A Rumble in the Distance

Posted on July 14, 2011 by Quirkworthy

With less than 2 weeks left to go before the second starter set for Dwarf King’s Hold is released, folk are getting excited. The buzz at the Mantic Open Day was really enthusiastic and after my talks and demos a lucky few went away eagerly clutching pre-release copies that we’d managed to assemble early. I’m already hearing back about the fun and mayhem that the Orcs and Elves are getting up to. Check out the comments on this post, for example đŸ™‚

The chaps at Mantic are even now doing the final touches to the layout on the new scenario (14) that comes with the bundle deal and the special Green Menace offer. But wait a moment. Scenario 14? There’s 6 in Dead Rising and 6 more in Green Menace – what happened to 13? Well, I’m not superstitious enough to skip a number, so it’s not that. It’s actually in Mantic Journal 4, which is out at the same time.

Scenario 13 pits Dwarfs against Undead and can be played with the contents of Dwarf King’s Hold – Dead Rising alone. Scenario 14, on the other hand, is the first scenario specifically designed for the Orcs and Dwarfs to battle it out, and also features the Mantic Dwarf Driller model.You need both starter sets to play this, which is why it comes with the bundle deal. It could almost be a plan.

And that’s not all. With a little luck I should also get the (Not Very) FAQ on the Mantic site in the next few days, and next week I’ll be doing some pieces for Beasts of War for their Dwarf King’s Hold excitements. It’s all go here!

Posted in Dwarf King's Hold | 11 Comments

One Tiny Thing

Posted on July 12, 2011 by Quirkworthy

In the land of one-square models, the two-square model is… bleedin’ awkward.

I am referring, of course, to the Dwarf Driller that comes with the Dwarf King’s Hold bundle deal, and who is a central feature of the scenario that goes with it. You might not have thought that it would make much difference, having a two square model, but it does. Oh yes.

All other models in the game fit neatly into a single square. This means that they are nice and discrete when it comes to movement, turning and so on. They can get round corners in one square wide tunnels and all manner of clevernesses. With a two-square model you have to think about things like which square does it turn on (front or back), where are its front and rear arcs, how does it fight, and so on. Basically, this one model needs almost a complete rewrite of the rules. He is Mr Exception.

You may be expecting that I’ve done some inelegant phone book of a rule set for this chap, but if you are then you need to have more faith. Fret not. All is under control. Having some additional rules is unavoidable. Simple geometry requires explanation of the difficulties that being 2 squares big causes. I have, however, been able to refine the rules down so that even with his inherent awkwardness the mechanics are clean and simple (if you’ve played Dwarf King’s Hold, you may have realised that I like clean and simple rules).

So why am I bleating on about this? Well, I thought it was a good illustration of how one tiny change can make a huge amount of difference in design terms. As an example, this will make more sense to those that have (had the good taste to have already) played Dwarf King’s Hold. The principle applies to any game where you move in squares though. Try playing snakes & ladders with a two-square big model. There are almost zero rules in snakes & ladders, and all of them need a caveat when you change to two squares from one for a piece.

I am well over my allotted words by now, so I’ll leave you there to ponder. Suffice to say that I shall revisit this concept in an article later.

Posted in Dwarf King's Hold, Game Design Theory | 9 Comments

You start here, I’ll start there

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Quirkworthy

I started writing a post this morning about Dwarf King’s Hold, but it’s got rather long so I’ll finish it as an article and post it later this week. Basically, I want to talk about the Dwarf King’s Hold games as a series, and what I mean by starter sets and expansions. I’ll have a go at a short version here:

Starter sets: each of these is a stand-alone game. They are designed so that they contain everything you need to play and are a complete game in their own right. If you have any one of these and never see another bit of DKH then you still have a brilliant game that you will enjoy playing for many years (so I’m told). So far, we have two starter sets: Dwarf King’s Hold – Dead Rising, and Dwarf King’s Hold – Green Menace. This second one is not officially out yet, though you had a chance to nab one early if you made it over to MantiCon (Mantic’s Open Day) on saturday.

Expansions: these are not yet released, and exist only in my fevered brain. The idea is that these will expand on the contents of a starter set, and that you will need one or other of the starter sets to use the expansion. They will not be stand-alone items. The new rules, models, tiles and so on will take the game in the starter set in a new direction and allow even more playability from the game.

Series: this is the accumulated pieces from all the starter sets and expansions. It isn’t an endless beast, but it is ambitious and will take time to release, assuming you guys want it. Along the way, important pieces include rules for mixing together all the starter sets and model ranges; linking together the individual boxes to form a seamless whole. That’s how it works in my head: as a single piece. And that’s part of the challenge for the design. It’s got to be a fun and popular game in each box because if it isn’t the whole series will never see the light of day.

How does that sound for you?

Posted in Board Gaming, Dwarf King's Hold | 13 Comments

A Picture Paints…

Posted on July 10, 2011 by Quirkworthy

…a thousand words, and over at Tears of Envy’s blog you can see several thousand words’ worth of pictures from yesterday’s Mantic Open Day (they really should call it MantiCon).

Tears of Envy, in case you didn’t know, is the hugely talented lady who did the graphics for the board, counters, logo and so on for Dwarf King’s Hold 1&2. Have a look round her site and see how many other cool logos and graphical goodies you can find.

Posted in Dwarf King's Hold, Events | Leave a comment

All Day Talking

Posted on July 9, 2011 by Quirkworthy

Well I just got back from the Mantic open day where I had a jolly time. Lots of excited and enthusiastic folk, which is always nice to see. Ronnie and I gave a seminar/talk/Q&A/general waffle this morning about Dwarf King’s Hold, and had some very interesting questions. Mostly at this sort of thing you get the same questions repeated, but today there was a poser or two. At least some of it was recorded, so with a little luck you should be able to see this on the Mantic blog soon. I’ll pop a link up when I find it. It also gave me more ideas for articles like the one on scenario balance (see the tab), which is good. Just need to make the time to write them all now đŸ™‚

In the morning there was a big Kings of War battle, and in the afternoon I ran a Dwarf King’s Hold game continuing the story. That was really entertaining, as I had four necromancer players all fighting against me, trying to get my Dwarf King out of the Hold in one piece. Now Dwarf King’s Hold is a 2 player game (officially), but those of you who have seen any of my rambles and interviews from Beasts of War, or at the UK Game Expo or elsewhere, will know that I’ve been planning for more players from the start. There’s lots built in to the rules that hasn’t been fully exploited yet, and it was nice to give part of the currently unpublished extras a run out with some willing victims. Everyone seemed to enjoy it, and there were several clever and underhand schemes tried by the necromancers to keep me on my toes. A fun afternoon.

Posted in Dwarf King's Hold, Events, Game Design Theory | Leave a comment

Mantic Open Day

Posted on July 8, 2011 by Quirkworthy

Another weekend, another convention! Well, an Open Day. Tomorrow Mantic Games are having their second Open Day and I’ll be there running demos of Dwarf King’s Hold and  taking part in a couple of seminars about what’s new and where it’s going. Actually. I think it’ll probably be mainly a Q&A cos that’s more interactive and generally more fun. They end up with about the same information, just in a different (more interesting) format. More info on the Mantic Blog.

We’re also going to be running a linked game of Kings of War and Dwarf King’s Hold. In the morning folk will be battling it out on the big tables with sizable armies, and depending on who wins that we’ll play one of a couple of different multi-player games of DKH in the afternoon. Everyone against me, I think is the plan. Uh oh! Best leave my persecution complex at home for the afternoon then.

There will also be some limited models and possibly even a few early copies of DKH2. Not 100% sure about the latter, but it’s just possible. Like me, you’ll only find out on the day. Knowing Ronnie there will also be lots of sneak peeks of Warpath and all manner of upcoming goodies, so why not pop down. See the website for tickets, location and other details.

It’d be great to see folk there, but even if it’s too far to come there are things you can join in with online and the seminars are going to be filmed and put online too, so you can mail in questions (if you’re quick) and hear the answers. The magic of technology.

Posted in Board Gaming, Dwarf King's Hold, Events | 5 Comments

When is Terrain not Terrain?

Posted on July 6, 2011 by Quirkworthy

When it’s scenery, of course.

What exactly is the difference between scenery and terrain, and why should anyone care? Let’s take that in 2 steps: definition and use.

Dictionaries are only a little help when it comes to defining words in such a specialised context as tabletop gaming. However, the basis seems to be clear: terrain is the lie of the land and nothing else, whereas scenery encompasses not only that, but also the details that are scattered over it. Think about the use of the word scenery in theatre: for stage dressings. That’s more the sort of thing we are doing when we set up a nice tabletop to kill each other over. Terrain then is our tabletop itself, the flat surface, modular boards or whatever that form the backdrop onto which we place scenery in the form of buildings, trees and phone booths (depending on your game).

Does this distinction matter? Clearly not to most rule writers as the term “terrain” is almost ubiquitous in modern rulebooks, and taken to mean scenery (using the above definition). In a more general sense I deplore the loss of subtlety in language, and here there is some that is being ironed out by careless usage. At the same time I am ashamed to say that I am part of this ironing crew. Perhaps I need to try harder. On the other hand, perhaps it really doesn’t matter. A professor of English once said to me that the purpose of language was to communicate, and if we all understand the word terrain to mean houses and trees too, then that serves its purpose. In terms of rules and so on, is there any value in the distinction? Not a great one that I can see.

What do you guys think? It’s a bit of an odd burble today, but I’d like to know your opinions too. Why not post your thoughts below đŸ™‚

Posted in Metagame musings, Tabletop gaming, Terrain | 17 Comments

How Often is Often Enough?

Posted on July 4, 2011 by Quirkworthy

Looking at the site stats, I always feel guilty if lots of people have come by and I haven’t posted anything new for them to see. Like a bad host. On the other hand, I also feel that it’s a shame when interesting posts and discussions disappear off the page before everyone can see them, so where does the balance lie? Do I aim to post every day so that the site always has fresh material on it, or pick and choose depending on the freshness and interest of previous posts? Hard to know.

What do you guys think? Come on now… don’t be shy đŸ™‚

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Terrain

Posted on July 3, 2011 by Quirkworthy

I was looking at the Micro Art Studios Infinity bases the other day. I’d seen them on the net before and was pleased to see that they looked even nicer in person (so to speak). Several of them have bits of smashed up Infinity models embedded in them, which allows you to tailor your bases to show you crushing your regular opponent’s forces. Just copy their paint scheme on the wrecks đŸ™‚

The bases set me thinking again about how dowdy most battlefields look in terrain terms. Compared to the highly detailed and lovingly made bases we can now easily buy, most of our* terrain is simplified and characterless, generic and drab. Games are often fought over unpainted boxes or poorly thought out, randomly assembled clutters of AT43 containers, random fuel drums and crates. Of course, many of these things could be on a battlefield, it’s just unlikely that they would be the only thing you’d ever see. We can do  better.

High quality detailed terrain is, of course, no easier to make than miniatures, but almost everyone seems to shy away from even trying. This is understandable in a way, but only to a point. After all, isn’t the point of playing with miniatures rather than card counters so that we can see our battles in glorious 3D? Terrain should be a central part of a game, but most gamers I know (myself included) are reluctant to spend the time, money or effort in making their tabletop anywhere near the standard they aim for in their miniatures. If you marked tabletops out of 10 as people mentally seem to do with models, they would lag several points behind. All of which seems to me to drag the whole experience down to well below where it could and should be.

Over the years I’ve been lucky enough to be able to game over some incredibly nice tables, and so I know from experience what it can add. Is it just that most people haven’t ever done it, so they don’t know what they’re missing? Is it the expense? The effort? The lack of guidance? What do you think?

 

*by “our” I mean most gamers, including me. Having been to many conventions, gaming clubs, tournaments and other events, I’ve got a fairly good idea of the average level of painting and terrain, and neither of them are very high. I think this is a great shame.

Posted in Terrain | 18 Comments

Top of the Class

Posted on July 2, 2011 by Quirkworthy

Talking with a gaming buddy today, I was trying to explain the difficulty in picking which Smog figures to get. ‘The problem’, I said,  ‘was that they were mostly 11 out of 10, and you were left with discarding the ones that merely managed a 10/10 rating’. This is not a normal problem to have. Most ranges of gaming figures such as those by Privateer or GW manage a 10/10 every now and again, though you will often have to take a 5/10 effort to do a useful task in the game (even if the model is fairly minging). Variability is the norm. Smog have managed to maintain a standard that is quite exceptional, and is clearly modelled more on the quality levels of collectable figures such as Pegasus.

Hats off to them, I say. We could do with more of that in gaming in general.

Posted in Smog 1888 | 4 Comments