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.
endtransmission wrote: Page 6 of the rules says no model may move through another model.
Ugh, I hate that actually. I can see nothing but frustration come of such a restriction.
EDIT: I should add, I hate that given that the corridors are so narrow. If there was more space to move around it wouldn't be a problem.
endtransmission wrote: It is not in the written rules, but according to the video Breaking Away uses up all your actions for that turn as the heroes tried to break away and attack someone else instead, only to find they couldn't.
So that's even more restriction on movement then. Hit with a free attack and giving up your action for the turn makes me think you'd only ever resort to this when you had absolutely no other option. *shrug* I just think it would be more fun if it was less restrictive.
Da Boss wrote: The narrowness of the corridors gives this game a "Space Hulk" like feel rather than a Warhammer Quest or D'n'D feel in my experience. Order of movement and exact positioning is a big part of the strategy.
The_Real_Chris wrote: In DKH this is a feature not a problem. Maps have multiple routes (so high speed models have a lot of options) and models with heavy duty shields can push other models back. It is more tactical play than swirling melee. It is a designer choice or feature leading to part of the attraction if you like that sort of game.
Da Boss wrote: I remember DKH feeling very much like Space Hulk minus bolters, where there were multiple choke points and areas I had to cover, and it was all about controlling avenues and not getting surrounded. It doesn't play like the D'n'D boardgame at all really.
OK, it might just be a matter of taste and style then. For me personally, I really wanted to love Space Hulk, but I found the tightness of movement mostly frustrating in play. I guess one way of putting it would be that I disliked that it felt so strategic (it's really important what decisions you make initially, during setup; do I send the flamer guy down the corridor first or the bolter guy?), as opposed to tactical (on the fly decisions from turn to turn are what are most important; do I concentrate my fire on the genestealer coming from behind, or move up and shield my battle brothers flank?). Once you were committed, it felt like there wasn't much you could do. If that makes any sense. In contrast, I think it's hard to beat 4th edition D&D when it comes to exciting, interesting combat; it's dynamic, you always have places to move to get into a better position, several different actions are open to you, and choosing which one feels important (I have reservations with D&D 4th as an RPG because it's a little too focused on combat for my taste, but if you really want to get into some good old fighting I think it's hard to beat). People like different things I guess!
endtransmission wrote: Doors in the examples seem to be dividers between specific sections of the dungeon, so you only reveal the next section once the door is kicked in. I would imagine that these are considered to be locked/blocked doors, with all other transitions between tiles being unlocked doors so you can freely pass between.
Hmmm, if they are basically just dividers between levels I see even less need for requiring a roll, though; it seems kind of pointless (if the roll is hard and it takes me three rolls to get it down it'll just be frustrating, and if it's easy it might as well be automatic is my reasoning). I would really prefer if the need to roll was reserved for instances where it's exciting; where it's actually important if I get the door down this turn or next.
Trodax wrote: • The attack versus armour mechanic is… interesting. That armour removes the lowest dice from your roll and then you compare dice in order from highest down seems like it might lead to some wonky results. I dunno, I’ll have to think about this one some more, it might be cool.
Currently I'm not seeing a problem with this mechanic as you're effectively removing wound opportunities that the limited dice pool offers. For example, if the skeleton only has 2 dice to defend with, but has armour 4, suddenly a chunk of those extra attack dice the heroes have are likely to be ignored. The concern I have is with the scalable nature of the wounds/death mechanic on larger/harder creatures later on.
You're probably right there. My first gut feeling was that it might lead to some odd situations... like armour being useless against opponents with many dice... or something. But trying to think about it some more, I can't really figure out such a situation. It's probably fine.
One aspect I saw someone voice on the Mantic forum is that the useable range of armour in the game is quite narrow; armour 6 is impossible to hit so can't be used, armour 5 seems extremely tough, it's probably too much. So you're left fiddling around with armour 2, 3 and 4 basically (armour 1 means an automatic hit); it makes it a bit trickier to expand on the system and introduce magic armour and whatnot. Giving the barbarian magical armour with a +1 bonus I bet would work nicely, but the same item on the dwarf would most likely make him unstoppable.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/08 11:26:19
I'm fine with the heroes' side of things needing more strategy - that's what makes it a good co-op game! A bit of a discussion and plan-forming before moving, otherwise you might be blocking off a crucial corridor.
I also think that 'breaking away' being punitive is crucial - it makes mobbing heroes with low-grade baddies an effective tactic, and it makes it vitally important that you protect your archer/wizard/other ranged types. If a zombie is locked in combat with your wizard, it will still be a better move to break him away and get him behind the dwarf than to stay where he is and get attacked anyway.
I do think that the dwarf is not sufficiently different from the barbarian though, and just seems to be better. I would have thought that 5 attack on the barbarian (which again couldn't be modified by wounds taken) would turn him into an effective 'DPS' type.
And I agree about the armour - I suspect that there might actually be slightly different rules for this in the 'advanced' version, as the range is just too narrow - if monsters die in one damaging hit, you need to be able to distinguish better between a zombie and a troll and a dragon. High armour values might not be as problematic as they seem though, with a combination of armour-piercing weapons and 'overkill' on dice reducing armour.
I just remembered one difference between the Dwarf and the barbarian that does separate them quite a lot. Fro some reason it's not on the Barbarian card, but inthe section on wounding... Barbarians ignore negative penalties for being wounded. So the Dwarf may have high armour and lots of attacks, but as soon as he starts taking wounds, he's going to get worse. The barbarian may not have much armour, but he'll stay just as active until he drops dead
And I agree about the armour - I suspect that there might actually be slightly different rules for this in the 'advanced' version, as the range is just too narrow - if monsters die in one damaging hit, you need to be able to distinguish better between a zombie and a troll and a dragon. High armour values might not be as problematic as they seem though, with a combination of armour-piercing weapons and 'overkill' on dice reducing armour.
Do note that in the rulebook the wound/damage table for the different creatures goes up to 5, so we could be seeing things like the Trolls needing 4 or more damage in one turn to kill them
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trodax wrote: One aspect I saw someone voice on the Mantic forum is that the useable range of armour in the game is quite narrow; armour 6 is impossible to hit so can't be used, armour 5 seems extremely tough, it's probably too much. So you're left fiddling around with armour 2, 3 and 4 basically (armour 1 means an automatic hit); it makes it a bit trickier to expand on the system and introduce magic armour and whatnot. Giving the barbarian magical armour with a +1 bonus I bet would work nicely, but the same item on the dwarf would most likely make him unstoppable.
Another thing that was in the video that I can't spot in the rulebook is that you can never go below 2 dice for defence (I assume attack too) and that if you are forced below 2, you start losing points of armour instead. So it looks like the way to beat the dwarf is just attrition, flank attacks and ganging up to score as many bonus dice as possible and force his defences down. I'd imagine the necromancer and troll shaman will get curses to fling around as well that will reduce armour
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/08/08 13:33:57
Why do people think you have to play with the strategy of a four year old when doing demo videos? The rules would still come up if you did a real game and people could actually get a sense of the balance.
From reading the alpha rules:
My sense is that it's still basically DKH and we found the heroes in that to be overpowered.
The new armored bad guys might make turtling by the Necromancer in 1 wide corridors a serious problem.
The elf should be able to shoot through models.
ecurtz wrote: Why do people think you have to play with the strategy of a four year old when doing demo videos? The rules would still come up if you did a real game and people could actually get a sense of the balance.
From reading the alpha rules:
My sense is that it's still basically DKH and we found the heroes in that to be overpowered.
The new armored bad guys might make turtling by the Necromancer in 1 wide corridors a serious problem.
The elf should be able to shoot through models.
The hero's did seem a bit overpowered to me as well. Although, I wasn't sure if the guy from Mantic was making it easier on them by not playing most of his necro cards. I think the potions helped making the hero's overpowered too. They shouldn't be able to throw potions or at least without a roll.
I just remembered one difference between the Dwarf and the barbarian that does separate them quite a lot. Fro some reason it's not on the Barbarian card, but inthe section on wounding... Barbarians ignore negative penalties for being wounded. So the Dwarf may have high armour and lots of attacks, but as soon as he starts taking wounds, he's going to get worse. The barbarian may not have much armour, but he'll stay just as active until he drops dead
That's true, but you can only ever go down by 1 die for being wounded (i.e. full health = total dice, 1-4 wounds = total dice -1). The Dwarf starts on 5, the Barbarian starts on 4! So the dwarf can only ever drop as low as the barbarian.
I suspect that the heroes are 'overpowered' in the tutorial scenarios, certainly - with that many hitpoints, and taking a maximum of 1 damage per turn, it takes a while to wear them down. I suspect that they will be rather less overpowered once you throw the more powerful monsters into the mix, in greater numbers, over larger dungeons!
At any rate, it's certainly different from Warhammer Quest, Descent I&II and their ilk, so should have a viable market niche. If you can play a scenario in a normal boardgame duration (60-90 mins), it will get played 10x more often!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/08 15:15:06
TBH, I was hoping for bit more depth so that the heroes aren't throw-aways but characters you can develop over the course of a campaign.
Darn. I'm still on the lookout for "that" game I suppose.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
agnosto wrote: TBH, I was hoping for bit more depth so that the heroes aren't throw-aways but characters you can develop over the course of a campaign.
From what they have been talking about, you'll be wanting the advanced rules book that will hopefully (funding allowing) include creating yor own characters and levelling up between adventures
agnosto wrote: TBH, I was hoping for bit more depth so that the heroes aren't throw-aways but characters you can develop over the course of a campaign.
From what they have been talking about, you'll be wanting the advanced rules book that will hopefully (funding allowing) include creating yor own characters and levelling up between adventures
Thanks! Now back to lurking..
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
Has anyone been able to print and play the scenarios? The tile PDF is larger than an 8.5"x11" / A4 sheet of paper. Let me know how you've printed it out!
re: Advanced rules:
"@ Jonathan - we will feature this in a future update. We'd like to do a pretty hefty upgrade though, which may be a goal
A $10k stretch goal to add game mechanics? Jake charges more than I thought...
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
Well, it's either that, or 15K - 25K to reach the next mini.
<idle speculation>
Sorta looks like at 300K they've finally put the mini's back into the base game box? I hear there will be two of each minion instead of three, but, if Mars Attacks gives an idea of MSRP, the base game will be $75 MSRP, and $50 online. So you could buy two DS sets for the price of a $100 pledge level.
agnosto wrote: A $10k stretch goal to add game mechanics? Jake charges more than I thought...
It does seem a bit much but hey, more power to him!
Product cost for ~100 sets + shipping costs + Kickstarter costs + development costs means it probably isn't as far off as these types of posts seem to imply.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/09 19:34:34
Product cost for ~100 sets + shipping costs + Kickstarter costs + development costs means it probably isn't as far off as these types of posts seem to imply.
Somehow I doubt it since they were planning on it being part of the final product anyway but that's just my cynicism talking.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
Not even been going a week and this seems to be buzzing along nicely, it would still take fair bit more to get me to pledge though. Are we out of models with actual sculpts rather than just concept art now?
Not even been going a week and this seems to be buzzing along nicely, it would still take fair bit more to get me to pledge though. Are we out of models with actual sculpts rather than just concept art now?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Da Boss wrote: Undead versions of the heroes, is what we need
Zombvivor versions of the heroes? And $10 add-on 2 packs of living and zombified heroes based on pop culture references. Hmmm.. we could get Brian Blessed as King Richard from Blackadder I (including decapitated headless version), Blackadder himself, Baldrick and Percy. Melchett, since Stephen Fry is now a cultural Icon in the UK. Um.. Heath Ledger from that bad movie he did. Zombified Heath Ledger in bad taste perhaps? The entire Monty Python Crew if needed..
If I Had a Rocket Launcher, I'd Make Somebody Pay 
