Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Frostgrave => Topic started by: Gailbraithe on August 08, 2015, 08:13:50 PM
-
One of the guys in my wargaming club brought Frostgrave to our attention and has been trying to get some momentum for the game. As an old fan of Mordheim, I was excited by his initial description and ordered the book. Once I got the book, I decided on an initial warband and ordered the miniatures for it. While waiting for them to arrive, one of the other guys in the group invited me to play a game, so I grabbed so minis to use as proxies and we went to town...and I was bitterly disappointed by the game.
Here's my biggest issue: With no handicapping method to balance inequal warbands, the game is severely punishes casual players and makes it impossible to join a campaign already going on. The player I played against only had three games under his belt, and the difference between his warband and mine was staggering and left me completely demoralized and regretting the money I'd spent on the game.
His warband:
Wizard (Level 3) + Staff of Power +1
Apprentice (200)
Apothecary (100)
Archer (50)
Barbarian (100)
Infantryman (50)
Templar x2 (200)
Thief (20)
Treasure Hunter (80)
Total: 800 gold
My warband:
Wizard (Level 1)
Apprentice
Marksman
Treasure Hunter
Thief x 3
Thug x 3
Total: 500 gold
The scenario we played was The Worm Hunts.
In the first turn, I secured the two treasures closest to me and he secured the two treasures closest to him.
In the second turn we engaged each other at the board's midpoint (18") and things turned bad for me. I was completely outclassed and watch my army die without offering any challenge. The only challenge I was able to offer was sacrificing my Apprentice to cast Mind Control (he blew all his health empowering the spell) and taking control of his Infantryman and turning it against his apprentice.
In the third turn, the Worm appeared and he killed it very quickly (gaining 100 XP), then proceeded to wipe out the rest of my thugs and thieves, none of whom survived even a single round of combat or inflicted a single wound on his army.
In the fourth turn I had gone into full retreat and was routed from the board.
In short, it was a brutal and unfair game in which I had no chance of winning and was left feeling humiliated. His 300 gold advantage -- the result of having 3 games on me -- was game-defining. Then it got worse. In the post-game phase, his apprentice got a full recovery while mine died (I rolled a 2), and I was down a thief and thug. I got 130 gold for my treasures, but had lost 240 gold worth of models. This means that in my next game I would be fielding a 390 gold army. Meanwhile he gained another 2 levels and could afford to upgrade his remaining thief to another Treasure Hunter or Ranger, and both his Infantryman and Archer to 100 gold soldiers.
After the post-game phase, I tore up the sheet for my warband. I am now left wondering if I have completely wasted my money, because it appears this game is unplayable. If I play a new warband, then I will still be down 400 gold on the other players, all of whom got a three week headstart on me -- which has now grown to a four week advantage. If I stick with my original warband, then going into game two the advantage they have will be even greater, with their armies being worth more than twice the value of my army.
Compounding this problem is that I live an hour's drive from the FLGS where my club meets up, and thus I only come down once a week for our weekly game night, while several of the players interested in Frostgrave live a few blocks from the store, are students with tons of free time, and can get in three or four games for every one game I can get in. At this point I have almost no desire to play another game of Frostgrave, though I do still find the idea of the game interesting. The game seems like it would be fun for one-offs or in a carefully managed bracket system that ensured everyone involved got the same number of games, but absent some sort of handicapping system to balance out the advantage of playing more games, it's utterly brutal to players who can't play every day and the campaign play simply doesn't work.
The other players are promising me that I just had bad rolls, and that over time I will eventually catch up, but I'm not sure I see a point in playing a dozen or more games I'm guaranteed to lose when I have the option of playing a dozen other games that aren't entirely lopsided.
-
As the levels increase the difference in effectiveness between them lessens.
The jump from level 0 to post first game is the biggest.
Your opponent should really have played a less experienced band against you. It takes five minutes to knock up a new one after all.
-
As the levels increase the difference in effectiveness between them lessens.
The jump from level 0 to post first game is the biggest.
I hope so, because I was so excited pre-game I pre-order Thaw and bought miniatures for two full warbands, which adds up, so I feel like I have to keep playing to justify the investment, but I don't see the game expanding beyond the four people currently playing it -- every week, the gap between those already playing and prospective new players just keeps growing, and the period in which you just have to take your lumps and lose gracefully, praying your warband doesn't get worse before it gets better, grows longer. And "The game gets really fun after you spend a few months suffering one humiliating defeat after another" isn't a great selling point for a game.
Your opponent should really have played a less experienced band against you. It takes five minutes to knock up a new one after all.
Maybe. I think we need to wait until we have 8+ players before starting a campaign, and need to use a bracket system. But I understand the desire of the other guys already playing it to just leap right into campaign mode.
-
Seems to me to be a problem of the opposing player, not of the game. Who did come up with the idea to let a levelled up warband fight a "newcomer"? That's insanity in any game.
I suggest a game with an even playing field.
-
In this case, your warbands aren't that different and the game should actually be reasonably equal. I'd play against his warband with yours happily (although ideally they should have given you a little bit more to start with). The main issue though, is the unlimited game length which means that the better warband can simply wipe you off the table to gain all the treasure rather than bothering actually picking up the treasure - this is Frostgrave's number one issue. There are other issues too which compound this, but they are all easily fixed.
So in short, you're right, but don't be demoralized - just fix the issues. Here's some articles on the subject:
http://www.bad-karma.net/some-thoughts-on-frostgrave-mostly-the-campaign-system/ (this is the one where I agree with your assessment)
http://www.bad-karma.net/frostgrave-campaign-change-recommendations/ (this is the one where I explain how to fix it)
Cheers
Edit: The people you're playing with do need to play ball though. They can't expect to play multiple games a week and then have you play once a week and it work out. This isn't a super-tight competitive rules system, its a narrative system and needs buy-in from everyone involved to keep it reasonably fair. In this case you might want to either talk to them and figure out a solution, or if they're "those guys" who think it's cool to play vs super low levelled warbands for free treasure you're probably better finding a new group. Or suggesting that they go back to 40k :P
-
As others have said, the difference there isn't too bad so bad dice quite possibly played a part. That said, I would NEVER play an experienced force against a new player in their first game, whatever rules set we were using for exactly this reason.
-
Seems to me to be a problem of the opposing player, not of the game. Who did come up with the idea to let a levelled up warband fight a "newcomer"? That's insanity in any game.
I suggest a game with an even playing field.
Well, the issue there is that it would require everyone who is already playing to start over every time a new player joins in on the game. We've got 30 or so guys in our club, with 4 playing right now. About half the club has expressed some level of interest in the game, but most of them are involved in other games -- like ever since Mad Max: Fury Road came out, a few guys are really trying to get people playing Warlands (and that game is seriously fun, both from a modelling/hobby perspective and as a game) -- so they'll be trickling over at a rate of 1 or 2 a week. That's a lot of restarting.
I mean, this is the exact reason Mordhiem had a handicapping system. So you don't have to restart when people join in an existing campaign.
-
I mean, this is the exact reason Mordhiem had a handicapping system. So you don't have to restart when people join in an existing campaign.
Mordheim's handicapping system was awful. So was the handicapping system for most games. But that aside, there is only so much that the game itself can do for new players joining an established campaign no matter what rules you use.
All you can do is come up with some system that works for your group. Like say, having a "package" of free stuff for new players (gold, xp, etc) that you update every so often in accordance with what current players have. Or having a GM/council of players (if your campaign is big enough) that award free stuff to new players. Etc. You cant just expect people to restart campaigns and you cant expect game rules to be good at auto-balancing. Realistically, you have to get involved at some point and make the game work for you so that you all have a good time and can continue to grow the game's following by not pushing new players away.
-
Well, the issue there is that it would require everyone who is already playing to start over every time a new player joins in on the game.
Not really. Just have a "level 1 gang" around for pick-up or introduction games.
Playing a "newbie" with a levelled gang is simply asinine.
-
The best handicapping system I've run across is in the Judge Dredd miniatures game. Instead of rewarding players for getting beat up by a bigger gang (like Mordheim, Necromunda etc) it gives the smaller gang bonus models as mercenaries to even up the sides. The mercs only join your gang for one game, then they're gone. I'm toying with using something like this when we get a campaign up and running.
-
I always seem to play an underdog. It makes winning that much sweeter...I beat Archeon [WHFB] with a simple sword armed peasant once is a game of 1-on-1. I did have some kind of magic item but it was only to increase my attacks...
-
Seems like a very...odd game to judge the game by (I say this having not played the game yet). If you're going to play an experienced warband/player...even the odds a bit and try again. No point in trying to judge the game like that?
-
I was a bit disappointed by the way the combat system works when playing a couple of turns just the other day.
Actually a bit too much deadly one shot/one kill randomness for my likings. Just now I've more or less stopped readying models for the game and turned my attention to another ongoing project.
-
His warband:
Wizard (Level 3) + Staff of Power +1
Apprentice (200)
Apothecary (100)
Archer (50)
Barbarian (100)
Infantryman (50)
Templar x2 (200)
Thief (20)
Treasure Hunter (80)
Total: 800 gold
My warband:
Wizard (Level 1)
Apprentice
Marksman
Treasure Hunter
Thief x 3
Thug x 3
Total: 500 gold
Certainly there are some differences here, but I'm by no means seeing a situation where you Warband is in an unwinnable position.
-
Seems like a very...odd game to judge the game by (I say this having not played the game yet). If you're going to play an experienced warband/player...even the odds a bit and try again. No point in trying to judge the game like that?
Except that, unless we add house rules, it will be the most typical sort of game for new players. If three weeks from now Bob decides he's finally going to play a game, and the assumption is that he'll be playing a 0-level Wizard against whatever level the first available player happens to be (and that does seem to be the assumption of the rules), then his game is going to be against a vastly more experienced warband.
-
Simple solution: everybody keeps the notes from when the warband was set up. You don't have to play the levelled up version. Especially not against a beginner.
-
Except that, unless we add house rules, it will be the most typical sort of game for new players. If three weeks from now Bob decides he's finally going to play a game, and the assumption is that he'll be playing a 0-level Wizard against whatever level the first available player happens to be (and that does seem to be the assumption of the rules), then his game is going to be against a vastly more experienced warband.
You appear to have imagined a rule that says players may only ever have a single warband which they must use in every game they play. It's up to Bob and his opponent to agree on what sounds like a fun game. That might be Bob taking a shot as the underdog, that might be Bob's opponent knocking up a new level 0 band, or it might some more complex in game balancing decided on by the players like the scenario recently suggested on the author's blog.
http://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/frostgrave-scenario-troll-hunt.html
-
I think those other players need to ask themselves what they want from a game with a new player. Do they want that new player to come away as a fan of the game, giving them a new, long-term opponent or do they just want a quick, one-off source of XP for their campaign warband.
If it's the former, then they need to put the campaign aside for a moment and play a game using a starting warband. It'll be every bit as fun, it just won't quite be the ego boost they'd get from beating up on a noob. If it's the latter, then they're the wrong people to be playing an intro game against. I'd say they're the wrong people to be playing any game against, but that might just be me...
When it comes time to fit that new player into an existing campaign try boosting their wizard up to the same level as the lowest level among the existing players. That way the new guy can compete on roughly equal terms rather than just getting beat up on.
-
That was a poor choice by you opponent. My plan is to have a leveled up war band when we get rolling and a secondary one that stays level 1 for introducing new players.
Seriously I've played two games with two different level 1 war bands and would be content to always play level 1 war bands for all my games.
-
"Well, the issue there is that it would require everyone who is already playing to start over every time a new player joins in on the game. "
completely untrue. Just have players also have a list for a "beginner" version of their warband for newcomers. Give a minor XP bonus to players willing to play new guys and you are all set.
-
Except that, unless we add house rules, it will be the most typical sort of game for new players. If three weeks from now Bob decides he's finally going to play a game, and the assumption is that he'll be playing a 0-level Wizard against whatever level the first available player happens to be (and that does seem to be the assumption of the rules), then his game is going to be against a vastly more experienced warband.
I am just thinking that maybe the result of each game could be run through a simple, back of the envelope equation. This would reduce modify the results in relation to the disparity in gold at the start?
-
I think my confusion is more aimed at the expectation that players should be able to jump directly into a campaign which is underway. If Frostgrave (like most similarly themed games) doesn't have an option for that - make one and move on.
I'm not defending the game (again, haven't even played it) but I think it's pointless to judge a game based on a situation like this. Make a few houserules to fix this, or simply put - don't jump into campaigns underway. No big deal.
-
Except that, unless we add house rules, it will be the most typical sort of game for new players. If three weeks from now Bob decides he's finally going to play a game, and the assumption is that he'll be playing a 0-level Wizard against whatever level the first available player happens to be (and that does seem to be the assumption of the rules), then his game is going to be against a vastly more experienced warband.
I think everyone is talking a little cross purposes here. Gailbraithe, the problem people are having with your game isn't that it was the first game of a campaign and that you were out powered, it's that it was your first game ever! Nobody should ever be taught to play a game with mismatched forces, it's just stupid. A new player to the game (not campaign), will make tactical errors and bad game choices even if they've read the rules, and in this game they have the added complication of 80 spells to look at.
I only run intro games with cut down forces anyway so that the game is fast and bloody, that way the new player gets to see all the mechanics and can then go away and make their warband choices.
With regards to the campaign, I would suggest house ruling it in a way that seems sensible, but give it more of a try first. The two obvious options to me are:
A) give the wizard some levels and half a dozen rolls on the treasure table. This should average it out better.
B) for the first few games, have the enemy band match the gold level of the troops. Assuming they have improved their forces, this means they are likely to be outnumbered which should balance the fact that the wizard will be better.
-
Along with the posters above saying that your opponent should have used a starting warband against you in your first game, using one of the scenarios wasn't the best move either, should have been a "basic" game to help you learn the rules.
-
Yeah, as mentioned before, the word "lame" sprang to my mind. Don't judge the game, judge the player, honestly. Hope it was just lack of thinking and not calculating on purpose.
However, we had the exact same problem in our campaigns. Not every one has got time to play regularly. So finally we decided simply to make two warbands - and this works for every campaign, btw.
One
The one, the only, the perfect, thought-through, reasoned-out killer thing. Born to generate XPs.
Two
The "I always wanted to try this one"-version, the stupid one, the version with the worthless but beautyful mini/profile (there is always such a profile it seems), the "most likely not working"-version.
We do play regular with our first version, but with players who did not have time to come more often, we use the second version (well, or the first, if agreed to do so).
It actually does not matter, what is version one or two in detail to you personally, but You have the option to almost always have a underdog-version to have it a go. Usually, everyone will stick to his personal favorite, leaving the other one as the not so good.
Problem solved, even with starters, beginners and newbies. Heck, did I say two? Why not three ... numbers are infinite.
And ... playing a beginner test entry game that way ... did I say lame already?
-
Sounds like a similar problem my group had when playing Legends of the Old West. My gang became a bit of a gang killer which meant my opponents had to raise new gangs which would be unfairly matched against my experienced gang. It was one of the reasons the game fell out of favour.
These days I don't play regular enough to get experience so I could be the underdog. I've just ordered the rules and some wizards so I hope this will be worth the time and effort to pursue.
The suggestion of having two gangs sounds like a good plan to me.
-
There are plenty of solutions. There is also a reason why the phrase "The enemy of my enemy" exists. One player getting too strong? Gang up with two weaker gangs. Works fine, and makes plenty of sense.
-
Gailbraithe, are you still around? Interested to hear your thought now that you've had plenty of responses and maybe some time to think about it.
ie I hope you've been able to fix it and want to continue playing :)
-
I think any campaign based game has to have regularly maintained equal forces, and no participant should be playing vastly more games than anyone else.
Campaign games need a GM to regulate these things. My group have just finished a run of Necromunda, and we tried to keep it to an even number of games played per player wherever possible. If everyone is going to be playing games at a different rate that simply is never going to work. And even with a system like Necromunda (or Mordheim) where there are underdog bonuses for taking on a more experienced gang/warband in practical terms it doesn't really help when you are taking a mauling on the table. Yeah, that experience is really no fun, demoralising and even humiliating, and very, very off-putting. I really feel for you :(.
I'd really urge your group to try to play an even number of games for each player otherwise it is gonna be really unfair on the less frequent players like your good self.
I haven't played the game yet, so I am hoping with regular games between players it will work okay.
Sorry to hear that you've had such a disappointing experience though dude - I hope in future you are able to enjoy the game and have better luck in your games. All the best.
Bert
-
@ all having the same number of matches
In my experience, that is not working.
simple question: what to do, if it is simple not working? Kicking out that player?
RealLife gets in the way, a community has to take that into account. It is also nonsense, that everyone is beeing punished, because one player does not have the time. So, IMHO there have to be solutions other than "everyone should have the same amount of matches", because sooner or later, that simply will be the case. Fact.
My version was just an example, which worked for us. Maybe some compensation might be the solution in some other groups and clubs.
btw - I really recommend the "Dogs of War" System, from Rackham's Confrontation (sort of Mordheim for Confro), brilliant thoughts in there, although a little bit to complex.
Just a short insight:
- a troup needed "fame" to get bigger (not gold, important difference!)
- you need gold to buy stuff (also to hire men)
- you need XPs to get better
Fame was used to limit Your maximum in the gang. More fame, more men possible. But men are still bought with gold.
However, one may decide to do a game with a smaler group, getting more fame, because he even tried to fight the enemy.
XPs were generated in battle via fighting or other actions, but that only made the profiles better, not the gang as a whole. But XPs also made the profiles more expensive, influencing the size of the group as well.
To make a long story short, there were always three decisions to make:
Do I want to get XPs for my single members? => so, which to send in?
Do I want to have gold, i.e. mission objectives?
Do I want to increase my fame, i.e. my troup, having more men to choose from
Tactical and strategical thoughts, before even starting the fight, because each had to be adressed differently. If I beat the hell out of a smaller gang, I may win, and all my members got XPs, but for sure, no fame, etc.
Actually I think, there is no perfect system, sooner or later, You needing - and want to have - houserules.
best wishes
DK
-
I think everyone is talking a little cross purposes here. Gailbraithe, the problem people are having with your game isn't that it was the first game of a campaign and that you were out powered, it's that it was your first game ever! Nobody should ever be taught to play a game with mismatched forces, it's just stupid. A new player to the game (not campaign), will make tactical errors and bad game choices even if they've read the rules, and in this game they have the added complication of 80 spells to look at.
EXACTLY
-
Gailbraithe, are you still around? Interested to hear your thought now that you've had plenty of responses and maybe some time to think about it.
ie I hope you've been able to fix it and want to continue playing :)
Tonight is the night my club meets up, and I'm planning on playing a game with my new warband against another equally new player, and I'm going to discuss some of the suggestions in this thread. So we'll see how that goes.
-
So I played my second game. This time my opponent only had one game on me, and one of his soldiers was out with an injury, so it wasn't completely lopsided.
Sadly, I still didn't enjoy the game at all. Early on my opponent scored 2 critical hits in a row, killing my thief right before she grabbed a treasure, then killing my apprentice when he went for the same treasure. From that point it turned into a rout, and once again it turned into a 4-2 -- it would have been a 5-1, but we were doing the Genie in Bottle scenario and he let my Tracker escape with a treasure so he could focus his fire on the Genie (and luckily I was able to get off the board when it had 1 Health and deny him the XP).
I just don't think I like this game. I absolutely hate the way damage works. I hate how it all basically comes down to luck, and strategy doesn't really mean anything. I managed to do 1 Health of damage to him, he killed half my warband, and it all came down to luck. I also loathe games where you lose on Turn 2, but still have to keep playing for turn after turn. I knew I had lost the game 20 minutes in, and the game lasted another hour -- and that is just way too long to sit there trying to lose gracefully.
And then to top everything off, I got crap treasure. Two grimoires with spells I don't want and can't sell. Woo hoo. Meanwhile he got three times the gold and six potions. It's like the game kicks you when you're down, and the Snowball is undeniable.
I think I'm going to give it one more shot, and then I'm done. If the third game is another painfully humiliating, boring slog in which the only skill I get to exercise is my ability to lose gracefully, then this game is clearly not for me.
-
Hey Gailbraithe, why force yourself into something you do not like? While I don't agree (I thoroughly enjoy and like the game even when getting the short end of the stick) with your opinion, I know that no game around is to everyone's satisfaction. And that's ok. So don't beat yourself up too much about it.
-
Hey Gailbraithe, why force yourself into something you do not like? While I don't agree (I thoroughly enjoy and like the game even when getting the short end of the stick) with your opinion, I know that no game around is to everyone's satisfaction. And that's ok. So don't beat yourself up too much about it.
Because I've already spent well over $200 on the game. Bought the rulebook, pre-ordered Thaw, and bought two full warbands and resin bases. It's a lot of money to throw down a drain.
EDIT: Just cancelled my pre-order of Thaw...
-
Then give it some time, play something else for a week or two and then re-try it. Going at it with a forced need for enjoyment won't bring the result you're looking for. I feel your frustration but remember that you're doing this for fun.
As for the costs... The minis are not rules-specific and they are quite suitable for other fantasy games. Trying to find a silver lining for you, hope I am not annoying you further.
-
Because I've already spent well over $200 on the game. Bought the rulebook, pre-ordered Thaw, and bought two full warbands and resin bases. It's a lot of money to throw down a drain.
EDIT: Just cancelled my pre-order of Thaw...
It's a lot of money to spend on a game you've yet to play...
But it is indeed a game with a large luck element which may make it not for everyone.
However to say it all comes down to luck and there's no strategy at all is letting anger cloud your judgement a little. Your opponent set an archer covering a treasure, and you wandered your people out into his line of fire. Twice. Once with your valuable spellcaster.
That sounds like some sound tactical play from your opponent and possibly slightly less than the best decisions from you.
-
I do understand him in a way. Some of the faults were visible right away in the rules, i.e. Fighting: difference makes damage after one dice roll, more or less. Could get ugly.
But then, these things work on both sides and with thugs as well. So it is either tactics or crappy dice. ;D
Also, I would change the table with these out-of-game wounds. They are to equally spread for my liking. But then ... as said ... sooner or later even the best games grow some houserules according to the community playing it.
And if this game isn't really for You, sell Your stuff, since many people around here like it. Should be no problem.
On the other hand ... I had to play 30 times of WHFB to win my first game with my dwarfs. The ratio hadn't improved much ever since. ^^
And I still play dwarfs. I am just to stubborn to give in. :-*
-
I could talk or explain about why despite the fact that the mechanics are swingy they can even out quickly, or the fact that your bad luck games even out over time because it's a campaign, but to be honest it sounds like the game just isn't for you. If you hate the dice mechanics so much (because they are super super swingy, no denying it) you should just quit and try to sell it all while the game is new and riding on a high and stop wasting your time on a game that clearly doesn't suit you.
-
However to say it all comes down to luck and there's no strategy at all is letting anger cloud your judgement a little. Your opponent set an archer covering a treasure, and you wandered your people out into his line of fire. Twice. Once with your valuable spellcaster.
He didn't set an archer on anything. He was just moving towards it same as me, and rolled 2 critical hits in a row.
That sounds like some sound tactical play from your opponent and possibly slightly less than the best decisions from you.
Dude, you couldn't have done any better. The treasure was on top of a 3 inch high box, and anyone standing on top of that box was visible from most of the board.
-
2 criticals in a row...that is a 1 in 400 chance...so extreme luck. Nothing more. Yes, it happens...but it's extremely rare.
-
I just don't think I like this game. I absolutely hate the way damage works. I hate how it all basically comes down to luck, and strategy doesn't really mean anything.
I find that to be the case with most wargames rules :)
The fact that most rules depend so heavily on dice (or other random elements), means that all the strategy in the world comes to nothing if the dice are against you.
There are a number of sets of wargames rules and boardgames which I just don't like and won't play. C'est la vie.
I guess the trick is to try to sample a ruleset before going in lock, stock and barrel with a big investment in figures and rulebooks. But the role of marketing is to seduce people into buying-in, and I think Frostgrave has been well marketed indeed :)
-
This has been really interesting. I'm about to run Frostgrave for this academics years campaign at the Unis tabletop society for around 20ish students. It really sucks when you don't enjoy it, and I know, chances are, some of the students are going to be in the same boat if there's a heavy luck element.
I'd say try it again (I havent played it yet myself), but third time is often the charm. Maybe in between club days you play against yourself, just to get a feel for you warbands strengths and weaknesses.
Having spent a lot on it might not be as bad as it seems, after all, the minis you have can be used for other systems such as 7th Voyage or Otherworld Skirmish.
Hope it goes well. I'll keep my eye out for your report.
-
Dude, you couldn't have done any better. The treasure was on top of a 3 inch high box, and anyone standing on top of that box was visible from most of the board.
Maybe that could have been solved with that "wizard and three additional thugs in one go"-rule?
but ... just guessing
-
He didn't set an archer on anything. He was just moving towards it same as me, and rolled 2 critical hits in a row.
Dude, you couldn't have done any better. The treasure was on top of a 3 inch high box, and anyone standing on top of that box was visible from most of the board.
Then maybe you shouldn't have tried to grab that treasure without taking out the archer first. Or you could have let him get that treasure and done the same to him. It does sound like your opponent had a combination of better tactics and better dice luck, which is painful when you're on the receiving end.
-
I just don't think I like this game. I absolutely hate the way damage works. I hate how it all basically comes down to luck, and strategy doesn't really mean anything.
Just to pick on this one element of your post (which I do in fact sympathise with).
Most games struggle with a campaign system. You need a way for models to improve, and yet the game still needs to be balanced. These are two things at odds with each other, and which can get very complicated very quickly if you try and have a balancing system in place.
One way a lot of skirmish games (especially those which are intended for campaign play) attempt to even things out is to force the players to rely more on luck, or to have a wide range of circumstances that could befall them. Things like wound tables, rare items, random amounts of gold, ect., are all designed to help as much as hinder - whether you win or lose.
I won't muddy the discussion by bringing in other campaign skirmish games that have similar/different woes, but suffice to say that posts like yours are common on all of those games' forums as well.
If very random elements in games are not your thing, then I personally don't think most campaign skirmish games will be to your taste either. That's not meant in a rude way or anything, I'm just giving my personal opinion here!
In the meantime, if you liked the models you bought for Frostgrave, there's nothing stopping you playing different games with them. I appreciate that you may not have the same excitement for their purpose now, but you can still enjoy them anyway.
-
Maybe that could have been solved with that "wizard and three additional thugs in one go"-rule?
but ... just guessing
This is what the board looked like at the end of turn 3:
(http://i.imgur.com/WH4MJZ2.jpg)
So I'm white, he's red. The A is my apprentice, the t is my thief, R is ranger, W is wizard, T's are Trackers, H's are hounds, B is a bear. On his side W os wizard, A is apprentice, i is Infantryman, a is Archer, tg is thug, M is marksman, I is summoned imp, and ? is I forget. Another infantryman I think. EDIT: The darker brown squares were full of forests and rough terrain, and the terrain was a bit denser than I illustrated.
Then this is the end of turn 4:
(http://i.imgur.com/mO43H8j.jpg)
I messed up this map -- it was his Imp that got the treasure, not the mystery solider.
This is the end of turn 5:
(http://i.imgur.com/At66ycq.jpg)
Except my wizard and the ranger and tracker had got off board. Maybe it was turn 6, my memory is fuzzy. But the point is I basically had two choices: I could try to grab the treasure with my apprentice, or run my apprentice off the board and give him the treasure -- in which case he would have shot my tracker, and assuming he made the exact same role, the final tally would have been 5-1 rather 4-2.
So no, I really don't think he had better tactics. He just beat me in every single die roll. When I attacked him, my soldiers died. When he attacked me, my soldiers died. He did more damage to himself with failed spells than I did with my archers. He won initiative every turn for the first four turns, by the time I won init I was already retreating. It was pure luck. You can't accuse me of bad tactics for exposing my apprentice to a single round of fire from an archer with multiple targets, especially when the potential reward was a 3-3 game. You can't play the game living in fear of critical hits.
-
You can also choose NOT to use critical hits and just use a 20 as a 20 and nothing more. Should help with extreme luck too.
-
He just beat me in every single die roll. When I attacked him, my soldiers died. When he attacked me, my soldiers died. He won initiative every turn for the first four turns, by the time I won init I was already retreating. It was pure luck.
Again, this happens to me all the time lol
It's not exactly an unusual wargaming experience to lose because you have bad dice.
Are you saying that Frostgrave is even more dependent on dice rolling than most other wargames rules? (Which are nearly all, let's face it, dependent on dice to a greater or lesser extent).
If that's really the case, and you're someone who's not keen on the random factor continually screwing up your strategy and tactics, it sounds like the game is certainly not for you.
-
Gailbraithe, you're going to extreme lengths to prove how right you are that the game is impossible to enjoy and you dont seem to be paying heed to any of the advice that people are giving. It looks to me like all of your concerns have been answered, and also people do agree with you on how swingy the dice are, which is a personal choice as to whether you're OK with that or not.
I have a question; what are you trying to get out of this discussion that hasn't been answered already?
-
Again, this happens to me all the time lol
It's not exactly an unusual wargaming experience to lose because you have bad dice.
Are you saying that Frostgrave is even more dependent on dice rolling than most other wargames rules? (Which are nearly all, let's face it, dependent on dice to a greater or lesser extent).
Yeah. I mean, losing initiative over and over sucks, but you can survive that. But by combing hitting and damage, and using a big die like the d20, a game of Frostgrave can -- as this one did -- come down to five, maybe six rolls, making all the difference.
I could easily compare it to Infinity, which I played a game of right before playing Frostgrave. Both use the D20 for resolving thing, but tactics and strategy matter a heck of lot more in Infinity than in Frostgrave, and the differences in mechanics mean that the differences between different troop types matter a lot more.
Gailbraithe, you're going to extreme lengths to prove how right you are that the game is impossible to enjoy and you dont seem to be paying heed to any of the advice that people are giving. It looks to me like all of your concerns have been answered, and also people do agree with you on how swingy the dice are, which is a personal choice as to whether you're OK with that or not.
I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. I never said the game is impossible to enjoy, I just don't think I'm ever going to enjoy it. If I'm going to extreme lengths to prove anything, it's that I didn't lose because of poor tactics. I was bit insulted by that comment, and felt a need to defend myself. I think it's kind of BS to make an accusation like that based on the information I had provided. My failure to account for the possibility of my opponent rolling two crits in a row is not bad tactics. Bad tactics would be expecting multiple criticals in a row.
-
@ all having the same number of matches
In my experience, that is not working.
simple question: what to do, if it is simple not working? Kicking out that player?
RealLife gets in the way, a community has to take that into account. It is also nonsense, that everyone is beeing punished, because one player does not have the time. So, IMHO there have to be solutions other than "everyone should have the same amount of matches", because sooner or later, that simply will be the case. Fact.
This one simply comes down to a difference in experiences. My group played Necromunda very successfully throughout this year with a roughly equal number of games each because we committed to be around every fortnight - and we arranged games on nights that everyone could make. It depends on the make up of your gaming group, and the commitments everyone has. I'd say if a group can't all play roughly at the same time then it is probably best to avoid playing games which require a camapign system, really. That's the way we work and it was very successful. Fact! ;)
-
I could easily compare it to Infinity, which I played a game of right before playing Frostgrave. Both use the D20 for resolving thing, but tactics and strategy matter a heck of lot more in Infinity than in Frostgrave, and the differences in mechanics mean that the differences between different troop types matter a lot more.
They are totally different games, with different playstyles, themes and goals though. It'd be like comparing Space Hulk to Warhammer Fantasy Battle because they both use miniatures and D6s.
In Frostgrave, your Wizard and the Apprentice matter; the hired mooks do not. The entire game is based around stealing treasures that your Wizard wants to study and gain power/influence from. It's also a campaign game where you upgrade your models between games.
In Infinity, you have a crack team of elite troops who come together for a mission that must be won at all costs. Each model is effectively a "hero", and has highly specialised skills and equipment. It's also designed as a pick-up game with no upgrading in between games.
The complexity in each game is therefore focussed in different areas; in Frostgrave, it's in the Wizard's spells and the treasure/item accumulation, and in Infinity it's in the combination of skills/weapons/equipment to complete the game objective.
I never said the game is impossible to enjoy, I just don't think I'm ever going to enjoy it.
Out of polite curiosity, do you play any similar campaign skirmish games that you do enjoy?
-
@ Infinity and d20
Infinity does have a far more complex mechanics, that is true. And even the pros at our club do a lot of searching, when some situations came up.
And a d20 sure is finer detailed, than a d6, not?
@ L Bart
You are right, the same commitment sure helps, no doubt here, but then ... no one gets ill? No wifes getting babies? It is not only about commitment. I was aiming at having solutions for this, too, WHEN or IF this happens, not starting, being sure everyone will have commitment to the end.
Maybe this actually is also a question of age. Funny as this may sound.
When beeing student I was commitet to a lot of things ... but not to the end ... and sure not after I moved to a different city.
When beeing at the start of a job, I may be commitet to a local campaign, until I need to search a new one.
When beeing over a certain age, maybe new jobs, kids and moving just do not happen that often anymore. In that case ... when important stuff in real life is settled ... commitment to a tabletop campaign is a lot easier. ;)
Also, no offence, and additional I did not want to be rude with that fact word. I just have a different approach. Being prepared for.
-
You can also choose NOT to use critical hits and just use a 20 as a 20 and nothing more. Should help with extreme luck too.
Absolutely, Criticals are only an optional rule anyway so just ignore them.
Also you could consider rolling 3d6 instead of the d20 giving you a much better statistical variation and a range of 3 to 18. Will make combats longer though.
-
Also you could consider rolling 3d6 instead of the d20 giving you a much better statistical variation and a range of 3 to 18. Will make combats longer though.
Or 2D10, although the same caveat applies. :)
-
Or 2D10, although the same caveat applies. :)
Was half way through typing exactly the same thing when I saw you had posted it :)
-
Frostgrave was always meant to be a game that embraced the concept of 'barely controlled chaos'. That's not to say it is devoid of strategy, especially in the picking and use of spells, but just that the fog of war hangs a bit thicker over Frostgrave than it does a lot of games. I wrote the game that way, because it's the type of game I enjoy. That kind of gaming experience isn't going to be for everyone, however, and there is nothing wrong with that.
My only thought about the game you mentioned is that, perhaps, you lost heart too soon. A lot of players, especially experienced wargamers, are often shocked by the speed in which events (death, explosions, ravenous monsters appearing) can happen in Frostgrave. It can be easy to assume a game is lost when faced with a couple of early set backs, but generally, you are never more than one really good spell away from being right back in a game.
But hey, life is too short and gaming time too limited to waste on games you don't enjoy.
-
It can be easy to assume a game is lost when faced with a couple of early set backs, but generally, you are never more than one really good spell away from being right back in a game.
Of course it goes the other way as well!
The game I played the other night, I was all set for a 4 -2 win when I got attacked by a couple of creatures and my warband was decimated. End result was a 6 - 0 loss!
-
It can be easy to assume a game is lost when faced with a couple of early set backs, but generally, you are never more than one really good spell away from being right back in a game.
This - the first game in our club had one bands apprentice one-shotted in the first action (thought he was out of range, wasn't, and the cover and intervening didn't help him), and lost a few more before he did any damage to the opponent - won the game 4-3 iirc (Reveal Secret in play).
-
Of course it goes the other way as well!
The game I played the other night, I was all set for a 4 -2 win when I got attacked by a couple of creatures and my warband was decimated. End result was a 6 - 0 loss!
Worst thing I ever encountered in a game was during an apocalypse game of Warhammer 40K. I had 2 super-heavy vehicles stationed next to each other, confronting a Reaver Titan. My opponent took a pot-shot at 1 vehicle, deviating the single shot so it hit both bloody tanks. First tank: 6-6-5-6 big ass Kaboom. Second tank: 5-5-6-6 big ass kaboom. My game was practically lost already but I played on, really hurting him and nearly taking victory from his hands. This was 5 years ago. To this day when we see each other the first question is "killed off multiple superheavies with 1 shot lately?"
Isn't that what makes a game all the more fun? Okay, you're on the losing end of it and it's quite a bitter thing to swallow, but me personally it would make me want to play again and exact my revenge!
In all honesty I think some stuff could be tweaked (but I still need to play-test Frostgrave) but I also think that highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN shouldn't play Frostgrave. It's a game that's based on fun first, competition later. Even when playing a campaign. It's all about fluff and what you want out of a game. It IS, after all, just a game. My 2 cents :)
-
In all honesty I think some stuff could be tweaked (but I still need to play-test Frostgrave) but I also think that highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN shouldn't play Frostgrave. It's a game that's based on fun first, competition later. Even when playing a campaign. It's all about fluff and what you want out of a game. It IS, after all, just a game. My 2 cents :)
Ah, I see we are using the Games Workshop definition of fun, which is random unpredictableness. GW and I have never agreed on what is fun, which is why I don't play any of their games.
I'm not a "highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN" (and kind of resent the way many people in this thread are implying that the problem isn't with the game, but with me). I just don't like strategy-less wargames where the dice have 100% control over the narrative, and player decision basically count for squat.
And then I don't like campaign systems which rapidly degenerate into one player being the Club Bitch who can only lose to other players, because a few early losses have made it impossible to be competitive. Nor do I like games that require ground-up, total rewrites to be playable -- I can just write my own game.
-
Ah, I see we are using the Games Workshop definition of fun, which is random unpredictableness. GW and I have never agreed on what is fun, which is why I don't play any of their games.
I'm not a "highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN" (and kind of resent the way many people in this thread are implying that the problem isn't with the game, but with me). I just don't like strategy-less wargames where the dice have 100% control over the narrative, and player decision basically count for squat.
And then I don't like campaign systems which rapidly degenerate into one player being the Club Bitch who can only lose to other players, because a few early losses have made it impossible to be competitive. Nor do I like games that require ground-up, total rewrites to be playable -- I can just write my own game.
Yeah... I am strongly feeling that this game is not for you then. :(
If you might take a suggestion, perhaps look at Malifaux if you don't know it already? I think that would be much more your sort of game, and Wyrd have just released both a starter box set and a campaign system book (called "Shifting Loyalties"). Plenty of battle reports online to look a too, if you want to see how it plays first.
-
Ah, I see we are using the Games Workshop definition of fun, which is random unpredictableness. GW and I have never agreed on what is fun, which is why I don't play any of their games.
I'm not a "highly competitive players who'se sole objective is to WIN WIN WIN" (and kind of resent the way many people in this thread are implying that the problem isn't with the game, but with me). I just don't like strategy-less wargames where the dice have 100% control over the narrative, and player decision basically count for squat.
And then I don't like campaign systems which rapidly degenerate into one player being the Club Bitch who can only lose to other players, because a few early losses have made it impossible to be competitive. Nor do I like games that require ground-up, total rewrites to be playable -- I can just write my own game.
I think that I, like a whole lot of people, got into the hobby via GW. And when you're comfortable in a game at a point, you're not looking for other things. I have the GW franchise for a couple of years now, looking for less standard things. Apart from that, GW did make Mordheim... which, I am told, resembles Frostgrave.
But in all honesty I think unpredictableness is a major factor in any and all table top game involving dice. Neither did I suggest you were a highly competitive person who only wants to win. Au contraire. You were the guy who, in my humble opinion, encountered such a type. Neither am I implying that you are the problem regarding to Frostgrave. Other people did have other criticism and I'm 100% sure Joe, the author of Frostgrave, will take all these points into account.
I don't really mind that the rules lend themselves for houseruling or even serious adaptations. It is a nice base for creative people to do something extra.
I do look forward to your own written rules and I sincerely wish you all the best when you decide to do so.
-
Maybe otherworld fantasy skirmish game would suit you better??
-
Maybe otherworld fantasy skirmish game would suit you better??
I hope so, I've got that on preorder.
I think I just need to get some guys in my club into Song of Blades and Heroes, because that's a fantasy skirmish game I really enjoy playing.
-
I think I just need to get some guys in my club into Song of Blades and Heroes, because that's a fantasy skirmish game I really enjoy playing.
I have heard saying, that "a fistful of kungfu" is somewhat similar in rules and far more hilariuos.
-
I am really surprised you like Songs, a game where, if you're unlucky, you might never manage to activate any of your team while the opposition rolls over you. I love the Songs series, but it's one of the most luck dependant games I've played. :) I don't mean this as a criticism, I am just truly interested in how perceptions can differ.
By the way... That is THE perfect setting to use your Frostgrave minis. Looking forward to perhaps seeing your games on here.
-
Since I this thread isn't really going in a productive direction (although it is keeping the manufacturers of circular discussion supplies in prime fettle), I'm afraid I'll have to lock it.
I strongly suggest folks don't judge the game on lopsided set-ups, although there are certainly issues that warrant addressing, and we already have a lively discussion on these going on in the FAQ thread.