geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
29
10 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Review [+] wargames [+] [View All]
Bill Abner
United States
Johnstown
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hammer of the Scots » Forums » Reviews
Approachable Wargaming at its Finest
Hammer of the Scots (HotS) has a great hook. While there are numerous games, both video and board, built around wargaming staples involving Romans, World War II, and the American Civil War – HotS not only focuses on a fresh topic, but also taps into something that many more people are at least familiar with thanks to the 1995 Mel Gibson film, Braveheart. Honestly, before that film, you could ask almost any American who William Wallace was and you’d be greeted with a blank stare. Historical accuracy issues aside, Braveheart the film made Wallace part of the pop culture lexicon and his “Freeeeedom!!!” scream at the conclusion is now part of American film lore.

Hammer of the Scots takes place during the era of Braveheart (and the decade after his death). One player plays the English lead by Edward I (and II) and the other player takes Wallace and his feisty band of rebels in an attempt to win Scottish freedom. (There’s also a 2nd scenario included called “The Bruce” which takes place after Wallace was killed.)

As wargames go, HotS is about as streamlined and as easy to learn as it gets without sacrificing playability. The eight page rulebook shouldn’t assume a lack of depth; it is a highly approachable game that can be taught in less than half an hour even to a complete wargaming novice. If you’re looking to get into this genre, this is an absolutely fantastic place to start.

HotS is a block game. There are no small cardboard chits here or ugly, miniscule cardboard pieces littering hard to digest maps. Instead, the units (nobles, infantry, knights, etc.) are wooden blocks with data on one side and a blank face on the other; the blank face is shown to the enemy to simulate fog of war to a certain degree. The blocks are well made, but you need to make sure that there are no scuff marks or any other identifiable marks on them because otherwise you may know which unit is which because of it. Also, you will need to manually place the unit stickers on the blocks. It’s not a big deal, but it doesn’t come completely assembled.

The map is of a sturdy cardboard stock – but it doesn’t lay completely flat on the table. The best option is to go to a hardware store (Lowe’s, Home Depot, whatever) and spend $5 on a sheet of thin, clear Plexiglas to ensure a smooth, flat board. This will be a particularly good purchase if you buy other games of this type or from certain publishers. Twilight Struggle, Commands & Colors: Ancients and others use this type of board so the Plexiglas is almost a gaming must if you want to venture into these sorts of games. Plus it helps protect the map from careless drink spills.

The map itself is fantastic – it’s brightly colored with notations where actual battles during the war took place with Scottish Heraldry showcasing where each noble family resides. In all, it’s very hard to complain about the quality of the components.

The game uses a combination of cards and dice. Cards are used by each player to determine group moves, or if an event card is played to perform other actions such as pillaging, moving by sea, etc. It’s pretty simple in theory: if you play a “1” card then you can move all units in one area; a “2” card allows two areas to move (and/or fight). There are more rules concerning movement across tough ground (the highlands) but that’s the general idea. Each “year” lasts five turns unless both players play an event, which ends the year immediately.

Six sided dice are used to determine combat results. Unlike a lot of games, here you want to roll low. For example, the Wallace block starts the game as “A3” with “4” Strength and a 3 Move Rate. The Move Rate of 3 simply means Wallace is fast, by game standards, and can move up to three adjacent regions unless crossing a red border (rough ground). The A is the unit’s initiative, so Wallace’s block attacks before all B and C units and all A units if he’s defending. The 3 is what Wallace needs to score a hit: a roll of a 1, 2, or 3. The 4 Strength is how many dice the units gets and it also represents unit health. A Strength 1 unit has one life to live and only gets 1 die in combat. The blocks show their worth here as well. When a unit takes damage there’s no record keeping involved, simply rotate the block to show the new Strength value. It’s a brilliant system.

There will inevitably be some large scale fights during a game so you’ll need to keep track of initiative to make sure units attack at the right time. There is a lot of planning required, and knowing when to attack, when to anticipate an attack, and when to retreat from combat is crucial in succeeding in the game, especially as the Scottish player. England just keeps on cranking out fresh troops at the start of each new year.

There is a means for combat outside of simple annihilation. The Scottish nobles, which are the key to winning the game, switch allegiance at the drop of a hat. Loyalty for most nobles changes with the breeze – in combat they are not eliminated but rather simply switch sides, and since you need nobles on your side to meet victory conditions, this game of Musical Noble Chairs becomes even more critical.

The game shines for many reasons, one of the most important being that playing each side is a very different experience. The Scots need to play a very different game compared to the English; as Edward keeps sending troops into Scotland each year the Scottish army needs to scramble to keep troops in play while snatching up nobler when possible and bringing in new units each winter. This adds a lot to the game’s replay value because you’ll need to employ different tactics each time you play.

The game’s mechanics work extremely well and while there can be some frustrations when you get dealt a very bad hand, limiting your actions for the upcoming year, or when your opponent plays a Herald card at the worst possible time (possibly switching a noble’s allegiance) and there are always times when you want to throw the dice out the window – particularly when Wallace or King Edward is in battle and nothing but 5s and 6s appear on the dice.

Even with these swings, most games end up coming down to mistakes – moving too many units, or too few units, playing an event at the wrong time, forgetting to fortify a home area, and so on. Usually, after a game when you lose, you can think back to a point where you made a tactical error. Yes, the dice can betray you but if you lose a game of Hammer of the Scots you will always have yourself to blame just as much as bad fortune.

A typical game lasts about two hours. Downtime is negligible being a two-player game and one that requires limited actions each round. Most game rounds consist of moving a couple of army groups and then fighting, which both players take part in resolving. Once everyone is familiar with the rules it moves along at a brisk pace.

Even for veteran gamers the term “wargame” can be intimidating. Images of small charts, hard to read maps and stacks of chits tend to the scare even the most experienced hobbyist. Wargames are indeed a different breed, but Hammer of the Scots flies in the face of all of that without making it too watered down and simple like other “intro” wargames; it’s approachable, easy to learn, and deep enough to satisfy most players –wargaming grognards or otherwise, and should absolutely be in the gaming library of anyone with a hint of attraction to the subject matter.
Lee Massey
United States
Teachey
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0809
mbmbmbmbmb
Excellent review! I just started playing HOTS this year. It is a simple game to learn but a difficult game to master! I'm playing on Above the Fields. It works good! Merry Christmas!:)
Dan Poole
United States
Goldsboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
040506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
That is a nice review and summarizes my feelings.....a very playable wargame without being too simplistic. You know, I am not even that interested in the subject matter (not to say I don't like it), yet I love this game
Daren Jackson
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
"There are no small cardboard chits here or ugly, miniscule cardboard pieces littering hard to digest maps"

Oh, so THAT'S the distinction between blockgames and other wargames. The ugly chits are literally trash ("...littering...") Thanks for enlightening everyone who has been enjoying the Hannibal reprint, along with the majority of all wargames. Still and all, you're making quite a generalization, aren't you? I just can't agree. I have lots of paper maps that are so beautifully-rendered, and in such fine detail, that they are IMO works of art. Since you sing the praises of plexiglass, I assume paper maps don't intimidate you. Of the games I'm currently learning or playing (Pax Romana, Shifting Sands, Fire in the Sky, and A Victory Lost), none of them fit your description of a non-blockgame. In fact, I think GMT and MMP did an *excellent* job, graphics-wise, with all four of these games. (PR and AVL had to grow on me a bit, but now I really like their "look.")

On the other hand, I've complained before and I'll complain again: I played HotS and gameplay aside (that's a different rant), the quality of components (of the blocks and cards that weren't missing, because the box wasn't packed correctly) was crap, and the map is an eyesore. Regardless of how "approachable" it might be.

What do you even mean by "approachable," anyway? That it doesn't run away when you walk towards it? Or that it is simple? Is simplicity good for its own sake? Would a simpleton enjoy it? Or do you mean that it is intuitive? That would make a little more sense. Perhaps you mean that it plays quickly, with few unit types and special rules cases. Or maybe you mean that a player doesn't need any knowledge of the historical period to enjoy the game? (Stated another way, having some knowledge about the historical period makes no difference at this level of abstraction--this is an "approachable game", not something to enrich your knowledge of an historical epoch. "I'm here to game, damn it, not get a frickin' history lesson! Except maybe I could enrich my knowledge of history through a deeper understanding of the nuances and shadings in Mel Gibson movies.")

Could you perhaps describe a few of the games with ugly cardboard doing nothing but littering hard to digest maps as a comparison to the all-mighty blockgame? That might be more helpful to your readers than just saying that blockgames are more aesthetically pleasing than, um, the thousands of other games that you lump together in your statement. Certainly your opinion is as valid as anyone's, but do you really think all non-blockgames are ugly? Some people might be able to point out a few that look, you know, pretty good. Not as good as blockgames, of course, but, you know, better than shit smeared on a table.

"Even for veteran gamers the term “wargame” can be intimidating. Images of small charts, hard to read maps and stacks of chits tend to the scare even the most experienced hobbyist."

What the hell are you talking about? I can honestly say that I have never found the term "wargame" intimidating, and I am not a particularly experienced hobbyist. It is true that wargames tend to be more complex than Eurogames. The OCS for DAKII, for example, might be a little intimidating to someone whose only other gaming experience is Cartagena, because it is fairly complex (which is neither good nor bad--just complex). But I can't remember ever having a single nightmare about being chased by charts and chits. They just don't elicit a fear response in me. Furthermore, the purposes of charts and tables, and markers on a map, are to *decrease* the time spent with the rulebook. In other words, charts typically make things easier by highlighting useful information; that is why they are often used in presentations and in textbooks. I'm fairly certain that they don't exist just to scare people.

Perhaps you could point out a few maps you are finding hard to read? Is it terrain that you have a problem with? Usually forests are indicated by tree symbols, water by the color blue, etc. Some games have major and minor roads, or different kinds of nation-borders, and determining the thinness of a particular line might be difficult. For color-blind gamers, some maps can be very difficult regardless of how the information is presented. Certainly there are bad maps out there, with muddy colors (War of the Ring, but that again is a different rant), and we all have different tastes when it comes to both cartography and art. But I have *very* few wargames in my collection that have a truly abstruse map.

Finally, lest I be accused of being a blockgame basher, I'm looking forward to playing Napoleon tomorrow night (first play, but I'm really hopeful my wife will like it enough to play multiple times over the holidays). It should be a blast; the battle portrayed seems like a good fit for the blockset employed and the typical CG ruleset. It's true, I thought East Front and particularly HotS were not so great, but I very much like some of Worthington's blockgames. I plan to play Victoria's Cross again over the holidays via VASSAL. And I just ordered Prussia's Defiant Stand, which I'm ecstatic about. Heck, I even gave CC:Ancients another try recently. Not really a blockgame, I know, but the components are very similar to HotS.

BTW, I enjoyed your review and thought it was well-written for the most part. Your description of the mechanics of HotS is quite good, and I always like it when reviewers take the time to explain what they like about a game. I just wish (obviously) that you would be more sparing with your derisory comments about non-blockgames (that is, *most* wargames). For you, clearly, blocks of wood = good; cardboard counters = bad. Lot of people would disagree with that statement, contending that the game content and mechanics should determine the type and implementation of a particular game component, and not the other way around. And some people simply don't care: cardboard or paper map; wood blocks or counters--What is the game about? How does it play? These are the important questions. You do good job in your review of anwering these questions, but you needn't do so by taking cheap shots at a multitude of games that are played and enjoyed by many, many people.
Last edited on 2007-12-14 09:17:45 CST (Total Number of Edits: 8)
Bill Abner
United States
Johnstown
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I actually love Hannibal, Twilight Struggle, the old AH D-DAY game, Great Battles of Alexander, CC: Europe, and so on. I think you missed the point of what I was saying, but thanks for reading the review.

Oh, and thanks for the GG tips, I appreciate it.
Last edited on 2007-12-14 09:08:04 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Daren Jackson
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
No, I think I got the point. You like HotS.:D
Thanks for posting some of the other games you enjoy. And I do apologize for the ranting nature of my post. It's late and I should be asleep! :snore:

There seems to be so much "plastic mini's vs. counters" and "paper vs hard-mounted maps" threads these days (thankfully fewer now that the Ameritrashers have their own site) that I sometimes get frustrated. Wood, plastic, cardboard? Who cares, if the game is good!

-daren
Bill Abner
United States
Johnstown
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dcjackso wrote:
No, I think I got the point. You like HotS.:D


Ha. Yes, well there is that. Too true.

Quote:
Thanks for posting some of the other games you enjoy. And I do apologize for the ranting nature of my post. It's late and I should be asleep! :snore: There seems to be so much "plastic mini's vs. counters" and "paper vs hard-mounted maps" threads these days (thankfully fewer now that the Ameritrashers have their own site) that I sometimes get frustrated. Wood, plastic, cardboard? Who cares, if the game is good!


As someone who enjoys wargames of pretty much every stripe (PC stuff too) I understand where you're coming from. It can be easy to get defensive over this sort of thing, and I don't take it personally. I actually dislike plastic minis in wargames because they tend to get in the way and clutter things up. Even a fantasy wargame like War of the Ring I think could benefit greatly from using basic counters (or blocks) over the figures, which are clearly too big for the scale of the map. I'm not even a big fan of the minis in ToI.

Don't sell all of the Ameritrashers short, though. I know Barnes absolutely loves ASL, for instance. Loves it. Thrower even wrote a good review of HotS in this very forum.

I do think that introducing a new player to these types of games can be tough, depending on the person obviously, and a game like HotS has proven wildly successful in getting people to try a wargame who otherwise wouldn't. (My wife even...who plays a mean Wallace!) I think part of that has to do with the aesthetics and also because the game isn't too complicated. If you show a novice HotS they might be more inclined to try the next level of game, regardless if it has blocks, chits, whatever. If you start with a serious hardline wargame it has the potential to overwhelm people.

In the end I agree with you, though. I personally don't care if it's wood or counters as long as the design holds up.
Daren Jackson
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I picked up Napoleon recently, and my wife was willing to listen to the rules.(!) We are *supposed* to give it a shot tonight. I'm very hopeful. She is very good at what I think of as "connection" or "movement" games like Elfenland, Maharaja, Power Grid. I think if she can get away from thinking just in terms of initial deployment and combat, she'll see that Napoleon, with its major and minor road limits, and the importance of cavalry screening one's retreats, is very much a game of maneuver.

Worthington Games' Victoria's Cross is another great game for neophyte gamers, as well. It's just a hoot. ATTACK! Okay, now you ATTACK! :D

Anyhoo, as I said, I thought your review of HotS was good, despite my bile spewage. I'm hoping that after I have good or great experiences with a few more blockgames (man, I hope Prussia's Defiant Stand doesn't let me down!), I'll return to East Front and HotS with a better attitude. Hopefully in the second time around I'll see in them what most other people seem to!
Bill Abner
United States
Johnstown
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dcjackso wrote:
I'm hoping that after I have good or great experiences with a few more blockgames (man, I hope Prussia's Defiant Stand doesn't let me down!), I'll return to East Front and HotS with a better attitude. Hopefully in the second time around I'll see in them what most other people seem to!


Victoria Cross...I've heard of that one but haven't played. I'll look it up.

I just ordered Athens and Sparta tonight so we'll see how that goes, too. I can't believe the lack of talk about that one to be honest. Even the page here at bgg is sorta dead.
Paulo Inacio
Portugal

flag msg tools
mbmb
Hi Bill,

Thanks for the good review. I spied my wife gifts and i know that i'll receive HotS this Xmas. But concerning the "ugly, miniscule cardboard pieces littering hard to digest maps", let me show this:



(A picture, from World in Flames, by Gary Libby, the germans preparing for France invasion)

and also this



(Also from World in Flames, by Gary Libby, it seems that the japaneese will conquer China)

Check out the planes (in a WiF website). Each plane has it's own silhouette and painting. As an example there are Stukas with camouflage for the desert war. There are Zero's, Hellcats, Me, Spitfires, P-40, Yakolevs, etc . The same applies for warships, all (or almost all) the ships that participated in the war have its own counter.

I admit, i'm an heavy wargamer. But tell me, ain't this beautiful?!!

Merry Xmas and Happy New Year!
Last edited on 2007-12-20 10:25:02 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.