Fearsome Boomsticks of War

Second only to my love of slingers, I have a strong affinity for those crude, awkward, smokey, fearsome boomsticks of war: the medieval handgonne. I think they share with slings that aura of primitive ersatz simplicity.  As the first hand-held gunpowder weapons, they're direct ancestors of today's small arms. We've gone from handgonne to S-Mart's top of the line and it only took about six centuries.

The Handgonne at War

Gunpowder came into European warfare in the 13th century. Where it came from is still a matter of debate. Conventional wisdom in the 19th c. claimed that it originated in China and came through Middle East trade routes or perhaps in the Mongol invasion ca. 1240.

Unconventional wisdom in the 18th c. had it that gunpowder was discovered accidentally by a German monk/alchemist named Berthold Schwarz who was trying to cook up something else when the crock-pot exploded. However, there is no evidence that Berthold Schwarz ever existed.

Brother Berthold discovers gunpowder, to his dismay

Roger Bacon's treatise De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturae is the first mention in writing of the formula for gunpowder. Bacon's formula was 7 parts saltpeter, 5 parts sulfur, and 5 parts charcoal, in case you're dying to know. That works out to 41.2% saltpeter, 29.4% sulfur, and 29.4% charcoal. By comparison, the gunpowder the British army used in the 18th c. is 75% saltpeter, 10% sulfur, and 15% charcoal, which is near to the ideal formula. Bacon's formula burns too slowly and doesn't provide enough propulsion.

It's the propulsive properties of gunpowder that sparked a revolution. Artillery was invented first, but ribauldequins, which were carts mounting several very small cannon, inspired the handgonne, which was simply one of these small cannons, mounted on a short pole that could be managed by one man. Ten guys with handgonnes were tactically more versatile than one ribauldequin with ten barrels.

The majority opinion is that a handgonne was a terribly inaccurate weapon due to it lacking any aiming features, as well as the need to hold it in one hand while using a fuse held in the other hand to ignite it. But modern reenactors have shown that the opinion is mostly false and pointed out that other hand-held missile weapons, such as bows, crossbows, slings, and javelins, lack aiming features also but users can achieve incredible accuracy nevertheless.

Swedish reenactors shooting a handgonne

Early handgonnes were nothing more than a metal tube with a touch-hole at the breech end mounted on a wooden pole (called a tiller). The ignition came from a slow-match or hot wire being applied to the touch-hole, which set off the main charge. Projectiles were arrows or crossbow quarrels, lead or clay bullets, or small rocks. No patching was used, so the propulsion was diminished and the muzzle velocity attenuated quickly. However, a hit at close range (about 25 paces) could easily penetrate armor. Though much is made of the smoke and noise being a fear factor, the reality is that once troops were seasoned, they would be less afraid. Still, gunpowder and gunpowder weapons were considered something dark for quite a while after their introduction to warfare.

Death shoots a pale handgonne

As the technology advanced, handgonnes began to look more gun-like. Later handgonnes had something more like true gunstocks, rather than tillers, and sported serpentine levers that enabled the user to mechanically apply the match to the touch-hole. The development continued up until in the late 15th c. when the handgonne had essentially become the arquebus.

The slow rate of fire made handgonners particularly vulnerable to attack when they were used in the open field. For this reason, hangonnes were most effective when used in sieges (attacking or defending) or in defending field works. Gonzalo de Córdoba's great victory at the Battle of Cerignola in 1503 marked the point when firearms started to replace earlier hand-held missile weapons en masse and the start of the long-held dominance of the Spanish pike and shot tactics.

Painting Handgonners

Inspired by my new painting velocity using The Miracle Dip™, I've been looking at a handful of abandoned projects to kick-start back into life. One of these projects goes back more than 20 years when I bought a few packs of Grenadier fantasy figures.

The old Grenadier fantasy range had, in addition to orcs, elves, dragons, goblins, etc., a line of humans that were modeled after 15th c. Burgundians—the army of Charles the Bold. These are very nice figures, sculpted by Mark Copplestone in the '80s. The whole range included all kinds of variety with multiple poses for each type: mounted and dismounted knights, mounted men-at-arms, pikemen/spearmen, longbowmen, crossbowmen, halberdiers/billmen, artillery, and handgonners. Charles would approve.

I bought my packs at the now out-of-business American Eagles when they were in Ballard, WA. They only had a few packs and I bought 'em all, which netted me: 10 halberdiers/billmen, 10 handgunners, 2 large handguns with 2 crew each, a small bombard with 2 crew, and some command figures. At the time Grenadier in the US was going under and it was hard to get the figures anywhere in the benighted, insular, pre-Interwebs days. I started painting what I had, but couldn't do much with them, few as they were. I completed the giant handguns (but later sold them at a swap meet). The other figures sat partially painted in a box that traveled with me through three house moves over 20 years. Every now and then, I'd run across them while looking for something else and I'd think that I should get to work and finish them.

Just before Christmas, I resolved to finally do it. Only instead of finishing what I'd started, I was going to strip them and start over. I've only done this a few times. It's not pleasant. I use the Pine-Sol soak 'n' scrub method. I do it the manly man way without gloves, which is supposed to ruin my hands, but so far not. Nevertheless, I'm still prepared to stop if I see a finger dissolving.

The first step was to pry them off the thick plastic bases I'd put them on. Though I recall that when I started painting them, they were just glued to cardboard squares for better handling. I put them on the 20mm x 25mm plastic bases when I was doing a late medieval variant for Tod Kershner's Pig Wars skirmish rules. One of the reasons I hate rebasing is that I base so thoroughly that it's a tough go to de-base the figures. I have sold armies of painted figures rather than rebase them.

Once off their bases, I put the lot in a plastic food container and drowned them in Pine-Sol. The Pine-Sol doesn't dissolve the paint, but it breaks it down so that scrubbing with a firm toothbrush will remove the paint. Theoretically.

Pine-Sol bath

Sometimes it takes a bit more elbow grease and a second (or third) soak 'n' scrub to get it all. Eventually, and at great risk to one's hands, you get a nice pile of bare, clean, shiny, scrubbed minis to start over with.

First scrub (more to do)

I've started for now painting the 10 handgonners (because they're who I love). Grenadier had one pack of five different figures. I got two packs, which still allows for variety, especially since I paint each figure differently. It takes longer to make each figure unique, but block-painting is still pretty fast. I just wind up switching colors a lot on my palette.

Block painting complete; ready for the satin enamel spray

After the block painting is done, I gave them a spritz of clear satin enamel as a prep for brushing on the Minwax stain.

Once I've completed the dip, I give them a spray of Testor's Lusterless (i.e., dullcote) as the penultimate sealer before basing and flocking.

Dipped and dullcoted

Because I'm using the figures for skirmish gaming, the single bases don't need to be any specific size. Typically I use 20mm x 25mm bases for 28mm figures (the William Stewart Standard Base Size™). For my ECW skirmish figures (Renegade and Bicorne), I used larger bases (25mm x 30mm) because the figures are "heroic" 28mm figures with a large footprint. The Grenadier figures are less heroic than the Renegade, but have big footprints. I compromised and used some 1/8 inch tile sheet styrene. I score the tiles at 7/8" x 1 1/8". The resulting base is a bit more narrow and very slightly less deep than the ECW bases.

Cutting bases from 1/8" tile sheet styrene

The tiled sheet styrene makes it easy to cut bases to the right size and also facilitates rounding the corners for a more skirmishy-looking base. I affix the cut bases to the sticky side of some magnetic sheet material from Litko, and then trim off the extra, round the corners, and sand everything smooth with fine grit sandpaper.

I glue the figures to the base using Gorilla super glue and then slap some Golden coarse pumice gel around to hide the rather thick base that comes on the casting. I learned the coarse pumice gel trick from Kevin Smyth. I apply the medium with a palette knife and let it dry for 12-24 hours. The surface is rough and lends itself well to painting and drybrushing.

I had a small pumice crisis to overcome first. I used to get the medium from Michael's, but every store I tried didn't have it. I was afraid it might be a discontinued item (that happens to me a lot). I finally went to Aaron Brothers art supply and got a 8 oz. jar at half price, as well as several Windsor Newton University Series 233 brushes in 000 and 00 sizes in their 1¢ sale (buy one, get one for 1¢). I've used these brushes for years to do my detail painting. Nothing else works for me as well.

When the medium is dry, I trim off the excess with an X-Acto knife. I use slightly thinned Vallejo Mud Brown as my base color and after that dries, I drybrush Vallejo Yellow Ochre over it to bring out the rough texture of the pumice gel medium.

I flock the bases with Woodland Scenics Earth Blend blended turf, leaving patches of 'bare ground.' Then I apply a second layer using Woodland Scenics Light Green coarse turf. After the glue is well dried for the coarse turf, I use some tweezers to pluck it short. The desired effect is a rough surface; tweezing reduces the puffiness of the turf. (I also need to tweeze out the bits of cat hair that get into my flocking, otherwise the bases might look like they have the kind of wispy beards that older women get.)

When the turf is all right, I go over the base edges with some Vallejo Mud Brown, and then give the figures a final spray of Krylon Matte Finish. The Krylon matte is a not-quite dullcote, but not quite a satin either. It leaves just a glint of satin finish on the figure that softens the harsh lusterlessness of the Testor's dullcote.

20 years in the making! Handgonners completed.

Lion Rampant

I'll use the figures I have as seed for one or more Lion Rampant retinues. I wanted to get medieval earlier, but nothing came of it because I couldn't really find a set of rules that I liked and that I could reasonably expect to find other people willing to play (and contribute to by painting minis). Lion Rampant changed that. It's very popular around here. The Tacoma gamers have regular Lion Rampant game days.

Early gunpowder weapons didn't make the cut in Daniel Mersey's published rules. Mersey did, however, provide some stats for them on a Boardgame Geek forum. because, as he notes, "there are some lovely models available for early handgunners." (As we see above.)

Below is a formatted version of the handgonne rules from the forum post.

Unit Name: Handgonners		Points: 4
Attack	7+	Attack Value	6
Move	6+	Defence Value	6
Shoot	8+	Shoot Value	6 /12"
Courage	4+	Max. Movement	6"
Armor	2	Special Rules	Bang, Panic

• Models per unit: 6

Special rules:

• Bang: All units count as Armour 1 against Shooting by this unit (Armour 2 if in cover).
• Panic: When this unit Shoots, the target unit must take a Courage test regardless of the number of hits inflicted.

Unit upgrades:

• Pavises @ 2 points per unit. As for Crossbows.

Also, one poster to the forum suggested an option for having a handgonne blow up. Like the "lucky blow" rule,  when the handgonners shoot, roll 2 x D6. On a double-one, remove one handgonner. 

Grenadier Lives!

More good news is that Grenadier Models aren't dead and gone. Mirliton in Italy produces the full range. Packs of 5 foot figures or 2 mounted run about €8,16 (about $8.86 USD). The kicker is shipping. They charge a small fortune to ship. Unless you're ordering a lot of figures, you're getting soaked. Happily, Mirliton offers 10%, 15%, or 20% discount based on the amount of the sale. That makes shipping costs easier to swallow. At some point this year I'll use my tax refund to make a big purchase so I can get several units for Lion Rampant, enough for two retinues or to be able to mix 'n' match to make a lot of variations on one retinue.

I'm not aware of any US distributor for Mirliton. There is a UK distributor, but their prices are nearly twice the Mirliton prices, plus shipping costs from the UK.

Update 6/3/2020 - Grenadier has crossed the ocean!

There is a source for Mirliton/Grenadier minis in the US, so you can avoid the huge shipping costs from Italy and/or the UK. It's Noble Knight Games. They've had them for years, and I've known they've had them for years; I'm just getting around to updating the info here.

Restitutor Orbis: Rethinking My 3rd c. Romans

Back somewhere in the dawn of time (2005, I think), I started a 28mm ancients project with Kevin Smyth in an attempt to get some WRG ancients play going. Kevin and I managed to have a few games and Bill Stewart and I ran a few games also in 2010, but it never caught on (alas) and my predilection for the WRG rules has caused the local gentry to regarded me as being dangerously insane.

I had been painting some of the excellent 28mm A&A 3rd century Romans. I also have a bucket o' unpainted A&A Sassanid Persians. The project has languished for quite a while. Kevin long since sold off the army he painted for the project. I attempted to do the same with mine at our recent Drumbeat event, but I got no buyers. I'm starting to see that as a good thing and I'm wondering what next to do to restore the world of my Middle Imperial Romans.

Why the 3rd century?

The 3rd century is an intriguing period. It's the background of Harry Sidebottom's excellent Warrior of Rome series and his new Throne of the Caesars series. Rome fought pretty much everyone in this period, especially itself, as rival emperors and break-away allies caused all kinds of trouble. The empire neared collapse and might have broken up except for the brief, but salutary, efforts of Aurelian.

Like most of his predecessors, Aurelian was murdered. A corrupt official, fearing retribution, used forged documents to snooker some officers of the Praetorian Guard to kill him in 275. He may have been briefly succeeded by his wife, Ulpia Severina. In any case, the Senate put Tacitus on the throne, but a year later, Tacitus went crazy and died (or was assassinated—or went crazy and was assassinated) and Florianus came to the throne; in a matter of months, Florianus was murdered by his own troops and Probus became emperor; Probus hung on to the crown for six years, but then he was assassinated by the Praetorian Guard and the army proclaimed Carus emperor; Carus was, apparently, struck by lightning within a year and succeeded by his brother Numerian; Numerian was assassinated and succeeded by Carinus, who was Carus' son. There wasn't a lot of job security in wearing the purple. Finally, in 284, Carinus was defeated and killed by Diocletian, who established the dominate and reigned for two decades, bringing in a degree of stability.

3rd c. Romans dominating the lesser peoples

So, things started, slowly, to get better for the empire and it was due largely to Aurelian's work in reuniting the fragments. For defeating a Alemmanic invasion, a Gothic invasion, and restoring the western empire, Aurelian was named Germanicus Maximus and Gothicus Maximus. For defeating Zenobia's rebellion, he was named Parthicus Maximus and Restitutor Orientis (Restorer of the East); shortly after that, he was named by the senate Restitutor Orbis, Restorer of the World.

Back to the minis

So, back to restoring the orbis for my wee, near-orphaned legionarii. I'll have to re-base them, it seems, which I am loath to do. I'm not quite sure how I'll re-base them, that will depend on what I want to do with them. Maybe one clue to what I'm thinking is that I placed an order for a lot of single-figure bases from Litko, which arrived just this weekend.

Lion Rampant

I've given some thought to adapting Daniel Mersey's excellent Lion Rampant skirmish rules (Osprey) for playing ancients. The mechanics of the rules are simple enough and it's just a matter of fiddling with the types Mersey defines for Medievals in Lion Rampant. Cataphracts, for example, would be like mounted men-at-arms, legionaries would be like foot sergeants, lanciarii like bidowers, etc. There may need to be some creative variations to capture the full flavor of the troop types in this period, although Lion Rampant does have some variations already that would work for things like Sassanid Asvārān (mounted sergeants with bows, basically).

I have a lot of figures, especially foot, so the project would require a lot of single-based figures. I'm not against that, and as I've noted, I have a lot of Litko bases coming. Single basing the figures would also give me a lot of options for skirmish gaming. It's tempting. There's also the issue that I have many more figures than I need for a Lion Rampant project. I have enough legionaries painted to make four 12-figure units, plus auxilia, plus several cavalry units, plus bowmen, lanciarii, and dromedaries. That doesn't touch the mass of unpainted stuff...

Hail Caesar!

I've played a few games of Hail Caesar from Warlord Games. I like it pretty much, but Warlord's offerings like Hail Caesar, Black Powder, and Pike & Shotte typically require buckets of figures and I would need to buy more cavalry from A&A in order to flesh out my Roman units. I have a lot of unpainted Sassanid cavalry, but at 12 figures per unit, I have only enough for maybe four units of clibanarii and one of cataphracts. I also have a couple elephants and a lot of dismal levy spearmen.

Because Hail Caesar has somewhat agnostic basing requirements, it's likely that any multi-figure basing I use for HC will work for most other rules that use multi-figure basing, except WRG, and skirmish gaming, and Field of Glory. One clever thought would be to mount them for Field of Glory. The bases would easily work for Hail Caesar as well. But that might be too clever. Any multi-figure basing tends to lock you into games that require it. If I want to get away from projects that require a lot of figures, I have to eschew multi-figure basing.

Damn the torpedoes, full WRG ahead!

I could also just stay the course and get enough Sassanids painted and based for WRG to play a game against my Romans. That way I wouldn't need to re-base anything (which is a happy thought). This course of action might only confirm my insanity with those already inclined toward that opinion—I might even think myself insane. In my own defense, I wouldn't have to re-base anything, as I mentioned (there must be some sanity in that). I also wouldn't have to buy more figures.

Various skirmish projects

This sort of ties in with Lion Rampant. As individually-mounted figures, I can use them for any of the skirmish games I favor. The bases for infantry are 25mm x 30mm and for cavalry are 25mm x 50mm. These are the same sizes I use for the figures I have mounted for De Bellis Velitum.

The number of figures I have is a bit much for "true skirmish" gaming, which I define in my post Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short: The skirmish game (part un)—part deux is coming, I promise. However, having figures to spare gives me the option to use the non-standard mountings required by some skirmish rules, such as the diamond-shaped bases for infantry figures in Milgamex' Sword and Spear.

I can also modify some other "false skirmish" type rules, Like Pig Wars, that use larger numbers of single-mounted figures. For all I know, Saga may come up with a variant that applies to the Later Roman Empire, which would be ironic since I just sold my copy of the rules.

Sell 'em

There's also staying the course and selling them later in the year at Enfilade! between painted and unpainted figures, I might get $1000.00 for the lot, which is a lot to sink into other projects.

Whither now?

At this point, every option is just a potentiality. I have about 150 25mm x 30mm bases and maybe 70 25mm x 50mm bases to work with. I also have boxes of Litko bases to use for multi-figure basing. I have yet to decide which way to go, but some day soon, I may just start popping my wee legionarii off their custom bases and putting them on some other basing. Stay tuned.

Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short: The skirmish game (part un)

As I posted in my 2013 retrospective, I'm tending more towards skirmish games as the best focus for my limited energies and short attention span. I have rarely had the perseverance to build vast armies of figures. I'll get excited about a new period, spend lots (and lots) of money on rules, figures, books, and then see it all fizzle out. Much of this entropic approach to wargaming is due to my peculiar tastes in wargame subjects. Terra incognita, not to mention the generally bizarre, has always fascinated me. My friend Rick once opined that if someone made figures for medieval Lithuanian bat-dung hurlers, I'd be first in line to buy them. That's a fair cop, but since no one has made such figures (alas), the actual truth of it has yet to be tested. This taste for the arcane and unknown generally means that I'm forced to go it alone on projects. That's a sure sign of impending doom—unless the project is bite sized. Hence, skirmish gaming, the dim sum of the hobby.

In this first post of the series, I'll look at why I like skirmish gaming and what qualifies a game as a skirmish game.

Why skirmish games?
Skirmish gaming, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways:

More bang for the buck - Since I find it difficult to actually finish big projects, they are inherently wasteful enterprises. Faced with the prospect of painting several 24-figure units just to get some skin in the game, I may complete one or two units. Most times, I fail even to do that. The garage (yes, that garage) is replete with boxes of ACW, AWI, Napoleonic, etc. figures that I will likely never paint—even though I find them hard to part with.

With a skirmish game, 24 figures individually mounted makes a sizable force. In fact, it can make two sizable forces since many skirmish games can be played with fewer than a dozen figures per side.

Better attention to detail - Because skirmish games require fewer figures overall, it's easier to take time painting them. Some of my best painting has been single figures that I lavished several hours on. This approach is a big departure from the assembly-line painting that I do for big-battle units. I'm a slow painter; when I want nicer detail on my figures, I'm slower still. Nevertheless, I've made great strides in the past week completing several figures that I've spent a bit more time with. Eight Roman triarii, eight velites, and eight Libyan javelinmen are nearly complete. Each constitutes a fearsome body of men in a skirmish game. For a big-battle game, they're not even a drop in the bucket.

Limited storage/schleppage - I've mentioned before that I drive a Nissan 350z. Nice car, but very limited hauling ability. Gone are the days that I can fill the trunk and passenger seats with stuff and drive off to host a game. Because skirmish games require so few figures and terrain, they are much more portable to gaming venues away from home, which is good since my schedule consists entirely of away games.

Also, because of the limited number of figures required, I can store whole skirmish armies in a single box or a few small boxes. Not only does it make them more portable, but easier to store, too. If I'm ever going to get the garage to stop taunting me, I'll need to reduce the footprint of my projects.

Damn the short attention span! Ahead full speed!  - Today I may be afire for ancient Carthaginians, but tomorrow someone may release those long-awaited medieval Lithuanian bat-dung hurlers. My reaction to such an event can be summed up thus: "Oooh, shiny." This reaction will kill a big project, but merely wound a skirmish game. If I'm painting four figures of Bratislavian left-handed fire-dart flingers (because more than four would be overkill in a skirmish game) and get sidetracked, that's still only four figures put on the back burner. I can easily come back to them when the winds blow my attention span, like a weather vane in a cyclone, back in the old direction. There is method to my madness.

Versatile as a boneless acrobat - Because figures for skirmish gaming are singly mounted, you don't have to fret about basing, de-basing, and re-basing when you switch rules sets. I know gamers who make rebasing figures a hobby within the hobby. I hate it, myself, and have an unfinished post I titled "As God is my witness, I will never rebase again!" I have actually rebased, however—and recently at that. I'm not a fanatic. But my rebasing has been in the direction of single mounting to 25mm x 30mm bases for foot and 25mm x 50mm for mounted. I adopted this for some current ancient/medieval projects because it works best for any skirmish system. I have other figures (e.g., WW2) that use the William Stewart Standard Size™ of 20mm x 25mm. Whatever the size of the individual bases, you can be pretty sure that figures you've painted and based for one skirmish system will be usable without modification to any other skirmish system. If not, follow Thoreau's advice and beware of all enterprises that require a new set of clothes—or in this case, rebasing.

Personality goes a long way - Individual figures allow for more personality in defining the force you play with. If the skirmish game has more detailed figure characteristics, you can put some ongoing interest in how well a certain figure does. Some skirmish games contain campaign systems that allow for figures to grow over time as they fight—and most importantly, survive—skirmish battles.

Most gamers have some units that provide fond memories of battles lost and won. I think that skirmish games, because they are individual figures, have more potential for being the stuff of legend. This is especially true if each figure used is painted to be unique in some way.

The nitty gritty of it
So, having professed my love for the genre, the following is a brief analysis on the types of skirmish games I've encountered and the various game engines and mechanics that distinguish skirmish games from big-battle games. The following points are what I see, in my quaintly myopic way, as the main things that can be used to identify skirmish rules and distinguish one set from another. I will refer to these aspects in following posts when I review skirmish rules for particular periods.

Type (To thine own self be true.) - While the sine qua non of skirmish gaming is a 1:1 representation of figures to men, it's not all that simple. I've noticed that "skirmish" games fall into one of three categories that I'll call True Skirmish, False Skirmish, and Quasi-False Skirmish (a.k.a. the bastard love-child of true and false skirmish).

True Skirmish rules treat each figure as if it were an autonomous entity. The figure moves, fights, takes morale, etc. by itself. It may be affected by what happens to its friends, but its actions and fate are solely its own. True Skirmish rules tend to be more complex in their mechanisms than the other two and as such usually require the fewest figures because each figure engages a player's attention as if it were a full unit.  A force for True Skirmish rules can be very diverse: A knight, two squires, a few mooks with pole-arms, and a crossbowman or two make for a reasonable game. Because they act alone, they don't need to be similarly armed, protected, motivated, etc.

False Skirmish rules require single figures to be organized in units, which are the basis for movement, combat, etc. Figures in the unit have no (or very limited) ability to act outside the unit. For this reason, units in False Skirmish rules have to be, generally, similar in all respects. When the unit shoots, all figures in the unit shoot as a group against a single target. When a unit moves, all figures in the unit move as a group. When the unit takes morale, all figures in the unit stand or run as a group. False Skirmish rules are false in the sense that the individual figure doesn't count; it merely adds its factors to the operation of the group. A False Skirmish game doesn't require that the representation be 1:1. Figure scale could be 1:5, for example, without losing the sense of the rules. Although figures in False Skirmish rules will almost always be mounted singly, it is possible to play with multi-figure bases and simply mark casualties on the base.

Quasi-False Skirmish rules are the result of a drunken one-night orgy between True and False Skirmish games. That's not to say that they're a bad thing. To the contrary, some Quasi-False Skirmish rules are very enjoyable. The essence of them is that while figures are organized into units, the units can contain figures with a variety of quality, equipment, motivation, hair styles and so forth. Units must still act together, however loosely, but the figures within the unit are more distinct from each other and capable of limited independent action.

Detail (What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!) - The qualities that define a figure, the "stats," can be very simple or very complex. How much detail goes into defining a figure is usually determined by the type of skirmish rules noted above.

True Skirmish rules tend to define a figure by a variety of qualities and skills, not unlike a character in a role-palying game. For example, a figure may be rated for stamina, weapons skill for each of the weapons he carries, agility, luck, strength, hygiene, etc. These ratings come into play as the figure acts. A high stamina rating, for example, may mean that the figure can fight or run for extended turns long after lesser beings tire. A high skill rating with a bow means that he can usually hit what he's aiming at. However, a high level of detail usually requires a roster to keep track of it all.

False Skirmish rules tends towards simpler definitions of the individual figure because the characteristics apply to the whole unit. The emphasis is on the average, so there's little to distinguish one figure from another. Characteristics of the unit are usually limited to things like weaponry, protection, and morale—which is essentially the same stats used for units in big battle games. The stats for units in False Skirmish rules are usually simple enough not to require keeping track of. They might simply be noted in some sort of play sheet for the game (Valerian's valiant velites of vexation: Javelin, short sword, shield, +2 morale, +6 halitosis).

Quasi-False Skirmish rules tend to define figures in a less-than-very-detailed way but not quite as uniform as the gray, drab lumpenproletariat defined in False Skirmish rules. Figures within a unit in Quasi-False Skirmish rules can vary from each other by weapons, protection, skill, courage, etc. but not by much. Quasi-False Skirmish rules may require rosters to keep track of characteristics, but it is often clear enough from the models themselves how they're armed etc.

Combat (Lay on, Macduff, and damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!') -  Combat mechanics vary widely among skirmish rules. The simplest mechanic uses a single value for combat that is added to a die roll and compared to an opposing stand. Some rules may be similar but provide different values for close combat and shooting.

More complex mechanics may require multiple stages to determine what damage is done and who wins a combat round. For example, a round of close combat may require each combatant to roll to hit against a skill score and then, if a hit is made to factor in the strength score plus weapon value and compare the blow to the armor and agility of the figure taking the blow.

The result of combat can vary widely as well. A losing figure may be wounded, knocked down, pushed back, killed outright, or all of the above. Some rules allow figures to carry wounds, which slow them down in movement and combat, but make for great bragging rights if they survive ("Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars and say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'"). In many other rules a figure is either killed or not killed, but may be put at a disadvantage in some way.

Zone of control (If we meet, we shall not scape a brawl. For now, these hot days, is the mad blood stirring.) - Given the free flow of individual figure stands around the table top in a skirmish game, it's important to note how well a set of rules limits a figure's ability to ignore opposing figures. It's absurd to assume that a non-phasing figure is glued in place. Absent rules for reaction, the figures must exert some kind of control over the near space around them and require opposing figures moving in that space to stop or attack, but not to move through unimpeded.

Command/control (He has no more directions in the true disciplines of the wars, look you, of the Roman disciplines, than is a puppy-dog.) - How players determine whom to move, when, and how much their figures can do is the essence of command/control. The differences here don't tend to fall into place by the type of skirmish rules. However, command/control systems that require a player to write orders for each figure tend to be found in True Skirmish games.

In most cases, there is some random element that determines the order of play. The more current systems tend to apply some kind of limiting factor to what a player's side can do rather than allow a player to move every figure however they want. For example, a player may need to dice for command points and can only do as much as his available command points allow.

Some games play in random order with figures or units activating by a chit-pull or similar, rather than alternating between one side's activations and then the other's.

Scalability (We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.) - Another significant factor in evaluating skirmish games is how well they scale beyond the one-off game between two players. I rarely game one-on-one, so being able to easily add more players into a game is an important consideration.

For the most part, skirmish games scale well and it's easy to incorporate multiple players on a side without too much awkwardness. However, there are a few holdouts and it is also worth noting that for some games, adding more players has an exponential effect on slowing things down.

What's to come
In my next post, I'll look at ancients and medieval skirmish rules.

Base-ic Instinct

I am a rebel, an outcast, a dangerous radical with views no decent human would hold. On the Group W bench of wargaming, I am the one that others move away from. Why? Because I believe that the WRG-DBx-FoG standard base sizes for 25/28mm ancients are too small. Way too small. Absurdly. Ridiculously. Small.

I have made a nuisance of myself on various newsgroups as I proclaim the good news that we ancients gamers can be set free from cramming big figures on little bases; set free from using one or two fewer figures on a base just to get any to fit; set free from cantering cavalry figures at an angle on the base to keep them from hanging out front and back; set free from having armies that look like 50s-era college kids stuffing themselves in phone booths and Volkswagens. But I go disregarded, despised, and derided. A prophet has no honor in his own country.

The base sizes for WRG ancients, on which the later rules were based, were essentially set back in 1969 when the 1st edition rules were published. Both 1st and 2nd edition rules used inches for the base sizes. It wasn't until 3rd edition were released in 1971 that the measurements were converted to millimeters and the final category, light-medium and light-heavy infantry, were added. WRG described a frontage per figure, but really, the 3rd edition basing took a 60mm frontage as its basis. On this frontage, you could fit four close order troops, three loose order troops, or two open order troops; thus 15mm, 20mm, or 30mm per figure. In the WRG rules, that made a difference because combat was resolved by how many figures were in contact. So, on average, close order troops would have twice the men in contact as open order troops.

The figures available at the time were small compared to today's offerings. Scruby, Greenwood & Ball, Minifigs, Hinchliffe, and Lamming were the main manufacturers. Officially, the scale was 25mm, which meant that from top to bottom, the figure measured 25mm. It was a loose scale and there was a lot of variety of actual size within it. For example, Ral Partha Miniatures, which came out in 1975, were "true" 25s and looked smaller than most. Partially, this was because Ral Partha were more proportional, which made them look less chubby and trollish that others. In any case, the figures current at the time fit the bases, even if tightly so in some cases. The newer ranges blew all that away.

Dixon miniatures were the first in my experience that really exhibited "scale creep." Marketed as 25mm figures, Dixon were a bit bigger and chunkier than other ranges. Throughout the 1990s, newer ranges came out that only increased the degree of scale creep until someone finally put away pretense and started calling them 28mm figures (or "heroic" 25s). But don't think of it as a mere 3mm difference--especially because most 28mm figures are really 30mm figures. Comparing the A and A Miniatures I used for my 3rd c. Romans to Minifigs figures of the 1970s is like comparing well-fed grown men to children.

The upshot is that the figures no longer fit the official base sizes. This has become a nearly religious war for some in the gaming community. There are several "flat-earthers" who see no problem with the old base sizes and will not accept any official--or unofficial--change, even as they resort to increasingly absurd expedients to fit newer figures on the old base sizes. The Warrior rules (a re-issue of WRG 7th edition ancients) offer an alternative larger basing for 28mm figures, but I don't see that it's caught on.

When Kevin Smyth and I did our WRG 6th edition project, we simply doubled the size of the DBA/DBM element bases. Doing this changed the basis from a 60mm frontage to 80mm, thus 20mm, 26.666mm, or 40mm per figure. The base depths also changed to 30mm for close order infantry, 40mm for loose and open order infantry, and 60mm for all mounted.

This new basing accomplished what are, in my opinion, the main reasons to base figures: Comfortably accommodating the number of figures required by the rules, protecting the figures on the base, and providing an aesthetic complement to the painted figures (many an ugly paint job is rectified, or at least mitigated, by a nice-looking base). The following pictures provide examples of figures based on the larger bases compared to the size of the standard base.

Close order infantry: 80mm x 30mm (20mm per figure) compared to 60mm x 20mm (15mm per figure)

Loose order infantry: 80mm x 40mm (26.666mm per figure) compared to 60mm x 30mm (20mm per figure)

Open order infantry: 80mm x 40mm (40mm per figure) compared to 60mm x 30mm (30mm per figure)

Close order cavalry: 80mm x 60mm (20mm per figure) compared to 60mm x 40mm (15mm per figure)

Loose order cavalry: 80mm x 60mm (26.666mm per figure) compared to 60mm x 40mm (20mm per figure)

You might look at some of the pictures and think that you could fit the figures on smaller bases. True, but they would be cramped. This is especially true with close order troops. You can see this pretty clearly when you consider that the base size that would accommodate two close order infantry figures using the standard base size (30mm x 20mm) is the same size I use in the larger scale for one figure (20mm x 30mm):

I've adopted the larger basing for the 28mm Field of Glory (FoG) project I'm doing now. Other gamers are using the same bases and re-basing figures mounted for other systems (like Warhammer Ancient Battles and Crusader Rules).

What about that 26.666mm?

When I first determined the larger basing, I asked myself the same question. That is one odd base size to measure. If you're basing for WRG 7th edition, DBA, DBM, or FoG. you don't need to worry about it. When I adopted the new size, I was basing for WRG 6th edition, which meant that I needed at least one singly-mounted figure for casualty removal. However, I based for 6th edition using two figure bases maximum because it helps with formation changes, expansions, and contractions. This meant that my loose order figures required 53.333mm bases for two-figure bases; another oddity of size.

Enter Litko.

Before the WRG 6th project, I always cut my own bases out of 0.10" plastic card. It was a lot of work to score, cut, and prep all that plastic. Being pretty ham-fisted myself, I wasn't sure how I would be exact enough in my measurements. Even easy measurements came out a little off, so that the best of my bases is a rough quadrilateral with approximate dimensions. I had friends recommend Litko for some time. I e-mailed Ken and asked if he could cut bases to my sizes and he responded that he could cut custom bases to within 0.001mm. I was sold. I've never based with plastic since.