Frostgrave pictures

[Henrix]

There's no specific scenario (as yet), but it'd be really simple to do with the material in the rulebook. Here are my initial thoughts on how to go about setting up a monsters vs. warband encounter.

Thanks, that looks interesting. Also the glimpse of the mausoleum scenario.

Hm, so monsters have levels?

I suppose you could make a scenario where the opponent gets to choose X level 1, Y level 2 and Z level 3 critters, and then play a scenario against you?

[Smith]

Monsters don't really have levels - that's just how the Random Encounter table divides them up. So, the monsters found in Level 1 random encounters will tend to be weaker (or fewer in number) than Level 2, and the really powerful things will be in Level 3. Or just ignore the table entirely and choose what you want to field (I do)!

You could play against an opponent using just monsters, but as that isn't the focus of the game, it'd probably take a bit of experimentation to find a balance that's enjoyable for both players.

[Kadzik]

If I were to go into pre-made terrain I would choose 4Ground. Pre-painted houses rocks! I've got only one (japanese hutt) but looking at the pictures their fantasy 28mm are very promising.

[Henrix]

You could play against an opponent using just monsters, but as that isn't the focus of the game, it'd probably take a bit of experimentation to find a balance that's enjoyable for both players.

I like it for a couple of reasons, from my experience of this sort of games:

• It gives variation to just battling a more or less equal band. Variation is good.
• You can make up for big variations in power level - letting a less powerful band battle an equivalent monster congregation rather than getting beaten by a much more powerful band. This gives them experience and stuff so they can compete with others.
• You can have more cool story driven scenarios and campaigns.

I like both varieties. But best I like having both.
I'll go for experimenting once I have the game in my lily white paws.

[Argonor]

Aargh... I am on the verge of plummeting in... 

My wife will probably strangle me, though...

[Dewbakuk]

rather than getting beaten by a much more powerful band. This gives them experience and stuff so they can compete with others.

I have yet to see this be an issue, I can see a really advanced Wizard who has managed to collect lots of magic weapons for his troops being a problem for a new Warband, but any player coming in with a new warband should be given some levels and gold to catch up a bit anyway. Because only the wizard advances, the rest of the troops remain at something of a level (although some are better than others of course). I've seen games where a starting warband has taken on one with a few games and levels under it's belt, and because the player has stayed focussed to the scenario etc*, the new warband has won the game.


*I have a personal suspicion that in such games the more advanced warbands player gets cocky and often tries to beat the enemy warband rather than fulfil the scenario.

[Henrix]

You are probably right, I'm merely extrapolating from other games.

[Dalcor]

Well it seems that casting spells is pretty important. As far as I understand from reports, any +1 to main magic ability improves casting of the spell for 5% (you need to roll less on d20 dice to succesfully cast a spell)

It seems to me that not even money but even abilities needs to be scaled, if you need balance. However there is no real need for balancing the game for the newbie. Moreorless if you are new wizard you will use your troops very carefully, so give him the chance to choose scenario and give him opportunity to place more objectives and the balance will go on. Newbie wizard will be very carefull to choose right place to fight and it gives him the adventage untill he will be balanced with other.

What I see as very problematic is: what if your people die, you loose the battle and bring zero gold? Your are screwed, you oponent will have larger army, more gold and equip... You can probably set up the scenario as I mentioned before.

The experience system looks good: It seems I will get my old DnD Elven Bladesinger Fighter/Mage with some experience spent ;-)

But we are all "cooking from water" without actual knowledge of rules. There should be rules for it...

[Smith]

While I definitely agree that even a new warband will be in with a decent chance against a veteran gang, if you want to give a late starter a bit of a boost, it'd be really quite simple...

Wizards have levels. Each level provides EITHER -1 casting cost to any one spell, OR +1 to any one stat, OR the opportunity to learn a new spell (note that the grimoire for the new spell must be found or purchased first - one cannot simply decide to spend a level to learn spell X - for the purposes of this balancing act, I'd suggest rolling on the random spell table). So, Wizards (and through them, Apprentices) can be balanced simply by comparing their level.

Even though they are discovered at random in the ruins, magic items, scrolls and potions come with a purchase price, so figuring out how to balance them would be as simple as working out how much a warband's non-standard equipment costs, then allocating the same amount to the new gang.

Same goes for soldiers - if the veteran warband has henchmen costing a total of 780 gold, then give the same amount to the new gang.

So, a bit of accountancy is required, but it shouldn't take too long to do.

What I see as very problematic is: what if your people die, you loose the battle and bring zero gold? Your are screwed, you oponent will have larger army, more gold and equip... You can probably set up the scenario as I mentioned before.

An extreme scenario, but highly unlikely - in the game Joe reported on last week, I enjoyed a dominant victory, taking 4 of 6 treasure tokens, knocking out his Wizard, Apprentice and a couple of henchmen, and only losing a single low-level henchman of my own.

In the post-game accounting, I came away with:

• 440 gold.
• A magic staff.
• 2 grimoires containing new spells.
• 2 experience levels (one spent on learning a new spell, and the other on improving an existing one).
• A fully recovered henchman.

Whereas Joe scored:

• 70 gold.
• A magic dagger.
• 3 scrolls (two kept, one sold for an additional 100 gold)
• 1 experience level (spent on increasing the Wizard's fighting ability)
• A wounded Knight (misses next game), two dead Thugs, and everyone else fully recovered.

So, despite having taken a mauling, Joe's gang still came away with something. The dead Thugs can be replaced cheaply and easily (a bit of luck there - the Knight dying would have been much more of a loss - but even then, enough gold was recovered to replace him if necessary).

The campaign and experience system is designed to keep everyone involved and to keep all warbands developing. Yes, victory nets you more than defeat, but that's the reward for good tactics and good luck!

[Dalcor]

Its about 600 Gold in Difference between two warbands only in soldiers, where you should have 4 more knights, Joe will have problem to get his guys back in line... Anyway it will be very interesting to see it alive. Now we could only speculate.

And as was said before - Who needs balance?

Thanks for clarification,  I know how my dices works.

[phreedh]

if the veteran warband has henchmen costing a total of 780 gold, then give the same amount to the new gang

I think the whole reason why someone plays campaign games where you develop a warband is to do just that... Taking that part away from a new warband seems backwards. The first few levels of advance are usually the most gratifying ones.

May I instead suggest that the stronger warband plays with a penalty, such as one or several models not participating due to any silly reason from personal quests to having come down with the flu. For instance, a model (or several) from the stronger warband have gone off on a scouting mission into the ruined city. One comes back, gravely wounded (miss "next" game, ie the current one) and says that Timbold the old fool fell down a well, broke his ankle, got knocked out and have some sort of parasite attached to his face and is now incapacitated, waiting to be rescued... The weaker warband and the stronger one fight over treasure but also to find Timbold. If the "enemy" gets Timbold, his Wizard can decide on whether to pay ransom or let him perish.

[Momotaro]

Thanks to Nick at Northstar, who got my ordering problems sorted out quickly.

Good to see the range of goodies in the "hidden" list for backers too - some old favourites from a range of manufacturers as well as all the new stuff.  At this point, resistance is useless...

The bear model does look like it's having a massive shit though  

[Daeothar]

The bear model does look like it's having a massive shit though  

No no; it's running, and...

Great; now that image is burnt in, and it won't go away!

And I so wanted a bear too...

[Smith]

I think the whole reason why someone plays campaign games where you develop a warband is to do just that... Taking that part away from a new warband seems backwards. The first few levels of advance are usually the most gratifying ones.

Personally, I agree 100%, but I can see the appeal if it's one player entering a more developed campaign - better give him a one-time boost than force every other player to take on a handicap...

May I instead suggest that the stronger warband plays with a penalty, such as one or several models not participating due to any silly reason from personal quests to having come down with the flu. ... The weaker warband and the stronger one fight over treasure but also to find Timbold. If the "enemy" gets Timbold, his Wizard can decide on whether to pay ransom or let him perish.

That approach would also work - and the above outline for calculating the difference between warbands could be used to figure out what resources to take away from the strong warband.

And as was said before - Who needs balance?

Exactly - balance, shmalance (in this context, that is!).

[Timbor]

There are many ways to balance a new player coming in, really whatever is decided upon would work IMO.  Mordheim just used experience bonuses after the battle - so if you are the underdog, you will get the XP bonus and will advance faster to catch up.

I don't really see how there could be any system that would allow for 'even' footing of a new vs veteran warband without some sort of handicap or underdog bonus.