Switch Theme:

Rate warcry 1-10 Poll  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
How do you find warcries gameplay
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







After trying Warcry out I think I'd give it a 6/10. The gameplay is fun and engaging, and I find the warband balance surprisingly not so wildly off as most GW games, but I also find the scenario cards stilted and uninspiring. Every game I've played so far ended on a surprise-sudden-death-gotcha note before more than maybe a third of the models on the table had really gotten stuck in, and the turn-three win conditions don't give any time or space to maneuver.

I might try to futz with the deployment and objective decks and keep going with it, but I'd almost rather just take the minis and use them for something else at this point.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Lord Kragan wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
EDIT: It is a toolkit to be tweaked at one's pleasure, IMO. A solid toolkit, mind you.


That doesn't work in an environment that is very much against houserules and wants to play the game out of the box with no changes. In that environment the only tweaking you can do is if you are solo playing at home by yourself.


Your community is nowhere close to the norm.
In the US that is far from uncommon, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 auticus wrote:
I think tinkering with the level of death is fun. I get that losing a leader can make someone go into "game over" mode. But it needs to be something that can happen, even if its rare.

In Blood Bowl, you have a 1 in 6 chance of a player death when the injury table gets rolled on.

In a campaign with your general, I'd think a 2-3 on 2d6 would be about fine.

Frostgrave deals with death ok for me. Ragnarok is very unforgiving with its injury system, but intentionally so as the game is supposed to be brutal.

But having NO penalty for death is way too far the other way.
Why is a death mechanic essential though?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/07 15:51:38


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot




United States

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
EDIT: It is a toolkit to be tweaked at one's pleasure, IMO. A solid toolkit, mind you.


That doesn't work in an environment that is very much against houserules and wants to play the game out of the box with no changes. In that environment the only tweaking you can do is if you are solo playing at home by yourself.


Your community is nowhere close to the norm.
In the US that is far from uncommon, actually.


The only time I've experienced house-rules has been in garage games. If it's at a game store with any kind of organization, then its always RAW. This is across 3 or 4 different stores in 2 different states.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Why is a death mechanic essential though?


For the same reason I despise RPG groups where your characters can't really die and why I don't like fantasy novels where the characters are mary sues that can never die. Without any level of risk, its all just moving a bunch of characters around that will always be fine.

Part of war is death. Losing characters should be a thing, to me. Systems where you cannot die or can hand waive death is not a system I will ever enjoy.

The death of a rival is very satisfying. When that rival can never die, we are basically reliving GI-Joe where everyone is shooting at each other with hundreds of lasers and missiles and bombs and everyone just parachutes out of their plane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
balmong7 wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
EDIT: It is a toolkit to be tweaked at one's pleasure, IMO. A solid toolkit, mind you.


That doesn't work in an environment that is very much against houserules and wants to play the game out of the box with no changes. In that environment the only tweaking you can do is if you are solo playing at home by yourself.


Your community is nowhere close to the norm.
In the US that is far from uncommon, actually.


The only time I've experienced house-rules has been in garage games. If it's at a game store with any kind of organization, then its always RAW. This is across 3 or 4 different stores in 2 different states.


Exactly. In the USA, having to houserule a game means you will be playing with yourself in your garage often.

I keep getting people trying to hit me up like I live in a cartoon world of stereotypes when my situation is pretty much exactly how every other city I've ever been to here has been like in regards to houseruling and being able to deviate from RAW. So when a game comes out that to enjoy it you have to houserule it, you're going to have a heck of an uphill marathon to go through which is why just houseruling is not a great answer and why I'd have preferred the campaign in warcry be a lot deeper than what we got.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/07 16:19:00


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 auticus wrote:
Why is a death mechanic essential though?


For the same reason I despise RPG groups where your characters can't really die and why I don't like fantasy novels where the characters are mary sues that can never die. Without any level of risk, its all just moving a bunch of characters around that will always be fine.

Part of war is death. Losing characters should be a thing, to me. Systems where you cannot die or can hand waive death is not a system I will ever enjoy.

The death of a rival is very satisfying. When that rival can never die, we are basically reliving GI-Joe where everyone is shooting at each other with hundreds of lasers and missiles and bombs and everyone just parachutes out of their plane.
I don't buy that as a reason for it to be necessary in a wargames campaign, which is completely different on both the narrative and functional level. The best analogy I see would be to say that each character in an RPG is like each warband in a campaign--thus the warbands as a whole should be able to die and the player has to make an entirely new warband to re-enter the campaign with. But even then, it just isn't the same thing.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Well for my enjoyment - it is the same thing. Indestructible characters are not something that I get into in wargame campaigns. I leave those for leagues and tournaments where you just reset your force after each battle.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/07 17:15:43


 
   
Made in us
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot




United States

 auticus wrote:
Why is a death mechanic essential though?


For the same reason I despise RPG groups where your characters can't really die and why I don't like fantasy novels where the characters are mary sues that can never die. Without any level of risk, its all just moving a bunch of characters around that will always be fine.

Part of war is death. Losing characters should be a thing, to me. Systems where you cannot die or can hand waive death is not a system I will ever enjoy.

The death of a rival is very satisfying. When that rival can never die, we are basically reliving GI-Joe where everyone is shooting at each other with hundreds of lasers and missiles and bombs and everyone just parachutes out of their plane.




I agree and disagree with you on this point. When the new Necromunda came out, we ran into a lot of balance issues due to the death and injury mechanic. Did it make for cool stories? not really. "Yeah, I got unlucky in melee and was killed on the backswing. rolled the dice and now my melee Leader has -1 Strength and basically a paperweight." Deaths were even worse because you got money based on how your leader and champions "worked" between missions. So you might lose a leader, and suddenly be short 500 credits, and now you can't afford to replace them. So in next weeks game, you get to fight with a 750 gang value against, someone with a 1500 gang value and get stomped.

I think kill team handled it the best. You are always bringing 100 points. Experience makes units better, they can die, which just means you replace them with a level 1 again, and no one can go below level 1.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Its a matter of personal taste. I cannot debate personal taste, and personal taste can be neither right nor can it be wrong.

I don't think anything should go below level 1. However, I think any character should be able to die and you have to start over with that model as a new character.

These same arguments get used to criticize blood bowl as well. You can have a star player get injured and be at -1 Strength, which people lament is "unfun" (and which I have a strong feeling will be going away with new blood bowl next year)... but thats part of playing a contact sport and team management is the attraction there where you have to work around injuries.

Same too in war. That depth where characters and units gain strength, but can also be injured or die, is one of the prime reasons why I like playing them.

The balanced game arena should be left at the league and tournament level IMO. For me anyway, *as it pertains to campaign play and progressing characters and units*.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/07 17:59:41


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I'm asking more in a mechanical sense. The post I responded to was suggesting that a death mechanic was a necessary component. I can understand wanting that as a component due to personal preference but I don't understand why it might NEED to be there, thus the inquiry.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Honestly, part of the problem is just that people think injuries and other simulation elements sound fun because they mimic some of the drama of real life they enjoy. Where this falters when put into practice is that people forget that when these things happen in real life, they're not fun for the teams and people affected. It's stressful and frustrating and most of all hugely disappointing. I think everyone wants to love campaigns, but when they negatively impact the moment to moment gameplay the reality isn't as fun as it sounds. I do keep hoping we can see some mechanics of the "Legacy" genre bleed into wargames soon though.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Another reality is that warbands are being reset after every battle regardless, with at most some scars left over. Fighters are simply 'knocked out' yet manage to make it out alive with all of their gear intact despite being unconscious and potentially with serious injury. The reality is that every model which goes down ends up dead, if not finished off by the rival warband then by the lethality of the setting their are fighting for, or dying to exposure. Winning a battle means getting a huge amount of loot as you are able to take everything off every model struck down, while the loser has only what the survivors carried.

Even the most lethal and unforgiving campaign settings still require significant suspension of disbelief or narrative justification anyways. Not having death be an option can push that over the edge for some people, but that's just it; some people.

To be clear I have nothing against individuals who like/don't like campaign deaths (ambivalent towards it myself, the pros and cons even out for me).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/07 22:31:26


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Why is a death mechanic essential though?


It is not, but it can add a lot in the atmosphere of the game. That's what I call "the sense of danger".

For a death mechanism to work in a game, it must matter. If it's just for replacing your losses instantly, then there is no point. If, however, it is tied to how you replenish your forces in some way, it adds another layer to your strategy - winning the game isn't the only factor, you have also to be careful about your own troops and not waste them in suicidal waves too much. That's where you can see bands retreating before taking too heavy losses in a campaign where death isn't a trivial thing.

Sure, there is always a compromise between game mechanism and the harsh reality of bloody battles, but death mechanism is a useful tool when handled properly in a game system.

In Warcry, it's mostly for the flavor. It doesn't matter that much and everything is done so that the players won't be hindered by it if they have bad luck. Having your leader invulnerable leads to using him recklessly and, obviously, choosing him first as the bearer of your artifacts. It can be fun that way, of course, but I'm with Auticus here.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

I think the issue is that long term death and injuries can introduce a gulf between player teams at the mathematical level. This gulf can quickly grow and an underdog team can end up just being beaten up every time with little chance to win.

This then means a DM has to be part of the process to basically mediate the situation. To give the underdog some sudden bonuses or easy missions so that the gulf between them is reduced and thus the effect of the perma effects is lessened.



I'm also reminded of playing Siralum (dragon warrior monsters style game on the PC) which auto heals your monster party at the end of every fight. Now that sounds really easy, however it actually made the game harder and more fun for individual battles. Sure you didn't have a long term injury or death weakening you; but it meant that each fight could be a life or death battle - the enemies could hit a LOT harder. Because now the game wasn't having to pace itself for your next 5 or 10 fights before you'd return home to heal up. Such as you might get in many monster battling games such as pokemon.


In short a long term injury/death system sounds nice but in reality most people only want it to happen to one or two characters per game; t obe a minor element not a major one. Otherwise the gulf starts to take effect and once it takes hold the battles get devalued at some point - even if a DM doesn't stop in at some point the underdog has to concede and leave most times





Of course the other flipside is to introduce mechanics that represent an underdog team fighting harder to make up for weakness. Though I'd wager such things would be very hard to balance to make it work and to not have people either finding it doesnt work all that well or gaming the system to get hurt early to get the "underdog bonus"

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Overread wrote:

Of course the other flipside is to introduce mechanics that represent an underdog team fighting harder to make up for weakness. Though I'd wager such things would be very hard to balance to make it work and to not have people either finding it doesnt work all that well or gaming the system to get hurt early to get the "underdog bonus"


Why does it have to be always balanced, though ? As soon as you have experienced warbands, unbalance is a given. If they were balanced all the time, there would be no point to have experienced and non-experienced warriors.

That's the narrative way, it has always been like this and will always be that way.

Sure, it's important to have fun. But balance isn't a prerequite for that. If that was the case, I would never have played Mordheim that long - and still do to that very day.



Here was a three player game in Mordheim I played last week, with a fan made scenario made by one of us. He wasn't the game master, was playing a band like us, and all three warbands were completely on different levels of experience. In the end, we ended up fighting a powerful daemonette of Slaanesh and as we managed to banish her on the verge of routing, the game ended with us three "winning" because of the victory conditions. It wasn't balanced at all, but we still had a lot of fun. Oh, and we could have lost a lot of our heroes and troops here, but fortunately the injury rolls weren't too harsh. There was this sense of danger, though, as we kept having losses and wondering "should I stay and win the prize or rout and save the day ?". I would never have asked myself that question in Warcry, since I know the risks are way lower anyway - so I would always fight to the death there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/07 23:21:47


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

I think balance becomes important when one is talking about a rules system acting as a base line for games where people come at them from a whole rafter of backgrounds.

Having a base game system that presents a "matched play" setup that if based around single games or campaigns, presents a system whereby the mathematical difference between warbands is fairly balanced (provided those bands are put together well); means that you've got a fair game for the majority of players.


It also means you can more reliably build challenges and change things up with alternative campaign expansions and scenarios or home brewed stuff.
Basically it means that you can break it and make things far more challenging more easily because now the players can more readily read the game state. Ergo they know and go into a battle knowing they are the underdog by intention of the game; they set themselves up with the right kind of expectations. Furthermore its easier to balance in those inbalances and have them fairly balanced for the scenario (and this might include fighting something WAY too strong that you are intended to retreat or lose too)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/07 23:37:34


A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Where this falters when put into practice is that people forget that when these things happen in real life, they're not fun for the teams and people affected.


Speak for yourself. They've been plenty of fun for me and pretty much everyone I have campaign wargamed with over the many years of playing. Its a large reason why a lot of my old comrades don't play games anymore, the removal of death rules in campaigns and super streamlining of everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This gulf can quickly grow and an underdog team can end up just being beaten up every time with little chance to win.


If campaigns only lasted say three or four total battles, then something like almost never happens.

The gulf everyone talks about is real, I know it all too well, but always occurs during marathon campaigns that try to take months to resolve.

There are also other ways to resolve these types of issues, by giving inducements or other forms of balancing mechanisms.

For example - the sudden death mechanic I use in my campaigns gives underdogs a realistic victory condition to try to achieve if they are outgunned instead of trying to face off against opponents as if they were at full strength.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Campaigns aren't about super tight balanced game scenarios. They never have been. Thats what matched play and tournaments are supposed to be about. Maybe one of the things I find distasteful about this campaign ruleset is that it is leaguifying a campaign and trying to meld pickup game store league type play with a long term campaign.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/08/08 00:38:12


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






"Balance" in this context just means "everyone has a chance to win" and death mechanics can easily mean that a bad roll puts a player permanently out.of the campaign because they cannot catch up. At that point a campaign is like gambling at cards; skill is a clear element but it is still a gamble where you can lose big and be done. That obviously has its appeal to those who like gambling but doesn't sell well to the broader player base. The majority want a campaign they can play which has risks but not such that they can be kicked to the sidelines two rounds in because they got a bad roll and now their warband is too neutered to compete. It is silly to look down on them for wanting a system where they actually have a chance to win every match.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







Surely there is a way to track warband power levels with enough accuracy to create fair underdog bonuses and catch up mechanics that allow for a believable sense of danger and meaningful loss while still keeping every player in the running at all times?

The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins. 
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

I went for an 8 I think. I consider it to be an excellent game and after playing it a few times and seeing how the actions and abilities really work in terms of planning your next activation, there's actually a lot of depth. In my last game we went into the last turn and I thought I had things sewn up and my opponent chose the perfect actions and model placement to not only get things to a tie but to win. It was true puzzle solving and he pulled it off.

As for the campaign system, I've ran and played in a ton of Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Gorkamorka and Mordheim leagues. And one thing I can say for sure is that people only really remember the campaign system when it works. So many leagues/campaings for these games crash and burn. People's rosters will get decimated or one player will so drastically outpace everyone that it all falls apart. There's definitely a nostalgia filter that people put in place over their 90s campaign games when comparing Warcry to them. They failed so often that Warcry actually has a huge advantage here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 06:16:13


Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in us
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot




United States

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
"Balance" in this context just means "everyone has a chance to win" and death mechanics can easily mean that a bad roll puts a player permanently out.of the campaign because they cannot catch up. At that point a campaign is like gambling at cards; skill is a clear element but it is still a gamble where you can lose big and be done. That obviously has its appeal to those who like gambling but doesn't sell well to the broader player base. The majority want a campaign they can play which has risks but not such that they can be kicked to the sidelines two rounds in because they got a bad roll and now their warband is too neutered to compete. It is silly to look down on them for wanting a system where they actually have a chance to win every match.


This exactly. The necromunda campaign was 2 games per week, for 6 weeks. By week 3 we had to implement a house-rule where the credit disparity between gangs became free money for the lower player to spend on hired guns because all of the top players had used their excess credits to become unstoppable while the lower players spent their credits recouping losses.

A lot of this problem came from the fact that necromunda missions used model count rather than credit value for deciding lists. contrast this with kill team where my level 3 sniper is at +10 points and I still can only bring 100 points to a match. I can go up against someone who had to replace their entire team the week prior and not have any issues.

So it's possible that death wasn't the issue so much as how Necromunda builds lists. The injuries were a bigger issue because they basically invalidated units (if you got the wrong injury) without affecting their unit cost and they were permanent.
   
Made in ie
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
"Balance" in this context just means "everyone has a chance to win" and death mechanics can easily mean that a bad roll puts a player permanently out.of the campaign because they cannot catch up.


On the flipside, my warband was the "runaway" that got really far ahead during my group's last Mordheim campaign, but that meant I couldn't get any proper games towards the end of the campaign. The other players would usually Rout as soon as they could, because the alternative was my Vampire blending everything he touched. Understandable of course, but not a lot of fun for me!

I still think that injury/experience tables are fun and flavoursome, but they can become a problem when they start impeding the fun of the actual games themselves.

 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





balmong7 wrote:


So it's possible that death wasn't the issue so much as how Necromunda builds lists. The injuries were a bigger issue because they basically invalidated units (if you got the wrong injury) without affecting their unit cost and they were permanent.


That's very true. A crippled hero is only better than a dead one in the case you have no money to replace him with another. That's certainly why Warcry doesn't have a crippling injury system, since you can replace your losses however you want with no cost.


About balance, it never meant "having a chance to win". You can have a chance to win in unbalanced scenarios as well. It's a trick of the mind to believe that balance is the holy grail of gaming, where only skill makes you win. That's not true at all, especially in a game where you still have luck as a main factor for the game system.

There are obviously situations where a strong, experienced band can overcome the beginners. That's the point of experience ! If you gain experience and can't even get better than another, then it makes it pointless. That's why special scenarios putting the experienced band in a trickier situation and helps for the underdogs do kick in - but it's certainly not for balance, more to keep the things challenging for both players.

Honestly, I understand very well Auticus' point. And I too see my aging friends coming back to older games like Mordheim even though they're blatantly unbalanced - because of everything we don't have/find anymore in modern games. There is an interesting video about that matter (talking quite lightly, indeed) here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vPPjeDcvGU

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/08/08 11:09:47


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

It might also be nostalgia.

They are coming back to the older games because that's where they started. It doesn't matter if the newer gamers are mechanically better, the visual design, lore and nostalgia of the older games (esp for something like Mordhiem where GW ended the Old World setting) are what draws them in; perhaps more than the mechanics.

Though at present Warcry isn't trying to be the same game, so Mordhiem still has its niche.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

Everyone's "golden age" of warhammer is shortly after they started.

Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




It is silly to look down on them for wanting a system where they actually have a chance to win every match.


I'm not looking down on anyone. I am annoyed that the last bastion of play that I can enjoy, campaign play, has now also been turned into a form of league play short of houseruling, because its not fun when people get injured.

At this point we have fully crossed the rubicon.

Mordheim was unbalanced. It also housed some of the best narrative stories I've ever played because a campaign is a lot more than who won. Honestly most people don't even remember who wins campaigns as the years go on.

They remember the stories and they remember the death of foes and they remember their own hero's last stand.

The same with our blood bowl leagues. The only reason we know who won the past 13 leagues is we have a perpetual trophy. Its the stories that have carried down over the years and a lot of those were the stories of coming from behind to beat a superior team or the tales of how a star thrower got injured and still managed to make the hall of fame through struggling through a final season.

There is the biggest divide between what I want and what this board wants (I know there are a lot more people like me, they just gave up on GW and dont' play anything anymore or play Frostgrave or other games) - I'm not playing to secure an overall winner so much as its like D&D - you don't win D&D either (well you used to not win D&D, now of course they added a path to ultimate victory and thats whats "fun") so coming at it from a pre today D&D world of you don't win D&D, you play campaigns for the story and for the memories.

You definitely need to find a way to curb the runaway effect but for my money its not by dressing a campaign up as a tournament league and then calling it a campaign whose end goal much like a tournament league, is to win it, and if you can't win it, then its not fun and time to bail.

I realize at this point the difference in perspective is probably too great to continue discussing so will happily exit this thread at this point.

EDIT: Had AOS been the game I looked at in the 90s, I wouldn't be playing AOS since other than models and the lore the gameplay itself ticks none of the boxes that I desire (same with campaign play)), so I know its not nostalgia and simply "i started with this so I want to keep doing it" that drives me. Its that those things genuinely interested me back then, and today's environment does not. It is my sizable investment and time in models that keeps me around.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 11:26:54


 
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

For RPGs, I only run 1974 D&D and have house ruled away none of the character death, random curses, poisons, diseases or anything else. I totally get what you're talking about in terms of how a distribution of good and bad results with no real protection for anyone can indeed create great stories.

The issue is though, that multiplayer campaigns without a game master can have problems. Warcry simply attempts to avoid them. In doing so it caters for different tastes.

It's not that there's some incomprehensible difference in perspective, it's simply that tastes differ and for some, the number of ruined campaigns and destroyed teams/warbands is just not a cost worth paying to get the super duper stories that might sometimes emerge.

Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




For my experience, I've been running or involved in yearly campaigns for a very long time, and the number of ruined campaigns can be counted on one hand. It was never a phenomenon that I found to be so common that it required what was done here to curb. This has gone too far in the other direction.

This to me is the exact equivalent of playing a season (campaign) of Madden football with injuries turned off and with every player's stat-line made to be roughly the same.

I'm sure that there is a strong appeal for that (especially since that game lets you play exactly how I just described) but because GW has not in five years and counting catered to anything but one particular taste, it would be like having to play Madden with those settings because you can't play it any other way save hacking the code (houseruling).

It would be huge if they would included optional play modes so that we didn't have to houserule (and go through the epic amount of social engineering that passing houserules entails)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 12:01:50


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

It seems like even the campaign portions now are designed more for leagues that can easily be run in a club/store as essentially pickup games. Which I mean I see the benefit of doing it, because it's a lot easier to get people involved when it's not the sort of thing that requires a lot of planning, you can just have a signup sheet and then arrange games to play and track results.

It's not good for the "old guard" who prefer more involved campaigns, but the majority of people I've met don't want that level of detail, they want basically something resembling a structure around games versus just showing up at the shop to play, but not the high level of detail that a campaign often requires. So this campaign-as-league approach seems like it's tailored directly for that demographic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 14:23:41


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Wayniac wrote:
It seems like even the campaign portions now are designed more for leagues that can easily be run in a club/store as essentially pickup games. Which I mean I see the benefit of doing it, because it's a lot easier to get people involved when it's not the sort of thing that requires a lot of planning, you can just have a signup sheet and then arrange games to play and track results.

Especially since "the hard part" for a lot of people, in my experience running Kill Team campaigns last year, was coming up with names and stuff like that. It put a lot of people off or seemed too daunting.

Press a button, get a name!
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

I mean I have found there's a lot to be said about trying to organize games around a store/club without a lot of fuss. Especially since in most of those cases, you can't be selective and only invite certain people (stores don't seem to like that). So for mass-market this sort of thing where it's barely a campaign and more like a series of games with something that kinda resembles a story being cobbled together works wonders, and I'd expect the idea is you house rule (there's that word again...) if you're doing a campaign because you typically don't run campaigns with a huge amount of people.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Go to: