I think it was the community that sucked me in ... that and a healthy dose of nostalgia for games in the past (I am almost 50.) I have been painting fantasy miniatures since lockdown and have really enjoyed painting a smaller amount of figures rather than a whole army. The variation is also enjoyable.
I LOVED Mordheim, but club enthusiasm has fallen for this game. I looked for another fantasy skirmish campaign game. Rangers of Shadowdeep and Morkborg's wargame variant have been tried. I thought long and hard about Frostgrave but the guys in the club are prone to liking GW. (Something I swore off over 16 years ago and haven't looked back.)
Warcry seemed to offer a narrative gaming experience in a fantasy setting (which is mildly imaginative but far from well conceived or written) and a small figure count. I must say I was very hopeful and enthusiastic. In any case I played two games.
Not really sure I got my head around what I was doing. I played my Flesh Eater Courts - I love the concept of ghouls in any fictional setting - and I did enjoy that. I very much like the miniatures.
The game was ... fine ... nice??? I liked the basic idea of things ... then there is hammer/shield/dagger and variable victory conditions ... and warband abilities ... and reactions ... and universal reactions and universal abilities ... and lots of scenarios ... and twists ... and ... I'm sure I'm forgetting some bloody thing.
I am left with one question (the same after I played 4 games of the new Killteam recently) ... does complication - achieved through masses of special rules - really make a good game? I'm deeply concerned that where you move is less in important than how you've made you list and what special moves you decided to do (and the fact you chose an army with the currently dominant special rules in the first place - before FAQ's and other 'nerfs.')
(By Apollo, I can't believe I typed that last sentence ... I'm playing a game whose troops types can drastically change to sell some models - would NEVER happen in Napoleonics or Ancients - can anyone imagine Sam Mustafa trying to increase French Old Guard sales by releasing an update to their stats! As a historical player I'm just not used to massive list tooling - not since my FOW days!)
I know ... I'm new ... give it a chance. Don't worry, I'm committed to doing so. But this nagging feeling will take a long time to shift. I'm thinking about games such as Lasalle 2 or Blucher or Maurice or Saga ... do they achieve their tactical focus but just layering rule upon rule? Are player decisions made more impactful, interesting or intelligent just because there's 50 to make rather than 10?
I have no idea how to lay out terrain as yet. My friend Nick has suggested more raised areas and overhead platforms. I'll try this next. How to best use chaff models is also a little beyond me right now. The tiny playing space is also something limiting for me.
Perhaps I'm just a grognard ... but I will say this. If Warcry doesn't work out for me ... it will be another 16 years before I touch ANY GW product again (except Mordheim as that's fucking gold!)
No comments:
Post a Comment