Give me your top 3 reasons that could make you either be wary of checking the game or even outright skip it.
Mine are:
1. No premesuring allowed.
2. Use of the ordinary playing cards.
3. Custom dice necessary to play the game.

I wouldn't say I have many, or any, red flags when it comes to games. If others say it's fun then I would be willing to give most things a chance.

Before investing in a game though I would consider how well supported it is, and whether there are many other people playing it. It doesn't really matter how good a game is if nobody is going to be willing to play it with me (assuming it needs 2 or more players).

As has been discussed many times before this is where GW shines. Their games may not be the best designed, but a lot of people are invested in their games so finding a gaming scene for them isn't as difficult as it is for other games.

1. Too random-heavy and/or decision-light
2. Uninteresting setting (for example I love mechanics of Armada but fond SW boring so I don't play)
3. Outdated design philosophy (for example random tables)

Custom dice is a big one.
Excessive use of lookup tables.
Required apps.

1-Necessary Apps
2-No Index and poorly laid out books
3-Many expensive books required to play a simple game with a really short release cycle between the expensive books

1 - Apps. Wouldn't even think of listing this if not for the users above, it's so anathema to me I forget the concept exists. Instant deal breaker.

2 - Mechanics all over the place. Every type of roll is resolved differently.

3 - Nested rules. Special rule A gives you special rule B, which is explained elsewhere.

Agree with all the above.

I'm also put off by:

- Unnecessarily large models (ala Adeptus Titanicus, where every tiny-scale model is actually bigger than you'd usually find in larger-scale games like 40K).

- Meta-data sponges (Where a single simple model has so many rules and stats to track that you need a "command terminal" to play).

1. Ugly models
2. Unintersting background
3. Anything that requires use of phone/tablet etc.

#1 deal breaker: Ugly models. For reference purposes, when it comes to "ugly" only MY opinion will count here, since it will be me buying them. Other people can love them. Nagash is still hideous and not even his mother loved him.

The rest aren't important.

If I don't like the models, I won't want to paint them after I buy them. If they aren't going to get painted, then there's no way in hell they are going to get played with.

1) Heavy-handed nerfs that completely dismiss the player for whom the faction is aimed at in the first place.
2) Over priced rules, that keep the basic game out of the reach of many.
3) Not supporting solo-coop play when the system can accomodate them, and also do them well.

Totally forgot about the use of Apps. As you guys said it would be an instant deal breaker for me.

Jumping on the apps/tablet bandwagon. For me an analogue hobby like playing with toy soldiers shouldn't have a prerequisite digital component. As an optional extra fine, but not as an essential element that can't be replicated without excessive work.

Boring setting/lack of scenario variation. Even the best of settings can be rendered dull if the only mission is to whup the enemy.

Rules and minis only available packaged together. I'm a miniatures agnostic player so I don't want to be forced into owning either minis or rules that I don't want.

1) Numerous errata and updates beyond the core rules to keep up with

2) Pre-measuring, I used to think 'why not?' until I played in my first tournament and every game was determined by who was the most pedantic micro-measurer

3) Planned obsolescence

-Too Many counters on the table. I put alot of work into my minis and terrain and don't want to clutter it up with random bits of cardboard and plastic.

-Money grabs (unit rules and essential items only included with official miniatures, excessive expensive supplements, etc..). Give me a book and maybe 1 supplement and let me decide how I want to play and which figures I want to use.

-Crunchy and/or complicated rulesets and rulesets spread over multiple books. We've got 2-3 hours of play time on 2 monday evenings a month for club play. We just want to have fun playing, not rulebook flipping.

- Custom dice

- Endless rulebooks/expansions required, one core book and maybe one faction book is the best

- Skirmish games where the units don't fight in a meaningful manner, ie no allocating attacks/parries against each other. Just having to-hit/wound-save is wailing on each other like a massed battle game, when a skirmish is supposed to feel more intimate and one-on-one.

- Games that takes too long, especially if that game time can also be very unevenly distributed.

- Games that change too quickly. Like PP's seasons lasting like 4 months. Those guys forgot that the players need to build and paint the minis before they are obsolete

- Rules that are hard to pick up for some reason. Really wanted to love the fallout game, but the huge amount of icons, using colors for movement and more just made it such a grind to try to learn.

Mostly interested in generic fantasy skimish games, and dungeoncrawlers:

1. Dice. I already have plenty of game systems that use dice, thanks. Go ask your grandpa what a CRT table is.
2. Perfect information. Why does every wargame suggest each side has spy satellites?
3. Proprietary miniatures or I have to buy more stuff. I've spent thousands of dollars on miniatures and terrain already.

I picked up the still unreleased Lasting Tales because it has solo, RPG elements (eg. between-adventure events), and lets me use my existing miniatures and terrain. Game mechanics are actually secondary.

I also play Gloomhaven because it's a good card-based combat system. It's essentially fired all my other dungeoncrawlers.

I think only Up Front does fog of war, and it's not a miniatures game. Even fog of war is abstracted. I figure fog of war is pretty much for computers, though am open to being wrong!

In no order
- anything I need to buy that’s not models be if books, apps, strange dice, cards.
- ugly models
- pre measuring

Well, a lot of folks have really good things on their lists! I hope my fit in:

- Players/Ethos that do not align with my preferred style of play.

- Games as product, instead of product is game.

- Models that do not appeal to me, which is why I love a good scale/model agnostic game!

-

- Overly granular points that make list building rigid and hard to incorporate changes.

- Large amounts of cards or other physical medium that becomes worthless with errata.

- Rapid changes that makes keeping up with the game a full time job.

As a bonus, my 4th would be a lack of changes that fails to address major issues, but incorporating the changes needs to be trivial.

1) The models - do I like the models?
I don't buy & don't use minis I don't like. And, commissions aside, I certainly do not waste time painting such things. So if I don't like enough of the models to form a working force then there's no reason to play the game.
*A secondary concern as far as the models are concerned is the current trend of ever tinier pieces. I assembled some MCP awhile back and holy *&$^F^@! And GWs not far behind depending upon the kit....

2) Apps. I will not play a game if it requires the use of an APP.

3) Assuming the game in question made it past #1 & #2 on my list, then we come to the meat & potatoes of any game - the rules.
I've rejected games for being too simplistic, too complex, too unstable (I HATE constant errata/changes - and yes, current 40k is almost there for me), or that simply don't do a better (or at least equal) job than something I've already got for a genre.

1) Gaminess. I know that it's a weird term but I like it if it feels like what's happening is telling some sort of story and that it makes sense. I don't like evenly distributed objectives for every game, predetermined terrain setups that don't look like any kind of realistic place, and things like that.

2) An excess of markers and accessories. It works if there are casualty markers that can be made to look like, well, casualties, but I don't like having bits of colourful plastic all over the place to detract from the look of it all.

3) Apps. I have to echo almost everyone else. I like to have my tabletop games with just what's on the table. No online things, no screens, just the game at hand. Otherwise I might as well play a video game.

Looking at this, all three of those add up to wanting an aesthetically pleasing game that makes sense and doesn't too gamey.

Things like minis and the like also matter, but that's something that can easily be worked around because there are countless manufacturers so I focus more on the rules.

 chromedog wrote:
#1 deal breaker: Ugly models. For reference purposes, when it comes to "ugly" only MY opinion will count here, since it will be me buying them. Other people can love them. Nagash is still hideous and not even his mother loved him.

The rest aren't important.

If I don't like the models, I won't want to paint them after I buy them. If they aren't going to get painted, then there's no way in hell they are going to get played with.

My sentiments exactly. Except about Nagash. 12 year old me with my undead army loved that guy.

1) Apps to play. If I want to play a video game I'll play a video game. I'm here to play tabletop, GET OFF YOUR PHONE.

2) Models I don't want to paint. If I don't like the aesthetic or thin it'll be too fiddley to deal with, game over.

3) Gameplay that is too simplistic. I get bored with games that are too simple. Used to play chess, moved on to a host of chess variants, then to wargaming. Played Star Fleet Battles back in the day when the rulebook and supplements compiled into 3-5" 3-ring binders. Yes, more than one. (It's not as clunky as it sounds, but it's certainly not simple).

Likewise, if the tactics boil down to 'shove everything to the center and let the biggest/hardest unit win' I'm out.

Personally I'm a big fan of apps when they're done right. Cards are great, but as a game grows I just find I spend way too much energy organizing them so I have what I need to play. Not having to do anything to incorporate errata is also a huge plus in my book. A lot of that is just a result of the way I bounce around games and armies though.

1) The most important one "is not a proper wargame". Simply "war themed games" don't cut it for me. CCGs with models don't interest me and games that try to be like computer games should be computer games. Skirmishes are the exception, those should feel like combat event in a larger RPG game.

2) "Fast paced" and "easy to learn, difficult to master" slogans on the box/rulebook. Hard pass - those 99% of time mean that it is yet another, plain Dx based hit-wound-save AA skirmish without any real depth or flavour.

3) Competitively oriented - a) it means that there is churn&burn meta embedded in the game's business model and b) tournament inherent time constraints mean that it is most likely a very "streamlined" game devoid of just too many traditional wargame concepts, that my 1) point kicks in.

4) Mechanics resolution takes more time than decision making and moving models. If it needs buckets of dice rolled and re-rolled multiple times for a single resolution, then it should be a computer game. I want to spend my time playing a wargame, not a casino simulator.

5) I don't even consider app-reliant games as the same genre, so also hard pass. For the same reason I won't ever use Tabletop Simulator.

Now about counters and book-keeping. I don't mind counters, as long as they are designed to look and feel like battlescape elements, can be modeled as such, or are as subtle as possible. And book keeping is very much ok if it leads to increased wargame feel and/or improves the experience. My favourite core concept of simultaneous damage resolution requires book keeping to work, but it is a cost I very gladly pay.

I have many of the same that have been listed. Plus one I never realized until now.

I prefer hard copy to read and reference most of the time especially during play. If your rules are wandering beyond booklet size then you need to sell hard copy. And not just short runs that stay constantly sold out. Bite the bullet and at least make POD available.

Bonus points if anyone can pinpoint the game that made me insta develop this new peeve.

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally I'm a big fan of apps when they're done right. Cards are great, but as a game grows I just find I spend way too much energy organizing them so I have what I need to play. Not having to do anything to incorporate errata is also a huge plus in my book. A lot of that is just a result of the way I bounce around games and armies though.

I think the main issue people have with apps is when they're compulsory to play the game - after all, what happens to the game at the point when the servers inevitably go offline? Plus, as has been mentioned, at least a proportion of people like their wargaming to be some of their time away from a screen, and compulsory apps get in the way of that.

I don't think anyone is too bothered if the app is an optional playaid, however.

1. any form of digital App being a requirement, doubly so if its "cloud based"
2. custom dice that don't add anything (e.g. it could very easily be a plain d6 or whatever)
3. a "clever" mechanic thats the entire core of the game but that gimps the game in other ways


example of the second is SAGA, just use D6, the custom ones are nice but don't really add anything

example of the third is Bolt Action pinning mechanic, which is good in some ways, but crippling in others but then further cripples the game by being incompatible with the ability to split fire

 Dysartes wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally I'm a big fan of apps when they're done right. Cards are great, but as a game grows I just find I spend way too much energy organizing them so I have what I need to play. Not having to do anything to incorporate errata is also a huge plus in my book. A lot of that is just a result of the way I bounce around games and armies though.

I think the main issue people have with apps is when they're compulsory to play the game - after all, what happens to the game at the point when the servers inevitably go offline? Plus, as has been mentioned, at least a proportion of people like their wargaming to be some of their time away from a screen, and compulsory apps get in the way of that.

I don't think anyone is too bothered if the app is an optional playaid, however.

Exactly this.

I use battlescribe for 40k to build lists. I could go back to pen and paper if needed, but would rather not. But as it’s not required, I could go back and play older editions etc. Not a direct wargame comparison, but my brother and his kids have a car racing game, with physical cars and tracks. Controllers are an app on your phone, which tracks wins, levels up, that kind of stuff. But if they stop app support, whole thing is dead. Not a cheep setup either.

--

I still prefer hard copy rulebooks, but also live a hybrid lifestyle these days. D&D 3.0 with splatbook proliferation and a new iPad changed that. Looking stuff up on a small phone screen is not good, but a tablet (or laptop) give you enough space to read. And when one character might need to reference 3-6 books, you don’t want to lug that to game night all the time. Especially when you often only need a handful of pages from each one. But I prefer to have the core rules on paper.

Lack of digital rules is not at the top 3 things that irritate me, but it’s on the list.

My biggest pet peeve in minis is actually something that 40k can very guilty of at the competitive level: simply taking too long to resolve when the broad outcome is not in doubt.

So, I went to a tournament last weekend, only my second in 9th and first in a new city. I'm new to Arks of Omen, I'm new to player placed terrain, and I'm running a slightly janky IG list based on what I happen to have with me. All three games were basically over by turn one, if not by the time we started setting up terrain. All three lists were pressure/melee lists (goffs, bile possessed, blood angels) and in the first two games I deployed terrain poorly, so I didn't have good firing lanes and my opponent could hide. By round three it was the opposite. None of the games went to round five or to time, we simply called them when it became wildly obvious one player would max score. Because the games weren't particularly interactive, especially when I was losing, it was a two hour exercise in watching my stuff evaporate. Was it fun? Honestly, not really. I enjoyed learning, and maybe I'll enjoy it more later, but I kind of felt like I was wasting time.

when I played warmachine, I was pretty mediocre, and when I drew a top player it would usually be over very quickly. I wouldn't say I had a lot of fun with warmachine, but I liked that I dind't feel an obligation to keep playing out a game so my opponent could hit his max scores.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally I'm a big fan of apps when they're done right. Cards are great, but as a game grows I just find I spend way too much energy organizing them so I have what I need to play. Not having to do anything to incorporate errata is also a huge plus in my book. A lot of that is just a result of the way I bounce around games and armies though.

I think the main issue people have with apps is when they're compulsory to play the game - after all, what happens to the game at the point when the servers inevitably go offline? Plus, as has been mentioned, at least a proportion of people like their wargaming to be some of their time away from a screen, and compulsory apps get in the way of that.

I don't think anyone is too bothered if the app is an optional playaid, however.

Exactly this.

I use battlescribe for 40k to build lists. I could go back to pen and paper if needed, but would rather not. But as it’s not required, I could go back and play older editions etc. Not a direct wargame comparison, but my brother and his kids have a car racing game, with physical cars and tracks. Controllers are an app on your phone, which tracks wins, levels up, that kind of stuff. But if they stop app support, whole thing is dead. Not a cheep setup either.

--

I still prefer hard copy rulebooks, but also live a hybrid lifestyle these days. D&D 3.0 with splatbook proliferation and a new iPad changed that. Looking stuff up on a small phone screen is not good, but a tablet (or laptop) give you enough space to read. And when one character might need to reference 3-6 books, you don’t want to lug that to game night all the time. Especially when you often only need a handful of pages from each one. But I prefer to have the core rules on paper.

Lack of digital rules is not at the top 3 things that irritate me, but it’s on the list.

I get it for sure and to a degree I vastly prefer cards. I just find that without an app, after a year or so I start spending more time managing the rules rather than having fun with them and kind of sour on bringing the game to the table in the process. Manual rules upkeep is something I've completely lost interest in and apps take that out of the equation making them far more of a plus than a negative for me.

I'll extend the comment around apps to "excessive rules management" where you need a ton of rulebooks, cards, tokens or even a laptop to play the game! People spend months of their lives making beautifully crafted tabletops, with miniatures that have taken hours, and then during the game the tabletop is covered in books balancing on top of buildings and the like. It can completely ruin the immersion for me. So any game that does that rules management piece, via either a neat rulebook or easy reference (in just one book!) is always a bonus for me.

Custom dice I don't mind if they are done well. Blood Bowl, X-Wing, Fallout, even Saga, they are an integral part of the game and instantly give you a specified result without having to consult a table (do going off the previous point, one less open book on the tabletop!) They help a little with the imagery too - a POW in Blood Bowl, cool Viking runes, a last moment dodge etc I think can make the game more visceral.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Give me your top 3 reasons that could make you either be wary of checking the game or even outright skip it.
Mine are:
.

1, 2 and 3:
The local.community playing the game.

Sorry; but if the players are bunch of jerks etc., there's no point going any further.

Scorched earth edition change - The company either completely changes the rules or almost all the rules when a new edition came out. Looking at you KillTeam. But I didn't care for how X-Wing was handled either, I don't mind buying a new book for additional units like Necromunda but to get back into playing when the X-Wing edition change happened was a few hundred dollars paywall.

Game Store Thugs - Some games at the FLGS attract people that just kill the game for new and casual players. It's not a certain store or a certain game, but you know very soon that your opponent was free to play for a reason. It's just the type of person that has to win the game at all costs, you all have seen the guy kick your butt and giggle every time you have a bad roll, but as soon as you start winning he becomes mad and either wants to quit the game or act like he is about to flip the table.

Low customization - when some units have no options, I don't need to go custom crazy but it really makes a dud trooper with zero upgrades a "dud".

 Genoside07 wrote:
Scorched earth edition change - The company either completely changes the rules or almost all the rules when a new edition came out. Looking at you KillTeam. But I didn't care for how X-Wing was handled either, I don't mind buying a new book for additional units like Necromunda but to get back into playing when the X-Wing edition change happened was a few hundred dollars paywall.

Whilst, I'll.disagree about kill team 21 specifically - for us, ts a fantastic wee system.and literally everything we could ask for in a skirmish game - i would agree more or less with your main point.I have seen 'hard resets' and thimgslike that they went down like a lead balloon and killed a game/community.

I font think 'scorched earth' is the right term but i get what you mean - i think 'scorched earth' is reserved for, say, killing the old world in wfb. I think.'edition drift and edition shift' sum it up better. The former represents small changes but keeping the core engine more or less unchanged, the latter represents a bigger and more sudden 'change'.

Subbed, and taking notes for making my TT Skirmish game lol

 Adrassil wrote:
Subbed, and taking notes for making my TT Skirmish game lol

It's certainly some interesting anecdata.

Nomeny wrote:

 Adrassil wrote:
Subbed, and taking notes for making my TT Skirmish game lol

It's certainly some interesting anecdata.

Indeed! I like that term anecdata lol

Back OT can only think of one thing for me, bad rules writing. Using too many words to describe a rule or too little etc. Also, rules that are designed to push periphery things like **cough!** measurement devices **cough!** and I'm also not a fan of dice specially made for the game, either.

The early theme against apps is interesting. One of my first encounters with historicals as a young teen was a Napoleonics game which used a computer program to generate combat results, the club giving the demo had dragged along a PC to run the software. It did strike me as clumsy, back then - but I have occasionally wondered if it could be modernised/streamlined.

Tracker apps, on the other hand, can be massively helpful. Especially the likes of the Tabletop Battles app for 40k which supports tracking of objectives, VPs etc.

For me, I don't like card decks, diceless mechanics, or endless churn. The latter is exhausting.

1) Use of cards/proprietary dice rather than simple dice. I'll also include playing card-based rules here too. I can't stand these, and it's quickly unsold me on a lot of rules that seemed interesting once I found out they were card-based.

2) Weird/Esoteric "RP-lite" aspects that take away from the fact it's a wargame, not an RPG. I don't need to have charts indicating the personality of my figures for a skirmish game, or additional oddities that belong in an RPG random encounter table.

3) In the context mostly of historical games, rules which are designed for a specific size and don't give any indicator of how to adjust it for other sizes. E.g. if it's written for 28mm because that's what the author used, it should have suggestions for using 15mm/6mm/etc. as well

Can we add: using shapes to represent distances. Or is that below the belt?

1) Price
2) Setup Time
3) Cut-apart CAD sculpts so everyone's army looks the damn same! And converting is a bother.

 Genoside07 wrote:
Scorched earth edition change - The company either completely changes the rules or almost all the rules when a new edition came out. Looking at you KillTeam. But I didn't care for how X-Wing was handled either, I don't mind buying a new book for additional units like Necromunda but to get back into playing when the X-Wing edition change happened was a few hundred dollars paywall.

X-Wing 2.0 paid heavily for the sins of its predecessor. It was honestly a perfectly reasonable cost to transfer a faction into the new edition; the problem was that X-Wing 1.0 demanded you purchase every model from every faction, so you couldn't just do that. Like anyone with 3-5 40k factions is paying far more each edition change just to update their rules, but since GW drips them out rather than updating everything at once, people don't realize what they're paying.

 LunarSol wrote:

X-Wing 2.0 paid heavily for the sins of its predecessor. It was honestly a perfectly reasonable cost to transfer a faction into the new edition; the problem was that X-Wing 1.0 demanded you purchase every model from every faction, so you couldn't just do that. Like anyone with 3-5 40k factions is paying far more each edition change just to update their rules, but since GW drips them out rather than updating everything at once, people don't realize what they're paying.

The problem with X-wing was that it didn't need a new edition, it needed maybe one 10€ pack's worth of errata'd cards, not redesigning everything for the sake of selling it to us again. It was a blatant money grab, a point where there was nothing new to sell, so they decied to sell the old stuff a second time, and people reacted accordingly.

Cypher226 wrote:
The early theme against apps is interesting. One of my first encounters with historicals as a young teen was a Napoleonics game which used a computer program to generate combat results, the club giving the demo had dragged along a PC to run the software. It did strike me as clumsy, back then - but I have occasionally wondered if it could be modernised/streamlined.

Tracker apps, on the other hand, can be massively helpful. Especially the likes of the Tabletop Battles app for 40k which supports tracking of objectives, VPs etc.

I like to think of this as the BattleTech line because I first saw it when resolving LRM/50's using a laptop in the '90s:
- Using an app or computer program to speed up a process, or take care of the "Keep this information secret until it needs to be revealed" mechanic is acceptable. Tablet vs. dry erase markers and a laminated record sheet is just choosing game play aids.
- If the only way to play is using the app/computer program, you're playing a computer game. And pushing models around when you're playing a computer game is just a chore.

I think that the rising complexity of table top games, which I've heard called "admin" is something that is really stretching the hobby, and not just in miniatures. It seems to be a hot topic in board games as well.

Within wargames specifically, and all gaming more generally, there are tension points between simulation and balanced play, between abstraction and granularity. One argument for computer software is that it can help resolve complex calculations, the immediate response is: why do you have such complex calculations?

the other use for an app is less due to the complexity of any one rule, but rather to serve as a neutral sort of administrator of the game state. You see this is games like Gloomhaven, where the game is so complicated it's hard to remember all the little bits. In that case, the app is also serving sort of as a Gamemaster, since it's a coop game.

I think that while Apps can add a lot to the game, most of the time it would probably be easier to cut back on the mechanics than introduce an app.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

X-Wing 2.0 paid heavily for the sins of its predecessor. It was honestly a perfectly reasonable cost to transfer a faction into the new edition; the problem was that X-Wing 1.0 demanded you purchase every model from every faction, so you couldn't just do that. Like anyone with 3-5 40k factions is paying far more each edition change just to update their rules, but since GW drips them out rather than updating everything at once, people don't realize what they're paying.

The problem with X-wing was that it didn't need a new edition, it needed maybe one 10€ pack's worth of errata'd cards, not redesigning everything for the sake of selling it to us again. It was a blatant money grab, a point where there was nothing new to sell, so they decied to sell the old stuff a second time, and people reacted accordingly.

X-Wing needed some design space. From the first core set, it always had problems with its dice math and reliance on extremely limited actions to smooth that math out. They did a frankly incredible job expanding on it, but there were a lot of core rules around stress and actions and the like that honestly I didn't think 2.0 went far enough with. For sure though, the real issue with 2.0 is the lack of product to go along with it. Waiting until the GCW stuff was scraping through the barrel to the dirt below meant there was effectively nothing for existing players to look forward to in the new edition.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The problem with X-wing was that it didn't need a new edition, it needed maybe one 10€ pack's worth of errata'd cards, not redesigning everything for the sake of selling it to us again. It was a blatant money grab, a point where there was nothing new to sell, so they decied to sell the old stuff a second time, and people reacted accordingly.

You're not wrong, but I guess the question is what else should they have done? X-wing mined the license pretty deep, and we all know what happens to games without new content. I think X-wing is more a story of the perils of licensing (and/or using later releases to balance prior ones) than it is about nuking the game and starting over.

This is part of the GW secret sauce: not only does it own it's own IP, and can thus create infinite content, but because the primary product it sells are models, not rules, it has two avenues to selling new stuff. We all know that sales for certain legacy kits spike when they get spicy new rules, but GW sold a shedload of Cadians that updated sculpts (yes, technically the cadians are new data sheets, but nobody really considers them new units )

A huge amount of GW's output, especially for 40k, are updated models.

1) Required Aps. Your want to add optional App support, you do you, but I won't play any game the requires them.

2) Hyperfocus on competitive play with limited alternative options. Unless you're an expert of the game or the rules are VERY poorly designed, in a causal setting, most armies of any game can defeat any other army. (I don't mean lists, I mean armies). Constantly tweaking the rules here and there is great for competitive balance, but for people who only get out for a game every month or two, every other game has some new rule you've ever heard about before.

3. Outdated rules still required. In terms of 40k, what I mean is, when you need to have your codex to play, but it's been errated weeks after it's release, which means unless you've memorized all the changes, you can't trust anything it says anymore without constantly checking your other reference material. Kinda ties in to my second point.

 Polonius wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The problem with X-wing was that it didn't need a new edition, it needed maybe one 10€ pack's worth of errata'd cards, not redesigning everything for the sake of selling it to us again. It was a blatant money grab, a point where there was nothing new to sell, so they decied to sell the old stuff a second time, and people reacted accordingly.

You're not wrong, but I guess the question is what else should they have done? X-wing mined the license pretty deep, and we all know what happens to games without new content. I think X-wing is more a story of the perils of licensing (and/or using later releases to balance prior ones) than it is about nuking the game and starting over.

This is part of the GW secret sauce: not only does it own it's own IP, and can thus create infinite content, but because the primary product it sells are models, not rules, it has two avenues to selling new stuff. We all know that sales for certain legacy kits spike when they get spicy new rules, but GW sold a shedload of Cadians that updated sculpts (yes, technically the cadians are new data sheets, but nobody really considers them new units )

A huge amount of GW's output, especially for 40k, are updated models.

That's a good observation: at some point, a Star Wars player, no matter the system, has all the X-Wings or TIE fighters they'll ever need, and it's not like there will be a radical change in design for Jedi or that Stormtroopers will get noticeably more Storm-troopery with new sculpts. Pretty soon, it's either new rules/cards, pointless scale changes or off to the side stories not that many people care about enough to justify the expenses.

 Polonius wrote:
I think that the rising complexity of table top games, which I've heard called "admin" is something that is really stretching the hobby, and not just in miniatures. It seems to be a hot topic in board games as well.

Within wargames specifically, and all gaming more generally, there are tension points between simulation and balanced play, between abstraction and granularity. One argument for computer software is that it can help resolve complex calculations, the immediate response is: why do you have such complex calculations?

the other use for an app is less due to the complexity of any one rule, but rather to serve as a neutral sort of administrator of the game state. You see this is games like Gloomhaven, where the game is so complicated it's hard to remember all the little bits. In that case, the app is also serving sort of as a Gamemaster, since it's a coop game.

I think that while Apps can add a lot to the game, most of the time it would probably be easier to cut back on the mechanics than introduce an app.

I think a lot of MCPs success definitely comes from finding a good mix of complex abilities that resolve through rules that are streamlined enough to not get in the way. It's kind of interesting to compare to Legion, which is kind of the template of abstraction MCP draws from, and does a ton of things very well, but kind of falls apart into messy nuance when it comes to interacting with terrain for elevation and cover and the like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
You're not wrong, but I guess the question is what else should they have done? X-wing mined the license pretty deep, and we all know what happens to games without new content. I think X-wing is more a story of the perils of licensing (and/or using later releases to balance prior ones) than it is about nuking the game and starting over.

They banked kind of hard on Disney providing them with new toys to sell. You could see things kind of fall of the rails when TLJ didn't have a bunch of new ship designs.
Introducing Clone Wars earlier probably would have helped extend the life of things but kind of predated the kids who grew up on the prequels really pushing their appreciation for them. This is one of the reasons factions are often important, but I imagine removing the requirement of buying everything probably wasn't too enticing.

One interesting modern trend I've noticed and kind of approve of is the general movement away from factions and more towards thematic synergies to encourage theme. It seems to work well for a number of games I play, particularly those with small numbers of models in play at one time. I can see that as something that would work well for X-Wing if it had embraced it. A general Light Side/Dark Side groupings with the ability to mix and match at will, but with some kind of thematic squadron concepts to break the superfactions up a bit into interesting sub themes.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

That's a good observation: at some point, a Star Wars player, no matter the system, has all the X-Wings or TIE fighters they'll ever need, and it's not like there will be a radical change in design for Jedi or that Stormtroopers will get noticeably more Storm-troopery with new sculpts. Pretty soon, it's either new rules/cards, pointless scale changes or off to the side stories not that many people care about enough to justify the expenses.

GW has also benefited from two major sea changes in minis production: metal to plastic, and analog to digital modeling. This is why you can sell people the same kit over and over again. Metal cadians, 2002 cadians, and modern cadians are all noticably different in many ways, even if they broadly represent the same unit. X-wing was limited to pretty much different paint jobs.

LunarSol wrote:I think a lot of MCPs success definitely comes from finding a good mix of complex abilities that resolve through rules that are streamlined enough to not get in the way. It's kind of interesting to compare to Legion, which is kind of the template of abstraction MCP draws from, and does a ton of things very well, but kind of falls apart into messy nuance when it comes to interacting with terrain for elevation and cover and the like.

Good game design is not too hard to theorize, but it's tough to get right in practice. I mean, look at work placement euro games. there are literally hundreds of games using the same set of mechanics, but some get them to gel properly, and others don't. Game design is HARD.

One interesting modern trend I've noticed and kind of approve of is the general movement away from factions and more towards thematic synergies to encourage theme. It seems to work well for a number of games I play, particularly those with small numbers of models in play at one time. I can see that as something that would work well for X-Wing if it had embraced it. A general Light Side/Dark Side groupings with the ability to mix and match at will, but with some kind of thematic squadron concepts to break the superfactions up a bit into interesting sub themes.

I think Malifaux went this way, where you pick a crew based around keywords/themes, and while there are factions, the keywords matter more. Warmachine is also going this way, you can't really just play Cygnar, you play a storm legion or trencher force.

I think that there are a lot of ways to do it. GW went the other way with AOS, and spit out a bunch of relativley small but very thematic factions.

 Polonius wrote:

LunarSol wrote:I think a lot of MCPs success definitely comes from finding a good mix of complex abilities that resolve through rules that are streamlined enough to not get in the way. It's kind of interesting to compare to Legion, which is kind of the template of abstraction MCP draws from, and does a ton of things very well, but kind of falls apart into messy nuance when it comes to interacting with terrain for elevation and cover and the like.

Good game design is not too hard to theorize, but it's tough to get right in practice. I mean, look at work placement euro games. there are literally hundreds of games using the same set of mechanics, but some get them to gel properly, and others don't. Game design is HARD.

One interesting modern trend I've noticed and kind of approve of is the general movement away from factions and more towards thematic synergies to encourage theme. It seems to work well for a number of games I play, particularly those with small numbers of models in play at one time. I can see that as something that would work well for X-Wing if it had embraced it. A general Light Side/Dark Side groupings with the ability to mix and match at will, but with some kind of thematic squadron concepts to break the superfactions up a bit into interesting sub themes.

I think Malifaux went this way, where you pick a crew based around keywords/themes, and while there are factions, the keywords matter more. Warmachine is also going this way, you can't really just play Cygnar, you play a storm legion or trencher force.

I think that there are a lot of ways to do it. GW went the other way with AOS, and spit out a bunch of relativley small but very thematic factions.

Several games have gone the sub faction route. Infinity, Malifaux, Warmachine and plenty more all dealt with bloat by making sub factions, but it does risk making it difficult to get people that hone in on one theme new stuff at a regular basis. The newer variation of this seems to be true factionless design, which is wildly risky but has the benefit of everyone potentially be interested in every new release. That MCP has this while keeping a pretty strong sense of faction is kind of a miracle, but I'm sure its been a factor in the game's success.

Getting the right mix of product design and game design so that players buy more stuff and more people play is certainly the grail. It's a bit 'on time, on quote, or done right' though.

1. Apps. - If anything coded is required to play the game, it's an immediate hard pass.

2. Rapid change - My time is best spent enjoying all the game has to offer; not keeping up with ceaseless churn & burn.

3. If the game uses an overabundance of symbols to correlate rules and/or stats (e.g Warcry) or needlessly uses symbols for simple things like movement (e.g. Kill Team). It's a no go.

Or if you use symbology to cleverly save money on not printing cards in multiple languages, then:

Don’t make everything a skull icon with three pixels difference between each next symbol

Don’t require users to have electron microscopes in order to see which pixels in this unit’s skull symbol are different from the next

*Hyperbole included in base comment sticker price.

1. Apps,
2. DICE
3. Janky rules

Igougo is one reason I lost interest in 40k. Due to strats and improved CC rules it's not as bad as in earlier editions where you could have walked away from the table for half an hour, but overall I prefer more of a back and forth and the ability to react on what the opponent is doing.

Another one is rules changing too fast. And I don’t mean updates or errata but killing off an edition after only 3 years, so at about the time you usually need to build an army, is just too damn fast. But that's an aos/ 40K problem only I think. Looking at other games like X-Wing or Warmachine it seems to be a gamble, though.

Deadnight wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Give me your top 3 reasons that could make you either be wary of checking the game or even outright skip it.
Mine are:
.

1, 2 and 3:
The local.community playing the game.

Sorry; but if the players are bunch of jerks etc., there's no point going any further.

A lot of great games just don't have a local community to play with. Some people have the time and energy to help build up a local community, but that isn't always me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Or if you use symbology to cleverly save money on not printing cards in multiple languages, then:

Don’t make everything a skull icon with three pixels difference between each next symbol

Don’t require users to have electron microscopes in order to see which pixels in this unit’s skull symbol are different from the next

*Hyperbole included in base comment sticker price.

Yeah. Intuitive and distinct icons are great.

Unintuitive icons that are similar to other icons are hard to deal with

1. Required aps (optional fine)

2. Required cards/cardboard tokens (everything should be in the rulebook so you don't have to worry about keeping track of individual cards and chits and such)

3. buff/debuff auras (when a crucial part of the game is keeping track of where models are so you can be in range of various effects for maximum effectiveness)


All the above said, I love MCP (I feel like it really gets the superhero theme done right), but will be really cheesed whenever they update editions and invalidate lots of existing stuff. They've already had one release that is just updated cards, and they wiped out all the pre-existing Crisis cards recently, but at least the new ones are free-online. I hate having to have the physical cards for official events. I'd be far less interested in it if it was any other setting or IP.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Igougo is one reason I lost interest in 40k. Due to strats and improved CC rules it's not as bad as in earlier editions where you could have walked away from the table for half an hour, but overall I prefer more of a back and forth and the ability to react on what the opponent is doing.

Another one is rules changing too fast. And I don’t mean updates or errata but killing off an edition after only 3 years, so at about the time you usually need to build an army, is just too damn fast. But that's an aos/ 40K problem only I think. Looking at other games like X-Wing or Warmachine it seems to be a gamble, though.

I think GW are definitely the biggest offender in that regard. But, it's part of their business model, and they've succeeded where other manufacturers have struggled. Lots of collectors seem to still just lap up each new rules edition and codex, while something like the last edition of Flames of War (which did seem a little forced) went down like a lead balloon.

Cruellest is the invalidating of miniatures with a new edition of the rules. I can't get my head around people spending dozens of hours, hundreds of £, and pouring all of their efforts into a unit and it then becoming 'illegal'. Some pretty egregious examples of that with the new HH edition.

 bbb wrote:


3. buff/debuff auras (when a crucial part of the game is keeping track of where models are so you can be in range of various effects for maximum effectiveness)

.

Ha! It's funny how tastes differ and to how many tastes the designers need to cater

For me
-the spatial puzzle of perfect positioning
-mitigating and manipulating probabilities
-dealing with order of activation issues
-*
are exactly what wargame gameplay is about

And while I wouldn't say range dependant buffs are a mechanism I have special feelings for, they certainly tick all these boxes (that's unless their ranges are huge in which way using them is not a satisfying challenge but a boring point and click solution on a platter)

*-and the visual spectacle of painted models on a beautifully modelled table, but it's not rules-related

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Give me your top 3 reasons that could make you either be wary of checking the game or even outright skip it.
Mine are:
1. No premesuring allowed.
2. Use of the ordinary playing cards.
3. Custom dice necessary to play the game.

I'm not sure I can name TOP 3 exactly, so I will list three of the most important things in no particular order.

1. Bad game design. This is a broad term, but I'd say that it largelly falls into either excessive complexity or absolute lack of testing. Swordpoint was a drag to play, and Father Tilly was so convoluted we gave up even before trying it out on the table. After playing a single game of Flashing Steel both me and my opponent were having thoughts: "Did these guys, like, tried to play what they've written?".

2. Way too many tokens and proprietary dice or cards. I've played Mortal Gods, and after some time excessive amount of cards, tokens, trackers, bags and counters piling on the table became incredibly annoying. Either B&P (a single deck of cards per player) or Horizon Wars (a table with tokens to track the units' stats) approach is the most preferrable to me.

3. The game system being excessively gamey. SAGA is an excellent ruleset from mechanical and decision-making points of view, but it's one of the most cartoony wargames I've ever played. It feels almost like an RPG where you have to activate your skills in particular order to win, and these magic abilities are often absolutely absurd if you try to imagine them in-universe.


I guess that miniatures and background being bad may also present a problem, but, come to think of it, it's been a long time since I've played games with set world description or miniature line. All the rulesets I've been actively using for the last year or two (Zona Alfa, Age of Fantasy Regiments, Horizon Wars - I don't mind the setting for B&P, so that doesn't count) allow you to make up your own stories, which is exactly what we've been doing.

 Pacific wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Igougo is one reason I lost interest in 40k. Due to strats and improved CC rules it's not as bad as in earlier editions where you could have walked away from the table for half an hour, but overall I prefer more of a back and forth and the ability to react on what the opponent is doing.

Another one is rules changing too fast. And I don’t mean updates or errata but killing off an edition after only 3 years, so at about the time you usually need to build an army, is just too damn fast. But that's an aos/ 40K problem only I think. Looking at other games like X-Wing or Warmachine it seems to be a gamble, though.

I think GW are definitely the biggest offender in that regard. But, it's part of their business model, and they've succeeded where other manufacturers have struggled. Lots of collectors seem to still just lap up each new rules edition and codex, while something like the last edition of Flames of War (which did seem a little forced) went down like a lead balloon.

Cruellest is the invalidating of miniatures with a new edition of the rules. I can't get my head around people spending dozens of hours, hundreds of £, and pouring all of their efforts into a unit and it then becoming 'illegal'. Some pretty egregious examples of that with the new HH edition.

as someone who invested considerable time and not inconsiderable money in Flames V2 then Flames V3 the transition to "Team Hitler" of V4 left me cold, and at the local club more or less killed the game (not entirely the rule changes, some of which make sense, some of which are for the sake of changing things etc). the killer being the anaemic lists initially then the bandaid of "command cards" which were apparently always part of the game to the extend the rulebook never mentioned them.

and then they made the cards "optional" to the extent that you have half the game without them and a lot fewer units

combined with a revised point system, invalidating huge chunks of peoples armies if not the entire army for quite some time, the way unit contents was changed quite obviously based on what they wanted to put on a plastic frame, the initial "unit stat cards only come with models", which to their credit they changed course on

and yes, you always know a new game edition has gone down well when a company closes their own forum site after banning half those who post there and deleting most of the comments left[/]i so good was its reception

but then they also hit a huge issue with games, one that really grinds gears

[i]not being able to actually get hold of it

Battlefront are terrible at it, Catalyst are similar with Battletech where the mech boxes are either the ones no one wants or are out of stock, or the way GW make the reference cards a splash release...

*shakes fists while shouting at clouds*

leopard wrote:

but then they also hit a huge issue with games, one that really grinds gears

not being able to actually get hold of it

Battlefront are terrible at it, Catalyst are similar with Battletech where the mech boxes are either the ones no one wants or are out of stock, or the way GW make the reference cards a splash release...

*shakes fists while shouting at clouds*

Pretty much every one of these comes down to "3rd party manufacturing print runs are horribly for long term support"

 LunarSol wrote:

leopard wrote:

but then they also hit a huge issue with games, one that really grinds gears

not being able to actually get hold of it

Battlefront are terrible at it, Catalyst are similar with Battletech where the mech boxes are either the ones no one wants or are out of stock, or the way GW make the reference cards a splash release...

*shakes fists while shouting at clouds*

Pretty much every one of these comes down to "3rd party manufacturing print runs are horribly for long term support"

for a lot of it certainly, though "we are a victim of our own success!" becomes tedious as an excuse, a game can be amazing but if by the time its back in stock everyone has moved on, well thats that.

also battlefront do have their own factory (though not printworks), they are very able however to point a gun at their foot after carefully loading it when it comes to trying to have a range too large to support - the older metal stuff may have been more labour intensive but at least you could get hold if it for the most part.

in some ways its why I find the best games tend to come from people not pushing a specific range of models to go with it, they focus on a decent game and usually write around the idea of "use what you already have"

What's kind of interesting is just how many people use 3rd party miniatures with GW game products. I mean, typically the opinion is that their games aren't great but they're good enough to do something official with the models rather than the other way around.

A lot of that may be inertia. If everyone is playing warcry but they are okay with you using mantic figures, it may just be easier to play warcry.

I just thought of another peeve. PDF pricing. Unless you’re Osprey- and even they have significant discount sales sometimes- you are fooling yourself with a $20 pdf price point. Might even be doing it at $15 or even $10.

I only have one pet peeve: skimping on editing and/or proofreading. By the time any ruleset goes to market, someone besides the creator needs to check for typos and clarity.

> Personally I'm a big fan of apps when they're done right.

I'm a little surprised that, with the pandemic, there aren't more apps for solo or coop play. With coop boardgames, FFG has some "apps as GM", such as Mansions of Madness, Journeys of Middle Earth, Descent (not that it was done well), etc.

With PvP wargaming, apps as game moderators can add fog of war effects, secret play (eg. turncoats, spies), partial information, false information, players sent as sacrifices (no-win situations) and other *real* aspects of war that isn't present in "omniscient, omnipotent, and fair" wargaming. Then again, I think most gamers play wargames for fun, not to simulate real world conditions.

When we started playing Gloomhaven I was initially against using the helper app for all the traditionalist reasons.

I was very wrong. We used it only for tracking initiative, enemy HP and their activation cards and this alone was a huge weight of our shoulders. We could spend more time on actually playing the game instead of manually cranking its engine.

I think all those games that are gameplay-light but upkeep/resolution-heavy (looking at you, Games Workshop) could benefit from an app that does at least part of the tedious chore of operating their sluggish engine, letting players concentrate on decisions and choices.

 LunarSol wrote:

leopard wrote:

but then they also hit a huge issue with games, one that really grinds gears

not being able to actually get hold of it

Battlefront are terrible at it, Catalyst are similar with Battletech where the mech boxes are either the ones no one wants or are out of stock, or the way GW make the reference cards a splash release...

*shakes fists while shouting at clouds*

Pretty much every one of these comes down to "3rd party manufacturing print runs are horribly for long term support"

TBH most of battlefronts problems can be summed as "we want to be the GW of WW2 wargaming" and treating it like 40k not a historical wargame. Everything they do is basically imitating daddy GW but in a medium where it's not respected or desired.

Honestly, I think my main opposition to apps is "will this still be here and able to run on my phone in 10 years, when I actually get a game in?" I play Battletech, and it is very much helped by playing it on megamek, especially SRM boats, and TiTerminal is pretty nifty for Adeptus Titanicus, but if I literally can't play the game without the app, given the speed of things like phone updates and exploits, is this gonna be so much pretty wasted paper in a few years, especially if it doesn't catch on and the company goes belly up or stops supporting it, like that Golem Arcana game?

Vejut wrote:
Honestly, I think my main opposition to apps is "will this still be here and able to run on my phone in 10 years, when I actually get a game in?" I play Battletech, and it is very much helped by playing it on megamek, especially SRM boats, and TiTerminal is pretty nifty for Adeptus Titanicus, but if I literally can't play the game without the app, given the speed of things like phone updates and exploits, is this gonna be so much pretty wasted paper in a few years, especially if it doesn't catch on and the company goes belly up or stops supporting it, like that Golem Arcana game?

If you had bought the Golem Arcana game would you be able to find an opponent for it even if there was a way to play?

A buddy and I were discussing how great it would be if rules writers had a repository of generally accepted conventions for things like LoS.

He showed me a new mecha game with a crazy LoS wording. The author is essentially saying if the attacker doesn’t have the target completely in the attacker front arc, you don’t have a valid target. But it’s written super convoluted.

Innovation is great but complexity for complexity’s sake just doesn’t make sense to me. Especially from veteran developers.

 privateer4hire wrote:

Innovation is great but complexity for complexity’s sake just doesn’t make sense to me. Especially from veteran developers.

I've been finding more and more that for a lot of these things making them simple really beats out making them precise, though this gets more difficult the more you abstract out other rules like units and the like.

1: Win At All Cost players (WAACs)

2: Competitive At All Cost players (CAACs)

3: Narrative At All Cost players (NAACs)



As a pick-up game player, I hate these more than anything rule wise...

Wayniac wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

leopard wrote:

but then they also hit a huge issue with games, one that really grinds gears

not being able to actually get hold of it

Battlefront are terrible at it, Catalyst are similar with Battletech where the mech boxes are either the ones no one wants or are out of stock, or the way GW make the reference cards a splash release...

*shakes fists while shouting at clouds*

Pretty much every one of these comes down to "3rd party manufacturing print runs are horribly for long term support"

TBH most of battlefronts problems can be summed as "we want to be the GW of WW2 wargaming" and treating it like 40k not a historical wargame. Everything they do is basically imitating daddy GW but in a medium where it's not respected or desired.

100% agree on Battlefront

-Special dice/cards/thingamajigs and even minatures.
-Extra books that I need to play (extra books with more options that I can skip if I want to are different).
-Nested rules.

There are enough good games that I can play with what I already have that I have a hard time justifying getting anything that I'll only use for a specific game (other than a rulebook).
I started with historical (DBA) and I like (and have gone back to) being able to expect that I can play a new ruleset with my existing collection.
If I enjoy and value the game I'll find a way to support the company (as with Mantic).

*Gaslands is so exceedingly accessible and DIY that I give it a pass though.

further point on the special dice, noted before they are ok when they actually add something.

the way Star Wars Armada has symbols for results but different colour dice have a different mix of the symbols is an example where this is decent. SAGA dice are perhaps less so as that could easily be a single D6 lookup table.

found recently with 02 hundred hours another way to make it work, similar dice, two colours, one for stuff thats "loud" one for stuff thats "quiet", different actions roll a mix of the two - again symbols with a different mix of them (and one symbol unique to each colour)

totally agree on needing many books, Test of Honour when it was under Warlord was a terrible example of this, rules scattered across various miniature boxes. now its back with the creator its one book. fine with the idea of an army book, a main rule book and many be a scenario/campaign book but thats the limit really, needing half a dozen books to use a single page from sucks

leopard wrote:
further point on the special dice, noted before they are ok when they actually add something.

the way Star Wars Armada has symbols for results but different colour dice have a different mix of the symbols is an example where this is decent. SAGA dice are perhaps less so as that could easily be a single D6 lookup table.

On the flip side, I DESPISE lookup tables. I've kind of warmed to specialty dice as developers have started using them to do more interesting things though. I'm not sad to see game design no longer twisting itself to accommodate the limitations of the standard D6.

chromedog wrote:#1 deal breaker: Ugly models. For reference purposes, when it comes to "ugly" only MY opinion will count here, since it will be me buying them. Other people can love them. Nagash is still hideous and not even his mother loved him.

The rest aren't important.

If I don't like the models, I won't want to paint them after I buy them. If they aren't going to get painted, then there's no way in hell they are going to get played with.

ccs wrote:1) The models - do I like the models?
I don't buy & don't use minis I don't like. And, commissions aside, I certainly do not waste time painting such things. So if I don't like enough of the models to form a working force then there's no reason to play the game.

This mindset seems crazy to me.
I get that companies like to sell games as a system where you buy all the things from them, but it's your hobby. Why isn't your hobby on your own terms?

If you're already picky about which games you play, why not take it a step further and play miniature agnostic game that let you use the models you like?

To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, just because I don't get it doesn't make it a bad idea.

Dolnikan wrote:1) Gaminess. I know that it's a weird term but I like it if it feels like what's happening is telling some sort of story and that it makes sense. I don't like evenly distributed objectives for every game, predetermined terrain setups that don't look like any kind of realistic place, and things like that.

Agreed. If I want to play a game in terms of game pieces and rules I would play a board game.
I'm wargaming because I want to represent a battle (albeit loosely) and think in terms of troops and tactics.
A rule of thumb I've heard from historical gamers is to pay attention to how people talk about a game.
Is the discussion about rules and were exploited or does the discussion refer to discussion refer to troops and strategy?

Wayniac wrote:
3) In the context mostly of historical games, rules which are designed for a specific size and don't give any indicator of how to adjust it for other sizes. E.g. if it's written for 28mm because that's what the author used, it should have suggestions for using 15mm/6mm/etc. as well

Definitely, for ancients a rulebook that doesn't allow for multiple scales and base sizes is not getting a look.

 LunarSol wrote:

leopard wrote:
further point on the special dice, noted before they are ok when they actually add something.

the way Star Wars Armada has symbols for results but different colour dice have a different mix of the symbols is an example where this is decent. SAGA dice are perhaps less so as that could easily be a single D6 lookup table.

On the flip side, I DESPISE lookup tables. I've kind of warmed to specialty dice as developers have started using them to do more interesting things though. I'm not sad to see game design no longer twisting itself to accommodate the limitations of the standard D6.

a point I can see, SAGA sort of get it right in that you do get the lookup table so can use normal D6, its really just a dice with one symbol three times, one symbol twice and a third a single time.

it is good to see games branching out though

For sure. There was a time when I was super keen on having a single toolkit for my games. Tape measure, D6, tokens that worked for a bunch of games etc. After a while though I just found I was working too hard to accommodate that one unique feature and found it was just easier to have a little set for everything.

It doesn't hurt that stuff like the MCP set of dice/tokens/measurement tools/etc is just really snappy and fun. It's probably the best case for what can be done if a game is designed entirely around bespoke game aids.

 privateer4hire wrote:
A buddy and I were discussing how great it would be if rules writers had a repository of generally accepted conventions for things like LoS.

He showed me a new mecha game with a crazy LoS wording. The author is essentially saying if the attacker doesn’t have the target completely in the attacker front arc, you don’t have a valid target. But it’s written super convoluted.

Innovation is great but complexity for complexity’s sake just doesn’t make sense to me. Especially from veteran developers.

The trick is, while you can't copyright a concept for a rule,(say, LOS), but you absolutely CAN copyright the way YOUR wrote it, and anyone copying you is in violation of your copyright.

After twenty or thirty different companies write their own rules to describe a basic concept like LOS, if you want to do it in your new game the wording might need to get convoluted just to avoid copyright issues.

That was part of the issue with WOTC's OGL. When it truly was open, it provided just that sort of shared rules language across all OGL users. When WOTC threatened to revoke that access, now you've got to reword the rule to avoid their literal words... even if they said it in the most clear and concise means possible and any change you can make will just obfuscate meanings.

Good point. In essence, an OGL of sorts is what we are wishlisting.

from the games today I think the thing I dislike the most with skirmish games is how completely and utterly hopeless I am at playing them

and the thing I like the most is still enjoying it

1: Reasonable model prices/no fixed 'set' model line

2: No proprietary gear outside of the books

3: Decent and in-depth rules, none of this AoS cloning (looking at you Turnip 28)

 master of ordinance wrote:
1: Reasonable model prices/no fixed 'set' model line

2: No proprietary gear outside of the books

3: Decent and in-depth rules, none of this AoS cloning (looking at you Turnip 28)

...these are things that annoy you?

 Pacific wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Igougo is one reason I lost interest in 40k. Due to strats and improved CC rules it's not as bad as in earlier editions where you could have walked away from the table for half an hour, but overall I prefer more of a back and forth and the ability to react on what the opponent is doing.

Another one is rules changing too fast. And I don’t mean updates or errata but killing off an edition after only 3 years, so at about the time you usually need to build an army, is just too damn fast. But that's an aos/ 40K problem only I think. Looking at other games like X-Wing or Warmachine it seems to be a gamble, though.

I think GW are definitely the biggest offender in that regard. But, it's part of their business model, and they've succeeded where other manufacturers have struggled. Lots of collectors seem to still just lap up each new rules edition and codex, while something like the last edition of Flames of War (which did seem a little forced) went down like a lead balloon.

Cruellest is the invalidating of miniatures with a new edition of the rules. I can't get my head around people spending dozens of hours, hundreds of £, and pouring all of their efforts into a unit and it then becoming 'illegal'. Some pretty egregious examples of that with the new HH edition.

My experience in regards to illegal models was the new Death Guard codex when it was released for the first time. I had collected up to that point a small Nurgle CSM Renegade force and was thrilled to now use a proper codex dedicated to those models. I looked at the Terminator entry and noticed no option for combi-bolters/power fists. As a response I put the codex back onto the shelf and walked out of the GW store.

I don't know if it's a thing of getting older but I've found a lot less time to fully commit to a game and so having straightforward rules and not masses of tables and special rules is becoming increasingly important.
Some friends and I were going to get into Killteam. However our last campaign (Necromunda) had failed because, unless you are living and breathing the game week-in and week-out, it is just too much to learn and remember. I struggled and I have played the game since the 90s, we seemed to spend most of our time stood with rulebooks and sat waiting. The campaign fizzled and died.

Looking at Killteam (not to mention the prices of the expansion books) I could see the same thing happening, so instead we have gone with One Page Rules - Grimdark Fireteam. While the 'one page' description is a stretch, it manages to capture the essence of the game without a mountain of expensive books.
We have an online app to record our army lists, and everyone playing has a PDF of the rules, which they can read (and not be resentful as it only takes 10 minutes). We have army lists for both Squats and 'Hrud' (space Skaven) and the whole thing is more accessible.

This isn't just a criticism of GWs games, although a few of theirs could definitely do with being more accessible, but I think too often not enough thought is given towards barriers to entry (with money, time requirement and effort needed!)

Cyel wrote:
When we started playing Gloomhaven I was initially against using the helper app for all the traditionalist reasons.

I was very wrong. We used it only for tracking initiative, enemy HP and their activation cards and this alone was a huge weight of our shoulders. We could spend more time on actually playing the game instead of manually cranking its engine.

I think all those games that are gameplay-light but upkeep/resolution-heavy (looking at you, Games Workshop) could benefit from an app that does at least part of the tedious chore of operating their sluggish engine, letting players concentrate on decisions and choices.

I definitely agree with this. Used sensibly, an app can be a good assistant for complex mechanics or record keeping. I have heard Fallout has a good app for this, and is an alternative to the cards and trying to collect all of those.

Or even as an integral part of the game itself; X-Com is an absolutely tremendous game, a lot of fun and really tense to play - the co-op element, of getting stressed out while the timer ticks down, could not be replicated without the app. I have been lining up a game of U-Boot as well - again the game could not function without the app, and the sudden input of approaching aircraft, destroyers and being depth-charged, by all accounts it works extremely well.

 Dysartes wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
1: Reasonable model prices/no fixed 'set' model line

2: No proprietary gear outside of the books

3: Decent and in-depth rules, none of this AoS cloning (looking at you Turnip 28)

...these are things that annoy you?

I may have misrread the title

issue with an "app" here is a simple one

Occasionally I drag a game off the shelf from 10-20 years ago, I find it hard to believe that anything "app" related will be supported in a decade

this also somewhat sadly goes for the otherwise excellent MeG where while there is no app to play the game you do need a spreadsheet to build your army, at least thats a case of download it, save it and reuse it but even so a paper backup would be nice

there are many games I have (Hellllooooo Federation and Empire) that would likely be far better suited to being entirely on computer, not to mention the craft design sequences from MegaTraveller.. and in such cases having a helper app as well is fine

I just find its a hard pass when such is required, though I get not everyone feels that way

Exactly. Nothing with an app or digital-based rules tied into it's gameplay has a long life expectancy.

But I can pull out all my printed material for something that's been out of production from my storage shelves and play it right now. 2nd Edition 40K? Original Necromunda? Gorkamorka? Battlefleet Gothic? All I need to find is a player.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Exactly. Nothing with an app or digital-based rules tied into it's gameplay has a long life expectancy.

But I can pull out all my printed material for something that's been out of production from my storage shelves and play it right now. 2nd Edition 40K? Original Necromunda? Gorkamorka? Battlefleet Gothic? All I need to find is a player.

not to mention either the "app" gets an update that requires the most recent version of the device operating system, cutting out some people with older devices, or the devices get updated and now the "app" is incompatible due to changes made, and invariably unsupported by that time

note that if said app is a "helper" and the game is written is it is entirely optional thats fine, its when its said to be "optional" but is actually required or is just outright required is a no sell to me. And its not just that I find devices irritating with flat battery, "Apps" that refuse to work if they cannot phone home (sorry cardinal sin there when it could work locally), its that I do not think its worth the investment especially in proprietary models and accessories for a game thats got likely quite a short lifespan

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Exactly. Nothing with an app or digital-based rules tied into it's gameplay has a long life expectancy.

But I can pull out all my printed material for something that's been out of production from my storage shelves and play it right now. 2nd Edition 40K? Original Necromunda? Gorkamorka? Battlefleet Gothic? All I need to find is a player.

After buying some rule books that become invalid within months, I've lost a lot of the long term appeal of physical releases, though I do agree on principle.

Apps that are essential for gameplay are a non-starter for me.

However a simple free online army builder is gold. Song of Blades and Heroes' simple builder still works great over a decade on, and the army builders for K47, OPR, Space Weirdos and KoW made all those games alot more accessible and easy to play.

In a way it's just an extension of my desire for wargaming rules to be as easy and accessible as possible.

Out of interest then, I assume anyone that won't play a game because it needs an app would also not play a 'legacy' type game that sees the players ripping up, opening card packs that are only usable a number of times?

Both of these things are pretty common (and popular, because of the additional mechanics and processes they can introduce) in the board game industry, even though they place limits on how many times you can play.

 Pacific wrote:
Out of interest then, I assume anyone that won't play a game because it needs an app would also not play a 'legacy' type game that sees the players ripping up, opening card packs that are only usable a number of times?

Both of these things are pretty common (and popular, because of the additional mechanics and processes they can introduce) in the board game industry, even though they place limits on how many times you can play.

I think that you are pointing out slightly different activities. Avoiding a miniatures game with an app that will become obsolete is different from purchasing a game that is purposely designed to only be played a certain number of times.

That said, I suspect the overlap between the two groups is quite strong. Those who bristle at their games becoming unplayable might very well be the same folks who don't want to purchase a game that can only be played once.

As someone who is against necessary-apps, I also rebel against the idea of games that render themselves unplayable eventually. Of course there's the counterweight that a season of a "Legacy" game is often far more play-throughs than I've played of most games I own, so perhaps at some point I should give a Legacy game a try.

I never play Legacy games either......

I've played through season 1 of Pandemic: Legacy - it is worth noting that for that game, at least, the end state is then replayable as if it were your own custom Pandemic variant.

Can't speak for other Legacy games, though, as that's the only one I have personal experience with.

I only played two first seasons of Pandemic and Gloomhaven and all of them were great experiences (with GH at the absolute top of all my gaming experiences of all time).

GH was awesome on its own, but Pandemic gained a lot of variety, extra dimensions and a personalised storyline thanks to Legacy elements. Enough for me to rate it much more highly compared to the base game.

I have to say any game that had some sort of mechanic such that it can only be played so many times without purchasing more of some expensive consumable (other than a choice of something to drown the sorrows with) is also on my hard pass list

to the point if I saw that I'd not even bother looking further

stuff like "record sheets" or things that pass through a scanner/printer excluded

On a side note, I HATE Pandemic but the Legacy version is one of my favorite games of all time.

 LunarSol wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Exactly. Nothing with an app or digital-based rules tied into it's gameplay has a long life expectancy.

But I can pull out all my printed material for something that's been out of production from my storage shelves and play it right now. 2nd Edition 40K? Original Necromunda? Gorkamorka? Battlefleet Gothic? All I need to find is a player.

After buying some rule books that become invalid within months, I've lost a lot of the long term appeal of physical releases, though I do agree on principle.

Yeah, but that's mostly a company-side issue, most notably a GW one. Most times game books becoming invalid within months is a artifact of meta-chasing, or company's with poor game design (or a rules-churn sales model).

For instance, something like Kings of War is perfectly playable after buying the 3rd edition hardcover, which has the most up-to-date rules, army lists for every single faction, as well as Siege and Ambush (smaller points-level games) rules. If you find the game well balanced using just that book, then in ten years you could pull that book out of storage and have just as much fun with it. No so with a proprietary app-driven game.

Or some game companies like One Page Rules, routinely update their army lists and sometimes even the main rulebooks for their games, BUT in 99% of situations, everything is a free update of already free material, so it's not like an "invalidated" army list puts you out anything other than maybe printer ink if you like to print things out to be physical copies. Or 5 bucks if you bought the full rulebook PDF's.

I feel like every single app-driven game I have experienced has crashed and burned after a surprisingly short lifetime.

 Pacific wrote:
Out of interest then, I assume anyone that won't play a game because it needs an app would also not play a 'legacy' type game that sees the players ripping up, opening card packs that are only usable a number of times?

Both of these things are pretty common (and popular, because of the additional mechanics and processes they can introduce) in the board game industry, even though they place limits on how many times you can play.

Never seen a game like that. But yes, if the cards 'expired' or had to be destroyed to play the game, that would irritate me.

Now if it is a card that needed to be marked on, that I can work around with lamination and dry-erase markers, or photocopying.