Jump to content



Photo

What Would you Like Changed In the Game?


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#1 Chimaera

Chimaera

    Member

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 08:10 AM

This is purely a hypothetical question but a pertinent one at this point in time. A lot of people didn't like how the game played although most loved the look and feel of it. With FFG aquiring the license now would seem a good time to raise any issues that people would like to see amended or changed completely. Certain members may also have views on what they would like to see added to the game and these would be also good to hear. It would be even better if players who hated the game posted their dislikes about the game and what stopped them buying in or indeed what stopped them playing on a regular basis for those who did buy in. This would at least give FFG pointers on how they could remedy some of the issues. Personally I like Tannhauser although I do have a few niggles with it. Ultimately if FFG can make changes that are acceptable? It will mean the game will sell more and we can all enjoy it more with faster releases and better support.

 

It would be good to hear peoples views/opinions.



#2 Urd

Urd

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 12:16 PM

My First point to adress would be Weapon range:

The minimum range makes some weapons rather hard tu use. at the moment the whole game contentrates about finding a Circle on wich your enemy cant get you, to end your move on. I do understand the need to balance those weapons, but ranged attacks should only be prohibitet to adjecent circles. You could put some penalties on attacks below "minimum range".

Escpecially Grenades are hard to use ATM, one point is the stated minimum range, but another is, that you can throw tehm only in circles that arent in use.ot happens sometimes that two or threec haracters stand in a row in a corridor. this isn't particular dangerous, since you can't throw a grenade in there, but it should. So I would say: it shuld be possible to throw granades at circles where Characters stand. Also an idea would be to throw grenades "around the corner", somthing like "You may throw a Grenade on any circle that shares a color with the Circle you stand on, or you are adjecent to, if you throw the grenade on a Circle that shars not a Path with your position, you suffer a -2 Penalty to your combat value", or similar, hope you get the idea.

 

another Point regarding Combat: Melee through doors. I personally think Melee should be possible on all adjacent circles, even if there not on the same Path.

 

Also running over the map while the enemy sees you isn't any dangerous. My Idea would be some kind of "opportunity Action" simiar to the counter attack. if an enemy enters your line of sight, you may spend a VP AND(!) your Action of this turn, if you havent used it already, to attack him. That would add new tactical Elements as guarding corridors with troops.



#3 The Sundance Kid

The Sundance Kid

    Member

  • Members
  • 530 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 02:00 PM

I never found the ranges with weapons difficult at all. I like them, and it actually makes sense. You do not fight with heavy weapons in close quarters combat. Biggest rule in Urban warfare. You also loose any use of a knife creating a power creep in the game, something I liked about the game, there was a very small element in it, but dropping ranges would make it bigger.

 

Removing ranges takes quite a bit of tactics out of the game a positioning. Almost no thinking involved. It would create a LAME DUCK game. There would be as much tactics involved as a game of pogs.

 

Urd said:

 

 

 

another Point regarding Combat: Melee through doors. I personally think Melee should be possible on all adjacent circles, even if there not on the same Path.

 

 

 

So how many people have you been able to punch with a door in front of them. Sure you can fire a gun through it (if you know someone is behind it)

 

But if you ever seen troops entering a door way they don't shoot or bunch it. They blast it. Realistic in my opinion.

 

The biggest thing I want changed is the bull rushing rule.



#4 Urd

Urd

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 03:43 AM

An Minimum range of 2 makes Sense, yes, because in melee your opponent will stab you while you try to pull the trigger.

Even the minrange of 3 for Assaultrifles isn't a Problem. (although i don't see any realsitic reason for this, except balancing) The only real Problems that I see are Heavy weapons and Grenades. Minrange 4 is a huge disatvantage, its just to easy to position you out of range, Yes the Weapon does a lotta pain, but with this penalty it feels to weak.

for granades the range isnt the big problem, because you can throw them behind an enemy, if the circles free, wich is the real problem with Grenades as said: It is unrealistic that you can't throw a grenade in a bunch of people.

In the very most games I playes Barrys guns and Frags are rarely used, if at all.

 

reagring melee thorugh doors: you always could open the door and punch them. ;)



#5 The Sundance Kid

The Sundance Kid

    Member

  • Members
  • 530 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 06:50 AM

 

 

Even the minrange of 3 for Assaultrifles isn't a Problem. (although i don't see any realsitic reason for this, except balancing) The only real Problems that I see are Heavy weapons and Grenades. Minrange 4 is a huge disatvantage, its just to easy to position you out of range, Yes the Weapon does a lotta pain, but with this penalty it feels to weak.

There is 1 disadvantage, but it is a very powerful weapon. You mentioned game balance. Why would you want to pull it? More people would complain about the power creep of it.

 

 

for granades the range isnt the big problem, because you can throw them behind an enemy, if the circles free, wich is the real problem with Grenades as said: It is unrealistic that you can't throw a grenade in a bunch of people.

 

I having a hard time reading your comments. But it sounds like you are under the impression that a grenade can only hit one person. It hits everyone adjacent to the thrown grenade. 

 

I believe that a grenade MUST be thrown on a empty space. I would like to see a new rule that says you can throw it on a occupied space.

 

 

In the very most games I playes Barrys guns and Frags are rarely used, if at all.

 Really? He is quite effective in our games.

 

1.) Are you using him right?

 

2.) Does the Reich just ambush him only?

reagring melee thorugh doors: you always could open the door and punch them. ;)

 

And you can always hold the door closed. The door rules add variety to game play and tactics.



#6 supervike

supervike

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 01:51 PM

The only changes I would suggest would be to attempt to make STORY MODE much more engaging...and 'storyish'.  As opposed to characters just moving around to various locations.



#7 Nasher

Nasher

    Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 11:57 PM

For some aesthetic and "realistic" reasons, i would be pleased to see a few names slightly changed.

Hermann Von Heïzinger --> Hermann Von Heizinger (there is no dieresis on i letter in german)

Yula Korlïtz --> Yula Korlitz (same reason)

 

For some simplicity reasons, i would also replace "add a X-point bonus to the result of each die (except Natural 1s)" by "reduces by X points the Combat roll Difficulty Score". The amount of successes is the same but this replacement would be a real time gain.



#8 Chimaera

Chimaera

    Member

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 20 August 2009 - 08:00 AM

It's interesting to read what people would like changed to improve the game. I have to admit I thought maybe some more broader and wide sweeping changes would be desired but this is not the case so far. I will admit I have my own opinions which I will post in a few days. I didn't want to ask a question and then answer it straight away with what I think. I have popped a link below to the duplicate thread on the BBG site just in case some of you never go over there. It may interesting for you to read the comments on that site though.

 

www.boardgamegeek.com/article/3820206#3820206

 



#9 Prophecy

Prophecy

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 20 August 2009 - 10:59 PM

Hi,

 

before i start i have to apologize my bad english( I ´m from germany).

These are the things, i wish to change/corrected, some of them i already changed by myself

 

1. I dont like the counterattack rules, because nobody in my playgroup used them and i think they are to weak to paying a VP for

I like the Alertness! option from Doom, the Boardgame,so i created a houserule for putting them into TH. When a character ends his/her movement he/she can give up his/her action to put an Alertness! token under the figure. Whenever an Enemy crosses the Path of the Alerntess-Figure, the Alertness Token can be activated and the character can make a range attack. This is only allowed with common ranged weapons (like Pistols, Automatics, Heavy) but not with Magnificators, Dooms Evas Whip, grenades,sha-na-ra ect.

When a character uses his Alertness! he/she must pay 1 VP for this action.

I put this rule in, because i think, the most problems in the game are running from an enemy and getting out of his range. But normally a soldier prepare for fire when he hears an near enemy. I liked this option in doom and so i wanted it in TH(but with the Payment of 1VP, because every Char want to make Alertness rather than normal attacks i guess).

 

2. I dont like the story mode a much, because it is only a deathmatch and the story is not really in the game setting. Scenarios are cool, but the story mode has to be a main part i think, so it have to be more Storylike.

In my group, we play the story part like this.

Every put his Primary/Secondary Token on the board like normal. Every token has its own skill-to-accomplish like in the normal game mode.

But every skill needs a special action, like in a movie, to accomplish the goal.

For example, an Engineer/Cold Blooded Goal:

To accomplish the Ingeneer Mission, the character has to really repair/mod an device. The cold Blooded Mission need a "Mind" check or something.

Here is a table, i created, which sets up the required Items/Checks/actions for every Mission

Before the game starts, every Player looks at his Primary token and search for the matching entry in the table, for his goals.(Every Faction has his own tables, i dont finished them yet, because we have too few tst matches played yet.)

Example Table Reich

1. Reason(dunno the english translation)/weaponry (same)

The Germans have to decrypt an coded weapon plan and destroy the existing one.

To decrypt the plan, the character have to make a Mind Skill Check with a difficulty of 6+(he/she still needs the Mind Talent)When the character succeeds to decrypt the plan before it is destroyed, the reich gets 3 Victory Points

To destroy it, the char must have the Weaponry Talent and have to plant explosives (give up an action). In the next round,after the characters movement, an explosion will destroy the place with the token (just like an Dynamite-Explosion i.e. 2 Auto-Wounds ect.)unless the character is killed (he posseses the timer).When the reich destroys the place, they gain 3 VPs.

 

Example of an secondary Mission

Slight at Hand (dunno, you know what i mean): the reich has to pass a security system with defensive Weapons, to dismantle them

The character must have the required Skill and make a Movement Skill Check of  6+. If he/She fails, he/she suffers One Wound, and can try it again in the next round.When the test succeeds in the first try, the reich gains 2 VP, for every other try, only 1VP.

 

Every Character can still buy Skills, like in the core Rules.

If you are interested, i can post more mission Goals and rules.

What are your thoughts about my house rules?

 



#10 Plageman

Plageman

    Member

  • Members
  • 288 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 08:41 AM

i'd like to see a more "compact" game using character and item cards instead of tokens.

I'd also would like to see the introduction of "keywords" so we could more easily target "mechanical" or "demonic" characters.

Here's an idea

TH_Char_JohnMacNeal_EN.png

TH_Item_Colt_45_1911_A1_EN.png

TH_Item_Major_EN.png

TH_Char_HermannVonHeizinger_EN.png

 



#11 The Sundance Kid

The Sundance Kid

    Member

  • Members
  • 530 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 11:15 AM

where did you get those character cards?

 

do you have them for all the characters?



#12 Torbal

Torbal

    Member

  • Members
  • 214 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 01:28 PM

I'd like to see an end to the Pathfinding System. Making the map elements easier to see would eliminate most of the need for the color circles on the present TH map as most paths are quite obvious if you can just make out the room and corridor contents.

 

And I would like to see more variety in objective locations. And I would love if FFG would release a set of double-sided paper maps, that would be cheaper but provide a lot more locations to fit with all the background fluff of the TH story, at a price that could be reached by most gamers.



#13 joseaguerof

joseaguerof

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 08:00 PM

I don't think they should trash the pathfinder system, it's part of what makes this game unique and simple enough to grasp yet adds it a tactical side of really stealth play. 

I must say, that we shouldn't really expect FFG making big changes to the game, this would go against what they've done in the past (Talisman, Battlelore).  And I wouldn't really like them changing the pathfinder system or anything else that would render my game obsolete.

What I do expect, is for them to clean up the rules a bit and maybe add some new rules of their own.

I would finally love to see the unpainted minis available in the US and hope for a scenario booklet a la Tide of Iron or Descent, which could flesh out a bit more the story mode.

The game as it is has the potential of becoming a miniatures games or a boardgame (right now I feel it's a hybrid), and by either providing more scenarios or releasing more forces and maps you could push it in one direction or the other, so it'll be interesting to see how they wish to handle this game.



#14 Plageman

Plageman

    Member

  • Members
  • 288 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 08:25 PM

The Sundance Kid said:

where did you get those character cards?

 

do you have them for all the characters?

I did them myself. Right now I have a full set for John Mac Neal and all the character cards... but only in French.

Since FFG is upgrading the game I won't create new ones until I've seen the new rulebook



#15 Chimaera

Chimaera

    Member

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 10:20 PM

Just got to say loving those cards Plageman. Why didn't TOY produce them like you have in the first place?



#16 Chimaera

Chimaera

    Member

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 10:20 PM

Well in the first of my views I would like to cover off the map & the pathfinding system.

 

Personally I think they should do away with the pathfinding system. I know some will not like this idea and I am not out for a war on the topic but I think it is actually now one of the things that holds the game back. My reasoning is below.

The system takes away 50% of possible board movement. This means less room for manuever, massive wastage of space & very limited use of the possible board. In some ways the you could view the PS system making the map a waste of money. I also do not like the way furniture has no movement possibility. In most games it would act a cover terrain which is something else I will come on to in another post. The PS system also becomes very familiar after a while and loses it's initial impact to become quite boring. I also believe to some extent the system dumbs down some of the combat mechanics making for a less interesting/fun game.

Some will also say how the PS system makes line of sight so easy. I would say this is a moot point. I play a number of other games and yes occasionally you have to get the sewing thread out to work out a tricky LOS but this takes a few seonds. The point of keeping the PS system for the sake of LOS is a weak one in my opinion. Especially when you think of the playing area that could be gained and all the extra fun you could have arguing about LOS..

The maps are currently made on a very thick card stock. This makes them quite heavy and they could quite easily make them a lesser thickness e.g. Like Okko ones. This would make them much lighter making it easier to transport the game and cost less to produce both of which are issues.

I also like the idea of modular maps but I am not sure how well they would translate in Tannhauser. It would take very careful map planning to execute but yes I would most definitely be in favour. I would love to see the castle expanded e.g. the grounds outside. That Dirty Dozen scenario is waiting LOL. Once again TOY may have missed a trick.

The lack of maps is seriously holding the game back. 4 maps released since the game came out was a terrible move by TOY and one that FFG need to address rapidly after they get the latest one out to the rest of us outside France. The issues mentioned above may be part of the reason for TOY not getting maps to market quick enough. The cost of design, materials and weight I am sure would be factors.

Lastly I believe the whole game could do with a shake up from top to bottom. I will make some more of my opinions known in further posts. Yes maybe I will be playing devils advocate in some area's but they are relevant and I don't think FFG or players will be doing themselves or the game any favours by ignoring them. If the current format of the game was a total winner then I am sure both this and the FFG forums would be hives of activity. As we all know this is not the case meaning Tannhauser has a serious retention problem. Why is this? I don't believe it is down to just the lack of new characters, maps or expansions.



#17 Chimaera

Chimaera

    Member

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 11:07 PM

Deleted
 



#18 Chimaera

Chimaera

    Member

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 22 August 2009 - 11:08 PM

Sorry I forget to mention in the previous post (page 1) regarding map changes that standard squares should replace the circles/ PS system as the standard map format.



#19 Torbal

Torbal

    Member

  • Members
  • 214 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 06:50 AM

I bought TH with the idea that if I didn't like the game I could still use the minis for other miniature gaming uses, and that is what I have done.

I initially enjoyed TH quite a bit, feeling that the game experience as a whole merited a higher rating from me than the game probably deserved.

What slowed down greatly my continued plays was the lack of variety in the maps, and as Chimaera pointed out, the PF system restricted movement too much. So again, I would be in favor of dropping the Pathfinding System. And more and cheaper maps.



#20 Cyscott1

Cyscott1

    Member

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 12:03 PM

I like the PF system. They could add more circles to the maps though. I'd like to see more maps too but I prefer the good quality. Maybe they could sell them both ways? Paper or card stock. And by all means flesh out the story mode and give us a senario editor plz.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS