Like a lot of people, I've been really curious about Storm of Magic. Although what I would have preferred was another army book this year, I was considering past expansions the other day (in 40K) and thinking about the ones I disliked and liked over the years. I place them in three categories.
The Bad (Apocalypse) - Bad is a really strong word, maybe. Uninterested is probably closer to the mark. I got really excited about the idea of playing Apocalypse, and even had a little fun in my first Apocalypse game (a 70,000 point store wide smashapalooza) until some stinker walked up in turn four, put his Eldar Titan down "from reserve" on my back line, and said "hurr, take yer army off, strength D templates". The concept is great, and I can understand how the idea of rolling even more buckets of dice can appeal to some 40K players, but I really don't want gigantic templates and a complete lack of army management for Fantasy.
The Ambivalent (Spearhead, Battle Missions) - There might be another book in this category, which was so good I forgot the name. Honestly, nobody I knew ever played these books more than once or twice. I think it comes from changing the game in fundamental and poorly executed ways, such as making attacker/defender scenarios where only one side can really win.
The Good (Cities of Death) - Okay, so here's what I want from Storm of Magic: an expansion that doesn't break the core "balance" of Fantasy as it is, adding objectives and rules that provide a different way of approaching how to win the game, and giving different tools to do so. Cities of Death was great for 40K. It actually got several years of play locally, and I still see it being played a good bit despite being from 4th edition.
My fear is that Storm of Magic will end up being like Apocalypse, but I'm really hoping it will be more like Cities of Death. I guess we'll find out in less than two weeks!
I couldn't care less about the Storm of Magic rules, I'm just looking forward to some of the kits.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read through Battle Missions, I thought many of the missions were pretty imbalanced. Having played a number of them now, some from either side, I have a much higher opinion. Some things that seem really crazy are often balanced out in practice. There are some that are a little naff, a number that are kind of boring, but there are some pretty fun ones too. The more extreme a particular army build is, the more caught out it can be in some scenarios too.