Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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 Outdated design philosophy (for example random tables)

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with all the above.

I'm also put off by:

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

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

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

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

The rest aren't important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Planned obsolescence

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

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

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

- Custom dice

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

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

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

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

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

Mostly interested in generic fantasy skimish games, and dungeoncrawlers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Games as product, instead of product is game.

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest aren't important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 Dysartes wrote:

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

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

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

Exactly this.

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

--

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

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