Thanks for the excellent review and kind words on the virtue system! It definitely is designed to make you think and make choices of a medieval commander. We do see there is a point where things go "click" and people pick it up. The system does use a little different logic than a lot of games. The combat is slower to resolve than some skirmish systems where each model just rolls to hit and done (but pretty similar in speed to say the GW middle earth skirmish). That is somewhat on purpose though. In most games the tactical choices stop once the models are in combat. We really wanted a game where tactical choices in combat were a large part of the game. So whether you prioritize attack or defence, go all out with all your troops or just with the front rank and then hold the second rank to come in second are all important choices. That definitely does draw combat out as you have to think about it a bit and roll combats out individually. I guess it really depends how much choice/control you are looking for in combat. If you want something where combat is resolved fast and you don't really mind how much player skill comes into it then this might not be for you. If you enjoy the idea of really being able to influence combat than it's probably a good fit. The good news on speed is that combat is deadly enough that we find games rarely go over the 40-50 minute mark if you have played before. So you end up getting the same amount of time it's just a question of what you want to spend it on. The stored dice is an interesting one. We used storing dice from movement instead of charge actions since it allows charging and counter charges, consolidations etc. without extra mechanics and means troops who have moved arent caught with their pants down. Most players pick it up fast but it's good feedback, it can become fiddly. Who knows we might revert to charge actions in a future version or use it if we do a fantasy version etc. Playability is definitely something we care about and feedback is important and always kept track of.
All good points. One thing I've mentioned in the comments but didn't really address in the video is I really like the realism of the deadliness of combat. You aren't tracking wounds, and soaking up the kind of damage that would fell an elephant. If you get caught out and someone manages to land a good hit, your model is dead. I think that works well with the system you have because so much effort goes into the arrangement and commanding of the troops, so when you manage to get your ducks in a row, you are really rewarded with the opportunity to punch a hole through the enemy ranks. I think a lot of skirmish games like Kill Team or War Cry go for cinematic; Force of Virtue goes for realism. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. Overall I have really enjoyed my time with the game, and it will be interesting to see where you go next with it.
@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Yeah! It really depends on what you want combat to feel like. Combat is a lot more choice-heavy and tactical than most games. If you want to be spending time on making choices on combat then it's a big plus. Combat definitely tells a story, but it's probably closer to a Joe Abercrombie novel or a Kurosawa film than necessarily a Marvel film. You have to set things up and make choices and if you screw up you die.
Thanks for a brilliant and thorough review. I totally agree with your assessment, the only thing I would emphasise is that this game has a fantastic historical setting and the authors' passion for the period really shines through. It's a weird one because the graphic design and branding is less than brilliant, the product design and pricing is all wrong, the rulebook layout needs improving, as you point out there are aspects of the game itself that need streamlining, but underneath it all is something potentially brilliant and despite my better judgement I fell in love with it and have invested! I really hope Masterstroke Games creates a 'version 2' that addresses these issues, the game could be as big as SAGA but not in its current form. I'm looking forward to visiting their stand at Salute in London next month and will offer my help and support.
I agree, their passion is obvious, which is why I really wanted to make sure I addressed that at the beginning of the review, and took the time to talk a bit about where the idea of the virtues came from. I think the more you understand about that historical context, the more you get out of the game. They have recently updated an FAQ and are reworking the rules, including looking at some areas that originally confused me, so the game is improving all the time and they are committed to that improvement. Glad to hear you enjoy it so much. It really does have a lo of potential.
That's the WWII game that had a Kickstarter recently for a second edition? No, I haven't had the chance. I haven't ever really looked into it in any detail.
Hmm... Interesting. Alas I know little to nothing about Italy, except it's shaped like a boot and they make some darn fine pasta. 😂 ...oh did you hear "Unmatched" is trying a new thing; "Tales to Amaze" which is a Cooperative scenario! 😮
Yes. Tales to Amaze was created through Kickstarter last year. I wasn't particularly interested in the characters, except for Tesla, so I never bothered backing it.
@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring it looks like the game may allow you to swap out for other heroes from Unmatched! It would be hilarious to have the T-Rex and Raptors team up on the Martians! 😅
Yes, they managed to keep all the compatibility, so everything still works with everything else. The new characters can fight any others, and all the existing characters can face mothman or the martians. A pretty clever idea.
@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring my only major complaint about Unmatched is it lacks alternate play styles beyond 1v1, 2v2 or free for all. I think it's the same reason some of my gaming group do not like the game. So a Cooperative Scenario might compel them to take another look! 😁
It's quite a different style of combat and it does take a bit of getting used to. Fortunately, a particular fight doesn't normally contain that many models. One thing I do like is that fighting is pretty deadly, which feels very on brand for being realistic. Even your capos die if they fail their wound roll, so you don't have to track damage at all.
Hey Jason! It really depends on what you are looking for. If you want to make tactical choices in combat and enjoy it the game will feel rich. If that's not something you are looking for then it will seem a bit of a chore. It's a new thing for most players as generally games don't really ask you in combat, models tend to roll dice and either survive or not without much input from you. The good news is games rarely last past round 3 and not much over 30-40 minutes if you're familiar. So you get the same amount of time playing, it's just where you care about putting it.
Yes and no, I would say. FoV is based on the historical prototype that inspired Mordheim and the Empire in the first place (European early Renaissance), and as always the original history is much richer, deeper and sometimes crazier than the fantasy that is based on it! Yes they are both skirmish games with a similar technology level, but the feel and the game mechanics are very different.
It's a campaign-heavy narrative game in a ruined city with small-scale mercenary squabbles, so you can play Mordheim-esque stories. The mechanics are pretty different though. This is a lot more focused on tactical choices in combat and the campaign is a lot less random and cut-throat, you won't keep getting stomped for losing games.
@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Really like the use of cards to build your warband. It's a clever, almost board-gamery setup. But the crunch of the combat would give me a headache. I've gotten used to more streamlined systems which resolve quickly.
Thanks for the excellent review and kind words on the virtue system!
It definitely is designed to make you think and make choices of a medieval commander. We do see there is a point where things go "click" and people pick it up. The system does use a little different logic than a lot of games.
The combat is slower to resolve than some skirmish systems where each model just rolls to hit and done (but pretty similar in speed to say the GW middle earth skirmish). That is somewhat on purpose though.
In most games the tactical choices stop once the models are in combat. We really wanted a game where tactical choices in combat were a large part of the game. So whether you prioritize attack or defence, go all out with all your troops or just with the front rank and then hold the second rank to come in second are all important choices. That definitely does draw combat out as you have to think about it a bit and roll combats out individually. I guess it really depends how much choice/control you are looking for in combat. If you want something where combat is resolved fast and you don't really mind how much player skill comes into it then this might not be for you. If you enjoy the idea of really being able to influence combat than it's probably a good fit.
The good news on speed is that combat is deadly enough that we find games rarely go over the 40-50 minute mark if you have played before. So you end up getting the same amount of time it's just a question of what you want to spend it on.
The stored dice is an interesting one. We used storing dice from movement instead of charge actions since it allows charging and counter charges, consolidations etc. without extra mechanics and means troops who have moved arent caught with their pants down. Most players pick it up fast but it's good feedback, it can become fiddly. Who knows we might revert to charge actions in a future version or use it if we do a fantasy version etc. Playability is definitely something we care about and feedback is important and always kept track of.
All good points. One thing I've mentioned in the comments but didn't really address in the video is I really like the realism of the deadliness of combat. You aren't tracking wounds, and soaking up the kind of damage that would fell an elephant. If you get caught out and someone manages to land a good hit, your model is dead.
I think that works well with the system you have because so much effort goes into the arrangement and commanding of the troops, so when you manage to get your ducks in a row, you are really rewarded with the opportunity to punch a hole through the enemy ranks.
I think a lot of skirmish games like Kill Team or War Cry go for cinematic; Force of Virtue goes for realism. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Overall I have really enjoyed my time with the game, and it will be interesting to see where you go next with it.
@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Yeah! It really depends on what you want combat to feel like. Combat is a lot more choice-heavy and tactical than most games. If you want to be spending time on making choices on combat then it's a big plus.
Combat definitely tells a story, but it's probably closer to a Joe Abercrombie novel or a Kurosawa film than necessarily a Marvel film. You have to set things up and make choices and if you screw up you die.
Thanks for a brilliant and thorough review. I totally agree with your assessment, the only thing I would emphasise is that this game has a fantastic historical setting and the authors' passion for the period really shines through. It's a weird one because the graphic design and branding is less than brilliant, the product design and pricing is all wrong, the rulebook layout needs improving, as you point out there are aspects of the game itself that need streamlining, but underneath it all is something potentially brilliant and despite my better judgement I fell in love with it and have invested! I really hope Masterstroke Games creates a 'version 2' that addresses these issues, the game could be as big as SAGA but not in its current form. I'm looking forward to visiting their stand at Salute in London next month and will offer my help and support.
I agree, their passion is obvious, which is why I really wanted to make sure I addressed that at the beginning of the review, and took the time to talk a bit about where the idea of the virtues came from. I think the more you understand about that historical context, the more you get out of the game. They have recently updated an FAQ and are reworking the rules, including looking at some areas that originally confused me, so the game is improving all the time and they are committed to that improvement. Glad to hear you enjoy it so much. It really does have a lo of potential.
I try. Very interesting. Thanks ABNB.
Thanks for watching.
Have you ever played Company of Heroes board game. Its pretty fun and has a solo mode but you have to buy the solo mode separately.
That's the WWII game that had a Kickstarter recently for a second edition? No, I haven't had the chance. I haven't ever really looked into it in any detail.
@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring you should I think you would like it.
Hmm... Interesting. Alas I know little to nothing about Italy, except it's shaped like a boot and they make some darn fine pasta. 😂
...oh did you hear "Unmatched" is trying a new thing; "Tales to Amaze" which is a Cooperative scenario! 😮
Yes. Tales to Amaze was created through Kickstarter last year. I wasn't particularly interested in the characters, except for Tesla, so I never bothered backing it.
@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring it looks like the game may allow you to swap out for other heroes from Unmatched! It would be hilarious to have the T-Rex and Raptors team up on the Martians! 😅
Yes, they managed to keep all the compatibility, so everything still works with everything else. The new characters can fight any others, and all the existing characters can face mothman or the martians. A pretty clever idea.
@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring my only major complaint about Unmatched is it lacks alternate play styles beyond 1v1, 2v2 or free for all. I think it's the same reason some of my gaming group do not like the game. So a Cooperative Scenario might compel them to take another look! 😁
It seemed interesting, but that combat looks pretty slow.
It's quite a different style of combat and it does take a bit of getting used to. Fortunately, a particular fight doesn't normally contain that many models. One thing I do like is that fighting is pretty deadly, which feels very on brand for being realistic. Even your capos die if they fail their wound roll, so you don't have to track damage at all.
Hey Jason! It really depends on what you are looking for. If you want to make tactical choices in combat and enjoy it the game will feel rich. If that's not something you are looking for then it will seem a bit of a chore. It's a new thing for most players as generally games don't really ask you in combat, models tend to roll dice and either survive or not without much input from you.
The good news is games rarely last past round 3 and not much over 30-40 minutes if you're familiar. So you get the same amount of time playing, it's just where you care about putting it.
17 😊 wahay
I was at my screen as it ticked over to 17,000. Very exciting!
Basically historical Mordhiem?
I would say no, not really. I don't think there is really anything of Mordheim's rules in this game.
Yes and no, I would say. FoV is based on the historical prototype that inspired Mordheim and the Empire in the first place (European early Renaissance), and as always the original history is much richer, deeper and sometimes crazier than the fantasy that is based on it! Yes they are both skirmish games with a similar technology level, but the feel and the game mechanics are very different.
It's a campaign-heavy narrative game in a ruined city with small-scale mercenary squabbles, so you can play Mordheim-esque stories. The mechanics are pretty different though. This is a lot more focused on tactical choices in combat and the campaign is a lot less random and cut-throat, you won't keep getting stomped for losing games.
Doesn't seem like Mordheim at all... This kind of thinking is what made people believe Frostgrave was "a kind of Mordheim" (it's not).
Really cool sounding system but definitely not for me.
It's not really like anything else I can think of. Very interesting, and I think it will really click with the right crowd.
@@AlwaysBoardNeverBoring Really like the use of cards to build your warband. It's a clever, almost board-gamery setup. But the crunch of the combat would give me a headache. I've gotten used to more streamlined systems which resolve quickly.