Spirit of the WARHAMMER Game: STILLMANIA, Philosophy, and the Old World
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 03. 2024
- A recent podcast with @d6wounds on the 'Spirit of the Game' got me thinking about the legendary STILLMANIA column from White Dwarf 221 (1998) where Nigel Stillman - a man of power and legend - elucidated a power and highly influential view on the 'Ultimate Spirit of Wargaming'
Dr. Blaxill grapples with the moral philosophy of Stillman's legendary treatise and discusses being a Stillmaniac today.
#WarhammerTOW
#Warhammer
#GamesWorkshop
#theoldworld
#oldhammer
#Stillmania
Well, old chap, you've only gone and done it again!
Great video. Not that I think his rules must be followed exactly at all times, but as you say, the more important reality here is not the rules themselves so much as what they represent: the spirit of wargaming. As long as you follow most of these rules, you're in the right mentality, I think. Some of them are likely to be adjusted for the exact wargame, size, and so on, but that's perfectly fine.
Likely, his rules or spirit of play, is akin to what you might have seen in early wargaming, either by actual war veterans or keen warriors of the felt table (or, much more common, the wooden floorboards). Back then -- say, 1870 through 1970 -- it was common to stick to a single army and overarching theme: this was your wargaming 'identity', we might say. This is logical from a vet's viewpoint, given that he was himself in a single unit for his entire time in the military (or a few units at most, still within the same kind of framework and army block, and still fighting for the same side [nation]). It's not impossible for him to play as the enemy or switch between them, just less common, and there were far fewer options (often only two sides to choose from, so you naturally had no choice but to take one or the other each game).
In the early days of wargaming, it was very much about recreating historial battles, and other than simply switching sides and so on, most players would stick to their side of the battle. Naturally, this also dictated exactly what was taken. It would, of course, fit in with their personality and play style and so on (or, the opposite, which is a more complex form of role-playing from a psychological standpoint. Even still, we're only talking about two options).
You didn't know all 100 or 500 soldiers by name and rank, but you knew each unit and each commander, that's for certain. As we moved into the 1950s through 1970s, things began to change; however, the old players still stuck to their foundations and styles. Understandably, people were attached to their armies and units and tactics and fluff/lore/theme, etc. and names and much more. By 1975, in the realm of D&D, it was common also to stick to a single character and theme, at least for a campaign (anywhere from one day to a few years). Often, somebody would only ever play a certain kind of character in D&D, depending on their personality. This is common in board games and video games, not just wargaming.
Let's skip ahead for now. The concept of merely treating wargaming armies as different styles of models and worlds/cultures to randomly switch at any moment is very new. Partly because the entire framework is new. If you wanted to play a WWII game, you would choose American or German, or whatever the case. That's it. You would go tank-heavy or otherwise, depending on your style/personality. That's it.
GW may or may not be to blame for this radical shift, but they clearly popularised it (and maybe perfected it). In their defence, they didn't think you'd buy 5+ armies and play them all. At best, they figured you would buy 2 or 3 armies over a 20-year period. Seems acceptable enough -- more than enough time to properly adjust to each army as you go. Just looking at the GW world in general, people do stick to a single army or type of army for their entire lives. The difference is, many players today don't actually care about the fun or the narrative element. They just want to win. (And I'm not even blaming this on the stat nerds, as they always existed and didn't overly care about losing. For them, it was about list-building and getting better at the game, and learning all the tactics, etc.) I'm talking about a fairly new type of player (at least, how widespread it has become, as it's now built into some rulesets): the meta-player (or else, the player that is incapable of losing for whatever emotional reason). Sure, people that get upset when you beat them have always existed -- but they were disliked and quite rare. Now, it's the norm. It's common to see people angry at GW for making rules that allow for stupid defeats via dice rolls, for example. They cry about this even if the defeats are (a) narratively rich; and (b) highly rare (in terms of probability). I think such defeats give the game the classic wacky GW feel. It's great for personal stories later, joy during play, wonderful fog of war elements tied into the setting/lore, and general personality of the game. (If nothing else, it's actually healthy to learn how to deal with crushing defeat like a gentleman. As I noted once before in your comment section, I believe, there are even GW players that want full randomness -- they love the randomness of victory/defeat. They hate tactics/thinking. I think the balance is typically good from GW between tactics and randomness.)
My guess, it was only by the 2010s or maybe late-2000s that people actually started building half-armies as it were, or merely using them for the meta-game or for certain games, etc. to ensure better odds -- or just finding themselves endlessly building armies at the surface-level (i.e. not naming them or worrying about military structure or in-universe colour scheme and so on). (Of course, the colour scheme can be primary world as opposed to secondary world, as Tolkien calls it, and you can break the fourth wall -- as long as it's all consistent in terms of your play style and army culture, it's perfectly fine.)
In the end, what matters is that you: (a) enjoy the game (the act of playing -- victory matters not); (b) general sportsmanship; (c) let your opponent play as best you can, in terms of how he wants to command himself (in a technical, silent manner, with a narrative flair, etc.); and (d) aim for immersion (to whatever degree, I suppose). Unless you're playing a pro game where victory actually matters, of course. However, even here, I highly suggest following the above if possible!
(I don't think you should be forced to be really dramatic if that's not your style, as I don't think you should be forced to be a maths genius just to keep up with your opponent. But following your opponent as best you can is a good idea. You might consider this to be a central facet of the 'code of wargaming', with the other being actually on the tabletop. Real war has codes/morals/laws, so it's logical that wargaming would follow. As it's deemed unacceptable to just randomly blow up your enemy's nation without giving them a fighting chance, and that a certain social quality must exist between warriors, there must be certain unacceptable ways of playing the game of war.)
The elephant in the room is the radical shift from historical battle-making to fictional battle-making, which naturally opened the doors to extreme individuality, meta-play, and army-switching. In the mainstream, D&D is likely the cause, followed by Warhammer Fantasy and a few others. This simply didn't exist before. This is where Stillman seems to be coming from: the older culture and style of wargaming. Many of the younger players by the 1990s may have rejected this in favour of a general 'gamer' approach. This is not the end of the world, for me, as long as they are actually having fun with the wargaming itself. The act of playing the game.
The goal of 'the old way' of wargaming was to see what interesting outcome you might find from x historial battle. Banter/socialising was always a key part of it, as I noted earlier. It was never about inventing your own armies and objectives and sci-fi settings and so on. All of that came much later, along with some of the broken elements (demanding everything be meta and perfectly balanced and bland and fast-paced, for example). (Possibly, social media and video games are to blame for a radical shift in how people interact with wargaming. They just don't want to spend the time with the narrative and active play. They just want to get a thrill from critical hits and beat their opponent. This is entirely the wrong mindset for Warhammer, at least. Some wargames are clearly built to be more pro/meta, which is fine. There are dozens of solid games to choose from, depending on what you want. But, don't demand victory in Warhammer 100% of the time. It's not going to happen.)
I love modern wargaming, as long as it adheres to the 'old way' as much as possible. I love the fog of war elements, I love the insanely defeats/victories, I love the 'fun' factor more than the 'meta' factor. I love creating a tiny little world for my army, and making sure it all ties in nicely. I love feeling like a 'general' in charge of a grand army (that's what Fantasy and Old World are meant to be, at least). In the 2000s, when I was at the gaming store all the time, and when it was very popular, I loved meeting all sorts of players and just gaming/talking with them, and checking out their armies and stories.
Note: I cannot confirm H.G. Wells and the many lesser-known wargamers of the last 150 years actually stuck to a single army and theme, etc. within their play, but they certainly were not as diverse as today's landscape due to the radical changes we spoke about. It just wasn't a reality back then, which had some negatives (lack of variety/options, for example), but allowed for great wargaming fun and exactness/polish. Finding the balance between all this today is very difficult, of course.
In short: I largely agree with Stillman if you look at what I personally focused on in this comment. I utterly agree with 12 of his 17 bullet points (71%), and take a more liberal view on the remaining, depending on the game/situation, etc. (His carrying case point is not as meaningful today, as that's not how many people play these days -- but it heavily applied throughout the 2000s, according to my memory, at least.)
What a fantastic reply. I have pinned your comment, although really it deserves much more. Your longue duree historical take on this allows you to posit a potentially animating philosophy which (may) have been consciously or subconsciously in Stillman's mind when he wrote this. It is this notion of 'embodiment' for an army where it and you are somehow attached by more than being a commander of playing pieces. I saw the connection between this and roleplaying, but did not appreciate its interlink with the mentality of the historical wargamer. I feel having read and considered this I could now articulate this point much better for it could be pivotal. And even if not, it is extremely interesting. Is your analysis here inspired simply by your own experience, or is there anything you have read on the history of wargaming culture?
Something did indeed change. And I wonder why and when. Whatever it was, I think the seeds of it were there in 1998 and Stillman may just have seen, with foreboding, a future that other less wise men could not make out. But by the early noughties it was in full flight. The D&D parallel must also be contemporaneously important but I don't know enough about it to periodise in this detail.
One thing I do realise more clearly. Despite being a wargaming fogey in aesthetic I am undoubtedly a creature spawned in the new world. As a gamer I got into fantasy really properly (i.e. not as a schoolkid) only after 8th was dead and this meant I was playing those who remained who were often more hard-line competitive players and a key way of actually getting games was to go to tournaments. And then there was the 9th age- made for competitive play. I did well, and often, competitively, especially in commanding armies on the table (although less good at the meta list switching game). This left its mark. Becoming good at these games and to see them as strategic becomes hard to unlearn. The Old World is simply more random, vague, and unsuited to the strain of competition than 8th was. Almost all my games against other tournament players have dissolved into a partial moan about how the game is technically so much weaker than 8th was in terms of mechanized clean ruleset. Playing it however means however one is almost forced to be more stillmanian in outlook to have fun, so at that point, it is tempting to go in full throttle.
Once again, many thanks for this comment. Feel free to DM me if you want to chat more incidentally, my email address is in the channel description.
A very interesting post, and strangely resonant. After finishing my favourite army I've been thinking about and looking around for another to start collecting but I just can't seem to find one that feels right. A luxury problem of the first degree, for sure, but tricky all the same!
@@DrBlaxill Hey, again.
Actually, this might be the power of cross-reading, as it were. I have no singular source -- within wargaming or otherwise -- for my general thinking here.
I'm no expert, so I've not kept track of such things. My guess? It's inspired by H.G. Wells' Little Wells, the other old wargamers, my slight study of WWII and warfare (general, theory, and laws), psychology (general), and my own experiences with GW.
P.S. Ah, not to worry: I got into Fantasy around 7th or so, too. Either way, about 2007 in school. I'm younger than you, so have little experience with really old Warhammer -- I just try to understand each type of player and take into account all time periods for a richer world view on these topics.
Even by this time, most Fantasy players were hardcore. I guess, you had to be: if you were casual, you'd be crushed each game rapidly -- and the hardcore players would form sub-groups to avoid playing bad players. This is only regarding my own store/club, so may not be nation-wide.
I'll email you, yes. :)
Great comment about the “identity” of the commander and his army of choice. It resonates hard with me as mostly a 40K Imperial Guard player. Back in the day we had regiments all with their own identities, more strict but also more creative force organization, and the Imperial Guard community culture was that you made “your guys” and there were even cliques within Guard communities of different styles of armies that people represented with their regiments, like tank companies, infantry companies, mechanized, artillery heavy, drop troops, etc. that doesn’t really exist to nearly the same degree as it once did. Now all the flavorful regiments are gone, the platoon structure is gone, the force organization doesn’t resemble a military, and people are just encouraged to play soup. It’s just about the meta now and that’s all anyone talks about. What’s the meta unit from the recent points update and what were the published win rates blah blah blah
@@Swrdfshtrmbns Yes, I find with WWII type players and 40k, there is a serious sub-culture of 'tank players' as opposed to those of footfall. Personally, regardless of army, I've always been a troops guy. Dust under keel, rhythmic marching of boots. I knew a few tank guys of 40k back in the day; they were cool. Very technically-minded and nice guys that enjoyed talking about it and other things. Mostly stuck to themselves as a sub-group in the corner, if I can recall, in my local store, haha.
As for the creative vs. strictness comment. This is the interesting thing new players don't understand. There was creativity back in the day, it was just different, as was the whole mindset. If 40k and Fantasy had zero creative for 30 years, they wouldn't have made it this far.
The creativity was in the army choice itself, the colour scheme, the exact army list, the way you played.
Of course, if you are meta-driven, this innately removes most of the creative choices: sometimes, even the colour scheme is locked in if one gives some kind of benefits in-game. Army choice is largely determined, also (if playing comp, you likely don't even play based on personal feelings or preferences, though some do). Army list is also not really a personal choice for meta -- the only changes are a few options depending on the opponent ad such. The way you play is also going to be as logical as possible. For this reason, meta-players typically hate fog of war and wacky/unfair rules, etc.
I wonder if this is why the 'casually meta', as it were, are obsessed with two things: creative model design and interactive pre-made battle situations. This, in line with the general theory that we have a new 'gamer' type of player, inspired more by video games than war games.
Anybody you sere crying about annoying rules in Kill Team or 'unfair deaths' in 40k yet is not actually a comp player is one of these 'casually meta' players. They are fairly normal players, and would have not complained -- or even loved such things -- 15 years ago, but as it stands, they have been wrapped into meta players without the arena of meta. They just want to win. They want a fair, bland, pre-built system, like a video game.
Back in the day, nobody cared about complex sculpts; in fact, many loved the simple ones. Partly, this is due to the lac of creativity or painting ability for many, but it was also the charm of it, and the fact the artistic elements came from within, by our choices. GW didn't need to give us anything other than the metal/plastic and paints. We took care of everything else, sometimes even our own lore and battle layouts, etc.
Now, I find myself even getting upset whenever I read a new ruleset or something, and it says 'make sure all terrain pieces are x inches away from the edges and placed perfectly at x, y, and z, equally spread across all sections of the board'. I'm sorry, but this is just not how we played in the 2000s. It didn't matter as much. Perfect terrain won't help you win against the Chaos Gods and Lady Luck. It might give an advantage if there's an extreme imbalance, but people use their common sense to roughly equalise the board whilst also making it however they want to fit their armies and narrative and play styles.
I'm utterly convinced Warhammer doesn't work within the context of victory, of having a desire for winning before the game begins. It's closer to a school yard game or sandbox video game. There's no such thing as a 'winner' -- it's a social game of personal growth and interaction. Everybody wins. Even when you lose, you feel good, or should. It teaches you how to accept defeat, how not to overly brag about winning, how to play as fairly as possible, how to talk to people.
It would take some time to unpack why this is true for wargames more than others, but it has to be even truer for Warhammer by the way it's designed. More and more Warhammer is deigned for meta and predictable outcomes and victories, and more and more it loses its sense of self, the lore begins to make no sense, the scale is lost, the generalship/command structure breaks down, and it becomes so impersonal and boring and lifeless that you're forced to hone in on a tiny Kill Team game, focused on a few guys and a clear narrative for it to make any sense or feel anything. Warhammer has been stripped to simple numbers and tabulations, coupled with small-scale generic narrative and characterisations (sometimes archetypal yet often impersonal and out of place in this new world).
I spoke to a fellow not long ago. He said he understands the old way but just enjoys the small-scale finely-tuned narrative and gameplay of Kill Team and modern rules, however, he admitted to me that he only started playing 40k back in 7th edition. By this time, it had already shifted towards a modern system and removed most of what we had in 3rd to 5th edition. This is part of the problem: most new players joined only in 7th, 8th, or 9th, and have no idea what we're talking about or what is missing from the spirit of the game or the backbone, or what they could be missing out on, even in their own judgements. They might even like 4th edition more, but they will never know. We're in a vicious cycle right now, a feedback loop. If we're not careful, by 12th edition 40k, it won't exist in any classical sense.
Of course, all the old players have literally become old and quit, or have stuck to their old editions, away from GW. This means, most of GW's fan base today literally are Gen-Z types, or 30-somethings that want victory at all costs, and just care about the numbers.
Again, note that I believe these are not the same as the numbers-driven guys back in the day. They seemed to have no have problem with the way the game functioned, with its wacky randomness and fog of war rules, etc. They were also split into the artistic and non-artistic groups: the non-artistic ones just played with grey models, where the artistic ones actually did just as well as anybody with painting, but it was all for playing the game. They were not as creative with armies and models, but with how they played and figuring out the problems on the table. Some were just obsessed with list-building, or the numbers themselves. They didn't care much about even the playing part, let alone winning. Maybe only one or two were meta players, but the ones I knew still didn't care about winning -- rather, had no problem losing and enjoyed the craziness to 40k back then.
The one who cries when you win, only wants to win every time, and hated the rules. He was never liked by his peers or common to see. Now, it seems way more common looking at GW's decisions and looking across the Internet.
They hated Blaxil because he spoke the truth
Stillmania is very much how 90s kids played Warhammer. I played 1000 point games at the shop and I would bring my 50 clan rats and 30 plague monks every time, with a few trimmings like a warpfire thrower and censer bearers. Maybe those extras would change slightly because they were more affordable, but the main units were set in stone, or lead. When I played my Dwarf playing friend, I knew I would be facing his cannon and gyrocopter. My undead playing friend would have his skeletons and chariots.
Well indeed- and not least because this was probably all you could afford as a kid! Had to get the value for your lead ;-)
Sounds like you had an identical list to my nemesis/best friend. I'd have Slann inside TG and 2x skrox units. Every time.
I actually practiced a form of stillmania when I got into the game back in 2014. I painted up my vampire counts army and, didn't add anything to it after that. Not because of a form of virtue, but because I was a college kid and couldn't afford more. I took it to a few grand tournaments and was routinely clobbered.
I've since added more armies and change my lists for fun. But I haven't touched that vampire counts army at all because to me it represents those fond memories of my first game.
It's more of a physical representation of a happy point of time for me.
Huh. Never realized I was following these guidelines when I got into 40k. In Warhammer 40,000, I made sure to read up on the standard organization of a Space Marine Company, and I built the army accordingly. 6 Tactical Squads, 2 Assault Squads, 2 Devastator Squads, Command Squad, 2 Dreadnoughts. Very rigid, and to this day, I have never deviated from the army once. And the army case fits it perfectly. Neat!
Thank you so much for the video!
How many points is that? Sounds like a large army? Any tanks or 1st company veterans?
@@adampriestley7732 All Tactical Squads and Devastator Squads have Rhinos, Command Squad as a Razorback. The Assault Squads have Jump Packs, so they don't get any Rhinos. I originally built the list for 3000pts in 5th edition, so it's gone up or down as the editions go by, but I haven't touched it since 5th edition.
Couldn't imagine anyone better to cover Stillmania! loving the discussion ;)
Nigel is a true legend in the hobby. I mean he wrote the Dwarf 4th edition armies book which doesn't get much better than that. But then again, he wrote the army book mf my mortal enemies, the Lizardmen lol. True legend though and would love the chance to meet with him again.
Nigel is a postman last time I saw him. Invite him to your show. He's super insightful.
I heard about that! He and I thus have another thing in common there- I was a postie too for three months.
Wow I always wondered what happened to him, I thought he was at warlord games. Hope he's doing well and was properly remunerated for his contribution to the hobby.
@@oitoitoi1I hear he works with the Perry twins for their company. Maybe as a freelancer. I hope too that he got a very well compensated severance package when he left or was pushed out from GW
@thecrownofcommand5830 I hope he got well compensated too. His 5th Ed Lizardmen book is brilliant - such an evocative setting in Lustria, the Temple cities, spawning pools and Slann too fat and deep thinking to care much what was going on.
Then there was the puns, real world references and silliness.
• Never carry more than one street’s post
• Deliver birthday cards before bills
• Never leave a package on the doorstep
• Bicycles not postvans
• The excellence of your postmanship will be beyond doubt
Thank you for speaking up! What you are saying is very important to the future of rank-and-flank games!
Prophet Blaxill spreading the gospel of Stilmania. Excellent stuff!
You've converted me into Stillmania, that's for sure. As a primarily narrative/Crusade player, it's definitely much rarer to see that kind of player in the 40k space. But I'm glad to hear I'm not alone! As always, brilliant work, cheers from the States.
I featured you in my latest battle report Dr. Blaxill!
The sinking feeling when you realize your friendly rival across the table is playing practical mathammer to win and not commanding an enemy army against yours :( (The next time you meet, any underperforming units (often due to bad dice rolls) of theirs have been swapped out. ) Stillman/Wargame roleplayer fan.
Yeah but if you think about it changing stuff make more sense as an army roleplayer.
The good doctor talking sense again. Keep it up Doc.
That was surprisingly insightful. Excellent interpretation of the article even with decades of hindsight. Many thanks fella.
Imagine current day GW even hinting at keeping your army as it is...
Not armies but they did this with the skirmish games. Maybe it's the way they find to sell those. You paint a box, playa few games and problaby get another one. But without the upfront time and cost of a painted army.
Hey doc!
I came across your channel when you discussed with everybodies favourite art- and warhammer scholar, ie The Bard.
I would love hear you two discuss the game now that it has been out a short while.
I think it could be a illuminating video to watch.
Also? Gods know one has to be thankfull for every bit of content one can find of that wise creature. So if you can lure him out it would be great 😅
Still mania sounds like collecting when you are young and can only field what you can afford.
I quite liked that as a young person. But I always dreamed of having choices.
Like the white dwarf battle reports where the generals always talked through their "choices" for the battle and I was mesmerised by the very thought of being able to bring units that net the challenge.
God vid mate. Loved it.
"The germ of medieval mysticism is found in the rituals of Stillmania" - Joris Karl Stillman
Hail Lord Blaxill!
This is the video that won me over. This is such a fascinating and important topic and you covered it perfectly! I was just having a conversation about the spirit of the game, and the way meta chasing has come to dominate conversations not just in table top War gaming, but across a wide spectrum of games. You tapped into some really important things here, and your final thoughts in particular about adapting to the kind of game your fellow players are interested in feels spot on. Thank you!
Indeed. There is of course a reason why Stillmania is remembered after so many years when much else has turned to dust. In his case, the contrarian of then turned out to be the truthsayer of tomorrow.
What a fantastic video - a perfect encapsulation of what Stillmania was in its own time and what it means for gamers today. The point about the social covenant - that us gamers are not islands and we exist only in a community of like-minded gentlepersons, because no one can really play this game by themselves - is bang on.
It’s precisely because of the gamers’ covenant that I see TOW as more akin to Necromunda than a robust, watertight competitive ruleset - it’s simply too diverse and multifaceted to ever be completely resolved by GW rule-writing. Loopholes and abuses (like “cheesy” lists or Linehammer) will always exist, and its up to each gaming community to decide if and when to engage with it as they like. What might be a problem for one community might not be a problem for another, and if it is a problem for any community, the solution lies in themselves in how they choose to play. We should not look to GW to resolve any but the most egregious contradictions within the rules, and nor should the community expect to attempt its own global, ideal ubiquitous ruleset (eg a perfectly balanced tourney comp) or debate which comp is unequivocally better. Every event, region, meta, tourney circuit, or club will have its own answers and our gaming opportunities will be richer for it. It means there will be some learning and different ways of playing even in core rules if players jump from one ‘meta/community’ to another, but if these are seen as novel benefits rather than flaws, there’s no problem here.
The other point I wanted to make is that Stillmania can actually be an argument for extreme consumerism - ie if you want to use a cool new unit for your faction, you should come up with *an entire new army* to feature it in. Each army is its own rigid, set project but there’s no limit to the number of projects a gamer can have. There’s just no ‘borrowing’ of units from one army to another, so go ahead and buy duplicates of those Pegasus Knights for your Quenelles army, your Border Prince Exiles army, and your Parravon army. Seen this way, Stillmania is no roadblock to purchasing and actually is a more practical way for gamers to engage with new miniatures or new modelling ideas over time.
Thanks again for such an eloquent and thoughtful video!
This was an excellent video with very insightful thoughts. Thank you so much for sharing.
I've been playing the exact same army since 6th edition... I just had no clue this style is called Stillmania and I'm totally all for it!
Aha! An unintentional Stillmaniac who has been on an impossible quest for years and now has only just been told about it! Possibly this is a still higher honour- to tread the holy pilgrimage path with your own steps!
@DrBlaxill thanks, Doc! I know my KISS Army isn't the best, and it hardly wins battles. However, it's fluffy, thematic, and always makes for a great fun story with my opponent. Stillmania is my way to play! Thanks for all your insights, I really appreciate it. Cheers!
Another thoughtful and thought provoking essay. Having played since '92, thematic lists and taking something that shouldn't win and maybe, just maybe getting a victory is where the joy in competition and play is.
Nigel contributed so much to 80s & 90s Warhammer, I was thinking about his WD221 article when you began highlighting the 'Linehammer' tactics over the past few months, so I'm glad that you made this video. I'm nearly 50 and have played since 3rd edition. In the past 3 years I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons more than wargaming because it felt that like every Age of Sigmar game I played was a tournament match chasing the best combo. My favourite game was Warhammer Mighty Empires which encouraged tactical and campaign play and used the Fantasy Battle rules to decide the outcome. They were never evenly matched and that was part of the fun. It is good to see Nigel getting some recognition.
I've been saying this for years: it's fun to play, and from both a business and narrative framework, it makes perfect sense that the armies would not be evenly matched. If GW was actually meta-driven, each army would be the same, the rules would be painfully technical and bland, and GW would lose roughly half its profits and players instantly. That's my guess.
Tactics (and some general strategy), luck of the gods, and narrative/role-playing. That's Warhammer. Being overly technical and meta are lesser elements and have their places -- but the entire game should not be meta-driven or entirely balanced/evenly matched.
I think 3rd through 6th edition (give or take) of Fantasy and 40k did a good job of balancing all the fluff, business factors, core rules, and player types. Things started to shift later on, for a number of reasons. (Discounting the first editions of Warhammer for our purposes, as they were very different.)
Have you considered making a video about the changing aesthetics of the hobby and relation between aesthetic abstractions, imagination, and how it can inspire or influence people to approach the hobby differently? I think sometimes we forget that miniatures are a small kind of art and the reaction you feel when you see someone's painted army on the tabletop at the store - or if indeed, if it's unpainted - is an underrated point of influence. Or even what the terrain looks like, what the board symmetry looks like, if there's lots of extraneous tools and markers and indicators on the board, etc. I've always thought the sum total reaction towards the whole spectacle of a wargame is really important, and especially with the decline in prominence of terrain and terrain-making in the hobby, the overbearing egalitarianism of terrain layouts, the contrivances made for modern gaming, the era of speed-painting net lists, the era of 3D printed armies sort of violating the aesthetic sensibilities of the setting or scale, etc. It's just all changed so much. Some things better, some things worse.
There's definitely a broad piece to be done about hobby aesthetic. Some of this parallels Stillmania, especially the place of terrain, conversions, and perhaps most of all the aesthetic subtext of the miniatures. One criticial pivot in my view is the move from cartoony to grim and dark in about 2000, which was when the black undercoat became more popular. This was abetted by a greater range of plastic miniatures, so it was cheaper to assemble armies. Gradually, people amassed more models and the challenge shifted from not being able to afford enough miniatures for painting to having too many of them. Black undercoats and brown washes started to dominate- which of course aided the 'realistic' look, with the twin conveniences of requiring much less painting skill and speed. And with speed, came the ability to meta switch. Some of the causes are gaming, the availability of new mediums, and external aesthetic influences (like LOTR or Warcraft and many others). However, certainly 'aesthetics' would provide space for a good generalist take on many such themes.
@@DrBlaxill the grim dark thing is interesting, because I like a lot of the lore and artwork from the late 90s/early 00s, but I don’t think it translates well to the tabletop. I somehow think it makes people view the game itself more cynically, like maybe not as bad as an unpainted army, but it somehow doesn’t seem to spark imagination in the same way. I don’t have any evidence to support this. I think another thing is that in the age of social media and amazing photography, a lot of painting is done with individual photos in mind, often up close. Grimdark models can look really nice in this context, under ideal lighting. But they actually can look really drab, washed out, and uninspired when viewed from a distance assembled into an army. I developed these thoughts because I made this mistake myself. Now I am vivid-colored-pilled.
Yes. Yes. Yes!!!!!!! Keep preaching my friend. 😊
Well Dr. Blaxill, what I can say about Stillmania and all of my (mostly tournament) tabletop time is...
When I really went to 40k tournaments, I went there in 3rd edition with close combat speed freaks and it worked but it worked less and less... so I created a shooty speed freak army. Primarily based on shooting with lots of trukks, trakks and buggies, a battlewagon and 1 looted demolisher.
And this turned out to be MY speed freak army, my playstyle and for a very long time it was unique in not only Berlin but entire Germany. I was the shooty speed freak player, later also becoming an ETC player and also ETC champion (with the team).
But well, I adapted my roster whenever a new edition or codex came out, sometimes even just because I had to (new codex mostly) because old options simply vanished for instance. That is something that Stillman never even thought about obviously if you look into his list of "style rules about owning an army".
But I of course have other armies next to my speed freaks of course. Also WHF armies, dwarfs are my prime army there. But for as well 40k and WHF I have 4 armies per game. I have my primary army, that I also used on tournaments, but I also have these other 3 armies and these ones were always in Stillman Style so to say.
I wanted other armies and thus I created such quite unique army styles as well with them but while my tournament armies always adapted to some degree, my side armies never did and sometimes even got unplayable due to an edition change but I never adapted them because they were army projects that were finished.
Thanks a lot for this video dear Dr. Blaxill.
Loved that video! Your thoughts and elaborations about stillmania take me back to a time where we played: bring what you got games.
My greatest triumph stems from that time. My 8 khemrian horsemen with armor, shield and spears held firm against a silver helm charge. I only lost one. And two horses managed to kill two Silverhelms - and they automatically broke and got run down. Playing like that is absolutely my jam.
Lopsided battles, losing, I don‘t care. What I came for are the laughs and the storys.
I play very mcuh in the spirit of Stillmania, and have done it with mostly with wood elves and orc and goblins. With orc and goblins I make tribes and have that as smaller armies( about 2000 pts) and then used severel tribes it playing big battle with many points( my orc and goblins are current past the 20000 pts limit)
That was a thoroughly engaging video!
Another great video by the doc . Love it
All Old World games should be played to Iron Maidens Alexander the Great on repeat as aural stimulation.
And you're only allowed to declare a march when it goes "Marching on, marching on..."😂
Stillmania, on army composition, harks back to a more traditional time, along the lines of historical wargaming, where the changes to armies are unlikely, once completed. (There have been no new Napoleonic uniforms or troop types for 200+ years). As said in the piece, playing the game is the fundamental aspect, winning is a nice to have. The approach can be seen as narrative turned up to 11, and does allow a modeller to put the army to bed once the army is complete, and move onto another project sooner than perhaps if following a different approach. In these times of regular rules and points updates, the idea of not amending a list once written would be a difficult policy to follow, unless your opponent had a similar mindset, and/or allowed you to keep to the original army book rules and points. For those of us who have a history of GW experience recall the publication of an army book or codex where no changes would occur until the next edition appeared 3+ years later (something that sounds very unusual now). The video referred to Stillmania being a noble approach, and it can be seen as that. However, I sometimes take a similar approach, just to act the curmudgeon and bloody minded member of our gaming group. Detesting change, something I do increasingly more as I get older, meta chasing can be very tiring, a young person's game if you will. I’ve recently found your channel and have enjoyed listening whilst collecting and painting my Old World Orc and Goblins list using citadel metal miniatures off EBay. It will be 2000 points, have its own bespoke carry case, and I will enjoy deploying it on the table whatever happens in the game to come.
I still follow Stillmans principles about how to build an army to this day. Can’t say I firmly follow all of the Stillmaniac principles, but I fall and try to remain on that path when gaming.
That article about “how to paint a unit a month/always have a standard/a unit starts with its command/500 point blocks/ etc - v influential in this head!
A long and good video with a good moral of play to your crowd. Which has been important for a long time
I think it's good to clarify that if your opponent forget something he can always go back and do it. It speed up the game as well
When I got back into the hobby in 2020 I repainted my old armies...sort of. Rather than fully repainting them, I more 'restored' them to be the best possible versions of themselves. How they 'should' have been, in a sense.
Wisdom. Thanks for the share!!
🔥 🔥 LINEHAMMER HERESY 🔥 🔥
I think "Shrug off defeat, learn the lessons and keep practising, play for the fun of playing" is something very relatable and very important to enjoying the game. I have to say one of the big changes to this edition is that a loss is basically as fun as a win. I don't feel like my units are being completely blown off the table in 1 charge, or after one spell like they used to. There's much more push and pull and everything is largely dead or mauled by the end of the game, but you still have units doing things, trying for that hail Mary 10" charge on turn 6, or picking off that 1 or 2 models to force that unit into a panic check.
Yes, so long as both players avoid certain things I think. OW at its best can embody this though, I think you are right. Personally I prefer a tighter ruleset and am ok with the razor edge play of 8th Ed. But, this is a preference rather than a categorical view. My ideal future is to have both. More stillmanian games of OW to make friends and share. While keeping 8th and 9th back for shootout at high noon.
I did not realize that Stillman was a Dwarf! Grungi approved.
Brilliant video, thank you. Just subbed.
Very interesting, this video has given me a lot to consider as I want to get into The Old World. What I like about the Stillmanian approach to painting is that it seems like it would feel liberating to have your army painted and permanently set without ever having a nagging, perfectionist feeling wanted to constantly revise them.
I have to point out that the carry case and gloss varnish also demonstrate a deep care for the models as objects! You're not going to chip your paint or snap a spear, so with any luck you’ll still be playing the same models in a decade or three. Really hammers home the 'time capsule' aspect.
I always try to mix background and meta even if it's not always the best option.
Lots to admire in Stillmania, and I remember his original linehammer Dwarf battle report vividly. There is one thing that I find particularly odd about the set in stone approach though. If you are genuinely role-playing because this is the army your general was able to muster and no more troops or different units are available that is fine. But fighting every battle from the same starting point is a bit like warhammer Groundhog Day, does no-one ever die or become more experienced in from fighting battle after battle? Does your savvy general not think, my flanks are very vulnerable to quick mobile units I must recruit/ train/ muster some of my own to counter this?
Part of the fun in collecting an army for me is that evolution within the bounds of the theme I set for them from the outset.
Love the in depth analysis from the good Doctor though
This really spoke to me just this morning. I've been working on a massive Night Goblin hoard. It's the type of thing I dreamed of as a kid, but never made...
I'm almost all done, and this morning I'll be playing with those models against a High Elf dragon.
I was just wondering if I should take out the snotlings and replace them with spear chukkas... but those ARE common goblin machines, and while we could imagine that some of their common goblin pals had turned up to help in the battle, it's just NOT Night Goblin, which is the point of the army. So the snotlings will be coming.
And if I slay that dragon (and I probably wont) I'll feel all the better... and if I don't (and I really probably wont) then it'll be a great battle of a Night Goblin invasion that went horribly wrong for the little green fellows.
As an ideal to aspire to I have always been fascinated with Stillmania. Yet I have never found the restraint in myself to shy away from the latest new shiny toy or to not tweak my army a bit if I'm consistently losing.
I can hope to achieve it still one day but perhaps like you say it is more about your opponents and the circle you play in rather than sticking to strict guidelines.
I would love to experience my skill as a general being unquestioned without resorting to skimming through the internet for the latest 'best' unit and while sticking the background of the game. A man can dream... Thanks for covering this topic on your channel!
And when you manage it - hard as it may be - you will arise a knight.
Love to see more representation of the narrative focus 👍
www.youtube.com/@nergling has kept this idea alive on YT. But good to have your take on it too Dr. Blaxill!
@nergling has championed this recently!
I have always considered the ruleset as a mechanism to tell stories, rather than rules for a game.
Sometimes I make counter-productive decisions because “that’s what my army would do” (including firing on my own squad for negligence)
I fill in a page in my book of grudges for every battle.
One other rule I try to follow is not fielding unpainted units.
Good show sir!
From what I remember from my late '80s and early '90s Warhammer games, I could only afford an army of just under 2000 points. So there is that aspect: "You go to battle with the army you have" that lends itself to the Stillman School. Also, I agree that WFRP and WFB were interchangeable in the early days; this can not be stressed enough. That is, WFB was a mass combat system for WFRP and vice versa, and honestly, that was the most fun kind of game. Your Heros are managing a regiment of pikemen and some sady crossbow dudes from Nuln, and a wood elf scout is getting hired to take on a Necromancer down the river. Okay, fine. How do you feed and pay them? What does your wagon train look like? Good stuff to think about while you're painting your miniatures. This Kind of game was not very Stillman at all, as your army was constantly changing due to casualties, new units hired between games, etc.
The Statue of Stillman belongs in the run-down and ignored philosophy school at the University of Altdorf. But perhaps a 3D-printed model or kitbash of a statue for your battlefield would be the best memorial; what a glorious piece of terrain to make your sub-2000-point "thrice blessed by Solkan (varnish)" army last stand in front of.
Our Lord Stillmanus in excelsior deo
100% agree the feel in the 90s was just go play. The internet warped that.
I remember reading this when it first came out, but I always assumed it was a satirical take on metagaming, which was slowly creeping into the hobby with the rise of the internet at the time.
Refreshing and admirably balanced take in a time of increasingly polarized rhetoric
The game and gaming culture has changed arguably for the better in many ways but the wane of narratively focused play is one of the unfortunate side effects of hyper competitive consumerist market forces, I really do wish GW would lean into this aspect as the little plastic soldier game is a mere shadow of itself without the bedrock of lore it's founded on
For all it's faults events like the Eye of Terror worldwide campaign were the stuff of legend and are still talked about 2 decades later for a reason
As for player conduct... purely chasing the meta and angle shooting every conceivable rule interaction can be fairly annoying to say the least but so can beating others over the head with a miniature moral cudgel because they deigned to run a narratively deviant list
Everything in moderation, speak with your opponents beforehand about what type of game you want to play along this spectrum and you're golden
Another fantastic video Dr. and I agree with everything you said here. I think the role of narrative gaming is so important when playing a game of Warhammer or any other game tbh. It’s those memories that you hold dear of narrative battles I find. But we are all different in that respect I guess. Stillman for God I say ❤
During 4th edition, before Stillman's Bretonnian army book, one could catch glimpses of Bretonnia through Manowar, the naval battles game.
Stillman had worked on that too, and to me, Bretonnia seemed really fascinating as a land of corrupt Lords and everyone else being dirty and nasty.
I was disappointed then, when Stillman finally presented them as noble and chivalrous. Till then I thought of them as a neutral faction, not as evil as chaos but quite selfish and after personal gain.
Great video, always happy to get nostalgic for the nineties.
I love coming up with stories of my heroes, giving them names and writing pages about their backstory. Whenever i go to my store people never have names for their heroes or even their commander. Feels like I'm fighting some random force, not an epic clash between two storied heroes. I only got into Warhammer a couple years ago when i was in middle school and i don't think I've ever really had a good experience like what is being preached :(
I like to do it too. Sometimes people can feel a little sheepish about their own made up names, but they shouldn't do. I also try to call them by their names in battle, although do often forget
I think everyone should name at least their commander :) It gives even a little more feeling that it's a real person in that world leading their army rather than just another model from a massive company. Excellent video overall!!!
Very interesting points, I would agree that even for a casual player sticking with just the same models forever will get pretty boring pretty fast. I would like to test a variety of different compositions, units and items. Duke on a peg or hippo, 6 peg knights or 6 grail knights. Having more models in ones collection just means more options and options are good. Sam for adjusting for even a local meta. If I'm gonna see plenty of peps taking dragons, my staple every game will be a duke on a royal peg with virtue of heroism, gilded c. and seal of parravon. And I would argue, having that option to change and adjust ones army comp is part of the fun aswell.
please turn the volume up. Great video
This harkens to the tradition of a single person or group creating games where there is no decision making on what armies are. It sets up the battle entirely and you as the player decide which side to play this time. Even the terrain layout itself would be always the same, we are playing this battle every time we play this particular game which has been curated. Very much like real generals setting up an imminent battle as accurately as possible with very little power to change the resources present on either side but focused on how to use your strategic advantage to control the outcomes of the battle. It makes the person doing the hobby aspect the Lord of the world like a gamesmaster.
Fantastic commentary Dr Baxil, brought a tear to mine eye at the true sportsmanship. Though I do find it truly funny at the fact that I would always want to spend more money on a new army, a new story in the making when I wasnt feeling forced to supplement the usual gang of lads via the meta evolving.
Is Stillman still around? Try and get him on the show for an interview maybe?
nice video, thank you.
I very much am playing with a narrative focus. All my armies have and will have narrative ties to each other (and I will develop deep lore for each). I want to tell a story before anything else.
I'm building an errantry crusade Bretonnia army from the Parravon's dukedom (with pegasi in lance formation) : everything is impetuous, I don't care if I will lose in a loop because of it, they are glorious.
I am also building a full cavalry and flying Vampire Count army, with a Lahmian countess (infiltrated in the Parravon's nobility) on coven throne raising from the dead her passed human knights.
For both armies, I will always keep the focus on the narrative. I however will still try to have choices, in order to have some wiggle room to adapt.
Lances/unit sizes, character items, etc. I will own more models that I will bring on each battlefield, but I will never touch a filthy peasant, a dishonorable trebuchet, or disgusting ghouls and horror crypts. The spirit of each army will stay intact.
From my 6th edition collection as a child I will also raise two separate armies : a pure orc warband without any puny goblins, and a night goblin tribe without orc or warmachine but accompanied by squigs, trolls and giants, both of them roaming around the Gray Mountains.
Finally, when GW will re-release the wood elves, I will buy and build two armies, the first focused on forest spirits (hoping for army of infamy to avoid fielding elves) and a second one representing ambushing elven warden against the greenskin and Bretonnians venturing too far in Athel Loren (once again, in the same region next to Parravon and the grey mountains).
Well said old boy. Bravo! I remember when that article debuted in White Dwarf. Many including myself probably thought it to be just purely satire. Though, in hind sight, and with your analysis, does indeed hold some sparks of wisdom.
I remember that article from back then. Then as now I am unsure how seriously most of it was to be taken seriously. certainly every thing from ""what you see in the army is what you get"" onward.
the gloss varnish hits close to home as someone currently bringing out his old 1990s undead army (and wondering if he actually was a better painter back then)
Cheers!
There’s a CZcamsr (HeyWhoa) who plays Ogres in AoS, and by my knowledge he’s played more or less the same army for three years, and only had to finally change it this last autumn because GW keeps changing points. It’s not the most competitive army but it is a quite fun army and he often says it’s more important to him to play something fun than chase some Meta!
I have 10 armies so I’m sorry to say I’m a slave to a changing mind as to what I want to play each week! 😅
There are three main ways to play: Friends, Clubs, Tournaments. I think the 'spirit of the game' is different for each one and people do crossover between groups.
10:13 as an artist, while I wouldn’t go back and alter older pieces, I do take their themes and ideas and create new things with the same inspiration.
Seems to me, the important bit that defines his list is the naming and the backstory created for it.
If you were to take some of those models and run them with some new ones, new names and a new backstory are needed.
That might go against some of the integrity you see in it, but it ultimately comes down to whether or not you still enjoy playing with your toy soldiers.
Very interesting video, thank you.
One of line i really dig into, is the wysiwyg point. Why, because it’s about playing its minis as they are, and not a pdf list. It avoids brainless optimized lists if you don’t have the means to achieve them. As a competitive hobbyist, one goes with the other for me 🔥
I think your final point is so interesting and important. Playing a type of game that both players will enjoy is key, however I think there is a real lack of language or lexicon for players to adequately express this to each other. It's a difficult conversation to have, and one that is so open to interpretation.
Exactly. It's not easy to articulate with words, but it does become become evident on the table. So the second game can perhaps stand a better chance of giving everyone what they want
Campaigns are great for keeping players to a more balanced version of manic vows of moral purity to build a narrative and with a given rule set can adapt through campaign progress. I am glad you point out that your opponents desires are just as important as what you are trying to accomplish.
Great video. I score about a 75 on the Stillman scale but I also started as 5th ed was about to come out. I like the 'three coats of varnish' rule, at least metaphorically in that you finish painting and leave them. I could nitpick a model every day but at some point it has to be good enough or it'll never be good enough and you'll drive yourself nuts. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Also, is princess Kate alive or what? 😅
The rest of the article that Stillman's column originates from here is well worth a read for other perspectives and advice on the spirit of the game, particularly for the Adrian Woods's friendly disagreement resolution demonstration.
I think it's worth noting that at the time, the White Dwarf/Rules Design crew (same people) were far more isolated from the general gaming public than we might remember/realised since the internet wasn't so much of a thing so it wasn't as easy as it would be even a few years later to get a general view of what's going on outside the GW HQ bunker, and I get the distinct impression they were often surprised at what they encountered or had letters sent in about (reading the Citadel Journal of the time has some great stuff related to that), leading to this and other related articles.
A key point you make there- there was no real way of judging the zeitgeist then. There was an internal discussion amongst the rules designers and possibly at the first GTs. Apart from letters, there was not much of a way to ascertain 'the vibe' of the wider hobby community. Hence, it would be interesting to know where the 'mandate' to end herohammer so dramatically with 6th ed came from. It was presented as a response to 'public opinion' but I suspect that claim was a fairly flimsy one!
@@DrBlaxill I think a big part of it was linked to how they started to sell those multipart plastic infantry kits (I did rather like the Perry designed Empire ones) and wanted ensure mechanically there was a reason to take a few of them. Selling a bunch more infantry figures so that people made armies that looked like armies couldn't have displeased the bean counters as well as helping the gameplay. That and they brought in Alessio Cavatore onto the design staff, whose tournament-forged mindset gave them a fresh perspective that had been very missing from the old gang, I suspect he may have prompted more a few ideas about how to restructure things (given all his author credits for the time they were definitely making good use of him). Of course this is all only supposition, though not baseless.
I think there is at least a little Stillman in all of us, some people aren't even aware of it. I'm guilty of naming my units, unit champions, characters. The fluff, lore, and mythology is so rich, in some cases its a part of my army building decisions as much the model options.
Been an avid follower of Nigel Stillman's philosophies when it comes to playing tabletop wargaming. Got into Warhammer back in 1995. Haven't stopped playing. I still play the older editions of Fantasy Battle and 40k and refuse to play the Modern Hammer stuff.
It’s all so complicated in the 90s and 21st century. In 88/89 me and my schoolmates took all the miniatures we owned up to our mates attic. Lined up the goodies vs the baddies and… Charge! No psychology or magic. Just loads of killing until everything was dead or we all had an argument and went home on our bikes.
Yes. My early games were similar. Everything also happened in a random order. But the arguments- oh yes, there were many of those!
I demand a battle report
There's one in the works :-)
One is NOT enough!
Really love your conclusion, it chimed with my thoughts about the game. Being an older fart, I want to be as adaptable as I can to the players that I meet and I'm learning to be more cut throat and competitive which is something I've always avoided in the past. All power to your dice hand.
This is the key challenge for the older gamer- able to play the modern game against the younger men who don't remember how it was, but also still act as a gentle ambassador for the gaming zeitgeist of his time, when people listen (as they sometimes do)
@DrBlaxill I'll have to give you a game one day, we have chaos armies of near identical vintage. It'd be a treat to see them on the table.
Really good and I wish more embraced the spirit of the spirit of the game. Growing up with games the idea of focusing so much on winning and balance is oddl I frankly prefer games of all sorts not perfectly optimized. Related this reminds me of the fun battle report on Miniwargaming between Skari and Luka - when Skari played a mostly peasant army vs Luka's orcs. (I'd like to see more of these sorts of games.)
That's how I always approached wargaming. I got an army, I got the models that I liked of a said faction, built up some lore to back it up with roots in "canon" and there you go, that was my army, for good or bad. I guess that was the spirit back in the days and got stuck to me. I played several games at the stores, with people trying pieces and making lists. I was so bored that I never went again. Better for me to play with the guys, with couple of crates of beer (well several) over a weekend and a grill running.
One thing we always change btw about the rules is the line of sight rules and what can you remove if dead. That doesn't work at all in 40k for example in 10th edition, it's retarded. You get to remove stuff from the back because "it simulates soldiers moving inside a formation" yet when you have to get the benefit of cover you have al sort of issues that directly clashes with that first statement. That's something we alwaays change as It makes the game so gamey it's not even worth playing it.
Btw in the old world we don't have line hammer , as we decided to apply the rule that only base to base contact is accepted, and the game works.
It's funny how the context of time can change things so much. When I first read that article I was like, "Appropriately model all magic items on your heroes? Why he's trying to trick me into buying extra metal miniatures to carve up for conversations, nice try you wily capitalist." And now it's a radical statement on ignoring the meta and simply playing the game for fun.
Getting berated by a coked up Bill Nighy character at 1:15 and welcomed by a gentlemanly academic at 1:18 is the foundation of what makes this channel so fantastic.
AAA video ! my first criteria is the miniature look and then I make armies around a theme (4th edition full chivalry high Elves, or recently nomadic barbarian looking for slave/sacrificium lamb)! So since 4th edition I've always struggle to win a game.
Just having a thumb through the article now, it seem's like some of the contributors took a tongue in cheek approach. I'm sure Nigels , while having a grain of truth, was no different. The fact that his own section had it's own glorious scroll like background would seem to play into this, and that all the staff working on white dwarf knew of Nigels gaming habits.
Thank you for defending the commonly derided "three coats of gloss varnish". Philistines may laugh at the shininess of our armies, but they are virtually indestructible encased in their amber prisons.
My Stilmania type oath is to select a single army/faction and only collect and play that. This is harder for me.
Who needs to read a Warhammer instruction book? YOU are the instruction manual! LOL! Cheers Dr. Blaxill! Keep the instruction coming!!!
Good grief, can this old queen go on?!
I always thought these guidelines were just poking fun at Stillman and werent to be taken seriously. But now as a (hopefully) more mature adult I do feel they do resonate as ways to quell my inner "beard" and have more fun.
Three coats of gloss varnish not being in fashion is proof that fashion is WRONG
Yes! Many a young lad thought that dunking his fine figures repeatedly in gloss varnish would ensure they wouldn't scratch - and he was RIGHT!
You could also interpret his point about not changing your army in a different way. Perhaps, its a dedication to learning about your army. Knowing how to adapt to your opponent through tactics rather than buying the "newest power unit". Dedicate yourself to your army, not its expansion.
And three coats of varnish keeps your miniatures from chipping... 😉