Just played Twin Villages from the designer series, supposedly a collection of scenarios from the 'best wargame designers of our time'.

I don't think I've ever spent a more frustrating and disappointing 3 hours on this game before.

Issue 1: The 2nd infantry division although depleted from previous action is still a tough, experienced unit - so why only give them 4 elites (the germans rock up to the party with 12 AND they're all packin' panzerfausts!).

Issue 2: Once the US 3 command point token is overwhelmed they never get enough command to activate the more expensive and slightly less useless offensive artillery cards.

Issue 3: Heavy Fog is one advantage too many for the Germans. How is it that you can engage in a hex to hex adjacent fight yet one side is always fighting under a localized bank of fog? That's the province of a ridiculous fantasy game. 'Heavy Fog' should be shared or better still affect specific boards - you move out of the fog, you move out of the cover. It doesn't go with you.

Issue 4: Most of the designers rattle on about how they try to portray historical accuracy without hindering gameplay. Bennighof doesn't bother with that, instead he witters on about what a great game Panzer Grenadier is. Well done mate! I'm glad that one worked out for you coz your stab at TOI scenario creation is shonky in the extreme.

Also while I'm having a rant I'll just mention the hugely annoying fact that FFG can release material with SO many errors. You could probably release a nice hard back bound edition of all the screw ups, but then you'd probably get that wrong too.

Come on boys! this stuff aint cheap. Make an effort.

I can only assume that your quality control department is headed up by Mike Bennighof. BTW, how exactly did he 'earn' his history PhD? Has it got something to do with hamsters?

new.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/tide-of-iron/TOI_FAQ%201-5.pdf

Latest erreata. Has stuff from designer series. Someone from FFG should put a link to the latest errata as a sticky on the fourms.

The Hungarian said:

From an interview I found just now:

"Wargames at the time were dying under the weight of giant games with 6,000 pieces, multiple maps and 128-page rulebooks. We knew we could do better, and that the market demanded such products. I have a Ph.D. in military history (from Emory University), I've been a Fulbright Scholar, and I couldn't understand half the stuff. However, we didn't found Avalanche Press simply to make a certain game or type of game. Rather, we wanted to create a company that was a fun place at which to work, that treated its employees fairly and operated within certain principles. The product is secondary: if you hire and retain good people, and treat them well, they will produce good product. I had worked for badly-run game companies before."

You should read the "Heavy fog" operation card more carefully. "All units" means well... all units, not "all your units", otherwise it would have read well... "all your units"

Why is the operation card mentioned on the German side, then ? Well I admit this is confusing, but operation cards are usually given to one side as they give an advantage (or disadvantage) to that particular side, so scenario layout is designed accordingly...

But the card text is still crystal clear.

You speak a lot about proofreading things, start with carefully just-plain-reading what you get, for a start.

jdavias said:

Have a look at the scenario layout for 'Bloody Omaha'. It specifically states when operations cards are shared , both sides enjoy the benefit/penalty of Beach Defenses and Outfitted Bunkers. By your reasoning Barrel Modifications should apply to "all tank units" too.

Wait a minute!! I've just read the rules on op cards, it says "be sure to read and understand all cards as some rules affect both players".

I stand corrected. English isn't my first language. Imagine how confused I was when I initially read it as "Heavy Frog".

I nominate YOU as FFG's unofficial proof reader.

I hope you like bananas.

So then, what's all this about Tanks running over Toads?

The Hungarian said:

Personal insults directed at Mike Benninghof?

One can only speculate as to why your insults constantly seem to fall back on comments involving hamsters and bananas.

I don't own Normandy (yet) so I can only assume from your comment above that the scenario layout was modified to reflect the "shared" quality of some cards, which is a good thing, imo.

I don't know who this hungarian fella is but I think he is a bit of an idiot. I think he is just bitter when he loses and he sounds like he loses a lot. Maybe because he is a crap tactitioner and doesnt read the rules properly.

I'd hate to be the poor guy sat opposite him with his bitching and moaning going on.

What do you all think?

woo woo said:

I think we should lighten up on the guy. The poor fella has obviously undergone some trauma over an incident involving a hamster and/or a banana. I hope he has someone he can turn to, to help him heal these psychic wounds.

I only comment on the game related aspects of anyone's comments - even though I sometimes don't understand why they bother to post

woo woo said:

Insults such as these are both vacuous and without substance, but more specifically resonate with a childish immaturity.

Not once sir do you reference hamster nor banana!

Woo Woo, I suspect you probably smell of Wee Wee.

longagoigo said:

The wounds are more psychical than psychic. I have the stitches to prove it.

The Hungarian said:

Well, there you have it, the defining post of this thread.

The defining post of this thread should read.

"UP YOURS HUNGARIAN"

with a banana perhaps.....

Hey guys this hobby is supposed to be fun, and the forum to be informative. You have all overlooked the statement that English is not the Hungarians first language. I suspect he speaks Hungarian very well. Not a very compatable language to English.

Also I will wager that there is not a single one of you that hasn't opened a new game , read the rules and said WHAT THE HELL????

A little amount of respect towards each other PLEASE !!! Nobody died and made any of us GOD.

Besides that what have you got against hamsters and bananas ????

I have to agree that the editing quality of the Designers series was disappointing. I had to place my own stickers in the book to correct for the many errors. I have played this scenario and had some of the same questions about the fog card as well as the ability to place concealed units on objectives. After two early German overruns we concluded that the concealed units could be placed on the objectives and that both sides benefited from the fog card. With these interpretations of the rules in place I was able to win the scenario as the Americans with the game being decided at the very end.

Does anyone know if FFG is externally playtesting this stuff?

This seems to be a consistent issue with the TOI scenarios. Internal testing is great, but external testing is really where it's at from a design standpoint.

I felt the scenario was well done and balanced. My complaint was the printing errors in the book.

The rule issues and questions were actually my shortcoming not the scenario's. I believe that if this scenario is a complete blowout for you then there is most likely a issue with appropriate application of the rules.

I do agree with you that external testing should always be done to pick up the potential problems and shortfalls of a limited pool of testers or is that testes.

http:// www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=7&efcid=1&efidt=87088

also discusses this scenario, for those interested.