[CRL] Game Rules seem 85% complete

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
After playing this game a few times and coming accross some encounters cards there are to many questions as to what to do.

Example: all players had 4 health and encounter card picked up said to pick the player with the lowest health and that player losses 1 health. Nothing there to say what to do if everyone has teh same health.

Also when you move a monster 1 tile closer where on that tile do you place them, the bone pile or where ever you want?

There was some others but I don't recall them all right now. Although the rulebook seems way to condensed.


This game doesn't seem like it was even play tested at all or if it was all they hear was "oh wow this is so cool" and not anything else.

Come one Wizards, you should be doing better then this.

In your first example, I would roll of a d4 to decide which player gets the damage.

Second, when you move a monster to a new tile, that monster may move to any square on the new tile.

I agree that the rules could have been better defined, but it's not too difficult to adjudicate.
I'll agree with you - the rulebook was sparse at times.  However, a lot of problems can be solved once you realize you're thinking about them too hard.  For instance, when there's a tie - whether it's closest hero to a monster, or who's at the lowest health - it's up to the players to decide who gets the penalty.  It's a resource management thing - who can afford to pay for the HP loss?  Another big question that has arisen, with no real answer in sight: do coffins and other dungeon dressing - such as the altar in the chapel - block movement?  I feel confident that these questions will be answered when the next game comes out.

Zappa answered your second question.  Monster movement is tile-to-tile.  You can place the monster anywhere on the tile you like, and that means you can set them up where it's most advantageous for you to do so.

Finally, I take issue with your statement that you don't believe it was "play tested at all."  The game system works smoothly.  If you go back and listen to the podcasts, they found ways to make it more and more of a cooperative system.

Were some mistakes made?  Probably.  Is it still a fun game?  Absolutely.  Do I think Wrath of Ashardalon will be awesome?  Hells yeah.
What Misroi said.  Any time there is ambiguity, the players decide the outcome.  In this way you can make tactical decisions that give you the greatest advantage.  Unfortunately, you are correct that this point is never explicitly stated in the rules.
We have been making our decisions on what to do for most of these things but if you get place a skeleton or ghoul on any square you want, then you can really make this to your advantage so they don't get there charging or reach strike's.

If you do that then the monster will never ever get its ability. There should have been something said about where to place the monster in the rules. I am sure this must ahve come up durring play testing.


  1. Move

  2. Explore

  3. Draw monster card

  4. Place monster

  5. Move monster 1 tile *can't afford ink for this rule Must leave out


As was said that you can roll a d4 and see who losses the life, we just chose not to as no one had the lowest life score as we were all tied. Even this should have come up durring play testing and a condition put on the card or in rule book. If this was an RPG game then sure I can see making allot of things up to determine what to do, but its a board game and these situations should be defined in rulebook or on card.


Don't get me wrong I like the game and we have fun playing it every week. I just don't appreciate a $60 (US) game where you already find a fault durring the first 10 minutes of play (placing monster on new tile durring its move). Like I say I like this game but its almost completed, not a finished product due to lack of rules.
You can always rule that if there is a tie, the active player takes the damage (insted of rollig a die). The game is pretty cool...and yes a bit more rules or a faq would do the rest.


lordofmasks
Granted I know we can make our own rulings, but why should the rulebook not have even that info, if there is a condition that this card doesn't cover then make your own decision.

I find the rule book a little to condensed and laking for a board game. There wasn't enough play testing done ro cover situations I am sure came up or questions the play testers had.

WoTC is better then this.
We have been making our decisions on what to do for most of these things but if you get place a skeleton or ghoul on any square you want, then you can really make this to your advantage so they don't get there charging or reach strike's.

If you do that then the monster will never ever get its ability. There should have been something said about where to place the monster in the rules. I am sure this must ahve come up durring play testing.




Half of the strategy of the game is moving the monsters in legal ways that advantage the party. For instance if a hero just explored and is standing on the edge of a tile, and a monster must move adjacent to the hero and attack, then the player can decide where adjacent to him this will be. In this example the monster could stand adjacent to the hero in the hero's tile or the tile the hero is standing next to you. Depending on the situation this can give the players an edge.

I think the game was very well playtested and the balance and straight foward mechanics are clear evidence of this. However I do agree that the game needs an official FAQ to clear up some of the minor rules issues that come up from time to time. I am also a little disaponted that WOTC has not moved on this yet or has not relased some new online scenaros.

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 

There was one addon adventure they did release, its wasn't easy to find but here is the link if your interested.

www.wizards.com/dnd/files/RavenloftAdv.p...


Yeah, those two scenarios I have seen, but I want more.

I have played the zombie escape one, but have not got up to the sunsword one yet.

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 

I don't think we're going to see anymore extra adventures until the community contest is over. I am guessing that this is where WoTC is going to get them from.
We have been making our decisions on what to do for most of these things but if you get place a skeleton or ghoul on any square you want, then you can really make this to your advantage so they don't get there charging or reach strike's.

If you do that then the monster will never ever get its ability. There should have been something said about where to place the monster in the rules. I am sure this must ahve come up durring play testing.



It did come up in playtesting.

It was stated in the design notes/previews that players being able to place monsters to their advantage (i.e. placing a skeleton where it can't charge) was a DELIBERATE design decision, and built in to the difficulty of the game.

The rules are clear when you stop trying to fill in the blanks yourself with a false assumption that something is missing.

"Move 1 tile closer" is a complete instruction.
If there are 2 valid directions? Pick one.
Both are TRUE for "1 tile closer" so both are CORRECT.
Which square on the tile? Doesn't matter. It says nothing about squares, only tiles.
ANY square on the tile is still TRUE for being "1 tile closer".

It doesn't specify squares, therefore squares don't matter. Assuming they do matter is wrong - there is NOTHING in the game to give any indication that squares matter as part of that instruction.
Thus any square on the correct tile is valid and legal.

There is no fault. Nothing is lacking.
You are making up faults that don't exist, and claiming that it is missing rules it was never intended to have.

That's like saying a blue marble, in a package that says "Blue Marble", is flawed because it's not a red cube.
AlexandraErin: If last season was any indication, I think Encounters is pretty much the elemental opposite of "organized" play!
It was stated in the design notes/previews that players being able to place monsters to their advantage.



What you said right there is good information to have in the rule book, not in a forum somewhere or on youtube in hopes that an owner of the game will go there to find out more info.

As for me making up fault's your sadly mistaken on that. It wasn't hard to come across something that left us players asking, where does it go or what do we do we do when we all have the same hit points.


It was stated in the design notes/previews that players being able to place monsters to their advantage.


What you said right there is good information to have in the rule book, not in a forum somewhere or on youtube in hopes that an owner of the game will go there to find out more info.

As for me making up fault's your sadly mistaken on that. It wasn't hard to come across something that left us players asking, where does it go or what do we do we do when we all have the same hit points.


It might be nice to have that mentioned in the rules.
However, it is not necessary to mention it.
As stated, all these flaws are a result of overthinking, and trying to apply assumptions from other games to this one.

If someone tells you to "Take a blueberry muffin from the counter" and there are 4 blueberry muffins, you don't stop and think "WHICH blueberry muffin though? These are all blueberry, but he didn't tell me which specific one!"

No, you just take one of them and go "Mmmmm, muffin"

The same thing applies here. There are multiple heroes/tiles/squares which are valid? Then pick ANY of them. Just like muffins.

You all came up with a situation that left you asking something that you shouldn't have been asking.

I've demoed this game to about a dozen different groups at conventions and store game days since it came out. Not one of those groups ever stopped and asked what you and your friends were asking. They all automatically understood that if A and B are both valid, they could pick whichever one they wanted.

None of them have had me explain that this was part of the design intent, or that it was explicitly allowed. They all just understood it automatically.

All the rules for the game are there in the rulebook. If you think a rule is missing, you're wrong. If a situation comes up that there is no rule for, it's because there is not supposed to be a rule.
AlexandraErin: If last season was any indication, I think Encounters is pretty much the elemental opposite of "organized" play!
Or maybe the flaws are due to lack of information.

You draw an encounter card. It says the player with the least amount of hitpoints losses a hit point, however all four players have five hit points. No where does it gice a condition what to do if this occures.

To use your example:

If someone tells you to take a blueberry muffin from the counter and there are four blueberry muffins, each one with different icing on it you would want clerification as to which one to take.

All this due to condensed rules and lack of information as a direct result from not enough time spent testing the game out.
I think that the basic problem is that players are used to having rules clearly specified and when this isn't so they get nervous. Not a fault of the players or the designers, but a current trend.

When I first started playing OD&D in the 1970's, the rules were occasionally vague and incomplete. Much interpretation had to happen and all sorts of things got house ruled. As time has passed, D&D has evolved into larger and larger rulebooks, each more complete and specific to minute details of the game.

So when Ravenloft has a smaller rulebook, this troubles some. What I suggest is just to give the game a shot and deal with issues collectively rather than trying to find every detail in the rulebook. It seems odd at first, but should become more natural as time passes.

Just my two coppers.

Marv (Finarvyn) Master of Mutants (MA and GW) Playing 5E D&D and liking it! OD&D player since 1975

I was also confused by much of the wording of the rules when I first started playing this, especially the whole 'within one tile' and the sometimes confusing encounter cards. However, it becomes much easier to interpret once you've played a few times, especially if you and your friends come to logical solutions where the instructions seem lacking. I do agree though that there could have been much more clarification over certain things.
I have gotten allot ofpointers on what to do and they have all been to the effect of "Make house rules" for what needs to be clarified.

The big problem with that is if you play somewhere else and they have there own rules to clarify the discrepencies, its going to be different.

One person may make it so that its fare and you actualy play against the game and another may make it so that its favored to the players and your just not going to lose.

If the rule book stated what is to be done then it would make it fun to play. However due to the arguing over the unclear game rules (depending who is hosting) its not the most enjoyable to play at times.

Lack of standard rules = Lack of fun.
I think what everyone has been trying to say is that there's no rule missing.

I think people that are good at doing geometric proofs have no issue with these rules.  Those that hate doing proofs probably take issue that there isn't a clearly written, the active player makes all decisions within an action/rule.

But if the player with the lowest health takes 1 damage, and they all have 4 health--4 is the lowest health, they all qualify, so all are eligible.

Move the monster one tile closer to the hero.  You know that every square on the tile is considered the tile, so move the monster onto the tile.

No one is saying that this "golden rule" wouldn't be useful, but that it's not "missing".