Articles 1,215

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • New

    Forgive the ego-stroking natur of the article but I'm proud as punch to have my painting guide feature on the Avatars of War webstore page here:…+weapons&id=118&Itemid=53

    I've also been taking some photos requested by Gaelion to add to the site and I wanted to share them. These minatures have been a real pleasure to paint and convert and I've got at least one more unit being made from the corrupters! The visual imagery from the armour styles has also been a huge unfluence in the way I imagines my army's backstory... and I think it tells:

    A Price To Pay - The Tale of Peutrifectus Ravenblight

    [Read More]
  • New

    Fellow gamers,

    this article is quite different. Instead of my normal battle report format this article is about how the T9A magic phase could be re-designed.

    The article contains:
    a) my analysis of how magic worked in WHFB 8th, T9A up until 1.1 and T9A from 1.2 on.
    b) the design goals of my idea
    c) my rules proposal
    d) conclusion, some design ideas for magic items and spells within my system

    The complete article can be found on my blog:

    but a copy (only slight differences in text) is also posted here on the forum, for better feedback and discussion: Magic by Points – Suggestion to completely redesign the magic phase [Read More]
  • New

    Today, I would like to talk about one of the hardest things about running a narrative campaign: giving up control. With the amount of time and energy we invest in our armies it is completely natural to form a personal attachment to them, and in many cases this attachment can lead a player to become very protective of their army. The difficulty of this protectiveness in a narrative campaign is that you have to give up a certain amount of control to the other players. So here are some thoughts on how to deal with that loss of control.

    First it is important to understand that you are not giving up control so much as you are sharing control with the other players, AND they are sharing control with you as well. You have to understand that a successful narrative campaign needs each player needs to feel like they are able to tell their story, and the stage must be shared for that to happen. So it is important to try and figure out howto work with the story as presented by the other players. To that end you want to look at your response to the contributions of other players not as"yes" or "no" but rather as "Yes, and..." or "Yes, but...".

    "Yes and...": When you completely agree with what your opponent has written it is important to use that information to build upon for your next part of the narrative. By building upon what your opponent has done, you maintain your portion of control over the story while allowing their portion to impact it. This will allow for a sense of growing story and leads to a better collaborative feeling between the players.

    "Yes but...": So the above idea is the perfect situation, but what happens when your opponents write up for the narrative does something that you don't want to have happen to your army? The first thing is to respect your opponents input into the story, since it is not fair to simply ignore their writing.But them you need to think about the events they describe and find a way to either tweak it to make it more acceptable to the story you want to tell, or to find a new direction you can take with that information.

    To investigate this, I would like to talk about the biggest failing our group had in the first narrative we ran. During one of the early games, I played my Dwarves vs the Warriors of Chaos. The warriors won the battle and in the subsequent narrative write up, the Chaos player forced my Dwarven Characters into a dark ritual that I felt corrupted them and made the characters unplayable. I did not keep the above guidelines in mind and I took the write up Very personally. In response, I got rid of those characters (which brought that story to a grinding halt) and then during the next game I got to write up after the Warriors were defeated and I wrote a narrative bit in which one of his characters was captured (with the thought that the next game could be him trying to rescue this character). But being that I had discounted his earlier input, the player took my write up personally and chose to leave our group rather than continue with the campaign.

    I think that both of us allowed our possessiveness and protectiveness to have a negative impact on the campaign as a whole. We both could have taken a look at what was written and tried to find a way to incorporate the write ups that did not disregard the input of the other. For example, I could have gone with my character being corrupted and played through the story of how a corrupted leader would affect the dwarves. (I did something similar later on in the campaign with my ogres). And he could have accepted the capture as an opportunity to fight a neat battle in which his army sought to assail the enemy and rescue his missing character. Both ways would have helped to grow the story, although not in the ways that either one of us wanted. But our resistance to that change in the story lead to one player to leave the game and prevented us from telling that story at all.

    So the lesson that I learned from that situation is that it is better for the game to be able to step back and allow the other players to have their impact on the story. There is always a way to write a response to any event that will allow the campaign to grow. But to try and force your way will only have a negative effect on the campaign in the long run. [Read More]
  • New

    Gabe with Gabe of Thrones Studio is back with an epic Warriors of the Dark Gods army facing off against David’s Stout Dwarfs backed by a cannon and Vengeance Seeker. There’s plenty of carange in this battle!

    5,000 Point 9th Age Version 1.3 Battle Report, played January 2017

    David’s Dwarven Holds vs Gabe’s Wasteland Warriors of the Dark Gods

    Deployment: Refused Flank

    Secondary Objective: Breakthrough [Read More]