B-17 Flying Fortress Leader by DVG

When it comes to the genre of historical simulation games, I’m about as wet behind the ears as you can get. I know virtually nothing about this entire world of gaming, yet I have always had a passing interest in trying one of these games out but never really had the time to do so. When I finally decided to a few weeks back I was shocked at the brevity of this genre, just the sheer volume of games made simply choosing one a major research project. Ultimately I settled on a solo game so that I could pursue what I expected to be a very complex gaming experience at my own pace. My choice was based on both recommendations by some of the community leaders promoting these games as well as my own passing interest in World War II aviation.

Overview

Final Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star christmas_star(4 out of 5 Stars)

B-17 Flying Fortress Leader by DVG games is a game that is part of a series of “Leader” gamers. It’s not exactly a system, but a kind of core concept. The basic principle behind these solo games is that you are a commander, in the case of B-17 Flying Fortress Leader in charge of a division of Bombers flying missions over Germany between 1942-1944. Other leader games have similar concepts in other historical periods and in some cases not even in aviation, for example there is one about modern tanks and another featuring submarines. Some of these games have tactical components, others like B-17 focus more on the strategic and planning part of the story.

There is a lot going on in this game, but even as an amature I can say that it’s a lot less complicated than it looks and I have played lots of mainstream board games that have a much higher learning curve.

As the commander of this division of bombers you are tasked with successfully running the air war over Germany. You manage resources, purchasing planes, outfitting them, hiring on special pilots, planning, running intelligence operations and executing bombing missions. There are many other auxiliary things to deal with as part of the war at large as well which can affect your efforts, like other war fronts, various historical events, even the weather itself can impact your efforts.

One interesting aspect of the game is that it’s effectively a game of preparation and planning. Once you give a mission a go, the mission executes based on your plans but you have very minimal tactical control over your bomber squadrons, they have their assigned tasks and go off to execute your plans. Their success or failure is dependent on two things, primarily on your planning which mitigates but does not eliminate the other part, lady luck.

These campaigns are part of a larger campaign where you manage these resources both in the short term for individual missions, but also in the long run over the course of the war.

This only leaves us with the question, is the game itself any good? Lets find out.

Components

Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star(3.5 out of 5 Stars)
Tilt:christmas_star

Pros:  Good Quality Components, sturdy, made to last and beautifully illustrated adding to the theme of the game.

Cons: Despite the good quality the cost of the game is so extreme that it’s hard to justify it for what you get in the box.

I was not really sure what to expect when it came to component quality for a game like this, in fact I wasn’t even sure if it was appropriate for me to judge it based on today’s modern standards. These historical simulation games seem to me at least to focus a great deal more on gameplay and visceral simulation experiences rather than visual candy, but I was actually pleasantly surprised regardless.

The gameboard is very spacious, beautifully illustrated and very thematic giving you the feel of a commander sitting in a command tent planning out missions. It’s sturdy and made to last with a nice gloss finish.

The chit components where also considerably better quality then I had imagined they would be, also gloss finished, clearly labeled, easy to handle and just the right size. Somehow I expected them to be cheap cardboard cutouts, but they were effectively the same quality of tokens you would get with any other modern quality game.

These are thick, clear and gloss finished components, they are made to last.

The cards I felt were a bit flimsy, it’s clear that their dark colors will eventually cause edge ware that would come out white, but they are stiff, glossy and very nicely illustrated supporting the theme very well.

The rulebook itself got quite a few complaints in other reviews and I was apprehensive about it in particularly as I was anticipating a highly complex simulation game which would very clearly require very good instruction, but apparently I got the second edition of the game where those problems, including all the misprinted cards are already corrected. Quite contrary to what I read online about the rulebook I felt it was incredibly well done and usable at the table in a step by step fashion allowing me to learn the game as I went along. In fact I would say it is one of the nicest, well constructed and clear rulebooks I have read in quite some time, I found little to complain about it and looking at some of the components I can only imagine there is a big difference between the first and second printing. I suppose an index would be nice, but because of how it was laid out, things were very easy to find anyway. I love the fact that they didn’t try to make the rulebook part of the theme of the game, it’s printed on white glossy paper with large easy to read fonts and lots of pictures to use as reference. Please for the love of god developers take note, you don’t need to make the rulebook part of the game design, make it easy to read and use like this instead!

All and all I felt the components where excellent but still I have to complain to some degree here. This game cost over 900 Swedish crowns which is roughly 100 American bucks, I have paid for Miniature Game Starter kids for less than that with some of the best and most high quality components in the history of gaming. I was half expecting this game to have a solid gold d10 given its cost. I understand that small companies who sell fewer games have to charge more for their design efforts, its in part why I didn’t mind shelling out the money but damn, for what you pay, this game should have 30 highly detailed miniatures in it. I would not normally reduce a component score on price, but this was such an extreme in my opinion that I had to shave some points off it. I definitely think cost will be a major point of contention when considering a purchase of this game and the developer might have shot himself in the foot as its likely he would sell more copies if the game was cheaper.

Theme

Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star(5 out of 5 Stars)
Tilt:christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros:  Captures the theme of being a World War II strategic commander with perfection, outstanding atmosphere and mechanically connected theme.

Cons: There are some, but not worth mentioning. 

I think when it comes to a solo game about a historical period like World War II and a subject like flying bombing missions over Germany, ensuring that this theme comes across through the mechanics and art is absolutely vital. In fact, I felt strongly that this was going to be one of the most important elements of this review.

Thankfully B-17 Flying Fortress Leader does not disappoint, It’s a game about you being a strategic commander of World War II squadrons and it delivers on that promise.

There are a lot of contributors to creating this visceral experience and while certainly the layout and art of the gameboard, cards and various components certainly delivers on the look of this theme, where this theme really bursts out is in the details of the mechanics and decisions linked to the subject matter.

I was really worried as I opened the box that I would be overwhelmed by an endless stream of strategic choices that would make a lot of assumptions about the type of gamer I was. I know this was a kind of “fear” I had that may not have been entirely rational but I was so happy to see that not only where the choices easy to understand, you could right away get a sense of what impact they would have on the game and how that tied into the theme of being a strategic commander.

You chose your bomber groups, picked special pilots to fly your missions, outfitted their loadouts, picked their targets, chose their flight path and sent them on their way. These choices are important and have great impact on how the mission will play out, but they weren’t overwhelmed by a lot of complicated, task oriented activities. They were just great, simple to understand options which you had to consider for the mission and larger strategic plans.

Front and center is the map of Europe where the various targets and enemy squadrons call home. This is your field of battle, where you do a lot of your mission planning and a big part of what makes this game feel very authentic.

What you discover after running a couple of weeks worth of missions is the impact of those earlier choices on the campaign at large and this is really where the theme comes through because while you are thinking about the current missions, you really have to think about the campaign as well. Your choices have benefits but they can also have consequences and I found it especially interesting how their was this feeling of a high power, those ranked above you, that could bring those consequences. For example if your campaign was going really well but the war on other fronts goes poorly, you could suddenly discover that some of your squadrons get reassigned to other fronts where they are more needed.

The reverse could also happen, which meant that while you had your job to do, your commanders had there’s. It was amazing to see how the game responded to my success and failures over the course of my campaign.

Some of the auxiliary stuff, though I call it that, actually plays important roles in the game is also chalked full of flavor. For example if a German commander appears that brings U-Boats with him, you will have a whole different series of problems to contend with then a German Commander that brings special technologies with them. Event cards can turn what appears to be a easy routine mission into a disaster. The feeling of rolling for the German response is also this great unknown, it’s sort of like your planning your mission but you don’t fully know exactly what the Germans will do.

I realize a lot of this stuff is decided with dice, which one might say means the game is random and to a degree its true, but thematically these events and reactions the game comes up with, though driven by the cast of a die create a believable setting, a sense of time and place.

The way you feel sitting in front of that strategic map is uncanny and though you can’t control many of the events, you kind of have to plan for the unexpected and this is really part of how the game plays out and I imagine probably how it felt to the actual strategic commanders in World War II.

Does it all make simulation sense? No. Yes there are definitely a few places where clearly a mechanic is just a mechanic for the sake of balance and playability. These abstractions however don’t really detract from the experience, in fact they are such minor things I hardly see any point in naming them or docking the theme score for them, though I might consider it when discussing mechanics. I hadn’t even noticed them until I read a few other reviews that pointed them out and kind of went.. aha.. yea I suppose it’s true but who cares!

From the stand point of theme, this game just nails it, though I would definitely recommend using some of the optional rules like weather, recon missions and veteran bandits because it adds even more atmosphere to an already atmosphere rich game without really doing much to make it more complex. Recon missions I in particular I felt really fit the game and seemed like it should just be a standard part of the game. I was actually surprised that this was left as an optional rule as it adds so much to the theme.

Absolutely fabulously executed theme’s, captures the intended experience with perfection in my humble, albeit inexperienced opinion.

Gameplay

Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star

Pros: Well orchestrated mechanics with high level of connection to the theme and lots of player choices that both work into the short and long term strategies make this game a blast to play.

Cons: Some missed opportunities, a bit lackluster event cards and a relatively docile enemy can be a bit of a let down. 

When evaluating a historic simulation game, I have to admit that I’m a bit out of my element and so I really just decided to evaluate the game on the same basic premise and methodology that I do any other game. This may or may not be fair to the publisher, but to me, a game is a game, so I suppose I don’t really see why one would get a different treatment over the other, historic simulation or not.

It’s really because the theme is so strong in B-17 Flying Fortress Leader, that the mechanics become a bit of a chore to evaluate, in part because mechanically there is a lot of high level of abstractions that are driven by a single cast of a die, yet can potentially have great impact on the game.

For example the combat mechanic of rolling a d10 for each bomb you drop with some minor modifications is a very simplistic mechanic. There really is not much more to it than luck, you either roll well and do well or you don’t. On the surface I would not consider this a particularly inventive or immersive mechanic, but in the scope of the theme and everything that came before, that is exactly what the mechanic should be. The important events are all those things that lead up to that final moment when you drop the bombs. If you have planned well the odds are in your favor, but the idea here is that its war, you have sent your boys on the mission and there is no guarantees and this mechanic really brings this uncertainty to a conclusion quickly so you can get back to the fun stuff of planning your campaign. It breaks up the anticipation of the result so it feels great, but it’s not a focus of the game, hence handled quickly and efficiently.

Airfields are one of many targets you will go after. There is a wide range of game effects every target in play has, destroying airfields for example can reduce the amount of enemy squadrons on the map which can make running future missions less risky.

Which is exactly how most of the mechanics in the game feel. There are numerous examples of moments being resolved in a simple way and efficient way of a single die cast, because what your really doing, where the bulk of the fun and strategy of the game is working on the plan around the results from these mitigatable but often random outcomes.

In general the activities of building your plan and strategy take shape in a wide range of ways. Chief among them is the managing of your precious SO (Special Operation) points. These are used to get new bomber or escort groups, hiring on special pilots, outfitting your loadouts for the missions, purchasing recon assets, sometimes upgrading or replacing bomber groups and more. There are a number of ways these SO points can be affected both positively and negatively via different events in your campaign, so you will often make strategic strikes against targets that might impact your SO point production or pursue missions that earn you extra points. Suffice to say being low on SO points can limit your options and having a lot can allow you to create havoc for the Germans.

Other important decision are driven by the strategic situation on the map. There are sorties and mission sites all over the place and you will be planning your targets and routes on that map. Some weeks you might choose to strike deep into enemy territory so that you get an opportunity to take out bandits and that hidden airfield, other times you might go for doing lots of damage to several targets at once to try and soften up the enemy for more decisive strikes later in the month. Time pressure can be a big factor, so there is considerable precision required to your choices of targets and how you approach them. If using the weather and Intel options which I highly recommend you do, those can allow you to create advantages or cause problems in what feels like a very authentic way.

Often your decisions can be forced, perhaps you took a bad beating this month and in the last week of the month your bomber squadrons are in bad shape, so you hold back a bit, while other times still you have to take big risks to take out targets that can cause devastating problems in the next month if you don’t. You also always have the pressure of trying to complete your mission and win the campaign, getting those victory points and completing your victory objectives should of course always be first and foremost on your mind, but this requires long term planning to manage successfully.

There are also external factors that impact decisions. There are other war fronts that can affect your resources in your air war with Germany. Event cards in particular can really impact a specific mission, while the other war fronts can create sudden shifts in strategies for the Germans that can surprise you.

In the course of play there are a lot of moving, dynamic parts that will cause you to make constant adjustments to your strategy and of course its always about doing the most damage against your targets while taking the fewest casualties possible.

Gameplay in B-17 Flying Fortress Leader is a constantly shifting and adapting thing. I find that early in a campaign you tend to think in terms of “what are my best odds”, but as the campaign gets going there is far more that drives your decisions and your options, forcing you to take greater and greater risks. The crux of the game is really many mini decisions that are lead you to the success or failure of the campaign and because the game is thematic, the experience is that much more engrossing. You can really lose yourself in this game as your imagination runs wild.

It’s a game that feels great and I will often say that a game mechanic doesn’t have to be good, it just needs to feel right and I think that is what B-17 really does here. I’m no game designer and my minimal experience with these historical simulation games leaves me with little to compare it to, but if through gameplay and theme there goal was to make me feel like a World War II strategic commander in charge of a fleet of B-17 bombers, they have wildly exceeded my expectations. I really was expecting this game to leave such an excellent impression on me.

Enemy commanders add unique properties to campaign and will definitely change the battlefield and outcomes of your missions. Adding photos of historical figures is a nice thematic touch.

There are a few chinks in the armor of course and I would be remiss not to mention them, but I think I would qualify these as minor quirks, rather than real mechanical problems.

One thing is that it feels like when planes got destroyed that there should be more drawbacks and consequences for the particular bomber group. There is the whole Shaken mechanic, where if a group takes enough damage they become less effective, but as you lose planes there is no impact on the quality of the unit long term. It feels to me like Bomber groups should level up and level down, so that there is a thematic sense of veteran pilots getting killed and new rookie pilots joining the team. It’s kind of a missed opportunity to add yet another layer of theme to the games gameplay and it’s one of the first house rules I added to the game.

What I did here is simply make it that anytime you lose 16 planes in a single group over any amount of time (16 is the starting strength of a unit) your bomber group is reduced one level down in experience. The effect is that over time, your bomber groups that do well rise in experience but eventually they will take a hit down as pilots are killed in action. It feels right and thematic but the impact on difficulty is minimal, it’s just one of things that just feels right.

I also felt there should have been more event cards. Really, its a minor thing but on a typical 3-4 week month where you run typically 2 missions per week (at least you try) you are effectively drawing 4 event cards per week. That means in a 4 week month you could draw 16 cards, that’s actually almost all of them as the deck is quite thin. I also felt that too often the event cards, in particular on return trip had a no effect, effect. Meaning nothing would happen as a result of drawing the card. I think more thought should have been put into ensuring that drawing event cards was always a stressful and eventful thing but rarely is the impact of these cards really significant. This is a bummer because when it is significant, when the impact of the card is really felt, the game really shines. These event cards really help to tell a story of the game, but they come out feeling a bit weak.

Event cards are drawn on the way to the mission and on the way back. These can create a lot of excitement at the table, but just as often as they are exciting they can be really boring with no impact at all.

Now this last part I’m not really a hundred percent sure about, but so far I have not found the game to be particularly difficult, at least not to the point where I think I will “lose” the war. I might not get as many victory points as I want or fail to meet the objective of the campaign, but I definitely feel like at least to this point, I’m totally dominating the Germans. The occasional disastrous mission aside, I’m usually coming out ahead. Now the caveat is that I have only done a couple of campaigns, the early years one so I don’t really know at this point if the games difficulty ramps up, I’m definitely far from done playing this one, but I’m hopeful that the Germans are going to put up more of a fight as I work my way through the campaigns.

Replay ability And Longevity

Score: christmas_starchristmas_starchristmas_star
Tilt: christmas_starchristmas_star

Pros:  Very dynamic campaign setup, lots of campaigns to run and even a couple of mini games all contribute to this games longevity.

Cons: There is a definitive routine to the playing this game, a process that may become monotonous after a while.

B-17 Flying Fortress Leader is one of those games that you set up on a table and play over several sessions. Some of these campaigns are really long, there are several campaigns included and because the setup is dynamic as well as there being many dynamically changing circumstances, each time you play any of these campaigns, they will be very different.

The end result is a game with a considerable amount of Longevity, I’ve been at it now for several weeks and I have barely scratched the surface, yet I’m still drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

There is kind of a routine to the game however and I think eventually even with all of the dynamics this game will peter out at some point, get shelved for a while and after collecting some dust you might get the itch to bring it back. In fact I fully expect that to happen because even though the game is very dynamic and certainly has lots of replayability, its fairly robust and lengthy game.

There are also several other mini games included in this package, none of which I have had a chance to try yet so I can’t speak to their quality, but I definitely see some potential in there. One scenario for example has you flying missions with a single plan in a more tactically detailed way. This is really an entirely separate game included in this one which definitely adds to its longevity assuming.

B-17 Flying Fortress Leader certainly earns its stripes in this department, maybe even standing out a bit, I would call it a pass+.

Conclusion

B-17 Flying Fortress Leader has definitely exceeded my expectations and has made for a great first foray into the world of historical simulation games for an amature like me. It’s greatest strength is the execution of the theme which comes through wonderfully giving you the experience of being a World War II strategic commander of the British Royal Air Force. It has also peeked my interest in other “Leader” series game which is I would imagine exactly what the designer and publisher would want.

There are several “Leader” series game that cover a wide range of subjects, if you like B-17 and want to explore other themes, there are quite a few to choose from.

It’s a very expensive game and I think of all the detractors here that is going to be the biggest hurdle for a potential commander. Coming in at around 100 dollars US, this game competes for your money with some of the best and most expensive games on the market, ones notably with extremely high production values and as a board gaming fan I can only say that in that field, B-17 Flying Fortress Leader is a tough call.

Still I think for board gamers looking for a great solo experience, B-17 really is a fantastic choice. It has it in all the places it really counts and aside from the high cost of entry, it definitely gets a recommendation from Gamersdungeon for anyone looking to break into the Historic Simulations genre of games. For me personally this has been one of the best games I have played this year, grant it, its early 2020, but hey, for the moment its true.

D&D Theory: The Old School Complaint

I’ve spoken on a number of occasions about old school vs. new school D&D, the old school movement, the designs and theories behind classic and AD&D, but today I’m going to try to illustrate not so much why those movements exist, but what those movements complain about when it comes to modern versions of D&D. What their main beefs are with modern systems and why they continue to use the old systems despite considerable advancement in modern design of mechanics.

I think the conversation is appropriate because only a month ago we got yet another variation on modern version of D&D in Pathfinder 2.0. As I write this I’m only 1 day away from playing in my first session and I’m very excited to try out the new system. Unfortunately I also know what I’m walking into. Like most old school D&D players, while I can certainly enjoy modern versions of D&D (and I do very much so), I know that the experience will be lacking in certain areas and all of my complaints that I have about modern D&D will still be present in some capacity in this latest version of the game even from a courtesy reading.

What are the complaints of this old school gamer when it comes to modern versions of D&D? That’s what today’s article is all about.

Combat is dreadfully slow

Dungeons and Dragons has always been a game of heroic combat to a great degree. We make great fighters, powerful magic-users, stealthy back stabbing thieves and divine clerics and much more and all of these adventuring characters are built from the ground up to kick-ass and take monster names. D&D as a premise is about heroically taking our characters into danger, fighting monsters, finding treasure, exploring unique locations and living in the theatre of the mind through the eyes of our characters.

At its core it is a staple of D&D to fight, but it is not the point of the game as a whole. This rather odd discrepancy between “what the game is about” and “what you do often in the game” is a delicate formula that Dungeons and Dragons got right way back in AD&D and has been struggling with in every edition of the game ever since.

The simple fact is that a D&D combat should take about 10-20 minutes tops, maybe 30-45 if you are doing a big climatic boss battle. It should be fast, furious, dangerous, violent and over quickly. A 5 hour session of D&D could (not necessarily should) have 4-5 combats and the session should still be mostly role-playing. In other words, you do a lot of fighting and still the game is not focused on fighting.

This is a fundamental and important element of a game that is about exploration and that comes with 300+ page book of monsters.

My biggest complaint about modern D&D is that combat has been getting slower and more dissociated from the narrative (more on dissociation later) with each new edition up until about 5th edition (so between 2nd-4th edition including Pathfinder 1.0 it grew more and more sluggish).

4th edition Dungeons and Dragons was certainly the worst of the modern D&D games when it came to combat speed, an average fight being 2-4 hours, but Pathfinder, 5th edition D&D and certainly the new Pathfinder 2.0 are still fairly slow by comparison to classic versions of D&D like AD&D.

In our session 0 Pathfinder 2.0 game our GM ran a simulation combat. 5 players versus 6 goblins. It took the better part of of an hour and change, the average wait time for me between actions was 5-10 minutes. It suffices to say that comparatively this was certainly a huge improvement over say 3rd or 4th edition, or even Pathfinder 1.0, but still considerably slower then AD&D which would have wrapped up the entire fight in 10-15 minutes.

Now I will say this upfront. All of the modern D&D editions including 4th edition have very interesting, involved and well thought out mechanics. These aren’t bad games, or bad mechanics they are just slow and this lack of expediency is just one peg in the leg that holds the chair (game session) together.

It’s also important to note that as an old school gamer and I feel quite comfortable speaking on behalf of the OS movement that there is no opposition to making combat tactically interesting. In fact, most AD&D and Basic D&D players use either house rules or published material to enhance, improve and expand on the simplicity of the tactical elements of the core rules for their game. The balance between speed and interesting combat is a fragile one and will differ from group to group and DM to DM, but among old school gamers both simplicity and speed are typically more important to creating a deeper, more complex tactical game. Its a preference and a peg to the leg, but its certainly not the deal breaker.

The real issue most old school gamers have is that most of the rules weight added to make the tactical combat more interesting in modern games, comes in the form of dissociated mechanics and it’s here where modern and old school gamers really differ in what they want to see in the way of enhance tactical combat mechanics.

Dissociated Mechanics

To understand what Dissociated Mechanics are and really the RPG design theory behind it, you really have to do some research. This is a long, involved and complex subject which I won’t cover here beyond the sort of paraphrased version.

The short version is that in modern D&D (and many modern RPG’s), many mechanics (in some cases most mechanics) are there not as part of a role-playing mechanism, but as a game mechanic. In other words, the mechanic is not associated with the abstracted reality, from the perspective of the character. These mechanics are not associated with the decisions the character makes. They are dissociated, meaning, disconnected from the characters reality, in the hands of the player making decisions in a tactical mini game added for the purpose of creating tactical and character building options.

Disassociation of mechanics in RPG’s began about the same time PC versions of RPG’s and in particular MMORPG’s were born. The concept of balance, the concept of character progression and builds all triggered the shift in pencil and paper RPG’s. In a sense, modern RPG’s were designed for modern gamers which came to the table with PC and video game experiences. Their expectations were to have the same levers available in their pencil and paper RPG’s as they had in their PC and Video game equivalents. It may seem odd, since PC and Video game RPG’s were born from Pencil and Paper versions, but the digital versions of RPG’s evolved differently and then began to influence their ancestry, pushing their pencil and paper equivalents to adapt to them.

An example of a Dissociated Mechanic is the Combat Maneuvers mechanic for a 5th edition fighter. With this mechanic, the fighter gets “combat maneuver points” that can be spent on special combat actions. These points represent an abstraction of fatigue, concentration, knowledge and Will I suppose. You can do things like trip your enemy (causing them to go prone), rally an ally (giving them extra HP), or command another player (giving them an extra attack).

This mechanic is really not associated with the characters reality, aka, a dissociated mechanic. When the character rallies another character and gives them extra HP, it’s really such a heavy abstraction in on its own as it is, but on top of that, he can only do it 3 times before taking rest, or he can rally someone twice, but then only trip an enemy one time So to the character because he rallied someone, he can’t trip someone later.

If you start to see the picture here, you should realize that the combat maneuver points, the way they are applied, the abstracted mechanics they trigger are all disassociated from reality. It makes it more disassociated and really paints the picture when you start asking questions.

Why can’t a thief learn a combat maneuver? Is tripping someone that complicated? Is it not possible for a Paladin to rally his troops, or command fellow character to get an extra attack? Why does me rallying my team and commanding them, exhaust me and prevent me from tripping someone or getting a bonus attack. How are these things related to each other.

Now there is a term for this called suspension of disbelief that is often applied, I would argue incorrectly. Suspension of disbelief is to accept something as fact that is clearly invented fantasy. For example characters in a fantasy world know that orcs and dragons exist, that magic is real and gods actually come down from the heavens and influence mortal beings. These are facts for the fantasy world and require the players to have a suspension of disbelief to accept. It is not suspension of disbelief when we ask a player to accept that he is fatigued from commanding people, so he can’t make a riposte or a trip attack as a result. We are not asking their character to believe in magic or dragons, we are asking them to accept a mechanical construct applied to a game for the purposes of balance as real.

Modern D&D is full of dissociated mechanics and this is so because these mechanics were not created to represent character choices and decisions within the realm of a abstracted fantasy reality, they were added for classes to have interesting activatable abilities, for the purposes of balance and entertainment as part of a miniatures combat game. They are not only dissociated from the make believe reality of a fantasy world, but from the very premise of a role-playing game (aka, taking on a role of a character).

These disassociated mechanics are very disruptive to role-playing though modern players are not entirely aware of it because again, they are so accustomed to these mechanics existing in other games (namely PC and Video games) that it feels natural and normal to have them. Modern pencil and paper RPG players are more likely to discuss class builds, class balance and “what options are good picks or not”. To the modern gamer, this is part of the role-playing experience and though these mechanics are disassociated, modern gamers are not bothered by the disruption, though disrupt them it does.

To a modern player, choosing your race and class, your feats and skills and your spells are mechanical choices they expect to make. They expect progression, they expect balance, they expect lots and lots of options. In fact, the size of core rulebooks have grown substantially for many of these games. Pathfinder 2.0 for example weighs in at over 600+ pages, easily the largest RPG rulebook that has ever existed. This book is overflowing with character building options. One must ask the question why? Why do we need this many options for a game that is about playing a role in a game of collaborative storytelling?

Dissociated mechanics are partially the cause, or at least they compounded the issues that lead to increased length of combat. As more and more of a session is taken up by making tactical choices, with a plethora of activatable abilities, the slower the game is in combat and the more often the players are pulled out of their role in the role-playing game and pushed towards player centric top down decisions about which abilities to use, which resources to spend, what tactical choices they should make. None of which has anything to do with role-playing their character, thinking through their character or seeing the world through their character. These are, for all intents and purposes, mechanics designed for a game.

4th edition D&D for example was often accused in reviews of being too much like a board game or an MMORPG. This assessment while facetious, is not really that far from the truth as in many ways, because the game is built on so many dissociated mechanics (just like board games and PC games are), that its perfectly reasonable to get that sense from the game. In 4th edition D&D you spent most of your session using mechanics that would have no in game, in character logic to them.

Is it all bad?

The answer is no. While certainly things have changed a great deal since the AD&D days when associated mechanics were king, the RPG revolution has begun to revert from its PC game evolved roots back to the golden age thinking. This is happening very subtly, but slowly with each new iteration of D&D. We have seen the PC and Video game world have less and less influence and the old school world of RPG’s have more and more. Modern players have begun to evolve the pencil and paper RPG’s away from the digital rpg’s. and into their own thing. Now its not exactly an old school movement, but many ideas from old school games have found their way back into modern designs.

A good example in Pathfinder 2.0 is the skill system. Any AD&D player should find this system very familiar, it is almost an exact replica of Non-Weapon proficiencies.

Why has Pathfinder 2.0 brought back Non-Weapon Proficiencies? The answer is quite simple. The purpose of a skill system is to describe what your character can do, not necessary to define how the rules work. Its sort of like saying, here is a gauge, rather then, here is an applicable rule. Its to ensure that while a player runs his character, he understands what his abilities are from the perspective of his character.

For example if you are trained at swimming, you know you can swim. That is an in character understanding (an associated mechanic). Certainly there can be rules for swimming (Difficulties set for different conditions for example) but the important thing for the player and his character is to understand, hey I know how to do that and here is how good at it I am. Trained, expert etc..

The movement to more associated mechanics however isn’t just about reverting to old school mechanics, there are very modern versions of associated mechanics we have never seen in old school games, but still fit neatly into the ideology. This supports the idea that associated mechanics aren’t just an old school thing, modern gamers and designers are becoming very aware of it as well even if they don’t fully verbalize it.

For example the 2D20 Momentum and Threat mechanic is a great example. Here we have a very associated mechanic that is inspired by concepts of inspiration and stress, a gauge of a very relatable concept we have in our real lives. When a person is inspired, he becomes motivated and is more likely to succeed and ever exceed in tasks he is performing. Who hasn’t had that day at work when everything is falling into place, motivating you to push it further, that moment when we are on a roll.

Vice versus with threat, its a little like stress. We can feel our stress levels and they impact us negatively. The more stressed we are the less productive we are, the more mistakes we make, we lose sleep, we are less attentive when we drive. There is all sorts of impact on our lives from stress (aka threat).

This sort of mechanic is brilliant in representing something very relatable, yet it is very modern, an invention of an associated mechanic for the new age of role-playing games.

The move away from dissociated mechanics might not ever reach the same levels as AD&D which on a design level had a real aversion to it going so far as suggesting that even the use of dissociated house rules in your game is heresy. Still modern gamers are becoming more evolved role-players. More and more, players are becoming concerned with their stories, with their backgrounds, with the invention of character and the designers of these systems are responding by giving them the mechanical structure on which to base those inventions, which come in the form of associated mechanics.

In Pathfinder 2.0, I found it refreshing and far more natural to build a character, a really great sign that the system is moving in the right direction. The dissociations of choosing hyper abstract mechanical options have been minimized, replaced with mechanics designed to help match functionality to written backgrounds and give players narrative fuel. We already saw this greatly improved in 5th edition D&D and Pathfinder 2.0 has taken yet another step in that right direction. An almost full 180 from systems like 4th edition D&D which lived in the world of dissociated mechanics almost exclusively.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that while we still call the old school movement and game systems like AD&D old school, modern games are becoming more and more familiar to us old gonards. The distinction between new school and old school is becoming blurred, there are more and more commonalities between the two concepts and rules. I find some of us Gonards have a hard time making peace with that, as old school has other more mythical connotations, but I consider this sort of thing very judgy for the sake of being judgy. It’s just some hipster shit, that out of date “it was better in the olden days” mantra. The reality is that the bridge is being built and the question is if old school players can get their head out of their asses long enough to make the crossing. I have my doubts about that.

Role-playing has changed a great deal in the last 30 years, but in a way, its less a progression forward and more an evolution and refinement on the original material. Sure, there was a brief moment in time (about 10 years worth) when the influence of digital games on the pencil and paper games was disturbing, I will be the first to admit that I thought it was shit in, shit out at the time, but even from those periods of design some good came out of it. Perhaps it was a lesson on what not to do, but I like to think of it more along the lines of designers coming to grips about what was great about role-playing games at the table and how it differs from the digital experiences. It was an affirmation that us old Gonards were right all along, we fucking told you, you wouldn’t listen and so you spent 10 years getting your asses kicked. While I feel high and mighty, I welcome you back.

Mind you I love MMORPG’s and CRPG’s, Baldur’s Gate was one of my favorite games of all time and it was a very close approximation of the rules of AD&D. It just doesn’t work to run pencil and paper RPG’s in this manner and we shouldn’t try to make mechanics that allow you to so, its pointless and It just doesn’t work well.

Pencil and Paper RPG’s are also more than just one thing and the old school gonards like me have to really come to grips with that as well. There are a wider range of perfectly acceptable ways to play D&D and those players aren’t doing it wrong, they are doing it their way and doing it your own way IS always the right way. Designers are going to continue as they always have to cater to all walks of RPG life, which will include these ever widening styles of play.

I do however agree with the old school movement that D&D is its own thing, it is not to be fucked with. If you want to make a Forbidden Lands that has some unique spin on the RPG genre, go for it, but if you are going to put the D&D label on something, you will follow the rules, or we will make someone who does the king of RPG’s (like Paizo). There are sacred cows like associated mechanics that simply cannot be trifled with, else you will end up with commercial failures like 4th edition D&D. Note I said commercial failure, not design failure. 4e had its merits, it just wasn’t D&D because it failed to heed important lessons about what D&D should be, which includes a game about fast combat, associated mechanics and countless key tropes that are ingrained into the fan bases psyche If you want to include D&D players from all generations of the game, there are simply some design constructs that must be followed. Call them sacred cows if you will, but those are the terms, abide by them or suffer the consequences.

In my opinion the future looks bright for the old school movement and the modern gamers as well. Systems like Pathfinder 2.0 are clearly designed for a more seasoned group of players, but there is no mistaking its intention to include old school veteran’s of D&D and the old school movement within its walls. I look forward to this next edition of the game.

Exciting times ahead!

Playing to Win: League of Legends: Part I

While I don’t often talk about my PC gaming experiences on this blog, it is and always has been my intention for this to be an all exclusive gaming blog. Today we are going to talk about League of Legends, a 10 year old MOBA that is without question the king of kings when it comes to the genre. Currently according to statistics released by RIOT games, there are over 100 million active players each month and on average 7.5 million players online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week , 365 days a year. It is among the largest MOBA game communities in E-sports today and that means that if you are are game reading this article, statistically speaking, you either have, do or will at some point be a player.

Over the next couple of articles we are going to dive into League of Legends. I have been a player since League of Legends launched nearly 10 years ago and I have had a lot of personal success with the game and buckets of experience. I have really enjoyed my time despite the often harsh community that forms around the game and in this article series I have constructed countless tips, tricks and lots of tid-bits of information less commonly known by league players. Consider this your guide to League of Legends from an old dog, whether you’re new to the game or an old veteran trying to climb the ladder of success.

The Basics Don’t Change

First and perhaps the most important thing most League of Legends players overlook and ignore are the fundamentals (the basics) of the game. I think it serves every League of Legends player, new and old alike to familiarize (or re-familiarize) themselves and remember the core fundamentals of League of Legends road to successful play, so I will list them here first before we get any deeper into this guide.

You cannot win alone
No matter how good you are, no matter how well you play and no matter what you do in a match, its physically impossible for even the best player in the world, to beat, even the worst team in the world alone. Don’t let anyone ever fool you into thinking you can carry a game without your team or that somehow your fate is not intertwined with the rest of your team. This IS a team E-Sport from the core of its design and alone you will ALWAYS lose, period. You need your team, which means that they are on your side, they are your friends for the 30-45 minutes you are in a match together.

Note that there are 4 other players on your team, for the next 45 minutes, they are your only hope of winning this match.

You can play well and still lose
No matter how good you think you are (or actually are), no matter how well you play, there will always be people who play and are better than you. Make peace with it. This is a game of skill and your skill is your skill and everyone else’s skill is everyone else’s. You can’t expect players who are below your skill level to perform as good as you, nor can you expect to beat players who have higher skill then you. During matches you must accept your “real situation” as opposed to your “frustration situation” (more on those terms later).

No one ever wants to see this screen, but seeing it doesn’t mean you played badly. Globally players win/lose ratios are about 60/40, meaning the average players loses 40% of his games.

Statistics Don’t Matter, Focus Does
Your KD ratio, your win/loss record, your league rank or division, your farm.. forget about all of it, it’s totally and utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is your last game. Did you improve, did you discover something new about the champion that you just played, did you discover a new combo, did you make mistakes and were you able to identify them. If you are focused on your performance and strive to improve your actual play, your statistics will improve automatically. Don’t let the numbers get under your skin, focus on the matches, on your actions, on your real performance and strive to improve your play, your stats will improve as you do.

Play to your strengths, develop your weaknesses
There is a tradition among League of Legends players, which is to speak about what your good at. I’m a good ADC with Ashe, or I’m great top with Tremele. All great and good, every player should play to their strengths, but League of Legends is a game with well over 100 champions, not the 5 you play. Knowing what champions can do, is a key element to understanding how to deal with them in game or benefit from them if they are on your team. As such, one of the key fundamental approaches to the game is to always be developing the weakest part of your game. Do you suck at support? Well then that is where your focus should be. Why? Because it will make you even better when you play to your strengths and give you a far broader understanding of the game.

You will lose with your mouth before you lose with your hands
This is a big one. League of Legends is infamous for trash talk in game, in fact, to such a degree that RIOT themselves have done studies on player statistics and discovered what we all already know inherently. If you trash talk you will lose more games than if you don’t, in fact, 30% more. What that means is that when it comes to finding ways to improve your game, the most sure fire and direct way you can do that is to simply shut the fuck up. It’s that simple. Stop trash talking and you will win more games. It’s worth pointing out that if you statistically lose 30% more often, it is physically impossible for most players to win more games then they lose as the average win/loss record for a really great players is winning 70% of their games. So if you lose another 30% on top of that, you are flipped upside.

On top of increasing your chances of losing, trash talking will get you banned fairly quickly forcing you out of ranked play and back to starting with a 1st level account.

The Big Picture Strategy

Now that we have some of the basics outlined, it should be clear that most of the fundamentals have very little to do with strategy/tactics in game and more to do with mentality and approach to the game. Why is that? Simply put, when it comes to any sort of sport and League of Legends is a sport, E-Sport, but a sport non the less you must approach it like an athlete approaches his sport. Which is to say, you must focus on yourself. You cannot control what other people do, but you can control how you react to it and you can control your own approach to the game and this is the big picture and the point of the fundamentals listed above. More importantly however, is that the focus should be on practicing your craft, in this case, playing matches. Theory has its place but practice is everything which means that the Big Picture Strategy for League of Legends is Focus on yourself and practice.

That only leaves the question about how you should practice, after all, practice is a practical word, but to improve, you must have a strategy on how you practice. Simply playing a lot of games without direction will not improve your skills by much, in fact, what it will most likely do is result in you stalling your improvement as you develop habits. My advice to anyone, newbie and pro alike is to ensure, if you are going to apply strategy, it should be to the method and approach you use in how you practice, as opposed to what you practice, which brings me to the following list of 5 tips on how to practice.

Practice Tip 1: Focus on a personal goal
When it comes to practicing something, it’s about repetition and ensuring that what you are learning becomes less a thought and more a reflex, but it can be very easy to get bogged down by the complexity of the many things one must think about in a match to be successful. As such, its best to enter a match with a definitive goal in mind in what you want to accomplish/practice in a match and do that thing over and over until you have it down. For example, if you want to improve you warding skills, or you want to test some warding locations, then focus on that. Make the match about you putting down good wards for your team. Analyze the benefits and drawbacks of what worked, what didn’t and establish working routines, but don’t be afraid to challenge them.

Practice is all about improving on specific skills that make up the whole of the sport, warding for example is something every good player should be skilled out regardless of position. Practice makes perfect!

This is just an example, but the idea here is that you want to zero in on one thing and get it to a point that its automatic. So that in all future matches from that point forward, you don’t have to think about it, you just know what to do. When you get to that point, move on to the next thing you want to practice. Eventually you will see a lot of improvement in your play as you expand your expertise and you will find that many skills, enhance, other skills you will focus on later. You will find that as your skills stack, you win more matches, that’s a promise!

Practice Tip 2: Play Ranked ASAP
Pressure and competitiveness are an athletes best friend and so it is true for E-Sports, get into Ranked games ASAP and stay there. Many players will tell you the exact opposite, I disagree.

If you want to be a rockstar, you need to get on stage, its as simple as that. In ranked matches, when it comes to League of Legends, the pool of players, the effort people put in and the demands they place on themselves are much higher/bigger which leads to considerably better games. This is true for any stage in the divisions.

Playing ranked will put extra pressure on you to perform and pressure is a good thing. Regardless of what division you fall in, your goal is to move up to the next one.

I truly believe that simply by joining Ranked play, your game will improve much faster as a natural adjustment to a competitive environment and being surrounded by players that are a bit more serious about competing.

Practice Tip 3: Prepare your champions in advance
As a rule, any hero that you would potentially play you should have your core gear plan setup in the items section, runes setup for that specific champion and a core plan for your leveling progression. You don’t want to be inventing this stuff on the fly. This may be obvious, but you would be shocked how frequently people don’t do this and more importantly what a huge advantage it is to go into matches with a clear plan that clears your mind and allows you to focus on the game rather than on decisions and analysis of champion builds.

You should have alternatives as well, situational builds to counter certain types of situations. Its usually good to think about it in basic/general terms than in champion specific terms. In other words, instead of having an Anti-Malphite build, have a vs. melee or vs. magic build. As you get better you may improve upon this by getting more specific, but having a general plan is always preferable to no plan.

Practice Tip 4: Be a good sportsmen
It may seem strange to “practice” being a good sportsmen but given the statistical nature (30%) of losing games as a result of trash talking, it can be surmised that doing the opposite will shift the statistic the other way. In Other words, instead of trash talking, practice encouraging opponents and being a good sportsmen.

I truly believe that building up a teams confidence has many benefits and will more often result in teams playing better as it does the opposite when you tear your team down with trash talk. When a player does well, pat him on the back, if he makes a mistake, be quick with an encouraging comment. If you feel negative energy building up, focus on the positive. It may sound silly, but the mental state of a team constructed out of 5 strangers in an online game can shift wildly and I’m convinced it has massive impact on player performance, including your own. So be a good guy on the team, encourage your team and make it a habit by practicing it every match, every time.

Practice Tip 5: Know your place and own it
This is less a practice tip and more a general tip, but I’m putting it here because it really does require a paradigm shift for most people. This is one of the hardest hurdles that I find the overwhelming majority of League of Legend players can’t make peace with. Knowing their place in a match. I’m not talking about position, I’m talking about your skill level.

The most typical response you will get from players is that they belong in a higher rank then they currently are in nd the people they are playing with and against people who belong in a lower rank then they are. It’s an assumption that the matchmaking is terrible, the ranking system is broken and the entire infrastructure of determining which players your matched up with and against is giant mistake by Riot.

Embrace the fact that you are wrong on that. If you are in Iron II, Silver III, or Diamond I, it’s because that is where you belong. When you are Iron II and you are matched with a Bronze II, accept that this player has a higher skill set then you do. It might not reflect it in the current match, it might not reflect it on that matches K/D ratio, but it’s 100% true.

It’s vital to the success of your climb to accept where you are in the league and that you belong their. Your focus should be on improving and climbing, but you must do it with the clear mind and acceptance that based on your performance to this very moment, you are exactly where you belong.

Embrace that and your mental state will change, your approach and understanding of the game will shift and you will find yourself free of the frustrating burden of trying to prove yourself to everyone. The number one cause for tilting and players throwing games with bone head moves and the blame game that follows is the result of people resisting this premise. It’s physically not possible for you to improve as a player without taking this step. Wherever you are now, you will stay there until you deal with this mental block, that is a guarantee from a 10 year League of Legends veteran.

Ok that it’s for Part I, in Part II of the series we are going to get into more specifics.



First Night with Warmachine – Horde

For anyone who reads this blog with any regularity you know that while I have spent a great deal of time writing about board games, miniature games and role-playing games, at the end of the day, I’m a theme guy and I tend to want to play games (whatever they are) with a deep rich theme. I don’t think that makes me unique, in fact, more and more games these days are a departure from the straight “great game mechanics” to the world of “great story games” side of the theme scale. Simply put, people want story in their games and so do I.

When I did my Runewars: The Miniature Game first impression article a while back, the one place where I strongly felt the game let me down was in the theme and story setting of the game. I can summarize the theme/setting and story of Runewars as lackluster, predictable and generic. Without question one of the primary factors as to why my group lost interest in the game almost immediately, for me personally there were other issues, but this definitely didn’t help.

That said my more recent foray into Battletech was driven strictly on the basis that I loved the setting and theme of the game, thinking that I had outsmarted myself I dove head first. As it turned out I was as impressed by the story as disappointed in the games mechanics. The game floundered for me very quickly, despite this amazing setting which brings me to my point.

It’s easy to conclude from those two experiences that at the end of the day, in order for a good miniature game to be successful and attractive to me, it must have the best of both worlds, great story, great mechanic.

Twilight Imperium is, in a word, the best board gaming experience available in the market today for the veteran gamer. I have been searching for a miniature game cousin for a long time but am yet to find something that is a satisfying miniature game equivalent.

In comes Warmachine and Horde by Privateer Press. The promise of a game that has an imaginative and deeply detailed setting while simultaneously rumored to have a robust and high level tactical game mechanic. A friend and I couldn’t resist, we picked up a couple of starter sets, painted up some miniatures and played our first few games. This article is all about my first impressions of the Warmachine -Horde by Privateer Press.

The Trollbloods Rule

I think the first most notable impression the game made on me was that I instantly fell in love with one of the factions, which I think is really key for me (and I assume anyone) to make an attachment to a game that helps to identify the you behind the miniatures you will be spending hours lovingly painting and pushing around. The story of the Trollbloods, the mechanics of how they approached the battlefield, the amazing miniatures. It all just clicked for me instantly at least just based on what I saw and and initially read prior to even having painted any miniatures or played any games. I spent all of 2 minutes browsing the Privateer Press catalog before I zeroed in on them, they would be mine and I knew immediately.

This is the image that sold me on the Trollbloods, a mere taste of the amazing Horde faction. A hobbyist delight!

I think the most unique aspect of Warmachine and Horde is how each army is very distinctively visually different, reminiscent of Warhammer 40k. This is not in itself unique to miniature games, but what really attracted me was the attention to the detail of each individual unit. Inherently in many miniature games, once you choose your army, many of the miniatures are themed so closely together that the units kind of blend into one another unless you really know your own faction well. It wasn’t just about an army theme, but really about how each character and unit in the game had its own very distinct personality matched up with its own core advantages and mechanics to boot. I guess what I’m saying is that the factions have a lot of personality.

Now with the box set you don’t get much in the way of choice/selection, its just enough for a zero point game but because each unit (each model) is a distinct member of a team as well with his own abilities, powers and weapons, their is an association to the game that you get with it that you might not with say an army of indistinct Stormtroopers in Legion or the piles of Skeletons you get in Runewars. They aren’t just models, they aren’t just units, they are individuals that are part of a core strategy for the faction, or optional tactics that synergize not only with the units that come with your box set but potentially with any other very distinct unit in your faction. They are also distinctly unique miniatures you paint, so when you paint a Troll Bouncer, your going to paint that miniature one time rather than painting 20 exact copies of him. This makes the whole experience a lot more approachable from a hobby stand point rather than what you get with most miniature game, that tedious task of getting your army painted by painting the same skeleton model over and over again.

in the core set alone you had to paint a shocking 24 largely identical skeletons just to get half an army on the board. It’s painfully tedious and is in large part the reason I never got a fully painted army to the table. Sorry, it’s just too much of the same thing.

This idea of distinct units was really attractive to me, both because you ultimately didn’t have to assemble and paint Legions of exactly the same units that form squads, instead being able to lovingly paint these individuals, but also because it pushed you towards researching the game on a much deeper level right away. Synergies in the game don’t just come from combos, but rather from concepts, so you were theorizing and imagining the fights as well as the many options long before you get them to the table. It was in a way an experience closer to opening a booster pack of CCG cards, where even without playing you could see how the combos and synergies might unfold.

For example The Bouncer Warbeast in the Trollbloods has an ability that allows him to take the damage another unit would receive from a ranged attack. He is a kind of protector with a high Armor value allowing him to soak a lot of damage. This synergy can combo in a lot of different ways, but conceptually this unit is also incredibly tough, so you could ignore that ability and instead send him to the front lines where he could hold that line. Or you could make use of his Animus and simply make him a sort of spell battery as his Animus called Earth Blessing prevents a number of effects like being knocked down for example, which you might simply want for your Warlock to siphon so that he can avoid being easily assassinated through shutdown effects. Or you might use that ability to prevent terrible things from happening to more important units in your protection radius.

The Troll Bouncer has an armor rating of 19 with its shield and can take damage from any ranged hit for your units in a 3 inch radius making him a great guard to protect your more vulnerable assets on the table. Plus he looks amazing!

This might not all make sense to you if you don’t know the rules of the game, but the point I’m trying to make here is that this single unit has many different potential uses and that’s just one unit in your army (a single model). This model alone will change your approach, your style of play and how you manage your resources, as well as open up different tactics for you in response to your opponents actions. I love that a single unit can have this much impact on your game and open the door to so much theorycrafting, it’s wonderful to see how much diversity and mileage you get out of your models.

Now the drawback to this is of course complexity. With each unit having several abilities, effects and potential uses, even with only 4 units at the table (A Warlock and 3 Light Warbeasts in my case) in our first game, the experience was rather overwhelming. I’m sure it gets easier over time but with the average cost of a unit being around 6-15 points and a battlegroup with a value of ZERO points consists of a Warlock and 3 Light Warbeast you can imagine how high the complexity can become if you play a standard 75 point game. A game at 75 points might have anywhere from 10-20 unique units, each with several unique abilities to keep track of. It’s a bit daunting to even imagine how complicated the game can become, which comes with all sorts of interrelated benefits and drawbacks. Intimidating to be sure, but the flexibility and sheer options are outstanding in particular if you consider that there are 14 factions in the game each with several dozen unique units to choose from. The combinations are near infinite.

The point I guess is that this is a very heavy game, a true miniature war game unabashed by claiming the “for veterans” branding it definitely deserves. Now it doesn’t market itself that way, but it surely is. I have played many miniature games in my day and this one certainly ranks up their in the complexity of strategy, tactics and rules. Which brings us to the next impression and topic.

The Complexity of the Core Rules

When it comes to miniature games, most of them rank pretty high in the complexity of rules, at least when compared to other types of tabletop games. So when I say the game is pretty complex, it’s a comparison to other miniature games. For me personally as a gaming veteran this is not a drawback, I like a robust ruleset, it’s only a drawback if the rules are unclear or lead to irreconcilable situations (aka, rules that don’t cover the majority of potential situation that could come up) and if you actually try to achieve that, you won’t be able to create a game without a heavy ruleset. So to me, a heavy ruleset in a miniature game simply means that the publisher of the game took the time to be super clear about what the rules really are. It’s far worse to have a simple rule set that leaves you hanging at the table all the time without an explanation, then a 300 page rulebook that covers everything.

The question than becomes, how practical is the ruleset. Having a clear, concise and deliberate rulebook is great, but are the rules easy to remember. Will you be able to keep it all in your head as you apply the rules to list building and table tactics?

I definitely don’t think Warmachine/Horde is for the weak of heart or the amature miniature gamer, lets just at least say that. This is not a introduction to the hobby game, this is a graduation gift for the seasoned veteran. Is that a bad thing? I suppose it depends on how you evaluate games. For me personally, if a game endeavours to be a long game for example, you don’t give it negative marks for being long (see Twilight Imperium the board game as an example). You can’t say “this game sucks because their is too much luck involved” when rating Yahtzee, a game about rolling dice and hoping you get lucky.

As a miniature gamer I’m no stranger to thick rulebooks, but even as far as miniature games go, Warmachine/Horde lays it on pretty thick. This is a game with a learning curve and you have to brace yourself for it.

It’s the same with Warmachine/Horde, it’s a deeply tactical, heavy ruleset that endeavours to challenge seasoned miniature gamers. With that acknowledgement and goal, Warmachine/Horde rules in my book are excellent.

The clarity, efficiency and organization of the rulebook is bloody pitch perfect, this is not a game where you will run into a situation and not find in the book how to resolve it. You might not be able to remember every detail of the rules (which is an issue, more on that later) or you might get the rules wrong at the table (highly likely at the beginning). Suffice to say, rules referencing is something you will do with regularity until you reach an expert level of familiarity I would imagine, but unlike many miniature games, you won’t find yourself trying to interpret how to resolve a situation based on vague rules. It should be noted that when I watch battle reports online, after having become more familiar with the games over several readings of the book and a few plays under my belt I would say 90% of the people I have watched play, even the experts, are doing a stuff wrong quite regularly. This at least illustrates the complexity of the game, a lot of attention to detail is required to get it right.

Now the miniature game hobby is called a hobby because as much fun as the game is to play, much of the activity of a miniature player revolves around the preparation to play, which brings us to the next topic.

List Building and Miniatures

When it comes to Warmachine, List building is a thing, but less so in the modern sense that we see in a lot of games today. While certainly every miniatures statistics, special powers and unique application is something you will consider, from what I have seen so far in the game it appears any unit and pretty much any combination of units is viable. There are very few distinctly bad units or what is more common, outdated units. Match “fairness” will certainly vary depending on how two opposing lists match up, circumstances of the scenario, player skill etc.. which we definitely witnessed in the games we had, but individually when you assess any given unit you can clearly see a use for it in the game and in a potential army list. You might argue with your friends about how good a unit is or isn’t, I imagine units always appear stronger when facing them rather then using them but I found very few units that I looked at and went “Ok these guys suck balls, I would never use them”. Every unit has that “ah ok, I see what I can do with him” kind of feeling which really strengthens the games overall presence in our group as we very often find many of the miniature games to have some, often many units that we look and disregard as “unusable shit”.

The design of the game is such that you can really pick units based on aesthetics to create your army and come up with a reasonbly viable force. That is not to say that synergy is not important, it is, (probably more important in competitive play) but warmachine/Horde seems to be more the type of game that it’s virtually impossible to conceive it as a whole. What I mean is like some of the larger games like Warhammer 40k and unlike games like X-Wing and Armada for example, in Warmachine there are so many factions, so many unique units and so many possible combination that trying to establish a list that is “ready for anything” is a monumental task that I think would take some pretty serious experience. Warmachine is definitely one of those games that you could potentially play for years and never face certain factions and the bulk of the units that are available.

The fact that Warmachine/Hordes has cards for each unit for easy reference is a blessing but when you have a 75 point army in play, you are effectively going to have a deck of cards to represent it all. Becoming an expert player that remembers what all units for all factions can do is physically not possible for most people.

Unless you have some clear idea about what you might be facing, your list building is largely focused on your own army strategy rather than a response strategy. There are just too damn many units to do it any other way. There are of course some staple units in certain army (looking at you Dire Troll) but beyond that there is no telling what a player might or might not throw into an army you will face.

More than that though, most units stand on their own two feet. Add a Troll Bouncer to your army and any other choices you make are largely irrelevant, his abilities and synergy is universal and will be useful regardless of what else is in the army and your opponents army. Tactics will determine how you will use him and this will change from game to game, but he will be useful regardless. What that boils down to is that you can go into the product catalogue for your faction, pick a model you will enjoy painting and seeing on the table and you are certain to find a use for him in whatever army you currently have. In a sense the pressure is a bit lessened on focusing on purchasing and acquiring units based on abilities.

This approach to me is a lot more fun, at least as compared to some of the more modern games I have tried. For example in Runewars when I was running my Skeleton army, I knew I absolutely had to have 1 or 2 Skeleton Archer formations in every army list I built, it was just mandatory as a key synergy to the faction was practically based entirely on this unit. Grant it Warmachine has 10+ years on Runewars and so that may one day change for it, but suffice to say I love the idea of picking models on aesthetics and not having to worry too much about whether they would be a good addition to my army mechanically or not. Barring a couple of redundant units here and there, from what I can see, any unit is viable and has a place in your collection and while synergizing with other units, can be seen an independent addition thanks to all units having these multirole layouts.

Now it’s fair to say that this is just perception at this stage in my experience with the game, I could be completely wrong here. It will take a great many games to really get down to the nitty gritty of this game.

Rules Lawyering Is A Must

This is a game with a pretty robust ruleset and while I tip my hat to the clarity of the rulebook, in practice at the table you must apply these rules correctly and in Warmachine like most miniature games this is absolutely vital to maintain the intended balance of the game.

I played my first three games and lost miserably resulting in a bit frustration. I felt that with the Trollbloods battlegroup of 3 light warbeasts I just I had no chance against the Cygnar forces who had 2 light and a 1 heavy. I wasn’t just getting beaten, in one of our games I was crushed by round 2 with zero chance of making a comeback.

Then I came home and read up the rules and boom, realized that I had forgotten a couple of things, one rule in particular I was completely ignoring, a rule that would have turned that 2nd round crushing defeat into a potential victory.

This is where I think a game like Warmachine and many other complex miniature games have an inherent flaw, in that, the rules must be followed 100% and you really have to remember all the little intricacies of what your army can do, what individual units can do and what the exceptions to the rules and sub-rules are to the letter or you can end up coming up very short, in particular if your opponent is tapping into all of these resources. As such, if you are like me and have trouble remembering a lot of rules, abilities and special circumstantial possibilities in the moment, you can find yourself losing a lot of games that can be summarized in “I should have or could have” talk at the end of the match.

For example in my case I forgot that I could heal my units with Fury from my Warlock to remove the disabled effects of having all of your damage boxes in a single zone marked. You may be reading this and not fully grasping the impact here but let me tell you that this is HUGE. It’s the difference between night and day and this one very simple option/rule you have can make the difference between losing horribly and winning overwhelmingly. As such being a stickler for the rules is absolutely vital to maintain the integrity and balance of the game.

That said and simply put I don’t want nor enjoy being a rules lawyer to my opponent in general, I’m a social player, I want to get together with a friend, roll some dice, drink a beer and relax but I also don’t want to play a grossly unbalanced game that frustrate me. I want the rules to be simple enough that we don’t need to read the exact wording of every card, rule, sub-rule and indexed FAQ clarification to have a good balanced game, but in complex games that just isn’t a thing. You really need to know this stuff, which means the learning curve for Warmachine/Horde is pretty considerable. In fact, in my perspective this is one of the most complex miniature games I have ever played to date.

In short, forget a simple thing and it could cost you the whole game. In a game this complex, that is a very harsh reality and simply speaks to the fact that this game is exclusively for hardened veterans of the miniature game genre and rules lawyering is a necessity to ensure the integrity of the game.

Balance of The Battle Boxes

For anyone doing research on the game this may be a repeated opinion and information as it is one of the most common complaints about introductions to the game of Warmachine and Horde but I believe and fully agree with the internet consensus that the battle boxes are not particularly well balanced against each other. In fact, I would argue further and say that virtually no effort was made at all to create balanced starter sets. It’s not a commentary on the balance of the game, I certainly am in no position to speak on that in this article, but you don’t have to be an expert in the game to note the pretty staggering flaws in the match ups of these starter sets.

I’m not going to waste text here describing the issues, you can pretty much google every discussion on battle boxes anywhere on the internet and find the complaints. Suffice to say the balance of the boxes is a problem and I had the unfortunate luck of playing the Trollbloods which are at the top of the list as being considered one of the worst by a wide margin. In fact as I researched strategies and tactics to be deployed hoping to get some information from experts who know the game well and I found a grand total of ZERO information on the topic with one exception. This Article Here which was quite literally the only good advice on how to potentially succeed with the Trollblood starter box. The rest basically suggested that you not participate in zero point matches at all which I found very disappointing.

Now that is very disappointing and frustrating, playing a game you always lose is not fun and might even deflate your interest in the whole endeavour. However it’s worth pointing out two core things about the battle boxes and miniature games in general.

Generally games miniature games and it is clear to me it is the case with Warmachine/Horde is that they don’t balance the game on a unit level. What that means is that if you take a 10 point units from Cryx and compare it to a 10 point unit from Trollbloods, you aren’t going to get two units that are of equal strength or value.

What you will find is that each of those units in the scope of the army serves an important purpose and those 10 points can be escalated to be worth far more than the single unit’s abilities might suggest.

Take for example the Cryx Slayer Warjack (see picture below). You don’t have to be a mathematician to realize that the Slayer is superior in every single possible way to the Axer. He moves faster, is stronger, is more likely to hit, has a higher defense, has more hit points, gets more attacks, has more options and arguably has a better special ability. There would seem to be no conceivable way you could argue that the Axer is a better buy for 10 points than the Slayer.

This heavy warjack comes in the starter Battlebox for the Cryx, he is mean and bread for a fight. Not something you ever want to go toe to toe with.
The Troll Axer is no push over, but much of his strength is built into his synergy and purpose, rather than straight stats.

Yet I will make that argument and here is why. The Axer serves a core purpose in the Trollbeast army and with synergies from the Trollbloods army is a far bigger threat than the Heavy Warjack could ever be. There are several reasons here.

First the Animus. Remember that your Animus can be cast on your Warlock, which means that your Warlock has an extra spell (Rush) that he can use for himself. Giving your Warlock Pathfinder and 2 extra move is HUGE. Secondly the Troll Axer has the ability to hit as many units as he has in his 2 inch radius with a single attack. Now in a one on one fight this might not be useful but he can charge into a unit of many and potentially wipe it out with that single attack. He also has a smaller base, which is a big advantage as he can slip past units easier and fit into smaller zones while still threatening a 2 inch radius. Further more with Pulverizer he could get his POW to 16 just like the Slayer has by default, but with a Dire Troll could get that up to a POW 19!

Suffice to say, circumstances matter, synergies matter and if the Trollblood was cheaper, in the scope of the Trollblood army synergies he would be grossly unbalanced despite the fact that in a tit-for-tat comparison its no contest, clearly the slayer is superior.

The problem is that in a Battlebox fight, most of the purpose of the Axer and the synergies of the army serve no purpose and its here that there is a mismatch and the core reason for the complaints about balance of the core boxes. For example there are not grouped units for the Axer to attack, there is Dire Troll to bump his strength and while you could put pulverize on him to make his stronger, in the Trollblood Battlebox its far better to put those spells on your Impaler who can make a powerful attack from range.

I guess the point here is that the balance issues for the battle boxes are just circumstantial in a small zero point fight and it’s here where tit-for-tat comparison have greater impact, as the whole of the different armies synergies don’t have the same impact on the game as they would if you were playing say a 25 point game.

That doesn’t really alleviate the burden that comes with learning to play the game with an army at a disadvantage and so I do understand and sympathize with the complaints, in particular as a Trollblood player who gets the shit end of the stick in the deal. That said the point of playing zero point Battle Box games is to learn to play the game and in a way, trying to figure out how I could win despite the disadvantage has lead me to digging deeper into the rules, into my battle box synergies and in trying to come up with a strategy that might give me a fighting chance. In a way, being at a disadvantage as frustrating as it may be, is probably doing more good in getting me to understand the game then bad.

The Conclusion: The Advice on Trollbloods

First impression articles are always filled with poorly informed opinions and badly constructed theory crafting, it’s just the nature of being a noob and trying to assess something you simply don’t have enough experience with to do so intelligently. Any time I have ever done articles like this in the past, when I go back to them a year later I cringe at my own ignorance. None the less, I think first impression articles are always the most important to read when I’m researching the game because its more relatable. Discussions about 75 point games and high level faction tacticals are completely meaningless at this stage. As such in my conclusion, rather than saying anything more than that I love the miniatures and I love the ruleset so far, I’m going to offer some specific advice based on my limited exposure to my Trollblood Box set seeing as there seems to be such a shortage on the internet of such advice when I was trying to find some. Remember I’m a noob!

First thing you need to realize is that Ragnor is your workhorse. Everything in this battlebox hinges on using him well and if you stand any hope of winning any zero point games, it will be by using this guy to his maximum potential.

Your first play is to always get Ragnors pulverizer (+2 damage) spell out on your Impaler and to set up your line so that your Bouncer can protect everyone from range (within 3 inches) with his animus on to ensure that at very worse he will be facing ranged damage with a 19 ARM. Done right you have little to fear from any ranged attacks and you could further bolster your ranged defenses on the guys in the front by using the very cheap Earth’s Sanctuary to gain cover if you can’t find any on the table.

Get your Impaler in range of your enemy making sure to be out of charging range of anying using Far Strike (total 12 range) and soften him enemies up with a POW 15 attack. In subsequent rounds make use of the Impaler at ranged and use Ragnor Shockwave to both slow your opponents advance and cause some additional damage. Remember keep him out of charge range and remember about weapon reaches and any movement boosting spells. Don’t let players trick you, you can’t calculate SPD+3, you need to account for weapon ranges.

What your ultimately trying to do with your force is set your Axer and Bouncer up for a charge so that you can one shot one of your enemies warjacks or warbeasts, preferably the biggest threat on the board by using Ragnors Shockwave to first knock them down and then charge in with the Axer and Bouncer (preferably with one or both having pulverizer on them).

In a zero point game the first 1-3 rounds are critical. It pretty much works out that if you can take out one of your enemy warjacks/warbeasts before he does any serious damage you have your shot to win. It’s not a guarantee in particular in scenarios with control zones where you will be forced to engage perhaps before you really want to, but by and large the Impaler’s spear attack and Ragnors Shockwave are two of the most useful ranged attacks that I have seen in any of the box sets. You may think because you are Trollbloods you should boldly charge into battle and this is probably true of the army as a whole, but in the zero point game you are definitely not doing that until your enemy is softened up a bit.

In general you can assume that any Heavy Warjacks or Warbeasts will one shot any one of your warbeasts, even the bouncer. So you don’t want to be in a melee with your Light Warbeasts with these guys unless they are severely crippled in some way so that you could survive a volley. Ultimately I don’t think you can win without taking great risk in the end game as you will need a fully charged (6 Fury) Ragnor to at some point charge in and bring his immense melee strength into the fight. Remember that in most cases you will be facing Heavies and you have none, so timing is key. Also remember that often with Warjacks, crippling two can be better than killing 1 and leaving the other unharmed. You just need to survive the volley’s when you are in melee.

The main thing to avoid is facing a fully operation heavy warjack with Focus on him in a melee. Your warbeast won’t stand up to any heavies and even most light warjacks/warbeasts will make short work of them with full focus. You have a good ARM but very few hit points so your light warbeasts are easy to kill. You have to really make use of your ranged attacks and the bouncers defense against ranged attacks and pay close attention to the ranges so that you can get the charge. Your a threat from range so it will be on your opponent to close the gap.

Oh and don’t be afraid to heal and regenerate, in particular when your units get any of their spheres disabled.

This strategy is not perfect and certainly guarantees nothing. With good positioning, some decent die rolls and well time charges, while the odds are stacked against you, you definitely have a shot at a win.

Re-Review: Looking Back

For the past five years I have reviewed quite a few games and for me, usually this is a fire and forget kind of a thing. Today however I will look back on a few select reviews and reconsider my scoring and update them based on further plays of the games since those reviews. Now generally when I do reviews I feel strongly about them, which is what prompts me to write the reviews in the first place. I normally only do reviews when I feel really confident that as part of that review I’m offering a fair assessment of the game and can help players make a decision about them. After a while though you start to realize that there are a few games in your review history that perhaps you were a bit tough on, or in some cases a bit too kind. Today is going to be all about resolving some of that regret.

Great Western Trail

I scored this one a 3.10, which is a pretty great score for a game, I consider any game of a 3 stars or higher to be worthy of my personal library but I have come to appreciate this game a great deal more than this score reflects today.

For one, I think I underscored the theme of this game which after many more plays I think is a lot stronger than the 2 stars I gave it. I really find the theme of this game is key to making sense out of the gameplay and its perhaps to the surprise of no one, that Cowboys are pretty popular so I find getting this one to the table because of the theme is quite easy. The concept of moving cattle, in the deck building mechanic and how it comes together when you arrive in Kansas City really works well in presenting the game and I really feel strongly that at the very least it deserves 3 if not 4 stars for the effort there. I really love the feel of this game, building up stronger and better hand of cards and the strategy of trying to consolidate your efforts over several turns of coordinated strategy that pays off is something that really brings this theme together.

Gameplay wise I think this game definitely deserves at least 4 stars if not 5. Its greatest strength is the games very deep, strategic gameplay that I can’t say enough about. It takes time to really get the nuts and bolts of this game which may be why I initially reviewed it at 3 stars but its definitely a lot better than that in my book. Great Western Trail has grown to be one of my favorite crunchy Euro games, the more I play it the more I want to play it as I see room for improved strategy and alternative ways to win. The replayability of this game is definitely a lot stronger than the 3 stars I gave it originally as well, over a year later I’m still playing it and excited to get it to the table.

A wonderful game that deserves a much better review then it got the first time around from me, I think if I were to re-calculate the score today it would break 4 stars which would put this among a small group of games to break 3 stars in my library and deservingly so.

Russian Railroads

Russian Railroad is a very pretty game and while it has a week connection to the theme, mechanically its very deep and interesting.

I gave this one a 1.6, which is a shit score and while everything I said in this review I believe to be true, I do believe that it deserved a bit better score none the less.

I think I was particularly harsh on this game as it came during a time when there were many Euro games claiming certain types of themes like Trains, City Building and Fantasy, but delivering what are essentially themeless Euro game victory point smorgasbords. Now to be fair to the original review, this is true about Russian Railroads, this game has claimed a theme it does not represent in gameplay in anyway shape or form. It could be a game about making turkey sandwiches and the mechanics would make no more or less sense than they do applied to trains and in particular Russian Railroads. That said, its mechanically quite strong and its here I think I would alter my review.

For one, assuming you have never played a typically heavier Euro point smorgasbord game, this one I believe to be a considerably better one than many of the games being waved around these days. It certainly blows Terra Mystica and Terraforming Mars out of the water and while I would like to see more interaction in the game then it offers, it certainly has more strategic depth than either of those two games. For me personally despite the lack of connection to the theme here, it is a far better game mechanically and this should be far more important.

I suppose if I were to say anything about the game in terms of improving the score I would say that it deserves a 4 star score in the gameplay zone. I regret scoring it so low, it earns its stripes here and I think it’s disingenuous to score it any differently.

Stone Age

There is no denying its visual appeal, its bright, colorful. Its easy to get gaming goggles.

Stone Age is a game that landed in my library simply because I found that despite reviewing it based on many online plays at boardgamearena.com, I continued to play it over the last couple of years and when I spotted it on sale I picked it up.

Since then I have racked up an astonishing amount of plays in particular with my daughter who considers this “a very complicated game” at 10 years old, yet loves playing it and does quite well at it.

I think in terms of replayability this game definitely deserves better than 2 stars that I gave it, in fact, I would rate it 4 stars and perhaps closer to 5 as I find it despite relative simplicity of the strategies it just seems to make the table very often and I still often play this one online.

This is a great family game that works wonders in getting everyone to the table, yet is crunchy enough for an old vet like me to enjoy. Today I would probably recommend this one above most games as an introductory to board gaming game.

Le Havre

One of my beefs with Le Havre is that despite the its dynamic nature it and simple complexity style design, it has a pattern that becomes apparent and rather predictable after several plays.

This is one of the games I feel I was a bit too generous with, in fact at a 3.25 stars, that’s seriously overselling it.

I think the main issue with the game is that after repeated plays it got very boring very fast. I can’t quite put my finger on it but this one hasn’t seen even a single play at the table since I did my review playthroughs and it’s become one of the biggest dust collectors of my collection. Its a bit of a dud, I think today I would score it somewhere around a 2.5 stars on its best day, even though everything in the review I say is true, its issues with replayability really hurt this one.

Seven Wonders Duel

There is strategy on many levels in this one with a lot of dynamics, it really has that infinite replay-ability thing going for it.

This is one I definitely would re-score much higher today after rediscovering it with my daughter it has become easily one of the most played games in my collection. I would easily add a star to replayability and gameplay to this one if I were to review it today.

This is a really fantastic two player game that I think should be a staple of every gamers collection, both casual and vet alike. Great strategic depth, lots of great decisions and fairly tough to win consistently thanks to its quick learning curve.

Dedicated To All Things Gaming