Great video Phear! I'm glad you enjoyed your first EoW experience (even if you beat me! XD), and I loved everything you said in the wrap-up about EoW giving a level of depth approaching FB, this is something we've worked REALLY hard on. Looking forward to the next video, and many more games in the future!
I always want to try and breakdown the misconception that smaller points means lesser depth. That was a fallacy I used to fall prey to long ago in games like 40k. After my experience in brawl machine I've realized that point size doesn't equal strategic depth, sometimes having less pieces means more difficult decisions
Great vid! Finally had time to watch :D The sped up footage still works great for EoW I think, maybe even better as it's always much easier to follow the intricacies on a batrep for EoW when there are less units on the table and less spells and rules to consider. Hoping to see more of these :D (sound quality seems improved too btw!)
I'll try & comment again! :-) Anyway, I think a lot of people struggle with the definition of depth & complexity. I actually wrote about how these are different concepts, even though in English there is no precise language that means the same thing to everyone, whatever you want to call them - the main point is that there are TWO seperate concepts at play here. Here was my post where I stumbled into this from a long long time ago. Later in the comments via a friend, I found some definitions of "depth" and "complexity" I really like: agoners.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/complexity-depth-and-skill-good-games/
Im happy to see someone else actually understands me. Its often a discussion I get with 40k players as i keep saying 40k doesnt give me the same mental satisfaction as Warmachine and now T9A and they rebut that i dont like its complexity. I often reply no all games i mentioned are complex what 40k lacks is depth and we get into a whole slew of semantics often failing to separate the definition of depth vs complexity.
@@PhearTheHam Yup. Sadly, we can both be speaking English yet completely different languages when it comes to many aspects of Game Design. Richard Terrell (who you can find in the comments there) has dedicated masses of resources and effort in trying to help with that, but ofc, getting people to adopt anything is very hard. But I do love his definitions of complexity and depth when it comes to any kind of game: "* Complexity is a measure of the games rules/elements of a game. ie: their sheer number. * Depth is a measure of the interactivity between the player and the gameplay challenges - which will involve the interaction with other players in competitive games." T9A is very complex and (likely, I've not played it so can't really know 100%) has a ton of depth too. T9A EoW is far less complex than FB (but still relatively complex compared to many miniatures wargames I think), but still retains a high level of depth in my experience (a surprising amount tbh, even to me). When it comes to 40K, my experiences were with 1st and 2nd ed only... and whilst I didn't have the vocabulary or understanding to explain it that way at the time, I think what drove me away from that game (and to WFB at the time) was that 40K (1st and 2nd ed anyway) had tons & tons of complexity, but actually, extremely little depth - when most games were just two armies lining up for a shoot-out & "target priority" was the main interaction.
@@Agoners My experience with 40k started with fifth and it pretty much started out as a shooting gallery but the more recent editions have tried to lessen that. They've added depth in movement and the new strategems systen but its still not enough depth for me. At the moment most armies tend to favor a couple of strategems even if they have more at their disposal giving me an illusion of choice, the depth is just when and where you use those strategems. Movement is more intricate but thats something every army can do and once you figure it out its a matter of muscle memory. T9A FB and EOW are essentially the same at its core from my experience, well minus the multiple special rules interactions but at its core it feels the same to me. I feel like EOW is essentially a snapshot of the FB experience wherin you ignore the rest of the army and focus on where the fight actually matters; if you've watched my previous batreps most of the action centers on a couple of key units. And thats where the depth lies for both FB and EOW a players have to constantly outmaneuver everybody, your biggest baddest unit isnt a threat if it cant contribute. In 40k your biggest baddest unit will ALWAYS contribute.
@@PhearTheHam "Illusion of choice" and "once you figure it's out its a matter of muscle memory" are the EXACT kinds of experiences a game with higher complexity elements that =aren't= contributing much to depth would have. A related concept is "elegance" - which is when every bit of complexity added to a game is ALSO adding a significant or at least equivalent amount of depth. Complexity that doesn't also add depth can be seen as "inelegant design" in this view (For a designer, trying to be 'elegant' will often be asking questions like - "can we remove this rule - do we really need it?" I do this a lot in EoW design :D ). I would say that all T9A does suffer from quite a lot of inelegant design though, even in EoW (where we can't ofc change the game totally, it has to fit within the boundaries set by FB) - a lot of it comes from the 'legacy' rules T9A is built upon too unfortunately. Totally agree with all your thoughts about EoW when compared to FB and 40k too :D (I haven't experienced it directly myself in FB, but watching and reading lots of batreps gives me a good impression of it).
@@Agoners the legacy elements are what I actually believe tobe the cause of most delays in the game. As much as I like the way combats are resolved the ranks system tends to bog it down from what I experience. I think it would be better to have wounds on a block rather than the models being treated as glorified wound counters. The only moments I feel they matter is during flank and rear attacks but most of the time majority of the action is resolved by the first 2-3 ranks.
@@PhearTheHam I was yeah! Did it get put in some moderation queue on your YT channel? (guessing you've blocked URL comments even if you didn't intend to?)
Great video Phear! I'm glad you enjoyed your first EoW experience (even if you beat me! XD), and I loved everything you said in the wrap-up about EoW giving a level of depth approaching FB, this is something we've worked REALLY hard on. Looking forward to the next video, and many more games in the future!
I always want to try and breakdown the misconception that smaller points means lesser depth. That was a fallacy I used to fall prey to long ago in games like 40k. After my experience in brawl machine I've realized that point size doesn't equal strategic depth, sometimes having less pieces means more difficult decisions
Great vid! Finally had time to watch :D
The sped up footage still works great for EoW I think, maybe even better as it's always much easier to follow the intricacies on a batrep for EoW when there are less units on the table and less spells and rules to consider. Hoping to see more of these :D
(sound quality seems improved too btw!)
I'm always up for a game thru warhall if our scheds match up man!
I'll try & comment again! :-) Anyway, I think a lot of people struggle with the definition of depth & complexity. I actually wrote about how these are different concepts, even though in English there is no precise language that means the same thing to everyone, whatever you want to call them - the main point is that there are TWO seperate concepts at play here.
Here was my post where I stumbled into this from a long long time ago. Later in the comments via a friend, I found some definitions of "depth" and "complexity" I really like:
agoners.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/complexity-depth-and-skill-good-games/
Im happy to see someone else actually understands me. Its often a discussion I get with 40k players as i keep saying 40k doesnt give me the same mental satisfaction as Warmachine and now T9A and they rebut that i dont like its complexity. I often reply no all games i mentioned are complex what 40k lacks is depth and we get into a whole slew of semantics often failing to separate the definition of depth vs complexity.
@@PhearTheHam Yup. Sadly, we can both be speaking English yet completely different languages when it comes to many aspects of Game Design. Richard Terrell (who you can find in the comments there) has dedicated masses of resources and effort in trying to help with that, but ofc, getting people to adopt anything is very hard. But I do love his definitions of complexity and depth when it comes to any kind of game:
"* Complexity is a measure of the games rules/elements of a game. ie: their sheer number.
* Depth is a measure of the interactivity between the player and the gameplay challenges - which will involve the interaction with other players in competitive games."
T9A is very complex and (likely, I've not played it so can't really know 100%) has a ton of depth too.
T9A EoW is far less complex than FB (but still relatively complex compared to many miniatures wargames I think), but still retains a high level of depth in my experience (a surprising amount tbh, even to me).
When it comes to 40K, my experiences were with 1st and 2nd ed only... and whilst I didn't have the vocabulary or understanding to explain it that way at the time, I think what drove me away from that game (and to WFB at the time) was that 40K (1st and 2nd ed anyway) had tons & tons of complexity, but actually, extremely little depth - when most games were just two armies lining up for a shoot-out & "target priority" was the main interaction.
@@Agoners My experience with 40k started with fifth and it pretty much started out as a shooting gallery but the more recent editions have tried to lessen that. They've added depth in movement and the new strategems systen but its still not enough depth for me. At the moment most armies tend to favor a couple of strategems even if they have more at their disposal giving me an illusion of choice, the depth is just when and where you use those strategems. Movement is more intricate but thats something every army can do and once you figure it out its a matter of muscle memory.
T9A FB and EOW are essentially the same at its core from my experience, well minus the multiple special rules interactions but at its core it feels the same to me. I feel like EOW is essentially a snapshot of the FB experience wherin you ignore the rest of the army and focus on where the fight actually matters; if you've watched my previous batreps most of the action centers on a couple of key units.
And thats where the depth lies for both FB and EOW a players have to constantly outmaneuver everybody, your biggest baddest unit isnt a threat if it cant contribute. In 40k your biggest baddest unit will ALWAYS contribute.
@@PhearTheHam "Illusion of choice" and "once you figure it's out its a matter of muscle memory" are the EXACT kinds of experiences a game with higher complexity elements that =aren't= contributing much to depth would have.
A related concept is "elegance" - which is when every bit of complexity added to a game is ALSO adding a significant or at least equivalent amount of depth. Complexity that doesn't also add depth can be seen as "inelegant design" in this view (For a designer, trying to be 'elegant' will often be asking questions like - "can we remove this rule - do we really need it?" I do this a lot in EoW design :D ).
I would say that all T9A does suffer from quite a lot of inelegant design though, even in EoW (where we can't ofc change the game totally, it has to fit within the boundaries set by FB) - a lot of it comes from the 'legacy' rules T9A is built upon too unfortunately.
Totally agree with all your thoughts about EoW when compared to FB and 40k too :D (I haven't experienced it directly myself in FB, but watching and reading lots of batreps gives me a good impression of it).
@@Agoners the legacy elements are what I actually believe tobe the cause of most delays in the game. As much as I like the way combats are resolved the ranks system tends to bog it down from what I experience. I think it would be better to have wounds on a block rather than the models being treated as glorified wound counters. The only moments I feel they matter is during flank and rear attacks but most of the time majority of the action is resolved by the first 2-3 ranks.
I think my other comment got eaten cos it had a URL in it?
I've been wanting to reply to it but it just wouldn't show, I know you were talking about depth vs complexity as well.
@@PhearTheHam I was yeah! Did it get put in some moderation queue on your YT channel? (guessing you've blocked URL comments even if you didn't intend to?)
I honestly have no idea, its not on the held for review section of my comments tab? Super weird.