Weekly Trash - Fury of Dracula

Uba left out a very important part of her Dracula strategy. Uba usually waits 4-5 turns to get the Hunters all relaxed and liquored up on Bourbon and Beer. Then she'll pounce on tasty Mina and the other Hunters.

One nice benefit of the card locations is that you can psych out inexperienced hunters into thinking you're near them by looking at your cards when they move.
I emphasize the inexperienced hunters bit.
This is a great game, but I have never played with anyone who's played more than once. It would be great to get schooled by experienced players.

Combat for Drac is great near the beginning of the game but it gets more and more difficult as the hunters get boatloads of awesome items to ream you with. So in that sense I feel that the game encourages hiding as the game goes on.

ubarose wrote:

iguanaDitty wrote:

Combat for Drac is great near the beginning of the game but it gets more and more difficult as the hunters get boatloads of awesome items to ream you with. So in that sense I feel that the game encourages hiding as the game goes on.

That's where the most difficult decision for Dracula comes in. If he attacks Mina as soon as the first night falls, before she has a chance to get a bunch of good items and cards, he has a better chance of getting that bite, but then he has revealed his location.

I've had (or seen) Mina hop a train or boat at the first night to try to stop this or another hunter would not be too far away. So it's not a given that you catch her when you want or it will be safe. Also, you might be unlucky and Mina ends up being more well armed then you think.

OTOH, the start of the game can be best time to drop a vamp since you can place yourself anywhere on the board away from the hunters.

You almost have to look at it on a case by case basis and mix up your openings. Sometimes you turtle and other times you take a gambit on Mina. I don't do the Mina attack much, but doing it now and again can help you in other games because if the hunters worry about Mina at the start it might open up more space for you if you turtle instead.

OF COURSE the game is unbalanced when players lose the first time they play...it's just that bullshit internet armchair punditry thing going on there...I've seen with mine own eyes people who've played the game one time and lost as the hunters declare unequivocally that the game is unbalanced in favor of Dracula. But I've played Dracula against skilled hunters and felt like the game itself hated me personally-until I realized that I wasn't taking full advantage of the opportunities and tools at my disposal.

This is one of the great games and I actually love both versions- and they are substantially different. The GW version has a different tone and is more difficult- it has a sense of lingering dread and uncertainty since it's a lot harder to track Dracula, but the FFG version is more about hunting, picking up the trail, and being ready for a fight. I think the FFG version is more strategic that way but the GW version is more suspenseful. But the FFG version has the cool day-to-night transitions, more encounters, and slightly better combat. But no Szgany Gypsies.

In both games, it's really important for the Dracula player to realize that they are in a position to ruin the game for everyone if they play solely to evade- it's not that hard to just hide. And it's a lot more fun to pop out every now and then and attack somebody or give 'em a false lead.

Play with jackasses who are more interested in winning than having a cool, atmospheric experience and the game does get pretty dull.

I don't see the big problem in finding a cowardly Drac. Sure, he can run out the clock for 1 VP, and maybe pop out a vamp for 2 VP in those first six turns. But then we can spend a Resolve point to reveal his oldest unrevealed location and then the chase is on. I recently played all the hunters in a two-player game against a cowardly Dracula, and by the time he had 4 VP, I had him on the run. He went to sea twice, tried to sneak a vamp out on Cagliari, and went running for his home castle. After a couple of brief skirmishes in eastern Europe, I nailed him in the heart with a stake in Klausenberg with one turn left in the game before he would have won.

Sure, sometimes it's hard to find and catch Dracula, but I think that the game is balanced well enough that it's still doable. And I do enjoy the deduction part almost as much as the combat.

And sometimes a given strategy runs into a harsh reality. This one guy in our group is a very analytical type who was looking forward to his first try at playing Dracula, so he could unveil his sinister master plan to totally baffle the hunters. Instead, we found him almost immediately, and the fairly short game consisted of a series of violent and escalating battles, cumulating in a Dracula victory that included 4 VP for beating up hunters.

Alright, so here are my thoughts on the two versions. PLEASE note I have not played the older version but merely familiarized myself with the rules.


1. The new version is in print, therefore accessible. That's a big plus.

2. Components. Can't say for sure on the old version, but the minis, the thick tokens and the abundance of cards are all great in the new version.

3. The "one item" Drac trail in the old version bugs me. If the new version errs too far in making Drac easy to find, I would think the old version would be a nightmare factory trying to chase someone who's trail is only one item behind them. For those who have played the old version, without Newspaper Reports or a lucky break, how do you EVER find Dracula?


4. Either way you slice it, either version, this is one of the all-time memorable classic designs. Years and years after the old version, people were still clamoring for a reprint. No one will give a rat's ass about a Caylus reprint in the same amount of time.


5. The theme to Fury of Dracula is cool as hell. I'm talking about it in the sense that it tries to be a 'true' sequel to the novel. The FFG version pays a small amount of tribute to the 1992 version in Mina's lingering pull to Dracula. Mina being in thrall to Dracula and being coerced into attacking her own child--and therefore goes with the hunters instead of Jonathan because she can no longer be fully trusted--is a nice story for the game to run with.

As someone who read the AWFUL "Mina" novel several years ago, it's nice to get a decent sequel out of the deal.


6. The only negative is that I've had hunter players complain there isn't enough for them to do. The next time I play this we're going to try two hunters per player to see how that goes. I've heard that's a great way to play it.

Michael Barnes wrote:

Play with jackasses who are more interested in winning than having a cool, atmospheric experience and the game does get pretty dull.

I believe those would be the same jackasses who claim that FoD should only be played with two because there's too much downtime with more players.

Every game has too much downtime if people are sitting silently and carefully contemplating their next move. FoD is meant to be played with beer, several good friends, and a Dracula player who yells "Blah!" with all the authenticity of a vampire from a Hanna-Barbera cartoon when discovered.

Fury of Dracula is the second game I bought when I got into this hobby about two years ago (the first was Mall of Horror). It was my favourite game then and it's still my favourite game now. It encourages fun more than anything else I've played and everyone I've played it with has absolutely loved it as well.

Shellhead wrote:

I don't see the big problem in finding a cowardly Drac. ...

Sure, sometimes it's hard to find and catch Dracula, but I think that the game is balanced well enough that it's still doable. And I do enjoy the deduction part almost as much as the combat.

I agree (being more of a cowardly Drac).

First, there is no way that Drac is going to live 6 days. So he needs those 2 VP from somewhere.

In fact, Drac is usually darn beat up by the end of day 4, even with a 100% turtle plan. He still gets found, take boats, wolf form, etc. So it's not like they never find him.

If I'm not going to get a vamp to the end of the row, I like to set up death by minion. A few damage encounters, followed by a minion with a gun is best. And if you have a damaged hunter Drac can try to finish off on his move, well so much the better.

I don't mind popping out as Drac, but I have to be very, very sure I'm going to get 2 VPs out of it.

Ken B. wrote:

6. The only negative is that I've had hunter players complain there isn't enough for them to do. The next time I play this we're going to try two hunters per player to see how that goes. I've heard that's a great way to play it.

Bah! If all 4 hunters are not helping each other and discussing what they should be doing, I'm a very happy Drac player.

Usual caveat that if anyone wants to do this next week just say so. Otherwise I'll post something.

Ken B. wrote:

3. The "one item" Drac trail in the old version bugs me. If the new version errs too far in making Drac easy to find, I would think the old version would be a nightmare factory trying to chase someone who's trail is only one item behind them. For those who have played the old version, without Newspaper Reports or a lucky break, how do you EVER find Dracula?

This is probably THE main reason I had to trade away my old GW version. IMHO there is a clear change of pace between the older and newer versions, with FFG's release being much faster. In fact my wife will only play FFG's version-- it's her favorite game.

I think that this is mostly do to the fact that combat was such a risky proposition for the drac player in the older version: you only knew whether it was day/night after combat was declared - which for the Drac player meant that he was sometimes stuck bringing a knife to a gunfight. This is what encouraged all the defensive play, which in turn, made the game longer.

It's the resolve points that do it. There's no more situations where Drac playing Evasion will force more impatient hunter players to drive the nearest pointy object into their temples.

I always got a kick outta that myself.

Usual caveat that if anyone wants to do this next week just say so. Otherwise I'll post something.

Sure, I've got one. What day have we been using to kick off the next week?

jeb wrote:

"Scotland Yard with combat" is exactly what I thought the game was, so having this confirmed makes me happy in knowing I'd totally dig it. I could crosspost this in the "Most Anticipated Games to Play in 2008" thread.

I went the opposite direction. I got rid of FoD and got Scotland Yard, and am much happier. FoD had two major flaws for me. First it was a pain to play. Lots of different stacks of cards, lots of chits/tokens, etc, and so on. I don't like that. Something like A&A or Risk is different, they limit the fun staff to a category or two while FoD turns everything in the game in to a separate stack of cards, tokens, etc. Secondly, I had an intense dislike for the combat. It left me very unfulfilled and seemed like a kludge tack-on. I loved the hidden movement and hunt ... so I found a game that did it better. The theme & art were very nice in FoD, it's just that the game sucked.