Playing Frostgrave on a 4' x 6' gaming mat.

[Darkoath]

Have anyone come up with rules for playing Frostgrave on a 4 x 6 gaming mat?  We are just starting to play
this in our gaming group and we can have up to 4 players in a game.  Any suggestions for having 4 players in
a game?  I am interested to hear if others are playing on a larger gaming mat or with more than 2 warbands
in a game?  Thank you!

[Gardensnake]

I've played in several 3 player games on a 4'x4' mat but never on a 4'x6' one. We just played the rules as written and it worked just fine. My strategy is generally to just try to get to the treasure and not even engage my opponent except at range anyway so in the 3 player games I let the other 2 fight while I go for treasure.

William

[steeldragon]

I would just use 4x4, otherwise treasures and warbands will be too far from each other, random monsters will just wander aimlessly and so on... you can even do 2 parallel tables of 3x3 for 1v/s1....

Andres

[giles the zog]

Four war bands on a 4x4 starts to get a bit cramped in terms of movement etc, BUT it does mean you are going to be in contact with an enemy whatever you do (well other than mincing around on the table edge all the time). 6x4 unless you are using higher level wizards is going to be too much space.

The rules however work fine with that number of warbands/players.

[CPalmer]

     I agree with Giles, 4 x 4 will be very cramped, unless you start everybody in a corner. But if bloody battles is your thing it might be perfect fro you.     Your 4 x 6 should be fine; though my only concern would be the 4' of depth which will result in the warbands starting really far from each other across the table.  You might try increasing the set up zones to 9 inches in from the table edge, and the minimum treasure placement to 12 inches from the edge. 

   We have had up to 8 players on a 12' x 3' table in our campaigns).

[jp1885]

Cramped schmamped! I've hosted 4 players on a 3x3 mat and it's always great fun. Brutal, but fun!

[redrevuk]

At our club we normally play 6 players on a 4x6 table. We randomize entry points evenly around the edge, and increase mandatory elements of scenarios (including treasure) proportionate to the number of players.

The game normally breaks down into at least two sub-games, but unpredictably. It depends very much on which way the wargames in the middle of the board decide to go, and with randomized setup things tend to even out over a run of games. It's easy to get sandwiched, especially if you're unlucky on initiative, and if you lose a wizard or apprentice you can get seriously chewed up. With some scenarios we allow wargames on the end of table to start further in than those in the middle, especially if there's a crucial objective in the centre of the table.

Another key is lots of terrain. We really fill the table up, with two or three levels of height.

But the good thing about Frostgrave is that as long as you get at least a couple of treasures, a losing game on the table can pay off on the treasure table.

We've had a lot of fun with it, and are currently starting our second campaign. As others have said, it can be brutal, but fun!

[Darkoath]

So far...

9" initial deployment in with the extra foot on a 6 x 4.

3 treasure tokens per player.  For example:  If there are 4 players then use 12 treasure tokens?

Adjust the random set up location based on the additional players.

Maybe even try two teams of two wizards?

[giles the zog]

The three treasure tokens per Wizard/warband is the standar rule - scenarios adjust this.
Otherwise yes to all of the above, and I'd go for the 9" idea to make sure people get into contact with the enemy ASAP.

I believe there are rules for 2 wizards allying with each other somewhere around, I wouldn't assume its a straight up friendship though...
 

[CPalmer]

While you can play Side A vs Side B, we find it's much more fun when it's every wizard for himself! 

Adds a level of expedient diplomacy and backstabbing to the game.   

Yes to 3 treasure tokens for every player.  We tend to multiply whatever the scenario calls for by number of players divided by 2.  So if we have six playing we multiply times 3; four playing, we multiply times 2.  So if the scenario as written in the book calls for one giant worm, we multiply that to 3 giant worms if we have 6 players.

[Randell]

We've played 20 games in our 3 player campaign.  We started off using 4x4 but now have cut down a 4x4 deepcut mat into a hexagon so every player is equidistant from each other.  Our rules changes are;

8 treasures - using 3n-1 rule suggestion for multiplayer, n is the number of players.
Random monsters on a 13.
The various xp and postage buying treasure mods.

[Barking Monkey]

My question here is more about how many players do folks think the game can handle before the activation system breaks down, rather than any concerns about space.  I'm brand new to FG (won't play my first game for another month or so) but in my experience with many other games alternating activation rules rarely work much beyond 4 players or so.  Basically it takes so long between activating any of your forces that the game becomes tedious.

It almost seems to me you'd have to break down larger multi-player games (six or eight players) into two sides with all side A's wizards activating in their wizard phase, etc. to keep things moving.

This is of particular interest to me since when I finally get into a game we'll likely have 8 to 10 participants, none of whom have played except the game runner who doesn't have extensive FG experience.  We're likely to break things down into 2 or more simultaneous games.

[giles the zog]

My question here is more about how many players do folks think the game can handle before the activation system breaks down, rather than any concerns about space.  I'm brand new to FG (won't play my first game for another month or so) but in my experience with many other games alternating activation rules rarely work much beyond 4 players or so.  Basically it takes so long between activating any of your forces that the game becomes tedious.

I would agree here - 4 players is easy enough to cope with in between "your turn", after that unless strict time constraints are applied it would get boring.

If you have newcomers then it would be doubly frustrating.

It almost seems to me you'd have to break down larger multi-player games (six or eight players) into two sides with all side A's wizards activating in their wizard phase, etc. to keep things moving.

This is of particular interest to me since when I finally get into a game we'll likely have 8 to 10 participants, none of whom have played except the game runner who doesn't have extensive FG experience.  We're likely to break things down into 2 or more simultaneous games.

I would suggest that you break it down into two separate tables anyway, so that 2-03 players a table get the hang of the game before you start great big tables.
JP and I have tried to maintain decorum on large tables with 6-8 experienced players and inevitably they get out of synch.

As for teaming up, there are no specific rules so either make a house rule, or maybe wait til the Ulterior Motives stuff comes out.

the other suggestion would be to mangle WHFB alliance rules - where Wizards of the same school are happy, those with aligned or neutral less so, and opposing are "fragile alliances" and likely to break down.

HTH

[CPalmer]

     We regularly run 5-8 player games as part of our campaign, and I have done 6 player games at conventions with mostly newbies; all of which worked just fine, lasting 6-7 turns and no more than 4-5 hours.
http://onemoregamingproject.blogspot.com/2017/05/frostgrave-campaign-17-game-5-storm-of.html
http://onemoregamingproject.blogspot.com/2016/10/barrage-2016-report-hawks-2-day-wargame.html

    I believe there are two main keys to making this work.

   First: drop the die roll activation favor of drawing numbered chits from a blind bag.  The dice rolling takes too long with the comparing of numbers and rolling off of ties, and then figuring out the order.  It's much quicker to just pass the bag around and everyone draws a number and immediately knows their activation order.

    Second: Once playing, you should make every attempt to have more than one player activating at a time   This is easy when everyone is experienced and can tell whether their activation is going to interfere with the other players who are activating.  In bigger games with 8 players there are times when up to 3 players can be activating at once because of the way they and terrain are located on the table.   There is just is no reason for Number 2 player to wait for Number 1 player if they are at opposite ends of the table.  
For the convention games, I , as GM, pay close attention to the action and make sure I tell players when they can go ahead an activate while someone else is.  It doesn't take more than a few turns for them to pick it up themselves.