Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ecurtz wrote:
So basically the 2 worst things about Frostgrave are it's Fantasy rather than Post Apocalyptic and some people don't like the opposed d20 system. There's nothing to do about the setting, but I personally don't think the d20 system is any worse than the standard GW d6 hit, wound, save system they've used for 30 years.

Not at all. Fantasy's fine, and D20s are a fine die.
However, the problem is like above: The system is not mathematically well designed. The intent of 'taking cover should reduce my chance of being taken out by enemy fire' doesn't matter because all you do is fish for rolls of 17+ as they do tremendous damage, that cannot have the odds mitigated. Hits that plink for 1 or 2 and are inconsequential even if they hit are what stuff like cover stops.

The sheer boringness the game makes fantasy is also a problem. The magical items can be counted on two hands, and most are '+2 weapon'. No differentiation for what a sword is, or a spear, or a mace...

The minions have no gameplay difference in their roles more or less except for being 'Armor 12' or 'armor 10', and so-forth. It's very bland.

Also, most spells are just disappoingly lame in what they do. Are you really going to cast Witchs' Curse and reduce an enemy's rolls by 1, at the risk of having your own wizard hurt themselves or explode, or in place of doing way better spells?

You're wrong about the math though - the opposed roll means the defender is more likely to "win" in the case of cover and take no damage independent from how hard they are hit. You can think about them in the opposite order if it helps, the attacker must roll well enough to overcome armor and then the defender gets a roll to see if they avoided the attack - that roll to avoid is helped by the cover whatever the attacker rolled.

Sure the spells are unbalanced but there are a lot of them, and finding interesting combinations is part of the fun. It helps if you change the spell XP rules, which I agree are pretty bad as written.

Yeah, cover only stops the hits you don't mind taking anyway.

ecurtz wrote:
So basically the 2 worst things about Frostgrave are it's Fantasy rather than Post Apocalyptic and some people don't like the opposed d20 system. There's nothing to do about the setting, but I personally don't think the d20 system is any worse than the standard GW d6 hit, wound, save system they've used for 30 years.

Well, if we're talking about the setting... Then I absolutely love the collection of short-short stories they released. At about ten pages each, they were perfect for giving a prospective player a hook into the world and stir the imagination.

Don't forget that cover is additive-- ever piece of cover a ranged attack crosses adds the same modifier. A crowded tabletop, as recommended by the author, makes ranged attacks much less effective.

The game is greatly reduced to,

1. move towards treasure

2. and roll 20's.

If you roll high enough on one dice it becomes irrelevant what unit you are using, what your target is how resilient it is and the tactical circumstances.

Here's the chart for a modest +2 cover bonus for the defender.

You're 12.5% less likely to take a serious (6+ damage) wound, 14% less likely to be hurt overall.

[EDIT: Of course I made a mistake after complaining about people ignoring the real numbers]
Armor is an even bigger advantage. +2 armor is a 14% reduction in taking any damage, 22% reduction in average damage per attack.

The numbers do matter. You're less likely to get screwed by a bad roll in Frostgrave than in Mordheim.

ecurtz wrote:
So basically the 2 worst things about Frostgrave are it's Fantasy rather than Post Apocalyptic and some people don't like the opposed d20 system.

Nah, the actual problem is the weak campaign system.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
they were perfect for giving a prospective player a hook into the world and stir the imagination

They might have been better served as part of the core book, however.

Good point. Wonder why they weren't included.

$$$$$$$$ as an after purchase.

And aren't there multiple volumes now? Guess they wanted to try a fiction line?

 Manchu wrote:
And aren't there multiple volumes now? Guess they wanted to try a fiction line?

Are there? I though Mat Ward was writing a novel for them, but I didn't know they had more short stories.

I'm a sucker for fiction lines.

For me, Frostgrave has the same problem as several other small miniature games. The campaign mode allows early successes to place some players with large gaps between themselves and the losing or newer players. It's one thing to have a slight power difference when you play, its another to know you are going to be steamrolled in each match.

I obviously really like Frostgrave, so I've been thinking about easy ways of addressing peoples' complaints that could be made into community rules. There are already a lot of modifications to the XP system out there. I know people do expand the rules to give XP to individual soldiers as well, but I haven't seen any specific rules for that which have been tested.

Another thing that both Mordheim and Necromunda have that FG doesn't is mercenaries you can hire for a single game if you're going up against a tough warband or are short handed. That's a good way to put the hurt on somebody who might otherwise be out of your league, or even if you're just looking for some revenge, and rules are as simple as a list of heroes and their costs (some may only work for payment in treasure, magic items, or ???).

Something I used to like in a Judge Dredd minis game from around 2003 or so was that Judges were used as a catch up mechanic. If a gang got too powerful, then they would attract the attention of the Judges.

Seems like something like that could be used in FG. Maybe a doppleganger has designs on transcending so he can replicate the top warband and wizard identically any time a wizard gets X levels, treasures or whatever factor above the others in a campaign.

So if your warband is #1 by whatever factor you've agreed on, another player gets to field an identical warband to yours. If you win, fabulous treasure. If you lose, everything was just an illusion and you're at the same level as the next highest warband.

I'm looking forward to Garchipelago but it's in the queue behind Newcromunda.

Deleted.

 privateer4hire wrote:

-Scenarios, many times, essentially became ignore-each-other contests as each player tried to make off with 1/2 the treasures.

Is that because you were just playing 1v1?

I wonder if frostgrave shines more as a 3?(+) player game which would force more interaction between groups rather than some missions becoming treasure splits by mutual agreement.

Could be the case, Mango Madness. I also think the lack of an ultimate goal (gold? wizard level? spells attained?) made us both very conservative. Toward the end I was experimenting with things like Leap and what not and that seemed like unusual spells could make the game interesting.

My friend had become convinced that because I had an elementalist (who are admittedly just plain better offensively than other wizards) that didn't stand a chance.

Our strategies revolved around sending a couple of dogs apiece forward to mess with the other guy. An archer or crossbow or two set on any lanes of sight. Mooks running out to snatch treasure and our wizards to come out to be the main combat force on both sides.

Frostgrave is like a fun lite RPG you play with miniatures.

It's not chess.
Your forces are never equal.
The campaign rewards earlier successes.

I'm fine with that.

You need to play with lots of terrain. Wide open spaces allows direct damage spells to sky rocket in usefulness.

It also helps if you play with a group that aren't TFGs. I played an Elementalist who went through 20+ games without murdering the other wizards. Wizards are supposed to outsmart each other and then brag about, not burn the other guy to a crisp each game. Nothing in the game says you have to be a murder hobo.

Yeah, good points. I don't pick stuff for OP-ness because we're an older, for-fun group of 3 players. So when my elementalist wound up being a murder hobo, I backed off and started going with leap, telekinesis, transpose and that sort of thing.

I definitely think this is a fun-focus game and agree with your assessments.

 adamsouza wrote:
Nothing in the game says you have to be a murder hobo.

Hahahaha

for some reason I has an image of Dr Claw with an AK47 standing over the blasted body of Inspector Gadget saying 'there wont be a next time Gadget, not anymore'

I think i watch too many kids shows

 privateer4hire wrote:
So when my elementalist wound up being a murder hobo, I backed off and started going with leap, telekinesis, transpose and that sort of thing.

Leap and Wall of Stone. I would infuriate other players by leaping a henchman onto a treasure one turn, and then leaping to safety the next turn. Made a habit of stealing at least half the treasures each game. Creating walls in a dungeon was just amazing. Allowed me to redirect and control the flow of monsters and other players.

Pretty much only used Elemental blast to take out monsters that got too close.

There was one Apprentice that tried to Bone Dart my wizard, so he tossed an Elemental Bolt back at him to teach him a lesson. My Wizard rolled a "20", while his apprentice rolled a "1". Genuinely felt bad about that.

I'd kind of like to expand the discussion by asking if anyone got Ghost Archipelago yet and if they prefer it over Frostgrave?

I literally JUST purchased Frostgrave because GA sounded like it has a bigger focus on lightly armored fighters and more of a pirate setting, whereas Frostgrave allows for heavier armored knights and the like (Which, thematically, is something my brothers and I would enjoy more).

I have yet to play a game of GA. But after reading the book, I think I would prefer GA. It fixes some issues with the first game. I like to think of it as Frostgrave 2.0.

spect_spidey wrote:
I have yet to play a game of GA. But after reading the book, I think I would prefer GA. It fixes some issues with the first game. I like to think of it as Frostgrave 2.0.

That sounds good since a buddy of mine and I have our books inbound.
If you have the inclination, can you cover what issues that GA fixes, please?

Thanks either way.

The Wizard/Apprentice mechanic is the center of FG. GA chucks it out in favor of having unrelated main characters, the Heritor and Warden. The Warden is a kind of lesser version of a FG Wizard. But they advance independently, unlike the Apprentices of FG. The main character of your GA warband is the Heritor, who is basically a comic book super hero. Unlike the Wizards of FG, he has powers that he can use many times each turn although each time he uses them, he has a greater chance of taking "blood burn" feedback damage.

If you don't like the mechanics of FG, you will similarly dislike the mechanics of GA - they are basically identical, aside from the Wizard/Apprentice v. Heritor & Warden distinction above.

There are a few other changes from Frostgrave to GA. You equip your Heritor and Warden from the General Equipment list for free. You get 8 crewmen for free that can be equipped with a hand weapon, hand weapon/shield, two-handed weapon, or a staff. You will always have these crewmen for every game.

When you start the campaign you get 250 gold that you can use to buy specialists. You can only have up to 4 of them and they replace a normal crewmen in your warband. They have set equipment and stats that do not change and they can carry one item. If they are killed, you cannot just buy a new specialist. You have to pay a fee to represent sailing back to the mainland to hire a new specialist.

One treasure is always set up in the center of the board and each player places two other treasures. Getting the central treasure off the table allows a +2 to the treasure table roll. Having certain equipment and carrying a treasure can cause a model to have a reduction in Fight due to being encumbered.

There are rules for using small boats in some scenarios that can carry up to 6 models. There are rules for balancing a game for crews of differing levels. There are swimming rules. And there are rules for making ability tests outside of just Willpower.

IMHO, I think the changes are for the best.

Yes, but the core mechanics are pretty much the same. That is all window dressing and "chrome" for the most part.

If you hate the d20 mechanics and damage, you will hate Ghost Archipelago too.

Yes, GA is more of a change in tone. I mean, it is even called "Frostgrave: Ghost Archipelago."

EasyE, I have noticed a potential trend with games Osprey publishes towards emphasizing tone (in this same sense) over mechanics. For example, all __ Rampant games, Ronin/En Guarde. FG/GA is just another example. Dracula's America has the same feel: generic rules but a distinctive setting. Have you noticed the same?

Yes. They put a lot more emphasis on result and feel than they do on process. They are all relatively light on depth, with maybe one or two "tricks" up their sleeve.

I think some of this is a fixture of the space limitations in writing a Blue Book. I believe the max word count is 22,000 words for the Wargame Series, which doesn't leave a lot of room for campaigns, chrome, and fringe-cases. This maybe good or bad depending on your tastes.