The 9" rule - What's stopping people from grabbing treasure first few turns?

[Ozreth]

So treasure has to be 9" from either players side. 9" is a full movement for most figures. Meaning you could grab half the treasure on the board in your first turn and be away with it the second round.

Is this an issue people often see? Are there reasons to NOT place your treasure this way?

[Ogrob]

You place treasure first, and then roll to see which table edge you get. Unless your opponent places treasure similarly in reach, you risk not getting any.


But yes, if you want to play Frostgrave in some kind of optimal way, getting maximum treasure with minimun casualty is surely optimal.

[Connectamabob]

Avoiding engagement is certainly a valid strategy. However, if the game is too short and tensionless, then it hardly seems like there's a point to the experience. It should be risky to go looking for treasure, otherwise you're not really having a game, you're just using an exploit to level grind.

Have a look at your terrain. 9" as the crow flies should not equal 9" of movement. If it does, that means your terrain placement is too "open". I've said it before, but IMO a lot of people either try to play the game with too little terrain, or with terrain placed like islands instead of edge-to-edge to create "streets". FG is technically a skirmish game, but it's not a game where combat itself is the objective everything is designed around. Don't place terrain the way you would with a strategy game, but rather more like you would with a dungeon crawler. Make people have to wind their way to the treasure instead of just cutting straight across to it.

[LeadAsbestos]

Are there reasons to NOT place your treasure this way?

So it can be interesting, engaging, and fun?

[randwulf]

So treasure has to be 9" from either players side. 9" is a full movement for most figures. Meaning you could grab half the treasure on the board in your first turn and be away with it the second round.

Not really ... That is both their actions, move (6") + 1/2 move (3"). They cannot pick it up until the next round and then they are encumbered and then can move off using their second 1/2 move (which is halved again, so 1.5"), so it would take at least 2 moves to get back to the edge.

[Psychlic Bob]

Not really ... That is both their actions, move (6") + 1/2 move (3"). They cannot pick it up until the next round and then they are encumbered and then can move off using their second 1/2 move (which is halved again, so 1.5"), so it would take at least 2 moves to get back to the edge.

And they have to hope no Random critter activates and wanders onto the table edge they want to leave by!

The GA rule of having a central treasure is one that we have used on occasion.

[spect_spidey]

Telekinesis is also a spell that I see used often when the wizard group activates. Move the thief up in the group activation, then the wizard casts telekinesis on the treasure to pull it to the thief, and then he uses his second action to pick it up. With this, then on the thief's next activation, he would be off the table.

[Ozreth]

Have a look at your terrain. 9" as the crow flies should not equal 9" of movement. If it does, that means your terrain placement is too "open". I've said it before, but IMO a lot of people either try to play the game with too little terrain, or with terrain placed like islands instead of edge-to-edge to create "streets". FG is technically a skirmish game, but it's not a game where combat itself is the objective everything is designed around. Don't place terrain the way you would with a strategy game, but rather more like you would with a dungeon crawler. Make people have to wind their way to the treasure instead of just cutting straight across to it.

I think you might be right here. I don't think the terrain we are currently using is optimal for FG, although we are building up. I'll keep this in mind. Thanks! Also missed the part in the book where you roll for sides after placing terrain, which makes a lot more sense.

So what strategies do people usually use for placing it?

[Murawski1812]

Well..... I try to avoid playing with min-maxers as they will always have an explanation of a rule that benefits their play style.... NOT the spirit of the game. When something is questionable, they will draw a line in the sand with their interpretation as they have already gone through the rule book and picked it apart as to what is the best of everything to min -max their war band.. form spell to magic items and which crew to take.....

Like I said.... I avoid those types of metas as often as possible. The game is fun, but others MUST WIN... at all costs, even at the risk of ruining the game for others..... it is simply the "American" way to play.... we play to win... well, others do.. I play for theme and story.

[Ozreth]

Well..... I try to avoid playing with min-maxers as they will always have an explanation of a rule that benefits their play style.... NOT the spirit of the game. When something is questionable, they will draw a line in the sand with their interpretation as they have already gone through the rule book and picked it apart as to what is the best of everything to min -max their war band.. form spell to magic items and which crew to take.....

Like I said.... I avoid those types of metas as often as possible. The game is fun, but others MUST WIN... at all costs, even at the risk of ruining the game for others..... it is simply the "American" way to play.... we play to win... well, others do.. I play for theme and story.

Right, I get all that. Thankfully I play with close friends who I've been gaming with for many years and they don't act like this. This stems from the first game that we just recently played. We made the mistake of rolling sides first. We then placed treasure 9" away and were both just a little baffled at how close we were to half the treasure from the beginning. No we aren't going to min-max, but if treasure is right there we aren't going to just annoy it. But starting by placing treasure before rolling for sides will fix a lot of this, as will having better terrain.

[WallyTWest]

I advocate for smaller playspaces and smaller board exits.

3x3 and 2x2 boards mean you can gain far more treasure through wholesale slaughter and strategic knife fighting.

Don't forget encumbrance

[Aerendar Valandil]

Well..... I try to avoid playing with min-maxers as they will always have an explanation of a rule that benefits their play style.... NOT the spirit of the game. When something is questionable, they will draw a line in the sand with their interpretation as they have already gone through the rule book and picked it apart as to what is the best of everything to min -max their war band.. form spell to magic items and which crew to take.....

Like I said.... I avoid those types of metas as often as possible. The game is fun, but others MUST WIN... at all costs, even at the risk of ruining the game for others..... it is simply the "American" way to play.... we play to win... well, others do.. I play for theme and story.

I sense some frustration here. 

[Ozreth]

I advocate for smaller playspaces and smaller board exits.

3x3 and 2x2 boards mean you can gain far more treasure through wholesale slaughter and strategic knife fighting.

Don't forget encumbrance

Is 3x3 smaller though? According to the book and what I usually see it seems to be standard. We're using 3x3 and it seems perfect.