Tales of Battle

'Tales of Battle' is a high-production-value fanzine devoted to Warhammer Fantasy Battle--specifically the WHFB Grand Tournament Circuit--which has just reached its milestone sixth issue...no small feat for what is essentially a two-man operation.

Each issue covers the latest developments in the Warhammer world, via reviews of such things as recent army book releases, through the prism of what has happened on the GT circuit. There are, as well as reviews, frequent army showcases and occasional modeling workshops--but even these are geared toward the GTer. An excellent example is local hobbyist Matt Mayer's article about Dwarf entrenchments in issue five: although Matt does a great job expanding on the basics for building the model (presented in an earlier issue), making it 360 and addressing a defect in one of the recommended building materials, and the article would stand as valuable from that perspective alone, the remainder of the article elaborates on how the entrenchment played at the Alamo GT.

It isn't in any way a criticism to point out this emphasis; and in fact much of 'Tales of Battle's' success is probably due to it's catering to a specific potential audience. It is just something potential customers should know: there are frequent uses without elaboration of abbreviations and terminology which have become commonplace over the course of GT play which a non-GTer may have difficulty deciphering, and a general sense of familiarity amongst the circuit's top players (which understandably include 'ToB's' staff) which can leave readers interested in Warhammer but less a part of the GT subculture scratching their heads.

It might be fair to suggest clarity in such matters could be improved by judicious explanatory editing...and it is also fair to warn readers in advance that if they are bothered by the presence of other errors one expects to be cleaned up by professional editing--such as spelling or punctuation errors, mid-paragraph changes in tense, etc--such things are too common in issues of 'ToB' to ignore. 'Tales of Battle' is a fanzine; as it's colour, graphic design and photo reproduction have improved from issue to issue, it is easy to forget that it's creators and contributors are producing it out of affection for the subculture, and by definition are professionals at something else. Nevertheless, five bucks is five bucks; some readers won't stand for muddy or inaccurate photos or diagrams at that price, and others may not for muddy english...

Each issue of 'ToB' can be counted on to include regular features: those present from the start have included in-person coverage of the most recent GTs, Masters of Battle interviews with hobby (meaning circuit) notables, Table One (a fully-diagrammed battle report from climactic tables at recent GTs, a particularly impressive, labour-intensive piece of work) and The General's Tent, offering playing advice. I have found something of merit in all these regular columns; I learned more about Wasteland Wars and it's tireless promoter on the Adeptus North Texas mailing list, Brent Collins, in issue 4 than I had known, for example (all of which makes me want to get out to Lubbock someday even more), and the General's Tent on GT Etiquette in that same issue should be something every hobbyist reads.

The irregular features have been spottier--short WHFB-ish fiction, painting and building articles and army showcases increase the zine's appeal beyond the GT circuit players circle, while commentaries from such players and/or about activities on it can be so insular as to be offputting. Issue 5's At The Crossroads of Overlord is a fine example: an article about four East Coast players' attempts to claim a season-overall championship through play in the last tourney event was fascinating, once into it--but with far too little explanatory set-up about who they were or how they reached that point to be very clear. Doubtless for others on the circuit who know them or know the whole story, it was sufficient; for the remaining potential WHFB-loving audience it took a lot of inference while reading-through, to get satisfaction.

In particular, I would enjoy seeing more reviews: the format in issue 5 which judged the Skaven Army Book by familiar letter grades for Imagination/Excitement, Balance (which it did well on) and Rules Clarity (where it nearly failed) was enlightening.

'ToB's' newest feature will be as an outlet for 'unofficial' WHFB playlists. This started as a well-received, fan-created army list for the long-officially-unavailable Chaos Dwarves, which has been accepted for official play at certain GTs (the 96 page PDF can be downloaded at http://www.warmongers.ziggyqubert.com for the interested); author Kevin Coleman adds the Fimir (for the true WHFB grognard) in issue 6. It is a neat idea, and the initial impression the list makes upon this Black Orc player is positive, ruleswise--but it's credibility is, if not destroyed, badly undermined by the worst case of the aforementioned amateurish proofing/editing yet seen in an issue...

'Tales of Battle' is the brainchild of North Texas' own Ben Burns, ably assisted by Matt Birdoff. Copies are available locally at The Gamers Realm and Area 51 for $5 each; subscriptions can be had for $25 at http://www.talesofbattle.com and, while I am no WHFB GTer, I felt I got my five bucks worth of entertainment and am happy to have found all six issues through local retailers. I anxiously await the seventh.
+++

Despatch: Plastic Minotaurs

Acknowledging that I am probably a hard-sell--I love the existing Citadel pewter Minotaur models, they were the core of my previous edition Beastmen army for Warhammer Fantasy Battle, and I had a small hand in creating the Minotaur HQ option for same (what became the Doombull) so I have a certain entirely-unearned-but-real-nonetheless emotional sense of ownership toward them--my initial reaction to the all-plastic, multipose Minotaurs released along with the all-new Beastmen Army Book was *not* enthusiastic.

Having assembled my first unit of three, however, my opinion has modified, to the positive.

The negatives remain: I do not like how oversized they've become compared to the existing metals, I do not like some of the strange anatomical decisions made by the sculptors (chiefly the weird non-hooved hybrid feet and the 'bubble-muscle' look), I do not like how fur/pelt detail has become stylized rather than realistic (an aesthetic choice across the new Beastmen line which looks cartoonish and fake and doesn't work at all, for me), and I do not think the heads resemble either the existing Citadel Minotaur look or real bovine creatures. It has been suggested there is a World of Warcraft influence....

Those points made, I observed in building the actual models that much of these (admittedly subjective) aesthetic issues could be pretty-easily modified by a painting approach which geared the Minotaurs either toward the existing GW look, or just toward a more subdued, realistic approach generally; it appears the Eavy Metal versions seen in advance of their release in White Dwarf uniformly opted to accentuate the design choices made in the sculpts (an admittedly understandable marketing decision). This is particularly true of the heads, which are more recognizably Minotaurish in bare plastic.

And as has been the case with GW's multipart plastic figure kits for some time now, the technical execution is impeccable (sharply-cast details in high-quality plastic with little flash and outstanding fit) and the parts value is high (after assembling my three Minotaurs I had two heads, three sets of horns, four sets of arms, almost a dozen weapons and myriad optional extra detail bits left over). Particularly impressive is the ability to model full command, or three hand-weapon-and-shield, two-hand-weapon or double-handed great weapon armed Minotaurs in each box.

Will they replace my mighty pewter beasts, if I ever return to fielding Beastmen? No. But might they augment those worthies? That they might...
+++

Despatch: Blastscapes

The online community has reacted with startling harshness to Games Workshop's new Planetstrike!-specific hobby terrain offering, the Blastscape--so I hustled out to grab a bag for myself after the online furor. The pieces in the Blastscape bag are designed to specifically replicate on-table several of the Planetstrike! 'special effects' Attacking armies can unleash upon Defenders in games of Planetstrike!. With it in hand (and having recently painted several sets of the similar Moonscape Craters for various retailers), I can make the following definitive assessments:

1) The Terrain pieces in the Blastscape bag ARE NOT comparable to those shown in the White Dwarf battle report introducing Planetstrike!, the advertising section of the same issue, on GW's website or, in fact, on the back of the Blastscape retail bag, either in substance or detail; those painted pieces appear to be resin, whereas the Blastscape pieces offered at retail are unpainted vacuformed plastic.

2) The vacuformed Blastscapes DO have a damage-inclined area--the high point of one piece strains the bag's ability to protect it in shipping because it is such a prominence, and if it gets crumpled it--like all vacuformed plastic--will deform, stress and break. This is the prominence in one of the earliest online reviews which reportedly punctured; I can confirm mine is broken, too...but should also note that it is only that peak of that one piece that has demonstrated damage in the bag I purchased, or any others I have examined.

3) Those criticisms being acknowledged as valid--I find the quality of the five vacuformed Blastscape pieces is quite good *given the medium*, easily on par with the Moonscape Craters bag (which have seen fine service in MegaBattles and tournaments at several local retailers, now, without any ill effect). If the pre-release pictures used on the website and in the Dwarf (and, probably worst, on the Blastscape packaging itself) did not exist and had not raised false expectations, I do not believe there would be many complaints about these pieces' tabletop utility at all; and

4) The set of five retails for less than twenty bucks US. That is what vacuforming allows. These pieces rendered in more detail in resin would cost at least that APIECE, I estimate. Done in vacuform, a player can easily cover even very large tables with these terrain effects.

The Blastscape bag provides: a terrain piece with multiple close craters, representing a crash or perhaps a multiround solid-shell barrage; a piece with multiple asteroids impacted; the much-talked- about orbital strike seared-lance- of-molten- earth piece (which *is* very cool and should be a great deal of fun to paint); a terrain piece with multiple bits of craft wreckage; and the problem piece, a huge piece of impacted wreckage (which has driven up a high wedge of earth, the topmost point of which is suffering the damage in packaging).

I understand the complaints; GW--intentionally or not, and since I suspect the painted pieces used in the battle report, online and on the packaging are the resin masters for the actual vacuformed Blastscape pieces, I am willing to give them benefit of the doubt on intent here--pulled a bait-and-switch with the Planetstrike! Blastscape terrain, advertising a level of precision and detail in the painted resin sculpts the actual vacuformed plastic retail offering could never match. Given I would not have spent a hundred bucks or more on resin Planetstrike! effect terrain pieces, however, regardless of quality--nor I suspect would many hobbyists--and given the inexpensive vacuformed pieces offer customizing/converting possibilities working with solid resin would not...from my position the Blastscape is a hobby product of outstanding value and utility. If GW would like to make it up to us by offering resin castings of those terrain piece masters at a significant discount--as a gesture of good faith--on the other hand....

+++

Imperial Bastion Planetstrike! Terrain Kit: This is a nifty little thirty-buck model: the floors are modular, so combining kits can render very tall towers (great for Titan-cover in Apocalypse) and nice low shielded bunkers and entrenchment strongpoints (especially when combined with the new Aegis Defensive Walls) as well as the standard Bastion (which, it must be said, is the most common way this kit is likely to be configured, and is perfect for standard games of 40K and Planetstrike!, and pretty applicable for Cityfight and Apocalypse games as well).

Each kit includes considerable parts for customization and personalization, as has become GWs norm: of particular interest are the complete quad gun and lascannon turrets and the communications array, useful little subassemblies which will find their way onto lots of other terrain pieces, I suspect.

GW offers a 'Chaos Bastion' which includes Chaos sprues, and 'orkified' versions using all the bitz from the recent Trukk, Battlewagon and especially Stompa kits will be easy to convert, so the kit has plenty of application.

With a number of floor modules added my Bastion is about to become the basis for a control tower overwatching my in-progress airfield table; I suspect the variations on the basic Bastion will be endless, for terrain-oriented hobbyists. I am looking forward to battling for control of some of them on local tables soon!

+++

Mirror, Mirror...

There are good Star Trek movies and bad Star Trek movies.* And there are Star Trek movies the faithful--*we* faithful--like, and that we hate. Relative success or failure can depend upon many things...but it begins with 'Is it Star Trek?'

Star Trek *isn't* Star Wars. It isn't like any other franchise-- science fiction or otherwise--and creators violate it's core tenets at their peril. These can be trivial (expansive, symphonic scoring *is* Star Trek, insipid, folk-rock song ballads are not) or they can be moral/ethical/philosophic (placing others above self *is* Star Trek, personal quests--especially for God but also for family, or revenge, or selfish gain--are not), but whenever creators of big-screen motion pictures or small-screen series have defied them, the result has usually been rejected (and, to the justification of the faithful, has usually been as bad as it has been disliked). And--continuity matters. That has always been a part of the Star Trek legacy. Those behind the final series incarnation, 'Enterprise,' nearly killed the franchise, they broke so many conventions (see 'ridiculous song' above)--but their cardinal sin was rebelling against what they described as slavish continuity restraints so violently that what they created-- whatever it's other merits--wasn't Star Trek.

It is into precisely such peril that creator JJ Abrams steps, in his feature film attempt to reboot the franchise: how do you make something exciting and fresh and new which relies so at its heart upon all that has gone before?

'Star Trek' accomplishes the dual goal of being good *and* good Star Trek by--as all good Trek feature films before it did--being Star Trek first. There is not a frame of film, not a moment of dialogue, not a chord of music which disrespects what has gone before...and when it indulges it's past most directly, the moment is moving to the brink of tears.

Quibbles are as numerous as tribbles, and enough of these there may be that some faithful will not like the movie; the shape of this Enterprise (likeable in angles emphasizing its 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' esque saucer, awkward when its 'Next Generation' hull and almost ugly when its assymetric, lightbulblike nacelles dominate) is polarizing, whether some of the cast evoke their originals nearly to caricature while others fall hopelessly short of their predecessors' charisma is already a heated debate...as is whether the degree to which the film cribs from the series' most successful, 'The Wrath of Khan' (for my purposes--if you are going to emulate something, pick something good).

By the time the last Star Trek film whimpered from theaters, however ('Nemesis,' which had its sentimental adieus but was neither very good nor very Trek) the franchise was at best an irrelevancy, and bordering on becoming a cultural punch line. 'Star Trek' is good enough on its mainstream merits to moot that, to reinvigorate a hopeful, optimistic, bold and smart storytelling vehicle again (at a time when we could all use that kind of bouyancy)--and to set an example in so doing that respecting someone else's sandbox when you come play in it does nothing to diminish the beauty of the sand castle you may create there.

May this Trek universe go on to Peace and Long Life.

*--The 'Good' Star Trek movies, for the record (the specific order is mine, but the consensus is pretty broad):

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Star Trek (8): First Contact
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

Many would elevate The Voyage Home above The Search for Spock (the one anomalous 'odd-numbered Trek movie' which inarguably defies the 'odd ones suck' curse); certainly, it is the most popularly-accessible and mainstream of the series, but STIII's operatic sensibility has its adherents as well and II, III and IV work best as a trilogy in sequence anyway.

Star Trek (7): Generations also has proponents and is probably the best of the 'not so good' Star Trek movies--but while its dramatic successes are profound and elevate it for those of us who really like it, its failures are enormous and difficult to work past, for those who do not.

Star Trek (9): Insurrection has a nicely-nuanced mature romantic subplot undone by ridiculous villains and a general sense of inconsequence, and Star Trek (10): Nemesis feels uncanonical and indulgent. The less said about Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, the better; probably, in light of the evidence of the latter two, 'Enterprise's' ridiculous song and various citable instances from every iteration of each series, any vocalizing in a Star Trek incarnation should be prohibited.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture cannot be discussed objectively here. As noted, there is good and bad Trek and Trek which is loved and hated, and they needn't be the same; so it is that I am emotionally inextricably hung up with this film. It brought my beloved 'classic Trek' back from the dead, in glorious 70mm widescreen with the most soaring Jerry Goldsmith-composed music and the most aesthetically beautiful starship ever designed. It may be slow, even uncinematic, and cerebral to a fault. But I can quote every line of dialogue from memory and will stop-down for it every time I run across it on late- night TV and when the Admiral orders Sulu to take her out I will get a lump in my throat till the day I die. Because it *is* Star Trek.

Why War of the Ring?

If you ask a Games Workshop hobbyist to identify themselves with one primary game system, most will come down firmly in either the Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Warhammer 40K camp (various Specialty Games--Blood Bowl, Epic, Mordheim, Inquisitor, Warhammer Quest, Space Hulk--might once have had significant adherents, but it has been so long since any were regularly available on shelves few fans remain active in the hobby who are not first a player of one or the other 'primary' systems). The fact that GW has--and continues to fully support with both new-on-shelf product and regular White Dwarf magazine coverage--a third primary game system is not reflected by the hobby base...something Games Workshop is taking a major step to address.

The Lord of the Rings miniatures game enjoyed huge popularity during the theatrical runs of Peter Jackson's movie adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's seminal fantasy. Some sources indicate Lord of the Rings product outsold Warhammer Fantasy product in the US and Warhammer 40K product in Europe during those years (some sources suggest it outsold both product lines worldwide). Games Workshop took the opportunity to release a basic boxed set with each of the three feature films, including film-specific miniatures and rules-tweaks...then saved the best for last, releasing the game's current basic-box incarnation--which includes beautifully-sculpted members of the Fellowship, goblins and a cave troll all in plastic, plus terrain and the most polished iteration of the rules yet--once the film trilogy was complete. They have continued to support it with marvelous new plastics, highly-regarded pewter sculpts (Peter Jackson himself is a huge and public fan, so much so he included a number of GW sculptors and Studio creators in his final Rings film) and, perhaps best of all, supplemental rules books exploring areas of Tolkien's world and work either in greater detail than the previous general rules allowed, or which were not covered at all by the film series (with miniatures to match). LotR support in White Dwarf by the Studio personnel assigned to the game system has consistently been the best, most creative and highest quality the magazine has offered. In short, Games Workshop has not only *not* dropped the ball in supporting their LotR game line following completion of the three films, they've stepped up their quality of effort, laudably so.

It is just that few hobbyists have noticed.

That doesn't mean the line has been unprofitable; in fact, some sources indicate GW's LotRs miniatures line is still the third-best selling line of games miniatures in the world (behind WHFB and 40K). It simply has gone from being the closest thing the miniatures gaming industry has yet seen to a mass market product, at its height, to the kind of niche product line most other miniatures lines are and remain. And that isn't GW's fault...it is simply the nature of being a franchisee of a media phenomenon which has reached its emotional conclusion. Just as Star Wars product fell off the marketing map after Return of the Jedi in 1983 because much of its fandom felt 'the story was over,' so Lord of the Rings toys, costumes, replicas, trinkets, etc have largely disappeared from shelves following Return of the King. GW has soldiered on (no pun intended) with their miniatures game because the line remains profitable, and the system is good--but they would emphatically like to see their models for it not just sold and collected but actually played with.

To that end comes War of the Ring.

The one consistent limitation of the Lord of the Rings system created by GW observed by regular players is that, as a ruleset designed first around the scenarios, settings and adventures of the first film, which were mostly small-unit affairs, it became awkward to handle as the size of the armies and battles increased. GW tweaked this as the scope of the story expanded with The Two Towers, and again to accommodate the vast spectacle of the climactic battles in Return of the King...but at its heart, the Lord of the Rings game was and is at its best, most fun and most playable replicating skirmish-level encounters.

The new War of the Ring game takes the basic LotR rules concepts and mechanics and re-gears them for the monumental.

Now, players will be able to really recreate the feel of the siege at Helms Deep, or the Battle for Pelennor Fields. Vast armies will sweep across tabletops, invest enemy fortresses, or mount massive cavalry charges.

To quote one GW source, 'WotR will do for LotR what Apocalypse did for 40K.'

And, as with the basic Warhammer 40,000 game and its Apocalypse supplement, nothing GW does for WotR will diminish the LotR game: it will remain the choice for best retelling tales of indivual heroes and their warbands on the tabletop, for quick or pick-up games between friends.

There will be no basic boxed game version of War of the Ring. Like Apocalypse, it will be presented in a beautiful, lavishly-illustrated and comprehensive hard cover book. Its comprehensiveness is its signal virtue: every army an interested hobbyist might want to build for WotR is covered in the basic book, along with all of its variants, potential leaders and heroic characters/villains/monsters, and all of the rules one need know to play WotR. Players of LotR will recognize most of the terminology and mechanisms--but GW is treating WotR as a 'start from scratch,' so that no previous familiarity with LotR is required.

And as a new system, everyone will be starting from a level playing field, in building their armies for either fun or competitive play. And their WILL be competitive play: GW has never dropped LotR from its GTs, and expects WotR to generate a resurgence of interest in playing the game tournament-style.

This is a very good thing. I think LotR is GW's *best* game from both the pure 'fun to play' and the competitively-balanced standpoints. Fans of earlier iterations of WHFB and especially 2nd Edition Warhammer 40K are encouraged to give it a look--much moreso than either current version of GW's staple games, the role of singular heroes, and the impact they can have on battles, is dramatically more pronounced in LotR...just as any ruleset replicating a great tale of great heroes ought to be. However, the balance is generally spot-on: Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli, Legolas and the Nine *lead* their armies, but are not so powerful as to *be* the army. Sauron and the Balrog approach that level of power...but then, they should, and are distinguished by that singularity. It is an outstanding and evocative system, which moves quickly and feels 'heroic' (so much so, I have adapted the LotR rules for historicals gaming in the post-Roman 'Arthurian' era for personal use, after being repeatedly frustrated at the 'realism' of most historical miniatures rules systems failing to evoke the more mythic feel I wanted, and have been extremely satisfied with the result...and those who know me will tell you I take matters Arthurian very seriously, and with a difficult critical eye to satisfy :).

GW is hoping upping the scope of this game, to recreate the enormous battles which are among the trilogy's highlights, will provide a jumpstart for dormant hobby interest. The War of the Ring ruleset for just such huge battles seems to have retained much of what is so good about Lord of the Rings, added scope, size and spectacle, then leavened with some rules alterations to make so vast a game still proceed at a brisk pace (I particularly like the 'rather than modify results, roll as many dice as possible' approach). And they've added some marvelous lures: the base rulebook is a beautiful thing, as noted, the first new models (especially the plastic Ent!) are likewise--and the movement trays, designed to make GW's round-based LotR miniatures easy to use ranked up, for WotR, are terrific: I suspect 40K players will find them appealing for display and perhaps even play applications, as well as dedicated WotR use.

GW has built it; now, will the players come?

I hope so, for all of the reasons noted above and more. For one thing, discovering GW's line of LotR/WotR miniatures will open up a whole new area of collecting for players who've not tried the system: not just the new plastic Ents or Kingdom of the Dead figures, but the whole catalog of LotR miniatures crafted since the game's inception will open up to--and be 'like new' to--such hobbyists. And there are some wonderful miniatures in that catalog, from both the plastic and pewter versions of the Balrog to the awesomely villainous Sauron to the modular dragon--as well as original creations like Gulhavhar the daemon, which boast a laudable commitment to fidelity with Tolkein's universe.

If War of the Ring rejuvenates hobby interest in the Lord of the Rings miniatures game, such 'new converts' will not be the only ones who benefit: every closet fan of the game who has boxed up their figures for lack of opponents will profit, as well.

I've a vast cohort of valiant Rohirrim waiting for the call from sequester, to ride to Middle Earth's defense, should new Orcs, Olyphaunts or Easterlings appear on the tabletop horizon, because of War of the Ring...
+++