inconsequential ruminations

Michael came over and we played War of the Ring between 6.30pm and 11pm, excluding a break of half an hour for food – four hours. This was Michael’s first game, which slowed us down, but he had read the rules and is an expert gamer, so it was not a major factor.

As the Shadow, he squeezed the Ringbearers hard, with usually three or four dice waiting for hunt rolls. On the other hand, for most of the game, I had almost as many dice as him for moving armies. Combining this with Michael not noticing his almost undefended Mount Gundabad stronghold at all, which was obscured by two pieces, and some lucky rolls, I managed to capture a free people’s military victory just before he was due to go home. If I had not been so lucky and he had known the map, it would definitely have taken longer. Acknowledging Alex’s comment on my last post, this was played according to the slow pattern he outlines, but it is a perfectly viable strategy. Michael dictated the pace of the game with his strategic choices.

I enjoyed myself as much as before, but Michael did not. He sent me his thoughts:

It’s a game that I think everyone should experience and although I came away with largely negative thoughts I was still thinking about it when I went to bed which is always a sign that I have enjoyed a session. You also (probably) saved me £40 as I had a very strong itch to buy it. [A flaw in my character means that itch, whilst diminished, is still there although my head is sending very strong signals not to scratch it!].
I was extremely disappointed with the game as I was convinced I would really like it. It oozes theme and I think the Fellowship/Ring to Mordor/Hunt mechanism is excellent. However, at its heart, it’s a wargame – and a distinctly average one at that (if anything it reminded me of Axis & Allies but not as slick). The game is overly long with much of the time spent fiddling with the pieces and understanding the plethora of rules nuances and the exceptions created by the cards. Whilst the board and pieces look extremely attractive, in game terms, the implementation is poor; Mountains and regional borders are not particularly clear; units just don’t fit in the regions and regularly cover key cities/strongholds which, if you’re not totally familiar with the map, can be fatal; the decision to (presumably) cut costs by making allied nations all the same colour makes it virtually impossible to distinguish them resulting in a distinct loss of gameplay and a feeling that you spend more time trying to understand where you are rather than actually playing the game. Now I accept that this is based on one play and familiarity will address some of these issues but I found Squad Leader easier to take in and less clunky after one outing and the prospect of spending another 20 or 30 hours just to get to a level where I can start to think about enjoying it as a game is not my idea of fun. I’d be happy to play again but I would much prefer it if some of the theme had been sacrificed for playability and a shorter playing time. And a final note, to flag this as 2-4 player game is merely to satisfy the marketing people. This is a 2 player game. The rules for 3 & 4 are tagged on at the end in an attempt to sell more copies.
I chose not to read any of the comments on the Geek before I played so that I could make my own mind up. One of the factors that I thought would be in the games favour was a high replayability factor. Interestingly, having now gone and read some of those comments, many of them seem to be suggesting that actually this is not the case and it becomes quite repetitive. Now I am willing to accept that this may be down to playing with the same players all the time but, nevertheless, it did lead me to think that the supposed replayability is in fact down to the fact that you will have to play 20 games before you actually understand all the rules and (particularly) the card mix. In other words the replayability comes in the learning experience rather than the game. That’s fine if you have the time to be able to do this but my gaming time is limited and I would rather spend it elsewhere.

Michael makes a lot of good points, it is unsurprising his reviews are so often chosen as Spotlight Articles for the Geek’s front page, but overall I disagree. I like this game and the mechanics fit the theme. Bruno Faidutti lists this on his Games true to their theme list, saying that theme was paramount in design, and that mechanics came afterwards and had to conform.

Answering Michael’s points in order:

• Overly long – I am undecided about this, but it is a problem.
• Fiddly, monochrome figures – Very annoying, especially for the Shadow. I would prefer counters.
• Fiddly rules – Every game we have played something wrongly, but it is improving.
• Unclear board – A big problem for the first couple of games, but this game I had no problems
• Multiplayer rules an afterthought – Difficult to confirm without playing them, but it looks likely.
• Replayability – Hard to say, but all my three games have followed different patterns, particularly the last with Michael, even though the Fellowship have still not won by destroying the Ring.

I agree with most of Michael’s points, but I still think this is an excellent game.