SPALDING WARGAMING CLUB
Soldiers trudging into position in great formations, with banners billowing in the breeze. Cavalry wheeling round the flanks, harrying the enemy. Archers letting loose a hail of death. The horn is sounded and the charge begins; the crush of combat rages as walls of shields and spears collide. Like many wargamers, the imagery above sends waves of excitement through me. And it's a feeling Warhammer Ancient Battles, a game of waging war with historical armies, stirs. TV shows and films depicting battle as it was in the 'old days', in pre-industrialised times, have held a grisly fascination for me since I was a small boy. As I made the first steps into Games Workshop's universe, I was always drawn to the fantasy armies; preferring swords and shields to the mechanical madness of the 41st millennium. This was as much inspired by the rich imaginings of Tolkien than the prospect of pre-industrial carnage on the tabletop. But even in those early days of exploring the hobby, there was always a lingering idea that, instead of orcs, elves and dwarves, what if it was 'real-world' warriors? Where every model on the tabletop represented someone that could have been an actual person, from the historically well-documented leaders down to the lowly footsoldiers? There is a certain frisson that fighting a battle with models that represent real people has. Yes, we all love a brutal orc or a power-armour-clad Space Marine, but it's the relatability of humans on the tabletop, people just like you and me, that draws me into historical-based games. Unlike a genetically-altered space warrior of the far future and the haughty elf whose psychologies are alien to ours, with armies of humans you can easily imagine what the little guys on the tabletop are thinking (or would be thinking if they were real people, of course). Maybe the leaders are focusing on the intrigues and plots that lead to the confrontation on the field and what it would mean if they were to lose. Whereas the lowly footsoldiers are missing their homelands and the loved ones they might never see again, quaking in their boots. I love imagining what might be going on inside their little plastic or metal heads; it fascinates me. There is also the thrill of changing history. In late 2018, Spalding Wargames Club re-fought the Battle of Hastings using Warhammer Ancient Battles. In that game, Duke William was not so much a conqueror but conquered. The moment the Norman warlord fell, the whoops of delight from the Saxon players and the laments from the defeated Norman side echoed through the hall. What made the moment even more amusing was that William was slain not by King Harold or even an elite huscarl warrior, but by humble ceorls: low-born farmers with only a vague idea of how to use a spear. However, you don't have to be completely historically accurate with Warhammer Ancient Battles. Want to know how late Imperial Romans would fare against the English forces that fought at Agincourt? Could a Biblical Egyptian force take on the horse warriors of the Huns and win? Get the armies together and duke it out to find out. It doesn't have to be a historical re-fight every time. Just have fun. Samurai vs Conquistadors! Wait, this actually happened: in 1582 in the Philippines.
The game's 1st print in 1998 was based heavily on Warhammer Fantasy 5th edition, just with the magic removed, but the 2nd edition (from 2010) has moved further away. The 2nd edition (right) is hardback, better laid out but slightly scales back the influence of 'special' individuals It is a game largely based on manoeuvring large formations of troops. Each represents a band of warriors in your army; whether an unruly rabble of Celtic clansmen or the disciplined ranks of Roman legionaries The way units move, wheeling and shifting frontage, gives an impression of the unwieldy nature of moving around big formations of closely formed warriors. It gives a taste of the real life challenge of positioning soldiers on a battlefield for tactical advantage. Moving troops is a crucial part of the game; it can win and lose battles 28mm is the assumed scale of miniature to be used, but slight alterations can be made to the rules to allow different size miniatures. It is deliberately ambiguous on whether one model equates to a single warrior on the battlefield. This facilitates lower model counts to be used to re-fight historical battles that involved numbers a mere mortal could not possibly collect in a lifetime (never mind have the room to play with on a regular table). But individual figures matter: standard bearers, musicians and officers have specific advantages that make them quirky and add to atmosphere. A single infantryman or cavalry model represents maybe three or four individuals on the field. The way units move on the tabletop certainly gives an impression of a more epic, larger scale. But no matter how you imagine it, there is no effect on the way the game plays. Despite units feeling big and weighty when they are moved on the tabletop, there is still a lot of sway and back-and-forth actions that happen in the game. Units are not locked in combat, grinding away at each other until one side is eventually wiped out. A group of warriors can suffer a thrashing, taking numerous casualties, and lose its nerve on a failed morale check and be forced to flee from the fight. Their enemies can then pursue, having a chance to hack the running cowards down. If the fleeing troops manage to outrun their pursuers, they can form up again, ready to step back into the fight There are situations where a unit can be utterly crushed in combat, yet miraculously pass its morale test and stand firm in the face of astounding odds. It's moments like these that really stand out in the game. So a cavalry unit could make a sweeping charge and wipe out a group of troops to then thunder on and clash with the heart of an army's formation. Or it could collide with a wall of shields and spears that proves unmovable and find themselves being repelled. Astute tactics and taking the right risks pays off here. But sometimes you are just subject to the luck the dice gods gift you (just as in many wargames). It keeps the game exciting, as not even the most experienced tabletop general can be entirely sure of the outcome of any assault Although choosing the right units to take on all opponents is a part of the game, it's more about having the right balance of troop type. There are no intrinsically over-powered 'races' – everyone's a human, no matter who you are fighting (apart from perhaps horses and war elephants of course) There are no massively powerful individual models either, there are no 'bring this model if you want to win the game' options. No one in history had the strength to tear through iron armour like butter! Even the strongest and greatest warriors were merely flesh and blood, with the real world limitations that go with that. The focus really is on tactics on the tabletop, rather than choices made before the battle even begins. Sourcebooks help you recreate particular armies or historic conflicts Unlike its sister game, Warhammer Fantasy Battles, Warhammer Ancient Battles pays greater attention to weapons and their effects on the field. There are no game changing magic weapons. Warhammer Ancient Battles also runs a bit quicker than the fantasy equivalent as it forgoes that game's Magic phase, for obvious reasons. This means the turnover from one player to another is so much quicker.
No sign of snow as of writing, but my gaming tastes are running to the hibernal, so... it's time for winter-themed games! Frostgrave is my first thought for a wintery wargame. This is a fantasy skirmish game, reminiscent of GW's old Mordheim setting and premise: you are a 'warband' of unscrupulous types ransacking a ruined city infested with traps, horrors and other antisocial raiders. Frostgrave scores big on theme. The setting is Felstad, an ancient city that has been a frozen necropolis for 1000 years thanks to an ancient curse. Yup, arrogant wizards brought down a civilization-squashing blizzard on their empire. Now the city is thawing and wretched barbarians (you, the players) are trying to plunder the city for loot and magical technology. Frostgrave is popular for its fluid combat mechanics and the simple device whereby the wizard levels up but the disposable mooks don't. However, a big part of its charm is the setting itself: Felstad is part frozen tomb, part gladiatorial arena, part gigantic dungeon. Scenery can be treated with snow and icicles to bring out the atmosphere of ancient death. Brr-rr-r. The other appeal is that, although there are official Frostgrave miniatures and terrain, it's a game ripe for cannibalizing other products. Any fantasy miniatures can make up a warband. WWII scenery and terrain gets adapted for Felstad, as well as product lines like Ruins of Daldorr, but there's been healthy cross-pollination with Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40K, which also feature battles in ruined cities. The frosty battle mat for Frostgrave has inspired 40K players to visit a slightly different setting: the death world of Fenris, where the Space Wolves have been battling Chaos Space Marines and a demon horde led by Magnus the Red. Epic stuff on any battlefield, but all the better on an Icelandic landscape of volcanic vents and freezing snow. It's nice that the Space Wolves vary from the standard marine template, what with their beards, furry cloaks and big Thunderwolf hounds. Of course, the definitive winter battle for me is Hoth, where the Empire assaults the rebel base in The Empire Strikes Back (1980). Star Wars: X-Wing seems to be crying out for the action to descend from the generic reaches of space to the chilly atmosphere of Hoth. Just stretch out a crisp white sheet on your gaming table and you're done. Actually, other gamers are well ahead of me and have worked out several scenarios for playing missions around the Battle of Hoth. Historical battles in snowy conditions are a bit rarer (campaigning season is the summer, right?) but there are examples crying out to be brought to the table. First of all, the Winter War (1939-40) in which Finnish troops resisted Soviet advances - notably the Battle of Suomussalmi where a small Finnish force used the frozen terrain to defeat a vastly large invading army (albeit one poorly equipped for the weather and with most of its effective officers recently purged by Uncle Joe). Bolt Action could do a good job here, with a few house rules for fighting on frozen lakes and cool Finnish ski troops zipping around! If you want to break out Test of Honour this Christmas, you could re-enact the Siege of Osaka (1614), which finally established the Shogunate by breaking the last resistance from the Toyotomi Clan. The winter campaign features some great set-pieces, such as 600 men defending a village against the Shogun's larger force armed with arquebuses and heroic last stands on the Sanada-maru earthworks - all to defend a big brass bell inscribed with coded curses directed at the Shogun. A bit further back, there are some great battles-on-ice in the medieval period. In 1242, Alexander Nevsky led the forces of Novgorod to victory over the invading Teutonic Knights (engaged in a doomed 'crusade' against Lithuanian pagans and Orthodox Christians). The "Battle on the Ice" put a stop to the Crusade and cemented Nevsky's reputation as a national hero. And you can listen to Prokofiev's epic score while you're playing: music that pierces your soul with chilly menace and heroism. Wait till the Slavic choir kicks in at 2:25....! Further back still, Norse sagas and the poem Beowulf record Battle on the Ice of Lake Vänern in the 6th century. The brothers Eanmund and Eadgils enlist Beowulf's tribe, the Geats, to recover the throne of Sweden from their usurping uncle Onela (reminds me of Hamlet... or am I thinking of The Lion King). In the battle Eadgils kills Onela - but here we have early Vikings fighting on ice and one of them is Beowulf!!! Would Saga be the best game for this? Saga features a campaign pack for 'Aetius & Arthur' (the Dark Ages proper) which is about right for Beowulf, date-wise - but the game also has an 'Age of Vikings' set which would look cooler, even if a bit anachronistic for the 6th century (Vikings are a few hundred years later). Board games are a bit easier to reference, because they choose a wintry setting precisely for theme and the obstacles it creates. Take Dead of Winter: A Crossroads Game. This is a fantastic zombie holocaust game with a fresh twist. The zombie plague has already happened, but you play survivors in a walled compound and winter has arrived. You have a mission to accomplish which sens you on trips out of the colony, scavenging for fuel, food, medicine or weapons. Meanwhile, the undead gather in greater and greater numbers, forcing you to build barricades. This would be a good enough game as it is, but there are two fantastic twists. First, every time you take your turn someone else draws a Crossroads Card which creates a dilemma for you: welcome in fugitives or turn them away? crack down on mutineers or back down from conflict? celebrate Christmas or stick to strict rationing? Secondly, although the game is cooperative, everyone has a personal mission that forces them to act against the interests of the group: maybe you're hoarding medicine for your sick daughter or holding onto weapons so you can strike out by yourself when things go south... The constant pressure of the undead, the weather and the need to find food gets ratcheted up by the fact that you can't entirely trust each other. This game is very hard to win, but so much fun you don't mind losing. Other games just have winter variants. There's a Winter Carcassonne, that lets you build your vast medieval city in a snowy season rather than creating an expanse of green fields. It looks cute (arguably, better than the original) but it's purely cosmetic: the game plays the same. Since it's so pretty, you might choose to get this version of Cacassonne instead of the original but beware if you get the Carcassonne bug (and for some reason people do) you might not enjoy mixing these winter tiles with the summer ones in the various expansions. Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries brings this classic game out of the USA and lets you spread your railway (rather than railroad) tendrils across Scandinavia and Finland. This is also a stand-alone version of the game but it is significantly different from the original: ferries play a major role in setting up routes, it's only for 2-3 players and the geography leads to more aggressive play. I'm not the biggest fan of Ticket To Ride (I think you have to be one of those train-fans really to get into this game), but this grittier, nastier version of the game might appeal to me more.
Last up, two favourites Winter Tales is a complete oddity: a storytelling game with competing teams. Snow White has become as evil a queen as her stepmother and, assisted by the larcenous White Rabbit and the Big Bad Wolf as her enforcer, she has subjected Wintertown to a fascistic regime. The resistance, led by Pinocchio, the elderly Dorothy of Oz and various other magical outcasts, is trying to bring her down. Yup, it's fairytale characters doing bloody civil war. The board is BEE-YOO-TIFUL and you play the game by telling stories using cards with scribblings by ACTUAL Italian children. Mistfall is a cooperative deckbuilder fantasy quest game. The setting is the Valskyrr, an evocative northern wilderness (fantasy Poland, basically) and a corrupting entity called 'the Mists' is raising the undead, mutating the beasts and demonizing the wizardry. Out you go on a series of quests to drive back the Mists. The gameplay is dense and challenging and each character is utterly distinctive but the real star is the setting itself with its rime-crusted towers, glacial vistas and frosty forests. Brr-rr-r. One more blog to go then it's Christmas.
Chris Peat's long-awaited Battle of Hastings wargame took place last night, recreating the events of 14 October, 1066, but with a rather different outcome. Alec and Tom commanded the English, reversing history's verdict by smashing Chris and Dave, who commanded the invading Normans. The battlefield was amazing. I think it's safe to say a higher power was with Tom and I this evening and the travesty of the original result was well and truly redressed - Alec Alec's view of the historical Norman victory as a 'travesty' is a popular one, but Duke William seems to have earned his triumph through a combination of snake-like guile, military experience and sheer political chutzpah that would do any wargamer proud. And probably a bit of luck too. Maybe we think of it as a 'travesty' because we imagine the Normans to be French and think of this as a defeat at the hands of the Old Enemy. And indeed, French were present on the right flank of William's army, with Bretons on the left. But the Normans were odder than that. The Normans were the descendants of enterprising Vikings who had carved out a Duchy for themselves a century earlier. By William's time, the Normans ('North-men') were Christians, but they retained their ancestors' affinity for hare-brained violence and whacky haircuts and, as far as the French were concerned, there was always something a bit 'off' about them. Really, the events of 1066 were about the attempts of various Scandinavian nobles to seize the legacy of the Norse King of England, Cnut the Great. That's why the English King Harold Godwinson had to see off Norwegians at Stamford Bridge before he could deal with William at Hastings. Harold Godwinson's claim to the throne was pretty sketchy too. The super-wealthy Earl of Wessex, he was the richest man in England: a sort of 11th century Richard Branson (if Branson was 6 feet tall with the athletic grace of a young Nureyev and the easy power of Ali coming out in the first round...). His father Godwin had been a kingmaker and Harold wanted to go a step further. When Edward the Confessor died childless, he left the country under the 'protection' of Harold. Vague enough - and Harold quickly got himself crowned on the back of this testimonial (not unlike Branson, whose headmaster told him he'd either end up in prison or be a millionaire). Still, lots of the great and the good in England saw Harold as an upstart. But what availed so many valuable gifts, when good faith, the foundation of all virtues, was wanting? - Oderic the Chronicler sticks it to Harold (and Richard Branson) Harold's gift for shooting his mouth off and promising all sorts of things to all sorts of people was going to rebound against him. A couple of years earlier, he'd been shipwrecked and found himself the guest (= prisoner) of Duke William of Normandy. Supposedly, Harold had promised William his support in getting the English throne. If Harold was Richard Branson, then William was Donald Trump, except that William was 5'10" and ridiculously strong with a voice like the guy who does horror movie trailers. Once news of Harold's coronation reached Normandy, William went into a frenzied campaign of slurs and fake news, representing Harold as an oathbreaker, his coronation a usurping of the throne and the bishop in charge of it a heretic. William got the support of the Pope (who sent a funky banner), the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of Sweden - so maybe not like Trump at all then.
The two forces that met on that October morning were well-matched. Historians think William's forces numbered 10,000 and Harold's 7000, but Harold had a great defensive position and his men were fighting for the homeland, whereas William's troops included lots of mercenaries. The main difference was fighting style: the English kept to the tried-and-trusted strategy of a shield wall stocked with axemen and a few archers to spice things up: William brought with him newfangled cavalry, with those weird stirrups they'd pinched from the Muslims. Probably, though, military experience was decisive and William had this in spades, whereas Harold was fundamentally a Christmas-tree-and-budgerigar salesmen made good (or was that Richard Branson...?). Instead of staying on the higher ground, the English charged after the retreating Norman knights. It was a feint, of course, and the English fell for this time after time. Once Harold died (probably not shot in the eye, but chopped to messes by William and his knights), the English morale collapsed, although Harold's hearth-companions fought a doomed last stand around his corpse. [William] demonstrated – not without difficulty – the superiority of Norman-French mixed cavalry and infantry tactics over the Germanic-Scandinavian infantry traditions of the Anglo-Saxons - historian David Nicolle on Hastings (and, perhaps, Brexit) The rest, of course, is history: fast-forward to Christmas Day and William is being crowned in Westminster Abbey. Over in East Anglia (Harold's stomping ground, before he inherited Wessex), one Hereward the Wake will lead a romantic but doomed resistance to the all-conquering Normans. Maybe Chris will set up the Siege of Ely (1071) for a future game? But it wasn't all bad, was it? The Normans gave us archery and centralised government and a decent tax system. In return, the English kept their word for 'knight' (Anglo-Saxon 'cniht' instead of the French 'chevalier' which tells you something) and within a generation, the sons of Norman conquerors were growing beards and wearing their hair long and wavy, to the despair of their parents who thought they looked like girls... or - wait for it - Richard Branson!
|
|