Let's Play Italian Wars - Furioso Style

Regular readers of the blog will be aware of the last large project I embarked on, 28mm Italian Wars. It went remarkably quickly and I managed to plough through a big chunk of figures during the 2018/19 Analogue Hobbies Winter Paint Challenge, producing a pretty large Papal Army in the process. The figures went on to win the Challenge Choice Award, which was nice.

Swiss Pike clash with their fellow country men.

So over the last few weeks the collection has been out on the table getting to grips with some rules and getting a new period up and running here at Yarkshire Gamer. Along with my figures, regulars Harry (with his large French contingent) and Steve with his Landsknechts added to the weight of the table.

Landsknecht Shot

There wasn't much of a plan to the game, on the usual 12 x 6 table I set up a symmetrical layout with a couple of built up areas and some trees and lined the troops up ready to go.

Our troops are based on 60 x 50 bases, 8 Figures on a Pike base, 4 on a shot base and 6 on a "other" base (Sword and Buckler, Polearm etc). Cavalry is on a 50 x 60 base with two figures per base. This isn't for any particular rule set, it looks right to us and any rule set we use will just be adapted to this basing (I don't rebase !).

Papal Pike Block

So our chosen rule set for our playtest is Furioso, they are avaliable from Alternative Armies for £10 as a Pdf. Link below.

https://www.alternative-armies.com/products/furioso-renaissance-wargame-rules

The company also do an additional supplement specifically covering the Italian Wars adding Mercenary Units etc but we didn't use that in our initial game so I won't comment further on that now.

The French

Just to give you an idea of the forces involved they were as follows,

French Right Wing 
3 x French Gendarme (3 bases each), 2 x French Archer (3 bases)
2 x French Skirmish Crossbow (3 bases each) 1 x Old Band French Pike (9 bases)
1 x Light Gun

French Centre
3 x Landsknecht Pike blocks (1 with 9 bases, 2 with 6 bases) each with skirmish screen bases.
2 x Polearm / Zwei hander units (4 bases)
1 x Landsknecht Formed Shot unit (4 bases)
1 Heavy and 1 Medium Gun

French Left Wing 
3 x French Gendarme (3 bases each), 2 x French Archer (3 bases)
1 Light Gun

Papal Centre

Papal Right Wing 
2 x Familia Ducal Cavalry, 3 x Condottiero Cavalry, 1 x Mounted Italian Crossbow, 1 x Italian Light Cavalry, 1 x Stradiots (bow) all 3 bases.
1 x Landsknecht Formed Shot unit and 1 Swiss Polearm unit (both 4 bases)

Papal Centre
1 x Landsknecht Pike block (8 bases, plus two skirmish shot bases)
1 x Swiss Pike Block (6 bases, plus two skirmish shot bases)
2 x Romandiole Pike Blocks (6 based, plus two skirmish shot bases)
1 x Swiss Guard (4 bases)
1 x Sword and Buckler unit (4 bases)
1 x Heavy and 1 Medium Gun
1 x Stradiot (with Lance) and 1 x Italian Mounted Crossbow, both 3 bases.

Papal Left Wing
1 x Familia Duca Cavalry, 4 x Condottiero Cavalry, 1 x Stradiot (Lance), 1 x Stradiot (bow), 1 x Italian Light Cavalry, all 3 bases.
2 x Landsknecht Formed Shot units (4 bases) 1 x Light Gun.

Papal Cavalry

With chucking everything on the table (and why not !) We didnt use the Army Morale System in the rules as we were about 3 times over the sizes mentioned, nothing like a "small" game to start with !

We didn't use the Generals rules (other than plus 1 in Combat Morale if in range).

So let's move onto the rules themselves. I am going to do a seperate post with some video examples of the mechanics of the rules just waiting for Speilberg to come free to finish the edit.

Landsknecht Pike

Firstly some basics, the rules are relatively straight forward and all units are in "bases" - each base having 4 hits before it is removed, units are built up of numbers of bases. Our figures are set up differently to the rules so we just played with the number of bases we had per unit and it worked fine. All die rolls are d6 and all rolls need a 5 or 6 for a success, so very easy to remember.

Run Away !

Each unit has a stat line to define it's character, they are as follows,
Type - e.g. Gendarme, Raiders etc this can give the unit a special ability for example units fighting Gendarme lose 1 d6 in combat if the Gendarme charge.
Tactic - Galloper, Skirmishers etc
Combat Factor - Base number of Dice per base when fighting (2 to 5)
Initiative Modifer - as it sounds
Weapon - defines type
Armour Class - None, Armoured, Heavy, Extra Heavy
Move - basic in inches (for 28s)
Size (suggested number of bases)
There is also a points value but as you know I hate points systems so this was immediately discarded !

Swiss Pike clash with Landsknechts

We (as usual) ignored the set up rules and just got on with it.

At the start of each turn each unit rolls 1 d 6 and adds (or subtracts) their Initiative Modifier from their stat line and that determines when they will move in the turn. We simply left the rolled dice at the rear of the unit as a marker to remind us of an initiative score.

Units such as Gendarme and Swiss gain +2 to their roll, if the net score goes over 6 the unit become Impetuous and charges of at the nearest unit, much as those units did if they thought the Commander was being a touch cautious.

Papal Pike to the rescue

Impetuous units remain so until they get into melee or fail a morale test.

Units with an Initiative of zero don't move or fire but can defend themselves in melee.

Each unit completes it's turn with the highest dice going first. So all Impetuous first, then 6s go then all 5s etc.

If a unit choses to move it's move distance is it's base move from its stat line plus it's Initiative Score, so a Gendarme moves 8 inches normally, if it had a 5 for initiative it would move 13 inches, simple really.

Papal Guard vs The World 

Each side should move one unit and then the next side and so on, I could see how over a club night table this would work fine but over a large table it became restrictive so we just broke the table down into areas of action and moved units in sequence in that area.

Each unit completes it's turn before moving onto the next unit.

It's wouldn't be long before we introduced a house rule (it never is !) We found that there was a problem when you have units in consecutive lines (Cavalry mostly) when the units in the rear end up with higher initiative than those in the rear, because of the move system the unit at the rear was effectively stuck and was therefore at a disadvantage due to it's higher initiative. We solved the problem by allowing units to exchange their Initiative dice front to rear, the payment for doing so was reducing both dice by 1.

Landsknecht pointy end

Shooting is done by base, 2d6 if short range, 1 if long or if moved. Roll the dice, 5 or 6 hits. The target has a save of 1d6 per hit with additional dice for cover and armour, saving a hit on a 5 or 6.

So a stationary unit of Landsknecht Shot with 4 bases firing at a unit of Gendarme with at short range would throw 8 dice, let's say for 3 hits. The Gendarme would throw 3 save rolls for the hits, plus 3 dice for their armour, - 1 for the fact they were fired at by a gunpowder weapon giving 5 dice to save 3 hits. Remember each base has 4 hits before it is removed.

French Pike on the move

Nice and straight forward and picked up in a couple of moves.

We added our second house rule for Mounted Crossbow and Bow, reducing their ranges. It's open to historical debate but I am in the "crossbows were used from horseback" camp, but they used a latch type loading mechanism which would give less draw weight and hence less range. So our house rule fitted that.

The other thing we weren't sure on was the basing for shot troops, skirmish units are in three bases, side by side which is fine, but formed shot is in 4 bases, 2 x 2 which to me doesn't look right, we have left it as is for now but might come back to that.

The Pope in action

Melee combat occurs when units contact each other and multiple rounds of combat can occur in one turn, for example a unit with an Initiative of six contacts and fights a unit with an Initiative of three, they fight once of the turn of the unit with 6 and again on the turn of the unit with 3.

Sword and Buckler unit 

Combat is based around the Combat Factor of each unit, each base in contact generates dice equal to the CF of that unit. So a French Gendarme unit with a C.F. of 4 will generate 12 dice (for 3 bases) as a start, there are additional modifiers (Cavalry charging get plus 1 to their dice, giving a total of 15 for our Gendarme example, these dice are rolled, with 5 or 6 being a hit.

The unit that has taken the hits gets the opportunity to save, 1 d6 for each hit plus a number of Dice to represent the Armour of the unit, with a 5 or 6 saving.

More Landsknechts

The outcome of the melee is determined by a Combat Morale Test after the casualties are calculated. This is based on the CF to start with modifiers to the number of Dice for most casualties, losing a base, size of unit etc. Both players roll their dice with a 5 or 6 (as usual) counting as a success. It is the difference between these results that determine the outcome. 1 difference pushes back the loser 1 base and causes 1 casualties, 2 difference, 2 push backs, 2 casualties. Three difference adds disorganised to the losers woe whilst 4 push backs kills the unit.

Units that have a traditional rivalry (Swiss and Landsknechts) can become "Furioso" when close to each other, this drags the units into combat and intensifies the fighting, which is done twice before any Combat Morale is taken.

We found that the system worked well but because there is no cumulative effect round to round melees went on until a unit ran out of figures. After the first day playing we decided this wasn't working for us and made the push backs add up, turn on turn, so a 1 push back this turn after a 1 push back the previous turn would count as 2.

Morale is done by a simple test when a unit loses a base in shooting or when a general is killed, the rules do have an overarching morale system which is based on the overall losses but this is designed for games a third of the size we were trying, it's something we didn't use during this play test but will be looked at again, next game.

So general impression is very good and we will definitely be using them again. We made a few minor changes but I have to be honest and say that only a couple of sets of rules survive intact after contact with the Yarkshire Gamer ! There are some nice touches in the rules, like hazards (when you throw 4 1's in any roll).

I've done a video run through of the rules which I will put up on the blog early next week.

Hussar Problem Solved

I mentioned that while I was up at the Wargames Holiday Centre I was hoping to make a few purchases. Well,I did indeed, and here are a few pics of some of them. Mike has been selling off quite a few units this year in order to "slim down" the collection (for example, having nearly 180 x 36 man French btns seemed a bit OTT), and I hoped to buy a few units I'd always really liked. High on the list were these 2 regts of Austrian Hussars, 1 of 36 men and another of 48 (Wish they were both 48's).

One of the problems I've always had with the Austrian army is the hussar uniform. Now I know they invented the things, but I've always thought the Austrian hussar uniform looked more at home in Billy Smart's Circus than on a battlefield. All that purulent bright green, stupid red trousers, and yellow plumes...Give them some long, floppy shoes rather than hussar boots and they would have looked better.
Subsequently I've never had any great desire to paint any. So from years ago when I first saw these rather more subdued paint jobs they always appealed. They are all wearing overalls and the green is (a more realistic) darker shade.  Despite this they are still suitably gaudy enough for hussars, with their red shabraques with yellow piping and either bright or dark blue dolmans.

They are (naturally) the Elite miniatures castings, painted and converted by Doug Mason. All the sabres are pins soldered into the hand and are very tough. Even after many years of service up in Scarborough I only had to replace 3 swords out of 84. Doug has done plenty of bends and twists to these figures. There are only 4 basic figures here, officer, trumpeter and 2 trooper figures, and he really has imparted an incredible sense of movement to the models which really look the part of hussars at full tilt

I just did a minimal amount of work on the bases to blend them with my standard basing. Just an oilwash and highlight then some grass clumps added. I also gave them a quick new coat of gloss. I had contemplated giving them a matt coat, but they look infinitely better in their original gloss glory. I'm developing a bit of a theory about gloss V matt: Gloss varnish isn't terribly fashionable these days which is actually a bit wierd. There is no debate about it bringing out the colour and establishing a visual contrast between the figure and its base, this is simply optical fact. Nonetheless, a lot of folk "prefer" matt these days. Anyway, my theory is, that gloss varnish makes well painted figures look even better and badly painted figures look even worse, while matt varnish just dulls everything down to a more median uniformity (no pun inteneded). So for Mr Average painter (like me, and most of you) we think our stuff looks better when we matt varnish it, because gloss just shows up all the cock-ups, while matt is more....forgiving.
Anyway, thats my theory.

These figures were painted by someone who really knew what he was doing, and it shows up even better in the flesh than through the lens of my rather inadequate camera.

These weren't the only figures I bought from Mike, there are more (I just kept peeling off the tenners until he said stop) but the rest will have to wait for another time.

Free Counter

Movie Reviews: Star Wars 8: The Last Jedi (Spoilers), Battle Of The Sexes, Wonder, Coco

See all of my movie reviews.

Battle of the Sexes: It feels like forever since I've seen a movie with real, engaging three-dimensional characters, instead of the one or zero dimensional characters you get in Disney and Marvel movies.

The story starts with some background on Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. Riggs is an older former champion tennis player, a sexist but talented socialite, who is having difficulty with his family and looking for a new challenge. King is young and at or near the top in women's tennis, but disgusted that, while women's tennis draws the same ticket sales, the athletes get paid 1/8 what the men do, "because". So she starts her own league. Riggs challenges King to a battle of the sexes.

The trailers for this movie made it seem like Steve Carrell's Bobby Riggs was going to be a caricature of the real Riggs (who was certainly flamboyant). Thank goodness, Carrell, and his screenwriter and director, do a fantastic job in giving us a fully-fledged person that we can care about, even as he is, essentially, the bad guy. So, sucky trailer. Emma Stone does an equally fantastic job as Billie Jean King, as do several of the accessory and side characters, who are fleshed out in full glory (or at least as much as their screen-time allows).

The story lingered perhaps a little too long here and there on some scenes, like the initial haircut scene where she falls for her hairdresser (Carol did a better job with its similar love at first meeting scene). And maybe a little more time could have been added to the story to make it feel like a real epic. But never mind. This was a fun, fine, and satisfying movie to watch.

Wonder: From the trailer I wasn't expecting much for this movie, and in fact wasn't planning to see it at all. It seemed like a straightforward movie about a disfigured boy (Jacob Tremblay) being bullied in school, making and losing friends, and ultimately triumphing. Ho hum. So, once again, sucky, sucky trailer.

That story is, indeed, the backbone of the movie, taking up around 50% of the screen-time; if it was all there was to the movie, the movie would be as expected: not bad, but ultimately nothing special and predictable. But the movie spends the other 50% of its screen-time telling other people's stories, sometimes rolling back the same scene multiple times to view it from different points of view. We spend a lot of time with the sister, but also the mother, the sister's friend, the sister's boyfriend, and two other kids in the boy's class. And all of those stories are better and more original than the main storyline, making the movie so much more than just a story about a bulled boy.

The story is screenwritten by Steve Chbotsky (based on a book by RJ Palacio), the same screenwriter and author of The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I saw and loved that movie and wanted to read the book afterwards. The same thing happened with this movie: the movie is good, but you can see the left-out parts of the book peeking about here and there, and you really want to get more into depth with the characters.

Yes, the story is still a bit of a tearjerker, sentimental and emotional, but it is also narratively creative with some interesting, less predictable characters and story arcs. The main, predictable arc (basically told in the trailer) is raised up by being interwoven with the other stories, although it, too should have been better. Well worth a see, especially for kids and teens. Note: Chewbacca is in the movie, which makes it a candidate as an entry in the Star Wars canon, in my opinion.

Coco: Coco follows in the tradition of Moana, Brave, and Mulan in presenting not only a story of a hero's journey but a journey that is kickstarted, guided, and resolved in consonance with the literalization of a non-American cultural mythology. And I don't know how I feel about that.

A Mexican boy's (Manuel) family refuses to have anything to do with music because the great-grandfather ran off to become a musician, leaving his wife and child to fend for themselves. Naturally, Manuel wants to be a musician. It is the Day of the Dead, where everyone puts up pictures to the dead in order for the dead spirits to be able to (spiritually) visit, but of course a) there is no picture of the great-grandfather and b) Manuel doesn't want to have anything to do with his family. Manuel's idol is a famous musician, and Manuel learns, by accident, that this famous musician was, in fact, his great-grandfather. To compete in a music contest, Manuel steals a guitar from this musician's shrine and finds himself cursed into the land of the dead. Who are happily visiting the relatives who have posted pictures for them. The ones whose families have not posted pictures of them are unhappy. Manuel needs his dead family's blessing to get back to the real world, but they won't give it to him unless he promises not to pursue music. So he runs off to find the spirit of his great-grandfather.

Many of the themes, including the central theme, are reminiscent of the ones in the other movies I mentioned, and the movie also borrows some narrative elements from Up. It has a lot of "learning moments", which are familiar, and a few nice musical scenes. It leans heavy on appreciating your cultural heritage, by turning mythological aspects into real ones.

Which I find kind of bothersome. When mythology becomes fact, it is no longer a question of faith or practice or choice. While in real life there is no easy answer as to whether choosing to honor or not your dead ancestors makes you a good or bad person, movies like this imply that you have no choice not to believe in your family's traditional stories: If you don't, you are murdering or causing tremendous pain to actual beings who walk, talk, and feel exactly like any other living beings do. I'm not comfortable with that message. A mature individual recognizes that what we do to honor the dead and our traditions has nothing to do with the dead, but is about ourselves, our families, and our communities. Coco is aimed at children, sure, and this is just a children's story. But I thought that this movie was supposed to be sensitive to the cultures it was representing, not trivializing to them. You can't really have it both ways.

There are no glaring flaws with the movie, although a Mexican family rejecting all music for several generations seems a bit of a stretch. The movie is filled with pretty art, colors, and architecture which I presume represent both historical and modern Mexican culture. I'm not sure that modern children will appreciate the music, except the few numbers that are obviously meant to appeal to them. I'm not sure in what time period the movie is supposed to be; it must be modern, but no one has cellphones or computers. Is that normal for a modern, large Mexican town? Anyway, I liked it more than I did Moana, which I found derivative and boring. I'm sure that kids will enjoy it.

Star Wars 8: The Last Jedi: Star Wars once had something that was different from other sci-fi movies and worlds, something precious and important. Unfortunately, the makers of the current movies don't see that. Instead of making Star Wars movies, they are making modern sci-fi movies indistinguishable from other modern sci fi movies, with the iconography of Star Wars. Which is very painful to me. Chris Bateman bemoaned something similar after watching the Star Trek reboot, and I didn't get it, then. I think I get it now.

Update: see the end for thoughts after a second viewing.

The new Star Trek movies, the X-Men movies, the Marvel movies, the Ghost in the Shell remake, the Blade Runner movie, Looper, Valerian, Avatar, DC's movies, and many other sci-fi movies in the last 10 or 15 years  have a vast similarity to each other, in much the same way that all modern Disney, Pixar, and other American animated children's movie have vast similarities to each other. They may have different writers, directors, and casts, but they are all, essentially, dumbed down. The creators of these movies avoid complex messages, plots, and themes, throw in snarky slapstick between action sequences, fill the screen with copious action sequences at nearly the same points in the movie, present emotions and dialog that is one-dimensional and transparently representative of the characters, and hammer you with neat and simplistic moral messages in their denouements that are understandable and suitable for a 4 year old. Family is good. Be brave. Be true to yourself. Be loving to creatures, the natives, and the environment.

Star Wars 4-6 and 1-3 were not like that, at all. Well, okay, they often had one-dimensional emotions and dialog, but otherwise. Star Wars did not have tons of snarky dialog, except for Leia, and hers was not slapstick snark but a very specific kind of frustration snark. A Star Wars movie took itself seriously, because the movie was about space opera and adventure, not about instant entertainment. The message about choosing the good side of the force was given, not saved as a discovery for the end of the movie. The dark side of the force and the light side of the force were about our moral choices: people could contain both of these powers, but choosing light meant - by definition - choosing good, while choosing dark meant choosing to be selfish, and therefore evil. People could be ambiguous, but there were clear moral choices. Heroism was heroism: choose good and act on it. Every movie felt like it was part of a world that extended well before and after the movie: what you were seeing was a small part of a great epic, because the movie took time to show and make you feel time passing: Luke's daily routine on the farm represented years, his efforts on Dagobah months. The force presented an exploration of mysticism, not just firepower or "lifting rocks". The movies were NOT just sci fi movies with cool weapons and critters; they were NOT Guardians of the Galaxy, which is a close movie in structure, but just as far in feel as all the others.

The came The Force Awakens. The Force Awakens struck an iffy balance between Star Wars ala Lucas and modern sci fi movies. It felt, at times, too much like a Marvel movie. It was missing a lot of the feel of the Star Wars epic and the mysticism, it felt less like an epic and more like a sequence of events. But the characters, especially Rey, were compelling and the structure was well done, so I had hope it might move in the right direction after the makers received feedback from the fans.

Here be some spoilers, but nothing major.

This movie felt like a Star Trek movie with bits of Star Wars thrown onto it. For the first 25 minutes of the movie, I was in pain, holding my head in my hands aghast at the vast empty, non-Star Wars feel to the movie. Then we got to Rey and Luke, and it was filled with snarky scenes that were supposed to be funny, and I felt my stomach drop. It was supposed to be funny that Luke casually tossed the light saber over his shoulder? Really? It wasn't funny AT ALL, not only because it wasn't funny, but because it wasn't what Luke would do, even if he were disgusted by the force and everything it stood for. He would throw it away in disgust, perhaps, or at least show some emotional acknowledgement that this was his saber he had lost. Or ask some questions of Rey. Anything! The scene was a disaster, and I began to get a headache.

The main part of the movie is dull, with an hour long chase scene where nothing of consequence happens. Poe and Finn basically accomplish nothing in the entire movie. Instead, the entire enterprise of heroism is called into question, because, as one character puts it, we don't kill what we hate, we save what we love? What??? So heroes aren't heroes? It is implied not only that people can have both dark and light in them, but that dark isn't maybe so evil and light ins't maybe so good! What??? That destroys the entire freakin' metaphor! I don't want another vague morality movie that tells me that morality is relative. I don't want a treatise on how heroes aren't heroes, because they should follow orders. And I don't need a new lecture on how both sides are just as bad, and another on how we shouldn't treat animals badly (seriously, the movie took about twenty minutes of run time to tell us this).

The scene on the casino was a phenomenal waste of time; maybe it was supposed to be funny, but it wasn't, and it wasn't Star Wars funny. Even the pod race in TPM made more sense and had more meaning than this. And then we have a scene with Ren gratuitously without his shirt, a callback to the underwear scene in Star Trek Into Darkness. The whole movie takes place over what? Three days? So no story development. Please repeat after me: a character learning something isn't character development. It's just learning. Marvel characters learn things, too, but that doesn't make them less cartoonish. Development takes introspection, depth, complexity, time, and sensitivity.

So yeah, I had problems. Not only in the first 25 minutes, but many times after.

However .... admittedly after the first 25 minutes, some of the scenes were really great, and even really Star Wars great. The Rey-before-Snope and the lightsaber battle afterwards were beautiful, because of the shifting nature of the alliance and the confusion that the characters felt in the process. And the battle over the salt fields with the red plumes were a beautiful thing to see. I liked the dynamic between Ren and Rey, and the Luke and Ren scene, too. I liked Rose, but I didn't like most of the scenes she was in. I hated the multiple BB-ex-machina scenes, even more than I disliked the C3PO nuisance scenes in ESB.

Seen from the non-Star War perspective, the movie dragged in several scenes in the middle, but it was at least as entertaining as any other modern sci fi movie, and better because of the interesting characters of Rey and Ren. But I despair about the future of the franchise. With the exception of certain threads and scenes, these are not Star Wars movies, and for that I mourn. I like these threads and scenes; I want them to be in better, far different movies.

Also ... more spoilers ...

Callbacks: So many scenes were callbacks to TESB and TRotJ: training the Jedi, including entering the "dark side" cave, Rey giving herself up to Ren to be taken before the emperor and snatching up the lightsaber, and others. The resistance flying head on into the marching first order elephant things. And, admittedly, ESB spent mosy of its time simply chasing after the Millennium Falcon.

Things I didn't have a problem with that others might: The above callbacks. The changes in the force, such as the mindlink and the projection. Yes, it's odd that previous generations of Jedi never did these things, but they seem like the kinds of things that they would do, and I'm cool with that. This includes the water actually traveling through the mindlink and that Luke projected an image was of his younger self.

Other minor problems: If this takes place only days after the last movie, how could the republic and/or first order be in any kind of different state than it was in the last one? What happened to the galaxy? Why do they keep calling them rebels, instead of the resistance? Pick one. Since when do bombs fall in space when you release them? Fall which direction? What happened to Snoke insisting on training Ren? Or Rey? What the hell was Snoke? He shows up larger than life, he seems to be stronger than the emperor, and then he just dies? Why didn't the new admiral Holdo just tell Poe what the plan was, instead of waiting until the evacuation? Why did she wait until nearly everyone was dead before light-speeding her ship into the enemy? If that's a thing, can't you rig a bunch of ships to do that and decimate your enemies more frequently

Update: Having now seen the movie a second time, my thoughts are adjusting a bit. The parts that I disliked the first time I dislike now even more: in particular the comedy and the BB8 scenes, which are as annoying as Jar Jar but take up even more screen time. There is a difference between conversational humor, which I can enjoy, and slapstick humor directed at the audience, which I don't. I'm further down on the arrangement of scenes and the pacing. I don't like any scenes with Hux. I don't like the plot about, or even the idea that, spaceships run out of fuel in this universe. I still don't like how the director taunts the audience by not paying off stories about Rey's parents, Snoke, the R2D2 map, Chewbacca's grief, and other things.

The parts that I liked before I like even more, which is also what happened to me with TFA. However, after the second viewing,  I'm feeling a bit better about the neutral parts of the story. I don't LIKE the story - both the good and the bad guys throw away the past, Finn and Poe are reigned in as heroes instead of being heroic - but I'm okay with that being the story.

The Final Form Of My Home Made Magnetic Army Transport

I wanted to put out an update to my last post on building a magnetic model transport system for my Convergence.

Just before Captain Con my wife was kind enough to finish making the bag to carry all of the magnetic bins I built. It's frankly huge, but it carries absolutely everything without any issue.

It's huge! Total size is 16" deep, 24" wide, and about 15" tall. In the above picture it's carrying my dice tray, dice, all of my Convergence and a Blacksmiths Guild Ball team, and my sheet pan/tournament tray (sprayed silver).

The bag is semi-rigid, using some foam internally between the fabric to give some stability and padding. My wife did an outstanding job on it.

I got some flak from my Guild Ball friends for how much room I was taking up in the trunk on the drive up, but its awesome.  It fits neatly in my own car's trunk and will be used for all my local travel from now on. This is significantly easier than when I had to use an old PC carrying strap to bind all my cases together to carry the CoC around locally.

In case you didn't see the last post, here are what the cases look like populated with my stuff:

Conclusions

If you compare this to an actual product of equivalent size, it's about what you'd get in a Magna Rack 1520 from Battle Foam.  The racks plus bag for that is $365 plus shipping.  If you add up total materials for my system, I'm likely looking at about $100 max. Of course, I didn't have to pay for any labor in this creation.

On the flip side, I mentioned to my wife that she could probably pull $100 to $150 for a bag like that for other gamers if she tried to make one and she said in no uncertain terms that it flat out isn't worth it for her labor to charge that little.  Apparently the bag was a bit of a pain in the ass for her to make. She was happy to make it for me, but no one else has my charm to convince her it's worth making another.

If I wasn't married to an extremely talented quilter (and all around amazing woman) I'd probably would have to had been more careful when picking out my bins to make sure I could arrange them to fit in a piece of luggage I could buy rather than having the bag being fabricated to meet the specs of what bins I purchased.

I'm very happy to have done this, and I intend on magnetizing my other armies to use this system going forward, though I already have a bunch of foam so I'm not as motivated to go ahead with that. Plus I plan on just using Convergence for a while anyway.

Financial Problems Solved In All Your Worth (Monday Musings 75)

I've read a lot of personal finance books over the years, and Warren and Tiyagi's All Your Worth is undoubtedly the best one. Warren and Tiyagi's (W&T) book was written for the average American who lives paycheck to paycheck. When our car breaks, or any unforeseen emergency such as hospital bills occur, we're thrown in for a loop, and then barely struggling to pay crushing high interest credit card debts as a result.

Indeed, other personal finance books I've read are for those who are already doing well and they suggest how to increase your retirement funds. Or even worse, books that report you can do extremely well if you rely on royalties instead of salaries. I'm sorry, but how many of us can be a Stephen King or a member of the Beatles? Other books would discuss coupon clipping (who has the time?) and laud people who cook their eggs while their dishwasher is running, to save on electricity.

All Your Worth discusses the above issues, and W&T are not exaggerating at all about the other finance books, since I've read them myself as noted above. The other encouraging thing about their book is that they're very empathetic as to why you're struggling financially.

They explain that Americans today are struggling paycheck to paycheck in depth, as opposed to in the past. Back then, credit cards aren't handed out like candy, so you can't overspend, and you can only rely on cash. If there's no cash in your wallet, you can't buy.

Further, back in the day, you can't overspend on auto loans and mortgages if you don't have enough income and cash down. Banks wouldn't allow you to buy too much house or car, unlike today. So Americans today can easily overextend themselves by buying too much and living beyond their means, inadvertently.

After empathizing and acknowledging why Americans are struggling today, they then go into the basic tenants of why their plan works, using the analogy of having a balanced diet.

You don't want to be so strict with your diet (i.e the penny pinching route) because you may binge on doughnuts due to deprivation, or if you have very strong-will, you don't want to be miserable for the rest of your life. Nor should you expect to lose weight or be healthy if you eat whatever you want, calories and poor nutrition be damned (i.e. spending all your money on wants, and neglecting crucial bills and savings).

Therefore, W&T's balanced formula is simple:

1. 50% of your after tax salary should go to must-haves (mortage, rent, utilities, food), things that you will continue to pay for even if you lose your job.
2. 20% goes to savings (that includes money paying off credit card bills, retirement, emergency fund).
3. A whopping 30% goes to whatever you want, whether it's something lofty like giving to charities, or superficial such as cat figurines.

They explain why this formula works, because if you're laid-off, you're entitled to unemployment income which is 50% of your paycheck, though I believe the US government is trying to get rid of this "entitlement" (this should be a basic right especially as you paid into unemployment benefits, per the mission of the US's "pursuit of happiness"). Because your basic necessities are 50%, your unemployment can cover until you find work.

W&T recommend that you pay for things that you want in cash because of the physical reminder (it's amazing how much you can rack up using credit cards). Therefore, if you find you can spend $100/week on whatever you want, you will bring the $100 with you.

The cash only plan worked when I used the book about 5 years ago. I recall wanting a Godiva chocolate shake but since it was at the end of the week, I only had $3 left in wallet, so I had to wait until next week to get the shake. When next week arrived, I no longer had this craving, and spent the money on something else that I wanted.

By carrying cash in that way, it prevents you from going over your budget, making sure that your must-haves and savings are intact. Because you're sticking to the formula as described, you will never have to worry about money again! Of course, financial situation changes, and W&T cover emergency scenarios in their book.

However, most Americans won't have financial emergencies on a weekly basis (i.e. that's why we have the cliche of the daily grind where nothing ever changes), so most of the time, you'll find financial peace following this balanced formula. Further, in the savings portion of the book, you will put aside for emergencies to mitigate any issues that may arise.

W&T include worksheets where you plug in the formula and see how close you are to a balanced budget. If you're not within the 50% of must-haves, they troubleshoot in the book, which goes beyond the scope of this review. If you fall outside the 50%, the book can help you be in balance.

Does this plan work though? For the average Millenial income of 24K (after tax total is around 21K), it seems to only work if you live with your parents and pay minimal or better yet, no rent. Perhaps paying rent by doing all the chores in the house. I included $300/month for college loans, which is the average Millenial debt. Please see the Millenial worksheet here for details. 

However, if you make the average American salary of the alleged 50K (after tax is around 31K per tax calculator), this book works, as long as you don't buy too much house or car.  You have enough savings, and your wants are $37/week, though it's not a balanced formula. The average 1 BR apartment nationwide is $1000/month. Please see the Avg US Salary worksheet here for details.

On the average American salary, if you live on your own, you can spend $37/week on whatever you want, as opposed to around $126 if you're a Millenial living with your parents (pay no or minimal rent). Even with the average American salary, you will NOT be in a balanced formula range, unless you live with parents.

In other words, I was 100% right that even on average American salary, you should NOT be ashamed about living with your parents as discussed here (pats myself on back). Even though I conflated Millenial income as the average American income, you'll still struggle living on your own on the average 50K gross tax income because of the imbalance skewing towards the majority of your income going to must-haves.

Therefore, I'm very worried for the vast Americans who are living on minimal wage. I can't think of any places where rent is zero, correct me if I'm wrong. The only answer is to live with family, a loved one and leverage at least a two person salary.

In fact, the last resort scenario, W&T recommended having a trusted person move in with you so you can share the costs of rent/mortgage!

As for food, since a lot of the food we buy are convenient (and hence more costly) and we sometimes splurge on junk food, W&T recommend that you put aside cash for food, so you can see how much you should spend, along with your fun money.

W&T do take into our fears of what if we run out of money at the end of the week, and there's no food for the next day or so until the next week cycle. They recommend that you sock away (pun intended) $50 in your sock drawer to be used in those situations, and to replace that $50 as soon as you can. If you notice that you're running out on food, you will soon make sure that you don't spend that food money on fun.

Because you're limited to a set amount for your wants, W&T go into the psychology of money, and making you think exactly what you want to buy with this limited amount, so that you can make a purchase that has meaning to you and provide maximum joy, as opposed to emotional spending. These include buying things to "impress others" that usually doesn't make you particularly happy, buying other people's love, paying the entire restaurant bill to look generous, spending to feel better because you're depressed, and so forth. They have a self-test that you can take to determine if you're an emotional spender on p. 125. I find these self-tests extremely helpful as it helps you to hone in where your vulnerabilities are in specific, concrete ways.

An extreme case I can think of is you buy a Rolex watch as that "is" impressive", come to find out you have contact dermatitis and exacerbates your carpal tunnel, so it goes into sock drawer. But you could've spent that money on something you truly enjoy such as (for us gamers at least) a highly anticipated game title. In other words, spend the money on something that you truly want, not out of emotional spending.

After doing the worksheets, and you find that you're within range, W&T then go into what to spend on your savings for the future. If you're in the balance, you have 20% to spend on savings. The first step is to save up $1000 for emergencies.

The next step is to pay off your debts as they sap your potential cash flow for the future. Imagine being debt-free, this is a future of freedom! 

W&T suggest that you look into how you got into debt in the first place, so in the future, you won't get stuck back in crippling debt. They include a self-test to see where your debt comes from on pp.139 to 140. Once you hone in on where you collected debt, you know what not to do the next time around.

Next is to write down a list of all your debts. If you have credit card debt of average 18%, it makes sense to drain your savings and liquidate your accounts except your retirement accounts due to tax penalties. The rationale is that your money in savings is only accruing 1% or less so by putting it towards credit card, you're in effect making 17% (credit card rate - interest you would've made in savings account).

In terms of debt, the first priority is to spend it on any back-payments on rent or mortgage (you need a roof over your head), car (you don't want your car repossessed) and child support (you don't want to end up in court). Once you clear that out, they recommend paying off the debt that bothers you the most.

For me, although it makes more sense to pay off the larger debt with higher interest rate than paying off the smaller debt with lower interest rate, paying off the smaller debt is psychologically freeing. You cross that debt off your list and you have a sense of relief since you're no longer beholden to that company.

Let's say that the small debt costs $20/month. Once you pay off that small debt, I then take that $20 that I otherwise would spend on that debt to the new debt that I want to tackle.  If this new debt costs $100/month and I complete that out, I now have $120/month free to put it toward the next debt. You can see how this snow-balls and you eventually pay off all your debts. 

After paying off all your debts, the next step is to create a security fund which is equal to your must-have expenses x 6 months in case you lose your job.

Now that you have a solid savings, you want to create a retirement fund and/or set aside savings for home, college for the kids, and so forth.

Sign up for a retirement plan at work; I tend to like the Retirement Funds because it does the diversification for you automatically. Barring that, you can set up your own IRA (Individual Retirement Account). I like the Vanguard Retirement Fund 2035 (or whatever year you're going to retire) as it balances your portfolio to stocks (more aggressive) to bonds (more conservative) as you get older. This is actually automated, so the expense ratio (how much they take out) is a mere 0.14% fee. It costs $3000 to set one up.

I was pleasantly surprised because during my residency and fellowship, I had 10% of my paycheck taken out toward the Vanguard Retirement Fund 2035, so I didn't miss this money, and yet I ended up with a small nest egg due to profits (i.e. well below a million that would be considered a nest egg, but a handsome amount).

The last chapters of this book cover issues that occur when you're in a relationship and how to deal with conflicts. The next chapter is how to go about the right way to buy a home. And the last chapter is about bankruptcy and getting back on your feet. In other words, the book is very comprehensive and indeed gives you a solid lifetime money plan.

I would borrow this book from the library, do the worksheets and take notes on the troubleshooting parts of the chapter. It helps to use an Excel-like spreadsheet as it can quickly recalculate the numbers for you - the example worksheet links that I included above, can be a basic template for you to follow.

Conclusion: If you make 31K after tax income or less, it's highly advised that you live with someone whom you can trust to leverage a two-person salary to live comfortably, as per All Your Worth.

Once you notice that you CAN live within these book's guidelines (i.e. you no longer have to worry about basic necessities or having financial stress, and you live in a safe environment), you can then move to working on Happiness as described in The How of Happiness!

Bimonthly Progress Report For My Twitch Channel, FuzzyJCats, Dec 25 Through March 1

Twitch Channel FuzzyJCats

This is a much overdue monthly report! I've also decided to make it easier to remember by writing the report on the first day of the month, so progress will be discussed up through today, March 1.

Also, as I'm only streaming 2 times/week, I've decided to make these bimonthly progress reports as not much change occurs in only 8 streams.

Since Christmas, I have improved in terms of being able to multi-task without any preparation almost as smoothly as when I'm fully prepared, that is being in good health and having exercised before streaming! I recall when I first started streaming, I was flustered and struggled whenever anything goes awry, and my resilience in streaming has improved over the months of practice.

Therefore, I can stream more spontaneously, and as a result, I streamed after work yesterday, when I tend to be completely brain dead, and it wasn't a bad performance!

I felt that by streaming after work and having my days off to do whatever I need or want to do, it will improve my lifestyle. The issue with work is that I dread having to get up and being tied to a schedule as well as paperwork. But if I have streaming to look forward to, it would make me look just a little bit forward to work, rather than having that sinking feeling.

It's more ideal to be able to live in the moment and enjoy the day off before work, but that's easier said than done. Instead, I think about how I have to get up and be rushed to go to work, which gives me a sense of dread. I'm the type of person who likes to do chores and responsibilities in a relaxed manner (again, something that I have to work on).

While getting to the ideal state of being able to live in the moment, and not being so non-plussed about being rushed to a schedule, I think streaming after work can help with not feeling as much dread, since again, it will be something that I look forward to.

I believe I have gotten over my issues with viewer numbers. Tired of having the post-it blocking my viewer numbers on screen, as it blocks the game, I decided to take off the post-it. The fact that I don't even notice the red viewer numbers flashing means that I'm immune to feeling one way or the other by these numbers!

However, there are times when I feel a little demoralized when I see that my Wed viewer counts aren't as high as my Sun numbers, and noticing that my average concurrent viewers over the months haven't really increased, but remained stable at around 10.

Even so, I believe that not caring about the viewer numbers while live shows progress and also helps with gameplay as I can see the more of the game.

The other thing that came up as an improvement is that in the past, I streamed because it forced me to exercise - but now I no longer need to exercise before streaming. Furthermore, before I came down with current bronchitis, there were quite a few days when I exercised when I didn't have to stream! Now that I no longer need streaming to force me to exercise, the only reason for me to stream is if and only if I find it fun!

I believe I was burned out at one point and decided to stop Twitch completely since I got deeply involved in a niche Japanese RPG game, Atelier Sophie. During that time, I was thinking, wouldn't it be nice if I can spend more time playing video games with complete focus and immersion on my days off than having to stream!

However, I then felt guilt that if I stopped streaming altogether, it'll be unfair to my viewers who subscribed to me - they're paying monthly fees to watch me - and I feel that I need to give them their money's worth.

Whenever I have to do something out of duty and responsibility, it tends to be a wet blanket. I don't know what changed and made me find streaming a joy again - perhaps it was taking off a week due to getting chest cold - because streaming the past 2 days in a row was a joy!

In other words, anytime I feel that streaming is a burden and an obligation, that will be a sign to me to take some time off - hopefully I can stream a couple of more times just to give the community a heads up that I'm going to take a break. 

When I was caring about viewer numbers, however, I joined stream teams and found out that they tend to have extreme favoritism, where members who may not support but are friends reap all the viewer numbers. I've noticed quite a few members who support the leaders of these stream teams through buying and gifting subs, bits, and donations, yet had low concurrent viewers. On the flip side, those who are friends (despite not supporting at all) had very large numbers, despite the quality of streams between the two groups being more or less the same.

As a result, I stopped making these stream teams my main team. Fortunately, I'm not going to fall for these stream teams anymore since I'm more or less able to not care about my viewer numbers as evidenced by no longer needing post-it to block these numbers during broadcast.

I still need to work on habits such as making a cluck sound at times when I complete a thought, and again decreasing filler words. Making sure my eyes go back and forth from game to chat has not come naturally by any means. There're still quite a few times when I get so enthralled in the game that I forget to look at chat, or I get too involved in chat, that gameplay comes to a grinding halt.

Progress made:

• Being able to change my schedule after work to improve quality of life - I can multi-task almost as well even if I'm not in perfect condition thanks to months of streaming practice.
• Streaming is no longer a "crutch" to force myself to exercise as I no longer need to exercise before streaming, AND I was exercising on days when I wasn't streaming.
• Therefore, only reasons for streaming are for fun and obligation to paid subscribers.
• Recognizing if I feel burnout, taking time off is a must!
• No longer caring about seeing viewer numbers while streaming, no longer needing to block off screen with post-its, so gaming is easier and more pleasant with greater visiblity.
• Recognizing stream teams to gain followers don't work - no longer buying into stream teams that promise increased viewer numbers, but end up showing extreme favoritism.

Improvements to be made:

• The usual being able to chat and gameplay at same time (this is not habit yet).
• Decreasing filler words and vocal "tics".
• Continuing to not care at all about numbers.

The How of Happiness Review

Your Virtue Has Now Been Signaled

As you might have heard, someone on the internet said something stupid and prejudiced.  I know, shock and horror!  How could this be?

Did I mention this is the internet?  Stupid and prejudiced is kind of the internet's brand.

Specifically, Bob Bledsaw II wrote something nasty about Jews and also that black music appropriated by Elvis is pretty good.

I don't know him, but I've heard of him.  And, of course, I know of Judge's Guild, but I've never used their products.  If there's no chance of it having come from an LSD fever-dream, I'm just not interested.

Predictably, many are coming out of the woodwork to condemn what he said.  That's fine.  I condemn it, too.  Just like when I condemn it from the mouths or twitter accounts of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and similar progressives.

But what came as a surprise is this - it wasn't the radical left or woke police or social justice warriors who are trying to "out" this old guy as a horrible bigot who must be shunned without any means of supporting himself or his family.  No, it was the neutral-ground fence-sitters, the moderates, the centrists, mild mannered conservatives, and those who don't want to get involved in politics.

Just a year ago, a popular OSR bartender disowned probably the only trans-person he's ever been in close contact with.  And I've received cold stares and silence from many quarters of the community.  But I'm not going to stop being me, just as I'm not going to stop pointing out hypocrisy. 

So, what have we learned from our moral superiors, the political leftists who've tried to deplatform, demonetize, and cancel everyone that deviates from woke scripture, anyone who doesn't pass the litmus test of egalitarian brother and sisterhood, all who stand in the way of intersectional workers of the world uniting?

That it's better to accuse and punish others than to look inward and try make better choices for ourselves.

You change views by discussing them openly, not beating people over the head merely for holding them.

And then you get comments like anti-semitism is merely talking to their OSR base or that President Trump ushered in a new era of racism, anti-semitism, sexism, homo and trans-phobia, etc.  That, too, is bullshit.  Trump has been more pro-Jew and pro-Israel than any President in memory.

I honestly thought we were better than that.  We don't need to virtue signal because, as we all know, that currency is vastly over-inflated, its stock doomed to plummet until 1,000 digital back-pats can only afford you a crust of Democratic Socialist bread.

If you want to stop buying this product or stop promoting that designer, more power to you.  It's a free country, you can do what you want with your dollars and time.  Just don't ask me to sign my name to some blacklist or join the outrage mob or help you force some dude with a terrible worldview from attending an RPG convention. 

VS

p.s. We'll be discussing the issue this Sunday on Inappropriate Characters.

Warhammer 40000: Space Wolf Review (NSW)

Written by Patrick Orquia

Title: Warhammer 40000: Space Wolf
Developer: HeroCraft
Publisher: HeroCraft
Genre: tactical strategy RPG
Number of Players: Up to 2
Release Date: 23 January 2020
Price: $17.99
Also Available On: Android, iOS, PS4, Steam

---

I have heard about the Warhammer 4000 game series over the years but I have not played any of the games until now. I had no idea how the gameplay goes or what it is about. I had to go to Wikipedia to learn that the games are based off miniature board games from way back in the 80s. I will not dwell too much into the entire franchise in general, but will just focus on this game that got recently ported to the Nintendo Switch, Warhammer 40000: Space Wolf.

This game was originally released way back in 2014 on iOS. Yep, this is a 6-year old game trying to find a new home on Nintendo's hybrid console. I don't know how it looked way back on an iPhone but it doesn't look remarkably good on the console. Despite that, the gameplay is pretty solid: it's a tactical strategy RPG similar to X-COM mixed with deck-building mechanics. You control an elite space military team called the Space Wolves and battle against hostile enemies. You attack or move using the cards in your deck. Attacks can be guns-based or melee-based. You can choose which enemy to hit if they are located within the area of attack. If you intend to not attack you can either use movement-based cards to move around the map within a grid allowed or use the attack cards for movement if the former is not available. If you don't end up attacking at the end of a turn, you can choose which way to face in preparation for your next turn.

The order of turns for you team members and the enemies is visible at the side of the screen. You can check the grid on which they can move to or attack next, thus you can plan ahead, but not too much, since the enemies usually far outnumber your team members. On most maps, enemies would respawn until you meet the condition that would end the level, either by reaching an end goal on the map, kill a certain enemy, reach an NPC, etc.

The game's campaign mode is divided into 4 chapters, with multiple missions each. Completing a mission unlocks the next one and ranked in gold stars depending on the goals that you have accomplished such as mentioned above. Missions can be replayed if you're a completionist and you have to win all the gold skulls. The higher your rank is, the more prizes you win, such as new cards, coins, etc. Your squad members also level up, and there are skill trees for them where you can unlock new abilities and buffs to make them harder to kill. This game is surprisingly hard, even on early stages. You will be very much forced to revisit previous missions and grind a lot to level up your squad.

Since this was originally a free-to-play mobile game, it was originally designed for players to engage in microtransactions, such as buying new cards. All of those have been removed on this version, and players can forge new cards. Players can craft common ones which can be used rarer ones. There are even legendary cards, but that takes a lot of tries and you more likely to end up with multiple copies of cards. The game can get pretty hard even at easy difficulty, so you may tend to grind more to get better cards to be added to your decks, and the whole shebang is just a frustrating mess that I myself only tried it a couple of times since it is not very satisfying, to say the least.

Overall, this game is a decent one, though its age tends to show often. The controls are also not as smooth as one would expect, plus it doesn't have touchscreen controls, which is quite bizarre since it was originally released on mobile devices. Nonetheless, the gameplay is really good and can be quite challenging. It's worth investing your time in it, though there are much better games on the eShop to sink your teeth into, like the wonderful Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle, which has a similar gameplay. If you are a fan of the series, maybe this is a game for you.

---

REPLAY VALUE: Medium

---

PROS

• Decent gameplay mechanics
• Excellent soundtrack
• The visuals look a bit aged but still quite detailed, especially on the Switch screen
• High customization options
• Has all of the DLCs with no microtransactions needed
• Quite challenging even at the easy difficulty, but as your squad level up and more cards get added to your decks, the more manageable and enjoyable it becomes

CONS

• Bland story
• No touchscreen controls
• Numerous and noticeable lags are encountered
• The rules are not fully explained; the game starts right away with the tutorial stage, which does show the basics such as movement or how to use cards, but the tinier details are not, which could be a challenge especially to those who are not very familiar with the genre
• The user interface is quite bad, like seemingly missing buttons to input choices, and it look really tiny on the Switch screen
• Missions could be excruciatingly slow, with some obnoxiously hard goals to achieve, like killing all enemies, with only your 3 squad members battling against 20+ enemies and there would be 10+ enemies present at one time and the others come in as you eliminated some

---

RATING: 3.5/5 cards and guns… IN SPACE

---