I’ve updated all of the rules variants to reflect minor changes and certain omissions from the original rules by Mr. Thomas.
Units only take a morale penalty of -1 upon receiving their second hit.
You can now shoot into melee if it is a new melee…as in, it is the defending unit was not in melee contact at the beginning of the turn and the shooting unit has a clear line of fire/sight to some part of the defending unit.
There are now line of sight/fire rules including shooting from a higher elevation.
All of the rules so far can be found on the OHW tab above or right here.
There is a lot of talk and controversy about AI and its means of generating images. It almost certainly uses images on the Web but does it steal intellectual property or is it derivative in terms of fair use?
First off, here is how Google Gemini says it works, based on what it found on the Web.
“AI generates images by training on massive datasets of images and corresponding text, learning to associate visual patterns with descriptions. Using neural networks—commonly via diffusion models—the AI starts with random noise and gradually refines it into a detailed image that matches a user’s text prompt. These models understand, rather than copy, styles, shapes, and colors to create entirely new, unseen visuals. “
Further, it steps through how…
Core Concepts and Techniques
Training Data: Models like Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, and Midjourney are fed millions of image-caption pairs to understand the relationship between text and pixel patterns.
Diffusion Models: The dominant method where the AI learns to reverse a process of breaking down images into noise. It starts with, or introduces, random pixel noise and iteratively removes it to reveal an image based on the prompt.
Latent Space: The AI maps concepts, styles, and objects into a high-dimensional mathematical space, allowing it to translate descriptive text into specific pixel arrangements.
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): An older, though still relevant, approach where two neural networks compete—one generates an image, and the other evaluates it for authenticity.
In short, it’s a lot of mumbo-jumbo that you may or may not understand. I certainly don’t!
I put it to the test by asking it to generate a picture of Gary Gygax in the style of the Mona Lisa painting. It came up initially with Mona Lisa with a beard. I told it Gary had little hair so it kept her hair but he was now bald on top. Then I said, remove Mona Lisa’s hair. Now we had Gary in Drag. I said put him in masculine cloths. The final result is thus….
For the comparison, here is the original painting…
The style is definitely there. However, it does seem that the new “painting” is nothing more than a collection of images assembled seamlessly into one image without attribution to the original artists. That is required for fair use. The newly generated picture does not actually look like Mr. Gygax but does bear many features. Interesting painting and AI did kind of nail the vibe I was going for. I did not care about the background other than it being similar to the original Mona Lisa. The books, dragon, volcano and so forth were nice touches.
So, am I a convert? No. I think there needs to be a lot more thought put into image generation with respect to IP law. This does clearly violate fair use practices as there is no attribution to the original artists. It’s an interesting experiment.
AI generated content is starting to work its way into commercial gaming material. Before buying, you should consider whether or not the items in the documents/books have been properly attributed to their respective artists. For instance, if it is AI generated from my own works collected in my own library, that would be perfectly fine. However, this almost certainly is not the case with 99% of AI generated material out there. I suppose you could stick with free to use sources on the internet – those sources that are old and no longer bound by copyright law or those that the artist/author grants express permission. AI, however, is prone to make mistakes. So even those instances should be looked at with a dubious eye.
So, if/when I ever publish anything will I ever use AI for my artwork? No. I am not interested in walking down easy street. I prefer to take pride in everything I do and own the mistakes when things go wrong. It’s who I am.
A week and a half ago, I managed to get a game in using the One Hour Wargames rules and my own 3-hit modification. I randomly determined a scenario, which came up The Three Lines. This is a defensive scenario which has Red with an army of 4 units defending a bridge followed by a game between 2 woods and finally a hill. Blue has 6 units that enter the game on Turn 1.
Red Army consisted of 2 infantry, 1 cavalry and 1 gun battery.
Blue army consisted of 3 infantry, 2 cavalry and 1 skirmisher.
Red setup with an infantry forward guarding the bridge, the other infantry unit and the cavalry unit guarding the gap and finally the artillery occupying the hill.
Blue moved up initially with all 3 infantry units moving online across the river. The Red infantry and artillery managed to score hits on two separate units. Blue did pass the subsequent morale checks on their turn and returned fire scoring only 1 hit. However, red was equally unlucky and failed a morale check, forcing the lone red unit back a half move.
Blue crosses the river
Blue took advantage and pushed units across the bridge. Red wasn’t having any of it and managed another hit. Soon the first Blue infantry took its 3rd hit and was removed from play, only to be reinforced by Blue’s last infantry. Eventually, Red’s 1st infantry was destroyed but they seem to have over performed causing a fair bit of damage.
Red gets pressed back
The light infantry managed to get across the river but was hit by artillery fire and had to retreat to the river bank. It would rally and occupy the left section of woods delivering fire on the Red infantry unit covering the gap. Blue’s main line did advance but a 2nd Blue infantry unit was destroyed int he process. This left 2 cavalry and 1 infantry unit to do the heavy lifting.
Not looking great for Blue
The 3rd blue infantry traded blows with the last Red infantry unit but eventually quit the field first. The red infantry w soon finished off by a Blue cavalry unit. The Blue and red cavalry units clashed back and forth. One of the Blue cavalry units was destroyed before the red cavalry unit quit the field. This left the artillery in possession of the hill and the 1 cavalry attacking from the front while the light infantry positioned itself on the flank.
Blue manages to turn things around. The battle hangs in the balance.
At this point, it was the end of turn 13. With only 2 turns left, it did not look like Blue could prevail. It was a narrow victory for Red.
Blue falls short.
So, there are two things I assumed but did not actually realize are not in the rules. First, there are no line of sight rules. The way they are written, these rules allow units to shoot through other units. I decided that this was not a possibility. I measure from the center of the shooter to any part of the target. If no unit or terrain intervenes, this is clear line of sight. For shooting over units or terrain, the obstacle must be closer to the shooter than the target or the line of sight is blocked.
Shooting into melee was the second thing that is not covered. I thought it would not be allowed. Again, the rules are silent on this. However, this meant that Blue’s light infantry and cavalry could not gang up on the artillery which seems counter intuitive. My solution is that so long as this is a new melee (first round of contact) and there is a clear line of sight, the unit can shoot. It is important in the horse and musket period as cavalry retreats if it cannot break the target unit. It is important in the ancient and medieval eras as well because units get stuck in. Archers can get 1 shot off during a charge but will tend to stand around until the melee is resolved.
It was a fun game that went right down to the wire. The scenario ends itself to solo play as most of the Red units could not move until Blue approached within 4″.
So that is all for today. Until next time, good gaming!
Rivers by Eric Hotz
Game Mat by Battle Systems
Trees by JTT
Hill by Battlefield Terrain Concepts (BTC)
Figures are mostly Minifigs 2nd gen that I started painting when I was 13 years old. There are also a few Napoleonettes and Falcon Figures.
A bit late getting started but being a task oriented person, I thought it might be motivational to set out my plans for 2026.
3D Printing: I’ve been perfecting my print methods for printing 28mm miniatures. I have 2 projects here. The first is for the Battle of Five Armies using Dragon Rampant. I’ve selected most of the miniatures from BriteMinis. These miniatures are easy to print as they require no supports. They also have a nice looking old-school vibe. A few of the miniatures come in part from Fat Dragon Games. They also require no supports. I’ve replaced some of the goblin wolf riders with the torsos from a few of the goblins FDG offers. The printing is largely done. I have to do a fair bit of painting now.
As well, I’ve done a Viking kickstarter from 3DBreed. This was a great value as it came with full armies of Vikings, Saxons, Irish, Franks and Byzantines. Fantastic value for the $40 or so I paid for the kickstarter. The armies post campaign are about $40 each now. I’m planning on building armies, initially for a game called Brethren. It is a small skirmish game featuring about a dozen models per side but can probably accommodate up to 50 models per side. These armies are already printed. I’ll get up to 40-50 models per army and play Lion Rampant for a larger game. I think most folks know that one written by Dan Mersey. Finally, I’ll build the armies up even larger to play On Bloody Ground. This game is kind of WABesque. There are hits and armor saves using D6. Weapons do matter. Not so much a historically accurate game but it looks like a fun game with a historical backdrop.
I’ve also dragged my 15mm ancient armies out to try out a game by Jim Webster called Ancient Rules: Ionia to Carthage. I’ll be doing Heraclea as my test battle. This is a great battle to test rules out with because it features both the Hellenistic and the Roman army systems. Essentially, if it existed in Ancient times, it was on this battlefield.
RomePyrrhus
The armies have been setup for some time, surviving the occasional errant box of Christmas ornaments that was temporarily placed on the game table. The season has passed and life is slowing down, so hopefully I can get a game in.
I want to concentrate on the smaller scale army gaming with DBA on a grid as well as with 1 Hour Wargames using my 3-hit mod. I have the grid mat for DBA which is 4’X4′. I’m going to use 15mm armies mounted on 65mm trays. These can also be used for 1 Hour Wargames battles on a 2’X2′ board with all rates and ranges reduced to 2/3 the originals.
Finally, my plan going forward with the blog is to try to get 2 posts in a week, to include gaming, painting, and all sorts of other musings about the hobby. Until next time, good gaming!
I’ve seen several attempts to add rules for playing DBA on a square grid. The idea behind the square grid is to get rid of the micromanagement aspect that DBx games are famous for. Using a 60cm board and a grid, you can play a game of DBA with out the use of a ruler.
While playing DBA on a square grid, I’ve come to realize that wheeling groups is not really necessary. In the standard game, you can wheel entire lines but very rarely do you wheel a group to 90 degrees…or even more than about 45 degrees. This reprise removes the ability to wheel an entire group.
Movement
This is the heart of the grid game. Each unit will observe the command rules for the standard game. Movement rates for each unit are also the same as the standard game. The rates are expressed in paces with the following changes:
Each square is 100 paces across
Each unit must face a square edge
A forward move costs 100 paces of movement
A diagonal move costs 150 paces of movement
Groups may not wheel but still may move ahead as per the game rules. Instead, each unit in the group will have to move individually to achieve this operation.
Units may turn in place at the cost of 100 paces. They may, however, move about in any direction without changing facing as per the rules. If the unit moves straight forward, it may turn right or left for free. About face still costs 100 paces.
Zone of Control and Engagement Range
Units have a zone of engagement in the square directly in front of them. An enemy occupying that square counts as being engaged with the friendly unit and a combat must be fought. A unit that is in front but 2 squares distant counts as being pinned (or “Barkered”). That pinned unit can either move into contact with the unit to the front, stay put or back away from the enemy. Backing away may be in a diagonal direction but the move cannot be into another square that is an engagement zone or pin zone.
Command Range
Commanders have a command range of 600 paces or 300 paces if the line of sight is blocked by intervening terrain. This is reduced compared to the standard game.
Shooting
Bow and artillery ranges are expressed in units of squares. Bows can shoot 2 squares away with the usual 1 square to the left or right. Artillery can shoot 5 squares away. Note that shooting units cannot shoot into the square directly in front of them as this is the engagement zone.
Melee
There are few changes to the melee rules. Recoils are done by squares. 2 infantry may occupy a square. Only 1 of any other unit type may occupy a square. All of the rules for overlapping, flanking and supporting still apply.
Conclusion
DBA plays very well on a square grid. There is no room for ambiguity on a grid. You either make contact or you don’t. No rulers. No micro-measuring. Nothing. I wasn’t sure if I would like the 90 degree wheeling rules. After a few plays, I have learned to like them just fine. I honestly think I like DBA on a grid better than I do on a free form board. If you are a DBA player, you should give it a try. You will find yourself more working on tactics and less on wondering how you will make contact with that Psiloi when the front is covered by 1/4″ from the spear unit to its front.
Notes
DBA on a grid plays very similar to DBA on a standard board with some subtle differences. Square movement fits neatly with DBA 3.0 as 100 paces are not 40mm and not 1″. We are still playing on the same sized board. A turning penalty in some cases of 100 paces was added to slow down the unit as it changed directions compensating for the fact that you measure from the farthest point in the standard game. In the grid game, you advance 1 square (100p) and then turn for free so compensate for the fact that there is no group wheeling.
I was not going to include any zone of control rules or “Barkering” but in the end, it was necessary. I found in my first game that it was too easy to gain a flank on an enemy. Allowing for flank covering ZOCs gives the same feel as the standard game. Since the board is smaller and the ZOC covers a greater distance, I allow the withdrawing unit to move at an angle to get away if it needs to.
Shooting ranges are a bit farther too. I was going to express shooting in terms of paces but I figured I had better make it squares since all of the units will be moving faster.
Command range was reduced. A general in the center of the field can give commands to almost the entire width and length of the field but not in the corners in the standard game. I made the range 600 paces to make commander placement more important.
These rules were adopted from Andy Watkins DBM amendments for the Classical period. The rules are quite nice. I took the liberty to use many of the ideas here and filled in the blanks where he did not add any detail.
No. Not it’s not a pejorative. It’s the World’s Easiest Role Playing System. I found this game when I was in college back in the 80s. I bought many of the supplements. I think, at the time, it cost about $3 to $4 per book. They are home published, staple bound booklets. So where am I going with this? Why my thoughts on the system, of course!
The game is similar to other role playing systems in the concepts it brings. It is a stat based game that governs how skills are used to accomplish various tasks like fighting, lock picking, persuasion and about anything else you can think of. The difference is that there is only one stat. A starting character gets a random amount, from 3 to 5. This stat is your hit points, your movement rate, and your ability in performing tasks. This is both a strength and a weakness in the game.
The stat indeed is used for task resolution. When a character takes damage, the stat goes down and the character gets weaker and slower. An injured character performs less well than a fully healed character. They also move more slowly. Characters get bonuses based on their class. So a warrior might get a +1 when fighting with melee weapons while a ranger might get +1 with ranged weapons. Fighting as an example of how the game works, is done by the attacker rolling a D10, adding his current strength and any other bonuses he is entitled to. The defender rolls a D10 and adds his current strength and any other bonuses (such as armor) he is entitled to. If the attacker rolls higher, he scores hits on the defender.
There is a drawback to this system. With one stat governing everything, wizards become as physically adept as warriors. The move as fast and have as many hit points which really doesn’t make sense. Wizards can fight nearly as well as warriors with the same strength. This system probably needs a few tweaks to make a little more sense.
Movement probably should be a flat rate. Most characters should be able to move 4 spaces with a particularly fast character moving 5 and a slow character such as a dwarf or halfling moving only 3. Characters that use mental abilities should have a penalty when fighting or doing other physical tasks. It would take more play testing though. My son and I played using a Star Wars module that someone made. We both agreed that certain things did not make a lot of sense.
The game, unto itself, provides an interesting table top game similar to games such as Frostgrave or Sellswords and Spell slingers. It’s lighter in rules than those mentioned but would, indeed, provide an excellent game for those that don’t like their games so involved. Who knows? Maybe one day I will be able to figure all this out.
On a post from The Wargames Website, someone had this old issue bite them in the behind. The issue of course is using a matte clear coat and getting a frosted haze on your newly painted miniature. If this has happened to you, do not fear. There is a simple solution.
First lets talk about why this happens and why it never happens to gloss varnish. Matte varnish goes on rough. The roughness gives it that “flat” or “non-glossy” look by not allowing all light rays to shine directly back. Think of a scratched up mirror. It will not be as brilliant or shiny if there are micro scratches all over the face. The same goes for matte finish. Little micro-pockets keep light rays from going directly back to the eye. I did, however, say “pocket.” On humid days (above 55%), these pockets can trap moisture, further obscuring the finish and making the model seem “frosted.” As a side, this is also how primer can get the rough and fuzzy finish. Gloss finish is perfectly smooth and shiny. It reflects light rays back in a uniform fashion. There are no micro-pockets to trap moisture. So you never get the frosted effect.
Now, if this has happened to you, the simple solution is to apply a gloss coat over the model. This will disperse the moisture trapped in the matte finish. After it dries, wait until you have a relatively low humidity day (55% or less) and apply your matte finish again. I’ve done this with a few models in my day.
One poster in the WGW thread thought using olive oil was the solution. While this would work as well, it would leave an oily residue on your miniature. I just assume leave olive oil for dipping bread. 😉
I hope this little post helps. Until next time, good gaming (and modeling!)
You may have noticed the lack of posts. The house is being remodeled and all the spare spaces are filled with stuff from the rooms being worked on. I’ll be spending some time in my basement in search of my gaming and painting table that have been buried under stuff both old and new. Hopefully in a week or two I can get a game or two in to test all that OHW 3-hit nonsense. Until then, good gaming!
After pouring through a derth of information on the great battle that made England, I’ve come up with this simple scenario for the Battle of Brunanburh. The battle should be double in size, pitting a Scots-Welsh-Norse army against a double sized Anglo-Saxon army.
The battlefield should probably be a board 5-6 feet in length by 3 feet in depth. The ground is relatively flat with maybe a woods on one flank and a water feature on the other. Which flank is which should be left up to the players. As for the location? We just don’t know. It does seem that terrain was not an issue because even the poem in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle does not really mention anything. One thing we can say with at least some certainty is that the armies probably came by boat. Constantine and Olaf escaped by boat. Assuming the welsh contingent was from Strathclyde, that king would be Owain I. No mention of what happened to him.
There will be two armies per side. The Norse army is a land army. Roll once on the 6 unit land army table. This is Olaf’s army. For the Scots-Welsh army roll once for a 6 unit army on the Welsh-Scots table. Norse setup on the left and the Scots-Welsh setup on the right. For the Anglo Saxon army, roll twice on the Anglo-Saxon table. These are controled by Aelthelstand and Edmund. Edmund’s army will setup on the left and Aethelstan’s army will setup on the right, facing the Norse. It is likely that Aethelstan raised a norse contingent, perhaps from York. Replace one Great Fyrd unit with a Norse Bondi unit from the norse land army list.
Each army has a general. Constantine and Olaf control the Coalition armies. Aethelstan and Edmund control the Anglo-Saxons. With the exception of Aethelstan, they may only exert influence over their respective commands. Aethelstan may exert influence over units from either Saxon command.
Armies should setup within 12″ of the respective base edges and no closer that 6″ from either flank edge. The battle is fought until one side has been routed from the field. An army is routed wihen half of its units have been destroyed. This is a per-army basis. So if Olaf’s army takes 50% casualties, his army is routed and that leaves only Owain/Constantine to fight on.
I’ve been rebasing and painting over the past couple of months. I have the troops for this fight and hopefully will fight it out soon.
If you want to fight this out as a standard game, the coalition get a 3 unit Scots-Welsh army and the Norse contingent gets a 3 unit Norse land army. The Aglo-Saxons get a single 6 unit army and will still replace a great fyrd unit with a Norse land army unit, this time a Norse Dreng. Each army will have 1 general.
I purchased One Hour Wargames when it was first published. My initial assessment of the rules were that they were too simple for my taste. The 30 scenarios still made the gameworth while to me. My son and I played a game which pitted Vikings vs Saxons. His thought (he was 8 years old at the time) was that you kind of got stuck in and that was largely that. Not much room for maneuver. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that this is how warfare was between two shieldwalls.
There were two problems I had with the game. First, was that the hitpoint number is too big and is not easily tracked without either a bunch of hit markers or a roster. The second was that there was no morale system that allowed for a temporary or permanent failure in morale of a unit.
Since then, I came up with the 3 hit system. This was largely an epiphany I had while playing a board game on the Great North War. Its CRT was super simple and had results for both fighting in terrain and fighting in the open. The CRT’s I used are roughly balanced to the original game. A unit will typically last 3-5 turns.
The morale system is something I came up with based on the philosophy of Don Featherstone. When a unit has a morale failure, the subsequent move should bt that unit’s move for the turn. Placing the check right before the unit moves is something I copied from Fire and Fury and On to Richmond, both American Civil War games. There was, of course, some tweaking to keep the system from making OHW too volitile.
Other aspects about OHW deals with how certain functions of the game are accomplished, all in a very simple way. You turn by pivoting about the center of a unit. No wheeling. No special rules. No nonsense. You normally get to pivot at the beginning of your turn and at the end. So, you can accomplish a backward move easily.
Shooting is accomplished as they did back in the day without any obscure rules for interrupting moves and defensive fire. Shooting ranges are generically 12″. The fastest unit can move 12″. So it stands to reason that there will be a defensive shot because even at 12″, a unit will spend one turn in shooting range. Also, units may shoot or move but not both. So a unit could not move into range of cavalry, for example, without exposing itself to a charge and not getting a shot off.
Finally, the game is simple enough to mod without ruining the game’s balance. Simple rules and tweaks do work in an interesting way. Additions, such as morale, magic, monsters and flying can enhance the game for various time periods and generes without unbalancing the game. I’ve done my fair share of tweaks to the game which you can find in the OHW subpage. The tab is at the top of this page. Have a look and you will see what i mean.
Posted by John 
John's Wargame Page 