http://fortressat.com/ Wed, 19 Jun 2013 03:15:40 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2939#josc40031 [quote=MattDP][quote]Others such as seeding the order matrix and opposed die rolls are not so great.[/quote] Sounds like we largely agree about this game, but what didn't you like about seeding the matrix? Seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable way of keeping the players on their toes and ensuring plenty of variability.[/quote] I thought seeding the matrix was overkill. Just more randomness for the sake of randomness. The combination of the initiative track and the asymmetrical order costs was more than enough in my mind. And if left at just that, FF would have been a tighter, faster amd more importantly, a better game. It's almost as if all the GMT developers fail to rein in Mr. Jensen's designs and force him to be more editorial. So really I'm not suggesting the that the seeding mechanisim is a bad idea, rather that its inclusion in FF is. -Will Bulwyf Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:12:15 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2939#josc40028 [quote]Others such as seeding the order matrix and opposed die rolls are not so great.[/quote] Sounds like we largely agree about this game, but what didn't you like about seeding the matrix? Seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable way of keeping the players on their toes and ensuring plenty of variability. MattDP Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:08:11 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2939#josc40025 Excellent review Matt. Like you I admired the innovative use of various wargame mechanics in a new combination that is Fighting Formations. Some like the initiative track and assest cards are great. Others such as seeding the order matrix and opposed die rolls are not so great. I was also suprised, in a bad way, at how slow FF is to play. I wanted to like FF, but eventually I had to admit that it wasn't a very good or fun game. Maybe next time Mr. Jensen. -Will Bulwyf Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:34:05 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2939#josc40023 What an excellent review. I loved this: "But it’s the sort of thing that bothers a certain sort of historical gamer" i.e. rules lawyering, buzz-killing hemorrhoids who demand a certain type of "accuracy" that never really reflects reality but is trotted out as an excuse to complain about games that aren't boring and dry enough. I intend to use the phrase "historical gamer" as a sly putdown often, especially when those dessicated vultures swoop down on great games like Manoeuvre and begin to feed. Also, great writing style. craniac Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:38:13 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2939#josc40022 Timely review for me - I picked this up last week and am looking forward to getting it to the table. I agree that the 'active/inactive' sides of the counters seems fiddly, and I'm not sure how much it really adds to gameplay. It seems lifted from the Storm Over Arnhem system, but I think there may have been a better way to handle having more firepower when you're active rather than just reacting. engelstein Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:19:02 +0100