Like any responsible gamer, I'm always on the lookout for new games to get into. Never mind that as of this writing I have 359 unplayed board games (only 6 more before I'll finally try that 'new game a day' challenge). Never mind that I already own, buy, and play about 25 other miniatures games that I don't have time for (not much time for hobbies with a toddler). Seriously, I'm a gamer- if I'm not buying new games, what's even the point?
Most recently arrived is Star Wars: Shatterpoint, from Atomic Mass Games. A 40mm skirmish game from the company already producing its most obvious competition that seems to promise fast, action-filled battles and more Star Wars goodness. I admit, I'm surprised that the game is as different from Marvel: Crisis Protocol as it is (given how easy that would have been, and how successful MCP has been), but I think they've made the right choice in giving this game its own distinct set of mechanics. It seems interesting, seems like it will be popular, and has the appropriate logo on it to get my interest, so it was a pretty obvious purchase. I'm sure I'll get a game of this in within a month or so.
Prior to Shatterpoint's arrival, something equally appealing arrived - the first (of the three I purchased) starters for Black Powder: Epic Battles Waterloo. One of the first miniatures rulesets I discovered growing up was a set of Napoleonic rules in the back of a military history book. I found it fascinating. I believe I had discovered Warhammer Fantasy by that point (or discovered it soon after, the two events were almost co-occurrent), but the idea of refighting battles with miniatures is something that I love even today (obviously). Historical miniature games have a specific interest because the context helps add substance to a game. Having my Dark Elves fight your High Elves over some random piece of land in a one-off battle is fun, but why are they fighting, other than their mutual hatred for one another?
When armies fought in history, they were attempting to achieve some actual goal, in addition to (or in lieu of) destruction of the opponent's army. This is why they would fight so hard to hold a farmhouse that gave them a commanding view of a crossroads, or why they would charge headlong into the opponent's guns, knowing that defeat could mean the end of their way of life. Sure, battling with toys on the table doesn't really convey all of that (other than abstractly with scenario rules), but knowing the 'why' of two armies fighting really makes it all the more interesting, to me.
Napoleonic warfare is of course one of the best ways to experience historical games, with three general 'types' of unit (infantry, cavalry, and artillery), and numerous subtypes under there. Plus the variety of nationalities and uniforms that take part in the battles, PLUS the wildly varying competence of the generals of the era (between the French marshals, and say, Karl Mack von Leiberich). There's just so much potential for great games.
These miniatures from Warlord Games are listed as 15mm (despite, apparently, being about 13mm), which is a great scale for large battles, and I've read the rules- it seems like a great system for this period. My dad bought in, as well, and embarrassingly, he's already way ahead of me in assembly and painting (side note, I'm the biggest miniature gamer in the family, and my dad and brother BOTH get more assembled and painted than I do- what the hell is wrong with me?).
The releases so far cover only the Battle of Waterloo, and the other battles of the Hundred Days, but I'm hoping they expand the range and books to give us other major campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars.
Anyway, instead of writing, why don't I get working on some minis?
