Only Warlock | 07 Jun 2015 5:29 a.m. PST |
Just wrapping my brain around it. Since I have a winter base terrain set it is appealing. Warbands led by Wizards? Is there a post battle phase where you search for loot? Might be fun to run at a convention! Millennium Con is this November. |
Winston Smith | 07 Jun 2015 5:57 a.m. PST |
You know nothing, Jon Only Warlock. |
Giles the Zog | 07 Jun 2015 7:32 a.m. PST |
|
Pedrobear | 07 Jun 2015 8:08 a.m. PST |
Think of it more like evil wizard and apprentice hire a bunch of minions to scour the ruins of Frostgrave for treasures and lost spells. Only the wizard and his apprentice gain levels, the minions don't. During the game you grab treasure tokens, but you only roll to see what they are after the game. The winter/arctic theme is just that: a theme. You can easily reskin this for an Egyptian/desert setting or a Mayan/jungle setting. |
Doms Decals | 07 Jun 2015 8:27 a.m. PST |
Or even a pseudo-15th century city that's been hit by a large meteorite…. |
axabrax | 07 Jun 2015 9:11 a.m. PST |
Like Mordheim but centered around Wizards. I think there are around 80 spells in the book. Mordheim meets Wizwar is more like it. |
Only Warlock | 07 Jun 2015 9:38 a.m. PST |
Interesting. Mordheim is one of my all time favorites, as is SOBH. I hope the rule system is fun! |
Mr Pumblechook | 07 Jun 2015 4:55 p.m. PST |
From reading some of the playtests, the combat system seems a little rudimentary : roll for initiative, first wizard and any 3 henchmen within 3" act, second wizard and any 3 henchmen within 3" act, first apprentice and any 3 henchmen within 3" act, second apprentice and any 3 henchmen, then any remaining henchmen act. It uses D20 for combat which I worry will overpower skill. Considering substituting 3D6 to get a bell curve instead. It also requires you to track hit points for models. What I'm looking forward to is the campaign system and the opportunity to build cool terrain. I've got field stone and egyptian hirst arts moulds and am thinking of ruined stone buildings and some repurposed cyclopean egyptianesque archictecture. |
Pedrobear | 07 Jun 2015 8:42 p.m. PST |
The combat system is simple and too… unpredictable due to the use of d20. I may use a d10 or 2d6 and half all hit points instead. The game is fun because there are many strategies and tactics you can use. You can have fast troops and aim to grab all the treasures and run off table before your opponent can engage you, or you can have strong combat troops and aim to take the treasures from your enemy after they have done the work of triggering traps and fighting off dungeon nasties for you. The wizard and apprentice can think of creative ways to use their spells – you can choose to have direct attack spells, buffing spells for your troops, or spells to impede the enemy wizards. |
Nick B | 08 Jun 2015 2:10 a.m. PST |
Changing a game before it's even been published? Wow… |
Mute Bystander | 08 Jun 2015 3:30 a.m. PST |
Nick B, Statistics and Bell curves are what they are. Using a D20 for some cinematic character in a rule set, say Stargrunt 2, would make them virtually invulnerable killing machines against green troops (D6) in the game, which might be what you want… or not. It is possible to get a "1" or "2" on a D20 versus a "6" on a D6 but I'll take those odds. I don't play the game being discussed but numbers/dice mechanics are the same in any game. |
Nick B | 08 Jun 2015 4:08 a.m. PST |
Surely by changing the roll to hit you are also in danger of skewing the way combat works as a whole. I am presuming you are aware that the single d20 roll by each player also determines damage. Combat modifiers for skill range something like 0 to +4, armour 10 – 14 and wounds 10 – 14 (I think). So combat works as d20 roll each plus your combat modifier to determine who hit. If you lose then the difference between your armour and the opponents roll is the amount of damage taken. Surely if you change the average score you are also reducing the amount of damage. This could significantly alter game balance, length etc. Surely this means that weaker troops are suddenly more likely to survive rounds of combat to the detriment of supposedly more powerful ones. |
Joe5mc | 08 Jun 2015 7:31 a.m. PST |
Hey guys – Frostgrave author here. First up, thanks for the all the interest, and I encourage everyone to play the game anyway they find most enjoyable. That said, Nick B is right. Combat is more complicated than just the roll to determine the winner. In any fight, three different stats are going to be relevant. Fight, Armour, and Health. So, it is true a Knight has only a slightly higher fight value than a thug, however, he also has higher armour and health. So, any time these two fight, the knight has a slightly better chance to win. However, he also has a slightly better chance to not be wounded if he doesn't win, and more staying power should he be wounded. Each of these differences is small, but added together they make for a much more powerful fighter. For the combat system to work, it needs for players to be able to role the higher values on a d20. If you use 3d6, this will be much less likely to occur and more of your combats will end up indecisive. It would work, but it would slow the game down considerably. Using a d10 or 2d6 wouldn't work at all as no hit would get over some models armour. That said, all of my playtesting was aimed at getting the game to work with a d20. Others may find a way to make it work with other dice. |
skinkmasterreturns | 08 Jun 2015 7:55 a.m. PST |
Sounds like the perfect opportunity for Splitered Light to offer some inexpensive 15mm warbands for the game. |
The Beast Rampant | 08 Jun 2015 10:46 a.m. PST |
They're all 20% off till midnight EST: link Check the bottom of the page for details. |
Lupulus | 08 Jun 2015 11:35 a.m. PST |
So combat works as d20 roll each plus your combat modifier to determine who hit. If you lose then the difference between your armour and the opponents roll is the amount of damage taken. So, one roll, one addition and one subtraction to determine the result of a single attack? Not surprised people are already modding the system. On the other hand, I guess a certain amount of clunkiness is OK for a skirmish system where there are fewer rolls involved. |
Cyrus the Great | 08 Jun 2015 12:55 p.m. PST |
I can only echo Joe's comments. You're not going to eliminate your opponents right and left. They tend to hang on. You REALLY should play the rules, before making modifications. |
Marshal Mark | 08 Jun 2015 1:58 p.m. PST |
So, one roll, one addition and one subtraction to determine the result of a single attack? I think it sounds quite an elegant way to do it. A single dice roll to establish who wins the combat and the damage they cause seems quite a streamlined mechanic. Not surprised people are already modding the system. It seems crazy to me to talk about changing rules that you haven't even read fully, let alone played. |
Ivan DBA | 08 Jun 2015 2:07 p.m. PST |
I am really looking forward to this. Opposed D20 rolls that simultaneously resolve who gets hit, and how badly, sounds elegant to me, not rudimentary or clunky. One-on-one melees are not predictable, and I think the range of results you'll get is realistic. Even the best trained fighter, with the best equipment, can go down to a lucky strike. Contrast this with the typical roll to hit, roll to wound, saving throw mechanic, where you are looking at up to three rolls from each player (for a total of up to 6 non-simultaneous rolls, assuming both characters are trying to hit each other) and often, particularly with low-level characters, neither one scores a hit…it's tedious and less decisive. The command rule (movement of figures near the Wizards first, then apprentices, then everyone else) also sounds good. It is a simple way to break up the IGOUGO, without requiring and extra play-aids like cards, order dice, or command rolls. It strikes me as fitting for the setting too: troops will be bolder and more motivated when near their wizard, and more cautious when on their own, without a spell caster nearby. |
Mr Pumblechook | 08 Jun 2015 2:15 p.m. PST |
I'm going to get it and want to play. My issue with the D20 mechanic is based on playing D&D 3E back in the day, it felt like the variation inherent in the die drowned out skill differences unless it was so high as to be a sure thing. I'm going to give it a go, but I have had a bad experience with that specific mechanic before. |
Lupulus | 08 Jun 2015 2:17 p.m. PST |
A single dice roll to establish who wins the combat and the damage they cause seems quite a streamlined mechanic. Except in this case there's a roll, an addition, a comparison, a subtraction and (I assume) another comparison involved. A single roll and a comparison would be streamlined. It seems crazy to me to talk about changing rules that you haven't even read fully, let alone played. Agreed, which is why I will now shut up until I have a better grasp on the rules than "somebody told me on the internet". |
Ivan DBA | 08 Jun 2015 5:00 p.m. PST |
Also, bear in mind that this system uses opposed D20 rolls, not a single D20. That means there is a bell curve of results, albeit one with a wider distribution than opposed D6s. |
Pictors Studio | 09 Jun 2015 7:08 a.m. PST |
Inifnity uses opposed d20s and it is the best sci-fi skirmish game I've ever played. |
Henrix | 11 Jun 2015 2:21 a.m. PST |
I think the trick of winning a battle is magic, not hand to hand fighting. So very uncertain combat sounds appropriate. |
Dark Fable | 03 Jul 2015 2:08 a.m. PST |
|