Columbia Block Games Discussion

[tmk]

The original poster, Ekted, was probably too blunt, but I disagree that he's being unfair. The original question can be restated as "Is this game being actively supported by the manufacturer?"

Consider:

-- Included scenario virtually broken. Stacking+hex side limits+defender fires first makes stalemates obvious in retrospect. Considering the claim that experienced players won't have "trench warfare" this is probably an honest mistake that slipped through playtesting.

-- To fix the "broken" scenario, various house rules have grown up. Fine, except many people say "Those rules unbalance the other scenarios."

-- Printing errors cause some unbalance among armies. Again, an honest mistake, but still a problem. Some folks say it's not a big deal, others develop detailed balancing acts, while others print their own labels and make new units. Again, some people say "These changes will unbalance many of the scenarios."

-- Apparently, the rules are a bit confusing in a few spots, and there are no existing errata or FAQ (until recently).

-- The company's web page still has v1.1 of the rules despite v1.2 floating around the web.

-- Scenarios don't say what assumptions they make about various common "fixes" for stalemate or army strength, so you're guessing about balance.

Are we surprised that a new user would come along, see all the confusion, and ask "Is this game still being supported by the company?" I have a lot of sympathy for Columbia, and I'm pretty sure this is a labor of love rather than a gold mine. Nevertheless, WK is pretty confused right now, and many of the patches are seemingly inconsistent with each other.

Experienced wargamers who spend a lot of time playing seem to handle these problems without much fuss. Maybe the small niche wargame market tends to be dominated by experiences like these. It's tough going for newbies, that's for sure.

[tmk]

Upon reflection, I feel badly that I sort of bashed the game in my last post. Based on my research, the core of the game looks like an "A", but a few unfortunate slip-ups drag it down to a "B/B+". FWIW, I'll likely get the game anyway, and I may go whole-hog with the complete package.

Rather than criticizing the game or Columbia, my point was to vindicate the original poster's question. It's factual that a lot of confusion has arisen around the game, and it's factual that Columbia hasn't taken a few simple steps to reduce the confusion (compile an errata or FAQ--although those do exist now).

Some other folks have argued that's just how it goes in a small, niche hobby like wargaming. Not being a wargamer yet, I can't speak to that. I only want to point out this state of affairs doesn't invalidate the original question: "Is the game being supported?" Rather, this explains why the game isn't being supported.

As I mentioned before, I do have a lot of sympathy for Columbia. These things are usually a labor of love more than a way to get rich. They have to lay out a lot of cash to print the games and then get paid back slowly in small increments.

Hopefully, Columbia finds a way to take up the offer from another poster who suggested the work could be distributed among the community.

[RickSmith]

I think Ekted's points are completely reasonable. I have bought over the last few years ALL of wizard kings. All the maps, blocks, everything. I am underwhelmed by what Columbia Games has done to support the game.

I've spent over $200 Canadian for a set of rules that have obviously not been blind tested. Grant has said that there are lots of typo's on the blocks but has never got around to saying what the errors are so I can correct them.

Henri Anemaat says that Columbia Games has less rule problems & better updates that other companies in the field. Well... I have to wonder what companies he buys from. Most of the games on my shelf have far fewer rule problems than Wizard Kings. As for updates of the rules: there are more than a dozen questions that people have asked on this forum that Grant has not bothered to answer. Maybe Henri is being sarcastic because there is obviously no support for people with questions about holes in the rules?

I don't regreat my purchase of W.K. My friends and I are experienced war gamers and we have had to make up house rules to cover the holes. Having done so, we can play and have fun. But I feel for new players who have a question on some point and can not find any answers.

But getting to the point that prompted me to actually post: I think Iain's insults to Ekted are simply contemptable.

Regards, Rick

[Magnar]

What holes in the rules are you making house rules for? We play the game as written with no problems.

[RogueChristian]

.... all those quote`s about "Is the Game Dead".... I am really intrested in the Wizard Kings Game and will order ist at weekend...

I think I must decided myself ... what`s right and wrong

Greetings from Good old Germany...

Roguechristian
_________________
--------------------------------------------
Have Fun... at the table...

[ralphreinert]

Shut up! You're supposed to be dead!

Now lie down, or I'll have to kill you again.

[RogueChristian]

Kill me ????

dead no I am not dead....

ah.... surely you meant someone else
_________________
--------------------------------------------
Have Fun... at the table...

[RogueChristian]

wow.....

The Game found the way to Germany and my first impression is very good.

Can`t wait for my first Game......

Christian

P.S.: Only thing I do not undertstand... ships out with 1.4 Rules. Why ist the only 1.1 for download.... here ????
_________________
--------------------------------------------
Have Fun... at the table...

[Etzel]

We have the whole WK set here at the gameroom, and occasionally it's requested as a sideline game or even as a small multi-player. No other CG games have drawn that kind of interest. A few of the gamers even bought their own sets. I'd call that a success. It's only dead if folks don't play it anymore, and they do. You might have thought Rommel was dead... but people were playing it clear up to the re-release! And as far as rules clarifications, I think they do a great job of answering zillions of posts and emails as well as updating this large website. In comparison, has anyone tried to get a response from Games Workshop!

[Grant]

OK, I have a plan. I'll post the rules I print in the game with the few fixes I know about on Monday but I won't make a big announcement.

Then we can discuss the remaining issues and move toward a 1.3 set of rules.

Grant Dalgliesh
_________________
Visit Columbia Games GamePlan and preorder upcoming wargames!

http://www.columbiagames.com

[Norden]

Sounds good.

Happy new year!
_________________
Norden,
Hexagonally challenged

[Iain]

Excellent. I'll try to update the FAQ accordingly.

[Grant]

I worked on the rules some today and am just about ready to post them for the readers in this forum. But before I do...

I'm thinking about revising some rules and would like input:

1/ Change the hex control rule change that control changes instantly (instead of only at Buildup). This cleans up a mess I have defining the defender in a battle in a neutral hex. It means that the player who moves first to a vacant hex of any type assumes control and becomes the defender. Presently this is how it occurs in empty hexes (though its not explicitly defined and is confusing) but a city is an exception in that moving there would not give you control, allowing the owner to move in and be on defense. I find this ugly and think it would be much cleaner if hex control changes instantly. But are there any unseen ramifications...?

2/ Retreats. As it is, units must retreat to adjacent friendly or neutral hexes. If I change the rule above have to add the clause: but may not move through a hexside last used by the enemy (I should probably add that clause regardless). It goes on to state that flyers can retreat their full move which causes a lot of headaches and so I would change that to say flyers may retreat their full move only if they retreat to a FRIENDLY hex, otherwise they retreat as other units.

3/ Buildup. It might improve the game to require all cities to maintain a garrison to contribute gold to the treasury. This is related to hex control in that if all hexes are neutral if vacant including cities, a unit would be needed anyway to keep it friendly.

4/ Three round limit in combat: This improves the game by giving a defender a reason to fight out a battle even if outgunned and also avoids a wizard vs wizard stalemate. Like many of our other games, the attacker must retreat if he fails to take the hex in three rounds.


Comments please...

Grant Dalgliesh
_________________
Visit Columbia Games GamePlan and preorder upcoming wargames!

http://www.columbiagames.com

[Magnar]

[Ithaca Mike]