OK, I like block games. But man this game draaaaaaaagged.

We played 4 maps, 100GP starting armies and 20gp of cities each at the start. Using v1.6 rules.

The game begins, we build up armies over a few turns and purchase every block.. then the game stagnates. Sure, I capture a 1GP city but my opponent flies in with a Pixie and captures one of mine.
I swoop into a big battle in an attempt to take a 3GP city.. the attack fails and my opponent just builds up all her blocks in that city again for my next failed attack.

The game never really looked like going *anywhere* so after a few hours of play we abandoned it. Seriously, both still at 20GP of cities after three hours.

What am I missing??


Ben

It sounds like you're playing the stock scenario that comes with the game.

Try some of the scenarios by Chris Farrell:

http://homepage.mac.com/c_farrell/WizardKings/

or at the Columbia Games website:

http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/8500/wizardkings-scen...

I think you'll find the game to be much more worthwhile! I also think most people prefer the v1.5 rules.

Good luck!

In general, the game seems to work best with asymmetric scenarios. (Where one player has the advantage of numbers, but the other has time and/or terrain/whatnot.) Those are, of course, the hardest to balance...
But yes, the stock scenarios are a direct line to stalemate-ville.

From what I had read here on the Geek I was under the impression the stock scenario worked well if players used 2 maps each. I'm going to be hard pressed to get this one back on the table


Ben

It is the scenario that is the problem. Most people that I know that have really played the game extensively prefer the v1.5 rules. There are some that prefer v1.6.

Given what you saw happen, I have two suggestions:

1) Change the scenario, as previously posted, try one of Chris Farrell's scenarios.

2) Try the v1.5 rules. I never understood how the v1.6 rules would alleviate the stalemate the stock scenario produces because there is less incentive to attack under that ruleset. I think much of the "success" provided by the ruleset by some players is more of a panacea effect then it is due to the rule changes.

In my one game, we didn't have this problem at all. Could be because I rolled too well and had the Henge. He captured a couple cities with a flyer, but couldn't hold them against my "reserve" troops

We played 100 point armies, one map each and played to 15 VP.

So if anything I was worried more about an avalanche effect than a stalemate situation.

I dunno, I do want to like Wizard Kings, a lot of good things have been said about it. On the other hand how many scenarios and rules are we going to have to playtest before we find something which works and has balance? I fear I may have to rate it low, not something I'll enjoy doing to a Columbia Games title

Ben

This is a general problem with a lot of wargames.
Is it the game? or Is it the scenario?

The problem just gets worse as the complexity of the game in question rises.

I own Wizard Kings but do not get to play it often, many of the above suggestions hit the mark. The few times I've played we've used the nutral cities variant above (don't thgink I read it somewhere else, thought we came up with it on our own.)

This may very well be your problem right here! You managed to purchase every block! You have 20gp each turn and each STEP not each BLOCK costs the value printed on it. So a Elven ranger costs 12 points (4x3 steps) and each wizard costs 8 points. It's pretty much impossible to get all your blocks on the board within a couple turns when you are starting with 100 pt armies. And that is probably the reason the game didn't work for you as well. If every unit was on the board I doubt I would like the game either! Wizard Kings is a game of maneauver and bluff not lines of units marching into each other. The lower unit density is really a requirement to make Wizard Kings a fun game. Also, you were using 20gp of resupply points. For a 100 point starting army I'd stick with one producing map (10 points). It just keeps the unit density low and forces you to make tough choices (resupply or bring in new units etc.).

You should play it again and see how it plays out. Playing with the correct rules will make the game completely different.

Wow, gret catch, yeah paying the listed cost for each block would REALLY change the game!

Come on guys give me *some* credit Of course we paid the correct cost per step per unit! When I said a few turns it was probably more like.. quite a few turns before the blocks built up. We didn't want to open up any of those cities close to the center of the board thus leaving them vulnerable to flying pests. So first there was re-inforcement followed by a kind of arms race to get a big enough concentration of units to do some damage. Then on and on... fight a battle, re-group... repeat.

I think you're right, 20GP of build per turn is too much. I will however give it one more play before coming to a final conclusion, maybe try starting in the corner maps and aim for first to 20GP of cities or something.

Ben

Sounds like you need to stop turtling and get soe action going on those early turns!

We've talked about adding a "Supply" mechanic to WK, and charging a 1gp/block (not step) "Supply charge" to keep units active on the board and theorized along with tracing a route back to a friendly controled city to maintain supply (cities seem too close together).. flying units cannot block supply and a sea unit in a hex can be used to trace back over a water hex...

Sometimes it just seems that Wk is too simplified for our tastes.

You certainly wouldn't have been the first to not have gotten that correct!



Alright so you played the rule correctly so that's out. The 20 point resupply certainly would contribute to the problem but now I think you have suffered from a bad case of group think. You both employed the same poor strategy of hunkering down and building up your forces. Nothing personal mind you. Like I mentioned, WK is a game of maneauver and bluff. The best move against a player who is just going to sit there and defend is to attack and threaten weak points on your opponents map. This throws the ball into their court and forces them to react to your attack or risk losing a city. As soon as they react that opens up new weaknesses for you to exploit. After some battles your opponent has some choices to make. Does he resupply his wounded units or bring in new ones. It's usually a combination of both and this cuts the whole arms race that you guys experienced.

I'd recommend that you guys play the quick one map scenario "If an Orc dies in the forest . . . ". That scenario will really bring out the essence of the game. Play it once and then switch sides and play again.

OK I'll give it a try.
One thing, given every city must start with at least one block it seems things are very spread out at the start. It's going to take at least 2 turns to bring forces to the front during which time new blocks are being built. Or is it common for individual blocks to start harassing weak areas early?


Ben

One of the scenarios listed on the publisher's site has the Orcs vs the Elves, where the Elves need to conquer the secret home city of the Orcs and the Orcs merely need to conquer enough cities to win. Try that scenario with 2 players by the 1.5 rules. It is well balanced and does not stagnate even slightly.

If you're looking for that one rule that might turn the game right on its ear, try kicking it this way:

Attackers fire first.

Have fun!

Obviously there are no hard and fast rules since it is dependent on the situation but this is the beauty of the block system. A couple blocks can do a lot of damage but you never really know until you find out what the blocks are. If I send two or three blocks off on one of your flanks, you have no idea what they are.! What do you do? Do you head off the threat in force? Do you scout it with a weak unit? Or maybe take a chance at a counter attack in the hole that those units just left? They could be several tough rangers with a glader to soak off damage, all at full strength going in to kick some butt or it could be a pixie with a couple weak gladers on a bluff run trying to pull off units from other areas to open up a hole.

This is why situations with high densities of units really don't work well with this game since none of these choices would show up. You just end up with units everywhere and it quickly ends up being in a boring slugfest.

The problem was in the strategy you guys employed it sounds like. The 100 pt slugfest is a decent scenario provided both sides don't turtle. The problem is, if you don't turtle, the other side is going to win after they counter your first attack.

Don't be afraid to use scouts (this strategy was effectively neutered in the v1.6 rule set) to find out what your opponent has. There is some risk involved if your opponent gets to fire first, but the information gained is invaluable. I had one game where my opponent had a whopping total of 6 factors guarding a city I was afraid to go into because he had 6 blocks there! Had I scouted the stack, I could have crumpled his line by crushing that force and rolling up his flank. I wound up going straight into the teeth of his defense!

A couple of more things:

1) An "unbalanced" scenario is typically the best way to go. These scenarios are not balanced by forces, but by victory conditions.

2) Think about it this way, a GOOD general does not fight a battle unless he has already set up the situation as one where he is all but assured of victory.

3) Early in the game, it is sometimes best to concentrate on gaining position rather than cities or overtly attacking your opponent. With the hexside limits, it is possible to place your forces in a position where they can threaten multiple targets, while minimizing the chance of an effective counter by your opponent.

The "flat" scenario is the least interesting. I think this game is best with the assymetrical scenarios, or some of Chris Farrell's home brew. I remember playing a good one where you had to run prisoners across the map, while the other side was on trying to stop them. That was good stuff.