really changed. I really like them and wouldn't mind picking up a few (hundred) more, but I'm wary about the delivery issues.
As far as the Celts go, here's a few more I painted at the same time I painted all the figures above...
As mentioned, they've got some smaller details/proportions. This isn't necessesarily a bad thing. Compare the swords, for example, to the mortar trowel the Renegade guy is carrying. (For this reason, I only ordered the Renegade spearmen.) So I like the proportions of the hands, standard, shields, etc. They work well. I think the spears that are part of some of the shields could have had slightly smaller shafts, but I just cut down the one in the second guy from the left, above. I also liked the variety and extras on the sprues. I really liked that there were a variety of weapons, including slings, in the kit. Something I hadn't thought of, but I also liked that a couple of the javelins look like little more than fire hardened pointed sticks. Simple, but nice touch.
When I stopped by the WF table at Cold Wars and talked with Tony & Howard, my first comment was that I didn't care for the seams at the arms. They are especialy noticable on the bare chested guys. But when I looked at the samples they had on their table, the seams were un-noticable. I asked about it and was taught the trick of brushing a little liquid cement over the joint, so I will have to try it. (I've always used the cheap tube stuff, though a friend has tried to get me to switch before.) This is the second or third "trick" I've learned with the WF figures. This may partially be because I'm more familiar with metal figures, but it seems that there's a small learning curve to getting the most out of plastic figures. Trimming the neck and occasionally the waist (noticed that on the zombies) really makes a big difference. It's a quick/easy fix because of the plastic, but still something I didn't initially think of.
Although in some places they seem to have improved on the depth & crispness of detail over the previously released Romans, I found the Celts to still have some issues with this, and the detail was a a bit inconsistant. The heads are the most noticible thing for me. Some of them look absolutely great. It may be hard to see in a photo, but I really liked the heads on the two outside figures in the pic above. Very nice detail, well proportioned, east to paint. The second guy from the left, though, had pretty much smooth hair. Strangely enough, I just painted a base color and then dropped a thin wash over it and it actually looks pretty good. But I would still prefer actual hair. They recently posted a pic of a WSS figure that looks like it's got better hair, so I'm hoping they're still improving on this. But still, I would have liked all the heads on the sprue to be consistant. Some of the eyes seemed a bit weird too. The head in the center looks a bit Muppet-y because of eyes too close together.
The other detail issue I had was the belts. They were just so small and detailed that it would/will get a bit annoying painting an army of them. Like the hair, it's just another point at which a little exaggeration and "cartoonyness" helps someone painting a pile of figures.
That actually brings me to something I mentioned in my review of the WF Romans -- that I think a lot of criticism is coming from people who haven't seen the figures. I will agree that the detail is a bit shallow in places, and as I state above, I've got my share of criticisms. But they're actually fairly detailed models in many places (with the exception of some places like the lack of hair I mention above). But just as I said that it's a bit of a pain to paint tiny & subtle details (more proportional to reality than the exaggeration of most 25/28mm figures), it just doesn't show in the pics. Take a look at the renders on the WF page. There's a whole lot of detail that would probably show up great if they were 1:1 scale models. So I think some of the criticism of the sculptors is a bit unwarrented, or at least misdirected. In my humble opinion, it's more a lack of translation from full size down to a 1" tall figure than a lack of talent for sculpting humans. Almost like the opposite end of the Renegade comments I made above, in which the exaggerations go too far.
So my now longwinded review ends similarly to the Roman review. After meeting the WF guys in person, I wanted to give the new figures a glowing review. But realistically, what I can say is that although they've made some steps forward, over the previous Romans (which I actually prefer due to stylitic reasons) in terms of detail, extras, variety, etc., I think there's still room for improvement. But once again, for the price, I think the figures are hard to beat. I still think these are better than their Old Glory counterparts, for example, which are actually more expensive. Anyone expecting Foundry quality is once again looking in the wrong place, but one should hardly expect that at like 1/6 the cost. (Actually, I'm not fond of the new Foundry Celts from what I can tell from their pics. I'd get some to examine them in person, but I'm too cheap to buy from them anymore, unless it's one of their uber-deals on figures I already know are good. I assume they don't send samples anymore.)
Compared to their competition for plastic Celts at Warlord Games, I think they've both got their pros & cons that put them fairly even, in my opinion. I think that one of the only advantages Warlord has is their detail. But that's a fairly important factor. Wargames Factory, on the otherhand is less expensive, has better poses, more variety and more "bits" in their kit, and less contorted orc/GW "waaagh!" faces. ;) After I paint the entire box of WF Celts I may have more to say about it. The annoying poses on the Warlord Celts was enough to keep me from buying any more, from a practical wargaming stantpoint, but I didn't see that until I painted a full box.
As always, click the photos to enlarge.
First is a comparison photo showing some figures I recently recieved, Celts from Wargames Factory and Renegade, and early Germans from BTD. I tried to include a couple different figures from each manufacturer, like the "fat guy" body from WF, and a command figure from Renegade. I should have included a shield armed figure from WF, but there are a couple in the next pic, below.
Styalistically, they're all over the place. WF seems to be going with smaller, more natural proportions, Renegade with an exaggerated "Cabbage Patch Kid" look, and BTD is somewhere in the middle. Each has its advantages. "Fat guy" aside, WF look the least cartoony, but then some of the detail is so small that it's more difficult to paint quickly, whereas the minimal detail and large surfaces on the Renegade figures paint up easy (with a larger brush, even.) Since I use more layering than washes when painting, the larger surfaces also allow a smoother gradient on the Renegade figures.
Still, as much as I like large detail (as previously mentioned in regards to the Foundry early Germans), the Renegade Celts start to step beyond the line as far as the "cartoony" look goes. (In their defence, however, I love the WWI Early War French that I got from them. But that's for another day...)
As I excitedly mentioned when I got them, I really like the BTD Germans. They've got a nice balance between detail and paintability. I think the Germans are more cleanly sculpted and better posed than their Celts (photos posted previously.) I prefer the Foundry shields, but I can live with these. I particularly like the pose on the guy on the right. My initial feelings about this line haven't really changed. I really like them and wouldn't mind picking up a few (hundred) more, but I'm wary about the delivery issues.
As far as the Celts go, here's a few more I painted at the same time I painted all the figures above...
As mentioned, they've got some smaller details/proportions. This isn't necessesarily a bad thing. Compare the swords, for example, to the mortar trowel the Renegade guy is carrying. (For this reason, I only ordered the Renegade spearmen.) So I like the proportions of the hands, standard, shields, etc. They work well. I think the spears that are part of some of the shields could have had slightly smaller shafts, but I just cut down the one in the second guy from the left, above. I also liked the variety and extras on the sprues. I really liked that there were a variety of weapons, including slings, in the kit. Something I hadn't thought of, but I also liked that a couple of the javelins look like little more than fire hardened pointed sticks. Simple, but nice touch.
When I stopped by the WF table at Cold Wars and talked with Tony & Howard, my first comment was that I didn't care for the seams at the arms. They are especialy noticable on the bare chested guys. But when I looked at the samples they had on their table, the seams were un-noticable. I asked about it and was taught the trick of brushing a little liquid cement over the joint, so I will have to try it. (I've always used the cheap tube stuff, though a friend has tried to get me to switch before.) This is the second or third "trick" I've learned with the WF figures. This may partially be because I'm more familiar with metal figures, but it seems that there's a small learning curve to getting the most out of plastic figures. Trimming the neck and occasionally the waist (noticed that on the zombies) really makes a big difference. It's a quick/easy fix because of the plastic, but still something I didn't initially think of.
Although in some places they seem to have improved on the depth & crispness of detail over the previously released Romans, I found the Celts to still have some issues with this, and the detail was a a bit inconsistant. The heads are the most noticible thing for me. Some of them look absolutely great. It may be hard to see in a photo, but I really liked the heads on the two outside figures in the pic above. Very nice detail, well proportioned, east to paint. The second guy from the left, though, had pretty much smooth hair. Strangely enough, I just painted a base color and then dropped a thin wash over it and it actually looks pretty good. But I would still prefer actual hair. They recently posted a pic of a WSS figure that looks like it's got better hair, so I'm hoping they're still improving on this. But still, I would have liked all the heads on the sprue to be consistant. Some of the eyes seemed a bit weird too. The head in the center looks a bit Muppet-y because of eyes too close together.
The other detail issue I had was the belts. They were just so small and detailed that it would/will get a bit annoying painting an army of them. Like the hair, it's just another point at which a little exaggeration and "cartoonyness" helps someone painting a pile of figures.
That actually brings me to something I mentioned in my review of the WF Romans -- that I think a lot of criticism is coming from people who haven't seen the figures. I will agree that the detail is a bit shallow in places, and as I state above, I've got my share of criticisms. But they're actually fairly detailed models in many places (with the exception of some places like the lack of hair I mention above). But just as I said that it's a bit of a pain to paint tiny & subtle details (more proportional to reality than the exaggeration of most 25/28mm figures), it just doesn't show in the pics. Take a look at the renders on the WF page. There's a whole lot of detail that would probably show up great if they were 1:1 scale models. So I think some of the criticism of the sculptors is a bit unwarrented, or at least misdirected. In my humble opinion, it's more a lack of translation from full size down to a 1" tall figure than a lack of talent for sculpting humans. Almost like the opposite end of the Renegade comments I made above, in which the exaggerations go too far.
So my now longwinded review ends similarly to the Roman review. After meeting the WF guys in person, I wanted to give the new figures a glowing review. But realistically, what I can say is that although they've made some steps forward, over the previous Romans (which I actually prefer due to stylitic reasons) in terms of detail, extras, variety, etc., I think there's still room for improvement. But once again, for the price, I think the figures are hard to beat. I still think these are better than their Old Glory counterparts, for example, which are actually more expensive. Anyone expecting Foundry quality is once again looking in the wrong place, but one should hardly expect that at like 1/6 the cost. (Actually, I'm not fond of the new Foundry Celts from what I can tell from their pics. I'd get some to examine them in person, but I'm too cheap to buy from them anymore, unless it's one of their uber-deals on figures I already know are good. I assume they don't send samples anymore.)
Compared to their competition for plastic Celts at Warlord Games, I think they've both got their pros & cons that put them fairly even, in my opinion. I think that one of the only advantages Warlord has is their detail. But that's a fairly important factor. Wargames Factory, on the otherhand is less expensive, has better poses, more variety and more "bits" in their kit, and less contorted orc/GW "waaagh!" faces. ;) After I paint the entire box of WF Celts I may have more to say about it. The annoying poses on the Warlord Celts was enough to keep me from buying any more, from a practical wargaming stantpoint, but I didn't see that until I painted a full box.
Haha!
In light of my last entry, I've got to post this link:
http://iron-mitten.blogspot.com/2009/03/does-size-matter.html
For a bit of an earlier conversation (blogversation?), AT-AT joke here:
http://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2009/03/completed-galatian-mercenaries.html
:)
I'm still debating what to do about my Renegade cavalry. I definitely like the infantry, but I'm just not sure about keeping the cav.
Running behind on the pics I mentioned a few days ago. They will definitely be posted later tonight.
http://iron-mitten.blogspot.com/2009/03/does-size-matter.html
For a bit of an earlier conversation (blogversation?), AT-AT joke here:
http://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2009/03/completed-galatian-mercenaries.html
:)
I'm still debating what to do about my Renegade cavalry. I definitely like the infantry, but I'm just not sure about keeping the cav.
Running behind on the pics I mentioned a few days ago. They will definitely be posted later tonight.
22 March 2009
Ancients horse comparison
I'm taking a break from alternating between painting (should have new pics later tonight - maybe tomorrow at the latest) and chores around the house. I figured I would take a quickie pic showing the scale comparison between Foundry early German cavalry, Crusader Numidian cavalry, and Renegade Celtic cavalry.
As always, click the photo to enlarge.
Granted, the Germans were supposed to ride mangy little horses. So maybe they're OK if they look a bit small. Compared to the Renegade Celt, though, the two look like completely different scales. The Crusader is a nice between scale.
All three are well sculpted (further review/comparison on that in the future.)
One more complaint about the Renegade, however. Most of the figures (not the one depicted) have cloaks that interfere with the back ridge along the saddle. I'll either have to cut the backs of most of the saddles off, or somehow drill/rout out a space underneath the cloak so the riders can fit without their asses"floating" above the saddle.
Actually, two more complaints about the Renegade. I haven't sorted out all 18 cavalry on the table, but in digging around in the bags it seems that all 18 horses are identical. I was a little disappointed with only two poses from Crusader, but a single horse pose will be significantly more disappointing if it's true.
As always, click the photo to enlarge.
Granted, the Germans were supposed to ride mangy little horses. So maybe they're OK if they look a bit small. Compared to the Renegade Celt, though, the two look like completely different scales. The Crusader is a nice between scale.
All three are well sculpted (further review/comparison on that in the future.)
One more complaint about the Renegade, however. Most of the figures (not the one depicted) have cloaks that interfere with the back ridge along the saddle. I'll either have to cut the backs of most of the saddles off, or somehow drill/rout out a space underneath the cloak so the riders can fit without their asses"floating" above the saddle.
Actually, two more complaints about the Renegade. I haven't sorted out all 18 cavalry on the table, but in digging around in the bags it seems that all 18 horses are identical. I was a little disappointed with only two poses from Crusader, but a single horse pose will be significantly more disappointing if it's true.
21 March 2009
Battle of Gavere
I just read about the Battle of Gavere (1453) where the rebellious Ghent army was defeated when a panic spread through the ranks like a wave due to a stray spark igniting a stash of powder for their artillery.
My wargamer's mind immediately jumped to similar situations I've seen on the table, and I thought, "Wow, it sucks failing that many panic tests when your light gun rolls a misfire in the first turn."
My wargamer's mind immediately jumped to similar situations I've seen on the table, and I thought, "Wow, it sucks failing that many panic tests when your light gun rolls a misfire in the first turn."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)