Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Gabbi on October 18, 2019, 11:30:03 AM
-
I fear the title isn't very descriptive... What I would like to discuss are pros and cons of "closed" or "complete" miniature games with defined army lists and a line of associated models (Warhammer, Warmachine, Malifaux, etc.), and the so-called "generic rule-sets" that allow for more freedom: from choosing whatever model you like to represent a type of soldier/creature (i.e. Frostgrave, Broken Legions, OGaM) to those that allow the creation of model profiles from scratch (Song of Blades, Fistful of Lead, Ares, etc.).
This is for obvious reasons true for fantasy, sci-fi and the like. Historical games don't have this distinction.
To me, pros and cons of the first group are:
The army lists are ready made and often have a well-defined playstyle.
You can usually rely on some attention to playtesting and balancing.
If interested, the background is often more developed and the models have a good characterization, with often short stories dedicated to them in the pages of the books.
Each entry in the army list has its own specific model in the catalog, you can buy it and you are set.
It is often easier to find opponents.
On the other hand we are tied to the line of models produced by those who develop the game (except for the rare case of WH40K where exists a multitude of alternative makers).
If you like the game but not the models (or how they're engineered and divided in parts, or the material they're made of) the modeling aspect can be a pain (I for example hated to assemble the majority of my Warmachine models).
A company that publishes a game with this formula needs continuous revenue, which means a continuous flow of new releases. Keeping everything balanced definitely becomes a problem. Power creep is often an issue.
Another issue is that to keep new models flowing, all the factions tend to have access to all the possible options, losing a bit of the individuality they originally had. (i.e. everyone gets Endless Spells, including Khorne).
You can feel "forced" to buy a model that you dislike aesthetically just because it is strong, or synergic with other modles you want to field, or for some other reason it feels as "necessary", even in "for fun" games (i.e. the horrible Khorne lollipop bearer for AoS).
Pros and cons of the second group:
Freedom to create a band / army by choosing the features of the models it will be composed of, equip them and guide them in battle. This reaches its peak with "campaign" games.
Lower cost: often with a manual and some accessories you are good to go forever. If you have been playing for a few years it is possible that you have not to buy a single model because you already have enough stuff (now, probably you'll want to do it anyway, but it is a completely different story :D ).
Many of these rule-sets are adaptable to multiple variations of a given setting, or even completely different settings: I call the bows laspistols, the magic psi powers, the zombies become alien parasites and ta-dah Frostgrave in space!
Another advantage, already mentioned, I can recycle models for more games.
But above all: I buy, paint and field whatever models I want/like!
On the other hand, these rulesets are often very generic and sometimes bland (so much so that I can change the name of things to change settings), they require extra work (which is also an advantage, but for someone it may not be).
Less differentiation between teams/armies (everyone has access to everything, it is difficult for someone to voluntarily self-limit) and they lack those "unique" models with a rule/characteristic/ability that nothing else have in the whole game.
They are more difficult to balance (I feel that any model building system -that is also usable without the aid of a computer- is prone to "break" if abused by a waac player).
Also, it is more difficult to find players. People seem morbidly attached to the "official" concept, and what the faqs say (understandable for Warmahordes, insane for AoS, where GW itself tells you on almost every page of GH to play whatever way you like).
They are games that -for the necessary preparatory phase- see an ideal fruition in a defined group of players who agree on the details. They are "club games".
As the years pass, I'm more and more annoyed by the restrictions imposed by "closed games". On the other hand, the general "dullness" of open rulesets often leave me unsatisfied. They are good for putting on the table those 10 random models that I bought and painted on a whim, just because I liked them, play a couple games, but then I quickly lose interest. SBH for example, which has at its core a really good mechanic that makes the game engaging, sees play two or three times a year. The bulk of my games is still played with "closed rulesets", albeit this attitude is slowly changing...
Sorry for the wall of text, for the inevitable typos and the non native grasp in the language.
-
All of those are good and valid points, and I agree for the most part. I just figure the responsibility to enjoy my games falls on me, not the game makers. They're out to sell more miniatures, rules and accessories; I'm in this to have fun with friends over a table of toy soldiers.
Big hobby companies seem to get proprietary not only with their rules, miniatures, components, but also their players. It annoys the hell out of me. Fact is, I don't owe them anything beyond the $$$ I paid for the product.
Perhaps that's why I prefer open, generic rule sets - I can use whatever miniatures I want, borrow from whatever setting I like to create my own stories. I can enjoy a company's game without playing their "game" so to speak.
-
Big hobby companies seem to get proprietary not only with their rules, miniatures, components, but also their players. It annoys the hell out of me. Fact is, I don't owe them anything beyond the $$$ I paid for the product.
Agree. This is often paired to the will from a part of players to own to a group. This is especially true for the younger players that often act too much like fans and not enough as customers.
This without negating the emotional link that everyone can grow for his preferred rulesets, periods, model lines, companies, authors...
-
I buy figures that I like and I play rules that I like.
I should say that I am much more driven as a collector and painter than as a player.
The gaming is a long way secondary to the modelling and painting.
Specifically, I have generic rules and a variety of figures for historical games
- Lion Rampant with Perry plastic figures, and some older metal figures from many sources.
- Rapid Fire with a variety of 28mm figures from Artizan, Crusader and many others.
- Force on Force with modern figures from Empress, Mongrel, and Spectre.
I do have some periods where I collect the rules ant the figures from the same source - usually because of film franchises.
- Games Workshop Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, but mostly bought several years ago.
- Star Wars Legion - I like the figures, but actually have not played the rules yet.
-
Good post and interesting question.
I prefer open, generic games by far. I'd go so far as to argue that they're typically better-designed games. And I think they tend to be more thoroughly playtested and better balanced too.
Obviously, these things are subjective. But if you were to try to argue objectively, I think you could go quite a long way by comparing Hordes of the Things with Warhammer. I first played HoT as an alternative to Warhammer 3rd edition and immediately found it far superior - just a better, smoother and more absorbing game all round. And quicker too: we could get through three or four HotT games in time that would not even guarantee a single Warhammer game played to completion.
Now, if you were trying to argue objectively, you could say that while Warhammer has been through sundry rule changes and editions since 1991 (when HotT came out), HotT has had a second edition and one or two rule changes that are so small as to be essentially first-edition errata (swapping the move rates of warband and spear elements and a couple of recommended base-depth changes). And - while it's less widely played than Warhammer/AoS - HotT is still going strong. It's lasted as a game in a way that 3rd edition hasn't (I know people still play it). I've got the 3rd-edition rules on my shelf, but I've never been tempted to play it with my kids; I think they'd find it incredibly slow and clumsy compared with HotT or Mayhem or Of Armies and Hordes. It just hasn't stood the test of time as well as its near-contemporary (I think HotT came four years later than 3rd edition).
Another vaguely objective test you might apply would be this: how many people used "closed" rules to play "open" games? I'm sure some do, but I think it's comparatively rare. But it's very common for people to use HotT or SoBH or Fistful of Lead or Rogue Planet (etc., etc.) to play in the Warhammer universe. That suggests both something unsatisfying about the "closed" rulesets and something compelling about the "open" ones. If the Warhammer/Warmachine/etc. rules were of similar calibre, I'd expect to find more evidence of people using them to play in other settings. As another example, I've seen lots of blog posts about people doing Gloranthan gaming with HotT, etc., but I don't recall ever seeing anyone decide to use Age of Sigmar or Warhammer 3rd for it. (It may well have happened!)
When you say "You can usually rely on some attention to playtesting and balancing" in "closed games", I'd disagree. I think they're more often inherently unbalanced. And if they're not to start with, they tend to become so as more and more gets added to the official army lists.
I don't really understand the point about being "tied to the line" of official miniatures for any particular game. When I was a kid, Warhammer armies tended to be full of Grenadier, Ral Partha and Prince August miniatures. That didn't affect the quality of the game in any way. I have played 40K Kill Team a few times recently, and I used a complete mix of manufacturers' miniatures without any problem whatsoever. I did use some GW ones, but they included converted lizardmen and skaven. So I see the argument about official miniatures as a sort of figleaf for "closed" rulesets. An orc's an orc, whoever makes it (unless it's a converted lizardman or a Ral Partha bugbear ...); either the rules stand up on their own or they don't.
I'm also a bit surprised by your finding "open" games dull. The most recent skirmish games I've played have been Fistful of Lead: Galactic Heroes. With its unpredictable activations and card-based special rules, that seemed more exciting to me than Kill Team (for example). What makes "closed" games more exciting?
-
Wow, lots of stuf to consider. Thanks for reply.
So, in no particular order:
Regarding HotT, I have a very limited experience with it (and DBA) but if I recall correctly, it relies on "classes" it doesn't have specific profiles for different kind of troops with similar roles. i.e. a shooter is a shooter, be it a base of orcs with spears or elves with bows. I have to say that I'm not a big fan of this kind of game (armies feel too samey to me). Also, it's obviously easier to balance things if you have a handful of profiles, good for any army; so the comparison between HotT and WH seems a bit unfair to me.
When I wrote that "closed" games are usually more playtested and balanced I had in mind Warmachine, Malifaux and Infinity, games with an active publisher that puts efforts in keeping the game balanced for a healty tournament scene (with different degrees of success), more than GW (I have near zero experience with pre-AoS Warhammer).
To the other hand, I was thinking about SBH regarding unbalance. When I pointed out to Andrea one balnce problem with point costs calculation he replied that point costs system is there just to provide a guideline, and that the game should be balanced by scenarios. Or Fistful of Lead, where the abilities you can pick for your team and models don't even try to be balanced. Game is balanced by it's multiplayer nature. Moreover, SBH and FoL are games that are focused in telling a story, more than in creating a balanced fight where one armchair general can prove to be smarter than his opponent. So in the end it's a very relative issue.
You'll hardly find people using Warmachine rules to play other settings because there's no open formula to make your own troops (if such formula ever exists. I am of the idea that they get final point costs from playtesting) and the game is heavily focused on combos and competitive play. Tampering with the rules and unit profiles without a deep playtesting following would easily "break" the game.*
Its core mechanics are some of the best I have encountered, to me, but this is subject for another thread.
*Actually I feel that warmachine is in a delicate point: not everything is equally powerful, mostly due to the insane catalog of models, which count keeps increasing; and the strongly combo-oriented playstyle, so the very same model can be overpowered or near-useless depending to what other models is fielded with, making defining a single final point cost very hard.
But its playstyle is very rewarding, its attitude very in-your-face and playing a game rewarding as no generic ruleset I have experience of is to day.
Regarding the "dullness" I could have be used an improper term? I don't mean they're dull to play. FoL is a great game and a very exciting one. I'm in the process of making a handful of ready-to-play warbands to keep it ready to be played when there's the chance. Gaslands is like one of the most exciting games I played. Ever.
The "dullness" (feel free to provide a more proper term, I will be grateful) to me is the lack of differentiation between the various armies, where in "closed" games they're usually more characterized (they can have rules written exclusively for them).
One final word. These are just my -current- opinions (in some cases more feelings than opinions) I'm not saying one kind of game is overall better than the other. No interest in defending or attacking one or the other. I play both type of games. Just wanted to express these ideas and get opinons in return.
-
Not sure I even understand the question (unless it’s solely about manufacturer-run competition games). A rule-set is a rule-set and I’ll use whatever figures seem appropriate. Or cheaper.
All rule-sets are generic, regardless of what a few manufacturers might claim in their advertising.
-
Right. This is a point discussed by Hobgoblin, too.
Sometimes the setting is so characteristic (i.e Malifaux) that if you replace models it will spoil it.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm a big fan of customization and love to see alt models, where their look and feel is appropriate. I also see no issue in WHF armies full of Greanadier models, but that was generic fantasy.
If you're talking Warmachine, for example, I bet you'll hardly find similar models for most of the catalog. So we're speaking of playing a band of generic Orcs in place of Farrows (hog-men), something I'm not a fan of - unless you come out with some VERY awesome idea.
Would my opponent be happy to play a Flintloque game against my army of fantasy orcs? Just let's say they're savage Britocs.
Also, I would not be overly happy to play someone who is using Grenadier models to represent his PanO in Infinity, as model style and proportions are very different.
Moreover, in games like Malifaux, Infinity or Warmachine, where models have usually very specific rules and abilities, and one model can have multiple of them, using the "official" model is crucial to allow your opponent to instantly know what model is what (in games where remembering every ability on every model is already something people struggle with).
But in the end, this is more tied to people who you play with. If it's a circle of friends, eveything's easier: everyone knows that you're using a repainted Dreamblade miniature as a Metal Gamin (https://gabbigames.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/metal-gamin/) and everything's fine. But if you like to play the occasional in-store game with people you barely know, having the proper models makes things easier for everyone.
I don't mean I'm happy with it (I've listed this as a "con" in first post), but if you play a game with an associated line of models, don't be surprised if people expect that you use those models (of course, exceptions exists, i.e. Frostgrave).
-
Thanks for the explanation, it clarifies the argument. I think generally figures should look broadly as the rules say, but one generic pulse rifle looks much like any specific laser cannon. I suspect I won’t be playing with any of the people you describe :)
-
Regarding HotT, I have a very limited experience with it (and DBA) but if I recall correctly, it relies on "classes" it doesn't have specific profiles for different kind of troops with similar roles. i.e. a shooter is a shooter, be it a base of orcs with spears or elves with bows. I have to say that I'm not a big fan of this kind of game (armies feel too samey to me, and the ruleset feels overall "lazy"). Also, it's obviously easier to balance things if you have a handful of profiles, good for any army; so the comparison between HotT and WH seems a bit unfair to me.
That's certainly true about balance - and I think it's why HotT is such a well-balanced game. And yes, it does rely on classes.
But I don't think the armies tend to be samey; I've played in a couple of HotT tournaments, and the armies I faced were all very different from each other. The point, I think, is that the flavour and differentiation comes from the combination of element types rather than the element types themselves. So, an orc army consisting mainly of hordes and riders but with a blade general will feel very different from another orc army consisting of warbands, beasts and flyers with a magician general. The approach to terrain will be different, as will the tactics and the uses to which command points are put. And, as there are 20 unit types, you can easily field opposing armies that have none of the same units in common.
It's also worth noting that games that superficially distinguish between (e.g.) orc spearmen and elf spearmen can in fact be mathematically identical (pretty sure this happens in Warhammer, as when high toughness on one side offsets high weapon skill on the other, so that the odds end up the same).
The other thing that's worth noting about HotT is that while you can field orc archers as shooters, you can also field them as hordes (or warbands). So Tolkien's Uruk-hai (who are armed with bows) would probably be warbands, while smaller northern orcs might be hordes (even though they're all armed with bows). The game's sufficiently 'zoomed out' that missile combat is often just factored into melee. Even with shooters, bow range is only 8 cm in 28mm scale.
When I wrote that "closed" games are usually more playtested and balanced I had in mind Warmachine, Malifaux and Infinity, games with an active publisher that puts efforts in keeping the game balanced for a healty tournament scene (with different degrees of success), more than GW (I have near zero experience with pre-AoS Warhammer).
To the other hand, I was thinking about SBH regarding unbalance. When I pointed out to Andrea one balnce problem with point costs calculation he replied that point costs system is there just to provide a guideline, and that the game should be balanced by scenarios. Or Fistful of Lead, where the abilities you can pick for your team and models don't even try to be balanced. Game is balanced by it's multiplayer nature. Moreover, SBH and FoL are games that are focused in telling a story, more than in creating a balanced fight where one armchair general can prove to be smarter than his opponent. So in the end it's a very relative issue.
Interesting - and I confess I've never played Warmachine, Malifaux or Infinity. You're right about SBH - but surely the point there is that two 300-point warbands will usually give you a nicely balanced game unless someone's actively trying to find and exploit loopholes (in which case, why play with them?). I often use the points system in SBH to create unbalanced games - e.g. 500 points of Q2, C3 elite troops against 1,500 points of low-quality monsters with leaders, as those are lots of fun.
Regarding the "dullness" I could have be used an improper term? I don't mean they're dull to play. FoL is a great game and a very exciting one. I'm in the process of making a handful of ready-to-play warband to keep it ready to be played when there's the chance. Gaslands is like one of the most exciting games I played. Ever.
The "dullness" (feel free to provide a more proper term, I will be grateful) to me is the lack of differentiation between the various armies, where in "closed" games they're usually more charachterized (they can have rules written exclusively for them).
Maybe "blandness"? But I don't quite see it, given the vast range of traits in SBH and FoL. For example, a Q3, C3 figure with Savage, Big, Heavy Armour and Leader is entirely different from one with the same stats but Hero, Combat Master and Free Disengage. Or Q3, C3, Magic User, Mounted, Long Move, Steadfast. And so on. It's just up to the players to come up with interesting combinations.
-
As was stated in the first post, armies in "closed" systems tend to homogenize over time, regardless of their aesthetics or initial play style, or succumb to power-creep. It strikes me they grow bland much faster than generic systems that provide a variety of options.
There are six regulars in our group and we could come up with very different war bands using the ASOBH rules - even if we had identical sets of miniatures.
-
Sometimes the setting is so characteristic (i.e Malifaux) that if you replace models it will spoil it.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm a big fan of customization and love to see alt models, where their look and feel is appropriate. I also see no issue in WHF armies full of Greanadier models, but that was generic fantasy.
If you're talking Warmachine, for example, I bet you'll hardly find similar models for most of the catalog. So we're speaking of playing a band of generic Orcs in place of Farrows (hog-men), something I'm not a fan of - unless you come out with some VERY awesome idea.
I just looked at the Farrows, and they seem to be be bulky, ugly tusked humanoids with cleavers and bones (or bone weapons). If someone were to use GW savage orcs with the same gear, what exactly would bother you? I mean, they're kind of the same thing. If the savage orcs were nicely painted, wouldn't you prefer those over badly painted (or unpainted!) Farrows? And what if someone used pig-faced orcs? I mean, I'd think it very odd if someone were to object to the Farrows being used as orcs!
Would my opponent be happy to play a Flintloque game against my army of fantasy orcs? Just let's say they're savage Britocs.
Isn't there a slightly different issue here ("what you see is what you get" or WYSIWYG)? If your orcs were statted for Flintloque with swords and shields and so on, rather than muskets, why do you think your opponent would mind? Wouldn't it make for quite a good game? I always find low-tech vs high-tech games great (so long as the low-tech side has the numbers!).
Also, I would not be overly happy to play someone who is using Grenadier models to represent his PanO in Infinity, as model style and proportions are very different.
But what if those Grenadier models were fully WYSIWYG? With suitable armour and weapons for the game profile? I mean, a high-tech rifle's a high-tech rifle, just as a sword's as sword, no? I can understand annoyance if it's not clear what each person has, but if the model matches the profile, then what's the problem? Why do matching styles of figure matter in Infinity but not in SBH? I honestly can't see why they should.
Moreover, in games like Malifaux, Infinity or Warmachine, where models have usually very specific rules and abilities, and one model can have multiple of them, using the "official" model is crucial to allow your opponent to instantly know what model is what (in games where remembering every ability on every model is already something people struggle with).
I can see your point here a little more. Again, though, isn't it just a WYSIWYG issue? Last year, I played a game of GW's Shadespire using 1980s ogres as Steelheart's Champions (Sigmarines). As the ogres had roughly equivalent weapons, they could all be easily identified, so there was no problem - and indeed it helped, as someone else was also playing Steelheart's Champions with the official figures (it was a four-player game).
For example, the Infinity Pan-O figures seem largely to have the same sort of rifle and some sort of hard armour. I looked at them and immediately though that I could use GW Eldar as proxies, as they have both rifle-type weapons and hard armour. The leader with a (power?) sword would be easy to proxy too. So I wonder: isn't this just more about habit with games with official miniature lines? I can't see that it makes much difference whether you use Eldar profiles for your Pan-O figures in Warhammer, or Pan-O profiles for your Eldar figures in Infinity - so long as it's clear to everyone. And I can't see how "shuriken catapult = pulse rifle" could be unclear to anyone.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that there's an element of the emperor's new clothes about the assumption that you need certain figures for certain games. When we play Mutants and Death Ray Guns with Eldar, they get ablative armour and laser rifles on their profiles, and no one worries that they really have Aspect armour (I didn't know that's what it's called until googling it just now!) and shuriken catapults. And the only difference I can see between MDRG and Infinity is that the latter has official miniatures.
I do think that WYSIWYG is a very good principle, though - so I'd baulk at a shuriken pistol being classed as a laser rifle. But whether a bolter is a sub-machine gun or an assault rifle doesn't seem a problem to me as long as it's established before the game starts.
Anyway, great discussion - especially for a gloomy Friday afternoon!
-
Wow, lots more to consider.
First of all, you're making me willing to give HotT a second chance, that's not good: I already have too many projects running :D
Regarding the "blandness", I agree that players can come with widely different armies/warbands, but games like Warmachine can have special rules written for that specific model or factions. Rules that break the normal flow of the game and that no other faction has.
You can achieve something similar in "generic" rulesets, but, again, you have to play with a defined group that agrees on things like "nobody besides the guy who plays the alien bugs can take the regeneration perk, nobody but the players who plays the space marines can take heavy armor and plasma weapons" and so on...
OR you can pre-made army lists following your vision or a book/movie background for people to use. That's what I'm currently doing with FoL/GH: I already have a handful of painted Space Marines, Space Orcs, Tyranids, Mantic's Forge Fathers, plus models for a squad of Space Dinos (Reaper Bones) that I have yet to clean and base before painting. Creating every model profile myself, I can decide to characterize warbands as I see fit (i.e. Forge Fathers will be all slow).
But I hardly see that a player, in an environment where each player would have access to the ruleset and will be free to create his own warband, would deliberately handicap himself by restricting choices.
Regarding the Farrow-Orcs debate, sure they're similar, but Immoren (Warmachine setting) doesn't have orcs, so they will break the magic. As fantasy orcs in Flintloque would break the quasi-napoleonic setting, with chainmail and weapons built out of bones. It's not a wysiwyg issue (pretending savage orcs are armed with rifles would make things worse, of course), it's a matter of wanting to play in a given setting. Would you like to have the goofy AoS orcs in a LotR game? Or would you consider to play against an army of greek hoplites equipped with roman shields?
Regarding the painted vs unpainted, it's not an easy question. Of course I prefer painted, but how much you (me, others) are willing to stretch to get painted models? Orcs in place of Farrows seems a reasonably trade to play against a fully painted army. But what about Elves? And Space Marines? (of course I'm exaggerating to get to the point).
Regarding the "why do matching styles of figure matter in Infinity but not in SBH?" question, I never said it doesn't. Infinity has, along its rules, a defined look that I like and I would like it is kept in my games, in SBH we can choose whatever models we like, but I'd like there will be some consistency among them. I don't see me playing a realistic proportioined warband against a "chibi" one anytime soon.
Regarding your warband in WH:U, there's quite some difference in proxying 3 models, that have different stats but near no special rules (in Shadespire most models have none and some have just one) or in Warmachine where you field dozens of models and even the lowliest of trooper has a couple. Again, it's a matter of who play with. In may group we have some proxy / alt model, but they are few, we play often together and know these. So it's not an issue. A Warmachine army of proxy models would be a nightmare to play against.
For Shadespire I've seen warbands of beastmen used to proxy Bloodreavers, and Nurgle to proxy Stormcast. They're fine. Even more they're cool.
Look, it's not even a matter of what I like/accept. I'm fine with proxy. If someone would come up with an entire army for Warmachine where every model is replaced with something else and everything is coherent within the army and each model is easily recognizable (i.e. same armament, same size/proportion, same "nature" i.e. I can tell apart warjacks from troops) I would gladly play against it.
But my point is that "closed games" are usually played using the dedicated models, people expect that everyone do it.
This doesn't mean that you cannot use your Stormcasts to proxy a Khador army, no Privateer Press staff member will came to your place to stop you, it's just that usually when you buy into a "complete game" you're willing to use official models for most of the profiles. Often models are a major selling point.
Regarding the Emperor's New Clothes part... I don't see the point. I mean I agree with you. I myself use models across different games, and change not only equipment: what in a game is a rat-ogre, in another could be a huge wasteland mutant.
Regarding the differences between MDRG and Infinity, Infinity has more "granularity". More different kind of weapons for example, and each one has a different and well defined look (as for bolters, shuriken pistols or plasma weapons in 40K). So using official models make easier to tell at a glance what a model is armed with.
-
I have no problem holding to a specific game-verse aesthetic. I want a consistent look and feel to my games. (I also insist on painted miniatures and terrain) Then again, I'm always delighted when someone achieves that visual consistency and tone using a variety of seemingly disparate models. Or scratch-builds "unofficial", but compatible terrain. I recall someone modding Frostgrave to an Arabian-style desert setting. I thought that was fantastic. It captured my attention way more than the 'Frozen City' backdrop. Then there was the HoTT army (DBA maybe?) made entirely out of rocks with painted faces.
Regarding 'Special Faction-Specific Rules': It's only a matter of time before Power Creep sets in, right? To keep the factions competitive and sell more and more of an ever expanding miniature range, eventually every army either gets a unit/leader/monster with a parallel ability, or some counter-feat that negates the opponent's special ability. This arms race grows exponentially until the first edition rules break under the weight of exceptions and the company forces a reboot with cool new 2nd edition. Oh and some snazzy new models/factions/leaders to go along with it. Lather - Rinse - Repeat.
I agree no one with access to a rule set would deliberately handicap themselves - in a competitive setting. But that's not the only kind of game, and even then players accept restrictions that are consistent with their models/faction. You choose Dwarves/Forge Fathers, a reasonable player expects they'll all be slow. That's more like flavoring than a hindrance.
I know what you mean when you say 'complete' games, but they never really are. There's always another 'latest and greatest, special must-have hotness' coming down the pike. To me, that's why most of the big 'closed' systems come off as proprietary, commercial, and competitive, and despite the flash and fanfare, ultimately tedious. I gave up on WM years ago because every battle had devolved into a race to pop the Feat, every force composition a contest of wallets for the newest special model/ability.
Oddly enough, I keep expanding my miniature and terrain collection because of the open, generic systems. With them, there's always room to create a new war band, incorporate a different setting, come up with an unconventional but consistent army composition. I really enjoy the opportunities they afford.
*whew* I'll shut up now.
-
Would you like to have the goofy AoS orcs in a LotR game?.
As long as they were painted green, why not? :)
-
Wait. I need to make a step back, now. It seems to me that the discussion has moved from debating the pros and cons of the two approaches (hope term is appropriate) to wargaming to bashing the "closed" systems cause they're the paramount of all evil. Putting me, who like to discuss, in the role of defending them, to keep the discussion rolling. While I'm in the process, as stated in the very first post, to add more and more "generic" rulesets to my gaming nights. So I'm not very comfortable in this role, as I've said I'm growing tired of the restrictions imposed by closed systems.
That the replies would have been in favor of open systems is something I would had expected (just look at any section would make evident that the community is almost entirely focused on open systems). Nonetheless, some statement seems a bit unfair to me.
This said, keep comments coming, lots of stuff and points of view to consider. Even if now I'm replying with my current view, your points will remain with me. I will eventually review them again in the future.
I have no problem holding to a specific game-verse aesthetic. I want a consistent look and feel to my games. (I also insist on painted miniatures and terrain) Then again, I'm always delighted when someone achieves that visual consistency and tone using a variety of seemingly disparate models. Or scratch-builds "unofficial", but compatible terrain. I recall someone modding Frostgrave to an Arabian-style desert setting. I thought that was fantastic. It captured my attention way more than the 'Frozen City' backdrop. Then there was the HoTT army (DBA maybe?) made entirely out of rocks with painted faces.
I have already discussed this. If a coherent a easily recognizable army of alt models (also with a different theme) would be made I would have no proble to play against. Even more, I will be very delighted to do so. And, just to move from me to "general consensus", I think everyone will be. But this kind of project require a great amount of commitment. The majority of the games are played with official models.
Also, as I said, no problem with the occasional proxy (again, if it's fitting with the style and theme of the army).
Regarding 'Special Faction-Specific Rules': It's only a matter of time before Power Creep sets in, right? To keep the factions competitive and sell more and more of an ever expanding miniature range, eventually every army either gets a unit/leader/monster with a parallel ability, or some counter-feat that negates the opponent's special ability. This arms race grows exponentially until the first edition rules break under the weight of exceptions and the company forces a reboot with cool new 2nd edition. Oh and some snazzy new models/factions/leaders to go along with it. Lather - Rinse - Repeat.
This is true, but not entirely true. Let's talk Warmachine, ok? Is it true that with time every major faction is getting every option (everyone but Circle (atm) received one artillery piece, everyone got one Battle Engine and two Colossals/Gargantuans, two other Hordes factions (Skorne and Minions) got lesser warbeast, once exclusive of Legion, and so on... I'm amazed that Khador has not got light warjacks already).
BUT. But there are factions that has entirely new rules that are exclusive of their gameplay. Convergence jacks can pass focus from one to another, use MAT and RAT stats of their Warcaster and get one special ability from him. So their profile is actually changing depending on who leads them. Grymkin warlocks have no feats, but choose 3 "mini-feats" from a deck of cards. Infernals must sacrifice one trooper to refill Essence (ie Focus), their Horrors (jacks) can keep it from one turn to the following, but have to spend one each turn to remain in this plane of existence, they can bring new horrors into play (basically they're GW Daemons done better than GW Daemons, as their rules actually reflect their backstory).
These are things that I don't think you can achieve with "generic" rulesets (that in most cases don't have this level of detail to begin with).
Regarding balance, Warmachine is a weird beast. It is a very balanced and at the same time a very unbalanced game. Its factions (major and mini) are all balanced and can achieve victory, but within a single faction some builds/warcasters are widely better than others. This is inevitable with the catalog bloat, I fear.
I agree no one with access to a rule set would deliberately handicap themselves - in a competitive setting. But that's not the only kind of game, and even then players accept restrictions that are consistent with their models/faction. You choose Dwarves/Forge Fathers, a reasonable player expects they'll all be slow. That's more like flavoring than a hindrance.
This is lead to another discussion. Choosing who you play is way more important to choosing what to play in giving you a fun gaming experience (with "fun" acting as placeholder for exciting, pleasant, engaging, satisfying, whatever you look for into you games). And with the "right guy" every ruleset is the best one you can play. I deeply dislike Warmachine community, with his extrem focus on maximizing your list, winning and possibly "steamrolling" the opponent. Ah, and the reject for 3D terrain in favor of flat shapes. But with a friend who likes to play as I like to, Warmachine is one of the best game I can play. Really love the rules and "attitude".
This said, even when we decide for a "for fun" game (shouldn't every game be for fun?*) and "we" is a small group of friend I keep close because they're the best I have met in the years, there's always someone who restricted himself less than others, because "this army plays this way" or any other reason. This to say that the separation of hindrance from flavoring could be at different points for different people.
*With "for fun" (literally, we say it in English) we mean casual games, backstory first.
-
Beyond commercial strategies (and to an extent tournament play versus just doing what you want in your own home), I feel there may be a difference in immersion between the two approaches.
While it's probably not true for all cases, I might have a tendency to be more interested in games with a strongly defined aesthetic and setting for one-off games (including tournaments). You can come typically come up with reasons why the two warbands or armies are fighting each other; the known imaginative history and geography creating the backdrop for your game. In games that are played in whole campaigns, the former still works great (sometimes better, with map campaigns, in some cases perhaps worse if the progression makes it feel less like the setting), the characteristics of individual forces may not necessarily be as important in a campaign. Here, the story told over the series of games are enough to become attached to your fighters, having lost friends, defeated monsters and discovered treasures along the way. The fact that your force consists of WHFB High Elves, an opponent's of steampunk vampires and another's are ancient Macedonians may not make for much of a coherent setting, but you nonetheless have a real involvement in the games. With seemingly random factions, an enjoyable one-off game would require a particularly good set of rules to remain interesting, and even then I would likely switch it to become some specific setting. Vice versa, somewhat less interesting rules might be acceptable for games played for the setting, as long as they represent said setting well enough.
-
Sorry if it felt like I was jumping down your throat. I was only relating my preference for open systems and experiences/perceptions of closed ones.
TBH, I stopped paying much attention to closed games years ago for those very reasons, so I'm not qualified to make an informed comment on their current state. I certainly wouldn't/didn't say they were the 'paramount of all evil'. They're just not my thing. Lots of people play them, they certainly seem to sell - or the models do at least - so what do I know?
It would be interesting to see a survey of long term gamers: What did they start with? What did they shift to? What do they play now? What games to they still play or play consistently through the years?
I wonder if we don't learn the bones of the hobby in a specific, closed system, then eventually - if we stick with it - move to broader accommodations.
-
I think in truth, there is no real such thing as a closed system. It just depends how you want to look at it.
I think the issue is that some companies want you to think their system is closed so you only use their product. But that is a bit different.
Depending upon where you are playing and who you are playing, you can use whatever miniatures you want to use.
However, if I am honest, I tend to prefer systems that cater for that a bit more. I like Necromunda as you can pretty much use any model you like as a hired scum or bounty hunter etc. You can proxy gangs easily enough, I use the Heresy miniatures trenchcoat gangers as Delaque for example.
I do find it tends to also go with genre's. Historical sets tend to be more open, but I guess that's because a WW2 US GI in late war gear isn't going to be massively different across companies. Though Bolt Action is a game by Warlord Games intended for use with their miniatures.
-
I have to contest the ops notion that "Complete games" are better playtested. Gw is notoriously shabby at playtesting with some supplements requiring faqs days after release or even BEFORE release, Warmahordes is broken fairly quickly in each release cycle (when you foster a competitive attitude in your players then you better ensure your game is airtight), Malifauxs new edition is pretty much designed to deal with the last edition having multiple issues whilst Infinity is in a similar position.
-
I feel kinda of harsh tone of your post (but can't be sure because post on the internet and non native speaker) so will reply pretending you're interested into a discussion: the point is that publishers of "closed" games usually take into account that (some) players would try to maximize their army lists and put an effort in keeping their games balanced (yes, even GW), with various degrees of success. Most of "generic" rulesets don't have this kind of care, some don't even try, trusting that their players would not try to stretch the army building system and "break" the game.
That a player "should not" or that you play gentlemen only is not relevant. Putting more efforts in balancing and revising your game is a feature. And "closed" games usually are on a better spot in this aspect.
-
To be fair, noting balance weaknesses in some open rules sets - while true- doesn't negate the points jetengine raises.
But... side-stepping possible contention, I go back to the notion that while I firmly believe a company should put out a working, cohesive, coherent product, it's on me the gamer to have fun, to make it enjoyable. If a particular product is genuinely out of whack I can either exploit it, defend it, ditch it, or tweak it so it works for me and my group.
This is probably why I either tweak/house rule a few commercial games (or "improve" them as mentioned in another thread) or write my own - which I know aren't perfect and fully expect to be adapted.
-
To be fair, noting balance weaknesses in some open rules sets - while true- doesn't negate the points jetengine raises.
Yeah, the point was they're usually more. I better worded my reply, now, to better express the concept.
-
First of all, you're making me willing to give HotT a second chance, that's not good: I already have too many projects running :D
I'd definitely recommend it! The fact that it uses frontages that are widely shared by other rulesets makes it a low-cost investment. I often base large RPG monsters for HotT so that they can be used as behemoths, dragons or gods in that game as well as for their primary purpose.
Regarding the Farrow-Orcs debate, sure they're similar, but Immoren (Warmachine setting) doesn't have orcs, so they will break the magic. As fantasy orcs in Flintloque would break the quasi-napoleonic setting, with chainmail and weapons built out of bones. It's not a wysiwyg issue (pretending savage orcs are armed with rifles would make things worse, of course), it's a matter of wanting to play in a given setting. Would you like to have the goofy AoS orcs in a LotR game? Or would you consider to play against an army of greek hoplites equipped with roman shields?
This is the bit I'm struggling to grasp. I mean, real Napoleon-era troops fought armies armed with primitive weapons, so having imaginary beings in pseudo-Napoleonic gear fighting monsters with primitive weapons seems fine to me. I think it would be easy to cook up an interesting scenario background for the game - and games that pit different technology levels against each other are lots of fun.
As for Middle Earth games, I was thinking a while back about creating some HotT armies for the Battle of the Five Armies. If you were to restrict yourself purely to the descriptions in The Hobbit, there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't use AoS orcs for that - and keep it 100% accurate to the book. The only real descriptions of the orcs there are "big" and "ugly", so the AoS orcs could work out fine. I'd enjoy seeing it done.
Regarding the "why do matching styles of figure matter in Infinity but not in SBH?" question, I never said it doesn't. Infinity has, along its rules, a defined look that I like and I would like it is kept in my games, in SBH we can choose whatever models we like, but I'd like there will be some consistency among them. I don't see me playing a realistic proportioined warband against a "chibi" one anytime soon.
Regarding your warband in WH:U, there's quite some difference in proxying 3 models, that have different stats but near no special rules (in Shadespire most models have none and some have just one) or in Warmachine where you field dozens of models and even the lowliest of trooper has a couple. Again, it's a matter of who play with. In may group we have some proxy / alt model, but they are few, we play often together and know these. So it's not an issue. A Warmachine army of proxy models would be a nightmare to play against.
For Shadespire I've seen warbands of beastmen used to proxy Bloodreavers, and Nurgle to proxy Stormcast. They're fine. Even more they're cool.
Regarding the Emperor's New Clothes part... I don't see the point. I mean I agree with you. I myself use models across different games, and change not only equipment: what in a game is a rat-ogre, in another could be a huge wasteland mutant.
Regarding the differences between MDRG and Infinity, Infinity has more "granularity". More different kind of weapons for example, and each one has a different and well defined look (as for bolters, shuriken pistols or plasma weapons in 40K). So using official models make easier to tell at a glance what a model is armed with.
I haven't ever played Infinity (though I have read through the rules), but surely the "telling apart" aspect is no different from any "open" system where you clarify what units are before the game: "These are spears and these are warband" or "these are heavy foot and these are bellicose foot with shiny armour" or "the ones with bolters count as auto-rifles and the shuriken catapults count as laser rifles". I don't think any real difficulty is likely to arise.
I mean, I've played MDRG, Rogue Stars, Fubar, Kill Team and Galactic Heroes doing exactly that, with no problems. So I can't see it's a practical objection rather than an aesthetic one. And if it's purely aesthetic, it's not really any different from preferring nicely painted miniatures to indifferently painted ones.
Putting more efforts in balancing and revising your game is a feature. And "closed" games usually are on a better spot in this aspect.
I don't know how you'd quantify this, but is it really true? Certainly, my experience is that the best-balanced games are the ones where everyone has access to the same troop types. There are lots of those games: HotT, Dragon Rampant, Saga, Sword & Spear, Battlesworn, FUBAR and Frostgrave, to name a few. Saga and Frostgrave have some differentiation through the battleboards and magic schools, but 'special effects'/magic aside, everyone chooses from the same troop types.
I'd say the defining feature of those games, relative to the 'closed' ones, is that their rulesets are very stable. I don't think there are any plans for new editions of any of the Rampant series, and HotT has had just two editions (with almost no rule changes) in its lifespan of nearly 30 years. Saga has a second edition, and Frostgrave is getting one, but they're still considerably more stable than their 'closed' competitors. I think that's because the closed systems are driven by the commercial imperative and almost inevitably mutate and 'break' under the weight of (commercially driven) add-ons.
Now, I'd agree with you that certain build-your-own-profile skirmish games with lots of abilities can have balance issues. An entirely Savage warband in SoBH can be hard to deal with, for example, which is why that trait was limited to personalities in ASoBH. But I think that's less an 'open vs closed' thing than down to the difficulty of accurately accounting for possibilities in a 'build-your-own' system. The number of potential profiles in SoBH must run into the hundreds of thousands at least (certainly if you include the extensions), so it shouldn't be a surprise that some combinations can be more value for points than others.
But I'd make two points about that. First, SoBH and FoL and the like are designed for fun. They're not tournament games (in the way that HotT can be). So the fact that their points systems can be gamed is neither here nor there. When I play those games, I typically design all the warbands and let my opponent(s) choose which one they want to play. I think that's what Andrea Sfiligoi does too. It works really well. So the fact that they allow for an almost infinite range of unit types is a strength, not the weakness it could be in a competitive game.
Second, the real test of open vs closed is with games that are designed to be watertight rulesets suitable for tournament play. And here, I think, the open games (like HotT) tend to do better. I don't think I've ever seen people complain about combinations that 'break' HotT, and armies fielded in tournament tend to be highly heterogenous. If there's a winning combination, no one's worked it out in 28 years. But in the 'closed' games, there seems to be lots of complaining about 'game-breaking' combos or 'overpowered' troop types. And there do seem to be optimal choices from certain army lists. And I assume that's why those games seem to be in constant flux (as others have said above).
Again, this is a really fun discussion - so many thanks for starting it!
-
I feel kinda of harsh tone of your post (but can't be sure because post on the internet and non native speaker) so will reply pretending you're interested into a discussion: the point is that publishers of "closed" games usually take into account that (some) players would try to maximize their army lists and put an effort in keeping their games balanced (yes, even GW), with various degrees of success. Most of "generic" rulesets don't have this kind of care, some don't even try, trusting that their players would not try to stretch the army building system and "break" the game.
That a player "should not" or that you play gentlemen only is not relevant. Putting more efforts in balancing and revising your game is a feature. And "closed" games usually are on a better spot in this aspect.
Except they dont. Matt Ward himself admitted GW asked him to make Grey Knights broken (obviously for sales reasons). Generic rulesets dont do that because they dont have a figure range to support so dont manipulate rules and stats for sales.
-
Most of "generic" rulesets don't have this kind of care, some don't even try, trusting that their players would not try to stretch the army building system and "break" the game.
That a player "should not" or that you play gentlemen only is not relevant. Putting more efforts in balancing and revising your game is a feature. And "closed" games usually are on a better spot in this aspect.
I don't agree. I think there are more variables at play than that. A lot about a game can depend upon who you play, what group you play with.
For example, my Necromunda group has several house rules we all discussed and agreed on. That said, where does Necrmunda fall within these two 'camps'? Is it closed or is it open? I would say it's bang in the middle. It's an RPG wargame so it is intended to be a starting point you can create stuff from.
Then there is SAGA. It's open. You can use any miniatures you like, the company that produces the rules doesn't sell miniatures. It's arguably one of the most balanced systems out there.
I think the variable I think is missing more than anything else in this discussion is the intent of the game. 'Balancing' only really matters if you are wanting 'competitive' games rather than narrative driven games.
-
Except they dont. Matt Ward himself admitted GW asked him to make Grey Knights broken (obviously for sales reasons). Generic rulesets dont do that because they dont have a figure range to support so dont manipulate rules and stats for sales.
Oh. The same Matt Ward that fu**ed up 40K background, wrote the worst codexes in 40K history and was the main cause for GW decided to stop putting codexes author's name in books? What an authoritative source. Also, I believe he said so only once he left the company.
Seriously, that was a terrible period for GW. It's when they (deservedly) earned the fame of industry's a**holes, by dispensing C&D letters like confetti. An image that still persists in many hobbysts' heads, notwithstanding the efforts in changing this attitude by quite a few years now (I'd say sometimes after the first release of AoS).
Also, I find quite amusing the claims that the new stuff is always the better: the average GW fan would buy in anyway the new shiny stuff, so why bother?
Maybe I'm naive, but I think that the lack of balance in their games is due to the fact that they're a model company before than a game company (they always refer to "the hobby" in their communication, not to "games"), but it seems to me they actually try, with faqs twice per year and one major revision per year.
-
Balance is not achieved by the system, but by the players. Any rules system is susceptible of being broken. It is only a matter of how hard powergamers try to break it. "Open" systems have, usually, smaller followings than "closed" systems —which have the support of dedicated miniatures and a company that cares to expand their system as much as they can. In "open" systems the critical mass of powergamers devoted to break the system is insufficient to achieve that goal, except if the system itself has such a glaring potholes that even a blind man can find them! And even if they do, it is locally —in a gaming club— and the word rarely spread (see exception above, though.
To be more clear: few, if any, players that select Beneath the Lily Banners as their rules of choice would bother to read the rules so thoroughly as to find any hole in the rules that they can use in their benefit. On the other hand, for example, Warhammer 40.000 has a mass of followers that it is big enough to create the critical mass of powergamers that will squeeze the rules until they reveal their point of rupture, and then will proceed to diseminate the information in the Internet.
It is about scale, not internal balance. In my opinion.
-
I think the variable I think is missing more than anything else in this discussion is the intent of the game. 'Balancing' only really matters if you are wanting 'competitive' games rather than narrative driven games.
That's an excellent point. Many of the most enjoyable games I've in played have been deliberately unbalanced. That's why I see the points systems of SBH, etc., as as much a means of achieving an unbalanced game as of achieving a balanced one.
And, as I argued above, 'balance' is a virtual impossibility in an RPGish system with thousands and thousands of potential profiles (maths isn't my strong point, but SBH gives you 36 combinations based on the C and Q traits alone, even before you start multiplying those by the potential combinations of dozens of traits).
I know I'm labouring the point somewhat on HotT, but it's an open system that works well for competitive games yet seems to produce zero complaints about 'game-breaking' combinations. And it also offers the potential for (I guess) thousands of differently structured armies. And (barring the warband/shooter movement swap), its rules haven't needed to be changed over almost three decades. Which a 'closed' game offers the same degree of stability and resilience?
-
Balance is not achieved by the system, but by the players. Any rules system is susceptible of being broken. It is only a matter of how hard powergamers try to break it.
I agree with your general point, but what's the game-breaking army in Hordes of the Things? In a game that's still widely played in tournaments almost 30 years after its publication, I'd have thought that the "killer combo" would have emerged by now if there is one!
-
Balance is not achieved by the system, but by the players. Any rules system is susceptible of being broken. It is only a matter of how hard powergamers try to break it. "Open" systems have, usually, smaller followings than "closed" systems —which have the support of dedicated miniatures and a company that cares to expand their system as much as they can. In "open" systems the critical mass of powergamers devoted to break the system is insufficient to achieve that goal, except if the system itself has such a glaring potholes that even a blind man can find them! And even if they do, it is locally —in a gaming club— and the word rarely spread (see exception above, though.
To be more clear: few, if any, players that select Beneath the Lily Banners as their rules of choice would bother to read the rules so thoroughly as to find any hole in the rules that they can use in their benefit. On the other hand, for example, Warhammer 40.000 has a mass of followers that it is big enough to create the critical mass of powergamers that will squeeze the rules until they reveal their point of rupture, and then will proceed to diseminate the information in the Internet.
It is about scale, not internal balance. In my opinion.
This is certainly true - but I don’t think its the whole story.
Within a closed system game like WH or 40k, the “broken” choices tend to come from the interaction of multiple special rules - and it is these that part of the player base is looking for. It’s rarely due to problems with the core rules. And I think this is where the differences really show between the two game methodologies. With a closed manufacturer driven set of rules, creating new stuff is really important, and this leads to the new stuff having new rules, and generally being a bit better (otherwise who would want to buy the new stuff if its no different to the old stuff you already have). But with an open system, its generally simpler there are far fewer interactions to deal with - so there is much less chance for a broken combo.
There can certainly be an interest in looking through the army books and picking your troops and their special abilities and options and thinking how they will play out in the game, and how they will work together. This is something GW games are very good at. On a more open game, this is typically much less of a thing, troops tend to have fewer options, and there tends to be fewer special rules to a unit. You can even see this in the rule books - take Kill Team the game rules run to a small fraction fo the game, most of the rule book is in detailing the many factions and troops you can take. In a open game like TTS most of the rule book is around the rules, with some details of special rules, and the rules for factions are basic really around what proportions of troop types you can take.
-
This is the bit I'm struggling to grasp. I mean, real Napoleon-era troops fought armies armed with primitive weapons, so having imaginary beings in pseudo-Napoleonic gear fighting monsters with primitive weapons seems fine to me. I think it would be easy to cook up an interesting scenario background for the game - and games that pit different technology levels against each other are lots of fun.
Didn't know that. So orcs with chainmail and bone or flint weapons would not look out of place in a quasi-Napoleonic setting? If so, my bad, wrong example.
I also love games with armies with different technology levels, by the way.
As for Middle Earth games, I was thinking a while back about creating some HotT armies for the Battle of the Five Armies. If you were to restrict yourself purely to the descriptions in The Hobbit, there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't use AoS orcs for that - and keep it 100% accurate to the book. The only real descriptions of the orcs there are "big" and "ugly", so the AoS orcs could work out fine. I'd enjoy seeing it done.
Maybe another wrong example? Not a big fan of JRRT works myself, but I'd think that the goofy look of GW orcs would look out of place in LotR setting, which -it seems to me- sets for a very different mood.
I haven't ever played Infinity (though I have read through the rules), but surely the "telling apart" aspect is no different from any "open" system where you clarify what units are before the game: "These are spears and these are warband" or "these are heavy foot and these are bellicose foot with shiny armour" or "the ones with bolters count as auto-rifles and the shuriken catapults count as laser rifles". I don't think any real difficulty is likely to arise.
I mean, I've played MDRG, Rogue Stars, Fubar, Kill Team and Galactic Heroes doing exactly that, with no problems.
So I can't see it's a practical objection rather than an aesthetic one. And if it's purely aesthetic, it's not really any different from preferring nicely painted miniatures to indifferently painted ones.
If we play a "generic" ruleset, I see no problem in using an eldar with shuriken pistol as a mutant with a laser gun, but if we play 40K the shuriken pistol has a distinctive look (so do boltguns, lasguns, plasma weapons, etcetera) and I can see how people appreciate that models are wysiwig. I don't think any historical player would accept zulus in place of greek oplites (unless exceptional circumstances are in play) even if both are armed with throwing sticks and shields.
I mean, look here, please: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/1939310/saga
I got caught using javelins in place of spears (at the time I could not tell them apart) and people pointed it out, so I don't think the "these are spears" statement is always valid.
One could argue that Vikings really existed and they used spears, while eldars using shuriken pistols are fictional characters. How a shuriken pistol is supposed to work in fist place, right? But if you buy in a closed game (or better worded: a game with accompanying background) you usually buy into the fiction as much as you buy into the rules. So it seems fair to me if people expect that you respect the background with your models. How would feel a Star Wars themed game with jedis armed with steel broadswords?
I don't know how you'd quantify this, but is it really true? Certainly, my experience is that the best-balanced games are the ones where everyone has access to the same troop types. There are lots of those games: HotT, Dragon Rampant, Saga, Sword & Spear, Battlesworn, FUBAR and Frostgrave, to name a few. Saga and Frostgrave have some differentiation through the battleboards and magic schools, but 'special effects'/magic aside, everyone chooses from the same troop types.
I agree, but it's not a positive-only characteristic. It's a trade. You're trading an easier and more stable balance in the game for the variety of troops. I got that HotT allows for very different builds (and many hundreds of them) but still you're limited to these 20 kind of troops. Also, while it's true that you can build two orcs warbands with no sharing troops type and both feel "orky" enough, it's also true that you could build the very same list (i.e. composed by the same troop types in the same quantity) and one could be orcs, the other undeads. It's just a "reskin", and this is something that bugs the hell out of me :D
Regarding Frostgrave, rules are so swingy that it balance itself out ^^ Love the game, don't get me wrong. Frostgrave is fine as is, and I'm willing to play a campaign whenever I have the chance, but it is very luck-driven. The average combat is an opposed D20 roll with modifiers that range between +1 and +3, +4 most of the times. I would not take as a game that tries to be balanced. Also: same stuff for everyone (even spells, albeit with modified casting values). So the same considerations of HotT applies.
I'd say the defining feature of those games, relative to the 'closed' ones, is that their rulesets are very stable. I don't think there are any plans for new editions of any of the Rampant series, and HotT has had just two editions (with almost no rule changes) in its lifespan of nearly 30 years. Saga has a second edition, and Frostgrave is getting one, but they're still considerably more stable than their 'closed' competitors. I think that's because the closed systems are driven by the commercial imperative and almost inevitably mutate and 'break' under the weight of (commercially driven) add-ons.
Besides the fact that Saga is an historical game, and unless some unexpected archaeological discovery kicks in, it's hard historical games will get new releases (intended as new troop types) I agree these games are more stable, and sure it is a great bonus. If I stop playing Warmachine for some time, when I go back to the game I have to check all cards versions (i.e. models' stats) to check if some have been updated.
But again, it's a trade. You're trading stability for the opportunity to have new releases for the game. Because while "feeling forced to buy the new shiny" bugs everyone, I also have to admit to appreciate to have periodically new models with new abilities to try out and to play against. After all, me (but I suspect every single people who complain being forced to buy new stuff for a game) if releases for a game would stop, will keep spending the same amount of money on models and stuff, it will just be a new faction or an entirely new game. I suspect most of them will not be happy of the game not getting new releases in first place.
Now, I'd agree with you that certain build-your-own-profile skirmish games with lots of abilities can have balance issues. An entirely Savage warband in SoBH can be hard to deal with, for example, which is why that trait was limited to personalities in ASoBH. But I think that's less an 'open vs closed' thing than down to the difficulty of accurately accounting for possibilities in a 'build-your-own' system. The number of potential profiles in SoBH must run into the hundreds of thousands at least (certainly if you include the extensions), so it shouldn't be a surprise that some combinations can be more value for points than others.
Same is for "closed game" or, we could call them "games with continuous releases"(?). You get new models to play with, but you can't expect everything is balanced. The same as for the build possibilities of SBH. It's a trade. The more stability of HotT or the more variety of SBH.
You can't expect the same stability and balance of HotT (20 troop profiles good for all) in Warmachine, where a single faction has more that twice, new models are periodically released and every new release can potentially unbalance something, thus requiring an amendment.
Also, for one of HotT we have plenty of FoL, SoBH or Goalsystem games where balance is very briefly taken into account.
But I'd make two points about that. First, SoBH and FoL and the like are designed for fun. They're not tournament games (in the way that HotT can be). So the fact that their points systems can be gamed is neither here nor there. When I play those games, I typically design all the warbands and let my opponent(s) choose which one they want to play. I think that's what Andrea Sfiligoi does too. It works really well. So the fact that they allow for an almost infinite range of unit types is a strength, not the weakness it could be in a competitive game.
I have already partially reply to this. The fact I, you, a group of people, does feel the need of something (i.e. a more balanced point system) doesn't make it worthless. It's still a feature of the game and something the publisher struggles with and puts efforts in.
This said, if this is the approach, you could do the same with Warmachine or Infinity: create two warbands/teams as balanced and fun as you see fit and let your opponent choose one. But you also have rules for building forces that (try to) take into account that players would try to maximize builds and exploit loopholes, so offer (imho) some more resistance to being abused.
Second, the real test of open vs closed is with games that are designed to be watertight rulesets suitable for tournament play. And here, I think, the open games (like HotT) tend to do better. I don't think I've ever seen people complain about combinations that 'break' HotT, and armies fielded in tournament tend to be highly
heterogenous. If there's a winning combination, no one's worked it out in 28 years. But in the 'closed' games, there seems to be lots of complaining about 'game-breaking' combos or 'overpowered' troop types. And there do seem to be optimal choices from certain army lists. And I assume that's why those games seem to be in constant flux (as others have said above).
True. But the cause is not the "closed" game as much as "the game getting constant new releases". The fact that the two aspects are usually (always?) found together makes the distinction trivial, though ^^
I'm the one who wants to say thank you :)
-
I don't agree. I think there are more variables at play than that. A lot about a game can depend upon who you play, what group you play with.
I have already replied to this a couple times. The fact you play only educated gentlemen (as I try to do. I think nobody would deliberately try to play a**holes :D ) does not make efforts in trying to balance army building worthless.
Could be subjectively less worthy to people who plays exclusively home/club games with nice people, that's it. But efforts put on revising and keeping (or try to) a game balanced are still a feature of a game, in my opinion.
For example, my Necromunda group has several house rules we all discussed and agreed on. That said, where does Necrmunda fall within these two 'camps'? Is it closed or is it open? I would say it's bang in the middle. It's an RPG wargame so it is intended to be a starting point you can create stuff from.
Necromunda, or Blood Bowl, are among those great example of communities taking care of loved games even once the company that released them stops supporting them. They're born as closed games (and technically still are, since GW pulled the free rulebooks) but are now open. Once you opened the gates, it's not easy to close them again.
It also seems to me that GW is acting in a surprising "respectful" way toward the two games. Bloodbowl has been re-published almost unchanged, and while I have no direct experience with Necromunda 2016, I am in the Fb group and don't remember any major complain.
Then there is SAGA. It's open. You can use any miniatures you like
It's an historical game. Bolt Action has its own line of models, but I don't see any chance for Warlord to stop people using kits from different manufacturers ^^
Love SAGA, by the way. It's the only historical I'm interested into, I think. I've read it plays quite differently from the average historical game, though. Whatever it means...
I think the variable I think is missing more than anything else in this discussion is the intent of the game. 'Balancing' only really matters if you are wanting 'competitive' games rather than narrative driven games.
Yes. And no. A very one sided and unbalanced game is simply not fun. It's not a matter or winning or losing. I am utterly sincere when I say that I widely prefer to lose a close and tense game than to win a very one-sided one. And it could happen out of naivety, or a bad match-up, not just malice.
Let's say I have the brilliant idea to create a zombie horde in SBH. Everything has Q6. Once I'm too close to use the free move, I'm stuck in rolling one die per model and hoping in the eventual result of 6 once in a while. Doesn't sound very fun, isn't it?
-
Yes, but then you see, what you are describing is the players, not the game.
And that is precisely what I mean.
I like to play fluffy armies, and have done ever since I started playing games. I had a WHFB Orc army and largely refused to use night goblins, because fluff wise, Orcs tended to look down on Goblins and treat them as inferior cannon fodder. Night Goblins are more powerful and cunning than most other goblins, so to me, it didn't make sense that they'd happily take a subservient role in an army.
The same as in your example.
SBH is arguably really nice balanced. But at the same time, it is not designed to be a tournament win at all costs game system. It's another system that aims to find a sweet spot between RPG and Skirmish. Therefore it relies heavily upon the players to create and enjoy the narrative.
40k and AoS and a lot of games workshop games these days have moved away from that to an extent. And they do have a very heavy tournament scene.
It really does depend what you want out of a rule set. If you want a rule set which is very prescribed, does everything for you as you like tournaments and heavily competitive games then often, I find at least, the 'fun for all' element typically comes secondary in the sense that games are not aimed at being fun unless your fun is found in 'competing'. That in itself is fine, but the players that are heavily into that, IMHO can be less open to playing more fluffy driven narrative games.
It's a huge part of why people prefer open or closed systems.
Our hobby is a broad church. You have two ends of the spectrum IMHO. On one end you have the boardgame aspect, on the other you have the model makers and large scale display piece painters etc.
Wargaming tends to be everything in between. Some folks like the building aspect of it, some like the painting, some like the collecting rarer models part, some like the tournaments, some like chilling with friends and less competitive games, some like more narrative driven games rich in story with more RPG elements. There is room for all.
But GW in of itself is a great example of how competitive players can push rules sets to breaking point leading to developing new editions to counter that.
2nd Ed 40k was relatively open in force composition. Back then you have 'beardy' players who min-maxed the % requisites for army building. Typically working out the character points limit and maxing out on those first. The fact the term 'Beardy' was even used in this sense suggested that it wasn't liked by all.
3rd ed introduced the force organisation charts which meant folks had to include certain numbers of troops and couldn't get away with giving squads grenades just to push them over a % boundary. I prefer the organisation charts because it made people consider actually using a fluff driven force, or at least the fluff was what inspired the basic framework.
It's just the way of the world, and who you know you are playing against.
-
I agree with almost everything. But my point is that you can take tournament oriented games (i.e. Warmachine) and play them for fluff (lots of characters, rivalities and events to exploit and reenact) and, you can play them in a competitive environment relatively safe (once you've educated yourself on what the meta is about now and what likely you will face. Drawbacks of having so many choices. As said: it's a trade).
It seems to me to read in some of the replies the idea that "generic" rulesets don't need balance because people would usually use them for casual or story-driven play, so they're better for the purpose. But it's something that's possible with "closed" and "competitive" games, too. With the latter you just have more options.
40k and AoS and a lot of games workshop games these days have moved away from that to an extent. And they do have a very heavy tournament scene.
I don't agree with this. It seems to me that GW "attitude" leans towards "story-driven" play. They have now these three ways of play (AoS, but I think 40K too) and just one is competitive (they call it matched play). The other two are open play and narrative play. They have lots of cool and weird scenarios in General's Handbook(s) and release battle generators in form of decks that generate a battle with random battlefield setups, weather and victory conditions. There are scenarios with wandering monsters, wild spells, and other unusual stuff. Lots of asymmetrical battles. Various ways to play "campaign" games (quite simple, to be fair, nothing Mordheim-level of depth). It seems to me that it's just people that stress about matched play. I mean, when AoS first released there were no point costs system. Something the interned found outrageous, but I think it was quite "brave" and a clear indication of what's GW intentions were. Then the customers made clear what they wanted and the company acted accordingly. But even now, 4(?) General Handbook editions later, we still have the majority of the pages dedicated to open and narrative play. And many many times among these pages, the reader is encouraged to play whatever way he likes.
That in itself is fine, but the players that are heavily into that, IMHO can be less open to playing more fluffy driven narrative games.
I agree. But as you said, it's an issue with players more than with the ruleset.
I actually struggle to have casual games of Warmachine. But with the one and only similar minded player I have near me, Warmachine is a great ruleset for narrative games as much as is for tournaments play. Even more, I'd dare to say, as even the stuff that is currently in a bad position in the 'meta' can be great fun to play.
2nd Ed 40k was relatively open in force composition. Back then you have 'beardy' players who min-maxed the % requisites for army building. Typically working out the character points limit and maxing out on those first. The fact the term 'Beardy' was even used in this sense suggested that it wasn't liked by all.
Language class now. What beardy is meant to mean? I also have encountered many times the word neckbearded. Is it related? ^^
-
When given a choice, I prefer rules sets which are not tied to miniature lines, 100%. To me that is a serious strength of a game design. I think the term "miniature agnostic" is often used.
The second sales are tied to game performance (as they inevitably are) you get into trouble. I don't mind if it's a historical game of course, as the company is often aware they're not the only option...so if they're making miniatures alongside their game it's often simply to compete in the market vs. running a proprietary IP.
Given a choice though, I'd almost always prefer to buy a rulebook separate and figure out the miniatures part on my own.
-
Just musing on the terms used in this discussion: it occurs to me that in some senses, it's games like HotT and the Rampant games that are "closed" and "complete", in that you draw from a strictly defined set of troop types. Yet they're miniature-agnostic systems, even down to the number of figures used per unit (your HotT ogres might be single-figure warband elements whereas orcs might have three or four figures per element, just as Dragon Rampant might use three or four ogres to represent a 12-strength-point element of heavy infantry.
In contrast, the commercially driven games tend to be "open", in that they're the ones that often add new troop types and new element, and thus (in many cases at least) require frequent rebalancing or new editions
I think it's also true, as mcfonz pointed out earlier in the thread, that systems tied to a miniatures line aren't really "closed" as far as miniatures go - it's just that the manufacturers would prefer you to think that they are. In this regard, it's interesting to see how Warhammer went from an explicitly "open" (miniatures-wise) system to a "closed" one. Even Warhammer's second edition, there were suggestions about using 54mm medievals to play the game (if I remember correctly). And if you look at Bryan Ansell's famous chaos army (featured in the original Ravening Hordes), it's got lots of non-Citadel miniatures in it:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WPAjFPO3ltM/Vb6Z98qBC6I/AAAAAAAAIuY/IndzXDlf318/s1600/IMG_3978.JPG)
(from the Realms of Chaos 80s blog)
The 'official' attitude changed, of course - but it does reinforce mcfonz's argument about "closedness" being essentially an illusion.
There's also a point about "completeness". Hordes of the Things is a complete game, in that all you need is the rulebook and some miniatures (you could play it with base-sized cardboard or wooden rectangles if you really wanted; I can imagine someone with some artistic flair creating an attractive travel set in this way). But so too are Blood Bowl and Space Hulk (even more so: you get everything you need to play in the box). I think it's interesting that those games - both excellent from a rules point of view - have gone through long periods of no support from GW. Most would agree that they're among the best games GW ever published, but because they're "complete", there's less commercial benefit to keeping them going. Obviously, there's money to be made by reviving them periodically.
I think that's interesting because it shows the difference between design success and commercial success. Blood Bowl and Space Hulk are great feats of game design and are (largely) perfect in a way that Warhammer or 40K never were. But the latter two, as "closed" (in Gabbi's sense) but "incomplete/open" games, offer much greater commercial opportunities.
Or to put it another way: few would argue that 40K is the epitome of sleek sci-fi skirmish design, but many would agree that Blood Bowl is a brilliantly designed sports game. But which one is the cash cow?
-
Yeah, I just needed a brief name to address the games in the discussion. "Complete" was meant in a commercial point of view (i.e. games with a "complete" offer: rules and models). It's not important to me, as long as the two approaches at publishing a game are clear, feel free to propose better terms.
Just musing on the terms used in this discussion: it occurs to me that in some senses, it's games like HotT and the Rampant games that are "closed" and "complete", in that you draw from a strictly defined set of troop types. Yet they're miniature-agnostic systems, even down to the number of figures used per unit (your HotT ogres might be single-figure warband elements whereas orcs might have three or four figures per element, just as Dragon Rampant might use three or four ogres to represent a 12-strength-point element of heavy infantry.
As said, this is something I really do not like. I like when in games rules are more representative of the model and the equipment.
In Frosgrave, no one stops me (and I'm also pretty sure Mr McCullough himself would encourage it) to create an orc warband. Or an undead one. But rule-wise they would be the same as if I'd created a human one. It's just a cosmetic choice.
In Warmachine to the other hand, a Warjack (the big robots) it's not just a bigger, tankier and more armed grunt. Warjacks have a whole set of dedicated rules, can make multiple attacks, can do special attacks (like grabbing and throwing opponents) that are foreclosed to other model types, they also have weaknesses that other models don't have, like needing to be fueled with "Focus" (one of the game's "magic currencies") to prperly fight. This is something I like.
I like Gaslands, because it's a ruleset that reflects what you re-enact: vehicular combat. You wouldn't be able to use it to fight a fantasy skirmish. In Battlefleet Gothic (a game I love) I don't like the fact that space combat isn't three dimensional at all. Instead of hundred meters long cathedral-ships I could have steamboats and the game would play the same. This bugs me, notwithstanding how much I like the game.
I think it's also true, as mcfonz pointed out earlier in the thread, that systems tied to a miniatures line aren't really "closed" as far as miniatures go - it's just that the manufacturers would prefer you to think that they are. In this regard, it's interesting to see how Warhammer went from an explicitly "open" (miniatures-wise) system to a "closed" one.
Well, it depends. In some cases it is very true, in other cases game setting is so well defined that's hard to find models that would fit the setting.
In case of AoS it's obvious how GW is trying to put some distance from its models and the "generic Tolkien-derived fantasy", something people would praise if someone else would be the one doing it. But since it's GW, they're to be blamed because they're doing it just to rip more money from their customers.
This said, I'm old enough to remember the good ol' days GW and yes, I miss it. But as already said, the current attitude isn't as bad as some years ago.
To the other hand, some settings are very characteristic and it's difficult to find something matching their mood and aesthetics without feeling out of place. But it seems to me I'm repeating myself. Did you read the example about Star Wars jedis? That's not just FF trying to convince you its game is "closed". Star Wars has a very well defined aesthetic (so 40K, Warmachine or Malifaux) and (atm, in production) there aren't other source of models. Of course you can find the occasional 3rd party model that fits the setting, or source some older Starwars models from other manufacturers, but generally speaking, people are going to use "official" models.
Back to Warhammer, AoS it isn't actually as closed as GW would make you think it is, I agree with you. Besides maybe some specific model, people could still play it with 3rd party models. Fyreslayers are still dwarves, and Stormcast could be a mix of paladins and angels.
Rules are nothing to write home about, but way better (imho) to many "open" rulesets people seem to appreciate a lot. They're free, warscrolls (models stats) are free too. You can play AoS with models you already own. It's fun, a bit silly and very aimed to narrative play. Being willing to spend a few quids, a General's Handbook and a deck of battle generating cards would provide hours of fun. Both of them, could be purchased in one of their previous editions that are dirt cheap on eBay (major selling point of the current GH edition is the updated point costs, something the narrative player isn't interested into).
But again, it's GW, so it has to be a bad game (Again, not a fantastic one, for sure, but not the worst, either. I'm surprised it is not played very much here, where users have proven to be inventive and able to think "out of the box").
There's also a point about "completeness". Hordes of the Things is a complete game, in that all you need is the rulebook and some miniatures (you could play it with base-sized cardboard or wooden rectangles if you really wanted; I can imagine someone with some artistic flair creating an attractive travel set in this way).
Well, that's true for every game (bar the ones that use tabletop-level LoS). Also I think you're stretching a bit the discussion, here. We're talking about miniature games, here. I assume people are interested in model painting as much as they're into gaming.
This said, there's a game (and a good one actually) that uses the concept you're suggesting.
It's called Battlegorund:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/18985/battleground
Too bad it never managed to become popular.
Also, you can find a repository of top-downs here:
https://juniorgeneral.org/index.php/figure/figureList/topdowns
It's dedicated to DBA, mostly, but maybe you can find something useful.
-
As said, this is something I really do not like. I like when in games rules are more representative of the model and the equipment.
In Frosgrave, no one stops me (and I'm also pretty sure Mr McCullough himself would encourage it) to create an orc warband. Or an undead one. But rule-wise they would be the same as if I'd created a human one. It's just a cosmetic choice.
This is interesting. I wonder if this actually has little to do with 'closed' and 'open' games, but more to do with a preference for detailed rules - 'enhanced WYSIWYG', if you will.
These things seem to be broadly true:
1. 'Limited-profile' rulesets, in which all players choose from the same roster of troop types, tend to produce well-balanced games. This makes them the best choice for competitive or tournament play, as they're more chess-like. HotT, Saga, Frostrgrave, Battlesworn, DBA and the Rampant family all fall into this category. All of these rules make little differentiation between (say) orcish heavy infantry and human heavy infantry. Armies or warbands are defined and flavoured more by the combination of units than the individual profiles of those units.
2. 'Unlimited-profile' rulesets, in which the choice of unit characteristics is very extensive, offer much greater scope for individualising units. So one unit of orcish heavy infantry (whether an individual or a group) might differ markedly from the next, let alone from a unit of human heavy infantry. But this individualisation often comes at the expense of game balance, because the combinations are so varied that even the best points system will sometimes fail to reflect their potency (or, conversely, overprice them). Mayhem, SoBH, Rogue Planet, Rogue Stars, Fistful of Lead and many other games fall into this category. They offer plenty of detail, but are less suited to competitive or tournament play, because someone will always find a 'killer' combination or a 'game-breaking' design.
3. Most commercial games that are supported with continuous model releases are more like 2 than 1. The potential profiles are limitless; the only difference is that it's the company, rather than the players, that designs the new profiles. So, like the games in 2 above, they tend to be less suited for competitive play - either initially or in time, as new profiles and unit types start to unbalance them. Consequently, those games tend to require multiple editions and are generally less stable than 1 above. Warhammer/AoS and 40K certainly fall into this category.
That's not to say that big companies can't produce games in category 1. I'd argue that Space Hulk and Blood Bowl are exactly that - and Warmaster too. Kings of War probably falls into that category too.
Now, your preference for detailed rules probably means that you prefer games in categories 2 and 3. Those categories are better suited to providing that level of detail and individualisation (I'd argue that they're essentially the same, apart from the respective roles of players and companies in generating profiles). I generally prefer games in category 1 or 2; I prefer 2 to 3, because I prefer designing interesting or amusing profiles to fit the miniatures I have rather than buying a miniature for a specific gaming role. I like all my miniatures to be multi-purpose.
But then there's another factor: aesthetics.
To the other hand, some settings are very characteristic and it's difficult to find something matching their mood and aesthetics without feeling out of place. But it seems to me I'm repeating myself. Did you read the example about Star Wars jedis? That's not just FF trying to convince you its game is "closed". Star Wars has a very well defined aesthetic (so 40K, Warmachine or Malifaux) and (atm, in production) there aren't other source of models. Of course you can find the occasional 3rd party model that fits the setting, or source some older Starwars models from other manufacturers, but generally speaking, people are going to use "official" models.
.
If you're basing a game on a film (e.g. Star Wars), then I can see that non-film models might look out of place. But then, if it's just a one-off game, and all the figures look good, why not? I mean, stormtroopers fighting my kit-bashed aliens (including converted ratmen, lizardmen and gnolls) could conceivably take place in some corner of the Star Wars universe.
I don't see it's very different from the same aliens fighting space marines when I play a game of Kill Team or MRDG or Galactic Heroes against my friend's amazingly painted 40K figures. The game looks pretty good, and we can cook up a good rationale for it if it's not just a straight fight. We don't need much more than "the forces of order raid some hive of scum and villainy to capture droids/drugs/fugitives/etc.".
Games in category 3 tend to lean heavily on aesthetics in their marketing. But I don't really see how that makes a game that breaches the aesthetic harmony any less fun.
Here's an example. In a few weeks' time, I'll be fielding Mantic orcs and Veermyn (plus converted skaven) against my friend's GW space marines in a four-player game. Sure, there's a breach of 'purist' 4OK aesthetics, but I'm hoping to have a strong narrative scenario that will result in plenty of fun (double-crossing, conflicting objectives on the same side, etc.).
Now, this game will be played using the Xenos Rampant take on Dragon Rampant rather than 40K. But we could play it using 40K. Which ruleset would give a better game? Well, I know we'll actually get the game finished using the Rampant rules; I'm not sure we could be sure of that using 40K. And although we all used to play 40K when we were kids, three of us no longer do. And, honestly, my growing instinct is that fast and smooth rules (like the Rampant games) just produce a better experience than more detailed rules. When we played Kill Team and MDRG on the same table earlier this year, I noted that MDRG gives you far more potential outcomes from one opposed die roll in combat than Kill Team does from four individual rolls. And the game was hugely faster and more dynamic - and more exciting as a result.
Back to Warhammer, AoS it isn't actually as closed as GW would make you think it is, I agree with you. Besides maybe some specific model, people could still play it with 3rd party models. Fyreslayers are still dwarves, and Stormcast could be a mix of paladins and angels.
Rules are nothing to write home about, but way better (imho) to many "open" rulesets people seem to appreciate a lot
...
But again, it's GW, so it has to be a bad game (Again, not a fantastic one, for sure, but not the worst, either. I'm surprised it is not played very much here, where users have proven to be inventive and able to think "out of the box").
I don't have anything against GW games; I played Blood Bowl for the first time this year and really liked it. My son loves it. But with AoS, I don't really see what it offers that Dragon Rampant or Saga don't. I could play a game of it tomorrow, as I have dozens of Citadel orcs, goblins and chaos creatures. But I don't see what makes it better than many of the "open" rulesets.
Would you consider it a better designed game than Saga, for example? That hits the 'unit-based skirmish' spot for me very nicely, so I'd take a bit of persuading that AoS is better. You seem to be damning the game with faint praise somewhat ("not fantastic but not the worst"; "nothing to write home about").
Thanks very much for the links on the flat armies, by the way. It's not something I'm considering doing at the moment, but I can see a place for a very abstract element-based game at some point in the future (better for discreet play in the office, for example!). I wouldn't go with overhead views, but perhaps just illustrated bases.
-
I would say SAGA sort of does both.
SAGA Age of Magic is very much pick an archetype and build your army to it. It really is open to interpretation and you can play one army using different lists.
However, the historical lists are a bit different and more prescribed. Age of Vikings, for example, has more factions and that is because they are more limited in how they can be played. They tend to have more specific options, like less or no cavalry options etc.
Otherwise I agree. And actually, it is exactly why it is one of my favourite rule sets currently. Because it allows me to do historical nicely and to be a bit more free and ready with fantasy (which also feels like playing older editions of WHFB).
-
That's a good point. I've only got Age of Vikings - but the kids and I use it to play fantasy games. Vikings might be orcs one day and lizardmen the next. We've got plenty of humanoid monsters with essentially Dark Age gear, so we can mould them to the various lists as required (and we use the mercenaries quite a bit - e.g. Pechenegs as wolfriders). My son does, however, insist that we speak in battleboard-appropriate accents throughout the game!
I suppose the distinction you're drawing is a little like that between DBA and HotT; DBA (I've never played it and only viewed it through the prism of HotT) has set lists for each army with a few options, whereas HotT just gives example lists and has only the 50% restriction on 3AP+ troops as a constraint.
-
These things seem to be broadly true:
1. 'Limited-profile' rulesets, in which all players choose from the same roster of troop types, tend to produce well-balanced games. This makes them the best choice for competitive or tournament play, as they're more chess-like. HotT, Saga, Frostrgrave, Battlesworn, DBA and the Rampant family all fall into this category. All of these rules make little differentiation between (say) orcish heavy infantry and human heavy infantry. Armies or warbands are defined and flavoured more by the combination of units than the individual profiles of those units.
2. 'Unlimited-profile' rulesets, in which the choice of unit characteristics is very extensive, offer much greater scope for individualising units. So one unit of orcish heavy infantry (whether an individual or a group) might differ markedly from the next, let alone from a unit of human heavy infantry. But this individualisation often comes at the expense of game balance, because the combinations are so varied that even the best points system will sometimes fail to reflect their potency (or, conversely, overprice them). Mayhem, SoBH, Rogue Planet, Rogue Stars, Fistful of Lead and many other games fall into this category. They offer plenty of detail, but are less suited to competitive or tournament play, because someone will always find a 'killer' combination or a 'game-breaking' design.
3. Most commercial games that are supported with continuous model releases are more like 2 than 1. The potential profiles are limitless; the only difference is that it's the company, rather than the players, that designs the new profiles. So, like the games in 2 above, they tend to be less suited for competitive play - either initially or in time, as new profiles and unit types start to unbalance them. Consequently, those games tend to require multiple editions and are generally less stable than 1 above. Warhammer/AoS and 40K certainly fall into this category.
Besides the fact that I'd hardly define Rogue Planet of FoL as games that offer "plenty of detail", and that I don't see Frostgrave as a game suited to tournaments (too swingy: where its unpredictability is great for narrative play it makes the game unsuitable for competitive play, imho)... this pretty nails it.
Regarding Warmachine, for example, while it is a game that (limited to the top tier lists) is very balanced and well suited to competitive play, I openly dislike the community ant its waac attitude, while I greatly enjoy the game when played in a more relaxed context (that does not mean I expect both players will fight with a knife between their theeth).
That's not to say that big companies can't produce games in category 1. I'd argue that Space Hulk and Blood Bowl are exactly that
Unless both are very unbalanced games, to the point that there's the open suggestion to play Space Hulk missions twice switching roles, and attributing victory to the player who lost less badly with the terminators :D
Regarding Blood Bowl, no much experience with the current edition, but in the "NAF years" it was openly accepted that teams were not all equally strong, they were roughly divided in three or four "tiers". It was common consensus that Halflings for example were bottom tier, but that was not seen as an issue. Just an aspect of the game. If you want a bigger challange, or you're playing an inexperienced player, you could deliberatley choose one underperforming team.
None the less, I would not put SH or BB in your group 1.
Now, your preference for detailed rules probably means that you prefer games in categories 2 and 3.
This is not true. I found myself in the uncomfortable role of "defending" group 3 games just because all the replies that I got were in favor of type 1 and 2 games and somewhat "bashing" type 3 ones. But I do appreciate all kinds. Not just in gaming, I like variety in my life. If forced to play the same 2-3 rulesets forever I will quickly lose interest.
I like to play Warmachine or Infinity, with their detailed and crunchy rules, but I love a multiplayer game of FoL or a campaign of Frostgrave.
Also, as already said I am in the process of adding more type 1 and 2 games to my gaming nights, leaving behind some type 3 game. Unless "being forced" to explain what's good about Warmachine in this thread made me aware once more of how much I love the game. So the past weekend I painted two Protectorate models :D
But then there's another factor: aesthetics.
[...]
I would argue that Mantic stuff is a very similar style of GW's so no issue in mixmatching them.
But generally I would not like (there could be exceptions, of course) GW stuff on an Infinity table. Different models style: GW models are 'heroic', Infinity ones are more realistically proportioned, and in setting style: Infinity has a japanese anime vibe that's hard to find in GW models (well, Tau are a thing, but generally speaking the two model lines don't match).
Plus there's the fact that some games, with lots of rules associated to each model (yes, Warmachine again) are better played when the "picture" (the model) people associate to that character/unit/etc is respected. Each player has an easier time playing the game (that has a lot of rules and lives on the interactions between them and the synergies between models) if can identify each model at a glance.
This said, I do love sourcing models from different lines and manufacturers to build a thematic warband for SBH or any other "open" ruleset.
I don't have anything against GW games; I played Blood Bowl for the first time this year and really liked it. My son loves it. But with AoS, I don't really see what it offers that Dragon Rampant or Saga don't. I could play a game of it tomorrow, as I have dozens of Citadel orcs, goblins and chaos creatures. But I don't see what makes it better than many of the "open" rulesets.
It's not "better". There could be games that are overall better than others, but usually is more that a game has a better aspect than another that conversely is better under another aspect.
AoS has a fun ruleset, more defined troops and factions, and a great amount of ready written material dedicated to narrative play.
Would you consider it a better designed game than Saga, for example?
Absolutely not. Love the game, great ruleset. Battleboards and fatigue tokens are very interesting and original mechanics.
But I refuse to use it as a fantasy game. That's cause I am an almost exclusively "fantastic" (fantasy, sci-fy, steampunk, etc) gamer. So I want to keep it for historical gaming as it's the only historical game I play (that comes to mind). For this, has some "exotic" feel to me :D