Search the Community

Zeta Complex is a brand new setting using the SWADE rules. This dark humor Sci-Fi game will be a blast for everyone. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/newcometgames/zeta-complex-a-savage-world-setting EU friendly.

An ongoing collection of Reaper miniatures that I have brought to completion. REAPER 77623 Avatar of Courage REAPER 77489 Bregan Valkyrie

I recently ordered some POD rules through Amazon, since that wasn’t an option in the DriveThru RPG version, and I’m old school enough that it’s a lot easier for me to learn a set of rules I actually intend to play from a paper copy. Anyway, Amazon’s algorithms decided that I probably also wanted Fantastic Battles by Nic Wright (doing business as “Irregular Wars” but apparently published in collaboration with Ganesha Games, makers of A Song of Blades and Heroes etc.). It is apparently both scale and miniatures agnostic, with the base unit mounted on squares (although there are options for rectangular bases). Since all of my mass battle fantasy figures are on 60mm squares, this seemed like it would be easy enough to test out. I’m drawing up a couple of small orders of battle; at “500 points”, my first army looks to have 10 bases of troops and 4 characters. The recommended game size on a 4x6 table with 60mm bases would be up to 1000 points, or perhaps twice that. I’ll report back when I get a battle fought…

"Starting with the latest expansion to the GURPS Action series (see Warehouse 23), your pledge of $3 secures you a PDF copy of GURPS Action 8 - Twists. This 10-page PDF, written by Sean Punch, aims to shake things up. " https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/warehouse23/steve-jackson-games-gurps-2021-pdf-challenge? 10 PDFs for as little as $3 seems like a deal.

Is Jamming an ECM signal an active process that must be maintained like current Electronic Warfare counter Measures or is it more like an EMP that just turns off ECM? In practice: If my Talon activates ECM to block Target-Locks, then my opponent successfully Jams my ECM with his warden, is my ECM gone until next turn or would it be back if I immediately destroy the warden that jammed my ECM on my next activation during that turn?

TL;DR: I don't understand tightly linked figure and rules ranges. I was writing my Huzzah report for my blog this morning, and one thing led to another. My collaborator and I agreed at the convention that next year's game(s) was(were) going to be something using the combined resources of our 16th century home cast 40mm projects. So, yesterday I dug out my bags of castings to see what I should start working on, and, after blogging this morning I decided that the proper thing to do was to muster the troops on the table and see what I really had. (My last inventory is both hidden somewhere and probably suspect anyway.) So, there they are: 4 artillery pieces, 18 assorted cavalry stands, 10 stands of pikes and pike command, 5 stands of swordsmen, 4 stands of improvised converted crossbowmen, and 8 stands of musketeers. (Three need repairs, which I can do today now that I've had them laid out.) The story that goes with these figures is this: I have been interested in the 16th century, and the warfare of the 16th century, for longer than I can remember. It's probably a combination of being an early music enthusiast and being exposed to Sir Charles Oman's History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century at an impressionable age. In the early years of the current phase of my interest in the miniatures hobby (starting around 1987, say) I would play 16th century games at the conventions when I could, but never started my own project, being intimidate by painting all those Landsknechts. By the time our club, the HAWKs, had started in 1994, I was already casting some of my own figures from commercial molds. Chris Palmer, also a member of this board, and I both had fairly extensive mold collections, including two non-compatible 40mm 18th century sets. Mine were Prince August, and his Nuernberger Meisterzinn. He also had a Meisterzinn catalog. I don't know much about Meisterzinn, but they were already a zombie company (things kept in production but no new products) by 1994. They had a small range of 16th century molds, and I thought that it would be an interesting challenge to collect them, cast up some figures, and put a game together. A set of rules called Armati had just come out, with a Renaissance section and provision for playing with a single stand as a unit, so I used that as the basis for my casting. It took, as these things do, a couple of years to get things done to the point of playing games with them. Not long after that, Chris decided to build some 40mm Leonardo da Vinci machines to go with them, inspired by a number of games of Leonardo Plus which were run at the cons for a few years. Those rules didn't suit our collections, though, so we ended up staging a game using home rules at Cold Wars in 1999. After that, the figures got put away for a while, until Ross and I ended up in discussions about how difficult it would be to convert enough of the figures to form the basis of a 16th century English army (still using the longbow). From there, we ended up deciding to put on a game in 2004 using a scenario from the Anglo-Scots Wars of the 1540s. The siege of Haddington in 1548 was nearly a perfect match for our hodgepodge collections, with mercenaries from all over Europe participating on one side or the other. Once again, we had to write rules to suit our collection of miniatures. My pictures of that game are unfortunately pre-digital, and buried somewhere. We even got an award from the convention for that one, because it was unusual and eye-catching. Since then, we dust them off every few years, revise the rules again to taste, and set to. If I'm at home, I'm somewhat limited by my collection, but I can still put on a decent two player game: I still haven't managed to get to the Siege of Malta in 1565, but Ross wants to do Turks this next year, so we'll see what happens. Anyway, after all of that, my point and question is this: With my DIY background, I have a hard time understanding what seems to me to be the ever increasing trend of players buying into tightly linked figure and rules lines. I see posts/listen to podcasts/conversations/etc. in which people grouse about the speed with which games come out and die, and how that renders their miniatures useless. I may be a little odd, but it's not that unusual in the historical community to accept that the figures you buy are going to end up being used with many sets of rules, that you may need to write a set to match the size of your collection, and that you might want to work on something that you like the look of, because the figures are forever, but the rules are ephemeral. Thoughts? Are you a new person? Another grognard like me?

This general line of questioning came up around our table when we started firing overcharged PBGs at one another and, inevitably, started rolling some "burnouts," that is, overheats (1 on 1D6) and weapon failures (snakeyes). As previously discussed in a different thread, we know that if I go "out of ammo" when firing a Salvo, then the entire weapon system is shut down, e.g. if my Chancellor fires all 4 MACs and runs out of ammo, then all four MACs are disabled. I infer, then, that if I fire those four MACs individually (we call this a "volley"), then if I run out of ammo for one, then I run out of ammo for all. Are the above points true / similar / identical for weapon overheat or failure? That is, if my Tyrant fires all 4 PBGs in a Salvo and overheats, are ALL PBGs shut down for one round? If I burnout (snakeyes) are they ALL disabled? Same goes for firing multiple weapons in a volley - if instead of firing my Ogre's 3 PBGs in a Salvo for improved accuracy, I instead fire a volley, and roll snakeyes on my first shot, does that disable all PBGs or just one? Thanks in advance for the clarification! My group and I are working on a more thorough list of FAQs, but we need still more study of the rules and a few more games under our belts first!

I picked up a copy of Osprey's Rogue Stars rules when they came out. I still haven't had a chance to play, but I'm not thrilled with the 6 pages of errata for a 64-page book, and the general level of lists of modifers. At least the Quick Reference Sheet is available online now, which it wasn't at publication last Christmas. Anyway, that leaves me with a growing collection of very generic SF figures and possibly no rules. I'm looking for any recommendations for a similar set of rules for small crews or squads that can absorb a wide range of generic figures. I don't care about popularity or continuing support, since I am expected to do this on my own, so I don't really care whether there is an attached miniatures range (as long as it isn't required...) Any suggestions?

Hello! I have a question on the upcoming ReaperCon this year. For the Master series paint open contest rules on the page https://reapercon.com/contestI could not find anything regarding personally designed Models that an artist 3D prints and then paints. for use as an example: That is my first attempt at a model I personally designed in Blender, and then printed, in the style of warhammer 40k, though as a mention I really like the look of the grav-flux bombard from forgeworld so I created a very close facsimile of it for my model. Under the rules I'm seeing I'm assuming that in the Painters Division it would not matter if it is 3D printed given the source of the model is not given consideration, just the prep and painting quality. However I'm curious what, if any, the ruling on 3D designed and printed models are in the Open Division. Given the rules and the scoring system, sculpted models are judged by design originality, creativity, difficulty, etc, would a custom designed 3D printed model enjoy the same criteria for judging, or would it even be welcome in this division? Arguably this could extend to the diorama and vehicle division as well given the criteria in those. I would like to argue that 3D designed and printed models should be welcome in any division; my design time alone for the model I gave as an example was clocked at 60+ hours. And while my tools and medium are different than a clay or greenstuff sculptor, I don't put any less passion or hard work into it.

Well I had hoped we wouldn't have to do this but unfortuantely a couple of things didn't make it into the final book as planned. As a result we have a little bit of errata to publish. CAV: SO Errata

I was looking over my collection of fabulous CAV models yesterday, and I had a thought regarding force organization (though the trigger was in fact reading CAVBoss's update in which he specifically called the Dervish an "attack" role CAV, but that's kind of beside the point): I noticed after looking over my Ritterlich CAVs that I have a radically disproportionate number of recon and fire support CAVs, making it rather difficult to build a viable force within the force org rules. In fact, without a house rule, I have no variety in my core force - it's always rhino + cataphract + something else. If I don't WANT to take rhinos, I have to get my butt down to my FLGS or over to Reapermini.com to order more Cataphracts. Furthermore, I've noticed after quite a few test games that all my forces are sort of ossifying around a core of tried-and-true attack CAVs with maybe an experimental recon or fire support or flight section. My thought, then, is: what if forces were deployed around different role types instead of attack? That is, what if I decided I wanted to play a "Fire Support Company" versus a "Recon" company - the rule being that I have to have more squads with the role of fire support than any other role? Lest this sound like an attempt to build cheesy boomy-shooty armies, please know I am tipping my hat to CAV's overall sense of balance - if I were to field an army of Tiamat's, I have little doubt I'd wind up pounded in to paste as soon as my opponent got within range! For a loose example: I decide I want to run a recon company consisting of four squadrons - this simply means that two of those squadrons must be Type = Recon instead of the usual limitation in which two squadrons must bey Type = Attack. This even has some fluff potential, I think, with key factions preferring their own TOEs: Rach would be attack, of course, but Terrans might be flight or artillery; Malvernis might be Infantry; Adon might be Recon. Just a thought I wanted to share with the group to see what happens.

I was little surprised not to find a post about this one: Cretacea: The game of gargantuan survival It is a rule set to play skirmish games with Dinosaurs. Sadly no minis. It is 1:100, but I'm sure it should be possible for 28-32mm, too.

Inspired by the CAV Kickstarter, over the past couple of months I have frequently alluded to and shared portions of my attempt to improve upon the CAV 2 rules as they were left following the Rage Chronicles ’08 public beta. Utilizing an early draft of rules changes proposed by Mil-Net and drawing heavily on old forum discussions of known problems and possible solutions, I have overhauled several portions of the rules and expanded others. This project has now reached the point where there is little more I can do without feedback on the numerous changes, and so I would like to present to you the CAV 2.M Beta. CAV 2.M Beta [zip] EDIT: Link dead. Find the latest version HERE. EDIT: Links removed as per Reaper's request. PM me if you're looking for the latest files. The download consists of an errata document, in the style of Rage Chronicles ’08, and data cards for all models with the exception of the War for Sale army lists and those with the Unique SA from Shards. I would be happy to provide any of the excluded cards if there is demand for them, and they will of course be included in the final release. My intention following the testing is to produce a full rulebook incorporating the changes and improving on the layout and presentation. Please post any feedback in this thread; actual playtest results/battle reports would be most valuable, but all input is welcome! Thoughts on the assignment of abilities and point values would also be helpful, given the abundance of new SAs and the increased relevance of EXP, TC, and EDV values. Due to the sheer number of models I had to work through, the data cards could probably do with some refinement, and improving balance and internal consistency will be a major focus leading up to the final version. Throughout this project, I have relied heavily on several members of the Mil-Net community. My thanks to all of you for providing the groundwork for this project, and especially for the assistance in developing the new point calculator. The M designation is in honor of Mil-Net and all they've done for the CAV community.

I got my Book today! Woot. Comparing it to the CAV: SO preview PDF I see that the book went through some MAJOR rethinking. //Graphic design is much better by the way. // So now, what about a PDF version? Thoughts? Plans? Will come free for KS backers?

Ok, folks, I've been on the Reaper forums for about a day now and it has become entirely too obvious that there is an unspoken set of ridiculous rules, jokes, and other shenanigans associated with being present here. And boy does it seem like fun. In time, I'm sure I'll discover my own laws of the Reaper forum universe, but until then how does one become streetwise here? Lay down some truth!

I looked but did not see a list of guidelines or rules for submissions for the paint competition for Reapercon. I know that only all reaper miniatures are eligible for a Sophie, but what are the categories this year and are their any rules for submissions? I heard a rumor that there will not be an ordinance section this year? Also I am asking about rules because I have some ideas but some may consider them... bending the line of decency. Remember, I paint next to Martin at Paint club... :) Just wanted to make sure that there were no offensive dioramas submitted or over the top paints. Thanks, Xanderhook