Fantasy Warlord - A Wargame Dead Before it Ever Lived

Fantasy Warlord is one of those games that feels like it should have had a real shot…and then simply didn’t.

Released in 1990 by Folio Works, it was the work of two ex-Games Workshop employees: Ian Bailey and Gary Chalk (Chalk also did the illustrations; which are polarizing, some like it, some really don't). They left GW because they didn’t like the direction the company was heading: more commercial, more product-driven; and decided to build their own alternative to Warhammer Fantasy Battle. On paper it had a lot going for it: simultaneous movement, a proper command-and-control system built around brigades led by characters, fog-of-war rules, and an attempt at more balanced magic and army construction. It even had its own setting (Vortimax) and a short-lived supporting magazine called Red Giant (a none-too-subtle dig at White Dwarf). The promise didn't match up to the reality however. 

And then it was gone.

The game was out of print in roughly eighteen months. The planned supplements never appeared. Only two issues of Red Giant saw the light of day. Folio Works itself was dissolved in early 1993. In the grand scheme of the hobby it barely registered. Most people who were playing fantasy wargames in the early ’90s simply never saw it, or saw it once and moved on. I was in the later, I recall seeing at Crazy Egor's around 1992/92ish.

I have a fair amount of sympathy for what Bailey and Chalk were trying to do, especially as someone who came up playing 3rd Edition Warhammer. Fourth Edition was a pretty abrupt turn. The game moved away from the more historical-miniature-gaming roots and into a cleaner, more simplified, fully fantasy product. A lot of the older texture got sanded off in the process. Fantasy Warlord feels like it was aimed at players who still wanted some of that earlier complexity and command friction. Whether it actually delivered is another question, but the impulse behind it makes sense when you remember how sharp the break between 3rd and 4th Edition felt at the time.

I only remembered the game several years back and grabbed a copy off eBay for something like $20. To me it felt very natural in the sense that the miniatures looked familiar. They are quite decent sculpts and fit the style of 3rd Edition armies quite well. It’s also interesting to note just how “early” they were with this: by which I mean there are clearly GW miniatures in the photos of the rulebook. That is to be expected. If you look carefully on page 139, that’s quite clearly the Warhammer Mighty Fortress forming the walls the cavalry is charging from along with Bretonnian knights AND other GW figures.

This doesn't bother me in the slightest, it points to just how close to the ragged/bleeding edge this enterprise was.

Warhammer Mighty Fortress...err, FANTASY WARLORD FORTRESS!

One aspect of Fantasy Warlord that still lives on is the miniatures it spawned. To this day they can be found on the Alternative Armies website. The sculpts are good and look very much in line with the 3rd Edition Warhammer miniatures ranges.

One last point. The art. As I noted up-thread either you loved it or hated it. For my own part I'm of the opinion that Chalk's black and with stuff is very good. There are a lot of great pieces that feel very gritty in that Warhammer kind of way. Its his color stuff that is much more divisive.  

To close? Sometimes the market doesn’t care how good your rules are. Sometimes it only cares who got there first and who has the louder voice. Fantasy Warlord is one of those quiet near-misses that still deserves a footnote.

So, any other folks out there that remember Fantasy Warlord? 

Return to Castle Wolfenstein + Weird War II rules for Savage Worlds

Back in 2013 I wrote about Pinnacle’s Weird War II for Savage Worlds and noted that if I ever ran it, I’d lean hard on Return to Castle Wolfenstein for the visuals and tone. More than a decade later, that still feels like the right call.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein (and its spiritual predecessors) already does a lot of the heavy lifting for the “Weird War” genre. Nazi occult research, undead soldiers, secret projects buried in castles and laboratories, elite special units operating behind the lines - it’s all right there. The game’s atmosphere of grim, pulp-tinged horror fits the Savage Worlds version of Weird War II almost perfectly.

What the Weird War II book adds is the mechanical framework and the broader campaign tools. The Office of Special Investigations concept, the mission generator, the nationality-specific Edges, and the scaling from personal combat up to vehicles and artillery give you a complete system for running those kinds of missions. Pair that with the look and feel of Return to Castle Wolfenstein and you have a ready-made campaign style: small teams of Allied operatives sent into the dark corners of the war to stop projects that should never have been started.

Then there is modifying some of the bigger events of World War II like what if Operation Overlord failed as I outlined here. 

The overlap is natural. Both sources love the idea that the real war is only part of the story, and that something far worse is being cooked up in the shadows. Return to Castle Wolfenstein supplies the imagery and the set pieces. Weird War II supplies the rules that let you play it at the table without having to invent everything from scratch.

I’ve always thought the combination would work especially well for shorter, mission-focused campaigns rather than a grand sweeping war story. Although that could work too. One or two operatives (or a small squad) dropped into a castle, a research facility, or a ruined village with a clear objective and a ticking clock. That keeps the pulp energy high and plays to the strengths of both the video game and the RPG.

More than ten years on, I still think it’s one of the better “plug and play” pairings in the hobby. The pieces were already sitting there waiting to be put together. In fact Castle Wolfenstein aleady does it as an arc melding mystical and horror with mechanical.

Star Wars Episode VII- The Last Jedi...Once Was More Than Enough

I’ve only watched The Last Jedi once...once.

That was enough.

And this is from someone who has probably watched Star Wars, A New Hope over two hundred times. Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi a ton.

I went into it with cautious optimism after The Force Awakens. The new characters had potential, most of the old ones were back, and there was still room for the story to go somewhere meaningful. What we got instead was a film that felt less like a continuation and more like a deliberate demolition job at best, at worst a lecture.

Characters make decisions that exist primarily to serve the plot rather than growing out of who they are. Long-standing figures are diminished, sometimes for a punchline, sometimes for a thematic point that never quite lands. The tone swings from broad comedy to grim self-seriousness without much control. Trying to be Marvel too much there?

By the time the credits rolled I was left with the clear sense that the movie was more interested in subverting expectations than in telling a coherent Star Wars story.

I’ve rewatched the original trilogy many times. I’ve gone back to the prequels, Rogue One, and Solo. I’ve never felt the slightest urge to put The Last Jedi on again. Once was sufficient to know it doesn’t work for me. I'd watch the Holiday Special again or Ewoks, Battle for Endor before this...

It sits at the absolute bottom of my personal ranking of Star Wars films, and the gap between it and the next-lowest entry is not small: Attack of the Clones has real problems: stiff dialogue, awkward romance, some clunky plotting; but it still feels like Star Wars. It still has weight. The Last Jedi often feels like it’s actively arguing with the audience about what Star Wars is allowed to be, and the argument is not a persuasive one or that you're "wrong" for not agreeing.

And I don't buy for one minute that Rian Johnson is the fan he claims to be when it comes to Star Wars. Normally I wouldn't fan police anyone, like what you want to I always say. In this case though he had an active hand at crafting Star Wars, that deserves all the commentary it gets and then some.

And no Rian, your movie is NOT in the same league as Empire Strikes Back no matter how much you try to retroactively change your choices.  

I’m not interested in re-litigating every scene or every online battle that followed its release. The casino sequence (waste of time/pointless), the Holdo maneuver (break the in-universe much?), the treatment of Luke (I was never the biggest Luke fan anyway), the way certain character arcs simply evaporate: others have gone over those pieces in exhaustive detail. The point that sealed it for me in The Last Jedi? Fuel. You read that right, fuel. Its never been much of a thing in Star Wars and suddenly the entire flimsy plot hinges on it?

Get the hell outta here with that.

Then there is the places where they could have made truly great choice like Finn engaging in self sacrifice? NOPE! "Gotcha!!!" with subverting expectations, to which my eyes nearly rolled out of my skull.

For me all of this is simpler: the movie sucks. It left a bad taste the first time and that taste never went away. Some films improve with a second look. This one doesn’t deserve a second look. You may like it and that's fine. But for me? Once was more than enough.

To head off the "old man Star Wars takes?" To be clear, if someone likes TLJ, more power to them. Its simply not for me. This has nothing to do with ruining my childhood either. Its simply I found it lacking.

There it is, the absolute worst Star Wars in my opinion.

The Greatest Warriors of the Westeros- #10 Daemon Targaryen, the Rogue Prince

 

Matt Smith as Daemon Targaryen in House of the Dragon (HBO)

 

Daemon Targaryen is one of the most compelling warriors in the history of the Seven Kingdoms. Charismatic, daring, and exceptionally skilled in battle, he was also reckless, ambitious, and often impossible to control. That combination makes him both fascinating and difficult to place cleanly on a list like this but yet he ranks at #10 by my estimation.

Background

The younger brother of King Viserys I, Daemon spent much of his life chafing against the limits placed on him. He was a knight of proven skill, a former commander of the City Watch, a veteran of the Stepstones, and eventually a key figure in the Dance of the Dragons. He rode the dragon Caraxes, carried the Valyrian steel sword Dark Sister for a time, and cultivated a reputation as a man who would rather fight than talk.

Where Aemon the Dragonknight represented the ideal of knighthood, Daemon represented something closer to the opposite: a warrior who lived for the fight itself and rarely let honor get in the way of what he wanted.

The Warrior

Daemon’s skill at arms is not seriously in question. He was a dangerous man in single combat and even more dangerous when mounted on Caraxes. His campaigns in the Stepstones showed a commander who could be both bold and effective, carving out a temporary kingdom through sheer force of will and personal courage. During the Dance he continued to prove himself in the field, most notably in the fighting around Harrenhal and in the final confrontation at the God’s Eye against Aemond Targaryen.

What sets Daemon apart is the combination of personal combat ability and the willingness to take enormous risks. He did not fight cautiously. He fought to win, and he was usually willing to put himself in the thick of it to make that happen and consequences be damned.

The Darker Side

Daemon’s reputation is complicated by his character. He was charming when it suited him and ruthless when it did not. His treatment of his first wife, his ambition for the throne, and his general disregard for consequences make him a hard man to admire even when his skill is obvious. He is not a pure knight in the mold of Aemon or Arthur Dayne. He is something more dangerous: a highly capable warrior who answered primarily to himself.

He fits that middle ground in the Song of Ice and Fire, not good, not evil but something in-between. Martin calls him his favorite character and morally gray are likewise a hit with Martin so it stands the reason he is featured prominently.

Why He Belongs

Daemon earns a high place on this list because the record of his ability is strong and relatively close in time compared to older legends. So much so a plausible argument can be made that he could be anywhere from #5 to #10 on the Greatest Warriors of the Westros list.

He was a proven fighter, a dragonrider of note, and a man who repeatedly put himself in situations where lesser warriors would have failed. The fact that he was also ambitious and often destructive does not erase the skill.

Addtionally, Daemon leads forces for the Blacks in the Dance of Dragon and is capable in addition to having served as the Commander of the Gold Cloaks in Kings Landing. 

He is not the purest knight on the list. He may not even be the most likeable. But as a warrior, pure and simple, Daemon Targaryen stands among the best the Targaryen dynasty ever produced.

In the end #10 suits him in my opion; that is no slight either. It's simply a reflection of how good those are at #1-9 on the list. 

How about you, thoughts on Daemon Targaryen? 

Escape from New York as an RPG Setting

Be honest, this movie kicked ass and you've watched multiple times. 

I know I did. 

"Call me Snake..."

Escape from New York is one of those movies that just feels like a role-playing game waiting to happen. I mean it oozes it!

You’ve got a sealed-off island turned maximum-security prison. No guards on the inside, just the worst of the worst left to sort it out among themselves. Gangs with their own turf, their own rules, and their own hierarchies. A President who crashes into the middle of it. And one man: Snake Plissken, dropped in with a ticking clock and almost no support. The whole thing is already structured like a mission brief.

What makes it sing for an RPG is the pressure. Everything is against the clock. Resources are scarce. Trust is a liability. The map itself is hostile. You can run it as a pure extraction job, a longer campaign of surviving and carving out power inside the prison city, or something in between. The tone stays grim, cynical, and a little absurd in that early-80s way — which is perfect.

It also scratches the same itch a lot of us got from older Warhammer and dystopian games: a world that’s already gone to hell, and the only question left is how you move through it without becoming just another body on the street.

System recommendations (in my order of preference):

1.  Twilight 2000 (especially the Free League edition) The strongest pure fit. Collapsed society, scarce resources, armed factions, and small groups of competent but very mortal people trying to finish a job and stay alive. You barely need to hack it, just turn Manhattan into the wasteland and keep the ticking clock.
2. Mothership (or a light hack of it) Fast, brutal, and excellent at making every decision feel dangerous. The stress and panic mechanics would map cleanly onto the constant threat of the island.
3. Shadowrun (older editions, stripped down) Good if you want more gear, street politics, and faction play. Tone down the magic and cyberware and lean into the scavenged, jury-rigged tech of the film.
4. Old-school D&D / OSR with heavy house rules Sometimes the simplest systems get out of the way and let the setting do the work. Treat the gangs like rival warbands and the city like a massive, hostile dungeon.
1. A sub thought of sorts here, perhaps Top Secret. I'm not entirely sold on that but it has merit. 
5. Year Zero Engine (Mutant: Year Zero or a Forbidden Lands-style hack) Strong at resource management, faction play, and the slow grind of survival in a ruined environment.  

Any of those could work. The key is keeping the session tight, the clock visible, and the city itself as much of an enemy as the people in it.

Snake Plissken never asked to be a hero. That’s exactly why the setting works. Expand it out, if NYC is turned into a massive prison and an a Alliance between the USSR and China in a war against the USA is going on? To say nothing of crime being up 400%? Twilight 2000 might just win as a system by default in a walk off...

As a one off, or maybe a mini campaign if the PCs escape the island? Escape from New York provides a great starting point. Sounds all kinds of awesome.

NOTE: from time to time I pose these as questions about settings, like with Late Rome or Middle Earth after the Fall of Sauron to name a few here on the blog.

Not Enough Hours in the Day, Gold and Glory- the Ezine of Dogs of War

Ahhh… the Dogs of War. Everyone’s favorite mercenary scum in Warhammer.

If the Chaos Dwarfs were the lost children of Warhammer Fantasy Battle for years, then the Dogs of War were… well, I’m not entirely sure. They lingered. After the Chaos Dwarfs were removed from the game, Dogs of War at least got a PDF army list that served as something official. So rather than being cut abruptly like the Chaos Dwarfs, they just sort of hung around on the edges.

Wind the clock back to the early years of Chaos Dwarfs Online (2007–2009). I was an admin there. The forums back then were hopping, as were the forums for every other faction. Skaven had The Underempire, Chaos Warriors had Chamber of the Everchosen; you get the point. If there was a faction in the game, someone had spun up a forum for it.

All of that except Dogs of War.

There was a site I stumbled across and quickly became a mod on called The Tavern. That mod, Baumann, and I set out and created Dogs of War Online. That was 2009. Dogs of War Online in turn led to the creation of the ezine Gold and Glory, despite the fact that I wasn’t even a Dogs of War player. From the start the site was a sister site to Chaos Dwarfs Online, and Xander helped me with a few areas of web design I wasn’t familiar with.

Creating an ezine would have been a solid achievement on its own. Doing it while also producing the Chaos Dwarf ezine The Word of Hashut was borderline madness.

And I think that’s really where the crux of the issue with Gold and Glory lay. It wasn’t that the ezine was bad. It was simply a case of me being stretched too thin. Young family, dog, two jobs, admin of two sites — it didn’t leave a lot of time for much else. People would ask how I managed it. The honest answer is that I didn’t sleep much. I also didn’t paint nearly as much during at times, especially when one of the two ezines was in production.

Looking back, Gold and Glory wasn’t bad. It just suffered from not enough hours in the day. Unlike Chaos Dwarfs Online and The Word of Hashut, there also wasn’t the same desperate energy behind it. Chaos Dwarf players had to create everything because there was no official support. Dogs of War at least had that quasi-official PDF list to lean on.

Looking ahead, I’ve spun up a new Dogs of War site. But much like life repeating itself, I haven’t had as much time as I’d like (dealing with elderly parents will do that). History repeating?

If you’ve never read Gold and Glory, all of the issues can be found here and are free.

Let me know what you think! 

To Big to Fail? How TSR and Kodak Mirrored Each Other

Two companies more alike than at first glance...

Growing up outside of Rochester, NY, I heard some variation of this from Kodak and in the media over and over:

• "We have fifty years of film."
• "We have decades of film left."
• "We have 50 years of paper."
• "The world will always need photographic paper."

Whether it came from high-level Kodak executives or somewhere else in the local conversation, it did not matter. They did not have fifty years. They barely had five.

Kodak kept talking about how their bread and butter would continue to power them into the future despite the rise of digital cameras and then ultimately smartphones. This was the same company that had created the first digital camera in 1975. My dad worked at Kodak in 1975 and actually saw that camera back then. They invented the future and then spent the next couple of decades trying to protect the past instead of owning what they had built.

In 1980 one also has to wonder if TSR was thinking along the same lines. There were competitors, sure, but nothing that looked strong enough to knock them off their perch. D&D was the eight-hundred-pound gorilla of the RPG world. From the outside it looked permanent.

But in each case they were going to fail. Some of it was their own making. Some of it was not. A good portion was just plain hubris. It is eerie how both companies sat at the absolute pinnacle of their respective markets and then felt like Icarus flying too close to the sun.

So what does this have to do with gaming? A lot, really. I am mainly talking about TSR here, but first a quick overview of Kodak.

Kodak was founded in 1880 in Rochester, New York by George Eastman. In time they came to define photography itself. By their zenith around 1980 they were a world-renowned brand that seemed untouchable. Then came the early 1990s and a series of missteps, ill-advised moves to diversify, and the decision to spin off the parts that would actually prove more valuable later (namely Eastman Chemical). Their fall and shortsightedness were staggering. The company that had once owned the image of everyday life slowly lost the plot.

Then there is TSR. From starting up at Gary’s house and in his basement to produce the first 1,000 wood-grain Basic sets to later revised editions to eventually 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. By the early 1980s TSR and more specfically D&D was a juggernaut with two distinct lines and grossing something like 26 million in 1983 and had risen to the pinnacle of the RPG landscape by the early 1990s. For a while it felt like the hobby revolved around Lake Geneva.

In both cases the 1990s would not be kind. TSR would not make it out alive. They were purchased by Wizards of the Coast and effectively gone thereafter. Check out this "article" from the "ancient years" on the internet!

It is said that hindsight is 20/20, but I am going to pull in another famous quote from none other than Steve Jobs: "If we do not cannibalize our products, someone else will." That certainly describes Kodak. The question is how well it describes TSR.

Even in the 1980s TSR was already attempting to diversify into other hobby areas (needlepoint, anyone?). Meanwhile Kodak spun off the parts that would turn out to be successful later. The situations were not identical, but the type of decision-making feels uncomfortably close. Both companies made choices that protected the old model a little too hard and failed to fully embrace what was coming next (moreseo in Kodak's case). In the end those choices helped doom them.

It is eerie how closely these two stories run parallel to each other. Both companies stood at the absolute peak of their industries in the 1980s. Both failed to fully adapt when the ground started shifting under them. And both saw the 1990s become the decade of their long decline and eventual demise. One was bought out and absorbed. The other never really recovered its former place. Different industries, same basic arc of hubris, missed chances, and a future that arrived faster than either was ready for.

Am I off on this? Lets here from those especially in my neck of the woods, does this sound familiar to you?