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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

where did you get those character cards?

do you have them for all the characters?

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.

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.

The Sundance Kid said:

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

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

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.

Deleted

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.

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.

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.

I would keep the pathfinding system. If you don't like it, go play Secrets of the Third Reich or AE WWII or another game. It is unique and will keep the maps indoors or at least with a lot of line of sight blockers.

They need to make a lot of new, good maps. Heavy paper folded to the same size would be great. Four entrances on all maps. Allow some maps to join up with other maps to make for bigger areas.

Grenades to any circle is a good rule change.

At least another faction to bring the number up to 4 or more. Three player games are awkward. Buy the IP for my faction

Getting rid of the tokens and character boards for cards would be a decent change, but could take up more table space. It would be cheaper to make.

Get the troop packs out right away.

GET THE COST DOWN. This game is expensive and there is a perception that you don't get much for your money.

Have at least 20 new figures a year, sell them in packs of 2 to 5.

Keep the ranges as is. You want that killer gun, you can't shoot people that close. That's what shotguns are for.

More maps. Can't be stressed enough.

Chimaera said:

About killing the PF system I'm not for it. The PF system is part of the Tannhauser experience and if you ditch it it's just another miniature game like star wars or former d&d cmg.

If you think the PF difficult to read I can go with that, however Take on You did provide "Tactical Maps" to help understand the way the maps work, a shame FFG didn't bother to make tham available on their site.

Also remember that it's a BOARD game not a miniature game or a dungeon crawler like descent or doom. Basically Tannhauser just use nicely painted fig instead of game token.

Doc Savage said:

I'd prefer 4-5 minis a year but with real new items and having each a use in game rather than having a lot of them I'll never use.

First of all: More maps and a scenario editor!

"Allow some maps to join up with other maps to make for bigger areas." One of the best ideas I´ve heard for this game. Especially if you would play with four factions. Could get a bit crowded otherwise.

Another faction would be good, but I´d really like to see more heroes and troops for the existing factions. Wouldn´t it be great to draw heroes and troops at random for each mission?

Some rule changes. Bullrush goes without saying, it´s completely useless. You should be able to use a medpack, morphine etc, even if you run out of VP:s. Let´s say, use it to heal one wound in your action phase.

The pathfinding system is good as it is. I´ve played too many games with disagreements about LOS.

I'd have to vote to keep the pathfinder system. It makes the mechanics unique-and it is very helpful with the LOS questions that pop up in so many games. I also think its a huge timesaver.

I wouldn't have heartbreak if they changed some of the ranged weapon rules. Only there should be some serious penalty for using a huge gun in a tight space. I wouldn't care if the grenades were changed to hit an occupied space. Maybe there should be a kind of bounce around rule that could have it land in an unintented space.

My biggest disappointment was the story mode. I really thought that the box would contain compaign scenarios. There have been plenty published since then, but I still would like tighter stories.

I hear you all and don't get me wrong I am not a Tannhauser hater. I am going to stick to the PS and circles topic for now but I wil get on to other topics later.

I will stick to my view of diching the PS and circles (PS/C) at this point. I haven't heard a strong enough reason to keep them as of yet apart from they are part of the system and what make Tannhauser unique or go and play another game LOL. Are these really reasons for keeping the system? I am not sure. On one hand some players would like to be able to get more factions or maybe even characters on a map. The PS/C seriously restricts this option. On one hand some players want the cost to come down but then on flip side want the same hard board style maps to play on. Some want more entrances (which I agree with) but without the map space to work with this also becomes harder to implement. I love the idea of joining maps or having modular ones but yet again the PS/C system makes this much trickier and probably more costly to produce and once again restricts total maneuver area on map. There are only 3 things I can think of that warrant the PS/C system. LOS, Hermetica & smoke. All of these can have converted rules for a square grid maps system easily. If the LOS rules are clear and simple and the maps clean there should be no issue with LOS on internal structures especially. Novogrod moves outside more but once again good LOS rules and well designed square grid maps can make things easy to work out.

I would disagree that Tannhauser is not a miniatures game. How many would have bought it without the miniatures and why do expansions mainly focus around minatures? I would say Tannhauser sits between a board game, minatures game, dungeon crawl and very slightly touches the RPG element, none of which it really excels at and this could be the big Tannhaser hang up. Why have so many turned/dropped away from the game. Maybe the new rules release will clean some of it up? We will see.