Transiting the ford

A spurt of post-Ebor-Lard creativity has seen me design a new Infamy Infamy scenario for Steel Lard. 

Based on a C. S. Grant scenario from  47-year old copy of Military Modelling magazine, it involves the escort of a princess and her dowry to meet her husband-to-be. I'm calling it "Ambush" or "The Princess Bride (Not That One)" so you can imagine that things will not go according to plan for the escort.

One of the things I wanted to build into the game was time pressure. This is to be achieved by the river, which has to be crossed by Blue, the escort, rising as a result of recent rains. If they don't cross the only available ford in time, the princess will be unable to join her intended. This will probably have fatal consequences for the commanders of her escort.

I decided that the ford should become progressively harder to cross as the waters rose. In fact I identified four stages to the process. I won't reveal the details at present but it then occurred to me that it might be fun to swap in different models as a visual indicator of the situation.

A quick Google of Roman-era fords revealed several images of irregular stone paving sloping down into the water.

Wanting to create modular pieces I could slot in in sequence, I decided to use some old cork and melamine drink coasters as bases. I chamfered the corners and added earth texture, where required, using quick-drying Polyfilla coloured with cheap acrylic paint.

The result is four stages of flooding:

Stage 1 - we can see the stone surface of the ford on both banks
and in the centre of the river

Stage 2 - the centre of the ford is now fully submerged

Stage 3 - a log is floating downstream
as a tribesman wades across

Stage 4 - fully flooded and clearly dangerous!

Another addition required by the scenario is the Princess's cataphract escort. I've had these Warlord Sarmatians for years since I saw them going cheap at the Penkridge tabletop sale. I've now rebased them on one of Simon Miller's "Bat Bases".

I've decided to adopt 12cm wide bases for all of my Infamy Infamy units; they were far less fiddly in use at Ebor Lard than were the sabot based miniatures. They'll also do nicely for To The Strongest, Basic Impetus or in future Midgard.

Keep an eye out here for further developments towards the Ambush.

Ebor Lard Report part two

I was so busy during the day at Ebor Lard that I had virtually no opportunity to observe the other games in progress.  However, here are the pictures I took:

Joe Bilton's "Montcornet"
28mm Chain of Command II

More of Montcornet

Charley Walker's "The Full Nelson"

Jeremy Short's "The Sword in the Stone"
28mm Dux Britannarium

Ian Hemmingway's "What a Scaver"
28mm What A Cowboy variant

Simon Walker's "The Hills are Alive..."
28mm Sharp Practice

John Savage's "Escape to Dhuran Duran"
29mm Sharp Practice

Ken Welsh's "Never Greater Slaughter"

28mm Midgard Heroic Battles

Ebor Lard Report part one

Having fallen down some steps and sprained my ankle the previous weekend, Ebor Lard suddenly became a logistical challenge. Fortunately I was flooded with offers of transport. Thanks to all who offered and to Andrew Snowdon in particular for ferrying me to and from the evening meal.

I ran my Infamy Infamy game The Iron Hand of Mars in morning and afternoon sessions.

I was pleased with how the table looked when set up. The large, painted divider-thingie made a brief appearance to demarcate the area scouted by the Romans at the start of the game but was then banished under the table.

The Romans on the march

The morning session began with the Romans deploying from one corner of the table and needing to march across to near the opposite corner. Above we see them well on the way.

Batavian skirmishers emerge from the woods

German tribesmen hit some of Justinus's legionary 
recruits in the rear

The morning crew: Ned (Civilis), Dave (Gracilis),
Richard (Albrecht) and Michael (Falco)

In the afternoon session I reset the game with a couple of tweaks to make it play faster. I'd already decided to move the Roman camp to the middle of one side of the table when John Savage suggested that, with everyone affected alike by the terrain, I could treat the forest as open ground for movement purposes.

The afternoon crew: Andrew (Albrecht), Michael (Civilis),
Bob (Falco), and Chris (Gracilis)

The changes did indeed see the sides come to blows quicker with, at the end, one or two Groups from each side routed.

In this version Fabius Gracilis was lost in the forest with his routing troops. I'd like to think he came to a sticky end. Either way he won't be pursuing a career in the Senate.

The fighting was inconclusive in the time available but it was punishing enough that Julius Civilis announced his intention to retire from actively opposing Rome. The dream of a united Europe led by Gauls and Germans will have to wait a few centuries!

That will do for now. In part two I'll post some pics of the other games.

Quantifying Lard part two

The post analysing player choices at Steel Lard excited some discussion here and on a couple of social media platforms. This prompted me to revisit the analysis.

Rather than mess around comparing the popularity of each offering with the "average popularity" of games in each year, I've now just expressed each by what proportion of the first or second place choices it received each year. 

The choice of rule system table is pretty much unchanged (though I've lumped all of the Chain of Command variants into one:

System	Average Pref 1 or 2
GDA2	0.182
Pickett’s Charge	0.175
CoC (all variants)	0.163
Kiss Me Hardy/The Full Nelson	0.15
Sharp Practice	0.126
When the Last Sword is Drawn	0.091
Algernon Pulls It Off	0.091
Dux Britanniarum	0.091
What A Cowboy	0.084
What A Tanker	0.070
If the Lord Spares Us	0.045
Kriegspiel	0.045
O Group	0.036

Again, I'll not cover the relative popularity of individual game-runners (though I can reveal that your host has achieved solid mid-table mediocrity). 

Operating from memory of the games offered, I can reveal the following scores with respect to figure scale:

Scale	Average Pref 1 or 2
Naval Games	0.150
28mm	0.128
15mm	0.109
Aerial Games	0.091
10mm	0.070

That bigger toys are popular perhaps says something about the average age of the community?

And, probably somewhat arbitrarily, here's an attempt to quantify "scale of game" for the land-based games. 

Scale of Action	Average Pref 1 or 2
Large Skirmish	0.129
Battle	0.110
Small Skirmish	0.098
Strategic	0.045

Here I've used "Small Skirmish" to mean those maybe-a-dozen-aside games like What A Cowboy or When the Last Sword is Drawn, "Large Skirmish" for those fifty-odd aside games like Dux Brit, Sharp Practice or CoC, and "Battle" for larger actions. Oh and I treated the one Kriegspiel game as "Strategic".

Quantifying Lard

What are the most popular games at Lardy Days?

The preparation for Ebor Lard is pretty much done. I have one figure left to paint after realising that my existing Legionary optio has the wrong shield design.  That being the case, I thought I'd take the chance to share some analysis I've done on Lardy Day game preferences.

I've overseen the allocation of players to games for four years of Steel Lard. I think I'm in a position to make some vaguely informed statements about which of the Too Fat Ladies systems are the most popular.

Each year I asked players to choose their preferred games. Initially I asked for first, second and third preferences but last year I extended this to have all games ranked from highest to lowest preference. The reason for doing this was that we had an unusual number of games that had either appeared at Steel Lard previously or that had appeared at other Lardy Days recently.

In my analysis I considered only games that had been selected as first or second choice - typically everyone plays two games.

For each year this gave me a percentage figure for each game. For example if there were a total of 66 first and second preferences, a game getting 8 first/second choices would have 8÷66 or 12.1% of the top choices made.

Taking this percentage figure for each game I could then calculate the mean percentage for games as a whole (9.1% in 2022) and the extent to which each game's popularity differed from the mean. Note that in the analysis below I've removed the names of the game-runners and titles of the games to protect the guilty.

Thus in the table above a one of the Chain of Command games (with a score of 4.5) was the most popular choice, while another (scoring -9.1) was the least! A Relative Popularity (RP) of 0.0 shows a game that was neither more nor less popular than the average. This analysis was completed for all four years. 

Having established the popularity of each individual game I could then also work out the popularity of particular rule systems. Across the four years (2022-2025) the following scores result:

The systems in bold type have scores based on multiple games across the four years. The rest were offered just once so their scores may be a bit less statistically reliable.

I've broken down the figures for Chain of Command somewhat. The analysis covers the period during which CoC 2nd edition was being play-tested.  I thought it likely the chance to try out the new rules early was probably pushing up popularity. First edition (including the "CoCing Up the Mud and the Blood" WW1 variant) is still of above-average popularity but not quite so extremely and 2025, with CoC2 published, did show a slight decline in interest in the system.

A couple of other points of interest are the relative unpopularity of "What A..." games and of "all-day" games.

Amalgamating the scores, What A Tanker and What A Cowboy and variants thereof score an RP of -4.6. I wonder if this is because they are seen as beer and pretzels games that one can play at any time with friends and not engaging or different enough for a Lardy Day? Certainly my Harper's Ferry WAC game scored -3.7 whereas my three Sharp Practice games all had marginally positive RP.

We've had three all-day games over the course of the four years. Their RP scores vary widely (from +5.0 to -8.9) but overall it appears players would rather play two shorter games in a day with -2.8 being the overall RP value.

So what do you think? I'm no statistician and I may have got this all wrong but the numbers do appear to support my general impression of what goes down well with Lardy Day punters.

Playtesting continues

On Sunday I managed to get together a team of play testers to try out my Ebor Lard scenario. The result was the clear realisation that I need to revisit the overall approach!

I don't want to go into detail at this stage but Mark, Phil, Ron and Gus proved that my chosen mechanisms worked well simulating the process of getting lost in the trackless forests of Germania. We also demonstrated, though, that the process is too long-winded for a game at a Lardy Day. A thoroughly revised approach is called for.

Florius Gracilis and his hunting party lead legionaries
through the forest

Revolting Batavians

Confusion in the forest:
It's far from clear who's fighting whom

The result of the game was a large amount of manoeuvring and negotiating; fascinating but again probably not suited to the Lardy Day experience. In particular, I'm expecting to cater for players at least some of whom want to experience Infamy Infamy for the first time. I'm going to rewrite the scenario to something far more conventional and straightforward.

-o0o-

On Wednesday, Dex and I went down to Patriot Games in Sheffield. We wanted to discuss some Steel Lard administrative matters with the staff but it also gave us the chance to get in another game of Infamy Infamy. 

Because it's easy to transport, I brought along the latest revision of the Battle of Cirta scenario that I ran a week or so ago. I tweaked the rules for the effect of surprise on the defenders' ability to deploy onto the table. The result was that King Adherbal never made it onto the table and his royal guard arrived only after the battle was already lost.

Dex's commander leads his horse through the enemy
camp. The orange stars mark burned-out tents.

The Royal Guard arrive too late

The result was a glorious victory for Dex. He's now going away to consider whether Infamy can be adapted to early medieval Ireland!

Numidian Infamy!

The son and heir came over on Sunday and we had another practice game of Infamy Infamy. Rather than setting up the Iron Hand of Mars terrain with its enormous number of trees, I decided we'd have another go at a scenario based on the Numidian Civil War of 118 BCE.

I played Adherbal, one of the rival Numidian kings. I had one unit of spearmen (Warriors in Infamy Infamy terms) and a few skirmishers and cavalry but all of my troops had to dice to emerge from their tents and might start the game with unfortunate amounts of Shock as a result of the surprise attack.

Jamie took on the role of fictional Jugurthine commander Arabio leading a mixed force of javelin-armed fort and cavalry skirmishers. 

Jugurthine cavalry chase off some of Adherbal's skirmishers

We used the Numidians I based some years ago for To The Strongest. They're on 12cm wide unit bases with so, with no figure removal possible, we used blue micro dice to mark losses. 

The game was fun, with lots of darting attacks but it pointed out a problem with the Infamy Infamy rules in this particular historical setting. With forces made up almost entirely of skirmishing troops, it was almost impossible for either side to lose Force Morale. This was because:

• You don't test for morale loss if Skirmish troops are forced to withdraw (only if they're completely wiped out),
• You don't test for morale loss if Warriors withdraw due to being shot at (rather than in melée) , and
• The wounding or death of Supra numerum Leaders (predominant on both sides) is ignored in the game.

In the end we called it a day with the attackers well on top but unable to force a result. We were nevertheless happy to have improved our familiarity with the rules.

I'm in two minds as to whether to pursue this scenario further. I could see it making an attractive participation game for an event like Hammerhead but I'd want to:

• Model the camp properly, perhaps with a rampart of thorn bushes defining the boundary of the broken ground,
• Model the walls of Cirta at the city end of the table,
• Think more clearly about the mechanisms around deploying surprised units onto the table,
• Revise the Loss of Force Morale table to capture the factors likely to cause a Numidian army to break, and
• Add more "character" Leaders to both sides.

I want to get to the point where my familiarity with Infamy Infamy is such that I can immediately see how I could use the rules to run a variety of small unit actions. I'm there with Sharp Practice but the varied nature of ancient armies makes this a bit more challenging.