This is one of the Osprey Games hardcover rule books. They are a bit
bigger than the Wargame Series of books and do not have the
distinctive blue soft cover. This is not the first Opsrey Hardcover
book I have purchased. I also have Horizon Wars, Frostgrave, and Mad Dogs with Guns. It is also not the first Zombie game in my collection, as I also played The Walking Dead game.
Last Days
Zombie Apocalypse is
written by Ash Barker. He is relatively famous in the wargaming
community for his work in the industry, but also his popular YouTube
Channel Guerrilla Miniature Games. I admit, his battle reports for
this game intrigued me, even the ones from before the game was
published. It looked like it had a lot of elements I find enjoyable
in a skirmish game such as distinctive characters, campaign play, and
an opportunity for some narrative gaming. The game is set after a
zombie apocalypse has collapsed society as we know it, and you get to
control a band of survivors struggling to stay alive in the new
world. Of course, the enemy is the zombies, but also other survivors
as getting the few supplies left is a zero-sum game.
Now
that we have a feel for the game, let's shamble into the review!
Things That I
Liked
I
love it when a game has designer notes. Ash has a nice forward that
lays out what he was trying to accomplish beyond the 4Ms
of the game. It is only a few pages long, but those few pages were
excellent in describing the type of game we were getting into, and
were good food for thought for other aspiring game designers. The
way he establishes what made skirmish games so appealing to him was
clear, and his taste and design aesthetic was clearly laid out.
Kudos to Ash!
I
also liked that each character could be purchased as an archetype,
that gave them different skills, stats, etc. right from the moment of
purchase. You could plan roles for each member of the gang, create
interesting story beats/backstories for them, and they were different
than other members of the band right away.
The
game has the player with Initiative choose if they want to move first
or shoot first. This is a nice little decision point that has clear
drawbacks and potential advantages. However, it feels like in most
situations it makes sense to shoot first since the game is alternate
activation. It also has an interrupt mechanic called Locked and
Loaded where a model can choose to hold their action and fire a lot
later as a form of interrupt. I am not sure it is needed in an
alternate activation game, but it does add a tactical element to game
play and a decision that is needed. It also seems to fit the genre
pretty well.
I
am enchanted by the art in this book. It can get a bit samey, but I
like the style of action shots mixed with full character shots. The
art work is more stylized than most Osprey titles, but I like it.
Things I Did Not
Like
This
game can be rather token heavy, with a lot of activity to track such
as noise markers, damage, ammo, Action Points, etc. This doesn't
include injuries and upgrades characters will pick up as you play.
There is a lot going on during a basic game that requires tracking.
Noise tokens lead to a roll that can attract zombies, ammo tokens can
cause you to run out of ammo. These are all important elements to
the genre of Survival Horror, but I am not sold on the methods or
mechanics to add them. I feel like each could have been simplified
into a single roll. However, it becomes a decision point how much to
shoot as the more you shoot the more noise you generate; I just feel
like it ends up being clunkier than I would like.
The
game uses Action Points. For some I have an irrational hatred for
Action Points and Hit Points in miniature games. I understand why a
designer would choose them, but I just find them clunky and unwieldy
in game. I prefer 1 action per turn as it forces tacticalgame play. However, that does
detract from the cinematic nature of this game.
The
game uses simple stat plus d6 roll with modifiers looking for a
target number of 7+ for success, or opposed rolls to determine action
resolution. This is a simple enough system and it makes sense. I am
less thrilled about the damage system. It is a bit convoluted and
involves dividing uneven numbers and rounding down. Not a huge fan
but it is a good way to make strength and endurance actually matter
as stats. Again, it is a bit clunky but it works.
Meh and Other
Uncertainties
The
star of this game is all about the campaign system. If that is the
case, how can I put the “Hook” of the game in this section?
Deep breath....
Individual
games matter, but the tactical play devolves into simple decisions of
target priority. However, that is not always easy with Zombies
breathing down your neck! However, the simple game play leads into
the campaign where actions in game have consequences with death,
injury, and loss of supplies. The game definitely has RPG lite
elements that I enjoy. Stat increases seem easy to get what you want
by spending extra Experience Points, and I am not sure I am a fan.
It also disincentives skills with the current system as attribute
bonuses are always better than a situational skill. By spending
extra XP you can almost tailor your models and avoid sub-optimal
results. However, I do really like the loot table mechanism as it
allows for more variety without have a huge list/table like d100.
Since this is a game of Survival Horror, the Injury table is not
super severe with only double 1's Death. However, injured characters
can degrade pretty fast.
The other element that will be controversial is the Zombie “threat”
itself. They really aren't a threat. Instead, they are more of a
“friction” that a player needs to control for. Sure, if enough
of them arrive you can be in trouble..... but that doesn't seem to
happen that often. In addition, a somewhat experience gang will only
have Zombies act as speed bumps to their objectives. However, I
think this was a feature and not a bug of the game. The focus is on
Humans vs. Humans and not Humans vs. Zombies. Therefore, they are
more like a scenario complication than an actual threat.
Deep breath..... So, you can see why I put the two big hooks of the
game into the Meh and Other Uncertainties section of the game. They
are good hooks but there are trade-offs between what I like and what
I did not like.
This game also bases every scenario around retrieving loot from the
battlefield. Thematically it makes sense, but it does make the 6
scenarios in the book feel a bit samey. I had the same criticism of
Frostgrave and its Loot system as the main objectives of the
game. Unless you are constantly feeding the campaign new scenarios,
new monsters, and new variations the game will get stale. It just
does not have the tactical game play depth needed to survive on its
own merits.
Conclusion
Final thoughts. This was a good first effort and it is clear a lot
of thought went into the game to try and match the genre. Ash hits
on the key elements that he outlined in his forward, but...... I
can't help but feel the game could still use some more streamlining
to make it more intuitive and less token reliant.
The main hook was a miniature based survival horror game. However,
it feels light on the horror and survival elements that I feel it
needs to really catch the feel of the genre. It seems to focused on
letting players get “what they want” instead of challenging them
to actually “survive” the horror with their opponent being
another friction of surviving the campaign. The zombies are not
threatening enough, the upgrades in the campaign too easy, and
decisions too basic. The game really needs a deeper set of
psychology rules like Strange Aeons Black Marks that corrupt a
model's psyche as well as a more robust injury system.
In a horror genre, player' models should slowly degrade and only use
gains to offset and slow the inevitable collapse.... that's
horrifying. Knowing you ultimately can not win only try to make it
to the next scenario and the end of the campaign. Therefore, I do
not think I have found the definitive horror miniature game yet, but
I am getting some ideas!
You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page for more fun: https://m.facebook.com/pg/BloodandSpectacles/posts/?ref=bookmarks&mt_nav=0
Or our website:
Or our Messageboard:
Or our Wargames Vault Page:
Hello, excellent review. I have a question, does this game support more than 2 players like Frostgrave or Gaslands?
ReplyDeleteAs written, there is no reason you could not use this game with 3 or more players. It would be minor tweaks at worst.
DeleteThe Seasons supplement, also has rules for co-op/solo play. You can see the review for that supplement here:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2020/12/review-last-days-seasons-osprey-games.html
Alternate viewpoint is that I prefer NOT having defined archtypes. Anyone should be able to pursue / research / learn / advance doing anything. Your characters are still unique. Similarly, I don't like artificially limiting who can do what, or use what. They may be disadvantaged as compared with someone already trained at the skill, but should be allowed. Think of D&D where you have "thieves cannot use shields" rule. Makes sense if they are trying to scale walls or move quietly. Makes no sense if they are part of a caravan and under attack by archers.
ReplyDelete