What is the correct term for these types of games?

Eh, skirmish could describe Heroscape and Duel of Ages, too. Like you said, you don't want any overlap in the terms.

Basically, they are dungeon crawls, nothing else really sums them up as well. If the narrow corridors are what you're driving at, you could call them "claustrophobic combat games." I think that has sort of a nice ring to it.

Or, how about "knife fight in phone booth games"?

As to comments on TSR:

Dragonstrike has a pair of decent-sized flaws: All attacks do 1 point of damage. Combats can get tedious, especially when you have a 20% chance to hit some monsters.
Combine this with the short turn duration, and the game gets annoying.

---

The best TSR D&D-lite experience was the Fast-Play system. This is a slightly stripped AD&D. Mostly the character generation rules are neutered, and the end result feels like a slightly lighter version of the old Basic sets.

The games comes with a few adventures on poster-sized maps. The adventures are GREAT. A nice mix of combat, intrigue, light puzzles and atmosphere.

The best part is the Audio CD's. Incredibly cheesy, but they really tie the package together. Keyed to the rooms, monsters, and results. There are actually about a half dozen TSR products that came with audio CD's. Most are listed under the World of Mystara, and most are compatible with the Fast-Play system.

"Tactical close quarters combat?" "Tactical melee?" The "turn-based" part is a little redundant when we're talking about boardgames -- I think it's a carryover from computer game terminology.

I still like dude games ...

Is Mordheim as awesome as Necromunda?

ubarose wrote:

Man-to-man tactical corridor skirmish! That just sounds so cool.

I like man-to-man tactical corridor skirmish games, especially ones with squads, variable player powers and no shopping. How about you?

Totally sounds like I know what I am talking about, doesn't it?

I love the new terminology. It sounds very military.

And you should take a serious look at The Hills Rise Wild, based on your posts in this thread. The map is a little more open than what you're talking about, but it otherwise covers your checklist nicely.

I definitely call stuff like Epic Duels and Star Wars Miniatures "skirmish games". But they don't feel like Dungeon Crawls at all and probably only share movement and LOS.

I guess that's the distinction. Dungeon Crawls are typically Skirmish Games With A Purpose. Not to kill all other dudes necessarily, but to reach point A and retrieve an item, or kill Boss Dude B.

That would make Dungeon Crawls "Objective-based Skirmish Games" and the other games you're describing "Free-form Skirmish Games."


We getting closer?

I'd just call it a "deathmatch board game." Since it's like FPSs deathmatches in running around maps fighting each other.

Jason Lutes wrote:

"Tactical close quarters combat?" "Tactical melee?" The "turn-based" part is a little redundant when we're talking about boardgames -- I think it's a carryover from computer game terminology.

But...you could certainly design a boardgame that was not strictly turn-based: for example, simultaneous movement, or alternating movement, or initiative-based movement. The mechanics and play of these type of games would be quite different from true turn-based games, and you might want a way of distinguishing them.

Star Wars Miniatures uses initiative rolls and back-and-forth activations during the same turn. I'd wager a lot of skirmish games do.

Bullwinkle wrote:

Jason Lutes wrote:

"Tactical close quarters combat?" "Tactical melee?" The "turn-based" part is a little redundant when we're talking about boardgames -- I think it's a carryover from computer game terminology.

But...you could certainly design a boardgame that was not strictly turn-based: for example, simultaneous movement, or alternating movement, or initiative-based movement. The mechanics and play of these type of games would be quite different from true turn-based games, and you might want a way of distinguishing them.

That's certainly true, but I would argue that the default, commonly understood structure for boardgames is turn-based, so we don't need the "turn-based" descriptor. IMO, The sorts of terms you mention are important to distinguish those types of games from turn-based games, which are the norm.

In any case, a term that describes the order in which pieces are moved doesn't really seem germaine to this discussion, since the general category of games uba's trying to nail down could easily use simultaneous/alternating/initiative-based movement...

metalface13 wrote:

I still like dude games ...

Is Mordheim as awesome as Necromunda?

I'd say even better. They had had time to smooth any rough bumps in their system by the release of Mordheim. Of course, if you prefer guns to slings and bows, Necromunda is better (or GorkaMorka if you like to shoot guns while driving trucks and bikes).

The best part of Mordheim is the variety of races, as opposed to Necromunda where you played different human clans with mostly superficial differences. In Morheim you can play different teams of humans, undead (zombies, wolves, vampires...), warrior-priests, skaven, chaos mutants and cultists, plenty of henchmen, monsters, etc. Of course they added a ton of different new teams to both games, but I think Mordheim had the most depth, and there was actually an overarching story behind the game. 40K is a cooler universe though.

or GorkaMorka if you like to shoot guns while driving trucks and bikes.

Yeah, I've played GorkaMorka too, but I liked Necromunda better. Playing as orks was fun, but the driving didn't do that much for me.

I'd be happy if there was a group around me that played any of those three games though.

Hero Crawls - Similar to dungeon crawls, but the heroes can be anywhere.