Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About DPalmer43

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Southfield, Michigan, United States
  1. FFG = Frequently Frustrating Gamers Don't hold your breath.
  2. After playing the published version, I came away un-impressed. Not from the mechanics, they're fine. From the middling problems associated with the production values. Specifically: > Tiles depict the territory and land type. One is color coded, no problem. The other is depicted by pictures. None of which are shown in the instructions. There are hills and mountains, towns, cities, villages and castles, rivers and lakes, and woods. But some tiles show what appear to be hills, along with structures. Are the structures towns? Cities? Villages? Is the tile both a hill AND a village? Who knows. Nowhere in the instructions is there a legend showing what is what. And there are some cards in the Conscription deck that refer specifically to a "town" tile. > Use the "mixed arms" optional rules! The distribution of Captains to Company's is 18 Captains to 40 Companys. With only 3 out for show, you could go through a significant drought of Captains. The Mixed Arms optional rule allows a flushing if 3 of a kind (captains or companys) is showing. > 30 VP's is too easy to get to. In our game, albeit we were playing too defensively, only 2 Captains came out for the entire game. One player started on a papal tile (2 VP's per turn) and started buying VP's almost immediately (for 5 Florins, you can buy 7 VP's). By the time he was at 20+ points, we were still floundering, trying desperately to get a Captain in order to build a decent army. The game lasted 6 turns before the game was over. Like I said, we played defensively, growing our domains, when we should have been more aggressive and attacked. But with lone companies to send out for slaughter, it would have been suicide. Only 2 of us had Captains, so that a decent sized army could be mustered. > The Army and Company tokens should have stickers in order to read the numbers on them. On the board, you can't really tell your #2 Company from your #3 Company. Simpy having stickers applied to the tokens would make things easier. So much easier. > Card timing. Nowhere in the instructions does it mention the use of the Conscription cards and their timing. My opponent had a card that had "Administration" in bold. Do you play the card during your turn in the administration phase? Anytime during the phase? At the start of the phase? At the end? It made a difference as it was a "rob your opponent of 2 Florins" type of card. At the START of the Administration phase, there wasn't any money to be had (you get your Florins during the administration phase). So when his turn came (he was 3rd in the order), and wanted to rob the 4th player, can he? Can he use his card any time during any players Administration phase? We came up with our own ruling, but it would have been nice to see it in the rules. An example or even a sentence or two. And no, I don't expect FFG to issue a FAQ or anything like that. They've already shown (with ToI) that FAQ's aren't their style. For $80, I would have expected better.
  3. There are 5 different tile categories and 8 different tile types. Yet NO pictures showing what the differnce between a village, city, etc... Difference between a mountain and a town? Needs SOMETHING in the rules!
  4. Signed! Curious if a) FFG had a presence at Origins this year and if so b) anyone spoke to them about the need for errata, or a presence on their boards, or the issues with FotB, etc....
  5. Aussie_Digger said: Nice write up, looks like a really good scenario, In you description of the set up you have that there are 2 Panzer IV's but in the images looks like you have a couple of tigers. You are correct sir. Snagged the Tigers instead of the Panzer IV's from the box and didn't notice until after the first turn. Instead of swapping out, and then having photos with different tanks, we decided to continue with the wrong tanks but the right stats (which is what really mattered anyways). Besides, he liked the paint jobs on the Tigers better than what I did on the Panzer IV's anyways
  6. If you've got FotB and want to try out a really neat scenario, Bill sent me one that he's worked on and I volunteered to be a guinea pig. I posted the AAR over on the geek: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/657320/custom-scenario-encounter-at-dubno . Compared to the scenario's in the book, this one is right up there with the best of 'em. Kudo to Bill on a job well done. This one was a blast and will be hitting the table several more times.
  7. I wonder if a Pacific Expansion could be done without incorporating naval and air battles more into the gameplay? When I think of the Pacific theatre, I think more of the naval battles, P-40's and Zeros tearing up the skies. Not so much the ground war (yes I know it existed, but that's what comes to mind when I think of the Pacific theatre). Personally, I think we've seen the last of ToI expansions. I think that FFG have had their fill. If they wanted, they could make more money by simply taking the existing product and repackaging it as tank packs, infantry packs, map packs and the like. I'm sure that they'd be able to sell six Panzer IV's in a blister pack for $7.99 or a set of six infantry bases with an assortment of regular/elite/machine gun and mortar crews for $5.99 at your local gaming store. The molds already exist, all they would need is the packaging (which is simple), and bingo, you're there.
  8. Played it a couple times, both sides. It's a good scenario. Replayability comes from the variable Soviet reinforcement rolls. Really makes a difference whether you get a lone T-34/76 or get a pair of them along with an SU-122! The AT-guns didn't last long in our matchups and in each of the contests, it came down to the end. Of the scenarios in FotB, this one was one of the better ones, IMHO.
  9. Aussie_Digger said: well maybe there are other things missing from this scenario that we havent picked up on yet that might help it out....who knows (FFG) I must admit im dissapointed in how many errors and oversights that have been published surely when an expansion is in development for a year everything should be 100% plenty of time to have staff and outsiders to pick up on errors. I was looking forward to this expansion as i enjoy making my own scenarios (have picked up 2 copies) but it is good to play out the ones that come with the game aswell. Also Scammer i posted something on the forum at BGG asking your thoughts on Shock and awe and why you thought it was a joke, as I played this one the other night with a friend and it came down to the last round and last roll of the dice. Sorry, haven't gotten over to BGG this week. The office has blocked it off for some ridiculous reason. I looked back into my notes and Shock and Awe wasn't the joke. It was Meat Grinder. I had started my Meat Grinder notes on my Shock and Awe page and got them confused. Sorry for the confusion. Shock and Awe wasn't bad. Wasn't great, but wasn't bad. At least it seemed balanced. We plowed into Meat Grinder and the wheels fell off the wagon as it were.
  10. Aussie_Digger said: i have been looking at this scenario and looks like it would be a fun one to play. Any chance Bill you could let us know on here what the mistakes are and what is missing. the possible erorrs in the published scenario that i can see - as above "ground attack air support 1" ( combined air support deck1??) -no command objectives on the german set up side - the german command objective 2 on map 32a (is it ment to be a russian one? as there are no russian objectives at all only a blue one) -8 german half tracks (only 6 with the base game) please let us know Bill so we can get playing this one, as the published version stands it is unplayable (im not holding my breath for a quick release of errata from FFG) We used the combined air support deck 1 and the map exactly as it's set up in the book. We also used a pair of british halftracks from the DotF expansion to make up for the lack of German half tracks. Even without German command objectives, you're not going to find this scenario very "fun". There is something very "wrong" about this scenario. Capture one objective within 10 turns. The Germans have just as many squads as the Soviets, they also have the 8 Halftracks and then have 5 pieces of Armor. Add to that, the Germans can use the Balkas to move half way up the map unseen. The Germans can take the bridge in 3 turns easily by just overwhelming the Soviets with their sheer numbers. The Germans have 21 pieces on the board that inflict damage on the Soviets, versus just 10 pieces for the Soviets. And there's very little protection for the Soviets (manmade or otherwise). Give the scenario a try and see what you get. But what we played (3 times total) and what I've read around here, there's no way the Germans don't win in more than 4 turns unless you're playing it so ultra conservatively that it makes it ridiculous. In fact, it's shouldn't be a problem to win before the Soviets get their first reinforcement in at the end of Turn 3
  11. DPalmer43


    Dogma79 said: Yes I know, but what is sense of balkas then? We need official clarif.!!! Where are the designers? Just ONE answer!!! Good luck with THAT one
  12. Kingtiger said: Grand Stone said: As an example, night hunt in design series has one tiny missprint, which there have been sevral reports questions about. If you dont relize the missprint the scenario would be completly different. However FFG has not bothered to reply. The sad part is that this is one of the excelet scenarios, IF it is played correctly. I don't get it either that no FFG official bothers to reply officially to questions raised on this board or on BGG for that matter. Yeah, but how often did an official FFG representative come by to even mention that FotB was delayed??? For months we were left with rumor and speculation. Was it going to be at Origins? GenCon? Christmas??? We waited and waited for leaks and previews. When it comes to communication, FFG would rather spend their time on proofreading and playtesting (<= last statement meant to be 100% sarcasm!).
  13. From what I understand, the delays were due to molding issues in China. If this was indeed the case, FFG could have spent that time playtesting and proofreading. Doing all of the things that didn't have to do with the plastic pieces (which were still of poorer quality than in DotF and Normandy if you count the fact that the machine guns (Soviet) that I have require finesse to fit into the bases and the extra sprues hanging from the German Panthers). It is only my opinion, but I think that FFG dropped the ball with FotB and produced a poor product when it comes to the complete package. When a professional game company like FFG, who put out a ton of quality products every year, churns out 2nd rate &*#$ like this and expects gamers to pay top dollar, I don't like it.
  14. KlausFritsch said: I cannot agree with all the negativity. With a little thought, the one card that seems quite powerful (Elite Formations), changes tactics but does not upset the game balance. The misnomers for the deck or card are certainly strange, but also no game-breaker. It was easy to figure out what was actually meant. I have only played Tank Fight at Prokhorovka so far, start the Orel scenario now. Prokhorovka seemed fairly balanced to me, a very narrow German win in the last round. What I like about the Furry Bear: Balkas Trenches (long overdue), additional markers for trenches in the desert would have been nice Frozen river rules Instant mines (the Op card for laying minefields should be modified to create instant mines, laying real minefields takes much longer than the time gieven in ToI scenarios), although more instant mine markers would have been nice Expert specialization (haven't tried anything with saboteurs yet) Russian tank stats Ammo specializations (although they take some getting used to, and the HE needs clarifying) Neutral: Snow boards (nice to have, but I would have been satisfied with green boards and winter rules) Shares Air Support deck (at least you can remove the German cards and use the rest as Soviet Air Support deck) Saboteur deck (not tried yet, probably only good for certain scenarios) What I do not like: Ambiguous or incomplete rule wording, but that is a problem that I have with FFG rule-writing in general; somehow they are still verbally careless when writing rules Strange history mistakes in the opening text The Snow trait is not used enough, winter rules could have been better Missing winter weather deck Missing campaign specializations Wait, you LIKE the Balkas and the fact that you can stick a tank in them and they're invisible to the enemy but can't be seen? They have LOS but you can't trace LOS to them so long as they're in the Balkas?? That's yet another new rule that is completely screwed up in the Furry Bear. There are far too many "house rules" needed in this expansion. For cards, scenarios and terrain. The entire expansion appears to have been rushed to market without having been looked at, playtested or proofread.
  15. The Hungarian said: If anyone is yet to play this scenario then be prepared........ for abject disappointment and frustration. And I was the winner!?! Anyone perusing this mission could probably tell at a glance that the Germans don't really stand much of a chance, but given the fact that this expansion took so long to arrive, one could be forgiven for assuming that it had probably undergone rigorous play testing and would deliver on all counts once the battle was underway. Not so. Really, not so. The mission brief states that historically the Germans took a proper kicking. Good job too. After all those Germans were Very naughty and righteously deserved it. But THIS IS MEANT TO BE A GAME. If I want history I'll watch a documentary. TOI offers the best experience when gameplay allows for knife edge decision making, crucial prioritizing of actions and extemporaneous do or die situations. For me this evokes a narrative thread which is the connective tissue of a great game. This scenario however allows for the Russians to do literally anything and still walk it. It really is fun for no one. I even tried going easy on my opponent - The redoubtable Woo Woo - but there is no way this even approaches a 'gaming' experience. Its great that scenario designers are keen for feedback, but surely this is something that should happen way before they go to print ( It's not like FFG didn't have the time!), and certainly WAY before I spend 65 chuffing quid on the thing. I know FFG spout something about 'supplying the tools' for a fan based community of gamers, but I don't want to write the rules, I just want to play the game and for 65 chuffing quid (did I mention that already?) I expect some one else to do the hard work. Anyway, if anyone does insist on playing this debacle I would suggest :- (i) Give the Germans the Tank Buster deck instead of the supremely useless Ground Support Deck (ii) Make the Russians pay for using the Op cards from the very beginning and let the Germans use theirs for free. (iii) Give the Germans at least 1 tree where Division 1 deploy to give the AT gun a miniscule chance of returning fire at least once. (iv) German reinforcements on round 4: 1 Panther, 1 squad with officer and AT specialization. And finally, If you are going to waste a few hours playing this by the book (we quit on round 6. A T34 was already sat on the bridge. The Soviet reinforcements were completely superfluous ) and you are playing the Russians, you better supply the beers to give the German player something other to do than pull plastic soldiers from ill fitting plastic bases. 65 Chuffing quid! Jesus. I feel your frustration. I have yet to find a scenario in FotB that is playable. Although, we're just about to start Tank Fight at Prokhorvka. It appears that FFG spent all of the extra time on the release of FotB on...well...I'm not sure WHAT they spent the extra time on? What we have with Fury of the Bear so far is... > Panthers with extra plastic sprues on their bases (they didn't get trimmed) > Typos in the scenarios, citing the use of cards/decks that don't exist among others > A majority of the scenarios that don't work (read: completely unbalanced) > Cards that are so overpowered as to create a purely unenjoyable playing environment I don't mind a minor tweak here and there, but I'd like an expansion to be able to be played out of the box. FotB is NOT that case. It appears that every scenario requires major tweaking and changing. That many of the cards require major tweaks (i.e. Elite Formations). We will create our own scenarios eventually. But I'm starting to doubt whether or not it was worth $55 to get what I got. And I know that if FFG decides to bring out another expansion, I will NOT shell out more $$$$. FotB has soured me on FFG for the time being. Purely based on quality.
  • Create New...