Archive for IMPACT! MINIATURES A forum for the discussion of board games and miniatures of the company (Impact! Miniatures)
 



       IMPACT! MINIATURES Forum Index -> Elfball Game and Variants
mattwakeman

Was it a deliberate decision...

to have the goal areas not be in a straight line (as it were) with the hexes? I don't really know how best to state this clearly but as it is a player starting in the guardian circle is always at an angle to the goal area behind him and I was just wondering if you did this on purpose.
GalakStarscraper

Re: Was it a deliberate decision...

mattwakeman wrote:
to have the goal areas not be in a straight line (as it were) with the hexes? I don't really know how best to state this clearly but as it is a player starting in the guardian circle is always at an angle to the goal area behind him and I was just wondering if you did this on purpose.
I guess I don't understand the question.   On my board they are directly in a straight line across the pitch.

Galak
Dark Lord

I think he means facing.

I think that is just something that evolved because in earlier editions the "tackle zone" was all 6 hexes.

Personally I like it that the Goalie can't defend all sides from one hex.
Tarota

In a game as fluid as this one, it's probably six of one, half-dozen of the other. You can change facings for free every time you move, and when you're not moving it takes just as many moves to get around you.

In spaceship combat games, where you must face a hexside and turning costs resources, there are definite "slow" and "fast" directions on the map. (The way Elfball is laid out, moving between the goals would be slow.) But I don't think that dynamic applies here.
mattwakeman

Dark Lord wrote:
I think he means facing.

I think that is just something that evolved because in earlier editions the "tackle zone" was all 6 hexes.

Personally I like it that the Goalie can't defend all sides from one hex.


Yes, if only I had actually used the word facing then I think that what I was talking about would have been slightly clearer But this is what I meant and was just wondering if the inability to be able to defend all sides was a calculated choice.
GalakStarscraper

mattwakeman wrote:
Yes, if only I had actually used the word facing then I think that what I was talking about would have been slightly clearer But this is what I meant and was just wondering if the inability to be able to defend all sides was a calculated choice.
I really just wanted the Goalie to be in a "general" position to defend the goal.

Ways around him are all good.

I do want the game to end in under an hour for a test ...  

Elfball just got a game review by a board/card game reviewer.  Comments were that it was a great game for 40k types ... but was too slow for a normal board game.  So not looking to slow it down at all.

Galak
Dark Lord

Tarota wrote:
In a game as fluid as this one, it's probably six of one, half-dozen of the other. You can change facings for free every time you move, and when you're not moving it takes just as many moves to get around you.

In spaceship combat games, where you must face a hexside and turning costs resources, there are definite "slow" and "fast" directions on the map. (The way Elfball is laid out, moving between the goals would be slow.) But I don't think that dynamic applies here.


How many times have you played?

We have had more than one goal scored because the defending coach was put to the choice of activating the "goalie" just to alter his facing or to activate a player withing range who had a better chance at tackling the ball carrier (or retrieving the ball...or whatever fit the coach's plan).

It can matter. Facing can matter big time in Elfball.


@Galak: What is a "normal boardgame player"? I mean I consider myself a fan of boardgames more than RPGs or video games. They are my true gaming love. I don't play 40K or Warhammer and I don't consider them board games.

I think that reviewer has some explaining to do because we play Elfball at around 90min-2 hours. A Game of Doom the boardgame comes in at 2.5 hours, Heroscape takes 2 hours too, if you count set up time.
Hell, ever player Settlers with 6 people? You're looking at 2 hours easy.
What about a more mainstream title. Risk anyone? "Oh no sorry, I have to go to work next week, I can't start a game of Risk."

Too slow for a "normal" boardgamer? What games is this guy playing?
Stout Youngblood

Dark Lord wrote:

@Galak: What is a "normal boardgame player"? I mean I consider myself a fan of boardgames more than RPGs or video games. They are my true gaming love. I don't play 40K or Warhammer and I don't consider them board games.

I think that reviewer has some explaining to do because we play Elfball at around 90min-2 hours. A Game of Doom the boardgame comes in at 2.5 hours, Heroscape takes 2 hours too, if you count set up time.
Hell, ever player Settlers with 6 people? You're looking at 2 hours easy.
What about a more mainstream title. Risk anyone? "Oh no sorry, I have to go to work next week, I can't start a game of Risk."

Too slow for a "normal" boardgamer? What games is this guy playing?


No kidding. I have played a single test in as little as 15 minutes. When was the last time anyone finished a game of Risk in less than 2 hours? Its quicker than Bl00dB0wl, quicker than Descent, Robo Rally, Empire Builder, Lord of the Rings, Cleopatra...Heck, its faster than most boardgames I play and I consider myself an average boardgamer.
GalakStarscraper

Dark Lord wrote:
Too slow for a "normal" boardgamer? What games is this guy playing?
Now he sent me a lot of good feedback on the game via email.  Also he's never played B.lood B.owl (and never had any of the 3 other playtesters). He is basing a lot of comments off the two playtester's comments that he played against.

All in all it was a positive review and I don't actually know how long he games took.

I did warn him that the game has a steep learning curve ... meaning the first game might take a bit but it gets much faster with familiarity with the rules.

I'll be really curious to see how the Elfball touranment at GenCon turns out (in terms of game speed).

So keeping in mind that I was fine with the review and felt even better about it after we emailed back and forth and I got more in depth with him on his thoughts and those of the folks he was playing.

Here was that review:
http://drakesflames.blogspot.com/...02/minis-game-review-elfball.html

I'm trying to get permission to post the follow-up discussion I had with him via email.

Galak
GalakStarscraper

Matt's email to me about his testing of the game for his review (posted with permission):

Quote:
Tom,

Thanks for your feedback. I'll answer the questions as best I can.

We just played the basic 10-player game. I played it three times, with two different players, so that I could get a feel for it. We didn't add in the advanced stuff, though as my midfielders kept getting carried off the field, I began to wish we were playing with the potions.

After the first game, I started to really see the power of momentum, and tried to lead off turns with challenges that would earn some momentum. In fact, my opponent in the last game I played won it on a dash challenge - he rolled a great disengage, then an even better pick-up challenge, and the end of his movement put him one space away from the goal circle. The dash challenge was the nail in my coffin.

If I had friends who were big-time paint-and-play minis gamers, especially ones who loved fantasy football, I would probably end up playing a lot more, just because they would probably pester me to try again. I confess that if, after two games, I don't love a game, I'm not generally inclined to try it just a couple more times to see if I change my mind. Basically, if I love a game after one play, I don't need to play it again before I write about it. If I'm not sure, or if I just plain hate it, I generally take it out at least one more time. That's why I played Elfball three times - I knew after my first game that I just didn't get it.

I really didn't dislike Elfball. I enjoyed it quite a bit more than either of my opponents, but I also used to play 40K. One opponent was irritated with the length of time it took to take a turn, but that's not generally a consideration for your average minis gamer. My other opponent was apt to punch me in the face if he rolled one more flop, and was getting really angry at the luck factor. The cheeky troll still won the game, though, after three flops in a row left all my midfielders dazed on the wrong side of the field.

I haven't ever played fantasy football. It never appealed to me. It just looked too complicated. I did really like that I had no problem figuring out the rules for Elfball. I liked the dice mechanic - it seems like a really great concept for an RPG dice mechanic. I liked that the rules fit the theme wonderfully, especially if you like some body count.

I think one player at a time worked wonderfully. My opponent figured out a great rugby-style run-and-pass attack scheme that had two guys running at me, with the one player throwing the ball to the other, so that he was moving the ball forward every turn. I finally broke it by tackling the guy who didn't have the ball and sending him to the infirmary.

If I was honest, I would tell you not to change a single thing. I think that your game hits exactly the market you're trying to get. You've got incredible miniatures, and from the stuff I've seen on your site, you're building a good market for gamers who like sports/minis games. The fantasy football crowd has to be loving your game. I tried to convey in the review that the gamer who likes sports games and miniatures games might just be looking at this next favorite game, because I think that for what you do, you guys are doing everything right. When I said that this was no fancy pre-painted minis game, that was a compliment intended to appeal to the guys down at the game store who spend their Saturday afternoons playing Battletech and Warhammer. Those guys turn up their noses at prepainted figures, and rightly so - even with my paltry painting skills, my finished Desert Dogs looked a hundred times better than any cheap plastic blind-purchase figures.

I don't think you're going to appeal to board gamers, or even the guys who are content to play D&D Minis, unless you simpify the game a lot more. I mean like a max of 1 die roll per turn, no pick-up challenges, and rules for instant successes. And I think that if you did that, you would alienate every other player you have now. Sure, my board game buddies might get more of a kick out of it that way, but I don't think it's worth it. You've got great figures and a good game that appeals to exactly the kinds of gamers you want.

Now you might consider an Elfball Lite game, one for the casual gamer who's just screwing around or going to a friend's place for a game night. These could just be alternative rules that you include with the purchase of every Elfball game, and that are not suitable for tournament play. In fact, if you guys do come up with rules like that, send me a PDF and I'll review the game again using those rules. Or if you want, I can help develop the rules. I have everything I need to play now, including two fully-painted teams of seriously kick-ass miniatures. I can't really review a game if I help to write it - there's some pretty clear conflict of interest there - but I appreciate the game, and would love to be able to play it with my son, and would love to help you guys sell games if I can.

Matt
Tarota

Dark Lord wrote:
How many times have you played?

We have had more than one goal scored because the defending coach was put to the choice of activating the "goalie" just to alter his facing or to activate a player withing range who had a better chance at tackling the ball carrier (or retrieving the ball...or whatever fit the coach's plan).

It can matter. Facing can matter big time in Elfball.


I've got somewhere between six and ten games, so it's eminently possible I've missed some point of tactics. The field tends to stay pretty open in most of my games, with at most 2 (standing) players for each side in any given cluster. Since facing doesn't matter if you aren't adjacent to an opponent, that leaves at most one player out of position, and that only if the ball takes a bad bounce. And I haven't seen the guy who starts in the defender's circle's facing ever matter: you always run at least one hex away from him, so if he's going to affect a play he has to activate anyway.

I've certainly seen facing matter during the game, but facing during setup? Does that really make a difference?

Dark Lord wrote:
Too slow for a "normal" boardgamer? What games is this guy playing?


The game sometimes does seem slow to me, but again this may come down to tactics. Or the number of times my %($^ Striker can Flop a Skill challenge: my last game had five unsuccessful Pick-up challenges before someone managed to actually hold onto the ball. Extra grease that game, I guess...
Dark Lord

Tarota wrote:
And I haven't seen the guy who starts in the defender's circle's facing ever matter: you always run at least one hex away from him, so if he's going to affect a play he has to activate anyway.


It's mattered more than once in our games. As you say you have to run around him well when he is facing the "wrong" way it can make the difference of a player being able to make it to the goal hex or not.

Several times we have had turns where if the player had just been facing the other way an opponent would have had to either go around and not make it, or been forced to dodge.

Not only with the defending the circle but it has mattered on the board in general. I disagree with you that facing only matters when you are adjacent.

Sure that's the only time it has a quantifiable effect, but it isn't the only time it matters.
Dark Lord

Tarota wrote:
I've got somewhere between six and ten games, so it's eminently possible I've missed some point of tactics. The field tends to stay pretty open in most of my games, with at most 2 (standing) players for each side in any given cluster.


We noticed a change immediately when tactics shifted around here.

The first change came when we started pitching the ball to the next moving player and just basically got a handle on the flow of the game. That's rudimentary.

The second change I have noticed is when each coach realizes that a mad grab for the ball isn't always what is called for. As soon as you have two coaches who aren't playing "smear the queer" and instead are positioning and waiting you end up with a very different game.

Most of the time I like it when I lose the face off and my opponent takes the ball. I position my team and wait for him to drop it. As you said you drop the ball seemingly all the time...it's true, you drop it a lot in Elfball...so I developed my strategy around that.
If I can position my team correctly they can force a drop (hopefully in his backfield) or just wait for a drop or fumble to happen and then I am there to capitalize on it.
There are still one or two coaches in our league who are playing the "Get ball first, then position for a score" strategy and it isn't working for them.
They fail to realize that dropping the ball is inevitable.
Tarota

Dark Lord wrote:
We noticed a change immediately when tactics shifted around here.

The first change came when we started pitching the ball to the next moving player and just basically got a handle on the flow of the game. That's rudimentary.


I've tried that strategy a couple of times. With each pitch having a ~20% chance of failure (at least), does that really work for you? I'll use that play if circumstances permit, but every time I try to make a series out of it (advancing with passing between two players, say) the ball comes loose pretty quick. The other guy doesn't even have to do anything: I Flop a roll before I'd get to the goal, every time.

Dark Lord wrote:
The second change I have noticed is when each coach realizes that a mad grab for the ball isn't always what is called for. As soon as you have two coaches who aren't playing "smear the queer" and instead are positioning and waiting you end up with a very different game.


We do have this problem: I may have a few games under my belt, but most of my opponents don't. Makes it easy to develop bad habits. I'm trying to develop the player base a bit; hopefully we'll get this part figured out and develop from there. (And if you're pitching behind a loose wall of players, I can see where Flop-management gets easier too. To address your first change from above.)
Dark Lord

Tarota wrote:
Dark Lord wrote:
We noticed a change immediately when tactics shifted around here.

The first change came when we started pitching the ball to the next moving player and just basically got a handle on the flow of the game. That's rudimentary.


I've tried that strategy a couple of times. With each pitch having a ~20% chance of failure (at least), does that really work for you? I'll use that play if circumstances permit, but every time I try to make a series out of it (advancing with passing between two players, say) the ball comes loose pretty quick. The other guy doesn't even have to do anything: I Flop a roll before I'd get to the goal, every time.



Well I use this strategy in combination with positioning. It's hard to say do "X, Y & Z" and you'll score because in Elfball you have to be fluid.

What I do in general is to position my players without paying real attention to the ball (unless it's threatening a score) but that's not to say I post them in a spot, don't move them and then alley-oop the ball up the pitch.

I divide my forces into two squads, one for defense and one for offense. Usually it's a 3-3 split but will go 4-2 depending on the foe.
The offense squad takes position in the opponent's field but not too deep. You see if you go too deep he'll bring his defenders up and clobber you, but you need to go deep enough to control the middle and a little beyond.
And keep them tight together, not necessarily adjacent but in a nice grouping. This is where the action will take place If he comes at you with defender or two just spread out a little and move. simply by having 3 or 4 players in his side of the pitch you win. He either ignores you and you can move freely, or if he brings up defenders he uncovers the goal and you have disturbed his strategy.

The defensive squad has two jobs- 1. Keep the ball from getting to the end zone before you can control the middle, and 2. Force a fumble or missed pick up. It's important therefore to have at least one defender be at Skill 2 or above.

Once you have the ball you don't have to pitch 4 hex passes all the way up. You move adjacent and do a "hand off" if possible. Adjacent players give you -1 Success needed.


But what you can't do is hang on to the ball and try some Bl00d B0wlish cage formation. You'll be a sitting duck and your game will degenerate into what we call "clusterf#<ks" and the ball will bounce around seemingly at random...while the "clusterf#<ks" follow and a score will seem like an accident.

General tips:

You don't always have to pick up the ball. Sometimes it's a good idea to just cover it with a player or two and wait for your opponent to fail the pick up. (SiM)

Don't hold the ball at the end of your move! Trying to build a cage around the ball carrier is worthless in this game. Think like basketball and not football.

The pitch is small, be aware of that. You don't need to tenaciously chase down the ball. Look and see what your opponent is doing...can he score? can he threaten to score? Is there a reason to subvert to your plans just to attack him simply because he's holding the ball?
Elfball is like a sword fight. You move, move, move and then STRIKE!
Skipbidder

Dark Lord wrote:

Too slow for a "normal" boardgamer? What games is this guy playing?


Several of the top games at Board Game Geeks are really engaging games that last under an hour. Race for the Galaxy, Ra, Pandemic, San Juan, Lord of the Rings: Confrontation are all top 50 there and run in the 30 minute to 45 minute range. Others like Puerto Rico, Power Grid, Caylus, Princes of Florence check in at the 90 to 120 minute range. These tend to be games described there as "Euros". I suspect that your rater has rather selfishly chosen to define the Euro as a normal boardgame. This is distinguished from "Ameritrash" (which, by the way, is often used in an endearing way). Think Axis and Allies, Twilight Imperium, War of the Ring. These tend to be longer plays. More complicated rules, with complexity or realism valued more than ease of learning or shorter play times. Also tend to have gobs of plastic. :)
The game which apparently is not mentioned by name on this site is much closer to an Ameritrash game than a Euro.
Dark Lord

But there are plenty of Ameritrash games that last 2 hours...even longer!
There are also lots of mainstream boardgames that last 90 minutes or more...monopoly instantly comes to mind, as does Risk.

Seems a very minor nitpick to me.
Skipbidder

Dark Lord wrote:
But there are plenty of Ameritrash games that last 2 hours...even longer!


Tons of them do. I wasn't trying to suggest that they don't. I was trying to suggest where the reviewer was coming from. I think that when he said "normal boardgamer", he was being egocentric. His preference is probably for Euros and he looks down on Ameritrashers. I personally quite enjoy some AT games, some of them with very long durations. Their length is frequently a problem, however. I'd love to get Fury of Dracula on the table more often, but an honest admission that it's a four hour game is enough to squelch most chances. Advanced Civilization is an 8 hour game if everyone knows how to play and you are a slave driver. It's been 5 years since I've played, and opponents swore never to play again. :)

The nit I was picking wasn't yours. It belonged to the reviewer on BGG.
Dark Lord

Well same here. I was picking his nit. We are agreeing...just in different languages I guess.  

Speaking of Ameritrash we just played Last Night On Earth.

Awesome game. Loads of fun! We played it with a friendly couple.

The last scenario was wives vs. husbands. The ladies were the zombie and the hubby heroes goal was to destroy three spawning pits in 18 turns. It came down to turn 3 and a draw that denied us of the dynamite we desperately needed. We also were down to only 3 of the 8 heroes! And 2 of those had a card on them that stated if we took one more wound we turned into zombies!!

Man, women are ruthless!  
Stout Youngblood

Dark Lord wrote:
Man, women are ruthless!  


You are just coming to this conclusion? Remember what Eve did to Adam?
Norse

yeah, she showed him her  

lahatiel

Norse wrote:
yeah, she showed him her  



And we men have suffered for it, every moment since then...

... oops, excuse me, did I say that? Have to go back to helping my fiancee plan our wedding now!  
Redfang

Not even married yet and already he can't say what he wants on a gaming forum...

Bad sign...

Seriously though, good luck with the preparations. Is the big day far ahead?

       IMPACT! MINIATURES Forum Index -> Elfball Game and Variants
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum