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.

I love that the entire backstory fits in one page, but tells you everything you need to know. The city of Frostgrave is full of opportunity and danger. That first page immediately evokes feelings of lust for power and wealth, and fear of all the supernatural horrors lurking in the ruins. Seriously atmospheric.

Overall this feels very D&Desque, but with a greater emphasis on 1920s/1930s weird fantasy than even original D&D or AD&D 1st had -- there is just something very Clark Ashton Smith about wizards battling to loot the artefacts of much more ancient, long-forgotten wizards in a post-magical-apocalypse city. And that is a very good thing.

The weapon and armour system is pretty simple, and looks reasonably well-balanced, though I worry a bit that armour won't prove as worthwhile as it ought to. I guess we'll see (haven't playtested yet). I did initially think that 2-handed weapons were significantly better than hand weapon + shield, because the former gives you +2 to damage whereas the latter effectively reduces damage by 1; but, in fact, I think it works out OK, because it looks like ranged weapons will be decent in this game, as will spells, and the shield also protects against the former and many of the latter. I am a little concerned that, with two d20 rolls (one each, opposed) deciding all aspects of combat, including whether you hit and how much damage you do, there will be too much randomness, and too high a chance for a lowly thug to defeat a fully armoured knight in one blow. But I've not yet done the maths -- this is just a gut feeling based on fear of lack of bell curves (which is a legit phobia I am sure).

My son just pointed out that there is at least one significant problem with shields, which just give you +1 to armour. They are mechanically, strictly worse than taking a dagger (which gives you +1 Fight, and so reduces your chance of taking damage *as well as* increasing your chance to hit). I would suggest that to balance things out, (and make men-at-arms vaguely worth taking over treasure-hunters, which latter are significantly mechanically better than the former for the same price), as a house rule, models with dagger and hand weapon have -1 fight against ranged attacks.

The spells look interesting. It remains to be seen if some of the character classes work out inherently more powerful than others. My money's on the Sigilist for long campaigns (two significant spells that will boost your XP/gold) and the Witch for one-off battles (great all-round utility spells). But since you have to pick a range of spells rather than just your specialties, it should be fairly balanced? I hope?

Losing an eye gives you a penalty to shooting attacks. :( Wrong wrong wrong. Gygaxian, 1970s level of wrong. Should be a penalty to close combat. When you shoot a bow or crossbow, your brain estimates distances by considering the sizes and proportions of the objects in your field of view against known, similar examples. Depth perception barely comes into it. Gauging time and distance when it's blade against blade, though, is crucial.

There's like 2 or so spelling or grammatical errors in the whole book. Pretty good going. Way better than GW.

My copy should be arriving monday and i'm really rather looking forward to it now. Great to see there's others getting into it already!

In terms of things being fairly brutal (in terms of Thug vs Knight) I can understand the mechanical concerns, but it seems like the game is much more themed to long campaigns vs one offs. Just because the knight fell, how likely is he to actually DIE on the post game injury roll? When you consider that a thug CAN get lucky and knock the knight out (if not kill him guaranteed) it sounds like it opens the door more for AAR/thematic one offs and story telling than "My High strength weapon will always be better because numbers guaranteeing constant superiority every game". If you look at it another way, for long thematic campaigns I personally would prefer the Thug to be able to still take the knight, than the knight be untouchable to all but my mage simply because I didn't bring one too. Straight up arms escalation makes for boring list building sometimes.

Yeah I don't mind the thugs v. Kings issue too much considering the game is supposed to be about the wizards first and foremost.

Anyway thanks for sharing. Can't wait to get my copy. Am dying to learn more about the game and get it going in my group.

Wait, so there is only one page of background? Does this mean the entire rest of the book is filled with rules?

Rules and scenarios. It's a pretty short book though (136pp?), and not massively text-heavy (which I quite like, given that it makes it easier to read).

We found that the wizards weren't getting their spells off quite as much as we wanted them to in our test games, and so tried reducing all casting numbers by 2, which seemed to help. But more testing is probably necessary. It's possible that wizards are intended to use a lot of their health points on spell boosting (making spells easier to get off), but that just makes them super-vulnerable. One volley of arrows, or an arrow and a spell, could take down a wizard even at full health.

A 'dead' knight only has a 20% chance of actually being dead post-game, yes.

One thing we found during testing is that it REALLY needs lots of terrain. We struggled a bit to find the right kind -- medieval ruins, ideally, preferably with a wizardy theme, and high enough that complete LOS blocking happens a lot of the time. It's maybe not quite so terrain-dense as Infinity, but not far off that. Otherwise archers and crossbows can really dominate the game -- again, quite Infinity-like. Get a few archers up on a tower and you can really persuade infantry not to come close. Though, cluster your archers up too much and they'll be prime targets for a fireball, so it should balance out pretty well in theory...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, one thing I really liked, which I think fixes pretty much all the problems I have with campaign skirmish games usually: warband advancement is interesting, and you get minor buffs, but it's sufficiently granular and slow as to be quite balanced. Bear in mind you use d20s to resolve everything, so a stat buff just gives you +5% on one task. And, you only get *one* stat buff for your wizard and apprentice, each time you level up -- so, you could get better at fighting, or shooting, or increase your health, or increase your chance of casting one of your spells by 5%. You'd expect to go up 1-2 levels after a typical game. None of your warband get XP -- only the wizard (and, effectively, your apprentice, because your apprentice is basically a slightly powered-down version of your wizard's current stats).

There are magic items available which will help a little, but again, they only give a +5% buff on something, generally. And once you've done 1-2 scenarios you will have at least a bit of spare cash to ensure you wizard and apprentice have a healing potion or two each at all times (pretty vital as a buffer against those pesky archers, or your own backfired magic).

Just got my copy a day earlier than I was expecting by courier. Nice Sunday surprise! The Scenarios seem fun, as do the random encounter monsters. I'll admit it's a shame (personally) they didn't flesh the base building out (pick a location and pay for occasional buffs). Would have been nice to see something more along the lines of being able to buy pieces of terrain, and be able to occasionally raid other people in the campaign, or bring things with you to certain games (Pavices, arriving early to set up a barricade or a bigger Heavy Crossbow or something).

Would have been nice to see some more progression in the Soldiers too, given that they have what a 1/4 chance of flat out dying, buying them fancy 200+ gc items for them to lose seems a bit of a gamble.

Over all it does look good though. Looks like its a bolted on version of In Her Majesties Name which is no surprise (Osprey seem to exclusively do games now using either IHMN or Song of Blades and Heroes as their base). But IHMN is a pretty solid ruleset on its own, so it's not like I can complain about it Looking forward to getting some games in.

It looks like there's a good chance that after each game, you'll get roughly the same amount of gold that a starting warband has - so a constant churn of KIA and new recruits doesn't look like its going to be too bad. Also looks like, while there is no "warband rating system" as with Mordheim, an experienced warband isn't going to be THAT much better than a bunch of new guys.

Nice looking book, game looks good!

Yes, I'm liking the slow character advancement. I don't think there will be many campaigns that end up with warbands so massively different in power as to cause an unwinnable game for anybody, which takes away a lot of my worries about this kind of game.

Thanks for the info! Excited to see mine arrive in the mail over the next few days.

There's a good write up in Wargames Illustrated this month. I was having a flick through at lunch. Looks intriguing, but concentrating on Guildball at the moment.

Seems interesting. Rules are $30, so not too bad. And for Bob, there's even a paperback book of short stores.

I'm interested in seeing some reviews and demo games on YouTube before I make the plunge, though.

Hey guys (author here), thanks for all of the interest in the game, and I'm enjoying the comments. Although I did a lot of playtesting, and had a good group working on it as well, I'm sure there will be lots of little things that could be tweaked to make it better, so I'm listening!

In response to the extra-hand weapon (+1 fight) versus shield (+1 armour), it is worth remembering that the armour means you will take 1 point of damage less every time you take a hit. The +1 fight means you are more likely to win the combat, but doesn't help at all if you loose. For example (if we aren't using the optional critical hit rule), it is impossible for a Treasure Hunter with his sword and dagger to kill a knight in one blow. If he rolls a 20 adds his +4 fight, he gets a total of 24. Subtract the Knight's armor 13 and the Knight takes 11 points of damage. Bad, but he's still got one health less. On the other hand a knight rolls a 20 against a treasure hunter, he kills him outright. In fact, he kills him out right if he rolls a 19.

More likely though is that it will take the treasure hunter several blows to kill the knight, and each blow will be one damage less thanks to the shield. It makes a difference!

On the subject of spellcasting. Starting wizards and especially apprentices do tend to fail their spell rolls a lot, especially if trying cast harder spells. This was intentional, both to give room for improvement, but also to force players to chose when it was worth risking the spellcaster's health to make a spell successful. That said, if you want to change the casting rolls by 2, go for it.

Just got my copy and have had a chance to glance through, it looks so promising! I am super excited!

 Azazelx wrote:
Seems interesting. Rules are $30, so not too bad. And for Bob, there's even a paperback book of short stores.

I'm interested in seeing some reviews and demo games on YouTube before I make the plunge, though.

Thanks for reminding me! I'd forgotten that they were releasing a paperback. Will have to get them in late November.

I like the idea of Frostgrave, but between the Nickstarter and the metals, the work I've put into KoW, and the sudden promise of AOS, this anthology is Frostgrave's last chance to hook me.

Just got my copy today. I'm really liking what I'm reading, but I'm finding myself wanting more stuff. Are there plans for future expansion?

Particularly, I'd really need an experience system for non spellcasters, and more base building for this to be my go to campaign game.

Joe,

Yeah, it's huge fun already, I have to say. I personally don't mind the difficulty of getting spells cast, but after my son had one game where his apprentice failed every spell (about 6 attempts I think!) he suggested the tweak, and I'm more than happy to make that house rule so as to keep him enjoying the game. I suspect that a lot depends on the wizard chosen -- some of them don't have very many easy-to-cast spells, which can make the apprentice seem really hard to use.

I guess a lot also depends on whether you plan to do a full, long campaign, or just a few scenarios. It's always really tough to balance things out in that kind of case, and I still think you have the balance way better than GW's classic skirmish games ever did. Nice work.

On the shield vs dagger front -- part of the problem is that with the specific comparison I made (Man-at-Arms vs Treasure Hunter) the Treasure Hunter has +1 Fight, +1 Move, AND +1 Will in comparison to the Man-At-Arms... who only gets +1 to Armour in exchange for those things, despite being the exact same points cost. Neither of us could see a reason to take the Man-At-Arms over the Treasure Hunter, particularly with the +1 Fight reducing the risk of being hit in the first place.

Take it as resolved (in the sense of a debate) that each of +1 Move, +1 Fight, and +1 Will are worth 1/3 of +1 Armour.

I think it is easy to see that +1 Armour is certainly better than any one of the others. Armor is likely the most important stat in the game and seems to top out at 15 for Frost Giants (and Knights affected by Shield). Armour 12 is therefore a certified Big Deal.

By contrast, the other stats at issue are less valuable. Will is the most obviously incidental. And I think the Fight bonus seems better than it really: the Treasure Hunter has a better chance of winning the combat but must still beat the Man-at-Arms by 12 before inflicting even a single point of damage. That leaves the extra inch of movement, which I think is the most ambiguous but its importance still seems more situational than resisting damage.

I think you're mis-reading it (I know I did at first) - you don't have to beat the Man-at-Arms BY 12, you need to need to roll a score of OVER 12 which also beats the MaA.

So if you score 12 and he scores 1, you have won but won't do any damage. If you score 13 and he scores 12, you've still won, and do one point of damage (your score minus his armour)

I'd argue the increased speed in a game in which the main/only objective is to grab tokens is a pretty big deal breaker. The Knight can have all the armour and shielding in the world, but it's not going to do him much good when the Treasure hunter grabs a token and gets a what, 4" lead on him every turn from running.

But it's going to be awesome for the knight blocking off the archers from attack while they put an arrow through the treasure hunter's head.

Again arguable, the game seems to encourage nearly Infinity levels of terrain. They might get 1 attempt, but that 7" move Treasure hunters going to be round a corner pretty damn fast. I'd say the faster move is as good a defense against archers than even armour is.

 Graphite wrote:
you don't have to beat the Man-at-Arms BY 12, you need to need to roll a score of OVER 12 which also beats the MaA.

Ah, I see. Except that rolling over 12 does not necessarily beat the Man-at-Arms. The thing is, you have to beat him on a roll of at least 13 to do any damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doc1234 wrote:
I'd say the faster move is as good a defense against archers than even armour is.

Maybe so but think of how much more situational that is. The target needs to be attacked by an archer/crossbowman and be within an inch of taking cover/breaking LOS. The more important advantage with movement may well be absconding with treasure (as halved movement is not rounded down).

 Manchu wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doc1234 wrote:
I'd say the faster move is as good a defense against archers than even armour is.

Maybe so but think of how much more situational that is. The target needs to be attacked by an archer/crossbowman and be within an inch of taking cover/breaking LOS. The more important advantage with movement may well be absconding with treasure (as halved movement is not rounded down).

I mentioned that already

 doc1234 wrote:
I'd argue the increased speed in a game in which the main/only objective is to grab tokens is a pretty big deal breaker. The Knight can have all the armour and shielding in the world, but it's not going to do him much good when the Treasure hunter grabs a token and gets a what, 4" lead on him every turn from running.

Oh dear, well it bears repeating!

It probably does honestly, given the right terrain I can see a warband of just Treasure Hunters + a few Archers doing VERY well for grabbing objectives.

They don't call 'em Treasure Hunters for nothing.

 doc1234 wrote:
It probably does honestly, given the right terrain I can see a warband of just Treasure Hunters + a few Archers doing VERY well for grabbing objectives.

Is anyone really going to do this to make an effort to power-game Frostgrave?

It seems to be missing the point somewhat..

Don't underestimate some of the players out there polluting the gaming groups.

Anyone who does in a group of friends is going to have more loot tokens than friends by the end of it

But I think that leads into the Man-at-arms vs Treasure Hunter argument a bit. Yes Treasure hunters have higher stats vs the shield, but who's going to look at that reasonably and say "I want all treasure hunters"? A lot of the unit entries are there more for fun and building a warband with a good theme. Having Warhounds won't be getting you any tokens, but who cares when your warband get's to have Cujo slobbering all over the enemy wizard?

But dogs are not just there for theme. At 10GC, a war hound is a great way to round out your band if you have some spare coin.