I've been informed by Steve Lucinski of Miniature Market that all unsold Confrontation, AT-43, Arcane Legions & Golem Arcana items will be purged from their warehouse after 9 AM Thursday, St. Louis time. The company will attempt to donate it to charity, as "destroying product is always a last resort."

AT-43 became defunct back in 2010 with the collapse of Rackham. I know Confrontation made a comeback after the collapse, but I don't know if any of the MM items are from the new owners or all pre-2011.
Golem Arcana is the youngest of these games (August 2014) and the most dead, due to dependence on an Android & iOS app that publisher Harebrained Schemes ceased to support.
Arcane Legions is a 1/72 historical fantasy wargame, along the lines of Kings of War with the historical supplement. It had a weird business model where infantry and cavalry were sold unpainted on the sprue like 1/72 historical figures, while most of the fantasy units (minus the occasional mummies or bear cavalry) were sold as pre-painted like fantasy gamers are used to. Almost all the molds were created for the initial 2009 release, with publisher Wells Expeditions declaring it defunct shortly after the 2011 holidays.

Well, most companies can't be GW. What can we learn from this, besides the obvious boneheaded lesson of Golem Arcana?

Evidentially, it’s a tough market.

GW got lucky by getting in on the ground floor. That allowed them to set the benchmark - and they’ve also moved that benchmark.

Consider when PP first got started. Metal was the standard. Elements of the community were unsure on GW’s increasing shift to plastic (though some preached nebulous terms such as ‘character’ and ‘filigree’). And PP provided the first credible alternative to GW’s fare.

But since those days, both have moved away from metal, for a variety of reasons. That’s dragged consumer expectation along with it, and increased the start up costs for would-be competitors.

It’s a far larger investment than faced 15 or so years ago (I think Warmachine was 2001/2002?), so it’s harder to make that first profit.

Add in GW returning to different scaled games, and that’s another hurdle. It’s not enough to do a Mecha Game, popular as that genre is. It’ll have to offer something different or better than Adeptus Titanicus and/or Battletech.

Even GW, big fish as they are, are only ever a few duff releases away from financial trouble.

The majority of the left-off AT-43 stuff is Karmans.

They're also super easy to find on eBay.

Seems that one faction was the beginning of the end for that game.

The only one of those ranges I don't already own a ton of is Golem Arcana. I just never saw any at prices low enough to justify the purchase of those minis.

Have they purged their stock of Ex-illis as well? Now there was a game that did its level best to kill itself from the first release onwards.

It’s a shame the company botched Arcane Legions like they did. That one was overall pretty good and had some solid potential. I still have all my stuff for it.

 AduroT wrote:
It’s a shame the company botched Arcane Legions like they did. That one was overall pretty good and had some solid potential. I still have all my stuff for it.

Agreed. The rules had great potential, an elegance of design that eludes most GW imitators, and the launch benefitted from probably the industry's first attempt at a semi-professional video tutorial.

Bought a couple boxes of Ex Illis priests. Converted them all for 40K.

Part of the problem I've see with GW-imitators is that they're all trying to produce a better Warhammer. Stuff like Infinity did its own thing and took off.

Are they going to lower the arcane legions stuff to $2.50. I'd buy all the infantry then, as I use the shields

It’s not just “GW imitators” - look at all the gaming that’s come and gone over the years - Mechwarrior, Mageknight, WotCs Star Wars, D&D minis, ...Robotech. That’s just a few of the ones I know of.

As an aside, I’ve been buying the Karmans (and Confrontation werewolves) for years now off their site, and grabbed a bunch of Arcane Legions on the latest sale. It’s a sad thing to see these games go, but nothing lasts forever. And just because the publishing has gone defunct doesn’t mean the game is unplayable - I intend to enjoy my Karen’s for years to come.

In business, survival is the exception and not the rule.

It is easy to forget this in a world of GW.

 Stormonu wrote:
And just because the publishing has gone defunct doesn’t mean the game is unplayable

Not nitpicking, just curious. Can Golem Arcana be played at all or do you need the app that is no longer supported?

 BrookM wrote:
Have they purged their stock of Ex-illis as well? Now there was a game that did its level best to kill itself from the first release onwards.

Are you referring to the Pope depicted in that game? I know that artwork/character ruffled a lot of feathers.

I think every major miniature game has four major facets.

1) The miniatures.
2) The fluff.
3) The game.
4) The cost.

You need two of these, at the very least, and preferably three. Four...never seen it. Mythical status. Most games I see have one or one and a half...if that. Even with those elements achieved you have to take off, and keep up steam somehow. I'd say 98% of games which do "survive" are barely limping along. They may be played by fan bases for years or decades to come, but a thriving community is what you need to support a business (even one with as small as 4-5 employees sometimes). A lot of the older miniature companies exist because it's something 2-3 people do on their spare time or weekends and they're casting in metal in small batches. Oddly their lack of sales helps them continue along since they're not being overwhelmed with work.

I think a unique thing lately has been small companies doing big multi-million dollar Kickstarters and then failing hard immediately following because they simply went too big. They create a massive line of miniatures they can't continue to produce/support/cast molds for, etc. Seen it with several major games. I blame the "unlock" sensation for a lot of this. Your KS won't really work well unless you have unlocks every $5-20K.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
And just because the publishing has gone defunct doesn’t mean the game is unplayable

Not nitpicking, just curious. Can Golem Arcana be played at all or do you need the app that is no longer supported?

That concern was actually the reason I didn’t pick any of those models up, actually. However, I imagine *someone* has the stats printed off somewhere*, and/or there is an emulator around that can run the app - or just an old phone that’lll do the job. The effort though, would be a deterrent to most.

* Thinking about it, I think the stats may be available in BattleScribe?

Didn't the app do everything? Like instead of dice didn't the app calculate results off an RNG? Was the combat engine something that was dice based or did they rely so heavily on the app that there's not a good way to run it outside of code?

Dunno, about to try downloading and see...

 BrookM wrote:
Have they purged their stock of Ex-illis as well? Now there was a game that did its level best to kill itself from the first release onwards.

Yeah, I remember when one of their shills came here to share a "leaked" image of the big get in my belly demon figure by copy lasting the same post/pic on a dozen websites and forums on the same night and then played dumb that he was anything other than a fan with a super secret leaked pic. Then there was their own promotional material that literally said their potential customers are elitist nerds because we learn the rules from books; fear not, though, because they had an app to do it for you! Because being clueless in the real mechanics of your game can only be improved by bundling it with early smart phone and 2g network tech.

The final straw for me was finding out that their miniatures came with DRM (a one time use code for one account in their app) so you couldn't sell them to other players to use in the game as they couldn't add the figures to their roster because the code was already used...and couldn't use them without the app because they didn't put out the rules. Then there was the attitude the employees/owner had when the concerns were brought up here. I've had never actively despised a wargaming company until that point.

So, just like the death of Vor and VOID around the time of 40k 3E exploding? Or the death of all of the failed CCGs in the wake of Magic becoming a thing?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Have they purged their stock of Ex-illis as well? Now there was a game that did its level best to kill itself from the first release onwards.

Are you referring to the Pope depicted in that game? I know that artwork/character ruffled a lot of feathers.

Out of curiosity, what Pope art?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So, just like the death of Vor and VOID around the time of 40k 3E exploding? Or the death of all of the failed CCGs in the wake of Magic becoming a thing?

Confrontations death was also partly due to them shifting from being a hobby miniatures game to a prepainted pre assembled game. I think there was also some other stuff going on that basically caused them to implode and die off. Other games being strong at the time I don't think helped, but I think they built their own coffin somewhat with their own choices - other games being stronger just sped up the process.

Rather like how Spartan Games managed to kill themselves despite having strong model lines and a good fanbase and even securing a major 3rd party IP

 Elbows wrote:
I think every major miniature game has four major facets.

1) The miniatures.
2) The fluff.
3) The game.
4) The cost.

You can probably add at least 1 more point, ease of access including distribution and availability, which is where most KS games fail after the initial run and it is keeping a lot of smaller games from taking off. Maelstrom's Edge, as a semi random example.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I think every major miniature game has four major facets.

1) The miniatures.
2) The fluff.
3) The game.
4) The cost.

You can probably add at least 1 more point, ease of access including distribution and availability, which is where most KS games fail after the initial run and it is keeping a lot of smaller games from taking off. Maelstrom's Edge, as a semi random example.

I would add local availability/distribution and also local player scene and promotion.

Just look at how Warmachine has dropped in many areas at the same time as PP dropped their Pressganger system. Even just the casual association and promotion and encouragement of one person in a local club can turn a game from absent to strongly supported. Even if there is no local store the energy and time put in by that person can make a game popular enough that people seek it out online to get the models (and honestly today that is very easy as most people are quite open to online purchases - this isn't the early days when you only bought online with a credit card and even then worried about if it would ever appear).

Cost and models mean nothing if the game has no active playerbase pushing it locally. I'd wager MTG has a big edge on that now with how they've got their own promotion schemes; Games Workshop also gets it and promotes their own ina very direct way with their own stores.



I agree tht a lot of KS games push themeselves hard in marketing for the KS and then once they are finished they often lack support schemes and marketing budget and energy to keep the game pushed into the lime light; coupled to the fact that their most avid core market is also tapped out somewhat on the KS (either funding and/or the fact that they've already got a backlog of models from one big order) .

Pre-painteds had a real rocky start anyway. Anyone remember Battlefield Evolution? It's a miracle (and a happy one!) that Mongoose Publishing still exists at all.

Looking around now it seems only Fantasy Flight really managed to get pre-painteds to take off on a large scale.

 General Helstrom wrote:
Pre-painteds had a real rocky start anyway. Anyone remember Battlefield Evolution? It's a miracle (and a happy one!) that Mongoose Publishing still exists at all.

Looking around now it seems only Fantasy Flight really managed to get pre-painteds to take off on a large scale.

Honestly I think that the issue with something like Confrontation was that they took a product that was marketed toward a certain market segment and changed the core product so that it no longer appealed to that market segment, but only appealed to a smaller subset of it.

So not only did they have to rebuild a new market, but they also had to likely weather a lot of negative press from former fans who felt abandoned

DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Have they purged their stock of Ex-illis as well? Now there was a game that did its level best to kill itself from the first release onwards.

Are you referring to the Pope depicted in that game? I know that artwork/character ruffled a lot of feathers.

I can't even remember the pope kerfuffle! Rather their whole attitude and business model, as perfectly summed up with the following quote:

warboss wrote:Yeah, I remember when one of their shills came here to share a "leaked" image of the big get in my belly demon figure by copy lasting the same post/pic on a dozen websites and forums on the same night and then played dumb that he was anything other than a fan with a super secret leaked pic. Then there was their own promotional material that literally said their potential customers are elitist nerds because we learn the rules from books; fear not, though, because they had an app to do it for you! Because being clueless in the real mechanics of your game can only be improved by bundling it with early smart phone and 2g network tech.

The final straw for me was finding out that their miniatures came with DRM (a one time use code for one account in their app) so you couldn't sell them to other players to use in the game as they couldn't add the figures to their roster because the code was already used...and couldn't use them without the app because they didn't put out the rules. Then there was the attitude the employees/owner had when the concerns were brought up here. I've had never actively despised a wargaming company until that point.

I do remember quite well that we were told that we would be too stupid to play the game without the app, I mean, you could do it, but it would take forever to calculate all those variables and whatnot! Which then raised the excellent question: why bring minis and a special game board along when you could just run it through the app? Because that's what it really boiled down to: you move your models from one grid to another and the app did everything else. Just remove casualties and move what remains to the next grid, wahey..

The miniature DRM didn't help either for sure.

Well, in about 8 years we’ll get to see this thread resurface when MM decides to purge the RRT stock that hasn’t moved since they bought it off Unka Kev.

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, in about 8 years we’ll get to see this thread resurface when MM decides to purge the RRT stock that hasn’t moved since they bought it off Unka Kev.

I understand nothing of that.

 General Helstrom wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, in about 8 years we’ll get to see this thread resurface when MM decides to purge the RRT stock that hasn’t moved since they bought it off Unka Kev.

I understand nothing of that.

Miniature Market is often called out for their habit of buying failed store's inventories on pennies on the dollar and then using it to support their discount structure. They probably aren't the best store to follow for the success/failure of miniature games due to this. That being said there's little doubt that RobotTech Tactics is doomed and we'll eventually see them in another dump sale.

 BrookM wrote:
I do remember quite well that we were told that we would be too stupid to play the game without the app, I mean, you could do it, but it would take forever to calculate all those variables and whatnot! Which then raised the excellent question: why bring minis and a special game board along when you could just run it through the app? Because that's what it really boiled down to: you move your models from one grid to another and the app did everything else. Just remove casualties and move what remains to the next grid, wahey..

The miniature DRM didn't help either for sure.

So, they tried to make a board game where the resolution mechanics were too complex to be resolved by players during gameplay and so necessitated a computer.

Why didn't they make a video game?

Reminds me of an anecdote I heard about the Aliens RPG that came out at the beginning of the 90s. The combat was hyped as being really gritty and realistic, allowing you to recreate the awesome moments from the film.

To demonstrate this the creators decided to show them recreating the "Eat this!" moment from the film, where Hicks sticks his shotgun in the aliens mouth and blows its head away. It took ages, referencing multiple tables (you had to resolve each bullet individually, a bad idea when you're designing for a game where you have fully automatic weapons like the smartgun or pulse rifle, with potential for hitting separate body parts, causing different wounds which vary in lethality and other effects. Each bullet would require a minimum of 5 tables to resolve.) and ended up not even resulting in the desired outcome.

If your system is too complex to be resolved by the players at the table then it doesn't belong in a tabletop game.

BrookM wrote:Have they purged their stock of Ex-illis as well? Now there was a game that did its level best to kill itself from the first release onwards.

Long gone.

lord_blackfang wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
It’s a shame the company botched Arcane Legions like they did. That one was overall pretty good and had some solid potential. I still have all my stuff for it.

Agreed. The rules had great potential, an elegance of design that eludes most GW imitators, and the launch benefitted from probably the industry's first attempt at a semi-professional video tutorial.

It's definitely an elegant design, especially when it comes to attrition. I still have all my stuff too and will play it again the future... I just wish someone could hook me up with the Dragons at a fair price! (There are also the Servants of Thebes undead steampunk sphinxes, but "fair price" for those is something like $200 )

lord marcus wrote:Are they going to lower the arcane legions stuff to $2.50. I'd buy all the infantry then, as I use the shields

Not that we know. Which is weird, since they were willing to sell the Starter with all three infantry packs, three commanders, and a bunch of tiny dice for $7 or less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
It’s a sad thing to see these games go, but nothing lasts forever. And just because the publishing has gone defunct doesn’t mean the game is unplayable - I intend to enjoy my Karen’s for years to come.

Sure. Having bought Arcane Legions, I intend to enjoy them for life. I'm even looking at basing them for unusually-short Kings of War armies without destroying their existing bases.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


So, they tried to make a board game where the resolution mechanics were too complex to be resolved by players during gameplay and so necessitated a computer.

Why didn't they make a video game?

We don't know if it actually was that complex or if it was just a d6 roll off. Iirc they never published the rules despite capitulating eventually and saying that they would. It was a confusing and insulting mess of a business plan. It's a shame because a few of the character minis were nice though.

In the end, my personal belief is that not publishing the rules was just a roundabout way to force people to use their iPhone rules app which mandated that you activate your minis' DRM to add them to your army. Eventually they said they'd allow players to transfer ownership of the virtual minis but it was too little, too late and they didn't get around to actually fulfilling that promise judging from complaints on their forum.

 warboss wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


So, they tried to make a board game where the resolution mechanics were too complex to be resolved by players during gameplay and so necessitated a computer.

Why didn't they make a video game?

We don't know if it actually was that complex or if it was just a d6 roll off. Iirc they never published the rules despite capitulating eventually and saying that they would. It was a confusing and insulting mess of a business plan. It's a shame because a few of the character minis were nice though.

In the end, my personal belief is that not publishing the rules was just a roundabout way to force people to use their iPhone rules app which mandated that you activate your minis' DRM to add them to your army. Eventually they said they'd allow players to transfer ownership of the virtual minis but it was too little, too late and they didn't get around to actually fulfilling that promise judging from complaints on their forum.

That thought did also cross my mind. You'd also think it would be the more likely explanation as well but then you look at the RPGs and board games that have been made with ridiculously complex rules and you're not so sure

I dug out the old Ex-illis thread again, eight years ago or so now and man, it was a painful trainwreck with the various company figures jumping in to defend it, the OP being a poorly disguised company shill, all struggling hard to keep things together.

When you try to sell your game and claim that you can play it without the software, but it would take 8+ hours to play a game, you may need to reevaluate your rules a wee bit.. There was also the insults, elitist nerds indeed!

Speaking of failed mini games, does anybody still have any pictures of those first CORPSEHAMMER figures?

Corpsehammer? Was that the crazy kickstarter where everything looked like it was notebook doodles of what an 8th grader thought would be "metal"? Didn't even realize he got a KSer funded enough to produce anything.

These ones?

Aaaaand...lunge! AAARGH! ME ANKLE!

I remember seeing that KS and thought that they had a lot of detail but that the actual designs were really odd - too much detail in the wrong way that kind of obscured the model and its form and shape. The Gun on that one is an ideal example - it also looked confusing lots of models next to each other as the shapes all sort of blended together to make it very hard to really tell which was which type of model.

I also thought that KS failed unless he got finances from another source of course.


Lots of detail in the designs just not the right design to start with.

 BrookM wrote:
I dug out the old Ex-illis thread again, eight years ago or so now and man, it was a painful trainwreck with the various company figures jumping in to defend it, the OP being a poorly disguised company shill, all struggling hard to keep things together.

When you try to sell your game and claim that you can play it without the software, but it would take 8+ hours to play a game, you may need to reevaluate your rules a wee bit.. There was also the insults, elitist nerds indeed!

You're just not hip to 2010's best idea, Wargaming 2.0! Elitist nerd, indeed!

So wait they came onto nerd and geek sites and advertised a game and then insulted the entire market they were advertising too? Yeah something tells me that game design wasn't their only area of serious weakness in skills!

I mean at the very least if you're going to insult a market segment dont make it the same segment you're advertising too!

 Overread wrote:
So wait they came onto nerd and geek sites and advertised a game and then insulted the entire market they were advertising too? Yeah something tells me that game design wasn't their only area of serious weakness in skills!

I mean at the very least if you're going to insult a market segment dont make it the same segment you're advertising too!

I am not defending that marketing copy at all (using the term elitist is stupid and antagonizing IMO) but is "nerd" really an insult any more? Even in 2010 was it an insult? Nerd culture has been ascendant for almost twenty years now, and being labeled a "nerd" isn't the social kryptonite it used to be.

I get that people in a group don't want "outsiders" using their own terminology against them, but are miniature game creators the out-group on a forum dedicated to miniature games? Aren't they one of us? Can't they use the term nerd just as ironically as many of us do on a daily basis?

 BrookM wrote:
Speaking of failed mini games, does anybody still have any pictures of those first CORPSEHAMMER figures?

'Sup turd cutter?

http://www.hellrangers.com/

He's still trying!

There is a gallery that I stumbled on that is AMAZING. It isn't the Hell Rangers gallery since that is relevant, but it was like random ads for dentists and these strange side-by-sides of a photo of a lion, then the RED ROGERS idea of what a lion is.

They're clearly using the word nerd as a pejorative to advertise their forced early smartphone 2g always online and DRM integration into a tabletop wargame (that they dubbed "Wargaming 2.0" ). I'd have no problem if they had simply used the word normally without the negative connotation. Ymmv.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
So wait they came onto nerd and geek sites and advertised a game and then insulted the entire market they were advertising too? Yeah something tells me that game design wasn't their only area of serious weakness in skills!

I mean at the very least if you're going to insult a market segment dont make it the same segment you're advertising too!

I am not defending that marketing copy at all (using the term elitist is stupid and antagonizing IMO) but is "nerd" really an insult any more? Even in 2010 was it an insult? Nerd culture has been ascendant for almost twenty years now, and being labeled a "nerd" isn't the social kryptonite it used to be.

I get that people in a group don't want "outsiders" using their own terminology against them, but are miniature game creators the out-group on a forum dedicated to miniature games? Aren't they one of us? Can't they use the term nerd just as ironically as many of us do on a daily basis?

I wasn't even considering the word nerd an insult but a descriptive term mostly. The insult was the whole commentary on how it was elitist and how their game was going to get out from those evil nasty nerds or some such.



Personally I always saw geeks as people of any level intelligence who like geeky things and had generally good social skills (if a limited friend pool at a local level) like DnD and suchlike; whilst Nerds also liked those same things but were often far more intelligent, if sometimes/often lacking in social skills

 warboss wrote:
They're clearly using the word nerd as a pejorative to advertise their forced early smartphone 2g always online and DRM integration into a tabletop wargame (that they dubbed "Wargaming 2.0" ). I'd have no problem if they had simply used the word normally without the negative connotation. Ymmv.

Are they? They seem to be taking shots at war gaming in general with their references to "exaggerated or cartoony" miniature proportions or the lack of cheating. The entire pitch posted seems like they were positioning their game against the rest of the market. I don't really see it all that much different than Privateer Press' Page 5 during Mk1, where they were differentiating themselves from the "other guys" i.e. GW.

And what is using nerd "normally" mean? It sounds like your issue was with "elitist" which I agree, was a poor, stupid choice of a word to use in that copy. But nerd? Nerd is so benign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:


I wasn't even considering the word nerd an insult but a descriptive term mostly. The insult was the whole commentary on how it was elitist and how their game was going to get out from those evil nasty nerds or some such.

Yeah, I agree using elitist was asinine. Even if the attempt was tongue in cheek which I sorta think it was, it is hard to avoid ruffling feathers when you trot that gem of a descriptor out.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
These ones?

Aaaaand...lunge! AAARGH! ME ANKLE!

There we go! Just seeing that model makes me mentally add a heavy metal soundtrack to play in the background while someone grunts "COOOOOOOOOORPSE HAMMERRRRRRRRRR" over and over again.

 warboss wrote:
You're just not hip to 2010's best idea, Wargaming 2.0! Elitist nerd, indeed!

Amazing marketing skills for sure, I wonder if certain other companies have taken a page from these guys.

 BaconSlayer wrote:
'Sup turd cutter?

http://www.hellrangers.com/

He's still trying!

There is a gallery that I stumbled on that is AMAZING. It isn't the Hell Rangers gallery since that is relevant, but it was like random ads for dentists and these strange side-by-sides of a photo of a lion, then the RED ROGERS idea of what a lion is.

Ohohohoho, you are spoiling me!

 BaconSlayer wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Speaking of failed mini games, does anybody still have any pictures of those first CORPSEHAMMER figures?

'Sup turd cutter?

http://www.hellrangers.com/

He's still trying!

Why are the humans all so wrinkly? Are they the geriatric division of the colonial marines doped up on steroids and hgh?

In terms of the design of models, Jes ‘reckon we can safely treat his word as gospel’ Goodwin has a really solid article about it in this month’s White Dwarf.

It’s about how you need to include some fine detail, but also blank spaces, and create a sense of dynamism and narrative.

Essentially everything the Corpsehammer one above is utterly lacking. Far, far too much detail, poor posing (seriously, his poor ankle!) and no real hint rod a narrative.

Yup. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I have zero problem with the marketing approach. We all know what they mean - that minis games should be playable by more than those that love charts and formulae and memorizing dozens of stats. They were trying to be edgy in a ham fisted way, but I think we're a bit overly sensitive as a community to find it insulting.

Maybe I'm more comfortable being an elitist nerd than most, though.

Doing it by computer also means the engine can be much more complicated - it doesn't matter, as all you see is the results. If the system takes something like an 80s naval sim combat resolution system (modifiers based on firer and target's combined velocity, angle to each other, weather, multiple levels of obscurement, and the precise shape of each unit, then allows for dozens of possible hit results, drills down through multiple levels of hit effects (Roll on Chart A, to find out whether to roll on Chart B, C or D ...), then it can do that, because a human doesn't need to laboriously follow all those steps.

It's not a bad idea - it's just let down by bad marketing and implementation. And the fact that lots of gamers like rolling dice.

The thing is if you're using an app to make almost all the choices then the risk is that the average person is going to wonder why they are even bothering with models and not just playing a PC or mobile game.

Nintendo gets the idea in that they will sell you a physical model which will then unlock a digital model within their game that you then play with; but you don't need the physical model around all the time to play.

Some companies have had awkward systems where you have to put the model on the tablet or device to play. Thing with those is that you're left with something that isn't all that fun to play with and loses the advantages of each system.

I remember stopping by the Ex Illis booth at GenCon before it was released and the whole debacle here happened because the inherent wrongness of a table top that required you to simultaneously play it on an app on two connected devices intrigued me.

The biggest red flag was that they kept telling us about how you didn't need all this stuff to play because it was all done on the app, but they also couldn't explain to us why you needed the models at all. The app didn't track anything on the table, so you input everything you were doing there on the app, making the tabletop part an exercise in "it's a miniatures game because we say so". We asked if it was possible to play without the app and were told flat out no, which from watching for a while was pretty much the point every person that stopped walked off.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Doing it by computer also means the engine can be much more complicated - it doesn't matter, as all you see is the results. If the system takes something like an 80s naval sim combat resolution system (modifiers based on firer and target's combined velocity, angle to each other, weather, multiple levels of obscurement, and the precise shape of each unit, then allows for dozens of possible hit results, drills down through multiple levels of hit effects (Roll on Chart A, to find out whether to roll on Chart B, C or D ...), then it can do that, because a human doesn't need to laboriously follow all those steps.

It's not a bad idea - it's just let down by bad marketing and implementation. And the fact that lots of gamers like rolling dice.

Yeah, I agree. It's not a bad idea. People getting upset that the computer aided game can't be played without the computer are really missing the whole point and all of the advantages the computer brings. But, like you say... gamers LIKE rolling dice.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Doing it by computer also means the engine can be much more complicated - it doesn't matter, as all you see is the results. If the system takes something like an 80s naval sim combat resolution system (modifiers based on firer and target's combined velocity, angle to each other, weather, multiple levels of obscurement, and the precise shape of each unit, then allows for dozens of possible hit results, drills down through multiple levels of hit effects (Roll on Chart A, to find out whether to roll on Chart B, C or D ...), then it can do that, because a human doesn't need to laboriously follow all those steps.

It's not a bad idea - it's just let down by bad marketing and implementation. And the fact that lots of gamers like rolling dice.

Yeah, I agree. It's not a bad idea. People getting upset that the computer aided game can't be played without the computer are really missing the whole point and all of the advantages the computer brings. But, like you say... gamers LIKE rolling dice.

You guys are giving me flashbacks to the Privateer Press Riots of MKIII

"What do you mean the cards are in the app? I can't use an app! What is this smartphone sorcery! I heard about a guy two towns over that doesn't even have a smartphone or an internet connection!"

There are places for an app at the tabletop, mainly for reference and tracking, but even then, that should be possible to be done by the players.

If your game needs one to manage excess complexity in the resolution engine, to me, that means that the engine is overly complex to begin with, and the computer is covering for bad design. The failure to develop and refine a simple, consistent, and transparent resolution engine suggests that there will be myriad other design issues.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are places for an app at the tabletop, mainly for reference and tracking, but even then, that should be possible to be done by the players.

If your game needs one to manage excess complexity in the resolution engine, to me, that means that the engine is overly complex to begin with, and the computer is covering for bad design. The failure to develop and refine a simple, consistent, and transparent resolution engine suggests that there will be myriad other design issues.

Uh, no, it doesn't. It doesn't at all mean there is "excess" complexity. That makes no sense. How many people use a computer for their jobs? It would be pretty ridiculous for them to say "hey, I shouldn't have to use a computer for this. If I do, that means the job is too complex and you should make it simpler."

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are places for an app at the tabletop, mainly for reference and tracking, but even then, that should be possible to be done by the players.

If your game needs one to manage excess complexity in the resolution engine, to me, that means that the engine is overly complex to begin with, and the computer is covering for bad design. The failure to develop and refine a simple, consistent, and transparent resolution engine suggests that there will be myriad other design issues.

Uh, no, it doesn't. It doesn't at all mean there is "excess" complexity. That makes no sense. How many people use a computer for their jobs? It would be pretty ridiculous for them to say "hey, I shouldn't have to use a computer for this. If I do, that means the job is too complex and you should make it simpler."

Those people aren't playing board games. A miniatures/board game that requires a computer to play is too complex, especially when the computer renders the miniatures/board aspect of the game pointless.

If you've made a game that requires a computer to play, then it should be a computer game.

 Overread wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I think every major miniature game has four major facets.

1) The miniatures.
2) The fluff.
3) The game.
4) The cost.

You can probably add at least 1 more point, ease of access including distribution and availability, which is where most KS games fail after the initial run and it is keeping a lot of smaller games from taking off. Maelstrom's Edge, as a semi random example.

I would add local availability/distribution and also local player scene and promotion.

In today's internet age, you can add:

5) Behavior of the company (this isn't just promotion, but their personality/attitude)
6) Frequency of new releases (hype)

Ah, Ex-Illis. I remember when that launched a few of my non-minis-gamer friends were asking me about it. My thoughts then were, "Hm. Well, I think it's going to fail because the thing about minis gamers is we like chucking dice, we like knowing the odds and modifiers and such. I mean, an app for reference is ok, but relying on it for resolving rolls and rules probably won't go over."

In short, I thought the whole concept was flawed because they completely took out most things which make a minis wargame a minis wargame.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are places for an app at the tabletop, mainly for reference and tracking, but even then, that should be possible to be done by the players.

If your game needs one to manage excess complexity in the resolution engine, to me, that means that the engine is overly complex to begin with, and the computer is covering for bad design. The failure to develop and refine a simple, consistent, and transparent resolution engine suggests that there will be myriad other design issues.

Uh, no, it doesn't. It doesn't at all mean there is "excess" complexity. That makes no sense.

How many people use a computer for their jobs? It would be pretty ridiculous for them to say "hey, I shouldn't have to use a computer for this. If I do, that means the job is too complex and you should make it simpler."

For a board game, 100% it absolutely does, or I wouldn't have written it.

Can you manually iterate through the calculations required for something like EVE in real time? No? How about PUBG? Then the job is too much and requires a computer.

For those jobs that require a computer, again, they are typically real time updates. You can't replicate that pen and paper on a global basis in real time, not at scale, so again, computer required.

But go back to board games, and explain what value a computer adds. I say it's none, and a bandaid for a designer who doesn't know what they are doing.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Doing it by computer also means the engine can be much more complicated - it doesn't matter, as all you see is the results. If the system takes something like an 80s naval sim combat resolution system (modifiers based on firer and target's combined velocity, angle to each other, weather, multiple levels of obscurement, and the precise shape of each unit, then allows for dozens of possible hit results, drills down through multiple levels of hit effects (Roll on Chart A, to find out whether to roll on Chart B, C or D ...), then it can do that, because a human doesn't need to laboriously follow all those steps.

It's not a bad idea - it's just let down by bad marketing and implementation. And the fact that lots of gamers like rolling dice.

Yeah, I agree. It's not a bad idea. People getting upset that the computer aided game can't be played without the computer are really missing the whole point and all of the advantages the computer brings. But, like you say... gamers LIKE rolling dice.

The idea itself isn't bad, it's the applications we've seen so far that are.

Take Ex-Illis as an example. The tabletop was basically limited to moving the models from table section to table section, but even that wasn't required since you then did the exact same thing on the app's digital tabletop. There was pretty much nothing that equated to other miniature games. You didn't measure movement or ranges, everything used the table sections the units were in. The app kept track of all the stats, rules, dice rolls, etc. The models literally weren't required to play bar using the codes to unlock in the app.

At that point, it's not a computer aided miniatures game, it's an Amiibo game without the convenience of an RFID chip.

Online and/or digital integration should enhance and ease the tabletop gaming experience, not wholesale replace it, IMO. YMMV.

 Platuan4th wrote:


At that point, it's not a computer aided miniatures game, it's an Amiibo game without the convenience of an RFID chip.

I think this is a good summary of what it wound up being, really.

And to be fair, that might be a thing that some folks may like, and that's fine. I don't think it was something that the majority of their "target market" wanted, though, as evidenced by its failure.

I think some other points in this thread about needing to hit a few specific things is pretty accurate. While no game has hit all of the marks (e.g. great minis, great setting, great rules, great community, etc.), it does seem that if you can't at least get a few of those, or fail spectacularly at any given one, you're not going to have a very long life or take-up for that game.

In some cases, defunct/out-of-print games will still have a secondary life by the fanbase, but that's not as common anymore outside of clubs and groups of friends. A lot of people want to be able to go to a shop or con and find others playing the same game. Once a game goes out of print, it's a lot harder to find/build groups for those when the only place you can get it is eBay or lucky finds in dusty LGS shelves.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are places for an app at the tabletop, mainly for reference and tracking, but even then, that should be possible to be done by the players.

If your game needs one to manage excess complexity in the resolution engine, to me, that means that the engine is overly complex to begin with, and the computer is covering for bad design. The failure to develop and refine a simple, consistent, and transparent resolution engine suggests that there will be myriad other design issues.

Uh, no, it doesn't. It doesn't at all mean there is "excess" complexity. That makes no sense.

How many people use a computer for their jobs? It would be pretty ridiculous for them to say "hey, I shouldn't have to use a computer for this. If I do, that means the job is too complex and you should make it simpler."

For a board game, 100% it absolutely does, or I wouldn't have written it.

Can you manually iterate through the calculations required for something like EVE in real time? No? How about PUBG? Then the job is too much and requires a computer.

For those jobs that require a computer, again, they are typically real time updates. You can't replicate that pen and paper on a global basis in real time, not at scale, so again, computer required.

But go back to board games, and explain what value a computer adds. I say it's none, and a bandaid for a designer who doesn't know what they are doing.

Well, you're wrong. Just like with anything else, involving a computer allows you to do things you couldn't do otherwise, at least not in a reasonable amount of time. To turn around and say "but then how am I going to do it without the computer?" is completely missing the point. The whole point is to do something you couldn't do otherwise. Maybe you just don't have the imagination to see how that might work. It's probably not easy to incorporate that into a miniatures game without losing what people like about miniatures games. But just because you don't like certain types of games doesn't mean their designers don't know what they're doing.

I’m on the side of involving a computer or mobile device as a necessary part of the game is silly and needless.

As ways of obtaining rules and that? Clearly neither silly nor needless, provided it’s not the only way.

But if it’s such an integral part of your system, what’s the point? If it’s doing my dice rolls for me, that’s not much fun either. If there’s no real measurement or battlefield to speak of, just a choice of squares to occupy, what’s the point in the miniatures, beyond extra expense?

It reminds me of attempts at ‘interactive card games’. I just don’t get them as a concept, I’d far rather take a deck or three down the pub, and play some hands of Magic with my mates.

Now that’s not to say there’s not a happy medium out there. But if there is, I’ve not seen it.

Honestly I think the only best way to integrate computers into tabletop games is Alexa. Ergo instead of having to move away from the "game" and view a screen, you instead have a system that allows itself to monitor the game state on its own or to take verbal instructions (whilst in a crowd of gamers doing other games) so that the computer can keep up and bleep out the answers without taking your eye from the game itself.

I think that way the game remains about the models and the tabletop whlist at the same time uses the computer for back up rather than being just a complex table completer.



Of course the other aspect is if the added complexity actually translates well into the game. If you're adding a lot of complex tables and such are you actually building a game whre people are making complex choices or are you just making something complex and losing the game in the complexity.


Eg you could devise a complex scheme for working out damage from guns based on angle, elevation, wind speed and direction, armour type, angle of incident, ammo type, speed of both objects relative to each other etc.... But if the upshot is that it really makes little difference to how players can and do actually play then it could all be needless complexity.

One thing that could work is to use tablets and cameras and that to create a ‘fog of war’ effect.

I’m thinking a camera above the table, fitting it to the frame. Each player then takes it turns to physically deploy their models, and takes a snap shot, remove the models. Net effect is that each player’s device then has a pic of where the models were deployed.

Initial movement is done in secret. And when a unit would become visible to the opponent, the software identifies that, and it is deployed accordingly.

Dunno if it’d be practical, but could be fun every now and again.

I’d like to see more computer AI for running an opponent; Descent, Mansions of Madness and such board games have an option where the computer acts as a sort of DM, and I would pay to have that carry over to games like 40K where, I could do a Tyranid invasion campaign where I (and maybe some friends) run the imperial defenses and the computer runs the overall campaign (selecting where the next attack on the planet occurs, for example) and via Enhanced Reality shows me where to move its models on the board (or even make it so I don’t have to run out and buy/build/paint the Tyranids at all, I just have to set up my own models).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
One thing that could work is to use tablets and cameras and that to create a ‘fog of war’ effect.

I’m thinking a camera above the table, fitting it to the frame. Each player then takes it turns to physically deploy their models, and takes a snap shot, remove the models. Net effect is that each player’s device then has a pic of where the models were deployed.

Initial movement is done in secret. And when a unit would become visible to the opponent, the software identifies that, and it is deployed accordingly.

Dunno if it’d be practical, but could be fun every now and again.

That sounds like a lot of work for a large-scale game, but actually pretty intriguing for something about rival teams of assassins or the like. You'd want to lean pretty heavily into the gimmick.

The big concern for me with app-linked games is longevity. I'll see someone advertising a board game with an app component, and my first thought is always 'can I put this in a box for five years, get a sudden yearning for the game, pull it out again, and play it?'.

Yeah, I don't think anyone's come up with a great solution yet, and maybe the technology isn't there. But there have been some other attempts, like these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe6IeL0ouiw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjcyBR5AmVU

And certainly one could imagine games where you play against an enemy AI being greatly improved by a computer AI instead of card draws and the like.

 Spinner wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
One thing that could work is to use tablets and cameras and that to create a ‘fog of war’ effect.

I’m thinking a camera above the table, fitting it to the frame. Each player then takes it turns to physically deploy their models, and takes a snap shot, remove the models. Net effect is that each player’s device then has a pic of where the models were deployed.

Initial movement is done in secret. And when a unit would become visible to the opponent, the software identifies that, and it is deployed accordingly.

Dunno if it’d be practical, but could be fun every now and again.

That sounds like a lot of work for a large-scale game, but actually pretty intriguing for something about rival teams of assassins or the like. You'd want to lean pretty heavily into the gimmick.

The big concern for me with app-linked games is longevity. I'll see someone advertising a board game with an app component, and my first thought is always 'can I put this in a box for five years, get a sudden yearning for the game, pull it out again, and play it?'.

Very fair point.

Perhaps something akin to Inquisitor scale? Literally a handful of models on each side, with the emphasis on proper exploitation of terrain and restricted LoS?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
One thing that could work is to use tablets and cameras and that to create a ‘fog of war’ effect.

I’m thinking a camera above the table, fitting it to the frame. Each player then takes it turns to physically deploy their models, and takes a snap shot, remove the models. Net effect is that each player’s device then has a pic of where the models were deployed.

Initial movement is done in secret. And when a unit would become visible to the opponent, the software identifies that, and it is deployed accordingly.

Dunno if it’d be practical, but could be fun every now and again.

Infinity essentially does this with a relatively small group of models. It works pretty well largely because its a pretty small group of models.

The primary problem with "hidden models" in any minis game is that if I'm spending the time painting these things up, I really want them to be seen.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are places for an app at the tabletop, mainly for reference and tracking, but even then, that should be possible to be done by the players.

If your game needs one to manage excess complexity in the resolution engine, to me, that means that the engine is overly complex to begin with, and the computer is covering for bad design. The failure to develop and refine a simple, consistent, and transparent resolution engine suggests that there will be myriad other design issues.

Uh, no, it doesn't. It doesn't at all mean there is "excess" complexity. That makes no sense.

How many people use a computer for their jobs? It would be pretty ridiculous for them to say "hey, I shouldn't have to use a computer for this. If I do, that means the job is too complex and you should make it simpler."

For a board game, 100% it absolutely does, or I wouldn't have written it.

Can you manually iterate through the calculations required for something like EVE in real time? No? How about PUBG? Then the job is too much and requires a computer.

For those jobs that require a computer, again, they are typically real time updates. You can't replicate that pen and paper on a global basis in real time, not at scale, so again, computer required.

But go back to board games, and explain what value a computer adds. I say it's none, and a bandaid for a designer who doesn't know what they are doing.

Well, you're wrong. Just like with anything else, involving a computer allows you to do things you couldn't do otherwise, at least not in a reasonable amount of time. To turn around and say "but then how am I going to do it without the computer?" is completely missing the point. The whole point is to do something you couldn't do otherwise. Maybe you just don't have the imagination to see how that might work. It's probably not easy to incorporate that into a miniatures game without losing what people like about miniatures games. But just because you don't like certain types of games doesn't mean their designers don't know what they're doing.

Within the context of a tabletop miniatures boardgame, nope, I'm absolutely right. It's like you don't understand how to use computers, or what tabletop miniatures board games are about. If you don't understand the fundamental concept, if you've never actually even thought about it, you shouldn't be saying "oh, go use a computer" just because computers exist. Similarly, I doubt you have any actual game design experience, or you'd understand the point about complexity and transparency in algorithms vs opaqueness hidden by "a computer". Simply waving your arms and blathering "computer!" is not making any sort of point.

Now, if you have the imagination to explain how a computer would actually improve a tabletop miniatures wargame in a meaningful way, please share. Otherwise, you should stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WRT the discussion of Fog of War, etc. that is all well-covered by actual computer games, and the computer does a bang-up job as the multiplayer referee - just play Eve or PUBG or any other FFA type game! The computer does the whole thing in real time, and it does it beautifully, with bullet drop or TiDi or whatever.

But it's a computer game, not a tabletop miniatures boardgame.

Until the computer makes the gameplay *better* than pen and paper, it's a non-starter.

Or you could just stop. All you're doing is saying it's bad design to involve computers in miniature games because they should just make a computer game instead. But any miniatures game could be made into a computer game instead. So that's pretty weak reasoning.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I think every major miniature game has four major facets.

1) The miniatures.
2) The fluff.
3) The game.
4) The cost.

You can probably add at least 1 more point, ease of access including distribution and availability, which is where most KS games fail after the initial run and it is keeping a lot of smaller games from taking off. Maelstrom's Edge, as a semi random example.

Oh for sure, there are loads of factors on the "business end" of the project, but I just meant the appeal to the audience, ignoring the busincess acumen (or lack thereof), international monetary markets, marketing, etc. I mean when the random consumer confronts your product in a store and considers buying into it. Sadly we've all bought into games where the company failed as a company - despite the product being good

PS: Regarding the "computer aided" wargames. That's a niche that can stay a niche. I game tabletop miniatures games expressly because I need a break from computers, screens, phones, and tablets. I don't want any of those involved in my games. I'm there to hang out, relax, ignore the phone, and roll dice with friends. I don't give two gaks what a computer/app/tablet would add to the gaming experience.

Now counter to that, I also PC game on occasion (up to and including race simulations with a full wheel/pedal/frame/chassis set-up, etc), but I have no inclination to mix the two. I don't begrudge people keeping PDFs on their phone or using battlescribe or whatever...but I do everything I can to not touch my phone or an electronic device while gaming. It's my break from technology that I enjoy.

 Stormonu wrote:
I’d like to see more computer AI for running an opponent; Descent, Mansions of Madness and such board games have an option where the computer acts as a sort of DM, and I would pay to have that carry over to games like 40K where, I could do a Tyranid invasion campaign where I (and maybe some friends) run the imperial defenses and the computer runs the overall campaign (selecting where the next attack on the planet occurs, for example) and via Enhanced Reality shows me where to move its models on the board (or even make it so I don’t have to run out and buy/build/paint the Tyranids at all, I just have to set up my own models).

But what is the point of the models? Why not just have a video game?

I own the new Mansions of Madness, and while it is fun, every time we fart around setting up the board, passing out cards, moving minis... I ask myself "why?". Everything has to be done through the app (which irritatingly refuses to allow a back button), so the tactile components are pretty pointless and just slow down play.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m on the side of involving a computer or mobile device as a necessary part of the game is silly and needless.

Like the Silver Tower app with its DLC cards and characters.

 Bossk_Hogg wrote:
But what is the point of the models? Why not just have a video game?

This also applies to pure, absolute co-op board games like Robinson Crusoe. It's awful and fiddly AF as a physical board game, but would be awesome as a computer game.

 Overread wrote:
The thing is if you're using an app to make almost all the choices then the risk is that the average person is going to wonder why they are even bothering with models and not just playing a PC or mobile game.

Nintendo gets the idea in that they will sell you a physical model which will then unlock a digital model within their game that you then play with; but you don't need the physical model around all the time to play.

Some companies have had awkward systems where you have to put the model on the tablet or device to play. Thing with those is that you're left with something that isn't all that fun to play with and loses the advantages of each system.

It's not making the choices for you any more than the dice make the choices for you in 40k, though. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Perhaps Ex Illis did it differently, but I'm envisaging something where you tell the app "I've got nine Astra Militarum troopers and a sergeant with a power sword and laspistol fighting fifteen termagants" and it does all the to-hit, to-wound and save rolls and tells you that six gaunts, seven troopers and the sergeant have died. That doesn't take anything away from the players, other than having to physically roll the dice. It could even ask, at each step, if there's any stratagems either player wants to use (and would know which ones each player has available, so if there's none that are appropriate it won't ask).

I'm not sure I want something like that - there's still an appeal in physically picking up dice and rolling them - but I don't think that would make the miniatures and tabletop unnecessary in a game like 40k.

I've played the new Mansions of Madness and it worked well with the app, and some friends have been doing well with the app for Descent 2nd edition. With Descent and Imperial Assault, the appeal seems to be that no-one has to be the Overlord/Imperial player/GM. In Descent and IA, that's a thankless position. You just spend an entire gaming session getting beaten with not much to do about it. At least with Descent 1, where the Ovedrlord won most of the time, the other players could confer, make plans, and at worst commiserate together, but getting beaten all the time as the GM put me off ever playing those games again, until the app came round and now everyone's on the same side of the table.

Nope. If I want to play a miniatures game, I want to convert and paint the models, handle them in a game, make scenery for that game and roll the dice. I have no urge to have a computer thrown in the mix. Computer aided games are a gimmick, and easily killed by a lack of updates, or server storage (as most of the ones like Golem Arcana are mostly online.)

I can p!ay any game I own from 20 years ago, as long as I have the models. I still own 20 year old terrain that works great. Every computer aided game so far has died after a couple of years.

Golem Arcana and Ex-Illis are two examples of why mixing tabletop and virtual just fail hard.

Who does it appeal to? PC/Console camers who'd probably prefer to do everything on the screen and get annoyed with fiddling with these annoying plastic things? Or perhaps Wargamers who're annoyed with messing around with Styluses, software, devices and other gumpf and just want to play with little men and dice/cards!

Not to escape the fact that if the company goes bust/discontinues the line, etc your wargame is essentially useless. Especially if the software becomes unavailable and/or specific hardware (Golem Arcana stylus for example) is hard to get.

And let's not forget Ex-Illis and their code that had to be activated before you could use your physical miniature. Oh feck, Ex-Illis is a game that deserved to fail hard. Here's the lovely trainwreck of a thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/308394.page

Well, certainly Ex-Illis is not a good example of why mixing tabletop and virtual won't work. They did it very badly.

However, even if someone does it really well, I wouldn't expect it to be a huge hit. As has been pointed out, miniature gamers like rolling dice. They also like knowing EXACTLY what the probabilities are so they can run some calculations in their head and pick what has the best chance of success. They don't generally want that fog of war of not knowing exactly what percent chance they have of succeeding at something.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
However, even if someone does it really well, I wouldn't expect it to be a huge hit. As has been pointed out, miniature gamers like rolling dice. They also like knowing EXACTLY what the probabilities are so they can run some calculations in their head and pick what has the best chance of success. They don't generally want that fog of war of not knowing exactly what percent chance they have of succeeding at something.

The closest I've seen of a mechanic that is only doable with a device of some sort is the Das Boot board game where a phone performed the operation of looking through the periscope. But even there, a card deck could work as a suitable alternative. Yes, the phone was a fancy way of doing it, but cards could work just as well.

When it comes down to it, when you come to the point where a device can't be replicated by physical tools, you're probably approaching, if not already passed, the point at which the miniatures become redundant and you may as well stick it all on a device and dispense with all physical product. Hybrid will always fail because, as I tried to hint to above, it will neither appeal to Wargamers or PC Gamers. It'll be at most a nice distraction, but I'd rather play the proper thing on a PC or on a table.

Edit:
As for Fog of War. Well, when it comes to setup, I've been doing it for years - boxes or other large barriers down the table middle is an old setup method that GW used to recommend. Ongoing fog of war will be tricky and if tracked by a device, again, may as well go virtual for everything. You could use blips or some sort of similar mechanic to track ongoing until units get within certain range. But, it wouldn't be the most visually appealing game.

I do not like wargames with an expiration date.

 Easy E wrote:
I do not like wargames with an expiration date.

They all have expiration dates. Even WFHB, and Mage Knight (both considered too-big-to-fail) expired and one day even 40k will be replaced.

Pretty sure 30k is on it's way out, which is a pity

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I do not like wargames with an expiration date.

They all have expiration dates. Even WFHB, and Mage Knight (both considered too-big-to-fail) expired and one day even 40k will be replaced.

Pretty sure 30k is on it's way out, which is a pity

But if you have the rules for those games, you can still play them.

If the game requires software or especially the use of servers, then that game is dead if that software or server is shut down. You cannot play without them and so even if you have the rulebook and all your models, you cannot do anything with them. The developers could make the software open source after they cease support, but if you don't have people in the playerbase who are comfortable supporting said software then the game will still die.

Physical wargames have no expiration date. Current support does not stop a game from being fun, or playable as long as you have enough minis and rules to play it. I can still play my copy of Battlemasters that is nearly 30 years old. In a other 5 years it'll likely be my son's first wargame.

I *think* I have a PDF of a physical copy of the Golem Arcana rules but it looks cumbersome to play without the interface doing the number crunching? Otherwise they are nice minis to use with another ruleset, as even the couple times I played a buddy's copy of the actual game, it was really dry and bland and we spent more time fighting the buggy tech than playing.

Nothing, nothing, will ever replace the awesomeness of having a table full of minis and terrain physically in front of you. Wargaming is all about the physicality.


Back on topic, it's sad to see AT-43 and Confrontation Age of Ragnorok truly die. Ignoring the vitriol of the original Confrontation players, I had a blast. Both these games were really fun to play (as much or moreso than 40k, and I am a huge 40k fan). Some of the rules mechanics added some really fun things, like the Universal Table of Resolution taking the place of tons of charts/spreadsheets, and the decimeter-based range bands for ranged attacks making targets further away increasingly hard to hit.

I will say one of the games I enjoy the most on my iPad is Warhammer Quest. I have a 20-30 lb. box of Warhammer Quest sitting up on my shelf that has been used all of once because I can't get anyone interested in playing. Alternately, I can fire up WQ on my iPad and play for a few hours and thoroughly enjoy myself.

For me, that would be where the appeal of an app-assisted game would be. If I could plug in my actual miniature army vs. a computer controlled opponent, I wouldn't have to worry about organizing a game with someone, I can do it on my own time. That could be something ranging from noting actions (stand & shoot, advance, charge!) to virtually representing the enemy on the board via virtual reality (and yet, still allow me to field the actual minis I've assembled and painted), or even helping calculate attacks, hits and modifiers. The app could also assist with set-up and teardown - another thing that often deters me from getting in a game in that setting up or putting things away is such a chore.

I could see something like Mighty Empires being turned into an app/tabletop combo - with the computer alerting when and where conflict is occurring, and then recalculating the army sizes after the tabletop battles, if any.

Sometimes you might skip the battle, in favor of an off screen Auto Result - when that 100 point expeditionary force runs into the enemy 7,000 point main army. All you would be determining is whether somebody lived to tell the tale....

Basically, the computer handling the campaign aspects, the miniatures being pulled out for the actual battles.

The Auld Grump

I really wanna use my buddy's large Golem Arcana collection (now collecting dust) with Song of Blades and Heroes to make a sort of 10/15mm fantasy Battletech Game, with 15mm troops based as 3-5 man units being "normal" figures, and then the golems having the large, giant, and gargantuan keywords depending on the golem. All fighting amongst 15mm fantasy buildings and terrain.

Part of the lackluster feel of Golem Arcana for me was the lack of a feel of "giant fantasy monstrous warmachines" because other than the bland little guy on the back, not much existed to scale the golems against, as even the terrain was abstractedly scaled, besides being flat.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I really wanna use my buddy's large Golem Arcana collection (now collecting dust) with Song of Blades and Heroes to make a sort of 10/15mm fantasy Battletech Game, with 15mm troops based as 3-5 man units being "normal" figures, and then the golems having the large, giant, and gargantuan keywords depending on the golem. All fighting amongst 15mm fantasy buildings and terrain.

Sounds like the best use of the figures!
#2 would be Kings of War proxies, at least for some of the sculpts.

I'll gladly take any of the pewter stuff that they're unable to donate. My son will be old enough next spring to be manageable at the lakeside, and my buddy owns a smelter with a 1 oz. pendant sinker mold. I'll be set for a while.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I really wanna use my buddy's large Golem Arcana collection (now collecting dust) with Song of Blades and Heroes to make a sort of 10/15mm fantasy Battletech Game, with 15mm troops based as 3-5 man units being "normal" figures, and then the golems having the large, giant, and gargantuan keywords depending on the golem. All fighting amongst 15mm fantasy buildings and terrain.

Part of the lackluster feel of Golem Arcana for me was the lack of a feel of "giant fantasy monstrous warmachines" because other than the bland little guy on the back, not much existed to scale the golems against, as even the terrain was abstractedly scaled, besides being flat.

Dragon Rampant would work well for that too.

I love the idea of "Fantasy Battletech" with Golems and the like. That is going into my Concept folder.

still have good ebay luck more or less with AT-43, and then there are other second handers for confrontation and AT-43, so been lucky