Jump to content

rgtriplec

your favorite...

Recommended Posts

I've been looking at quite a few tabletop and strategy games and was wondering what draws you to a particular rules set? What game has the best set-up, turn sequence, initiative, magic, models stats etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking at quite a few tabletop and strategy games and was wondering what draws you to a particular rules set? What game has the best set-up, turn sequence, initiative, magic, models stats etc...

It's the models --- rulesets? I put up with rulesets . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about models. I'll use whatever models I feel like with the rules set I choose. (If there's a culture of only allowing models from a single manufacturer associated with a rules set, that's a significant negative.)

 

The most important consideration for me is interesting tactical decisions in play. If the results of many games are primarily determined by dice, I'm unlikely to be interested.

 

Next, I want many important decisions. This allows for a greater role for skill than for chance.

 

Third, I want a rules set that evokes the period or genre putatively covered. If (for a specific example) a colonials rules set doesn't reflect the primacy of morale and discipline in 19th century warfare, I'm unlikely to play much of it, even if it's otherwise a decent game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like games in which my conscious decisions play a much larger role than luck, synergy, or the construction of mine and my opponents armies.

 

For me, the best games are those in which real battleground tactics have meaning. Not to say I don't like games with magic, but it should not have too large a role in a game, even in fantasy gaming.

 

I also like skirmish games in which each model is one person. I like it even better if I can keep up with each model's name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun and ease of play. Models catch my attention, and if I don't like the models I won't play; I won't spend money on models I don't like. And I am a bit of a purist insofar that I like the models that go with a game- patchwork just doesn't cut it for me. Most systems have a very specific/obvious art direction and I like the unity that brings, otherwise you may as well just buy a bag of plastic army soldiers and use that for every game you play.

 

I play to have fun, not test my book keeping skillz, or play to over-nerdity: "You clearly cannot cross water moving at 27 cubic feet per second because alternate-era Napoleonic troops were deathly afraid of water over the level of ankle deep as stated in Jagerman's fourth edition treatise (pre-cordian version, thank you) on volumetric terrain in tabletop wargaming...." Yeesh...

 

Skirmish I like because I don't want to have to buy in excess of 60 models just to play a game (I want to buy them because I am addicted to minis :lol:), especially when 40 of them are identical.

 

If a new rule book comes out every 6 months or every model in the game has four pages of special rules... yeah, no thanks. A game you can pick up in a few sessions and then refine your play style. That's what I like.

 

So I don't play a lot of wargaming (primarily Warlord and just starting in Malifaux), but thankfully I have a TON of other interest (so I don't have much time for wargaming anyway- maybe once a month if I'm lucky).

 

So, uh... there you go ::):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two different questions there and I'll take on the second question. from my standpoint one of the best is Wargods of Aegyptus by Crocodile Games. It has one of the most unique turn sequences, is very tactical and is easy to play. It has interesting fluff and great miniatures, because they are small company releases tend to be very irregular and it can be quite frustrating waiting for the key mini you need to complete your army to be produced. They tend to have an "oh shiny" mentatility and will shift to another project before the one they are working on is finished. I highly recommend the game though and everything you need is in the rulebook, there are no splat books to buy and all the races have at the very least their core troops and usually a fair number of characters and elite troops to support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I liked about confrontation was that certain heroes had multiple datacards to choose from. It was a good way to keep old models new and viable.

 

I've been looking at Wargods, Malifaux and Celtos but don't want to buy any books. So, Pulp City, Alkemy, and Warcanto are leading my list because all rules and resources are free.

 

Alkemy has a cool turn sequence, defensive action choices and a rotating initiatives, and morale is a factor. It also has custom dice and injury charts for each model.

 

Pulp City is another unique game. It has character levels and a team action point pool. Rather than terrain just being there, in PC you actually use. You can lob trashcans, cars, trucks, telephone poles etc... Each character has generic SAs but they also have 4-5 that are unique to them-self and a team SA. I had heard rumors that Reaper was going to do a Supers game, but I think Pulp City is going to explode this year.

 

I'm most excited about Warcanto. It is very different from anything out there. You actually build your characters as you play like a RPG. Your leader gives orders. You totally customize your force by buying the tools, weapons, armour, skills etc... that you want. Each faction has 4 or 5 different sets of doctrines for all three levels. IMO Warlord should have gone more in this direction, more of a miniatures game with a RPG flavor to appeal to their bread and butter RPG crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking at quite a few tabletop and strategy games and was wondering what draws you to a particular rules set? What game has the best set-up, turn sequence, initiative, magic, models stats etc...

Pretty much it's the sum of all the parts.

 

I wasn't terribly impressed with Warmachine because of the warjack models, even though I thought the ruleset was pretty cool. When Hordes came out I went gaga... big stompy beasts of war incorporated in a very similar and compatible ruleset.

 

Yeah, if you don't have cool minis (cough AT-43) I'm not remotely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, simpler is better as it tends to be more eloquent and graceful. I'll put up with a ruleset that flows and do without "realism" before I'll go with overcomplicated rules combinations or mechanics that seem to exist just to exist. I think it's the designer in me. I'm always designing my own rules just for fun, and I find myself constantly asking how they can be made simpler, yet still get a lot done.

 

As to models, I design my own games with the idea in mind that a person might want to bring his own favorite models from wherever into it. Thus, to me the ideal would be a game that allowed that, which, aside from my own stuff, means we mainly just stick with RPGs, where unlimited imagination in design is generally accommodated. Most of my friends will not play straight-ahead wargames, and when they do, they prefer my homebrewed stuff.

 

I collect models all across the lines, though some hardly at all. I'm not really interested in GW's stuff because you can't get mileage out of it away from their universe. Too many of their own faction logos all over everything, like every piece is an advertisement for them. I love PP's stuff, and as theirs are the only real "wargames" out there I have committed to, I have tons of their metal. But again, you can't get tons of use out of it outside of their own worlds. The product identity level is too high. My players end up saying "more Iron Kingdoms stuff, huh?"

 

Reaper makes up the vast majority of my metal, for these reasons. More utilitarian for the do-it-yourselfer. Though I have yet to actually play a game of Warlord, even with a free copy of the book. I really don't like the idea of the playing-card deck thing. It lacks the previously described eloquence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confrontation has sweet models (the metal ones anyway). A lot of the 40K line are great. WFB has gotten better as well. The rules for 8th WFB suck. 40K is pretty bad too. Spinespur has some mediocre minis and some really good ones. The ruleset is the best for a game of that scale. I can say that because I didn't write them. The guy who did, writes for Privateer now. Warmahordes has a lot of nice minis and the best rules of a major game. If you want competition, that is your game. Reaper has really top models, but very small player-base. >< Wargods is best Rank and File game for minis+Rules, but small player-base. ><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confrontation has sweet models (the metal ones anyway). A lot of the 40K line are great. WFB has gotten better as well.*1 The rules for 8th WFB suck.*2 40K is pretty bad too. Spinespur has some mediocre minis and some really good ones. The ruleset is the best for a game of that scale. I can say that because I didn't write them. The guy who did, writes for Privateer now. Warmahordes has a lot of nice minis and the best rules of a major game.*3 If you want competition, that is your game. Reaper has really top models, but very small player-base. >< Wargods is best Rank and File game for minis+Rules, but small player-base. ><

*1 WHFB has some really cool models (elven infantry, any type), but there are also some bad stinkers out there (the new Minotaurs are a crime against sculpting.)

 

*2 This comes back to my point earlier in the thread. I came into WHFB during 6th edition. Pretty good ruleset, if imperfect. 7th ed was really 6.1 ed. 8th ed is horrible. I realize they were trying to accomplish some things in-game, but a lot of the problems were in army-balancing and not the core ruleset. 6 ed and 6.1 ed were solid rules, but then they had some out-of-whack armies (Lizardmen, who had a habit of breaking and ignoring a great many rules and intended uses of the rules, come to mind. Wood Elves, too.) And PS, 40k has sucked for quite a while, which is a shame because they get a lot of cool minis for the game.

 

*3 I like the WM/H system, although MkII was neccesitated because of "new-release power creep", where new stuff pretty much made most of your old stuff obsolete. I think re-balancing model point costs and a few addenda (Model Volume was a good idea) would have done the game better than the switch to MarkII. I do worry that they're getting a bit of the GW bigheadedness; it could make a good company go bad.

 

PS, Wargods has some cool minis. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×