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.

I wrote up my thoughts on the rulebook.

TL;DR - the mechanics are so-so but the campaign support is superb.

For the details:

http://lifeonjasoom.blogspot.com/2016/11/empire-of-dead-overview.html

Thanks for the review. I am always interested in a good campaign system.

How do you feel this campaign system compares to Frostgrave or the GW Specialist Games campaigns (I.e. Necromunda, Mordheim, Blood Bowl)?

From you review it sounds very similar to Necro/Mord mechanically. Thoughts?

I think FG is very, very light on campaign support. On a 1-10 scale, FG offers about ... 2? 3?

 Manchu wrote:
I think FG is very, very light on campaign support. On a 1-10 scale, FG offers about ... 2? 3?

Frostgrave is ultra light on campaign elements. Only your Wizard (and to a lesser degree Apprentice and Lieutenant) progress at all, and the rest of your warband essentially can only hold one item. Your base-building is also extremely basic.

As campaigns go, Frostgrave has a lot of areas you can advance in, but those advancements aren't particularly significant.

FG = 2/10 campaign complexity, maybe 3/10.
This is Not a Test = 4/10 or 5/10
Empire of the Dead = 4/10

How would you rate Strange Aeons?

4/10 seems a bit low for EotD. What amkes you rate it a 4?

So, can someone point me to some wargames campaigns that are closer to 7-10 out of 10?

As I work on my own rules projects, i find myself constantly looking back at Mord, Necro, Blood Bowl as my inspirations for campaign play. I want to expand my horizons.

 Manchu wrote:
How would you rate Strange Aeons?

4/10 seems a bit low for EotD. What amkes you rate it a 4?

Low model count, a lot of randomization in "upgrading", minimal meaningful choices, but also minimal book-keeping.

To be fair, my personal campaign scale probably hits 10/10 with unexpected picks like the Kingdom Death board-game, where you need to manage an entire community/civilization, AND micro-manage individual survivors states, gear, etc...

Strange Aeons is probably a 4/10 as well, because it is sooooo low model-count, and frankly individual models don't survive long enough to develop much more than a couple quirks. You can string it into long campaigns (we do), but no model is going to live for more than three or four sessions.

Ah I wasn't taking model count or "depth" of tracked stats into account because I am specifically looking for low model count and streamlined mechanics in a campaign-driven skirmish game. From the opposite perspective, I think I would say something like D&D Fourth Edition is 10/10 for campaign support. But it's definitely NOT what I am looking for.

Although I prefer a relatively small cast of characters, I am more interested in tracking the warband as a collection of stories about its members. X-Com is probably a good analogy here.

So, aside from mechanics that are sturdy and simple, here's what I am looking for:

- character creation tools
- ability to develop all figures
- figures have distinct 'personality' (as opposed to being "Mook 1" and "Mook 2")
- robust scenario list or scenario creation tools
- scenario continuity
- "third party"/AI components

FG rates pretty poorly along all of these dimensions. EotD does a pretty good job with most of them, 6/10 overall. I would say Strange Aeons is probably 9/10.

 Manchu wrote:
Ah I wasn't taking model count or "depth" of tracked stats into account because I am specifically looking for low model count and streamlined mechanics in a campaign-driven skirmish game. From the opposite perspective, I think I would say something like D&D Fourth Edition is 10/10 for campaign support. But it's definitely NOT what I am looking for.

Although I prefer a relatively small cast of characters, I am more interested in tracking the warband as a collection of stories about its members. X-Com is probably a good analogy here.

So, aside from mechanics that are sturdy and simple, here's what I am looking for:

- character creation tools
- ability to develop all figures
- figures have distinct 'personality' (as opposed to being "Mook 1" and "Mook 2")
- robust scenario list or scenario creation tools
- scenario continuity
- "third party"/AI components

FG rates pretty poorly along all of these dimensions. EotD does a pretty good job with most of them, 6/10 overall. I would say Strange Aeons is probably 9/10.

I definitely feel like I call Strange Aeons a "narrative" game more than a campaign one, but again, only because, BY DESIGN the mortality rate can be so high. You're retiring people left and right sometimes. :-p

Personally, I feel like This is Not a Test, checks nearly all your boxes, and is just an incredible game. One of my all time favorites in this industry, honestly.

I am pretty excited about getting a hard copy of the rules! Should be soon now, I gather.

How does this compare with Chaos in Carpathia/Chaos in Cairo?

Does anyone know?