Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Frostgrave => Topic started by: Calmdown on 24 July 2015, 02:51:55 PM
-
I'm not intending to spam you all, I promise, but I just can't stop writing about Frostgrave. I'm like a kid at Christmas. A wordy kid at Christmas.
http://www.bad-karma.net/soldiers-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
Hope you enjoy!
-
Great article, many thanks.
Did you consider the soldiers in context of the buffs available? I feel like some of the less useful 'tank' fighters might get much better with, say, +2 armour or fight from a few different spells. Those buffs aren't available to everyone, but if I was playing an enchanter, I'd probably want a few tanks to buff up further. Whereas another wizard may prefer soldiers who can go it alone without support.
-
Magos, I'm working on a "grab-and-go" Illusionist band, but you make me wonder if some of that movement advantage is better placed getting Tanks in the face of squishy opponents than it is helping speedy guys escape with treasure.
-
Great article, many thanks.
Did you consider the soldiers in context of the buffs available? I feel like some of the less useful 'tank' fighters might get much better with, say, +2 armour or fight from a few different spells. Those buffs aren't available to everyone, but if I was playing an enchanter, I'd probably want a few tanks to buff up further. Whereas another wizard may prefer soldiers who can go it alone without support.
I did, but the next article is going to be about spells so I'm planning to cover it there, and refer to the previous article with comments like "look how much better Fleet Feet and Shield make Knights, and look how wrong I was!" where appropriate :)
That said, bear in mind that every spell has an opportunity cost. Casting Fleet Feet on your Knight might make your Knight awesome, but if I took a Barbarian that I didn't need to buff movement the of just to get him to combat, it means I could instead be casting Strength on him and beating your Knight up, or Elemental Bolting one of your guys, or whatever. Just because you can compensate for a weakness, doesn't remove the fact that not needing to compensate for it in the first place is still better.
Magos, I'm working on a "grab-and-go" Illusionist band, but you make me wonder if some of that movement advantage is better placed getting Tanks in the face of squishy opponents than it is helping speedy guys escape with treasure.
My major issue with using movement spells for this is that it eats the activation of whoever you move. Because of the way initiative and group activations work, it's more difficult to get two actions out of someone that you want to Leap or Transpose; they have to be group activating with the Wizard or Apprentice and they'll never get to attack on the turn you move them. Also, if you're teleporting someone that far ahead of the rest of your warband, your opponent will generally have no problem ganging up on them which can remove your fight stat advantage (although you're holding up some of their guys doing it, so there's certainly times you're want to do this regardless - would certainly be ideal doing this kind of thing with a Knight!). That said, clearly there are some times when taking an opportunity like this would be very beneficial - for example getting into combat with a spellcaster (especially if you can do it before they act for the turn) is great (though you can't do it directly with movement spells, if the model survives a turn it will be a pain so your opponent is forced to deal with it quickly).
I'd say that kind of thing is definitely an option for your toolbox, but for me, movement spells are *so* good at getting people with treasure off the board (because they're so hard to get off by walking) that it feels inefficient to "waste" your movement spells on simply flinging someone forward unless there's a really good opening you can exploit.
-
That was a nicely put-together article. Although you rightly concentrate on soldiers' abilities against other warbands, there is some potentially nice play to be brought in by manoeuvring wandering creatures when they come onto the field. Joe's "revenge of the troll" scenario (which is a clever way of looking for a rebalancing mechanism) provides an extreme case but I'm sure that good play can deflect creatures onto opponents, when some of the apparent weaknesses of some soldier types may become important.
Moreover, some future "official" creatures may play to some of these characteristics, not that I'd see anything wrong with developing some creatures of one's own.
I'll be looking out for the article on spells.
-
Something I just noticed today, you didn't discuss the Apothecary at all - what are your thoughts on this soldier? If the potion worth the expense and valuable slot in the roster?
-
Something I just noticed today, you didn't discuss the Apothecary at all - what are your thoughts on this soldier? If the potion worth the expense and valuable slot in the roster?
Oh wow, so I didn't.
I guess that probably shows you how much I consider the Apothecary worth taking :)
Also, there are no actual rules in the game for giving a potion to somebody else, and whilst we are presuming that he can do so (or he'd be really rubbish!) I don't think anyone in my group is even considering the Apothecary a serious option for a warband slot.
-
Hmm, yeah, that's more or less what I thought as well. For a 100pt model, who also has rubbish stats and weapons, his 'ability' seems very lacklustre. If, say, he had D3 healing potions, or a randomly generated potion, or had an out of game benefit (reroll injury rolls say), then he might be worth it.
As it is... that roster slot is just too valuable.
A pity, since he offered something different to a straight up fighter.
-
...or had an out of game benefit (reroll injury rolls say), then he might be worth it.
He does... see 'Badly Wounded', p.50 and 'Niggling Injury', p.53 – if your wizard takes a knock, having an apothecary can get him back up on his feet and avoid the sometimes-prohibitive cost of Frostgrave healthcare.
-
Hmm, yeah, that's more or less what I thought as well. For a 100pt model, who also has rubbish stats and weapons, his 'ability' seems very lacklustre. If, say, he had D3 healing potions, or a randomly generated potion, or had an out of game benefit (reroll injury rolls say), then he might be worth it.
As it is... that roster slot is just too valuable.
A pity, since he offered something different to a straight up fighter.
He does have some minor out of game cost saving benefits when you roll on the injury tables etc, but they're pretty poor for what you lose.
However, this sort of depends on the rules for "administering" a potion, which don't exist right now (asked in the rules thread); if he can give his potion to other people using his action (and not theirs), and especially if administering a potion is a special ability specific to the apothecary, he could have a niche.
I wish he had some at least half decent stats though.
-
I haven't even finished reading the book yet, but I was a little sad to see the "what's the point?" issue with some of the classes. That being said, perhaps creating certain scenarios would benefit one more. I take it there is no limit to the type of soldiers and their wizards? (ie. certain wizards can buy more or less...or they cost less for certain wizard classes etc.). I also don't think any of this is beyond a few house rules.
Stuff like the Knight...if he just doesn't add up, toss in one additional house rule to make him more worthwhile and you're golden. Nothing game breaking, just something simple. Good read though. While I'm the polar opposite (hate tournament style games) I will play Frostgrave with friends until I get angry and quit! lol
-
I haven't even finished reading the book yet, but I was a little sad to see the "what's the point?" issue with some of the classes. That being said, perhaps creating certain scenarios would benefit one more. I take it there is no limit to the type of soldiers and their wizards? (ie. certain wizards can buy more or less...or they cost less for certain wizard classes etc.). I also don't think any of this is beyond a few house rules.
Stuff like the Knight...if he just doesn't add up, toss in one additional house rule to make him more worthwhile and you're golden. Nothing game breaking, just something simple. Good read though. While I'm the polar opposite (hate tournament style games) I will play Frostgrave with friends until I get angry and quit! lol
Bear in mind that the comparisons for this article were done:
-In a vacuum
-Against other classes only
-Assuming money is nonrestricted
For example, despite the fact that the Knight is only a tiny bit more survivable for everything that it trades off, it *is* still the toughest soldier. If you really want the toughest soldier, he's your man. If you really want to cast shield on something and make a real unstoppable guy to put in your opponents' face, he is still your guy.
Never be put off by an article like this about drawing your own conclusions dependent on circumstances, or even on having cool models to use (I'll be using Knights despite me being derisory about them, purely because I want to use some cool Knight models!)
-
I agree with the sentiment about using models that you like and like to paint: sometimes going purely with what competitive analysis dictates produces boring results even if it gives you a slightly better chance of winning. Reminds me of the guy in Legends of the West who'd always play huge numbers of models with pistols because he figured out it would give him a numerical edge. What's the fun of playing a cowboy game when no one has a shotgun or Winchester? ;)
-
Any thoughts on the relative merits of an apprentice against, say, four archers? Our first game suggested that four archers was a pretty good deal. I know that the received wisdom is that an apprentice is a must, and I suspect that we were overly focused on using wizards essentially as heavy artillery, but the archers seemed to have a much bigger influence on our game (lots of failed casting attempts by the apprentice vs lots of successful shots by the archers).
-
Other advantages of the apprentice beyond the obvious extra in-game spell casting include two chances to cast most out of game spells (and sometimes double the effect if both succeed) and the fact that not having one is major initiative penalty as you hand the apprentice activation phase over to your opponent.
-
Any thoughts on the relative merits of an apprentice against, say, four archers? Our first game suggested that four archers was a pretty good deal. I know that the received wisdom is that an apprentice is a must, and I suspect that we were overly focused on using wizards essentially as heavy artillery, but the archers seemed to have a much bigger influence on our game (lots of failed casting attempts by the apprentice vs lots of successful shots by the archers).
I have no thoughts on it beyond "spells are amazing and you'd be crazy not to take an Apprentice", really :)
If Archers/XBows are having a huge influence on your game, you may not be using enough terrain or people may just be playing non-cautiously (eg not using cover). Shooting is no doubt powerful in any case though, though it does tend to miss more than hit (on average).
Apprentices (and Wizards, for that matter) may fail a lot of casts early but in time they will get better and you need those casts to grab more XP to get to that point. It's important to pick your spells correctly for your Apprentices - I try to make sure mine always has something easy to cast (Enchant Weapon or Telekinesis for my Enchanter Apprentice) for example.
Also bear in mind that your Apprentice means you get two tries to cast out of game spells (even the ones that can only be successfully cast once) - Write Scroll, Create Grimoire, Brew Potion, Illusionary Soldier, Raise Zombie, and more.
Definitely don't leave home without one!
-
I'm not intending to spam you all, I promise, but I just can't stop writing about Frostgrave. I'm like a kid at Christmas. A wordy kid at Christmas.
Whatever did you do before Frostgrave came along? ;)
Well, it's nice to have a hobby lol
-
Whatever did you do before Frostgrave came along? ;)
Well, it's nice to have a hobby lol
I got a lot more work done :)
-
I have no thoughts on it beyond "spells are amazing and you'd be crazy not to take an Apprentice", really :)
If Archers/XBows are having a huge influence on your game, you may not be using enough terrain or people may just be playing non-cautiously (eg not using cover). Shooting is no doubt powerful in any case though, though it does tend to miss more than hit (on average).
Apprentices (and Wizards, for that matter) may fail a lot of casts early but in time they will get better and you need those casts to grab more XP to get to that point. It's important to pick your spells correctly for your Apprentices - I try to make sure mine always has something easy to cast (Enchant Weapon or Telekinesis for my Enchanter Apprentice) for example.
Also bear in mind that your Apprentice means you get two tries to cast out of game spells (even the ones that can only be successfully cast once) - Write Scroll, Create Grimoire, Brew Potion, Illusionary Soldier, Raise Zombie, and more.
Definitely don't leave home without one!
That all makes a lot of sense. And there was certainly a bit of luck involved; when the losing wizard was caught, he had just failed to cast Elemental Bolt, which could well have killed his attacker (he should have cast Shield!).
That said, though, we did use a lot of terrain, and the apprentice did make good use of a successful Wizard's Eye casting high up on a tower, but the five archers on one side still seemed to get a lot more bang for their buck than any of the spell casters. For our next game, I'm tempted to remain apprentice-less and go with even more conventional firepower - two marksmen and six archers, for example - just to see how it plays out.
-
Any thoughts on the relative merits of an apprentice against, say, four archers? Our first game suggested that four archers was a pretty good deal. I know that the received wisdom is that an apprentice is a must, and I suspect that we were overly focused on using wizards essentially as heavy artillery, but the archers seemed to have a much bigger influence on our game (lots of failed casting attempts by the apprentice vs lots of successful shots by the archers).
During party creation, four archers are indeed better than one apprentice for the cost of 200 gold, but not in the long run. A better question would be, out of nine characters, would you rather have four rangers/marksmen or three rangers/marksmen and an apprentice? As your wizard progresses, the apprentice will be the second most powerful character in your party, and it isn't even close.
Also, as others have stated, you should consider the following:
1. You will lose out during the Apprentice Phase, in which the apprentice and up to three models can move all at once. Without an apprentice, the opponent will be able to move up to four or five (depending on the initiative roll) models before you get the opportunity to move again during the Soldier Phase. That would put you at a great tactical disadvantage.
2. The apprentice can carry more equipment than soldiers.
3. The spells, obviously. While the apprentice's casting ability is poor to start, he will improve along with your wizard. Furthermore, the apprentice can roll creation spells between games, without any risk.
-
During party creation, four archers are indeed better than one apprentice for the cost of 200 gold, but not in the long run. A better question would be, out of nine characters, would you rather have four rangers/marksmen or three rangers/marksmen and an apprentice? As your wizard progresses, the apprentice will be the second most powerful character in your party, and it isn't even close.
Also, as others have stated, you should consider the following:
1. You will lose out during the Apprentice Phase, in which the apprentice and up to three models can move all at once. Without an apprentice, the opponent will be able to move up to four or five (depending on the initiative roll) models before you get the opportunity to move again during the Soldier Phase. That would put you at a great tactical disadvantage.
2. The apprentice can carry more equipment than soldiers.
3. The spells, obviously. While the apprentice's casting ability is poor to start, he will improve along with your wizard. Furthermore, the apprentice can roll creation spells between games, without any risk.
Yes, that all makes sense - and the fact that our game was a one-off (or perhaps the first of campaign) was obviously a factor. Point 1 was less of a factor than I expected, but I think that was principally because one side had wizard, apprentice and just five high-quality soldiers (more, gc-wise, than it should have had, it turned out), whereas the other side had three thugs, four archers, a tracker, a templar and a ranger.
The other point was that the archer tactics - wait for the other side to gather treasure and then shoot them from cover - worked pretty well. As some of the treasure was at the top of a precarious tower, the enemy soldiers were highly vulnerable during their slow descent.