orkdork Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 I've been an amateur game designer all my life (too bad the pay sucks), and love to sit around and analyze what makes a game 'tick'. So this whole madness around "what next?" has me thrilled to be perusing rules-sets and ruminating on design choices :) In particular, comparing KOW2, AOS, and WFB, I see some really stark contrasts: AOS Pros: -Brilliant game flow: you get right into things in a natural and fun way -Elegant and interesting player choice: hero and command powers present viable and meaningful options in-game, but take very little effort to understand -Wonderful flavor: You can't get much better than CCG-style "basic rules, complex 'cards'" Cons: -No army construction rules! Even casual players are complaining. That's pretty bad -No tactics in movement: there is no question that ranks 'n' flanks is what elevates WFB over 40K in terms of depth (jab!) -Currently weak scenario support: this means there isn't even strategy in movement :( The game is all about unit-power and combat management. How to fix and make great: -Army construction rules -A mechanic to reward 'surrounding' enemies so that the movement tactics of ranks 'n' flanks is added to the game. -6 solid scenarios, or really iron-out a good way to do 'sudden death', so that more strategic movement is added to the game -Minor incentive for clumping a single unit (enabling movement trays and therefore full-sized armies) -Discourage clumping multiple units (less necessary for larger games and games with multiple positional objectives) -Use bases + KOW2 LoS system (if the game is worth it, I'm happy to rebase) KOW2 Pros: -Unit based ranks 'n' flanks gameplay: Such a good choice to scrap model-based gameplay. Cleans up so much of the garbage from WFB. You basically have ~10 pieces (units). -Streamlined movement: easy to carry out, easy to understand, gives enough choice for a high-skill ceiling, but not so much that it burdens the player -LoS system: so superior to TLOS. This system is probably the first house-rule my brothers and I apply to every miniatures game :) Cons: -Currently bland. The basic rules actually have plenty of possibility in them for flair (though they're missing a few obvious improvements), but the actual army designs fail to take full advantage. -Weak magic system: They went for reliable and low-impact. That's where shooting should live, not magic. -Weak warmachine rules. They're just really high-variance shooters :( -Overly predictable combat math: I applaud the system, but again, the numbers they've chosen make for bland combat (too low variance). -You lose cinematic flavor by not removing models How to fix and make great: -Redesign the army lists to have more character and more diversity within a list. Units are mostly just separated by what other units they'll win/lose against. Better is to differentiate units by what positions they excel in. -Redesign the spell list to be less reliable but more awesome (I have quite a bit in mind here) -Tweak the rules for 'to-hit' rolls in order to create a bit of a rock-paper-scissors effect on whether units are strong/weak vs shooting and/or warmachines (leads to more deployment decisions based on shooting lanes). WFB 8th Pros: -We already know it and play it :) -Huge body of material to draw from -Great flair and character in armies -Great emphasis on both strategic and tactical positioning -Some magic phases can be very fun and interesting -Combats can be quite intense and wild -The flee mechanic can be quite interesting Cons: -SLOW to play. So many cumbersome rules that don't quite meet their intentions. Planning a movement phase can easily take 20 minutes, especially in a close game between large armies. -Extremely 'abusable': tactics can devolve in to game-exploitation, leading to players losing due to unforeseen and unintuitive minutiae -Some magic phases are just "roll and pray" due to internal imbalance in lores (only one spell really worth casting each turn). -The flee mechanic can be a lot of work to resolve How to fix and make great: -Rework to be unit-based and remove 1 model units that aren't at least 50mm wide. Would immediately clean up so much of the game. -Rework basic mechanics to get rid of worthless minutiae and reduce mental burden But which game to 'fix and make great'? Personally, I'm most drawn to AOS because I think it has some really, really good 'bones'. KOW2 is chess-like in movement (good), but also in combat (bad). I see KOW2 as 1/2 brilliant and 1/2 desperately needing more math-minded game devs. From a core-rules perspective, WFB needs the most love. While it does have the best army rules to start with, it won't get new rules to support new models. Another way to look at it is how to maintain each: -For AOS, the needed extra rules would not change the warscrolls, so you'd get usable rules to go with new models. And the new models are bound to be awesome (just look at the new chaos models!). What you WON'T have is construction rules, so you'll need to add those for every new unit. But you WON'T need to create the rules for the new models. -For KOW, it's the army rules that need fixed most, IMO. If Mantic catches on and can fix that, then they might be able to produce new rules for new models for us all. Otherwise, you have to create the rules AND costs for all new models. -For WFB, all new models would require complete conversion, as the game is dead :( Again, I'm leaning toward AOS :) Okay, I'm officially distracting myself until I can leave for the OFCC :) See you dudes soon! 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.