html_removed
www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/p...
However, accidentally coming across another site with more information I think this product may have some useful items, especially if those maps are of the whole castle.
html_removed
www.ddmspoilers.com/ps_castleravenloft.p...
Forty figurines, thirteen interlocking gridded castle maps scaled for miniatures. Maybe I'm not weighing this against other options, but it looks good on it's own.
I've always loved the Ravenloft realm and all the extras associated with it.
Will want to see some gameplay reviews before I run out and buy it in Aug but it is on my radar.
I'm hoping that DDI will have a conversion for us to run the full Ravenloft Adventure with the d&d full rules.
critical-hits.com/2010/08/07/gen-con-201...
Well after watch a video of the unboxing of the Castle Ravenloft boardgame I have one thing to say.
Rip off.
This is a total rip off of Fantasy Flight games Descent boardgame.
critical-hits.com/2010/08/07/gen-con-201...
Well after watch a video of the unboxing of the Castle Ravenloft boardgame I have one thing to say.
Rip off.
This is a total rip off of Fantasy Flight games Descent boardgame.
No its not. It is actually one of a long line of Fantasy board games, which used to be very popular in the late 80's and 90's. Hero Quest, Hero Quest II, Warhammer Quest, an old D&D board game, all predated Descent. Descent, like this game, is nothing but another game in the genre. This game hasn't ripped anyone off. Or, if it has, the game it ripped off is the same game that Descent ripped off.
In any case, I will probably buy it. It looks pretty neat.
After looking at it more its not a rip off. But this and Decsent have alot in common.
So does Descent and Warhammer Quest/Hero Quest.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/p...
The linking bit on the main Wizards D&D page was not updated, and still shows "Available Now".
after a fair and good look, im feeling somewhat reserved from being totally excited,
im not sure what it was... the quality of the pieces and board bits seem fine enough. the art on the tiles is impressive, and i have no issue with solid uncolored miniatures.
i think i put unreal expectations on the game and fell for a downer after i saw the sneak peak. i am not looking to rain on anyones parade or happiness over this game coming out, ravenloft is after all my main favorite product to come out of DnD but i did wonder if anyone else felt the same?
I like that it is fairly simple and easy to play as a solo experience. That said, I'm still a little unsure of some of the movement rules. I don't like it that you stop your movement whenever you come to an unexplored tile edge. Also the movement of the monsters 'one tile towards the closest hero' seems a bit ambiguous. Exactly where do you put the monster on the tile? I suppose it moves to the edge of the next tile? I would have preferred the movement to be in squares, just so that it's a bit easier to quantify.
I got it yesterday and I'm pretty pleased!
Me too!
Also the movement of the monsters 'one tile towards the closest hero' seems a bit ambiguous. Exactly where do you put the monster on the tile?
The consensus over at boardgamegeeks.com says place it wherever you want. As I discovered last night, always putting the monsters in the optimal position (from the heroes' point of view) might make the game too easy. I recommend just sticking to the flavor of the game and don't try to "game" the system too much.
We played the Icon of Ravenloft adventure. We were kept on the edge of our seats through the whole game. We were always close to death, and afraid that just one more monster would wipe us. The decision to explore and place a tile, or pull an encounter card was agonizing! In the end we had to really pull together for the finale, but we pulled it off. We really enjoyed it and now that we're familiar with the rules, I expect that future sessions will be even better.
A couple of observations:
1: Monsters are placed on the "pile of Bones" on each tile
2: W just drew a monster card, I could not find where the Monster "Tile" were to be used. Reviewing them it looks like you should place the Tile and then see what it is, as Villian are only on the Tile.
3: we also place a Coffin token on each one that was printed on a tile.
4: Monsters seem to ALWAYS attack first (you find them After you move and attack). Takes more thinking on order of play! Don't lead with the wizard and always take a cleric!
Let us know if you find an errata!
3: we also place a Coffin token on each one that was printed on a tile.
We did this also at first, but actually you only use the Coffin tokens in a certain scenario, I believe it's #13.
They definitely need to come out with a FAQ and some rule clarifications, but we've played through scenarios #2 and #3 so far and really enjoyed it. We ended up losing #3 due to some really bad luck that forced us to use the last healing surge right before the main Villain appeared. We were playing with the ranger, thief, warrior, and cleric.
One thing we didn't notice the first time we played is that if a player doesn't expose a new tile then they still have to draw an encounter tile. That made the game much tougher than the first time we played.
This game needs it's own support forum, a FAQ, and some game play examples. I still definitely recommend the game, but we spent a good bit of time trying to dig out details from the rulebook that could have been made a bit clearer.
We played the Raid last night and we almost dropped everyone when we had 11 treasures (palying with a FULL party.
"I think this game is designed to kill you..."
Anyway, the Encounters seemed a little too harsh (in the large number of player games).
So, does anyone have any suggestions here? What would anyone think if we were to spawn two monsters instead of a monster and an encounter card when you explored into a black triangle tile?
am I correct in thinking that for black-arrow tiles, you both activate the monster AND draw an encounter card?
That what it looks like in the rules, but it seems harsh so I want to clarify. It's both - not just draw an encounter card?
Having now played several 5 player games, I have come to the decision that you draw encounter cards too often. The monsters themselves are very well balanced, and players -like- killing monsters; but encounters often do as much (or much more) damage as any monster, and it's not very exciting to 'disable that trap'. Or never use your dailies because of that shrieking skull following around behind you.
Anyway, the Encounters seemed a little too harsh (in the large number of player games).
So, does anyone have any suggestions here? What would anyone think if we were to spawn two monsters instead of a monster and an encounter card when you explored into a black triangle tile?
It seems fine to me the way it is.
Biggest "complaint" I've seen is the "I died and was neverr attacked by a monster" effect of the envrionment cards. More players, more draws, more potentila of "bad stuff"
There is quite a few uninteresting and non-damaging Encounter cards but it can be very easy for players to be squished by encounters that are more accurate than monsters and hit harder.
The wizard is especially prone to this. Low hp and defences are meant to balance with better ranged damage, but it doesn't compare favourably with the ranger and there is no advantage to staying a tile back from the monsters because you'll draw encounter cards instead.
Having now played several 5 player games, I have come to the decision that you draw encounter cards too often. The monsters themselves are very well balanced, and players -like- killing monsters; but encounters often do as much (or much more) damage as any monster, and it's not very exciting to 'disable that trap'. Or never use your dailies because of that shrieking skull following around behind you.
Anyway, the Encounters seemed a little too harsh (in the large number of player games).
So, does anyone have any suggestions here? What would anyone think if we were to spawn two monsters instead of a monster and an encounter card when you explored into a black triangle tile?
A mistake I made when first playing was drawing monsters with white triangles and encounters with black triangles, so something always happened, but it was one or another and not both. It made the game a little easier but more fun as it cut down on the combat glut and punishing number of encounters.
I enjoy the game, but it can be a little much for new players. For brand new gamers I might do the above while sticking to the actual rules for experienced board game players.
1. When monsters move from one tile to another, what square in the new tile do they move to?
2. What do the skulls on the tiles mean? Do they have a function?
I couldn't find these in the rules, unless I just plain missed them. Any help would be great!
-GR
Just opened the box last night, just a quick comment, G.R.1025, do you mean the skulls that indicate solid walls on the tiles?
1. When monsters move from one tile to another, what square in the new tile do they move to?
If they are moving from a square without a hero to with a hero they usually move right up to the hero. If they're moving closer to a hero but end up on a tile without a hero then it doesn't matter which square. Usually I move them from pile of skulls to pile of skulls.
2. What do the skulls on the tiles mean? Do they have a function?
I assume you mean the big skulls in the corner of some of the tiles. Like most of the tokens, this is used for a scenario or two. There's alot of unique little bits and pieces in the game that don't really overlap in purpose with the majority of the game.
Anyway, combining all this, simply means that bad luck on encounter cards can quickly wipe a group out; whereas monsters are almost always 'enjoyed' by the players. (The only time a monster was a problem was in a 5 person game, where the rogue ended up on the far side of the main villain from the rest of the party; the rogue spawned a Kobold who proceeded to kill the Rogue before the Rogue ever got to go again, even though the rogue had 6 HP when the Kobold was spawned. A kobold!)
Conclusion: Large person games seem to require a lot more teamwork, but that's usually not viewed as being as much 'fun' by most players; they want to do what seems interesting, not be forced into decisions because that's the only way the party will survive. For casual players, 2 or 3 at a time is best; 4 to 5 person games should only be for hardcore tacticians. Which of course is usually the opposite of the reality of how many of each type of person you have in a given group. Seems slightly backward.
Compared to other games I'll have to say nonetheless that the "hardcore tactician" approach is not that hardcore at all in my opinion.
If you compare the amount of preparation for a move with ghost stories having the promo "brainstorm" village tile (sorting the ghost deck every 2nd turn), Descent (oh my god don't get me started - a single dungeon level lasts 2 hours+), or other coop games it's rather ok for "beginning hardcore tacticians" in my humble opinion. (I'd rather be turned off if the wizard could run forward and survive on a regular basis to be honest)
As for traps - we counter many of them if possible (wizard, xp), if we are low on xp we only counter the area of effect traps (crossbow turret) and take the hits from the harmless ones. (well that is the fighter and perhaps the cleric/rogue/ranger) take them
(Tip for beginners: if you have the choice between using the wizard counter power and discarding xp always use the wizards power first - a treasure card might flip it up again!)
critical-hits.com/2010/08/07/gen-con-201...
Well after watch a video of the unboxing of the Castle Ravenloft boardgame I have one thing to say.
Rip off.
This is a total rip off of Fantasy Flight games Descent boardgame.
Wow. So, having not played the game or even seen it, you make a critical judgment displaying nothing but ignorance as to both games. Other than the fact that both involve running around a dungeon killing things, their incredibly disimilar. Ravenloft is a quick-playing (1 hour) randomly-generated game, with simple rules and easy tactics. It's cooperative and can be played solo. Descent doesn't play in under 4 hours (unless playing Road to Legends, but then that stretches the full game length to days), is competitive (players vs Overlord), is not random generated, and has a very hefty set of complex rules and interaction that bring a much deeper level of tactical play.
But yeah, otherwise, a total rip-off. By the way, when did the Ravenloft name come into play? Pre-Descent?