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.

 adamsouza wrote:
I used to watch Frostgrave battle reports. It never failed to amaze me how little terrain they used, and how much open space and line of sight it allowed for.

Must not have been watching mine!

Yeah, I do not get why you would play Frostgrave without at least 35% table coverage all the way up to 60% table coverage. Wierd.

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be much competition for Frostrage at the moment. That may explain it's sorry state.
I've really only enjoyed it with Bad Karma's Rule Changes.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Elemental Hammer on a crossbow is devastating.

genius. I wish I thought to use it that way.

I like Frostgrave quite a bit. But then again I am the type of gamer who really appreciates interacting with a neat story than finely honed mechanical design. I'd play a good abstract boardgame like YINSH if I were looking for that. As long as people refrain from being TFG, it can be an incredible casual game.

However, I dont have a lot of terrain or models to play the game in the sense that most would ideally think of when referring to games like this. I do have a ton of heroscape though. Both in terrain and models.

So as an experiment, I embarked on converting the game to a hex based format. This was pretty easy to do, using a (One hex = 1.5" ) conversion formula.
For example, a model who has a movement of 7" now has a movement of 5 hexes. For half movement, all measures are rounded down. So a move 7 model would move 5 on first action, and 2 on second action. This gets rid of ridiculous things like being shy by half an inch or whatever.
There was one exception, and that was move 8" creatures. I gave them a move of 5 hexes still, but they got a new "fleet" rule that allowed them to round up on second action movement. This even things out and allows faster creatures to still have that distinction.

But in order to avoid doing math at every stage of play, I had to go through the rulebook, spells and ulterior motive cards and convert them. Some spells took a bit of creativity to justify the conversion, like a circle of protection, or fog and wall. But, I think it is a better game now simply by virtue of removing measuring devices and allowing players to calculate spaces easily at a glance. It makes it more tactical and strategic at the same time.

Using Heroscape certainly isn't a cheap option anymore if you were to buy in as a fresh noob. But if you have a lot of materials already available, it works quite remarkably well.

Here are a few images to illustrate my point.

Two different boards:


This one is a very flat board with very little elevation variations. Basically no higher than height 3. Works very well.


This one has a lot of elevation variation, and the slope of the board on one side goes all the way up to height 9, with a lot of elevation variation between the valley and the peak.
This scenario is a campaign prologue. The Gate of Felstad, a scenario we devised. Just a generic set up. Each player places 3 treasures. Deployment is on opposite corners of the left side of the map where the elevation is lowest. No turn limit.



Here are the two warbands used recently. The first is an elementalist, apprentice, knight, templar, archer, 2 thugs, and a war dog.


And this is a witch, apprentice, assassin, archer, infantryman, treasure hunter, thief, thug, wolf animal companion.


I snapped these right after my opponent's thug picked up a treasure and rolled a 17 for an encounter. A frost giant shows up not five spaces away from his mage. Good thing he had elemental shield up.


But even though that frost giant is on his doorstep, my apprentice is about to have to contend with both the knight and a damned werewolf on my six that crawled up from the road entrance last turn. I chose to shoot the knight with a poison dart. The werewolf made my apprentice wounded, and after game wound up with a nasty injury. A lost eye.


Two ice spiders were about to assault my wolf companion, but I moved him far enough away that they both jumped on his apprentice instead. A she tried to sneak up and steal the treasure, she died for her troubles.

It was a mad rush on both our parts to get the hell out of dodge and be glad for the treasure we were able to carry away before the fauna of frostgrave could devour our bands of greedy looters. Any victory today was pyrrhic.

I'm happy with the results of how well this plays in a hex board environment, even if it is not quite as pretty as a fully painted up frostgrave board.

Very cool mash up of Heroscape and Frostgrave, Hellfury. Exalted!

So, Joe, I've just started playing Frostgrave, and introduced it to a bunch of my friends. I enjoy it quite a bit, but I would like to see some tweaks, particularly towards how XP is earned.

I'm currently playing a Thaumaturge, so not so much with the direct damage dealing spells. My go-to spells have been Blinding Light, Heal, and Shield. I'd like to see the system give XP rewards for soldiers making kills, and for keeping soldiers alive through the game, as that's kind of how the Thaumaturge's team tends to roll.

The new Maze of Malcador (or whatever) supplement will have some rules tweaks according to the author. What the tweaks are is less clear.

 Easy E wrote:
The new Maze of Malcador (or whatever) supplement will have some rules tweaks according to the author. What the tweaks are is less clear.

One of them is a reexamination of the XP chart. I imagine it'll incentivise your Wizard being more than just a head-hunter for XP gain. Personally, i'd love to see something like the Captain concept expanded to the entire warband, so they have some progression as well. It would help some of my players use them less as disposable missions, and make for more tactical play. :-p

I have recently started to get into Frostgrave. There are things about it I like, there are things about it I don't like.



One thing I find lacking, is the fact that soldiers never improve their stats. This would be a simple matter to solve. Perhaps every soldier could have his own Experience Point total. Gaining XP for things like taking out opposing warband models, or wandering monsters, and for getting treasure off the board, gain enough XP, gain a level. An easier method with far less bookkeeping is, to have one soldier in the warband increase one Stat as soon as the wizard gains a level. We might play test that last suggestion in our next campaign.

Likewise, I would have liked to see soldier stats without 'automatic modifications' for equipment and the likes. Simply give a stat-line, and an equipment table so I could go about and custom equip my soldiers. Custom build my own Man-at-Arms or Infantryman or Archer. Give each soldier one armor slot, two weapon slots (with one being filled by a shield if taken, or both filled by a single two-handed weapon, for example), and one 'free' slot for special items such as treasure or a magic item.
Slightly related, There is leather armor, and mail armor. Assuming this latter to be chainmail. Why no platemail?

Like a lot of people seem to indicate, the XP table for wizards appears to be slightly off. There is quite an emphasis on playing the murder hobo and building a wizard that hunts down and personally destroys the other warbands. Oddly enough, the game (depending on scenario and such) can be played by rushing the treasure tokens, picking them up, and running off again. The biggest hurdle here would be using rules for wandering monsters through the optional Random Encounters. More involved games I saw, simply had a single treasure counter in the middle of the playing area counting as two treasures worth, and then 4 or 6 treasure counters placed by the players in turn. To "win", the players had to make that mad dash to the middle and meet up.

Balance issues. I haven't had an issue here yet, but then again, I play with close personal friends and none of them ever showed any TFG behaviour. Of course, in any game with as many moving parts as a wargame, balance issues will arise. And sometimes, people complain for complaining's sake. If your warband has no magic weapons, the common sense thing to do is to run, when a wraith randomly appears. You have no chance in hell to defeat it as it is immune to non-magical weapons. Why try?
I will admit not all spells will be created (balanced) equal. A spell that heals a Health point from a friendly miniature in base-to-base contact will never be equal to a spell that deals a point of damage to Health at a range of 24", or even 12" or 6 ". The damage dealer is automatically more powerful, assuming equal casting numbers. By tweaking those, during extensing play testing, and after production through errata, the spells will become more balanced in a way. But to what extent? A ranged spell will only need enough movement from the caster to get within that range. A 'touch' spell needing base-to-base contact always needs enough movement to get in touch. As such I think this is a minor point, at least until I play strangers who do show TFG behaviour.



I think the simplicity is parts of the strength of this game. Compared to Warhammer 40K, for example, where you roll to hit, to wound, to save, to damage, and then still to disgustingly resilient... that's a lot of rolls for a single attemp to take out an enemy model. Rolling off seems awfully random, even with a small Fight stat bonus, but let's face it, in the world of minions and mooks there are few sword masters and Robin Hood-like marksmen. With averagely trained soldiers, something like a slippery patch of ground should introduce that random element more than the differences in sheer skill.

I like the background. While some think it is limited in scope ("just the city?") I think it is a strength too. Don't like the city? Build a table that resembles an ancient city park, with a building (ruin) left and right, lots of trees and bushes and high hills to break line of sight. Or don't play the game as if it is set in the city. Of course, the city isn't the entirety of the background. The ten schools of magic are part of it too. The additional 5 schools from the expansions likewise. The monsters and types of hirelings, ever expanding as well, are part of the background. The art is very telling too.

The book is the game (with or wiithout expansions). There is a dedicated line of miniatures, but they are not mandatory. If you have other miniatures, that's fine too. Compare that to some of the draconic rules for tournaments from various Warhammer games. Of course, I have a second box of plastic Frostgrave Soldiers on the way... And some Soldiers II... and Barbarians. Savig up for next month, for cultists and gnolls.

I like the support. Plenty of expansions, miniatures, articles, youtube instructions and battle reports. Not everybody likes the game, but it is clear a lot of people do. And I am one of them.



And then there was Ghost Archipelago...

Just picked up the basic rule book. I want to run a campaign for 3 friends who got back in touch. I"d play their adversaries, they run warbands. Is this remotely possible? Please share your experiences.

Shrapnelsmile,

Yes, you could do that. In fact, the way my regular opponent and I play (there are a total of four of us but really only he and I play semi-regular) I'd almost wish we had a OPFOR band for one of us to run at any time.

We virtually ignore on another because we're, IRL, nice guys and don't want to jam over the other guy during a campaign. Having a That Guy warband that we'd both have to face would be a nice way to be confrontational without being confrotational, maybe.

@Shrapnelsmile

I do believe adding a third player as a sort of game master, controlling any randomly appearing monsters, could improve the game. It adds even more to the RPG feeling people already described when they saw the campaign options for leveling up their wizards.
Currently, without a game master, the monsters respond according to a set of mechanical rules. This might mean a disproportionate number of them, based on measurement alone, runs off towards one specific warband, not necessarily the strongest, just the closest. A game master might intervene and decide to send a majority at the stronger warband, creating a form of balance in a campaign that a 'cold' set of rules would unlikely reach, without becoming more complicated. It may require some experience and insight, but it may pay off. Also, instead of having every random monster be totally random, a game master may prepare a scenario, and adjust the random tables beforehand. Only undead monsters from a crypt building, only gnolls and barbarians from the edge of the board as they, too, invade the city. Options, options, options.

@privateer4hire

The most basic scenario requires six treasure tokens. Most such games turn out to be a mad dash for three of those, and haul them off the board, while the opponent does the same. During a one-off game this isn't a problem, as winning is defined as having more treasure tokens than the opponent. I see your point about a bunch of non-TFG players just wanting to have fun, and not wanting to totally screwdriver eachother over. Perhaps this can be mitigated by not having an even number of treasure tokens, but an odd one, with one being in the exact middle of the table. In the basic scenario, this 'forces' the warbands to close in on eachother.
Also, a game master like described above might help too. With a slightly higher number of monsters as 'speed bumps' and guardians of the treasure, two or more warbands never have to clash, but they would have an abundance of opponents to fight. And the game master might decide to throw tougher (random) monsters at a warband that is better equipped or has a higher level wizard.

@ any reader

I have the Malcor expansion and the Ghost Archipelago book on the way, expecting them in the snailmail any day now. I wonder what the changes/additions to the Frostgrave rules are with regards to the cold city, and what the differences will be between the cold city and the island versions. I know, lots have been spoiled on the internet already, but I like to read for myself. in so much as I didn't see it already. I know about those inheritors as opposed to wizards, snake-men instead of gnolls, abilities instead of spells. I'll just have to wait and see. Any day now.

Malcor does have a treasure system overhaul that puts a big central treasure and a few smaller treasures around it. This promotes some action for the central treasure.

Malcor also has some rules for balancing warbands that involves monsters.

 Easy E wrote:
Malcor does have a treasure system overhaul that puts a big central treasure and a few smaller treasures around it. This promotes some action for the central treasure.

Malcor also has some rules for balancing warbands that involves monsters.

The biggest change is the 300xp cap per encounter, one less treasure placed by each treasure and the central treasure being fixed.

Also; there is no longer XP For killing Wizards and Apprentices. That has been shifted to 5xp for killing unaligned monsters. All the focus now is on solving problems by casting spells and getting off with an a-symmetrical number of treasures.

My group managed to play a Long Frostgrave campaign without killing each other's wizards.

We had a few maps made of dungeon tiles where the Wall spell was used to hilarious effect, boxing in opposing forces while their own forces ran off with treasures.

I received the malcor book, and indeed some of my points below were adressed.

The change to placing treasure tokens is there.
I like the new Experience Table, as it the removes the focus on head-hunting, and makes treasure-hunting and spellcasting more prominent.
Also, I saw that 300 XP cap mentioned by Easy E. As I have seen battle reports where a single wizard potentially would have gained more than 3 levels at once, such a cap, I believe, would slow down the rate at which two warbands grow apart in a campaign.
Interestingly, the campaign section mentions the use of an extra player to control the forces of Malcor. That Game Master concept came through in a way.

Everything optional, of course. But so far I like the fact that the changes are offered. Makes me like the game even more.


On top of that, I now have an electric figure saw, a lot of thin MDF board, and a couple of boxes filled with cheap aquarium plants. Planning on making a lot of jungle scatter terrain for my Warhammer 40K and Age of Sigmar games. But that works for Frostgrave: Ghost Archipelago as well, of course.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
@Shrapnelsmile

I do believe adding a third player as a sort of game master, controlling any randomly appearing monsters, could improve the game. It adds even more to the RPG feeling people already described when they saw the campaign options for leveling up their wizards.
Currently, without a game master, the monsters respond according to a set of mechanical rules. This might mean a disproportionate number of them, based on measurement alone, runs off towards one specific warband, not necessarily the strongest, just the closest. A game master might intervene and decide to send a majority at the stronger warband, creating a form of balance in a campaign that a 'cold' set of rules would unlikely reach, without becoming more complicated. It may require some experience and insight, but it may pay off. Also, instead of having every random monster be totally random, a game master may prepare a scenario, and adjust the random tables beforehand. Only undead monsters from a crypt building, only gnolls and barbarians from the edge of the board as they, too, invade the city. Options, options, options.

Yes I will be a game master of sorts, including tying the sessions together and running the scenarios.

Thanks for the feedback.

We tried Ghost Archipelago after being blown away by FG and playing several campaign games. Our verdict was that it was a decent game that had some nice fixes/additions (the campaign model where you are collecting the various artifacts IIRC was cool).

In the end, though, it didn't seem worth the trouble of trying to play two very similar games with mechanics just different enough to make you mix up little things. We figured it's just as easy to play FG rules with a jungle terrain board. YMMV.

I haven't really read the section on the Inheritors yet. Are their abilities too spell-like to not seem different enough from regular FrGr spellcasting?
Or are the Inheritors and Wardens actually why you say "different enough" and "mixing up little things"? I know the basic mechanics are the same overall.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
I haven't really read the section on the Inheritors yet. Are their abilities too spell-like to not seem different enough from regular FrGr spellcasting?
Or are the Inheritors and Wardens actually why you say "different enough" and "mixing up little things"? I know the basic mechanics are the same overall.

Heritors have abilities that are kind of like the Captain's Tricks of the Trade except using them too often causes health loss. Wardens are kind of like Druids. They are basically less powerful Wizards. Their spells don't seem to be as potent as regular Frostgrave Wizard spells.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
I haven't really read the section on the Inheritors yet. Are their abilities too spell-like to not seem different enough from regular FrGr spellcasting?
Or are the Inheritors and Wardens actually why you say "different enough" and "mixing up little things"? I know the basic mechanics are the same overall.

I honestly don't remember all the specifics but it just seemed like FG in a new setting with a couple of twists (heritors and their nature magic guys).
The story was very cool and I liked the setting but ultimately we would have been happier if it had just been a setting/campaign that used stock FG.
The heritor/nature mages thing was a nice change but just didn't grab us conceptually, I guess, as playing an FG warband.

If we had played Archipelago first, there's every chance we would have had the same reaction to FG.
"Why would we play wizards and apprentices? They're just different ways of playing heritors/nature wardens"

Both games are fine but, to us, it was similar to playing current 40k and AoS on different nights.
They're close enough to almost be the same game and the one rule you mess up is the one that's X in this game and Y in the other.
If you like 'em both and don't confuse the bits, both are a blast to have in your rotation.

@ privateer4hire
Except for the minor (or even major) changes you briefly mention (X changing in Y from one book to the next) we have already wondered why one would not be able to play a Wizard's Warband on some jungle island? Or a Heritor in a cold city or its environs? Heck, what about transposing the entire FG game system to a desert setting, searching the shifting sands for magic lamps and powerful genies?

Aside from stuff like the type of treasure found (scrolls and grimoires opposed to maps and the likes), and the differences between wizards and heritors, the basic system is similar. We would have to compare the two books in depth to see what moving parts should be adapted, but we also believe adaptation is possible. The simplest solution to the treasure type problem would be to have a Heritor Warband player roll his random treasures on the FG;GA tables, while a Wizard Warband rolls on the regular FG treasure tables. Lots of playtesting would have to show if there are considerable differences in power level between wizards and heritors when both types of warband leaders are mixed (and captains, wardens, soldiers, crewmen, etc).
Interesting problem with that last part, crewmen and their cost (or lack thereof). Another one of those moving parts different between 'setting' books. Some different parts don't really affect the game at all, unless they very specifically pop up. For example, FG;GA archers have a Quiver in their equipment list, FG archers don't. Neither game ceases functioning due to this difference... unless one finds a way to destroy equipment such as the quiver. Simple solution? assume all FG archers and crossbowmen to also have a quiver if you mix and match both FG and FG;GA. Nothing wrong there. As long as you consider the quiver to be part of the standard, or starting equipment, and have one open item slot for the FG archer despite adding the quiver, all should be fine.
Another interesting point comes from the XP tables. Different strokes for different blokes and all that.

Overall, I don't think that playing a heritor against a wizard is a good idea. The wizard's ability to cast spells every round makes it more powerful than the heritor. Heritor abilities can only be used at certain times and they only start with 5 different ones. I could however see swapping character types out as long as both players take the same kind of characters. For example, playing wizards with wardens or heritors with apprentices. Maybe even playing a heritor with a wizard in place of the warden. Or use a heritor to replace a captain. I definitely think the warband construction of GA helps to keep a warband from following behind in a campaign.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
@ privateer4hire
Except for the minor (or even major) changes you briefly mention (X changing in Y from one book to the next) we have already wondered why one would not be able to play a Wizard's Warband on some jungle island? Or a Heritor in a cold city or its environs? Heck, what about transposing the entire FG game system to a desert setting, searching the shifting sands for magic lamps and powerful genies?...

Same with us. Really you don't have to do much, if any, adaptation to move FG to another environment.
It could be the Lost Empire of the Ancients, lost in the thick, magic forests and jungles of the Verdwilde or the Al-Xandree desert that swallowed the kingdoms of legend...
My point is that both games are absolutely great but, for our group, not different enough to have two core books to keep straight.

I have some more detailed thought on Maze of Malcor here: https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-maze-of-malcor-frostgrave.html

Thanks to everyone above who provided feedback long ago. I've started a 1-on-1 campaign with my bud, and it has been a blast. We're looking forward to the subtle changes in the new edition as well.
I could see it getting a bit stale, but a little creativity with the campaign aspect will mitigate that. Could never be my only minis game, but I'm really glad it is in my rotation.

One beef is Wizards hiding behind a hill or obstacle, casting that spell that allows a 180 degree line of site for spells, and causing me more than a bit of headache some matches. But I've got options, as you all know.

cheers.

For those following Frostgrave, there has been a lot of talk about Frostgrave 2.0 Despite that, I put together some thoughts on another supplement to Frostgrave- Ulterior Motives hereL

https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2019/11/review-ulterior-motives-frostgrave.html

Nice review, Easy E.

I think I would use Ulterior Motives in any FG game these days, unless I was introducing the game to new players for the first time. They just add so much fun, and so many new tactical elements, that for me they take the quick, high quality gaming experience that is FG, to a significantly higher level still, without adding much complexity at all.

Honestly I like the opposed d20 system, cause I hate mathhammer this unit does x% this, and this unit does x% this, so this is useless and this is meta, etc. etc.

I also like how it's super simple, and allows me to use whatever race and minis I want. Especially Gnolls as gnolls are one of my favorite fantasy races. (though I wish their official models had tails, easy fix though so again no biggie)