Man I wish there was a higher resolution of this picture. There are a few new things here to be seen:
- New monsters & Heroes (obviously) - New cards (Red ones, Orange ones, Purple ones) - New "bag"? tokens - New glowies effects markers
But otherwise it's more of the same. Did anyone really expect differently? I commend WotC for making a game set that is at the very least supported with "more of the same" instead of redoing everything with each version.
Man I wish there was a higher resolution of this picture. There are a few new things here to be seen:
- New monsters & Heroes (obviously) - New cards (Red ones, Orange ones, Purple ones) - New "bag"? tokens - New glowies effects markers
But otherwise it's more of the same. Did anyone really expect differently? I commend WotC for making a game set that is at the very least supported with "more of the same" instead of redoing everything with each version.
-shnar
What do you reckon, Shnar - are you gonna double dip for this too even after your frustrations with CR?
Hell ya! I cannot say no to a game dripping with such amazing bits and minis!
Sides, I'm still hoping they'll address some of the annoyances of the original. Played it again last night with a friend and ultimately, even with some weaknesses, they are all forgivable. The only thing that truly ruins this game are the Encounters. That's an easy fix too, just change the deck out, which they are doing in Ashardalon. So we'll see how different the encounters are, and if maybe other aspects are tweaked (treasures become real treasures, the tiles have long lasting effects making the map mean something, a few alterations to the monster deck so it's not a monster every turn, etc).
I'm not holding my breath really, I do think it's just going to be more of the same, but as Ameritrash-y as this game is, is more of the same really that bad?
I'm not holding my breath really, I do think it's just going to be more of the same, but as Ameritrash-y as this game is, is more of the same really that bad?
Model wise, heck no. Rules wise...well I too dont have much hope but there is a pin prick that a few things were addressed. If it is the same ruleswise, then at least I can save myself the money this time instead of being suckered again.
Mansions of Madness will likely get that months dedicated game funds.
glad to see im not the only one who didnt like Castle Ravenloft, and wish to see some differences.
Maybe the campaign/ rule tweaks will help alot more than i think.
I think its kind of sad that of all the great games out there Ravenloft easily gets around the most attention even with a good portion of players not really liking it.
I think its kind of sad that of all the great games out there Ravenloft easily gets around the most attention even with a good portion of players not really liking it.
Don't worry, there's an excellent portion of us who love it.
I think its kind of sad that of all the great games out there Ravenloft easily gets around the most attention even with a good portion of players not really liking it.
Don't worry, there's an excellent portion of us who love it.
Ditto that. It's just what I wanted in a dungeon crawl and the Lady and I love it.
I am absolutely buying this. I am interested to see how well this and Castle Ravenloft will work together. (I like the heros in that one better) We will see, If I fall in love with this game, I'll probably go grab Ravenloft as well.
Too many bits. I'd like a nice solo dungeon crawler. But Ravenloft and Wrath both just have too many components for me to drag out just for myself. Looks excellent though, and I'm sure it's going to be a great game as I understand Ravenloft to be.
From the picture this game looks the same as any of those long lists of new monsters and encounters you guys have done for Ravenloft, using old D&D minis.
I really enjoy Ravenloft and my gamingbuddy is always up for a game or two, but if ashardalon is as thin as Ravenloft I'll stick with the fan-made stuff and make good use of all my D&D minis, hasbro's got my money for them already anyway!
I had hoped for some new interior variants and surfaces, new stuff not old coffins and same old tiles again. I'll keep my wallet fat until some really good reviews pop's up here.
Too many bits. I'd like a nice solo dungeon crawler. But Ravenloft and Wrath both just have too many components for me to drag out just for myself. Looks excellent though, and I'm sure it's going to be a great game as I understand Ravenloft to be.
Are you serious??? I think Ravenloft has the fewest bits in any dungeon crawler I own. It's got mini's, cards, tiles, and a few tokens. It pales in comparison to Descent, HeroQuest, Doom, Earth Reborn, even Space Hulk has more bits. CR & WA are both pretty light in the bit region...
Too many bits. I'd like a nice solo dungeon crawler. But Ravenloft and Wrath both just have too many components for me to drag out just for myself. Looks excellent though, and I'm sure it's going to be a great game as I understand Ravenloft to be.
You should try the Legend of Zelda video games
Nah, seriously, I see what you're saying, but for those of us who want bits & stuff, I don't see how to avoid that aspect.
My bottom line: I love Castle Ravenloft enough that I'll buy this game too. I'm sure I'll enjoy it just fine, but it's not something I MUST have - as in, I'll get it when I can, but it's not different enough for me to go out of my way and break budget for it lol. Still, I'll get it sooner or later and my son and I will put many, many hours into it!!!
It looks good to me but then I liked Castle Ravenloft, I would be very surprised if there was anything sufficiently different from Castle Ravenloft to convert those who didn't enjoy it, I certainly wouldn't try to convince a person who hated Castle Ravenloft that the campaign rules will make them love Ashardalon as it's just not going to be true. I expect the campaign rules will be very simple and probably not as in depth as people would like.
Perpetual power increase seems to be something the game tries to avoid, they know each of your guys will do 1.5 damage per turn and take 2 damage per turn and as such in a regular game you will reach the boss (9 to 12 tiles in) with a few monsters lurking and hardly any health, making the boss battle tense (or at least make you have to fight him for a few turns) compared to say descent where there is great character development/advancement/gearing up but also the downside that often the heroes are either dead before the final room or have picked up bad-ass gold weapons and will one shot the boss before he activates.
Disclaimer: I'm not comparing descent with castle ravenloft generally, the difference between one versus all and pure coop is huge, it completely changes the way challenges are delivered, just in this area you can see the positives and negatives of letting players get stronger. Also I'm not saying tense endings don't happen in descent or that they happen every game in castle ravenloft, just they seem more frequent in CR when we've played it.
Too many bits. I'd like a nice solo dungeon crawler. But Ravenloft and Wrath both just have too many components for me to drag out just for myself. Looks excellent though, and I'm sure it's going to be a great game as I understand Ravenloft to be.
Have your tried it? If not, try and at least give it a test drive somewhere. Since you draw tiles, there is actually not a ton of set up time.
Man I wish there was a higher resolution of this picture. There are a few new things here to be seen:
- New monsters & Heroes (obviously)
Agreed, but of the unknowns, I'm pretty sure we can confirm that the Duergar is likely to be Duergar Warrior (Archfiends #32), and the last common monster is Orc Archer (Lords of Madness # 36).
Sure, it's mostly about planning; who should attack wich monster with what, when to use items and wich hero to go first to the new tile - don't let the weaker one move closer to the wraith, but he can't stay here because of those skeletons!
It's not that much more, but what dungeon crawl is?
If you define skill a what attacks to use when, and where to place party members to maximize monster coverage, minimize encounter effects and trap damage, when to heal and the optimal place to explore and place dungeon tiles...then yes.
Considering there is only a single 20 sided die needed to play, this is not what I personally consider a dice fest. There is a measure of randomness, but al games of this particular genre have randomness as part of the central mechanics.
If you're seeking a co-op dungeon crawl that is easy to grasp, and provides a 'toolkit' for crafting your own scenarios then you have found it. I'm very impressed with Castle Ravenloft and this game will just add more icing on the cake.
Sure, it's mostly about planning; who should attack wich monster with what, when to use items and wich hero to go first to the new tile - don't let the weaker one move closer to the wraith, but he can't stay here because of those skeletons!
It's not that much more, but what dungeon crawl is?
Oriax has a point there in the last sentence. CR distills it down to such a degree though that what little choices are available are inconsequential due to being at the mercy of the game because of the lack of meaningful decisions.
Other than the first CR adventure (which boils down to a race to get to the objective before being overcome by the entire dungeon) nearly all of the other threats in the game MUST be dealt with or you will lose. Some traps can be ignored and a few monsters like the gargoyle can be ignored if you are fast enough.
The game is completely random in that there is no skill to the game. You win or lose by luck of the tile draw, encounter card draw, monster card draw or dice roll.
Sure, it's mostly about planning; who should attack wich monster with what, when to use items and wich hero to go first to the new tile - don't let the weaker one move closer to the wraith, but he can't stay here because of those skeletons!
It's not that much more, but what dungeon crawl is?
Oriax has a point there in the last sentence. CR distills it down to such a degree though that what little choices are available are inconsequential due to being at the mercy of the game because of the lack of meaningful decisions.
Other than the first CR adventure (which boils down to a race to get to the objective before being overcome by the entire dungeon) nearly all of the other threats in the game MUST be dealt with or you will lose. Some traps can be ignored and a few monsters like the gargoyle can be ignored if you are fast enough.
The game is completely random in that there is no skill to the game. You win or lose by luck of the tile draw, encounter card draw, monster card draw or dice roll.
Roll and move at its prettiest.
I do feel that that's a bit of a harsh view. The game drains your health whatever you do, the winning or losing of it is in mitigating that loss wherever possible since at the end of the game having saved a few hits will be that extra healing surge you need to finish off the boss. The ways you save hits are in the choices your team makes..
1. Choosing whenever you move a monster whether your player is standing at the threshold shouting "you shall not pass" (monster stays on the tile it started) or if the hero ducks behind cover and throws a stone down the corridor (monster is placed on the heroes tile. This can affect and be affected by the next heroes plans for their turn.
2. Choosing powers and which encounters to avoid.
3. General things like how much the mage should explore, given that he can explore 2 and a half times before he dies (especially when he's pretty good at just cleaning up and can start out with an encounter stopper if you choose).
4. Choosing when to flee (as you say mainly with traps and gargoyles but sometimes with other mosnters, particularly when spawned in oddp laces by encounters or when teleported, or simply when you have explored so there are a bunch of tiles placed diagonally so that you can move 3 tiles in a turn).
I don't deny that there is luck, there's a fair bit but a game played by a switched on communicating group will still generally go better than a game by a group moving everything by the shortest path without thinking about adjacency and future turns.
Sure, it's mostly about planning; who should attack wich monster with what, when to use items and wich hero to go first to the new tile - don't let the weaker one move closer to the wraith, but he can't stay here because of those skeletons!
It's not that much more, but what dungeon crawl is?
Oriax has a point there in the last sentence. CR distills it down to such a degree though that what little choices are available are inconsequential due to being at the mercy of the game because of the lack of meaningful decisions.
Other than the first CR adventure (which boils down to a race to get to the objective before being overcome by the entire dungeon) nearly all of the other threats in the game MUST be dealt with or you will lose. Some traps can be ignored and a few monsters like the gargoyle can be ignored if you are fast enough.
The game is completely random in that there is no skill to the game. You win or lose by luck of the tile draw, encounter card draw, monster card draw or dice roll.
Roll and move at its prettiest.
I do feel that that's a bit of a harsh view.
Feel however you want. Its a truthful and fair assessment of the game. I am not disparaging the game or its proponents in the statement, so any harshness perceived is a personal matter that has no relation to my assessment.
Considering you don't actually roll for your mpvement, I'd have to disagree, and say that your final assessment is in fact un-true. All co-op games leave you at the mercy of the system, and how you mitigate the danger. The exact same thing could be said of Pandemic, or a host of other co-ops.
Considering you don't actually roll for your mpvement, I'd have to disagree, and say that your final assessment is in fact un-true.
But the spirit is still true. No, you don't actually roll for movement, but all other aspects of playing game beyond choosing your character and your staring cards are randomly determined. Calling it "Roll & Move" is just a simplistic way of describing the fundamental tenets of the game.
So while not precise in its use by definition, it hardly is an untrue assessment.
all other aspects of playing game beyond choosing your character and your staring cards are randomly determined.
Except for:
What move action you make (MM, MA, AM) Where you move to Whether or not to explore Whether or not to tackle traps Which monsters to take down first Where you place monsters Treasure distribution Application of utility/daily powers Choice of which At Will attack to use Direction of map exploration Which encounters to cancel Whether to level up on a 20/treasure draw
What? Like it matters, you just draw the next tile anyway. It wouldn't matter if you went left or right.
I think its a shame that they didn't jazz Wrath of Ashardalon up a bit. This picture does nothing to make me want to get it besides the miniature sculpts. Good miniatures though, do not a good game make.
all other aspects of playing game beyond choosing your character and your staring cards are randomly determined.
Except for:
What move action you make (MM, MA, AM) Where you move to Whether or not to explore Whether or not to tackle traps Which monsters to take down first Where you place monsters Treasure distribution Application of utility/daily powers Choice of which At Will attack to use Direction of map exploration Which encounters to cancel Whether to level up on a 20/treasure draw
Holy crap, you just convinced me that DungeonQuest (third edition) is a really deep game. It has nearly all those decisions, too!
all other aspects of playing game beyond choosing your character and your staring cards are randomly determined.
Except for:
What move action you make (MM, MA, AM) Where you move to Whether or not to explore Whether or not to tackle traps Which monsters to take down first Where you place monsters Treasure distribution Application of utility/daily powers Choice of which At Will attack to use Direction of map exploration Which encounters to cancel Whether to level up on a 20/treasure draw
Holy crap, you just convinced me that DungeonQuest (third edition) is a really deep game. It has nearly all those decisions, too!
Hey, you're right - it does! Except for:
What move action you make (MM, MA, AM) Whether or not to explore Whether or not to tackle traps Which monsters to take down first Where you place monsters Treasure distribution Application of utility/daily powers Choice of which At Will attack to use Direction of map exploration Which encounters to cancel Whether to level up on a 20/treasure draw
What move action you make (MM, MA, AM) => Whether to search or move Whether or not to explore => Move into known or unknown territory Whether or not to tackle traps => When facing an obstacle (bridge, spider web, cave-in), whether to try to overcome it or go back Which monsters to take down first => If there are monsters on the field, you can choose to go there and fight or not Where you place monsters => N/A Treasure distribution => N/A (except for the bridge, where you can choose to drop loot, and the Deep Elf, whom you can bribe) Application of utility/daily powers => Application of runes Choice of which At Will attack to use => Choice of which combat card to use in a combat round Direction of map exploration => Direction of map exploration Which encounters to cancel => There's cancelling runes, but otherwise N/A Whether to level up on a 20/treasure draw => Whether to keep drawing dragon cards or not
So you were wrong in 8 out of 11 cases, and only three quarters right in 2 of the remaining 3. I admit that the comparisons are a bit of a stretch at times, but I hope you'll agree with me that the "equivalents" are roughly equally important on average. Additionally, DungeonQuest has more interesting decisions:
In combat, whether to counterattack or not when it's possible In combat, whether to go for a death blow or not When to use your character's unique ability if it's an optional one (like Brother Gherinn's) Whether to continue going for the hoard or making a run with the gathered loot Whether to enter the catacombs when there's an entrance or not, and whether to exit from them when it's possible or not
I'm sure I could make up more of them
(Keep in mind that I do like DungeonQuest, I just think that it's a thorough luck fest and should be appreciated as such - just like Castle Ravenloft seems to be from everything I've read, including the complete rules.)
just like Castle Ravenloft seems to be from everything I've read
I see - this explains a lot.
I keep hearing that, and yet my reading impressions have never let me down when I got to actually play a game. I have quite a vivid imagination.
No way! That's very interesting indeed. Hey, you should write a review based on your vivid imagination, sounds like you have a lot to say about Castle Ravenloft. I'd definitely read it. Well, I'd probably just read the title actually, but I'd be sure to furnish you with a lengthy response about how you're totally wrong.
just like Castle Ravenloft seems to be from everything I've read
I see - this explains a lot.
I keep hearing that, and yet my reading impressions have never let me down when I got to actually play a game. I have quite a vivid imagination.
No way! That's very interesting indeed. Hey, you should write a review based on your vivid imagination, sounds like you have a lot to say about Castle Ravenloft. I'd definitely read it. Well, I'd probably just read the title actually, but I'd be sure to furnish you with a lengthy response about how you're totally wrong.
So can we go back to that post of mine then, where I pointed out the parallels between the decisions in Castle Ravenloft and the ones in DungeonQuest, which you dismissed without reading them as well, and furnish me with a lengthy response about how I'm totally wrong with these?
As that was everything I based on my vivid imagination (of scenarios and possibilities within the constraints of the well-defined rules that I've read, the reviews that I absorbed, and the many games of various kinds and various dungeon crawlers in particular that I've played).
Edit: I didn't even say that it wasn't fun, I only stated that it's luck-based
I keep hearing that, and yet my reading impressions have never let me down when I got to actually play a game. I have quite a vivid imagination.
And you're probably also very good at rationalizing cognitive dissonance...
Just so it's not a one sided response, I WILL say that I had much more fun identifying and collecting the D&D minis than I did playing Castle Ravenloft. That's really the only reason I'm still following Ashardalon.
I keep hearing that, and yet my reading impressions have never let me down when I got to actually play a game. I have quite a vivid imagination.
And you're probably also very good at rationalizing cognitive dissonance...
That's not surprising, seeing how this very rationalization is a deeply entrenched human trait. I do give my best to question my own judgements whenever I can anyway, just like everybody else's.
What I don't understand is why it is so hard to see that a person trained in thought experiments (as I am, both by profession as a system engineer and programmer and by education as a philosopher and computer scientist) should be able to commit such thought experiments in a way that roughly correlates to experimental findings.
I am testing the hypotheses I gain through my vivid imagination on a daily basis at work. If they're wrong, my programs break.
I keep hearing that, and yet my reading impressions have never let me down when I got to actually play a game. I have quite a vivid imagination.
haslo wrote:
I am testing the hypotheses I gain through my vivid imagination on a daily basis at work. If they're wrong, my programs break.
The difference is, your programs are an external feedback. It's very difficult to rationalize away a non-functioning program.
The failed program is hard evidence that you occasionally make errors in syntax, logic, or possibly even judgment. But you've never made an error in judging a game.
Now let me back off and say that if you're aware that deciding whether or not you like a game will have significant impact on whether or not you actually like a game, then you're probably ahead of the curve there. And knowing that, it would be a waste of time for you to seek out games you don't think you'll like, because you probably won't. But to rely on your judgment because your judgment is infallible is sort of begging the question. Your judgment is infallible because you rely on your judgment.
Edit: just in case I wasn't clear here ... and there's nothing wrong with that in regards to a hobby that we participate in solely (or at least mostly) for personal enjoyment.
So can we go back to that post of mine then, where I pointed out the parallels between the decisions in Castle Ravenloft and the ones in DungeonQuest, which you dismissed without reading them as well, and furnish me with a lengthy response about how I'm totally wrong with these?
In order to sidestep the potentially infinite loop of tiring speculative feedback you’ll inevitably volunteer I’m going to have to say no. I listed those differences based on experience of playing both games many times, rather than fictional familiarity with either. Once you’ve played both we can resume this bilge and you can try to convince me that the two games are experientially similar.
haslo wrote:
Edit: I didn't even say that it wasn't fun, I only stated that it's luck-based
Interestingly, I too didn't even say that you didn’t even say that it wasn't fun, and yet here I am responding to you saying that you didn't even say that it wasn't fun as though you’d said that I’d somewhere said that you’d said that it wasn’t fun.
The failed program is hard evidence that you occasionally make errors in syntax, logic, or possibly even judgement. But you've never made an error in judging a game.
But to rely on your judgement because your judgement is infallible is sort of begging the question. Your judgement is infallible because you rely on your judgement.
You are quite correct, and I should not have used absolutes There are occasionally games I don't like that I think I would (Supernova was one of them), and occasionally I like games after all that I think I wouldn't (like Wie ich die Welt sehe...). It is true that external feedback in the case of games is restricted to the games I actually try, and for games that I think I won't like that takes quite some convincing. So there are less cases where I get external feedback to validate my claims. And of course, different domains (like board games as opposed to computer programs) do, while they share algorithmic similarities, have important differences, so a skill transfer is not fully possible.
Consequently, I'll back down a bit from my high horse and have to admit that neither is it true that my reading impressions have never let me down, nor is it certain that they won't do so again.
In the majority of cases however, self-fulfilling prophecy admitted, I think that it's quite possible to ascertain a game's qualitites and general feel through reading the rules and comparing them to other games and their mechanics that I have already experienced.
What we have to keep in mind, still, is that (even though I do believe that I would like this a bit less than other dungeon crawlers) all I really claimed to infer from the rules and reviews with confidence is that the core mechanics of Castle Ravenloft are luck-driven, and the decisions that you make while playing it are mostly of the push-your-luck kind. That, and not whether the game is good or not, is the hypothesis that my vivid imagination really forms here.
I just might, thanks for tempting me Even though I am a bit afraid that the higher hopes I have, thanks to you, might be destroyed by the actual experience of playing the game after all.
Man I wish there was a higher resolution of this picture. There are a few new things here to be seen:
- New monsters & Heroes (obviously)
Agreed, but of the unknowns, I'm pretty sure we can confirm that the Duergar is likely to be Duergar Warrior (Archfiends #32), and the last common monster is Orc Archer (Lords of Madness # 36).
Are all the minis included already identified? In my list, there were 2 common monsters missing... if one is the Orc Archer, which is the other one?
In order to sidestep the potentially infinite loop of tiring speculative feedback you’ll inevitably volunteer I’m going to have to say no. I listed those differences based on experience of playing both games many times, rather than fictional familiarity with either. Once you’ve played both we can resume this bilge and you can try to convince me that the two games are experientially similar.
Concerning the Dungeonquest vs. Ravenloft debate, having played both games, imho they are positioned thus in the luckfest scale (throwing in a few games for comparison):
with 10 being the highest luckfest possible. This has ofc no bearing on how "good" the game is, ... Having said that, I really dislike DQ . With regards to descent, I have some trouble classifying it. CR is "tighter" (is less diverse) so it feels a lot more like minimaxing than descent. Descents plethora of little powers, items, etc, grant the game a more heterogenous feeling and it can go either wayepending on the specific setup, in Descent you might either - have interesting decisions to make and optimal moves to find because of a fortuitous interesting combination of powers/abilities and board setup; - end up in a setting where any anything you make cannot really improve your chances in any way... - Just steamroll through by using obvious moves (or be soundly beaten no matter what you do ) So, while Descent can be at times be very interesting, it can also be very bland just as easily. (i'm just talking about Vanilla Descent, haven't played the campaign expansions).CR is more consistent, descent less so (a lot of the goodness in CR is in the scenarios rather than the base rules: imho you cannot really appreciate the game without trying some of the more advanced scenarios that offer some interesting little twists wrt to the "basic" game). CR ends up having my preference because of easier setup, consistent experience and good enough gameplay. Added diversity within that framework will be a plus, and that is just what WoA seems to bring (haven't tried it yet)
