วีดีโอ

Where are you located? There seem to be Warmaster players in most places around the world. If not, ever tried playing on Tabletop Simulator?

Thank you 🙏

Light bulb?

Hi - you are partially correct. If the Warrior stand moved a little bit to it's right so that it maintained only corner-to-corner contact with its fellow Warrios stands, then the third Marauder could move straight ahead a little further and be in corner-to-corner contact with the Dark Elves (while still maintaining contact corner-to-corner with its fellow Marauders). This would mean it's not supporting; it would be fighting, as it's in corner contact with the Dark Elves. I should have done that in the video to show how that works :)

Good luck, have fun! A lot of the game is learning-by-doing, and I hope these little videos help you out. If you forget what to do, look them up! You can find a list of the videos as a kind of index at this site: onthegamingtable.wixsite.com/main

Agree, and I plan on doing more. After my initial printing run for doing figures, I had some trouble with print quality which I think was down to the (cheaper) resin I was using. Since then I have committed to ABS-like resin and I want to print & do more for CD TOB - and then work and travel got a bit in the way (but honestly so did running WMR and S&H campaigns). I also felt that I needed a bigger table for CD TOB (which I now have). More CD TOB coming (in about a month) once I get back to my table again after this current set of overseas trips.

Not the first, but one of the best (IMO) :)

Yes, it was a rough start, and Turn 5 for Chaos where they didn't get have any successful orders also hurt them. For trying to catch the Dark Elf general on the last turn, the Chaos Warriors needed to roll a 6 (made) followed by a 4 (failed), and the Ogre brigade needed a 7 (made) followed by a 6 (failed). So maybe the Dark Elf general was just playing the odds well. Both sides were very wary of the opposing cavalry. Both sides were treating the cavarly as their reserve. They probably felt that if they tried a 2-order charge and failed, they'd be left hanging in the wind.

:) It's been going back and forth a bit. Usually based on one side making mistakes LOL. I've done battle #8, and might be able to get it posted up later today.

Actually, no they don't have to end in contact with each other if some units of the brigade charge. See WMR page 17, paragraph 2: "Except when units wish to charge, brigades move as a body, with each unit remaining in touch with the brigade as a whole." and all of paragraph 4, especially: "Conceivably, some units in a brigade might wish to charge the enemy whilst others do not... Any units in a brigade that wish to charge do not have to remain in touch with the rest of the brigade as a whole. ... Units which do not charge still have to end their move touching." (each other) See the diagrams on p17 and the text in diagram 17.4 Hope that helps!

Yes.... I mucked that up! I wasn't thinking too hard when I based them up. So what I will do is maybe intermix them with other units for flavour value and I'll just have to print & paint some more figures & bases :)

Thank you! The shield designs worked out in the end, but compared to some other figures I have, they were more difficult to get done. That said, the rest of the figure was easy to do. When painting my Dark Elves, some figures (e.g., Witch Elves) were very hard to paint due to poses and hard-to-reach spaces. No problems like that with these Norse! :) I'm looking forward to printing & painting some of the other figures from the Norse set soon, as well as the Undead Norse (I got the bundle with both sets). Thank you for what you do!

More coming, a few bits at a time :)

You're welcome :)

Thank you!

They are added to your total combat score at the end to determine the winner

As Simon said, they are for combat score / combat resolution. I'll do more examples of combat later, including the win/draw/loss part and the retreat/pursuit part (which some people find difficult).

Yeah, it's worked out OK, but I find it's not perfect. Good enough for me though :) To help disguise the gaps, I have been adding a bit more brown paint all round the (vertical) edge of the cloth, just to help hide things a bit more. Now that I have a larger table, I need to make more...

Thanks. I get the terrain part from both angles; in history, 'medieval' style armies found over largely open ground, usually flanks anchored with significant features, etc., but generally where significant bodies of men in organized formations could manoeuvre and fight. In those kinds of times, terrain was often chosen in advance by one of the forces, hence 'deplyed on a hill', 'line anchored by a wood', and similar phrases you see in accounts. More 'modern' situations are different, with 'looser' bodies of men using a lot more terrain to their personal or small-unit advantage. Here, I have tended to use quite a bit of terrain because I am playing on a fairly small table. Terrain helps change the feel and make it a more 'playable' space (IMO). Too much terrain can be bothersome (again IMO) but something like seen here seems to work out fairly well. Anyway, glad you liked it :)

Causeway Bay? We should get together for a game sometime :) I also looked at the mat tiles as an idea, mainly for terrain rather than the base surface, and ended up going with the big cloth mat for now. Maybe a future project though - I've seen some lovely tables using tiles as you describe.

@OnTheGamingTable We should! I have some Warmaster scale Battle of Hastings on my project table 😁

oooo sounds fun! Email me at onthegamingtable@gmail.com and we can chat more.

You're welcome, and more coming. I've used up my current recordings but will do some more tomorrow.

Actually I was saying that for your original table, the new one is a lot bigger!

Haha :) I’ve not played “Triumph!” In any version but I’ll go check it out…

Cheers Ken!

Haha! Seems like I crippled the Romans from the start with the troop quality differential. :) But it's true that not all of the Roman forces were high-quality professionals. I may try another campaign with other forces in the future. Maybe something without Romans on either side?

Thanks for the comments. I have played CD 3 as well (and still have the rules book), and I get where you are coming from. I actually like the CD 3 dice-roll spotting too, for the same reason you mention. For the AT (or stands in general) hits idea, I think both ideas (CD 3 having 'hit capacity' by troop quality, and CD TOB a single graduated effect die roll) make sense while also having 'side-effects' (e.g., a need for hit markers in CD 3). I think you could do a blend of the two versions with the people you play with by using the CD 3 rules you like with the CD TOB parts you like (assuming you like some things from there, such as turn sequence, Prep Fire, or whatever). Since CD is not a tournament-style game, I personally wouldn't see harm in doing that. And all that said, I still prefer any version of Command Decision to any other WWII games for this command level :)

@@OnTheGamingTable I got some 12mm rubber o-rings (subdued green, yellow and red) off of Etsy and they work great for hit counters. They are just the right size to toss over the head of a 15mm figure or a turret hatch on a vehicle to indicate the hits on the stand. It decreases clutter and makes the condition of each stand instantly recognizable. Spotting is also super easy in CD3: you just roll a d10 and leave it on the table at the point you observed. You can pick it up if you ever roll better or if the hidden unit counters ever leave that area (or if everything is spotted). That way you can always compare a stand's current modifiers to see if the enemy is spotted.

Not disagreeing with you on those points :) Some people just don't like 'hit' markers as a game mechanice that much, from what I hear in some circles. Anyway, game on! I'm hoping to get more CD battles on the table soon.

Thank you! More to come. I have more 'charging' recordings to edit & post up, and then after that will look at things like fall backs, pursuits, drive backs, etc.

There might be times when this move is to your advantage - not in this situation, but when there are brigades (multiple units) involved. Usually, though, people will maximize the contact as you say, and most times the positions of the unit (distances involved) mean you don't even have the option. Just know that this might be possible. :)

Yep, well aware! These videos are aimed to be bite-sized look-up-what-you-want kind of resource. Everyone has different learning preferences, so this is just another complimentary resource to help spread the WMR love :)

@@OnTheGamingTable It is very good idea and i support it :) His tutorials are great, but quite long. So it is sometimes quite hard to find exactly what you are looking for, if you just need to clarify something quickly during a game. And i think there is never enough good tutorials and videos in general about Warmaster :)

Cheers :) We will see what others think about it too.

Looking forward to seeing you again too - on the gaming table :)

Yep, good points. I think two reasons for doing it as the Romans did. (1) if the skirmishers are attached as skirmish lines, the Roman line is shorter and the Pontic cavalry could have flanked the line more easily; so the Romans kept them as formed units to try and delay the Pontic cavalry. (2) the rear WB was very weak - because of having been routed twice previously, it was -1 CR (so CR = 2) and also +2 on Discipline (so Dis 9). Hence it would have been very weak fighting anything, even skirmishers. It was Stubborn, but still... So the Romans had a rather bad hand here, and the Pontics just didn't make many mistakes or have much bad luck. All good fun though :)

You're welcome! More to come.

Well, if I put together my Dark Elves and Chaos on the same side, I can just about get there. I need to arrange something with the HKSW guys for a big game. There are several armies floating about, and they do like big games (but they usually do them in DBMM).

I'll do that, thanks for the suggestion. This particular video used photos done with a flash and they weren't honestly the best photos in some cases. I keep learning!

I've been looking at it, but I have a couple of things to do first. The main one is to get a better gaming table for home :) My current one is small, as you can see in this video. Having an 8x4 table in Hong Kong is tricky as space is at a premium. But I have a plan for that; give me a bit of time...

@@OnTheGamingTable then just place your gaming table on the wall and have magnetic units and terrain... woalaaaa problem with space solved :))

@@ondrejstepanek6597 Haha! There's a idea :)

Indeed - Livius seems to be completely outmatched by Chares and his Pontics. Perhaps Livius is a minor contender and Sulla is waiting until the crisis is ripe before riding in to the rescue. Roman politics at its finest ;-) In terms of game numbers, when your army is largely CR 3 (and not Warbands, who are able to get rear support, and +1 on the charge) going against an army that is largely CR 4, it's always going to be a tough day on the battlefield. The Romans have also been unable to really flank the Pontics at any point, so their opportunities have been quite limited. But again, it's warfare, not war-fair...

Thanks! Yes, they are good rules (thanks Mark for making them!), I like them a lot. And 2mm / 3mm is quick to put together and paint, even if you are just using craft materials (as some do) or basic 3D printing (as the forces I have made).

There are a lot out there, if you know where to look. Start with Iain's playlists: www.youtube.com/@iainmstanding/playlists And also, here's a recent one that came up on the Warmaster FB group: th-cam.com/video/pvp-Ip_nHp4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=1PsqO0qa7BnIyPCb Enjoy!

Thanks, you're welcome! More coming... I've just started painting another army. :)

@@OnTheGamingTable great.. i will be waiting :)

Nice! How do you make your 2mm figs?

​@@OnTheGamingTable Hi, it involves the use of DAS air dry modelling clay. 1. I roll a piece of clay to about 5mm thick and bigger than the size of the unit footprint (say 40mm by 15mm). 2. I use a tool to make indentations in the clay in ranks if Close order or spread out if skirmishes. 3. I then trim any excess to have a rectangle of clay measuring the footprint of the unit base. 4. Once it is completely dry I glue it to some mdf or card to give it strength and rigidity. 5. I take a piece of soft clay role it into a a sausage shape and press it into the mold I made earlier. 6. Once done the soft clay is peeled away carefully. 7. You then has a positive version of the mold with what look like soldiers in ranks. 8. Make a few indentations for when you make flags out of paper to press into those holes. 9. Once this is dry, glue it to mdf base or similar. 10. Once that is dry trim off any excess. 11. Spray the base matt black. 12. Paint the ground with greens browns etc, it does not matter if paint gets on the troops. 13. Get a broad brush and carefully hit the troops with the basic colours. 14. Finer work can be done with acrylic pens. 15. Tidy any bits up. 16. Matt varnish followed by some small amounts of gloss varnish in puddles and on the very tops of the troops. 17. Paint the front, left and right of the base in black. The rear of the base is painted a strong colour such as the classic red or blue, or anything else like red or white for troops in the middle ages. I am developing a marking system on the back edges of the base to donate the quality period and armament of the base. All the above is done with mass production methods and numbers to complete armies. Well you did ask how I do it. Perhaps I could send some pictures of finished results if you tell me how. Regards Lexi

Nice! I've read of similar methods before, but not with a mould. Feel free to send some pictures to onthegamingtable@gmail.com - thanks!

Thanks, good fun all round. I realized after we played there were a couple of rules I stated wrong. Biggest one was that stands (not units) are defended, so we should have been doing that stand-by-stand. But no change in the result ;)

@@OnTheGamingTable I think that in the rules it is stated you can play it either way. it is easier and quicker to play it on UNIT basis. And more realistic but more complex to play it on STAND basis.

Based on asking the WMR community (Discord / FB group), rules as written, it should be done on a STAND basis. I'm actually planning some little rules clarification videos soon...

The Chaos Warriors were odds on to beat the Crossbows in that first engagement of the infantry, but the Crossbows with only 9 attacks got I think 7 hits, and then 5 failed 4+ armour saves... Had that engagement taken normal course, the Warriors would have wiped most of that brigade and the Dark Elves would have been toast. Small points games like this, it often seems to come down to one significant engagement and then the outcome of the battle is clear.

@@OnTheGamingTable very true, good point!

CD is my top choice too. I've played CD ver2 and CD ver3 as well, and loved them both. Great games in any version, but I know everyone has their favourite :)

@@OnTheGamingTable what makes 3 a favorite

CD 3 was at the time (it felt) quite a siginificant step forward from the original Command Decision (CD) and CD 2. CD 3 kept the core ideas and mechanics from CD and CD 2 but made things a bit easier to play / less taxing on the brain, more consistent rules (like 'to-hit' numbers), etc., etc. At the time, I personally felt CD 3 was a fine game and put CD 2 back on the shelf. I think the impetus in CD TOB (CD 4) was to make the game change in two ways - to have more 'figures on the table' play, without the need for a referee (which increases the visual appeal of the games for some), as well as reducing the table clutter a bit (e.g., it did away with 'hit markers' and changed that mechanic). I think it's up to each person to decide if 'that's for me', and good on them, as long as they are playing! I think everyone has their favorite not only because they prefer one set of the rules or version to another but because of the experiences they have had playing with that set of rules - and the players they have played them with. At its heart, wargaming is still a social experience, and I feel that's where people get to have a lot of their enjoyment of the hobby. Game on! IMO :)

@@OnTheGamingTable Painting up some CD3 figures right now!

@@Dave_L I wish I was too... stuck overseas at the moment :( But soon, very soon... ;-)

Nice idea for making units. Originally, before getting a 3D printer, I also thought about using clay to make units (as in Mark Backhouse's examples). I had a plan to use the tip of a ball point pen (closed, so it's a 'hole' at the end) to make the impressions for heads/helmets. There's lots of ways you can do it. I even found someone who uses spent teabags! revengeoftheiceni.wordpress.com/2017/09/14/2mm-ancient-madness/

Thanks, Iain, and will do. I'm alternating battles with the Strength & Honour campaign, so another WM campaign battle will come up next.

Hehe :)

The figures are 3D-printed at 10mm (scaled down from 15mm STL files). I chose that scale becuase I also do Warmaster (10mm) and can share the terrain (like the little houses and walls) between the two games. The figures/STLs are originally from here: www.thingiverse.com/waynemc65/designs (page 8 onwards has the WWII STL files) They are not highly detailed, but they look fine when painted.

Yep, there are other ways to do it. I'm lazy - want to find a way to do without angles and supports :)