Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frankly, after 20 years I just can't do the assembly line slog to paint an entire large army anymore. It drives me crazy. My fastest accomplishment lately was a skirmish force of 11 Stormcast in a month and a half.

If I want to play a game of huge sweeping armies, nowadays I'd simply do it with Epic Armageddon and all the great third party models out there. At least there a goal of painting up the Third Company of the Ultramarines wouldn't take me a decade, and is also perfectly feasible to play in that ruleset without a game taking hours per turn.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Some of my favourite gaming memories stem from hours long affairs, where neither party was rushed for time.
....
Those that stick solely to Skirmish scale will never know such abject fun and nonsense. And that’s why Skirmish will never fully replace larger scale.

I'm right here with you! One of my favorite wargaming memories was playing a big game that wasn't quite Apocalypse.

Warhammer 40K, early 6th Edition. Chaos Space Marines were the newest Codex around, and Heldrakes were the newest and scariest unit to face against. I was leading the forces of the Imperium in the defense of Cadia against the forces of Chaos, as the starting battle for a fan rendition of the 13th Black Crusade campaign. Opening battle was a massive multiplayer game that took nearly 11 hours to finish, with over 20,000 points of armies across 15 players. Favorite memories include an ordnance shot scattering off target and blasting away a large unit of Nurgle Daemons, a single building scoring the Imperium its first two Kill Points for the game, and all the outflanking and deep striking shenanigans that both teams were utilizing. It was a mess of combining Cities of Death, Planetstrike, and Battle Missions, while not allowing any super-heavies to be used in the game, so lots of actual troops and units on the table that did things, not just D-Weapons blasting things away.

We actually tried to recreate the battle later on, with a rematch fight with as many of the original players as we could. It was fun, but it wasn't quite the same, with fewer players having larger armies, and less customized of a mission. Nowadays, I'm lucky if I can get in a single game of anything in a month with my time constraints. But yeah, larger scale games can be truly amazing when the mission is just right, the players are in the right frame of mind, and the dice decide to make things interesting.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Some of my favourite gaming memories stem from hours long affairs, where neither party was rushed for time.

For my 18th, during 2nd Edition my brother and I painted an entire company of Dark Angels, 20% of the Scout Company, 40%ish of the Ravenwing, and around 50% of the Deathwing. And our local store let us have an ‘us vs everyone’ game.

We had people on our side helping out of course, otherwise we’d never have got beyond the first half of the first turn.

Man, what a game. I remember a particularly cheeky Scout with a Lascannon (yep, they could take them back then!) pulled off a truly spectacular shot. Hit a tank in the turret (either a Predator or an Immolator), which cause it to spin off, clocking a Dreadnought. That Dreadnought then exploded, and set off a chain reaction. I’d say that one plucky Scout, with a single shot, accounted for something like 10% of the enemy force. Because Second Edition!

We didn’t have it all our own way. Some wag with a Lifta Droppa latched onto our sole Land Raider (salvage job that, proud of it too!) and dropped it onto our commanders. All went squish, Landraider went boom. Lifta Droppa promptly swarmed by Scouts.

No joke, that was a five or six hour game. But what a game. What an experience. Think Apocaylpse before Apocaylpse was. And without any ridiculously big guns to speed things up.

Another highlight for me was our Eversor Assassin taking out a whole bunch of Space Wolves, including Ragnar Blackmane in a single combat. So much Carnage! But like bottling lightning, it’s not something I can ever truly replicate.

Can’t do anything like that with Skirmish level games. Not to be fair would you particularly want to. But even now, near 20 years later, that game remains one of my Hobby pinnacles.

Those that stick solely to Skirmish scale will never know such abject fun and nonsense. And that’s why Skirmish will never fully replace larger scale.

Some of my favourite gaming experiences also come from hours long sessions, where neither party was rushed for time.

I recall a 3 hour long game of Infinity where a friend had repeaters all over the place, making my mostly heavy infantry force very hard to manoeuvre. That is until I realised I basically had a Dinobot. It transformed into its panther form, leapt atop a building, and received reactionary fire. Luckily it saved from that. It then leapt to a nearby gantry, receiving ore reactionary fire. This time it transformed back into its human form, with line of sight to a good area of the board, took out the shooters. Light infantry moved up into cover to support it.

Meanwhile, a cloaked Ninja creapt its way up the side of the board - there was an objective to accomplish! There were civilians in the path of enemy fire, that had to be rescued. The Ninja cautiously made its way behind a sniper before pulling its monofilament Katana out and cut the sniper in half. With no one having line of sight to it anymore, it recloaked and made its way to a civilian.

My opponent had the same objective, but his civilians were on my side of the board. So instead of doing it the sneaky way, he moved a team of special forces up the center, through the middle of a building. The light infantry that moved up to support the Dinobot exchanged reactionary fire through windows at the special forces team, knocking two out of action. His paramedic crawled up and revived them, while the guy toting a Heavy Machinegun bolted out and grabbed a civilian. Moving back into the building, they started making their way back to their DZ.

My Ninja grabbed a second civilian, and dropped them off to a waiting friendly heavy infantry to make the return trip to my DZ. The Ninja then made its way to the special forces team - they had to be stopped. Making his way over, he got discovered and promptly shot. Not good - stopping him rescuing those civilians was the key to winning. It was the time for brute force. The Dinobot leapt down onto a landing pad amid his Repeater network, and I had to trust that his Biotechnical Shield would protect him long wnough. It did, he managed to wipe out the special forces team and stop their recovery of the civilians. After that, he turned his attention to the hackers, which shut him down and ended his rampage.

What a game. What an experience.This was a seriously long game for Infinity, especially when the whole time you're considering range bands and multiple weapons and abilities per model, as well as reactionary tactics during the other players turn. Both of us had things in place to make life for the other hard. The repeater network was mobile, so I had to constantly adjust my tactics. Both of us were thinking on our feet the whole time, how to use vertical terrain as well as interior terrain to full advantage.

I could say people who play mass battle games could never understand such a tactical experience and that mass battle games just couldn't handle a game of such depth, but that would be being a douchebag. I'll simply say, skirmish games and mass battle games achieve their own levels of spectacle.

I'm not sure you can claim that mass battle games are somehow less tactically challenging than your example. After all, there's games where the sub-commands (flanks and centre, for example, or infantry, artillery and cavalry) are controlled by different players who can't talk directly - each player and the overall commander needs to consider the delay in issuing orders, what to do if those orders aren't received, are intercepted by the enemy or are simply misunderstood (or deliberately ignored) or poor morale amongst their units, at the same time as dealing with the issue of not knowing where the enemy are or what they're up to. There's reasons why officers usually have to be a lieutenant before they're a general, after all.

In Infinity, you know where your troops are, what state they're in and what they can do. Now try the same sort of thing, but you need to plan their orders ahead of time because it takes the runner 15 minutes to get to the front lines from the command post, you don't know exactly where they are or what the terrain's like, and you don't know if they're likely to run from the enemy or not. Your strategies need to take all that into account, as well as simply carrying out the objective and reacting to the enemy.

Well i have never liked large army games simply cuz of the time it takes to just play 1 game.

Shure that 1 game can be a good one and might be entertaining for both players, but sometimes you just can stop thinking; but what if thouse misses was a hit and i actualy wiped out hes unit instead of only 3 dead.
might have changed how the game went.

So personly i prefer small armies or skirmish games that can be played over several times in 1 evning.
if my opponent agrees to it, i prefer best of 3 games where we simply switch tablesides.

I'd rather spend all my gaming time gaming, rather than repeatedly setting up the tabletop and the game, but each to their own.

There are a lot of people that value more games in less time than one long game.

I certainly prefer the one long game myself.

But gamer culture is definitely huge towards more games less time.

Game length is not an indicator of quality, nor is size.

You can get a long, interesting and fun game at the skirmish scale with the right rules.

Just as you can have a short, boring game with army scale games.

True that,

I think it’s more about pace than length.

A fast paced Skirmish game can be damned good fun. Shadespire itself has a ‘best of three’ mechanism built in. As an approach that appeals to me. It means as players we’re less at the mercy of uncooperative dice.

A slow paced Army Scale can be a chore. If I’m spending more time consulting charts and tables than chucking my dice, I’d say it’s gone wrong. Much the same as when it’s over in a turn or two due to beardy army builds.

Here’s an example. I love Apocalypse scale games. When played with your mates in a ‘no real time limit’ environment, you can’t whack it as a gaming experience.

But...that last couple? We’ve had a Battle Company of Salamanders drop pod right into the middle of Tau. Whilst they worked that out, everyone else was left kicking their heels. It looked hella cool, but shut 8 other players out the game for around an hour.

That screwed with the pace, and forced us to play faster than we’d have preferred.

A Skirmish game that drags like a Seal’s ringpiece is also no fun for me.

IMO its important the rules are in synergy with the expected scale and scope of the game play.

If the rules are not appropriate for the game scale and scope, it leads to a poor game play experience.Where the players have to make up for the bad rules.

I like both types so for me it depends on time allotment and how the game is played for instance I really dislike "my whole army goes, your whole army goes" as I get bored/distracted between turns, not a lot of reaction on my part as I cant do anything besides take guys off the table.

now Knight miniatures created skirmish games based in the DC and Marvel universe that I found were GREAT fun. random activation between units, you are able to react and change your strategy mid turn, great fun.

So for me it all comes down to keeping me engaged regardless of time limit. I feel most skirmish games with alternating activation do a good job of that for me.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Frankly, after 20 years I just can't do the assembly line slog to paint an entire large army anymore. It drives me crazy. My fastest accomplishment lately was a skirmish force of 11 Stormcast in a month and a half.

If I want to play a game of huge sweeping armies, nowadays I'd simply do it with Epic Armageddon and all the great third party models out there. At least there a goal of painting up the Third Company of the Ultramarines wouldn't take me a decade, and is also perfectly feasible to play in that ruleset without a game taking hours per turn.

Let that be a lesson to the young whippersnappers out there ..

If you feel like you may ever want to play mass battles of anything, look into it now. Get stuck in while you're full of beans!

Now I'm staring 50 in the face I'm very glad of the collections I've build up over the years. I have them forever ... and I'm not sure I could do it again ...

40k had gotten much too big for the scale it plays, but I've played so much less 40k-scale stuff, it hardly matters. For me, it's boardgaming and small-scale stuff.

I like a 2-hour game window.

Lest we forget Rogue Trader days of 40k it was a skirmish game upon release.
I for one will always play 40k because it's stayed fun for 20 years...

pessa wrote:
Let that be a lesson to the young whippersnappers out there ..

If you feel like you may ever want to play mass battles of anything, look into it now. Get stuck in while you're full of beans!

Now I'm staring 50 in the face I'm very glad of the collections I've build up over the years. I have them forever ... and I'm not sure I could do it again ...

It's the old guys at my club who keep increasing the game size to match their ever expanding massive Napoleonic collections. Maybe in a few years you'll realise your true calling in life is to do 28mm Waterloo with 1 model = 1 man!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 durecellrabbit wrote:

pessa wrote:
Let that be a lesson to the young whippersnappers out there ..

If you feel like you may ever want to play mass battles of anything, look into it now. Get stuck in while you're full of beans!

Now I'm staring 50 in the face I'm very glad of the collections I've build up over the years. I have them forever ... and I'm not sure I could do it again ...

It's the old guys at my club who keep increasing the game size to match their ever expanding massive Napoleonic collections. Maybe in a few years you'll realise your true calling in life is to do 28mm Waterloo with 1 model = 1 man!

Not even in 6mil man, not even in 6

The old guys at your club are probably at the stage they longer care if they finish anything and get a result. It's not for me, but there's something to be said for just pushing miniatures around without worrying to much about the completion side of it.

I've done waterloo at 1 model = 60 a few times. That was good enough for me...
.

tneva82 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
* skirmish games are cheaper because you only need a few models

Or not. The models tend to be more expensive then.

Now if you want something cheap go for like 6mm and warmaster ancient or similar ruleset.

6mm, kings of war rules (free from mantic's website) and a battlepack from irregular miniatures split with a friend gets you gaming relatively small sized armies for est. $25

I honestly think it could simply be down to mass battle games just not offering any more depth of play compared to modern skirmish games nowadays, while being much more of a hassle.

There's no reason why that should be the case. Perhaps it's because the mass-market fantasy 28mm mass battle games are there to sell miniatures, and promote playing with too many models on too small a battlefield.

A lot of skirmish games have rules gimmicks which promote "interesting" gameplay, but I'm not sure what aspect of small-unit combat they're actually trying to model.

Actually, perhaps that's the difference; most well-known skirmish games are games first, wargames second. That's why morale, C&C and fog of war are often minimised or non-existent. The sort of mass-battle games that feature half a dozen portly gentlemen pushing a thousand tiny Napoleonic infantry around a table are designed to be more simulationist.

I prefer the mass battle category. Skirmish games with 8 models each having some unique "special" gimmick have completely turned me off.

But my Oldhammer forces are still growing.

40K needs to go to a smaller scale. I am planning on taking a second mortgage to buy the new 8mm stuff when it comes out.

 SpinCycleDreadnought wrote:
I feel that the skirmish games have numbered days- there's just so many of them that picking one, or trying to find one that others play is a bit of a nightmare. I'm in the process of gradually selling off most of my Malifaux as a few players fell off the radar and the local scene died quickly after. It's there, but it's quite difficult to line up a game. 40k/AoS (and bolt action) however, have a thriving community. Player density is a big factor as not everyone lives in a city or populated area. Sometimes it's a matter of sucking it up and picking up what's being played.

Personally I believe that the longevity of a game, be it skirmish or company-size is dependent on both the company's willingness to support it and the density of the playerbase.

The thing with skirmish games is that it's generally easy to maintain 2 factions, so your opponent doesn't need to buy in, and they take up such little space that you can park them in the garage until an opportunity comes up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kenofyork wrote:
I am often surprised at the importance of playing a game quickly. I hear this often cited as a major reason to sell a game.

I consider table top miniatures gaming to be a deep and engrossing pastime. From rules, studying army lists, collecting, assembling and painting it is a slow process.

I've got 2 kids and a full time job - if I can't wedge gaming into a 2-3 hour session (setup, game, tidy) then it ain't happening. Ditto for most of my gaming buddies.
When we do have a whole evening, I'd still rather play 2 or 3 games of something like Malifaux, than a single rushed game of 40K.
My local gaming club has the same restriction (only open 5 hours, have to be out on time) meaning you get (at best) 4 hours of gaming.

When I was a kid myself, we could leave the dining table set up and play all weekend, and until I get the garage sorted out, I just don't have that option. Even then, I'd still be restricted to a couple of hours game-time, but I could leave it set up to play a game of 40K or KoW or ancients over a few Friday nights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Thats my issue. Skirmish games are fun, but I don't get 25% of the enjoyment out of them that I do with a proper large scale battle.

It's a different enjoyment, on a different level.

A lot of people view games in terms of figures - a game with 400 minis a side must be more tactical than one with 10, but if you think in terms of controllable units (so that block of 40 goblins is a single entity) they aren't that different. My Malifaux squad has about 8-10 minis (Gremlins), my 40K army @ 1500pts was maybe 12 units (Guard), so the level of choice I had was roughly similar.

I can't say I really miss staying up until 2am waiting for a 40K game to finish, especially if it's hit that conclusion point already.

pessa wrote:
Not even in 6mil man, not even in 6

The old guys at your club are probably at the stage they longer care if they finish anything and get a result. It's not for me, but there's something to be said for just pushing miniatures around without worrying to much about the completion side of it.

I've done waterloo at 1 model = 60 a few times. That was good enough for me...

That does some up quite a lot of our games. An evening of pushing models around and the game gets called in favour of whichever side more players felt was winning when it's time to go home.

Herzlos wrote:
It's a different enjoyment, on a different level.

A lot of people view games in terms of figures - a game with 400 minis a side must be more tactical than one with 10, but if you think in terms of controllable units (so that block of 40 goblins is a single entity) they aren't that different. My Malifaux squad has about 8-10 minis (Gremlins), my 40K army @ 1500pts was maybe 12 units (Guard), so the level of choice I had was roughly similar.

I can't say I really miss staying up until 2am waiting for a 40K game to finish, especially if it's hit that conclusion point already.

That's one of the movements going around in the mass battle ancients scene. Some rules have 1 base equals 1 unit while others have units made up of multiple of the same base size or 1 giant base. The former usually has more distinct units to control while the latter has more impressive armies in terms of size.

Its not really a matter of me thinking skirmish games don't have the same level of tactics. Scale of a game doesn't determine tactics.

Its that I get excited over the spectacle of a mass battle game, and I've never been a real "gamer" as much as I am a "storyteller".

If I could go back in time I would stop myself from investing so heavily in wargaming, knowing that twenty years later my investment would be largely unusable because mass battles are largely falling out of favor.

I have an entire room packed with stuff that takes a lot of effort to use these days due to lack of interest in anything that has more than 10 models per side.

 auticus wrote:
Thats my issue. Skirmish games are fun, but I don't get 25% of the enjoyment out of them that I do with a proper large scale battle.

My all time favorite memory of tabletop wargaming is a Mordheim session that I ran as an instructor at a summer program.


I was playing Undead against a young woman that was playing Orcs... and she clobbered me! She ran her goblins into the upper gallery of a ruined church, and rained death down upon my undead. I had been trounced by one of my students, and it was glorious!

I have a lot more stories that I remember from skirmish games, years and even decades later, than individual larger scale battles.

The Auld Grump - and I love large scale battles to pieces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord marcus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
* skirmish games are cheaper because you only need a few models

Or not. The models tend to be more expensive then.

Now if you want something cheap go for like 6mm and warmaster ancient or similar ruleset.

6mm, kings of war rules (free from mantic's website) and a battlepack from irregular miniatures split with a friend gets you gaming relatively small sized armies for est. $25

25mm, cardstock 'miniatures' printed from PDF and Kings of War. Not only is it inexpensive - you can fold the models flat, and fit two complete armies into a notebook.

And there is no reason not to use those same PDF models with the old Mordheim rules, also available as PDFs for free.

*EDIT* Many PDF miniatures are also free - look up OneMonk.Com for both free and inexpensive PDF minis....



The Auld Grump