From the workbench of the esteemed Horati0nosebl0wer

In the conversation mentioned in the last post it moved from the troops to monsters. The use of concrete material figures for various symbols to represent ideas was explored. The miniatures ambivalent nature of the game gave my friend, with whom I spoke, the idea that an army could be fielded with tokens bearing sigils representing various angels. He went on to propose using 3D models of esoteric concepts from the Torah like the merkava (chariot) representing enlightenment as two intersecting cones that would otherwise be 2D Stars of David. I put a lid on that saying it was too esoteric.

That lead to discussion on abstraction and made me think of strategic games of WWII. I reeled that thought back in remembering far too many military games and countered a game of SAGA might as well be played with Chinese chess tokens. The problem I found with it was the translation between players, pointing out that the sigils may fulfill autistic drive and make perfect sense with extensive knowledge of the baked in nuance, it was solipsistic. Taking an object symbol and utilize associated concepts that might be readable to others was my own aim. It gives players something interesting to look at in game and hobby over beforehand. The problem I find is, again, a limited fantasy object roster to pull from to build an army with visually.

I guess I find the same issue with this army build as if I were to do one for Germanic tribes or Slavs that have mythologies which aren’t popularly known to be monster heavy and rely mostly on heroes. You can only do so much with the human being as a model before getting bored. Even in historicals factions are visually distinct for gaming purposes. Without much in the way of visual vocabulary the articulation of being significant does fall flat. Atleast the other Bronze Age people did some sort of hallucinagens which gave us lamasu, manticores and scorpion men among others. Egh… I’ll see what I can do.