"Is this really a new way of running a minis game?" Topic

Ran this game at the Seven Years War Association con last week. I think it is a different way to run a minis game that breaks the mold from past war games. I'd appreciate your checking the game out and letting me know: Are there any games that have been run like this before? Is it original? Does it seem like it could run other games?

The video is broken up into three parts and was 40 minutes long.

Here is the link: YouTube link

If you search youtube "chris engle game" you'll find it as well as other game videos I've done.

My email is hamsterpress(at)gmail.com

Chris, this looks interesting but seems to require an umpire. There's a bit of wiggle room for interpretation of each card which could lead to a fuss with competitive players and no umpire.

Chris:

Having watched the first two videos, it looked like the two players were having fun, but I'm not sure why you think this is a 'different way' of running a miniatures game, either with the cards or as an umpire.

Sam Mustafa has two miniature rules sets out using cards in the same fashion and it is basically the card-driven game system found in a variety of GMT board games. Obviously, you're in the middle of designing it, but I find it hard to believe you'd be that out of touch with what's going on in the wargame hobby to think what the videos show in terms of game play is all that different from a number of other wargames, cardboard and miniatures.

What exactly do you see as 'different?'

Bill

but I'm not sure why you think this is a 'different way' of running a miniatures game, either with the cards or as an umpire.

I think it's the content of the cards that makes the difference. Other card driven systems usually just rpovide an activation sequence whereas the cards in Chris's game dictate the action of the game much more.

There's also an interesting twist in Chris's game where there is no set player order. First one to play a card gets to do so.

This is a very early play test with this system so a referee is useful but later in the day we did a two player game without a referee and just negotiated question points. I know there are lots of cards used in minis games the possible newness (and I'm not certain it is new) is how they are used.

The action cards give key words and phrases (like Matrix Games) which the player uses to inspire a story. They have only five cards so their range of action is limited. Dana does a great job twisting them around though. This matrix game idea is not new, it's been around for twenty years but always sucked running combat.

The combat cards are the new thing. It uses a rock paper scissors mechanic (ala DBA) with each card having a descriptor – so it is like the matrix stories continued – and instructions to move toys around – so the minis move meaningfully during the fight. In the end, when you run out of defense cards you lose the fight and run. It makes for a back and forth action that is unpredictable in outcome but which favors the more powerful side. Also it is a game that uses no numbers. Numbers and dice rolls slow down play and are jarring to a narrative game.

I want the flow of the story to be central. This time out it was an historical game but my long term goal is to do fun quick Sci Fi and Pulp games.

I appreciate the feedback and would love more!

I watched through 2 of the videos. I admire the creativity of the system, but the game seems somewhat slow. I'm not sure that die rolls slow down a game – if you're interested in speed, a die roll or even set of die rolls would take a fraction of the time needed to resolve that first melee. On the other hand, if you want the flavor of the narrative to be the main item, he cards and interplay do provide that aspect.

I think it's the content of the cards that makes the difference. Other card driven systems usually just rpovide an activation sequence whereas the cards in Chris's game dictate the action of the game much more.

Major:
Some do, some don't. Most card-driven games have multiple uses, including opponent play the active player's card. That is something that both Maurice and Longstreet have. I don't know if that qualifies as 'no player order'.

MatrixGamer:

The combat cards are the new thing. It uses a rock paper scissors mechanic (ala DBA) with each card having a descriptor – so it is like the matrix stories continued – and instructions to move toys around – so the minis move meaningfully during the fight.

This isn't a particularly new mechanism, though the particular content may be.

In the end, when you run out of defense cards you lose the fight and run. It makes for a back and forth action that is unpredictable in outcome but which favors the more powerful side. Also it is a game that uses no numbers. Numbers and dice rolls slow down play and are jarring to a narrative game.

No dice rolls. I thought there were a number of dice rolls?

I wish I could comment, but I am not as creative as most. Watching a wargame play by play is like watching a bowling match, more fun to do than watch. I wish there was some sort of description of what was happening and what the players were doing. I had no idea of what was happening except players were playing cards on the table.

At least I enjoyed seeing my friend Steve from Ann Arbor as the American. Also was reminded of playing a Matrix game with Chris in the early 90's, at the Three Rivers Convention. I was very impressed and subscribed to the newsletter and had high hopes for the game but was just not creative enough to do it. But then I could never get the George Jeffery Variable Length Bound game to work either.

Chris,

I have experimented quite a lot with story-driven mechanisms as well – inspired by your early work on matrix-games.

I wrote an extensive article about our games in Battlegames #33 – although our games were all multi-player and not 2-player.

I wish there was some sort of description of what was happening and what the players were doing. I had no idea of what was happening except players were playing cards on the table.

The game mechanisms are pretty obvious. Players draw from a pack of Action Cards. I think they start with about 5 in the hand each. The Action Cards give words or short phrases. It is up to the player when he plays the card to say what the game effect of that card is, based on the words on the card. Where the opposing player also plays a card to counter the card played by the first player, then dice are rolled. The highest scoring player's card then takes effect.

When combat is initiated then the players use a set of combat cards which use the Scissors-Paper-Stone mechanic to resolve a series of combat rounds. The winner of a combat round (or both players if the round is a draw) picks another combat card. The player left with no cards loses.

Can I get a copy of Battlegames #33?

I've contacted Sam Mustafa to get his thoughts on the video. I'm excited to hear what he has to say. His games are really good.

Um. I usually avoid commenting wargame rules, as I have my own :)

But, since you asked: It looks good fun :)

…but: is it a card-driven miniature wargame,
or a cards game – involving some miniatures in it?

No offence intended. I probably could play it some times, and have fun; it's not what I'm seeking in miniatures games but that's only me; it can certainly be very good for lots of people.

"… is it a card-driven miniature wargame,
or a cards game – involving some miniatures in it?"

I see the point, but upon further reflection found it wanting.

NONE of the 'miniatures' games we play depend upon the models – they (the minis) are included only for aesthetic reasons. As a lifetime hobby/professional model builder, I in no way wish to cast any mud on that facet of the hobby.

It seems everything we do is a compromise, and if the fun of a game is increased through some mechanic (that may or may not decrease the aesthetic aspect) then it can only be seen, imo, as a benefit insofar as it increase the number of choices available.