So many skirmish games, so little time

My rules library seem to constantly grow, and the main growth seem to include "skirmish games". My definition of skirmish games is something that includes a relative small amount of miniatures, something like 10 miniatures (not an exact number) and predominantly allow you to move single miniatures as opposed to units/platoons/armies in one go.

The very first pure "skirmish" game that I came into contact with was actually Lord of The Rings, back when the first book was released following the release of the first Lord of the Rings movie. In a way an interesting anecdote since I was introduced to Wargaming by playing both WH40k and WHFB many years ago.I had bought some Minas Tirith guards but never got around to play, blindsided by the "big brothers" from GW. Pure skirmish gaming is for me a rather new wargaming category, I swapped WHFB/WH40k for Secrets of the Third Reich, a platoon based game. In that game group I came into contact with Legends of the Old West and it became the first skirmish game that I bought and actually played.

I really liked the experience, the rules were very similar to LoTR though they included what I think is the most entertaining part of this kind of games - the after action phase. In the after action phase your characters level up, roll on D66 charts to check for wounds, buy new gear etc. It becomes a game within the game. Skirmish games are as such ideal for campaign gaming. And just like Necromunda and Mordheim had back then many games nowadays include the same core ideas and mechanics.

You build your starting band of adventurers, often based around a heroic character with powerful stats and abilities, supported by cannon fodder minions. You play small fights against other gangs and after each battle you roll to check what happened to your "killed" models and what new skills your survivors receive. The fun part of games like this is the progression, watching the rise and fall of individuals or whole gangs.

All but one skirmish game that I own use this concept, the odd man out is "Malifaux" which is a skirmish game but doesn't include any character development. Instead you are locked to unique models and play the game more like a non skirmish game where you buy "complete" units instead of watching your characters grow and evolve.

The skirmish games that I own include Strange Aeons, Gladiator, Legends of the old West, Brink of Battle, Malifaux. Disregarding Malifaux, the 4 remaining games follow the "skirmish game" formula very closely. One would think that these games cannibalize each other for attention.

To tell the truth they manage to feel and play differently enough to make them interesting as standalone products despite the similarities.

Gladiator from the now dead Warhammer Historical is a very nice albeit "beer & pretzels" weighed game. It offers a thematic feeling around the Gladiator subject, both in the way the rules are written and the campaign system which the games revolve around. This is perhaps the most simple of all skirmish games in my collection but I still love it. You don't have any magic or any supernatural abilities. Instead it does feel like regular guys bashing each other’s skulls to the cheers of an audience. The campaign is based on each player taking the role of a Lannista (Gladiator owner/trainer) and you trying to get the best Gladiator team (while your Gladiators want to survive long enough to be set free). I guess the unique part of this game beside the historical framework around Gladiatorial combat is the restricted fighting pit and almost complete lack of terrain. It makes for a very different experience since most other skirmish games are the total opposite - relatively large game table packed with terrain.

Brink of Battle breaks away from the formula to some extent while expanding on other areas within the formula at the same time. The game allows for a versatile historical gaming experience where you build pretty much any type of infantry ranging from ancient hoplites to modern warfare snipers. The game completely differs from any other of my skirmish games due to how the rules are written, use of D10 along with opposite rolls at all times provide a very intense experience where both players are highly involved at all times. Being able to use the same set of rules to represent the whole historical spectrum makes this set of rules your "go to" for generic historical gaming. The rules also rely on your own imagination when it comes to tell a story. There is no included campaign/scenario framework, only rules, stats and helpful information on how to build your troops. The campaign rules are also generic enough to fit all historical eras. But whether you want to play a campaign of French & Indian War skirmish where settlers fight against Huron raids or Napoleonic patrols clashing you can do that. If you have a vivid imagination, or interest in history you will easily come up with "fluff".

Legends of the Old West conveys a Western feel, mainly through themed scenarios, equipment and character profiles. Not being the most advanced skirmish game out of the bunch, it shares a lot with LoTR skirmish game as it is based upon the same kind of rules. Though I still like it and it was the first campaign game that I played a lot.

This leaves two games which are as close as you can get I think - at least at first glance. Empire of the Dead and Strange Aeons. Strange Aeons is set within a world of Lovecraftian mythos, Empire of the Dead is set within a Gothic Horror/Steam Punk "light" setting. Both games include the classic after action steps of experience, skill and ability increase, both games allow you to build a gang which is sent off on adventures fighting all kinds of freakish beasts.

However, Strange Aeons relies a lot more on the Lovecraftian details such as insanity and danger revolving around scary stuff. It also uses the idea of having 1 side playing heroes that advance over the course of the campaign, and the other side forming the opposition which is different and built from scratch in each game. The "bad guys" do not advance, it is instead a pulp adventure of heroes fighting for humanity in remote areas of hillbilly country. You find artifacts and map pieces during your games, which are used to unlock special characters for a couple of games or to unlock cool quests that offer great danger but also greater reward.

Empire of the Dead on the other hand is more of a competitive campaign kind of game where both players build their crews and then as the campaign progress the players see how their units evolve (or die). As such it is perhaps more akin to Mordheim. The other difference between SA and EotD is that EotD has different factions while SA has "good" and "bad guys". I think the upcoming "Kulten" release from Uncle Mike's will be a lot more similar to EotD as that game will be Strange Aeons in spirit but revolve around gangs of cults fighting each other and have both players evolve their units.

Empire of the Dead, as it plays with the competitive gangs and the way scenarios play out is also more similar in structure of gameplay to Malifaux which is also about gangs clashing in randomly generate territory over a specific goal. But where Malifaux is about using units with unique abilities in one off games and each side having different goals albeit both sides fight in the same area - Empire of the Dead pretty much forces you to be a lot more careful as EotD plays as a continuous campaign. While sacrificing someone in Malifaux is an end to achieve your  goals, getting someone killed in EotD does not bring them back in next game.

So do skirmish games cannibalize each other? Not really, I do try to buy games that appear "different enough" that is true. But even if the games share many features they are often written to convey a unique experience. These last years as my shelf space has shrunk away drastically I often look for games that allow me to recycle miniatures while providing a different experience.

As skirmish games are often easy to get into and accessible in many ways (require few miniatures to get started) it does result that you tend to buy quite a few. All games that I own are imo great. The reason why I play one game but not another has to do more with whom I currently know or play games with rather than me disliking a certain game. Sometime I buy a game for myself for which there is no apparent interest within my group - "Gladiator" is a game like that. I still enjoyed painting up the Gladiators and working on that project. With Gladiators painted up and arena built I can throw in a game whenever someone comes over if they are interested as I have all you need to play and don't require my opponent to bring anything. Besides, I'm always interested in checking out new rules if I fancy the theme or have at least a tiny interest in the subject.

I only wish I had more time to play them all!