This page is for your questions about the DS Alpha rules posted during the Kickstarter.
I’ll add a link when they are live.
Please read them before you comment.
This page is for your questions about the DS Alpha rules posted during the Kickstarter.
I’ll add a link when they are live.
Please read them before you comment.
Looking forward to having a read. 🙂
Pingback: What Are Alpha Rules? |
Pingback: Dungeon Sagas Alpha Rules |
How long is the range stick for firing bow and casting spells? Thanks!
Aha! There’s the thing I forgot 🙂
4.5 and 8.5 inches.
OooOOOoooh. An extra 0.5 inches on each from what I thought. Interesting…
It’s all to do with square boundaries. May still need slight tweaking.
Thanks for the answer, but which range stick is used for firing bow and which one is used for casting spells?
Spells say whether they are long or short range. The bow is long.
Does this mean it takes at least 5 turns to break the ward on the door? The wizard having to cast the ‘break ward’ every turn? This means a minimum do 6 turns to trash the door with the wizard, if you have a lucky door attack roll? Think I may have answered my own question.
Door breaks automatically once the Ward spell cracks it.. (5turns).
You could have different door types some that you are just able to open with an action, some that require a certain number of hits to defeat. Perhaps a table of different types of doors:
plywood door – open.
Stone Reinforced Door: 10 wounds, armor 4, 4 defensive dice
Minor Magic Sealed Door – 5 rounds with successful attacks
Major Magic Sealed Door – 10 rounds with successful attacks
That was the idea. Probably only in the Advanced rules though.
So, if I use Danor’s Focus Heroic Feat, does it mean I can use Burn (or any other Major Spell) twice that Turn? Or do they have to be two different Major Spell cards?
Different. I need to make this clear.
This feat also has the interesting side effect of leaving him with no ready major spells in the next turn. At least, it does in this scenario when he only has 2 major spells.
Figured it would leave both Spells recharging, just wondered if it was kind of like for the Elf Shooting, where each Focus Spell is resolved one after the other, letting you use the same one twice. No problem.
Would the Dwarf still be able to get a Free Strike on any baddies attempting to Break Away from him while in the middle of his Stone Stance feat? I’m guessing yes, it’s just the name of the feat is very suggestive of immobility…
Outnumbering might need a little clarification. Has DKQ dumped the DKH approach to ruck-based melee? I do like that there isn’t as many negative modifiers floating about at the moment. And I also like that the Barbarian ‘ignores’ injuries. He sort of needs it to keep up with the Dwarf. That Dwarf is a seriously nasty customer. Armour value 4, 5 dice…
The Wizard sure got crippled quickly the first time I played A Journey From The East. Had to use the Elf more aggressively the second time through to keep the Skeleton Archers off the Wizard’s back, and fend off the various Skeleton Warriors coming their way. Made the game more interesting though.
Not sure if the Spell recharge mechanic is necessary. Based on the current Alpha Rules, the Burn Spell is already double edged enough. Short Range means if I want to set an undead on fire, I’m risking being set upon by it’s allies or even itself, assuming Short Range is 4 squares…
Then again, not being able to spam Feet of Stone on the lead enemy model in a one square wide corridor can help prevent a game long roadblock, and give the Wizard incentive to try variety over being a one-trick pony.
Yes, I removed rucks as it was the thing that caused most confusion. Whatever rules you have, one bit is always the most confusing. Now this is removed it will become something else. But in this case I thought it was worth taking out as it added less than it needed to for the fiddle it occasionally created.
At present, many of the modifiers are negative. As we go along we will see a lot more positive ones from items and spells.
Without the spell recharge people simply spam the same thing repeatedly, which may not always be optimal, but is certainly dull. This simple rule adds a surprising amount of tactical thought.
There will be quite a few spells in the full deck. Range is one of the variables which differentiate them. Burn is not the most dangerous or easy to use offensive spell. But you’re only just starting out 😉
Looking forward to seeing more Spells… Who’s getting Healing Spells? Will this just be another Spell in the Wizard’s repertoire, or will they be the domain of a dedicated ‘Divine’ Spell slinger class like the common Western Fantasy rpgs?
‘Oh look, a Cleric! Heal, please!’ vs ‘Hey Wizard, you know Heal Spells, right?’
Not fussed either way. (Might explain the Gabrielle Erailc character being called a Wizard…)
The Paladin will get some sort of healing effect. I’ve tried a couple of variations and I’m not decided yet. If we can get a cleric into the game then they’d be the best candidate for some serious healing magic. The wizard may eventually get access to a low level heal when he’s got some experience. Maybe. He might have to rely on the potions.
Looks like it could be difficult to get the Heals working right. A flat 1 Wound Lay on Hands with no test to make it work could be very powerful. Having none at all will certainly make surviving a more fuller sized dungeon jaunt way harder to get through.
Maybe test-based Heals similar to KoW Heal and Regenerate tests could do it, with a 5+ target to make it not too powerful, and more dice to roll for the stronger Heal types.
There will be a range of heal spells from minor to powerful. There may even be a regenerate type spell. I’d like most spells to be automatic and fixed effects rather than dice as I think that’s a nice theme for magic. Of course, what that fixed effect is can be very variable.
Maybe it can have a costly requirement, like both the caster and the recipient (which may or may not be the caster) have to do nothing (else) for their Activation. No Move or Action (other than casting the Heal).
The stronger ones could maybe mean the caster can’t use any Major Spells until the strong heal recharges… Might help prevent heal spamming.
There will definitely be hierarchies of spells with differing powers and requirements for use.
I’ve played DKH dozens of times, I’ve read the Dungeon Saga rules and watched the BoW Dungeon Saga play through and based on this, my initial thoughts are as follows;
I feel the Barbarian is lagging a bit in his combat power when compared to the Dwarf. He is faster, but within the confines of narrow corridors and halls and combined with the fact that you must stop when becoming adjacent to an enemies front arc, speed is nice but isn’t a huge factor in games of DKH. So I don’t think having an extra 2 points of movement over the Dwarf is something that compensates for the Barbarians lower combat power. The Barbarian does have the nice little benefit of not subtracting dice when wounded, this alone though just doesn’t bring him near the 5 dice and armour 4 of the Dwarf.
I think the Barbarian would be more in line with the Dwarf if each turn he had a choice between having two attacks, or forfeiting the second attack to add a 5th dice to his first and only attack for that turn.
I’m so very glad that this game includes exploration and using the opening of doors as the mechanic for revealing new areas is both thematic and smooth.
I would prefer however, to see doors opened more easily. I feel that a hero should be able to successfully open a door simply by having the door in their front arc and expending an action. This isn’t to say that some scenarios could not have a stuck/locked/jammed door where it required the door to be attacked and bashed down, I just don’t think it should be the case for each and every door.
*Stopping movement when moving adjacent to an enemies front arc*
This is a very powerful tool that plays into the hands of the Necromancer more so than it does the Heroes, I feel. It can really slow down the flow of action and game pace. I don’t think I would like to see it removed entirely, but perhaps have a slightly less powerful bearing in the game.
Maybe if a model (hero or undead) is already engaged in melee, it no longer can prevent movement of enemy miniatures adjacent to it. Perhaps the Wizard spell “Feet of Stone” could allow heroes to move past affected models…or perhaps it could be a spell of its own, a “Slow” or “Freeze” spell perhaps.
Anyway, they are just some initial thoughts, I’ll have some more later. I’ll be sitting down for several games tonight 🙂
Thanks for sharing the Alpha rules.
Thanks Danny, some good ideas there – I would say that as I’ve tried many of them already 😉
Barbarian. The trick here is to differentiate two models who are both simply fighters. The Dwarf is easier to use and easier to see his value. However, the Barbarian’s ability to ignore the negative modifier for wounds (which is a very powerful ability), plus his feat give him a different function. I’m also experimenting with another benefit for the barbarian that you’ll see soon – if it works. I’ll try out your suggestions too.
Doors. These originally opened as you suggest – move up to them and spend an action. That was too easy. It meant that a single miscalculation or lucky break could clear a path for the Heroes to get through the door. As opening doors is an important part of exploring I thought that they needed to work for it at least a little. Having this mechanic also allows me to simply make doors easier or harder in the Advanced rules (where they will be far more variable) by changing these values. I wanted to pick a “normal” door for the Core game and after playing it for a while in various permutations (including much harder to open than this) I settled here.
Moving adjacent. This is a key cornerstone to the way the game works and the tactical options which are built into the layout of a dungeon. I’ve already reduced this effect as it used to be any adjacent square rather than only ones in the model’s front arc. As the whole campaign is basically about the Heroes getting past the Necromancer’s defences so they can stick a sword in him, things that slow movement will always aid the Necromancer best. You could argue for a model in melee being distracted, but I think you could equally argue for the moving model to be distracted too.
Feet of Stone stops only movement, and is intended as the baby version of something that makes the model completely inactive, like your Freeze suggestion.
I noticed Curis and co applied the Feet of Stone penalty to an Undead who was then victim of a follow up Burn Spell… Which says neither side of the Burn’s Fight dice apply any modifiers… Does this include the Feet of Stone? Should the undead have not taken the Feet of Stone penalty?
Burn’s limitation should override FOS. It could be clearer though.
Thanks Jake. I did notice the removal of the rear arc in the adjacent square movement restrictions, which I liked. I think it will really only become helpful in a large room that has only a very small number of enemy remaining though, however it still will help in those circumstances.
Over on the Mantic forum in the thread created for Dungeon Saga feedback, I (awesomeshotdude on there) expanded a little on my above post. One of those expanded points was a few more suggestions for the Barbarian off the top of my head;
1) The Barbarian has two attacks and each turn the Barbarian has a choice between having two attacks, or making a single more powerful attack adding +1 (or +2?) dice to this attack.
2) Give the Barbarian 5 attack dice.
3) The Barbarian may re-roll one (or two) failed attack dice.
4) If the Barbarian kills an enemy model, he may immediately make another attack against any adjacent enemy model in his front arc.
5) Replace his ability to ignore wounds with > Whilst suffering one or more wounds, the Barbarian gains an extra attack roll.
6) Replace his ability to ignore wounds with > For each wound suffered, the Barbarian gains an additional attack dice.
I hope you visit the Dungeon Saga feedback thread over on the Mantic forums, its quite popular with many comments. a very interesting read!
Anyway, I’ve not long ago finished cutting out all the required download cards and am going to have a few games of scenario 1 with my 17 year old son and see how we go 🙂
I will have a look at the Mantic thread when I get a moment. It’s a pain to answer though as I can’t interleave replies as I can here, I can only post at the end. One of the reasons I prefer this format.
Some good suggestions for the Barbarian. I’ve tried a couple of them already, and things like giving him 5 dice (same as the Dwarf) I wouldn’t do precisely because it is the same. Good thoughts though.
I’d like an Armor Penetration stat, to be honest.
With high-armor Dwarf and AP Barbarian, their roles would be much more focused. And itemization would be more interesting.
Saw Curis’ Demo game on Beasts of War with Lloyd and Warren. He seems to have got the Interrupt Card wrong, using it to Raise Skellies when it claims to only let him act with models. (unless Bone Piles count as models).
I think I like Interrupt having the option to affect Bone Piles. Would make the Necromancer’s forces a bit easier to try and surround and pound the Heroes.
I like the new method of drawing line of sight over how it was done in Dwarf King’s Hold. Much more forgiving for positioning for the shooter and maybe make potential targets a little bit more warier of their positions when a ranged enemy is present.
No, he’s right. Interrupt can be used to raise POBs. The sentence “Instead of Moving and Acting with a model that is already on the board, a Necromancer may raise a Skeleton Warrior from a Pile of Bones marker.” is the relevant rule. It should be mentioned in the bit on interrupts to make it clearer though.
Line of sight is, indeed, rather more forgiving this way. It also goes well with this range system that is, in turn, nice and simple. I think it works pretty well to encompass a number of important rules in a simple and easy-to-use package 🙂
Ah, didn’t seem that it worked that way by the wording under Interrupt Card and on the Interrupt Card itself. Model made me think Piles of Bones were excluded from being Interrupt Card ‘targets’.
They shouldn’t be. I’ll change the wording.
Should probably reword most of the Cards, such as the ‘Double The Number of Models’ Card sounds like it does something else entirely, while having it as ‘Double Number of Activations’ would be fairly clear. Does the ‘Extra 1 Model’ etc also affect POBs? Then that too could be changed to ‘Extra 1 Activation’ for clarity.
Hoping the halfling thief has her own Ranged Attack. Short 3 dice perhaps? Maybe something that lets her ignore friendly models for purpose of movement or bonus to Break Aways?
Pally could have the Shield Bash ability from DKH?
Shield bash will return. Ranged attack on the Halfling depends on what’s on the model.
She appears to have a short blade/fighting knife on her figure, though the sketch seems to have a pair of extra blades sheathed off her belt/thigh.
I’ll have a look.
My son and I ran through two games of scenario 1 tonight, playing each side once. Very enjoyable and the game ran smoothly. We were no doubt aided by having played many games of DKH though. The Dungeon Saga rules are very well explained however and also very straight forward and I really can’t see even new players having any problems with the rules.
Jake, I think I may have to freeze my comments about the doors for now. Both games tonight saw the doors easily smashed through. If after several more games I see that this trend continues, I’ll retract my comments on the doors completely 🙂
I have two points to mention after the games tonight.
1) Do you think it may be a more clear option to redefine the armour value as what you need to hit, rather than what you need to beat? Doing this would remove an extra cognitive function whilst also making it clearer, particularly for new players, or players not used to miniature board games or war games. For instance, the Dwarf is now defined as armour 4, it could be defined as armour 5+. Just a thought.
2) I still feel the Barbarian needs a combat power boost, even if only a slight one, to make him equal in effectiveness to the Dwarf. When comparing him to the Dwarf, his ability to ignore the wound penalty on his dice is only relevant when the Dwarf is at full health, once the Dwarf has lost a point of health, they are then both on even ground in terms of not needing to fear losing health in specific regards to penalties being applied, yet the Dwarf is still only hit on 5+ where the Barbarian is hit on 3+. I feel the Barbarian just needs a slight combat power boost to compensate. I’d prefer to see it in his attack rather than defence. The Dwarf has a defensive feat and the Barbarian has an attacking feat. The Dwarf can more successfully defend with his higher armour so it kind of follows the pattern that the Barbarian should have a slightly better attack profile than the Dwarf (in whatever way that may take form), it’s also more thematic.
Giving an attack boost to the Barbarian would help further delineate the roles between Dwarf and Barbarian.
One of the earlier versions of the armour listed it as you suggest, and I can’t remember now why I went back to this style.
I think what the Barbarian needs is more character than more power per se. You’re right about Dwarf being defensive and Barbarian being attacky. I’ll have a ponder.
Couple of Line of Sight questions:
Will the 3D scenery block line of sight? Totally, partially (ie a modifier) or will it depend on the actual creature/figures size.
Will LOS to large monsters be blocked if they have smaller figures between them and the shooter?
Some scenery will block and other bits won’t depending on how tall it is. All or none.
Large monsters will occupy more squares, so it’s much easier to find a spot where you can draw a line to them. I wasn’t going to allow shooting over models as this gets into the realm of varying heights which is a bit of a can of worms.
Thanks Jake. For the game purposes simplest option is probably best. Easy to house rule a modifier if more detail suits the gaming group.
The 3D scenery does present a few problems, in regards to blocking LOS and movement, though they’re not unsolvable. I have a large collection of 3D terrain for my dungeon crawls, and have a list of what blocks LOS and movement, and what doesn’t. Mostly, none of them block LOS but do block movement. This is because they are pieces that have been designed without miniatures in mind, but with Mantic designing their own furniture for this game (as we saw on the BoW Alpha Game Play Video), there is no reason why Mantic could not design the pieces of furniture with miniatures in mind, so that miniatures balanced well and are perfectly stable on top of most of the dungeon scenery, thereby allowing easy movement over the top of these pieces, almost as if they were just flat card pieces lying on the game board, it’s exactly what they’ve done with the POB 3D counters.
Items like bookcases present a problem though, as they are too thin to have miniatures balance on top of and at the same time take up some room within the space they occupy, preventing miniatures from fitting properly in those spaces. You could rule that a miniature can move through the space but not end their movement within the space that is occupied by terrain like this, however it just gets really messy if you start inserting rules like that for several different items of terrain and terrain that is there for aesthetic purposes only really shouldn’t have any positive or negative effects on game play. The best bet is to just have them sitting to the side, up against the board edge so they are out of the space. This still gives the appearance of the bookcase being up against a wall, yet it does not interfere with the spaces or gameplay. I have small 2-space dungeon tiles exactly for this purpose. They sit like little alcoves on the side of the main game board, a place where I can relegate problem 3D terrain, like bookcases, so it doesn’t effect game play 🙂
Am I reading the odds right? The dwarf, despite having more dice and higher armor scores, is more likely to be wounded than the barbarian by all of the monsters save the revenant (because he also has to roll 5+ to get the block)?
Also, as I read it the wizard can’t hurt a zombie in melee, correct?
No, the Dwarf is not more vulnerable than the Barbarian. Imagine a Skeleton warrior attacks each of them. Each dice has a 2/6 chance to beat the Dwarfs armour and a 4/6 chance to beat the Barbarian’s. The dice the Dwarf role in defence are less likely to help defeat the attack because it needs to roll higher, but overall the attack is less likely to do any damage. In effect, the Dwarf relies on his armour to defend himself whereas the Barbarian relies on his swordsmanship (or axemanship).
Yes, the wizard can’t hurt a zombie in melee without a spell that buffs him or something like that. Currently he hasn’t got access to those, so he needs to either use his spells or rely on his buddies. Co-operation! Teamwork!
Yeah, I realized my math mistake about ten second after walking away from the computer.
When a skeleton archer or revenant is reduced to a pile of bones, does it rise as a skeleton warrior, or as an archer/revenant respectively? I assume the former, but thought I should make sure.
Someone on the mantic forums suggested using the KOW 5+ system for the armor score instead of armor 4 meaning you discard 4 and less. I think that ties it in with Mantic’s larger world, and also simplifies things. The hardest part for me was getting into the mindset of seeing an armor score of 4 for the dwarf and remembering to look only for 5s and 6s on the die. More brain power required than I cared for in look at dice.
Discussed above. This was the way it was written in an earlier version and I can’t recall why it got changed back.
Reposting as I’m not sure you saw my follow-up question: Which range stick is used for firing bow and which one is used for casting spells? Thanks!
Jake, several people (myself included) have been talking about allowing a more freestyle movement and action allowance. So instead of being locked in to “move then action”, a model could take its action at any point during the move (before, during or after). This opens up more options for both heroes and Necromancer minions alike.
I can imagine a model with a bow moving from behind cover, firing and then moving back to take cover again. Or a fighter cutting down his opponent and then rushing forward to engage another. Perhaps a door is smashed down and then the splinter covered hero rushes into the room screaming his battle cry. The Wizard is cowering in the corner, about to have his skull smashed by a handful of brick from a badly wounded zombie troll, a fighter breaks away from his current opponent, survives the free strike, then rushes to the wizard’s aid and cuts down the troll. Having to stop when moving into the front arc of an enemy would help control this from getting out of hand I think.
Also, I’ve been thinking more about the doors. What are your thoughts on the following;
Each time a hero has a door in its front arc and wishes to open the door, he commits to opening the door and the player then draws a door card from a door card deck and follows the instructions on the card.
12 cards are in the door deck (more would be nice for variety, but 12 is all that would be needed I think…or extra door cards could be included with extra equipment cards etc as a future stretch goal).
25% of the cards present a door that is unlocked and still hinged and in good working order. A hero may open the door simply by expending an action.
50% of the cards present a door that is locked/stuck/jammed/wedged tight/barricaded etc. A hero must bash these doors down as per your current door rules.
25% of the cards present what appears to be a normal door. A hero may open the door simply by expending an action. However, the door is trapped by either magical or mechanical means and the door then attacks the Hero (and is successfully opened after the trap is resolved).
Warded doors would work exactly like they do currently and would not require a draw of the door card deck.
If players wished, or the scenario called for it, the door card deck could also be stacked, simply by removing certain cards. So if you were entering a Necromancers lair where you might expect a large amount of magically trapped or locked doors, you may choose to have only a six card deck with 3 magically trapped door cards and 3 locked door cards.
I think having a door card deck like this would add some strong thematic flavour to the exploration and adventure elements of the game, with very little additional play time needed. It would take perhaps 30 seconds to resolve these draws and with perhaps a large dungeon having 3 to 4 doored-off areas to explore, it would only add a couple or perhaps a few minutes at most to the total game time.
Also, you could really have some fun with the trapped doors. Falling blocks, flying darts, scything blades, gas, acid spray, explosive magic, flame bursts and many more. Some could cause wounds and some could cause other effects…the imagination is the only limit here.
You could even include future heroes, abilities or equipment to circumvent these trapped doors (or even the locked doors). For instance, a thief hero may simply be able to spend an action to open any door (representing them picking locks or finding and disarming traps).
I think for the little amount of extra money needed to include a dozen cards in the base game and the little amount of extra game time to resolve these actions, the enjoyment gained from the exploration and adventure would be worthwhile.
I love the idea of a door deck, even stacked ones as necessary!!!
A door deck is an interesting idea. I’d probably be inclined to make it a set of door counters, but the principle is the same.
Traps, locks and other variations in dungeon furniture are all planned for the Advanced rules.
I’ve answered the move/action thing a few times in comments so I’ll write an article to put somewhere easier to find (and give us a thread to discuss it in specifically).
Door counters would also be very welcome. How do you envisage something like door counters working? Drawn randomly from a cup to see the type of door each time a hero expends an action to open a door, or perhaps each counter randomly placed (or purposely by the Necromancer as part of his dungeon tactics) as the actual doors on the gameboard, with a picture of a door printed on one side, to be turned over to reveal the door information when a hero spends an action to open the door? Something different?
The latter may not work too well with 3D dungeon doors, although there is no reason why the counter couldn’t sit under or next to a 3D door, or even be drawn from a pile or chosen and played by the Necromancer.
Talking about counters Jake, I noticed that in the Kickstarter box set graphic we still see pics of the action and follow up tokens, yet these were not present or mentioned in the Alpha rules. I do remember you mentioning somewhere a few weeks ago that the action tokens would not be used by the heroes but would still be used by the Necromancer. Have you dropped the action tokens usage altogether now or do you still have them in mind for some other specific game mode?
The action counters currently aren’t being used and I don’t really expect to see them back. It’s just a stand-in graphic as the final design hasn’t been done yet. The joys of Kickstarter 🙂
Q1. How to count outnumbering; is it only immediately adjacent enemies/friends which count? What about if the adjacent friend has an enemy, or 2, adjacent to them but not the main combatant? Eg.
If the barbarian (Ba) is attacking the skeleton (S1) does he get outnumbering from the dwarf (Dw)? Or is the fact the dwarf is next to skeleton 2 negate this and make it even. If there is skeleton 3 present does that actually make the barbarian outnumbered in the combat as a whole?
Q2 is to confirm that a) a skeleton with -2 dice is basically auto hit when defending but b) doesn’t have any effective penalty attacking?
Q3 is whether the wizard can cast break ward when in combat? In journey from the east with 1 ward left a skeleton finally got up in the wizard’s face so I decided no as it would be an anti climactic way to end the scenario so I made him fight the skeleton off first.
Q4 is should skeleton archers turned into a bone pile be able to return as an archer? I can understand rules as written only warriors can be made for standard bone piles to prevent ranged spam but perhaps this should be an exception? Otherwise ranged enemies can be quickly eliminated and remove a weapon from the necromancers arsenal.
Q5 is the necromancer allowed to interrupt before the heroes have even had a single turn? I am torn as this could be quite mean for the heroes but also a fun and sneaky for the necromancer (can you tell I am a bit more biased to being the necromancer?).
I have pretty much identical Q’s after few plays too 🙂
Q1 we just played ‘keep it simple’ and ignored whatever was going on for support model. No idea if it’s right of course!
1) I’ve gone for a very simple view of outnumbering as the fight splitting rule in the original DKH was one of the areas that people got most confused by and didn’t really add a great deal.
Outnumbering needs to be explained properly. I’ll add that to the Alpha addendum rather than do it all here. That should be up today or tomorrow.
2) A Skeleton with -2 dice is still going to be on 2 dice and 1 Armour as they are the minima.
Skeletons are already as poor at attacking as they can be, so no they don’t suffer any more. This is part of the in0built character of the undead, where their lowest level troops can basically ignore the enemy in terms of being reduced in quality. This allows them to behave more like an unthinking horde 🙂
3) If a spell does not have a sight requirement then it can be used in combat.
4) No. At present only Skelly warriors can be raised. The ability to remove them is a deliberate tactical option for the heroes. The necromancer should be protective of and careful with his specialists. This gives texture to the forces which would otherwise be uniformly drudges. I’m considering a number of different ways in which the necromancer may raise other troops, though I’m not sure which method will work best. Needs some playing.
5) No. The Necro can only interrupt after a Hero turn, and not after the last one (when it’s already his own turn). If he could then he’s basically get 2 turns in a row (end of previous round, first in new one), which would be a bit alarming.
Question on spawning undead from available bone piles:
Is the number of actual skeletons that can be on the board at the same time always limited by scenario, by number of figures in the box or is it unlimited. So if a player has 12 skeleton figures available and the party are slow in making progress can every bone pile get converted.
Excellent point. It’s currently limited to a maximum of 4 Skelly warriors on the board at one time. Working within this limit is part of the challenge.
What is the point of the extra models cards, double numbers cards if you cant have more squeletons on the board than what is listed by the scenario?
Not every model in the scenario will be a Skeleton, as evidenced by Zombie, Armoured Zombie and Dwarf Revenant in Scenario 1. Of course it would be helpful if the core set came with eight or so skeleton warriors out of the box for some skeleton mobbing, but some of us already have some spare ones kicking about from other games such as KoW or ye olde Heroquest etc that would do in a pinch.
Cant reply to your post, so I must place my question here.
Where is the limitation in the scenario? The scenario comes with the number of models and in the alpha rules, nothing on limitation on the number of skeletons appears.
The limitations need to be added.
Wouldn’t it be a max of 6 Skeleton Warriors? Seeing as that’s how many are currently coming in the Dungeon Saga box… Probably what Jake is alluding to, Souterrien. Availability of relevant models at any one time.
Up to now, I played it that way: the number of available skeletons is limited by the number of available bones piles plus the number of skeletons raised from the start. As it is not possible to raise them all at once, and that skeletons get eliminated between raises, and that strategically raising skeletons might be not wanted, never met any problem of miniatures count.
It changes the gameplay as the card raise 3 skeletons or even raise 2 skeletons can no longer be played timely. These cards are useful when you set up a pincer move. With a 4 skeletons cap, it decreases the possibility to use these cards. To play fully the 3 skeleton card, you need to wait to be down to one raised skeleton. Plus the time they make it to the heroes etc
It changes the gameplay.
There are 6 in the KS sets, but only 4 in the trade box and so that’s the limit. It’s impractical to rewrite all the scenarios for two different versions. As the bulk of the KS backers seem to be in the advanced game camp, having extra skeletons sounds like a good thing.
You can play a “raise 3” card even if you only have 2 models left to raise. You just lose the extra. I’ll make this clear in the updated Alpha.
Completely missed anything about only 4 skelly warriors at one time, so played you could keep raising if there was bone piles. Which was great for the ‘raise 3’ card and made for fun exciting intro games as the warriors kept raising up in increasing numbers. Not sure if would have been as fun with 4 max baddies? In scenarios with other types not such an issue I’d assume.
The limit adds to the tactics for the Necro. If he can just spam as many as he wants then there is much less thinking needed: you just flood the dungeon.
Hi Jake, which range ruler do you use for spells, and which for bows? Will you be updating the rules over the KS, incorporating feedback (or adding missing bits like the range rulers?)?
If you do could you add:
a version number to the footer
page numbers (both of these help us with comments and feedback!)
in your intro, perhaps further emphasize that these are just the tutorial / starter scenarios. There’s some buzz over at the ‘geek about how “simple” the rules are. Some folks have trouble with their reading comprehension, it seems….
Alpha Rules Spell Cards already list the range for the Spells capable of range. Burn is the Short ruler (4.5″ at the time of this post) and Feet of Stone and the bows used by Skellies and the Elf are the Long ruler (8.5″ at the time of this post).
mastertugunegb answered the one about ranges.
I’ll be doing several waves of updates for the Alpha. Version numbers and so on are tricky because I’m not working on the final file (the Mantic digital boys are), but I’ll see what we can do. If it was just me uploading Word files or pdfs then they already have version and page numbers 🙂
I can add more emphasis to the intro, though i’m not sure it will help.
I’m going to put all my ideas in one thread as I got a bit carried away and excited haha
I think dice should be called fight.
Armour should be defence
And there should be a new stat called toughness/armour
Zombies have toughness 2 ignoring the first two points of damage. Skeletons have toughness 1 and a special ability called pile of bones.
Wizard, elf and barbarian have toughness 0. So any damage is a wound.
Dwarf and elf have toughness 1 ignoring 1 wound
This would save having the injury table and allow characters to take more than 1 wound if they get hit hard. I also agree with people that are saying taking 1 wound and losing a dice is harsh. Over half would seem better.
Also why not different wounds for each character and boss characters? Why all characters 5 wounds?
There needs to be more stats. There is a limit to what can be done at the moment.
The dwarfs armour/defence should start at 3 IMO not 4. This gives more room for progression and balances him better in the starter scenario. But I also think he should have toughness 1 and heroes can take more than 1 wound if toughness is beaten.
I also think injured penalty (-1 dice to fight) should be after taking more than half starting wounds.
The barbarian could then gain 1 dice when injured rather than lose one dice as his special trait.
Traits for each hero would also bring more character to the characters.
Half fling trait for example could be when breaking away the enemy does not get it’s free strike as he is sneaky.
I also think movements are way to high. Move 8 is so far you can get behind and around things to easily.
For me it should be movement should be
Barbarian and wizard 5
I then think attacking then moving would not be a problem.
Also elfs trait could be to shoot at any point of movement and then continue movement.
I also agree with what a few people have said regarding stopping movement when going past enemy’s. I don’t think it should stop but the enemy gets a free strike and the break away gets a -1 dice modifier. (Again this ties in with halfling being able to break away free or maybe with out the -1 mod.
Then the halfling lines feat could be a backstabbing ability? 6 dice fight attack 🙂
I’m also hoping feats will be on cards and there will be a choice on what to take with progression.
Also allows you to create bad guys picking feats to suit your villian
Potions, these should only be passed if next to a friend but no action needed to do so. This makes movement and tactics more important.
Necromancers deck –
The move cards should not allow you to raise models from bones. It makes the raise dead cards pointless.
Other cards should should be interrupt, +1 fight dice, +2 movement, activate same model twice, trap cards etc.
At the moment the deck is booorrrrrinnng
Awesomehotdudes door cards could also just be included in the standard deck as trap cards the necro can play when the hereos try open a door/ treasure chest.
I think a lot of players are agreeing one cripple to win ain’t right.
I changed it to needing half the party crippled to win in my players ting worked better IMO.
Also opens up oppurtunity to heal them with a paladin…… Whilst crippled. Or first aid. Or Zombiefide by the necro 🙂
After around a dozen play tests I ended up with the following character cards.
Elf- move 6, fight 3, defence 2, toughness 0, shoot 3. Wounds 5 Feat stays the same with -1 dice if injured (3wounds taken) can’t move and do feat. Trait swift shot, can shot during movement at -1 dice and then finish moving.
Dwarf- move 4, fight 4, toughness 1, shoot 0, wounds 6. Feat stays the same. Trait shield push, may push all enemy’s in front arc one square away instead of a normal attack.
Wizard- move 5, fight 2, defence 2, toughness 0, shoot 3 (see trait) wounds 4. Feat stays the same but needs to be clearer. Trait magic missile, allows LNG range 3 dice attack.
Barbarian- move 5, fight 4, defence 2, toughness 0, shoot 0, wounds 5. Feat stays the same 4 dice attack with NO modifiers. Feat rage, once wounded gains one dice instead of lose one dice.
Notes from a few play tests.
Just played another game using ideas above.
Changed move stats for the characters as above and worked much better. Made the good guys have to think about where they are going more.
I gave dwarf toughness 1 ( ignores 1 point of damage) and defense (armour) 3 he was still hard as nails plus giving him 6 wounds and making injured only count after taking half wounds made him a lot more sturdy. I now think fight with 5 dice makes him the best attacker and defender in the party. I think he should fight with 4 dice as should the barbarian. The dwarf becomes the tough guy to take down and the barbarian the crazed fighter. Giving barbarian the trait of gaining a dice when injured instead of losing one makes him become the better fighter of the two when injured but having to take 3 of his 5 wounds before this happens is very risky and makes the dwarf become his body guard. I also gave dwarf a trait to allow him to push back all enemy’s in front arc 1 square instead of attacking making him feel like a true bodyguard.
Changing how injured works makes you have to think about when to use the potions as before you just used them as soon as someone took a wound. I also made it so you could only use them in your turn and had to have a potion although these could be passed freely to a character next to you. Again making movement more important.
Gave the wizard a trait called magic missile, basically a 3dice long range attack. Made him more useful. He is extremely vulnerable with only 4 wounds and allowing more than 1 point of damage in a single attack. You really have to think about protecting him which is great.
Elfs trait allowed him to shoot before during or after moving at -1 dice. Did not use it as there was no where to hide from skeletons haha.
This was using scenario 1. I made two changes to the scenario. First was necro had to kill half of the party (2). He failed to kill any but was very close to killing wizard and barbarian.
2nd change was necro had 2 skeleton archers in room two at the very end of the corridor.
I don’t understand why introduce the archers in the journey from the east game and not include them here! Gave the necro much more flexibility and more fin to play as. Aldo seemed to help balance and made it a much closer battle.
All of this and the game was just as fast and a lot more fun and tactical. Using toughness was easier to explain to my friend than the injury chart as well.
Just played another. Lasted no more than 30mins.
Necro won for first time!
Killing elf and barbarian in the 2nd chamber.
Taking multiple wounds from a single attack can be devastating if dice go your way and makes for a much more exciting and tense game.
Dwarf with 4 attack dice was still good at fighting but needed support a bit more against some of the better armoured undead.
I’m thinking that maybe instead of -1 dice for outnumbering the enemy you should get +1 instead? Have you tried that jake?
nice effort. Imo, though, pondering on the effects of wounds is missing the potential of healing spells/artifacts. It is mentioned that for example the wizard could have a small healing spell as a minor spell
The big picture is missing a few key elements to go into this type of considerations.
Few more games and decided toughness is not needed.
Characters could gain he ability or acquire armour to ignore hits to replace this.
The important things at the moment are –
Making characters more individual. Move and wounds being two simple solutions. Don’t like the way they all have same wounds and think movements are too high.
Dwarf and barbarian need greater separation. Dwarf should be the superior defender so armour 4 makes sense but combat 5 makes him better than the barbarian. Combat 4 would be fine if losing first wound did not mean losing a combat dice.
Barbarian should gain a die when injured but again not after taking first wound.
So I would like to see injured -1combat die only come into effect after losing over half wounds.
So now the barbarian after taking his 3rd wound goes into a rage gaining a combat dice making him better at killing than the dwarf. The dwarf goes down to 3 dice when injured which will make him quite poor but hurting him in the first place is much harded especially with his feat. In the 15+ games I have played so far he has not even needed his feat!
Healing potions – passing anywhere is to easy but also with current 1 wound is -1 dice to combat makes using them take no thought process.
Necromancers deck –
Some cards are a bit pointless at the moment and it’s all a bit bland.
Playing the bad guy needs to be more exciting.
The move cards should not allow you to raise models from bones. It makes the raise dead cards pointless.
Other cards should could be interrupt, +1 fight dice, +2 movement, activate same model twice, trap cards etc.
At the moment the deck is booorrrrrinnng
Awesomehotdudes door cards could also just be included in the standard deck as trap cards the necro can play when the hereos try open a door/ treasure chest.
Outnumbering – needs an example diagram.
Free strike – Is it counted as getting hit in the back as your moving away from an enemy. It feels like there should be a penalty.
I think a lot of people agree moving though enemy’s should not stop movement but each time it happens free strikes happen, this should get -1 penalty to combat for braking away.
Scenario 1 could do with one skeleton archer again to make it more exciting for the necro player and need to cripple two characters to win.
The biggest problem for me at the moment is injured after taking just 1 wound and getting the -1 combat dice and the dwarf/barbarian having the wrong roles.
Leon, thanks for all your comments.
You seem to have rushed off and designed your own game! You’ve got some interesting ideas, though you seem in general to be making a more complex game than I think will work as the Core. Certainly it’s more complex than I expect to be allowed to use as the Core.
The Necromancer deck used to be more like you suggest and was simplified for the Core game during playtesting. The Advanced deck will add some of that back in.
Moving past the enemy without stopping simply isn’t going to happen. It forms a cornerstone of the way the game works and while it may be possible for certain specialists with specific skills (sneaky thief/scout/ranger/ethereal types), it’s not going to be a common ability. To start with, if it’s common to all then those sneaky models aren’t special. Also, without the limitation the Dwarf can ignore the enemy almost entirely, which just makes a mockery of any scenario where movement and positioning matters.
Free strike used to have a penalty and I removed it as it was making combats too static. People would get stuck in a fight and then not feel able to leave. Making it relatively easy to get away, but keeping the pause when you move into a front arc, gives the enemy the ability to control movement to a degree, but not entirely. The fact that there is this pause allows the opposition to have a turn to act and respond. Again, if you let people run through front arcs willy-nilly then the game is over before the other side gets to even try to do anything which is just dull.
The -1 for being injured will change a bit. I’ll see if we can get this into the next iteration of the Alpha.
I agree about the dwarf and barbarian. Having played through all three alpha missions, the barbarian, unless he’s swarmed (and why would I swarm him if I can get to the wizard), feels like a poor copy of the dwarf. I feel like he’d be boring to play as my only character.
Yup. The Barbar needs work.
Outnumbering mechanics would be good to know too. Simpler the better.
Yup. My bad.
Yeah I did go a little crazy with the ideas haha.
I did notice in my testing that trying to move past enemy’s never really happened and seemed out of place when I allowed it so went back to not allowing it.
The necro deck needs a bit of work even if just using the basic cards as many do the same thing.
I’m glad you are working on the wounds and look forward to alpha version 2!
The difference between getting more actions and only being able to raise is quite noticeable when you’re in the middle of a scenario and you have a number of things to do (and usually less than you need to do them with). It adds a little texture to the deck.
I find the texture is lost and you are just hoping to draw more extra action cards and not the raise cards.
If the raise card was the only card that allowed you to raise and allowed you to do it in either players turn it would then become an important card with a element of needing to play it at the right time.
One interrupt or raise card in heroes turn.
One card in necro turn. Makes the necro need to think about when to use what cards.
Being able to raise with the extra action cards just makes the raise cards inferior
The raise cards aren’t as useful as the ones that can do that and more. Of course. And if I’m playing blackjack a 7 is a much less useful card than an ace. Most of the time. Having texture doesn’t mean that everything has to be equal. It just means there is variety.
Also, the fact that they are one-use cards and there is a finite number of them means that you have to take some care in how they are used. This obviously comes into play more in larger scenarios.
That said, your suggestion of limiting raise cards like interrupts may have some mileage. Hmmm…
I have a few questions concerning the expansion Warlord of Galahir.
Will the basic gameplay be changed? I mean: the capacity to raise skeletons is pivotal to the gameplay and is specific to necromancy. Gobelins or orcs cant support this type of gameplay.
If there is a change, will it be possible to mix the various monsters, that is filling a dungeon with undead and orcs or will both be segregated?
lol. exactly the two questions I put to Jake for his online Q&A session, that’s supposed to be starting very soon. Hopefully he’ll answer us!
I would suggest keeping the different monster groups segregated as this helps add to their character. Mixing stuff up means people will just cherry-pick the best of each faction and the whole thing is likely to end up rather characterless.
Each faction will have its own style of play. You can see some examples in the original DKH which included Undead, Dwarfs, Elves and Orcs – all of which worked differently.
But will it be posdible? It might be less roleplay-y, but it could open up for some interesting gameplay
I would expect so. The rules aren’t finished yet, so I can’t be sure about all the details, but I can’t see why it would be impossible to mix them up if you really wanted to.
A skeleton standing on a pile of bones takes exactly two hits from a hero. What happens? Are there now two piles of bones on the square? If not, then what? It doesn’t seem fair to the necromancer to lose the pile of bones all together, but it doesn’t seem fair to the heroes if the skeleton sticks around.
The bones stack on the same square
If you think about using common sense, having two Piles of Bones on the same square doesn’t really break any rules. After all, the Necromancer can only raise one of them at a time, and the newly raised Skeleton will be left standing on the other Pile of Bones, preventing that (and any further Pile of Bones beneath that) from being raised until the raised skeleton Moves off it or is Destroyed.
POB counters can stack.
That’s how we played it, but I thought I should check.
So for Spells that don’t have ‘Sight’ on them, you’ve said they don’t need a clear line of sight like Bows, so I can zap that skeleton warrior behind that row of zombies at the back of the room ahead of me…
Does it let me Burn or Feet of Stone an enemy who is in range but has solid rock directly between my Wizard and it? In other words, can I Spell enemies through solid dungeon walls as long as they are in range of my magic spells that don’t have ‘Sight’ listed on their description?
Yes. You can sense your targets. It is magic, after all 😉
Will starting Spells and ones discovered as the campaign goes on be the same for all Wizard types or will their progression be tailored to the individual, and the only real difference will be in terms of the Feat a Spell caster has and their basic stats or whatever?
Will every character have some kind of innate ability, like the Barbarian’s current ability to ignore the Injured penalty?
One clarification I’m looking for… in regard to Break Away in Dungeon Saga.. Is Break Away an Action of it’s own, meaning I can’t Break Away and then do an Action, or is it a Move used to Break Away, and I still get my Action, or something else?
Curis mentioned part way through the Alpha Rules video that if Lloyd chose for his Dwarf to Break Away, he couldn’t make an attack after, being all too busy running away. It sounds like it makes sense (having only just escaped danger from one foe and all) but is it in fact the rules? Is Break Away an action that counts as a Move, but perhaps also as an Action? Or does it only affect your models incapable of Shoot and Spell actions?
In DKH, Breaking Away was called Breaking Off and you could break off and continue moving after breaking off (as long as you followed all the normal rules for movement). However, it never said in those rules that you could, or could not, make an attack after moving. I always assumed you treated the turn as a normal turn and **could** attack another model if reaching them after surviving the free attack. I always assumed the penalty of the free attack at -1 dice to your defence roll (it seems that the -1 Dice for the defender has been removed for Breaking Away) was enough of a penalty for the benefit of breaking off. It seems that either I was playing it wrong all along, or the rules for it have changed.
Yeah, I could see a good argument for it being how Curis said it worked on the BoW alpha rules video though, I mean you just ‘broke away’ from a threat to your well-being, only to throw yourself into more of the same? Though I can also see it in the other direction, the ‘Oh no, Danor’s in trouble, I better lose this skeleton, get over there and wreck that zombie!’ or similar.
Just need to know whether Break Away works that way or not, it seems like it could be a very important detail especially to the strategy of a certain Dwarf wandering away to attack enemy models elsewhere, or perform any other actions.
I said it last night, but its worth saying again over here too. My gaming group and i played through the scenarios last night after our Dreadball league. Please bear in mind the following is based off a single game and is purely initial inpressions. I will play the scenarios more and feedback again.
The main thing I learnt is the Barbarian is far too squishy. Perhaps it was just us rolling badly for him and too well for the necromancer but right now, in my opinion, Orlaf is a liability. The fact he ignores the penalty for fighting whilst injured doesn’t save him from just dying full stop.
Now you (Jake) have freely admitted here that he needs more work… Perhaps if he was armour 3 he would live longer?! Or that the potions healed all injuries rather than just one (although this may unbalance the other heroes)
Aside from that niggling issue the game plays wonderfully. Truly. Fast, furious and great fun. Which is what you want really isnt it?
I spent most of the night thinking and repeatedly saying to my buddies that the defender was causing damage to the attacker during the dice offs. I know that this isnt the case, I think its just a holdover from too much Dreadball and Deadzone where the opposing roll causes something to happen if they win. That said, I entirely understand why you decided not to have that happen in this game. The heroes would die. Fast. This links back to my initial statement above about the barbarians squishiness.
I must agree with others that “Dice” needs renaming to fight, as it is it seems out of context
Other than all that its shaping up really well. Looking forward to the next iteration!
Alex, I’m in agreement with you in regards to the Barbarian, although I feel he needs to be buffed a little more in his attack potential, rather than his defence potential (a dice increase in the Combat stat will see him increase in both attack and defence, which may be a good thing too). This will separate his party role from the Dwarf more, although they are both melee based heroes.
I’m guessing the “Dice” stat will end up being called “Combat”. I say this because the picture of the game laid out on the Kickstarter page has the hero cards with the three stats reading > Move, Combat and Armour.
Perhaps a simple switch between the combat stat of the Dwarf and the Barbarian would do the job.
Actually, on closer inspection of those hero cards on kickstarter, it looks as though the Barbarian combat stat is 5.
Actually that makes more sense. Higher ‘Dice’ (fight/combat) is better. More defense.
Someone over on the DS KS comments suggested swapping the Barbarian and Dwarf Combat stats, so the Barby is dice 5 and the dwarf is dice 4. The dwarf would still be tanky and choppy as he should be but the barby would be more choppy and more survivable from a defensive stance rather than armour. I might give it a go like that and see how it works
Dwarf should be combat 4
Barbarian combat 4 and when injured gains one dice rather than lose one dice
I like that idea. “You won’t like me when I’m angry.”
Orcs had that advantage as part of their Green Rage special rule along with a number of other bonuses. I’m working on some custom Heroes of my own and that “injury as a bonus” was one of my first stops on the custom Hero journey.
When will see some basic ‘exploration’ rules? Ex: traps, searching for treasure, finding secret doors, etc.
There may be stuff like how this was done in some scenarios in Dwarf King’s Hold I reckon, like for potential Cave-Ins and treasure chests. So there are already some groundwork laid for dungeon hazards and locating and making off with loot.
Jake, do you know when the revised Alpha is going to be available?
I’m very much looking forward to seeing the revised Alpha rules (Beta rules?) as well as a couple more (a bit larger) scenario’s and a new spell or too.
Same here, it would be a good thing to have your tweaks Jake 😉
Absolutely. Not forgotten by any means. I want to play a couple of bits a touch more before I drop them in front of you guys. Aiming for tomorrow.
And got ambushed by trolls. Bah!
And do you need any play testers for the advanced rules, once those start to shape up? I’d love to help out, as would likely many of your legions of new DS friends here!
Yeah, absolutely, I’d also love to help out with any Beta testing for this game!!!
separating attack and defense dice is a great idea!!
I’m on a quick break during night shift at teh moment and wanted to put forward an idea I had for the Barbarian and Dwarf. They both broadly fill the melee role, but more specifically the Dwarf fills a defensive role whereas the Barbarian fills and attacking role. I noticed that the Elf and Wizard have two possible actions under their “Dice” stat (Fight and Shoot and Fight and Spell respectively). What if, to further delineate the Barbarian and Dwarf combat roles, the “Dice” stat for them read;
Dice: 5 Defence/4 Attack
Dice: 4 Defence/5 Attack
This simple change combined with what they both already have really gives the impression tah the Dwarf is a reliable and solid fighter, preferring to wear down his enemies from a defensive posture, whilst the Barbarian is more of a agressor, relying on his agression, speed and hitting power to defeat his enemies.
I also like the idea that others have put forth with the -1 dice coming into effect at half wounds. This would be made less complex by using total wounds that are divisable by 2 and it would also help to delineate heros and add more flavour to them. So for instance, the Elf and Wizard could have 4 wounds (instead of the now 5 wounds) and the Dwarf and Barbarian could have 6 wounds (instead of the now 5 wounds). Any future larger heroes, like the Druid from the Warlords of Galahir or if there was ever an Ogre hero, these could be justified in getting perhaps 8 wounds.
Do bone piles stack? Say a skeleton moves on top of a bone pile, but then gets smashed back into a pile of bones itself. Do we now have a “double” bone pile, or just one?
Birdman – Yes they do stack. Jake answered this somewhere in the multitude of posts in either this, or another thread on Quirkworthy here.
Ah, OK. Thanks Danny, and apologies, Jake.
Does the outnumbering penalty kick in when attacking a door? E.g. Barbarian adjacent to both a door and a skellie, chooses to attack the door. Does he lose a die because of the skellie breathing (figuratively) down his neck? I assume the door wouldn’t outnumber him if he attacked the skellie instead…
And while we’re here, can you outnumber a door? E.g. Dwarf and Barbarian by themselves, pounding away in a concerted effort on the portal, surely there’s a bonus/penalty in there somewhere… 🙂
Good points, Birdman. Hopefully Jake will answer these for you, however for fun, I’m going to guess 🙂
A door can be outnumbered by heroes
A door never counts towards outnumbering a hero when the hero is attack a monster.
A door does count towards outnumbering a hero when a hero is attacking a door.
Perhaps an easier, but slight less realistic ruling would simply be that doors never count towards outnumbering and cannot be outnumbered.
‘They’re doors. DOORS!!!’
They aren’t monsters or -to be even clearer- enemy models. They’re dungeon portals, a step up from dungeon furniture.
Basic doors have an Armour Value to represent that you have to hit it hard enough to register Hits in your attempt to smash the lock/kick them open/otherwise sunder their ability to bar your way. They have Dice to represent that even an inanimate object can sometimes resist Heroes trying to bust them open, or the fickle hand of fate telling you that ‘you’re doing it wrong’ as you put shoulder to the wrong part of the door or whatever.
Doors don’t have anything else remotely like an enemy model. They don’t have a Move value, weapons, and most importantly… Arcs. No Rear Arc, No Front Arc. Doors don’t care if you sneak up on the Door’s rear, and they aren’t going to impede the movement of a Hero wandering past the front of them other than to stop them from going through without breaking them (current Alpha Rules standard door) or break their ward (magically warded door).
While I could see a skeleton controlled by Mortibris having an invested interest in stopping you from opening a door, it’s not so much that a Door is actively defending itself from a Barbarian kicking it open, as much as it’s lock strength is resisting the beating he gives it. Maybe, however, there could be a Free Strike rule here for ignoring the actual Monsters while trying to open a door. At least for the kick ’em open ones.
I could see arguments for teaming up on a door, but not using the Outnumbering rule as that applies to enemy models. Heroes should be badass enough to open doors themselves anyway.
That’s my view of doors anyway.
@mastertuguneb, Feeling better now? I know what a bloody door is, mate. Kindly point out in my post where I suggested that doors could get off their hinges, pick up a spare leg bone to use as a club, and fight back? The rules themselves say that the way to force open a door was to “Fight” it. I was merely using the nomenclature already provided in the rules for brevity. The basic gist of my post was: are there any bonuses/penalties to be had around opening doors?
(Of course, now I’m really keen to see a door deck with a card entitled “Master Tugeneb’s Bane!” which has the door become a mimic that actively thumps the snot out of the hapless door opener, and provides a -2 outnumbering penalty…)
Thanks guys, that made me smile 🙂
“Careful master Dwarf, this door knows Kung Fu!”
That could be the next next expansion: Dungeon Saga Evil Furniture Quest. With Door Mimics, Looter Chests (they rob you instead of the reverse), Hungry Tables (they dine on you), and Hanging curtains (that won’t end well).
I’ll let Mantic know they need alignment specific 3D furniture.
“Mind that sofa. It’s Lawful Evil…”
its nice to have doors and exploration but in a years time when i get the game it would be a shame if i have to break out my Heroquest doors because they seem to have been forgotten in the kickstarter. it would be a shame to spoil the ship for a hapeth of tar.
Agreed Tony, I hope we see them get included in the kickstarter for free in the base set and as an add on purchase for those who want additional doors for larger dungeons they build with the advanced rules. I’d also like to see some very cool rules for opening doors in the rules.
They haven’t been forgotten. However, you’re making the assumption that 3D models of doors are necessarily an improvement. I’m not sure they are. For me they’re just a different approach, and one that has as many failings as it has benefits, perhaps more.
I’m sure they’ll turn up on the KS soon enough.
HMmmmmm, I can’t reply to your post above for some reason, so I’ll place my reply here. I feel that the outnumbering rule replicates a period of time in which the model’s attention is divided between multiple tasks. The thing with the doors is, that if you have a door and a skeleton in your front arc and choose to attack the door, you are still dividing your attention between two tasks, one of which is a threat…so it should follow that penalties should apply. However it may just be easier to rule that doors are not included in outnumbering.
All the discussion is not gameplay oriented. Going the way of realism or making sense etc, can drag a long way from the spirit of the game, with consideratins like doors occupy one tile, so can a hero located in a tile other than the front tile attack the door?
In other cases, both opponents can be said to turn around to face each other but here?
Gameplaywise, the outnumbered mechanic withraws one die from the pool. I’d prefer to get the analysis done this way rather than trying to get into the simulation discussion side of things.
The rule states that a model is outnumbered? Is a door a model? If not, it means that a door can not be outnumbered.
The rules state nothing for what outnumbers. So even a door may count towards outnumbering a model.
Hi Jake, Just a quick question pertaining to the Villainous characters we have unlocked so far (Undead Troll Shaman etc), as they have character sheets do you plan on giving them multiple wounds like the adventurers?
Yup. Monstrous Heroes are essentially just Heroes on the Monster’s side. There’s a bit of difference because the activations work differently, though that will be as little as I can get away with.
Cheers Jake, looks like I’ll be adding more of those nice counters then 🙂
Master Tugun EGB Door Mimics, with DKH Slam special rule. With a face knocker that facepalms when the party stops to overthink situations.
Now who’s overthinking…
(I thought I posted this already but my internet has been doing crazy things and I can’t see my post so maybe not?)
If the necromancer has 4 skeletons in play, could they spawn a 5th by turning one of their current four (in theory in a not so great location) back into a pile of bones. Or once a skeleton is active it stays upright until a hero knocks it down?
I figure allowing the necro to spawn new skelies by turning old ones back into bone piles could result in some interesting positioning and interrupts. Although granted it could also almost never come up.
I just thought of it when reading about summoning 3 skeletons when you already have 2 in play, and you could just skip summoning the 3rd one.
An interesting option. I’ll give it a try.
Which card does Rordin use to represent Thorfin’s hammer in scenario 8 (the Mortibris showdown). Is it Forgebreaker, the hammer Grund uses in the previous scenario?
yes it is 😉
I don’t really know if this is a rules question but I ask it anyway (it’s AC-related):
I’m about to start a IO-unchartered Dungeons-Campagne. My heroes are all level 0. Since I have only painted undead my first dungeon shall be a necromancer-Dungeon. Now I have to generate 2 Bosses. The undead have no Boss-template in the AC. OK if I take a necromancer I can make him human. But what kind of 2nd Boss could I take.
And for Boss levels the AC say I should experiment on how difficult I like it. But since I’ve never played this way I have no idea what leve would be managable for my noobies… any suggestions?
Hi Mr S.
Your best bet is to use your experience with the pre-written stuff as a guide. Which adventures did you find easy? What was hard? Try to decide whether it was sheer numbers or the shape of the dungeon which caused the problems/made it easy. With so many possibilities, it’s hard to be proscriptive about numbers as the shape of the tiles can make a given number of bad guys a nightmare or a breeze.
Bosses are simply heroic versions of something, and that something could be anything. You could have a back story that gave you a boss ghost, troll, or even zombie.Start with your chosen model’s base stats and add appropriate stats, skills or spells from there to make them work as your story suggests. try to leave a week spot for the Heroes to exploit. For example, wizards are often weak in melee, but lethal with their spells.
You can have all sorts of fun with this sort of thing, and there’s no definitively right answer beyond enjoying yourself 🙂
Some brainstorming on the topic on BGG:
Looking at mantic forums, I think Mr S started that thread under a different handle so probably not very helpful to link it to him.
I just wanted more brains and teh designers thoughts on this… that’s why I’m repeating me here.
I’d actually like to create the bosses using the character-creation rules. I can see that if you play the games as an OL against the heroes and see your role more as an GM than an advesary that you could go with the aproach you mentioned.
When I want to play solo/coop I’d liked to have a rule-system that at least suggests a bit more.
Perhaps something like level 3 Bosses for an average Herolevel of 0.
I’ll see what I can do.
Thanks a lot 🙂
What are the stats for undead bosses? What are the winning conditions for the Overlord in the uncharted dungeons?