Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Zombicide» Forums » General

Subject: Comparison to All Things Zombie rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dennis Firth
United States
Sanger
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I've played Lock-n-Load's All Things Zombie. How would this game compare to it? Anyone tried both? I've been trying to decide if I should get this one or not. Thanks
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ross Wolfe
United States
living in Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pioneer27 wrote:
I've played Lock-n-Load's All Things Zombie. How would this game compare to it? Anyone tried both? I've been trying to decide if I should get this one or not. Thanks


I would say they're very different. There might be some superficial similarities (like searching for items and zombeis controlled by the board) but Zombicide is much simpler and more action-ey than ATZ. Zombies are far more plentiful and easier to kill in Zombicide than in ATZ. Zombicide is solo or co-op only, whereas you can have competitive play in ATZ. In ATZ you can sometimes take your time and clear out the zombies before moving on so it's not so difficult for you, but that's almost impossible in Zombicide, since the more you kill, the more there are that show up.

I'm sure if I sat down to think about it for a while I could come up with a lot more difference.

tl;dr: They are very different.

Like I said, Zombicide is an action game, and a fairly fast-paced one at that for a board game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Libby
United States
Middletown
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
More than one living character can enter a building, whereas in ATZ you can enter a building with just one character, yet there can be multiple zombies inside. It makes no sense.

Besides that though ATZ plays more like a traditional wargame (with messed up stacking limits) and Zombicide feels like a game of Left 4 Dead.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bubba P
United States
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Zombicide vs. ATZ:
Miniatures vs. cardboard chits
More variety in maps/scenario vs. a few fixed maps
Takes up more space on the table
More intuitive rules vs. less intuitive more arbitrary rules
More variety in zombie types vs. only one zombie type with a few different characteristics
Zone movement vs. hex map type movement
More variety in how zombies enter the game
More variety in things that can be found when searching
Character's abilities level up through gaining experience
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ross Wolfe
United States
living in Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gee, I wonder which game you prefer... If only there were a way to tell.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bubba P
United States
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
CptSqweky wrote:
Gee, I wonder which game you prefer... If only there were a way to tell.


I knew someone would respond like you did (or at least think like you). But all I did was describe the differences in the games. There are no judgements in my response. Any perceived judgements are exactly that, perceived. "More" means "more" it doesn't mean "better". Both games have their place, their strengths, and their weaknesses.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ross Wolfe
United States
living in Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would disagree with your assessment. Sorry, but I'm going to have to put on my editor hat...
For example: "More intuitive rules vs. less intuitive more arbitrary rules."
Whether the rules for Zombicide are "intuitive" is arguable. (You always shoot an ally if they're in a huge group of zombies, really? That's "intuitive"?) Also, to say that the rules for ATZ are "arbitrary" (As Merriam-Webster defines: Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law) is essentially suggesting that the rules were not thought-out, practically random, and are not well-defined in the rules. Which, I would very much disagree with.
You really could have used more neutral language for this, such as "simpler rules versus more complex rules."

Let's take another example: "More variety in how zombies enter the game." I'm assuming you mean in Zombicide, but again, I'm not sure this is true. I mean, zombies come in when you enter a building, and when you draw a zombie spawn card. You can also create a scenario with other ways to make them spawn, I guess. In ATZ they might spawn when you enter a building, when you shoot firearms, and you can set up optional rules for when they appear at other times.
So, to me that looks like there are about the same amount of ways that zombies can enter the game. So unless I'm forgetting some of the rules of Zombiecide (very possible, it's been a few months since I've played it,) I'm calling this one just plain false.

Now granted, some of what you said was in fact rather neutral, but there was enough non-neutral statements that I felt the desire to tease. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, it was not intended. I'm just an editor by trade, so I'm trained to read the meaning and possible meanings of words, even when they weren't intended. The problem is, just because the author doesn't intend that meaning doesn't mean that other people won't read that meaning into it. (As you anticipated.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bubba P
United States
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't want this to turn ugly. The OP wanted to know the differences between the games not read our inane arguments. That said...

Zombies can enter the game in Zombicide:

1. When a building is opened
2. At the end of a turn at spawn points
3. When the path of the zombies can split into equally long paths to reach their destination, zombies can be added to make the two groups even
4. Zombies can enter at manhole covers
5. Zombies can enter during an explore action
6. Walkers spawn by themselves, in groups, or with a fatty

So, in fact, there is more variety in the way zombies can enter the game in Zombicide than in ATZ without considering home brew rules.

When I write "more intuitive" I certainly don't expect the reader to interpret that as "completely intuitive". A writer shouldn't have to baby the reader that much. It is the reader's responsibility to at least give the writer credit for the literal meaning of his words. If no understanding can come from the literal meaning of the words, then it would seem okay to try to interpret the meaning by reading into it. But it seems you skipped right over the literal meaning of my words.

Another meaning of arbitrary (also from Webster's) is:
"based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something". Other than my opinion that one game is more arbitrary than another, there is no suggestion of my preference for playing one game over the other. Chess is completely arbitrary (or nearly so). If I say, "Chess is more arbitrary than Zombicide", does that mean that I like Chess more or less than Zombicide? I think not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustavo Sanchez
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Things just got literary up in herrrr!!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ross Wolfe
United States
living in Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I didn't think things were turning ugly. Though I agree we should take the discussion elsewhere so as not to derail the conversation further. If you like I wouldn't mind continuing via geekmail. Just 2 things quickly:
1. Thanks for correcting me about spawning. Like I said, it'd been a while since I've played Zombicide.
2. I'm not saying you have to "baby" your readers, however, the most important thing for a writer is to make sure that they aren't making things more difficult for their readers than they need to be. That's one of the jobs of an editor, to show where an author is being needlessly ambiguous and how to correct it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bubba P
United States
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
CptSqweky wrote:
the most important thing for a writer is to make sure that they aren't making things more difficult for their readers than they need to be. That's one of the jobs of an editor, to show where an author is being needlessly ambiguous

Just read my original post and take me literally. There is nothing easier or less ambiguous than that. Don't read anything into it unnecessarily. Don't, as the reader, make assumptions that aren't necessary to understand what is written. Simple really. 'Nuff said.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelus Seniores
Belgium
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would say that zombicide is the better of the two games.

ATZ has a few broken mechanics imho and has less options overall (at least contained in the base game).
the rules of ATZ are also more badly written (you NEED the faq to play properly).
the biggest broken mechanic is how firing is handled; the weakest characters are unable to hit the zombies/survivors which are in cover and in general, the odds of hitting overall ranges from 66% (at best/first hit only) to 33% or even 0%, while the spawning of zombies is 50% of the nr of times you make a sound (each shot considered as making sound). so that means generally more zombies spawn during firing than you are able to kill, making the use of firearms useless/senseless.
even the character with the best abilities cannot properly use a fast-firing gun as each subsequent hit further lowers the hitting chance, what use is a weapon that fires 5 times in a row if only the first 2 shots can get a better than 50% kill-ratio (as long as no cover is involved).
you could use weapons that make no sound, but then no zombie ever spawns (except when entering houses, but player chooses when/where to enter).

The way that characters/zombies get to act is also too much all-or-nothing, although the variability in the activations can create some tense moments (as depending the initiative roll either both act but one side goes first, one side acts - the other not, or none act).

in zombicide, any weapon has a chance to kill and as zombie-spawning isnt directly tied to the shooting itself, it makes sense to use it, and sound affecting the behaviour of zombies as it should, this way you still have a choice whether to use it or not, but in a more logical/tactical way.

a plus of ATZ is that it includes rules for pitting survivors vs other survivors and reaction rules which can/should recreate tense shootouts between survivors but is completely suicidal (as in the number of zombies that keep getting spawned this way which attack both players).
but even this has a broken mechanic in that its possible to keep shooting each other endlessly with 0% chance to hit in some circumstances (react upon a react upon a react...but never hitting...).

Zombicide really makes the players feel at the centre of the action, lots of actions/options/skills to do, tactical choices to make and no way to 'break' zombie spawning.

a possible broken mechanic in zombicide is that its possible for a survivor to stay in a locked room and keep searching equipment until fully equipped, out of harms' way as zombies cannot enter the room in any way.

I consider neither game to be 'complex', they both contain fairly few rules. zombicide might even have more rules than ATZ, but ATZ has a more 'wargame' feel to it.
the ideas used within ATZ are great but its mechanisms must be reworked/houseruled before it can become a truly great game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doc Holiday
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
There are two different ATZ games: The hex and counter board version (much like Squad leader) and the miniatures version. I have Zombiecide and both versions of ATZ (miniatures version we play in 15mm mostly). As others have said Zombiecide is a board game while ATZ is a wargame. I like all three games and all three are also fun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.