Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Sword & Sorcery» Forums » General

Subject: Is the area mechanism broken in it's current form? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Johannes Benedikt
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've made a topic where I discussed my expiriences with the game's demo. I know this is just a very basic excerpt of the game, but it is the only first hand expirience, I can base my opinion on. I'm sorry that I have to for obvious reasons take all the remarks to unplayable content with a grain of salt.

On to the problems with the area-mechanism.

Dominating an area is extremely beneficial. You don't just get tactical advantages for controlling areas like in normal grid-based games, but you get explicit ones for dominating areas.
The biggest problem so far is that you have to enter an area to do melee combat, so unlike grid based games, melee combat doesn't only put you into tactical disadvantages, but also explicit ones.

Human players can calculate risks and act accordingly, but the AI, as it is now, doesn't do this. This means the AI pracitcally acts like a grid-based AI, although the game features an area-based gamestyle:
So far no AI command I've seen, involves the condition of the area the AI engages and probably for good reason, because this would make the AI much more fiddly and less streamlined. In this sense it's best to always dominate an area and wait for the enemies to engage you in melee combat. This way the one enemy that activates, moves into the dominated area, does less damage and will most likely be killed shortly after with additional bonus damage.

While this AI makes sense in grid-based games, it certainly doesn't make sense with this kind of area-style gameplay. Smart enemies wouldn't enter the dominated area, but rather would put the heroes in the position to break up their formation or form a dominated area at certain tactically vaible positions, so the heroes have to enter an area dominated by the enemies or use other means to break up the enemy's formation. However I don't see how this can be achieved by a streamlined AI.

Last but not least there are a few other ways to make this defensive game-style less successfull, all of which aren't in place in this game.

1.) Put the heroes under harsh time preassure, so moving this defensively has high drawbacks instead of very little drawbacks (the event cards are often of very little effect and as long as no monsters are killed, reinforce next to nothing). This is also a problem with the "kill everything" quests this game seems to feature predominantly with slight variations.

2.) Alternate paths: The strictly linear design of the quests is very problematic when dealing with defensive play. If there would be different paths to the same locations, quick monsters could surround the heroes if they move/kill too slowly and hinder their movement options and thus options to exploit the AI signficantly.


This is a broad overview of what turned me off of this game's mechanics. As this seems to be nearly unfixable without seriously complicating the game (and it is quite fiddly as of now), I'm really curious in reading what you think about these problems.
Imo these problems make the game tactically quite easy, so I guess we shouldn't expect that this will be a hard game and maybe this is a plus for you, but I guess it would have disapointed me.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Skaak
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you are putting too much faith in the Tabletopia demo to be completely representative of the rest of the game, and not enough faith in Gremlin Project.

I was provided a basic early prototype of the game (same as you see with most of the video previews), and it included several enemies beyond the basic gremlins (which, along with one raider, are all that show up in the intro quest). Gremlins are very simplistic enemies, who do not require much thought to defeat; they're only really dangerous in larger groups, which isn't a concern in the first quest because they don't have a chance to form them since they're always the primary threat.

However, the latter enemies start to really punish you if you go melee-only all the time and focus completely on dominating areas:

- Human Raiders retaliate against heroes moving through their area, even if the heroes dominate the area (which diminishes one of the key advantages to domination)
- Orc Warriors count as 2 figures when calculating domination/control, making it more difficult to obtain domination (and they buff each other, making it them more likely to wipe your party out if you're all concentrated in one place)
- Blue Orc Warriors K.O. heroes when they obtain a bolt, which can very quickly swing the battle around (since a knocked out character doesn't count for control/domination)
- Orc Shamans actively avoid melee combat, and include nasty effects such as healing all Humanoids within {1}, reducing a hero's hits/armor for a round, activating other enemies, teleporting enemies into play, inflicting area damage when at {0}, and slowing/stunning heroes
- Gremlin Hordes will grab heroes and drag them away 1 area

These enemies include other effects, of course (self-healing for the raiders, inflicting fire/poison for several of them, etc.), but all of the ones above, particularly when they start to be combined with one another, make the game much more tactically rich. So what if you're dominating an area if a measly little gremlin horde who you've been ignoring in favor of trying to thin the ranks of orcs, drags a key hero away? Suddenly you're trapped in two areas, both dominated by enemies, and you're going to need to think fast on your feet to get out of this alive.

The developers have additionally said that there will be quests with multiple routes and branching pathways, and you can see for yourself in their map tile previews that there are far more interesting map tiles than are included in the first quest (tiles with hazards that cost more to move through or damage you, one-way movement, LOS without movement, etc.). I don't think it's fair to the game to assume that the things that make the intro quest easy are guaranteed to be problems for the entire game (which is up to what, 19 quest now? And far more enemies than those whose prototype AI cards I have access to).

Additionally, Gremlin Project showed with Galaxy Defenders that they are quite capable of designing enemies who alone are easy to exploit and defeat, but when combined with other types become legitimate problems. My favorite is the Xeno-Beta: its AI is incredibly easy to exploit (it runs away if it's adjacent to an agent, and then moves toward the agents if it loses LOS, so you can cause them to just jump in and out of doors or around corners without ever attacking). However, when you are distracted by the nastier threats in the game the humble Xeno-Beta is often what kills agents off because if it ends up at range {2} it will attack twice every time it activates. I've lost more agents to an unexpected Xeno-Beta who I ignored in favor of dealing with more imminent threats than I have to things like the incredibly nasty Nexus or Xeno-Beast. I trust that we will find something similar happen with the simplistic gremlin in S&S as the game progresses and different enemy types start to reinforce one another.
26 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
___Shetland pony___ ___extra pepperoni___
United Kingdom
Gloucestershire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Skaak wrote:


Additionally, Gremlin Project showed with Galaxy Defenders that they are quite capable of designing enemies who alone are easy to exploit and defeat, but when combined with other types become legitimate problems. My favorite is the Xeno-Beta: its AI is incredibly easy to exploit (it runs away if it's adjacent to an agent, and then moves toward the agents if it loses LOS, so you can cause them to just jump in and out of doors or around corners without ever attacking). However, when you are distracted by the nastier threats in the game the humble Xeno-Beta is often what kills agents off because if it ends up at range {2} it will attack twice every time it activates. I've lost more agents to an unexpected Xeno-Beta who I ignored in favor of dealing with more imminent threats than I have to things like the incredibly nasty Nexus or Xeno-Beast.
Woah, flashbacks! I have been wrestling with just this situation on a daily basis, in my latest GD campaign playthru Mr Skaak! laugh thumbsup
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thibaud Dejardin
France
Ferrère-La-Grande
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Skaak wrote:
These enemies include other effects, of course (self-healing for the raiders, inflicting fire/poison for several of them, etc.), but all of the ones above, particularly when they start to be combined with one another, make the game much more tactically rich.
Basically, those ennemies will add a lot of chaos, but not necesserely more tactical decisions to the game.
That's tactical only if you can do something about future ennemy moves. And you can't prevent KO, or being dragged away, for example. Further more, except against master ennemies, you can't even usually taunt the ennemies toward one of the heroes, because you will often share one zone or at most two.

Unlike GD, you will not really be able to let some ennemies alive (like this blue arachnos at range "2" of my sniper that is "under control" because I don't need to move often with the sniper), because you have to walk forward in a corridor, evade is really costy, and most of the attacks will be melee (at least for melee heroes), unlike GD where everyone has range weapons, so you have no real choice but go in the same zone.

What bugs me the most is the fact that there will be a lot less ennemies at one time than in GD, as it has been stated in another threat. That means that usually, all the "combined effects" you described will be quite rare at low player count.
The formula in SS seems Heroes-ennemies-1: that means only one at a time with two heroes, and only two for three heroes. That also means the heroes will usually have numeric superiority.

Quote:
The developers have additionally said that there will be quests with multiple routes and branching pathways,
There are some missions like this in extinction protocol, but they are basically "all players choose one of two paths", so that doesn't always make the party split. It's intresting in term of campaign immersion, but not in term of strategic

Maybe some mission will be different, and maybe the game will feel more strategic that I think, but that's a little to much "maybe" for me to back. I would have backed it anyway, if only the tiles were not corridor like, because any other things may be fixed/tweaked easily if necessery, but not the tiles.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simone Romano
Italy
Rome
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Guys,

I'm starting to running out of energies defending the game mechanisms, I'm the writer of both GD and S&S rules and I'm pretty confident the game will run smooth and with an adeguate level of challenging (that is also customisable). You are absolutely free to judge the entire game from a beta demo of the first quest created with temporary materials, our scope was transmit the feeling of the game NOT the micro-tuning.

About area movement VS hexes, The feeling of S&S is to run fast, each game should be completed in 90 minutes, are we losing some tactical choices ? yes and no, because:
1: In a fantasy world the melee combat is more important that range for most the heroes, in Sci-fi is exactly the contrary! From a gameplay point of view I prefer all players can have fun attacking the target instead of thinking "wait! only few characters can attack because we are running out of squares adjacent to the enemy or because we occupy spaces needed to move though in a narrow corridor... all these problems remember me HeroQuest, that I love, but we want a different feeling for S&S"
2: Even in GD enemies move from area to area so there are not so many differences, in addition the Controlling/Dominating system will grant a very good tactical choice, there are enemies bigger than usual (counts as 2 or 3 heroes and more!), lots of powers are based on controlling/dominating for both factions and so on... Stay freezed and wait your enemy is not always the best choice because you waste time in some cases and most important the preferred victim system combined with an enemy who moves a lot (such as RNG 0,1,2 as a first behaviour) will destroy your party if not well-managed. I can assure that sometimes move 1 area away can totally change the result of a combat.

About enemies A.I and powers, we are improving all aspects about A.I., we have removed most the ambiguity about movement (many players hate this aspect in GD) in favour to many powers that can interact each other, even between different enemies, a sample?
In the final battle of the third quest the boss order to its guard to use the wall of shield power to increase its defence, this will happen not by a quest script, but just putting the two enemies in the same area and drawing the first encounter card.
We are now able to create enemies like "mage/faith seekers", enemies that forces you to attack your friends, and more. In addition the random powers will add a bit of "random effect" that is nice, at least from my point of view. I really think that there is a nice step forward respect to GD in terms of enemies especially considering Game Experience/Manageability, they play differently from rank to rank without have a huge impact on the controlling player.

And what about combat?, I can easily assure that combat in S&S is at least equal (if not deeper) than in Extinction Protocol, because heroes have many weapons, items and powers, and most powers have different levels based on cooldown, all these things increase quest by quest together with the soul rank. A GD agent may have 4 skills and its power armour, in S&S some heroes will have 6/7 powers + weapons and items without taking into account that weapons (especially soul weapons) in S&S have multiple dice effects...

last aspect, is S&S a re-skin of GD ? the answer is no for many reasons, few of them are:
GD is a completely tactical skirmish game, usually a mission requires about 120 minutes or more and 5 agents.
S&S is an adventure game, with a deep combat system combined with a fast movement, can be played with 2 heroes (up to 5) and quests usually require 60-90 min.
GD has the player elimination, for some players this is a plus for others not.
S&S was designed to avoid player elimination unless you are playing to the most difficult level.


So, which is the best? the right answer is "depends from your taste and from the game experience you are searching for".

I strongly agree that everyone is free to defend its own ideas, our idea was to publish a beta demo combined with the rules, in order to grant you the possibility of "tasting the initial experience", all the contents are not finalised yet so they will be improved if possibile BUT judging the entire game made of 20 quests and more 50 enemies (counting ranks) from the first quest/enemy was not our final scope...

Fortunately the market offers a huge quantity of games for all of us and no one is forced to buy anything
29 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yiorgos Golfinopoulos
Greece
Patras
GREECE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
S&S was designed to avoid player elimination unless you are playing to the most difficult level.
What do you mean by that Simone?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simone Romano
Italy
Rome
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Boofus wrote:
Quote:
S&S was designed to avoid player elimination unless you are playing to the most difficult level.
What do you mean by that Simone?
That there are 4 levels of difficulty in S&S, the last one is for very hard-core players and will prohibit you to resurrect heroes in the middle of the quest in exchange of some bonus that can be obtained by killing enemies...

We strongly suggest to all players to play the game at normal difficulty or as maximum at the third level if you want more challenge (the main difference is that each green and blue enemy will have a random power), the fourth level is just "nightmare variant" that can improve the replay factor for some players, but is not the default game experience.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pierre S.
msg tools
I think a lot boils down to people expecting GD in a fantasy world.
Perhaps a bit too much emphasis was made on the a-priori similarities.
I think that the review Skaak made in this forum could be more promoted.

Would you have criticised Diablo because it does not feel like XCom?
Even Starcraft and Warcraft have in fact a very different gameplay.

I am actually glad that the two games will feel different also on the mechanics side. If I want to play a tactical skirmish game, I'll pull out GD, if I want to play a hack&slash type of game I'll pull out S&S.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Skaak
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Archange227 wrote:
Basically, those ennemies will add a lot of chaos, but not necesserely more tactical decisions to the game.
Sorry, should have been more clear. These effects don't increase tactical gameplay, but they do prevent a single tactical approach from reigning supreme and force the player to both spec and play their characters more flexibly (which was a main concern for the OP, far as I can tell).

Archange227 wrote:
Further more, except against master ennemies, you can't even usually taunt the ennemies toward one of the heroes, because you will often share one zone or at most two.
I don't think there were any taunting abilities with a range greater than {0} in the prototype, but there's a lot of content introduced by the Kickstarter I've never seen, so who knows? Some enemies can seize heroes, so I wouldn't be surprised if some level of enemy positioning control doesn't make it in as a hero power or item.

Archane227 wrote:
Unlike GD, you will not really be able to let some ennemies alive (like this blue arachnos at range "2" of my sniper that is "under control" because I don't need to move often with the sniper), because you have to walk forward in a corridor, evade is really costy, and most of the attacks will be melee (at least for melee heroes), unlike GD where everyone has range weapons, so you have no real choice but go in the same zone.
Tactical positioning is certainly not as important as in GD, and while in a corridor there won't be a lot of tactical choices (mostly just pushing through the enemies that are there). However, once you reach a room I expect battles to get much more interesting, particularly as we start to find rooms with movement penalties and so forth (unlike those in the first quest), and at that point I expect tactics will start to matter much more (albeit still not the extent they do in GD; as others have noted in this thread the two are very different games, despite sharing core mechanics).

Archange227 wrote:
I would have backed it anyway, if only the tiles were not corridor like, because any other things may be fixed/tweaked easily if necessery, but not the tiles.
That's fine! Like any game S&S isn't going to be for everyone and as I've noted before at length if the tense tactical decisions of GD are what you love best about that game, then S&S might not be for you. However, I do think that people are selling the tactical element in S&S short based on just the intro quest, which is why I've bothered trying to refute claims like the OP's.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thibaud Dejardin
France
Ferrère-La-Grande
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Simone Romano wrote:

last aspect, is S&S a re-skin of GD ? the answer is no for many reasons, few of them are:
GD is a completely tactical skirmish game, usually a mission requires about 120 minutes or more and 5 agents.
S&S is an adventure game, with a deep combat system combined with a fast movement, can be played with 2 heroes (up to 5) and quests usually require 60-90 min.
I think maybe too much emphasis was made about the game similarities.
SS to GD is not what black plague is to zombicide, for example. I effectively expected something like a GD in a fantasy setting, and I would have been happy with it.

It makes really much sense that SS is an adventure game with tactical combat, and not a tactical game.

I don't doubt the combats may involve many intresting decisions at higher level, when heroes have more skills that actions available, and many cooldown possible use for each of those skills. The soul weapon mechanic look awesome, too.

Quote:
I strongly agree that everyone is free to defend its own ideas, our idea was to publish a beta demo combined with the rules, in order to grant you the possibility of "tasting the initial experience", all the contents are not finalised yet so they will be improved if possibile BUT judging the entire game made of 20 quests and more 50 enemies (counting ranks) from the first quest/enemy was not our final scope...
I really thank you for the demo, which was a really great idea. That and the beta ruleook fully available are really great elements for a kickstarter project.

However, if you're refering to me, I don't agree that I'm judging the entire game with too few elements. What I don't like in this game doesn't mean it's a bad game, but those are core mechanics (being an adventure type game with strong theme writing along the road instead of a tactical skimrish game), that won't change with any ennemy count and any quest.

As a final comment, maybe could you consider that my comments have no goal to say that SS is a bad game, but instead that GD is a wonderful game for me... Being compared to a game I really like is not an easy task, I suppose.

Quote:
Sorry, should have been more clear. These effects don't increase tactical gameplay, but they do prevent a single tactical approach from reigning supreme and force the player to both spec and play their characters more flexibly (which was a main concern for the OP, far as I can tell).
Effectively, I disagree with the OP about that aspect. I think there is enought chaos/random effects to prevent a single "ultimate" approach.

Quote:
That's fine! Like any game S&S isn't going to be for everyone and as I've noted before at length if the tense tactical decisions of GD are what you love best about that game, then S&S might not be for you. However, I do think that people are selling the tactical element in S&S short based on just the intro quest, which is why I've bothered trying to refute claims like the OP's.
I think you're absolutely right.
I think SS is a game with tactical combat (complexity increasng with levels and available equipment), not a tactical game like GD.

Maybe it would have been a good idea to put an example of a fight between an hero and an ennemy both of high level to show the real complexity/tactical decisions about skill use. Or replace the full first scenario with a part of another scenario with heroes already fully equipped, to realize all the potential the first scenario doesn't show (and it is normal).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr G
United Kingdom
Hatfield Heath
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Simone Romano wrote:


1: In a fantasy world the melee combat is more important that range for most the heroes, in Sci-fi is exactly the contrary! From a gameplay point of view I prefer all players can have fun attacking the target instead of thinking "wait! only few characters can attack because we are running out of squares adjacent to the enemy or because we occupy spaces needed to move though in a narrow corridor... all these problems remember me HeroQuest, that I love, but we want a different feeling for S&S"



last aspect, is S&S a re-skin of GD ? the answer is no :) for many reasons, few of them are:
GD is a completely tactical skirmish game, usually a mission requires about 120 minutes or more and 5 agents.
S&S is an adventure game, with a deep combat system combined with a fast movement, can be played with 2 heroes (up to 5) and quests usually require 60-90 :)
This is a very reassuring post.

I have all the GD content and love it for its tactical nature. I play a lot of hex wargames and GD is a bit like that in its play. The chrome and character development and so on are lovely too.

FOR ME this style suits a sci fi game with ranged weapons.

When it comes to fantasy, I think much less about the detailed tactics and specific positioning, and much more about developing and tooling up my character. Then kind of 'unleashing' the party against a group of monsters. In a rather simpler way than detailed hex warfare.

I think this comes from my experiences with old school first edition Ad&D games where it's mostly theatre of the mind without any maps, miniatures or any of that stuff.

I find that 'narrative and making stuff up' is much easier in pen and paper than in more recent tactical games. I KNOW that S&S is a boardgame not an RPG, but the area system makes me feel it's more 'old school' and less tactical. Ok perhaps the tactics come more in the party set up rather than the precise positioning.

FOR ME, that's exactly what I want from a fantasy dungeon crawler. GD with a slightly lighter touch.

From what I've seen so far, this looks just great.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yiorgos Golfinopoulos
Greece
Patras
GREECE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Simone Romano wrote:
Boofus wrote:
Quote:
S&S was designed to avoid player elimination unless you are playing to the most difficult level.
What do you mean by that Simone?
That there are 4 levels of difficulty in S&S, the last one is for very hard-core players and will prohibit you to resurrect heroes in the middle of the quest in exchange of some bonus that can be obtained by killing enemies...

We strongly suggest to all players to play the game at normal difficulty or as maximum at the third level if you want more challenge (the main difference is that each green and blue enemy will have a random power), the fourth level is just "nightmare variant" that can improve the replay factor for some players, but is not the default game experience.

I would suggest making that known to a wider audience.

For a lot of people, me included, that were asking for a non-resurrection variant these are very, very good news. It might be difficult as all hell, but some of us wanted having that option.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan VanArsdall
United States
Littleton
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Simone Romano wrote:
Guys,

I'm starting to running out of energies defending the game mechanisms, I'm the writer of both GD and S&S rules and I'm pretty confident the game will run smooth and with an adeguate level of challenging (that is also customisable). You are absolutely free to judge the entire game from a beta demo of the first quest created with temporary materials, our scope was transmit the feeling of the game NOT the micro-tuning.

About area movement VS hexes, The feeling of S&S is to run fast, each game should be completed in 90 minutes, are we losing some tactical choices ? yes and no, because:
1: In a fantasy world the melee combat is more important that range for most the heroes, in Sci-fi is exactly the contrary! From a gameplay point of view I prefer all players can have fun attacking the target instead of thinking "wait! only few characters can attack because we are running out of squares adjacent to the enemy or because we occupy spaces needed to move though in a narrow corridor... all these problems remember me HeroQuest, that I love, but we want a different feeling for S&S"
2: Even in GD enemies move from area to area so there are not so many differences, in addition the Controlling/Dominating system will grant a very good tactical choice, there are enemies bigger than usual (counts as 2 or 3 heroes and more!), lots of powers are based on controlling/dominating for both factions and so on... Stay freezed and wait your enemy is not always the best choice because you waste time in some cases and most important the preferred victim system combined with an enemy who moves a lot (such as RNG 0,1,2 as a first behaviour) will destroy your party if not well-managed. I can assure that sometimes move 1 area away can totally change the result of a combat.

About enemies A.I and powers, we are improving all aspects about A.I., we have removed most the ambiguity about movement (many players hate this aspect in GD) in favour to many powers that can interact each other, even between different enemies, a sample?
In the final battle of the third quest the boss order to its guard to use the wall of shield power to increase its defence, this will happen not by a quest script, but just putting the two enemies in the same area and drawing the first encounter card.
We are now able to create enemies like "mage/faith seekers", enemies that forces you to attack your friends, and more. In addition the random powers will add a bit of "random effect" that is nice, at least from my point of view. I really think that there is a nice step forward respect to GD in terms of enemies especially considering Game Experience/Manageability, they play differently from rank to rank without have a huge impact on the controlling player.

And what about combat?, I can easily assure that combat in S&S is at least equal (if not deeper) than in Extinction Protocol, because heroes have many weapons, items and powers, and most powers have different levels based on cooldown, all these things increase quest by quest together with the soul rank. A GD agent may have 4 skills and its power armour, in S&S some heroes will have 6/7 powers + weapons and items without taking into account that weapons (especially soul weapons) in S&S have multiple dice effects...

last aspect, is S&S a re-skin of GD ? the answer is no for many reasons, few of them are:
GD is a completely tactical skirmish game, usually a mission requires about 120 minutes or more and 5 agents.
S&S is an adventure game, with a deep combat system combined with a fast movement, can be played with 2 heroes (up to 5) and quests usually require 60-90 min.
GD has the player elimination, for some players this is a plus for others not.
S&S was designed to avoid player elimination unless you are playing to the most difficult level.


So, which is the best? the right answer is "depends from your taste and from the game experience you are searching for".

I strongly agree that everyone is free to defend its own ideas, our idea was to publish a beta demo combined with the rules, in order to grant you the possibility of "tasting the initial experience", all the contents are not finalised yet so they will be improved if possibile BUT judging the entire game made of 20 quests and more 50 enemies (counting ranks) from the first quest/enemy was not our final scope...

Fortunately the market offers a huge quantity of games for all of us and no one is forced to buy anything
You say the game can be played with 2 heroes, but someone from the Ares team told me that most quests will require 4-5 heroes. This is the one thing that has me contemplating dropping my pledge. I would be playing the game solo, so managing 4-5 heroes with so many different abilities would be a tactical nightmare. Also, the table space needed for so many cards will be extensive. Without giving specific details, can you clarify how many heroes are required for each quest and side quest?

Thanks
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Skaak
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jrvanarsdall wrote:

You say the game can be played with 2 heroes, but someone from the Ares team told me that most quests will require 4-5 heroes.
I can't speak to the side quests, but Simone has stated multiple places that the main quests all have a 2 hero minimum. I imagine the dragon add-on is the most likely to break this pattern if anything does, since the dragon sounds absolutely epic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan VanArsdall
United States
Littleton
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Skaak wrote:
jrvanarsdall wrote:

You say the game can be played with 2 heroes, but someone from the Ares team told me that most quests will require 4-5 heroes.
I can't speak to the side quests, but Simone has stated multiple places that the main quests all have a 2 hero minimum. I imagine the dragon add-on is the most likely to break this pattern if anything does, since the dragon sounds absolutely epic.
Im getting conflicting information. Game looks great, but I'd really like to get some clarity on this subject before I invest ~$200. Here's the message I sent to Ares and their reply.

-

I play mostly solo. One thing I didn't like about Galaxy Defenders was that many of the missions required 4 or 5 heroes to play. It's time consuming to keep up with so much strategy. Since the playing field is more confined with Sword and Sorcery, will all or most missions only need a minimum of 1 or 2 heroes?

Thanks

-

Sorry Ryan
most of missions need 4-5 heroes

But I think to play S&S is easyest than to pleay GD

I hope that can help you

All the best

Ares Staff


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Kaplan
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes can we please have confirmation on this, can he game be played with 2-3 heroes? As a mostly solo gamer myself 4-5 just seems like too much to keep track of in a game like this...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Kaplan
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
From the rulebook: The minimum number of heroes required to play is 2.

From the project page: Solo Play. A single player controlling two or more heroes can play the entire campaign.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan VanArsdall
United States
Littleton
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mjktheatre wrote:
From the rulebook: The minimum number of heroes required to play is 2.

From the project page: Solo Play. A single player controlling two or more heroes can play the entire campaign.
Rulebook is vague and does not say minimum per quest. Ares confirmed that most quests will require 4-5 heroes, but I don't know the individual who made the comment. Figured Simone could provide the definitive answer, since he's the man.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simone Romano
Italy
Rome
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,

There was a misunderstanding with the Ares staff, SORRY!

This is the official statement (I'm the rule writer... I hope you can believe me )

The minimum number of heroes is 2 for all standard quests (ACT I, ACT II and Side Quests).
We are still evaluating the last Vastaryous battle, while is still probably we cannot guarantee that the minimum number will remain 2 (it may be increased to 3 or 4) arrrh.
In any case, I would like to suggest you to try also the game with 4 heroes because more heroes in play means much more strategy and interaction between different and multiple classes and powers.
Thanks to all of you!
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan VanArsdall
United States
Littleton
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Simone Romano wrote:
Hi,

There was a misunderstanding with the Ares staff, SORRY!

This is the official statement (I'm the rule writer... I hope you can believe me )

The minimum number of heroes is 2 for all standard quests (ACT I, ACT II and Side Quests).
We are still evaluating the last Vastaryous battle, while is still probably we cannot guarantee that the minimum number will remain 2 (it may be increased to 3 or 4) arrrh.
In any case, I would like to suggest you to try also the game with 4 heroes because more heroes in play means much more strategy and interaction between different and multiple classes and powers.
Thanks to all of you!
Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls