Guildmaster is so much better than the original board game

[KevinH]

I am playing a multiplayer game with two players, two characters each, on hard level. We had a tough mission, and failed it. We talked about which characters were best suited to the mission for about ten minutes, came up with a very specific plan, and then swapped out two of the four characters. We easily defeated the mission. It felt really, really rewarding to come up with, and then implement a perfect plan. It made us appreciate the depth and variety of the scenarios, and the synergy of the different character combinations.

Nothing like that happened in the board game version since we were locked into one character. The Guildmaster version has so much more tactical depth. I love it!

[Greyhawke]

Been doing the same thing (2p, MP), but using only two mercs per run using the same mercs every scenario - a Brute/Scoundrel pair.

Yesterday, I ran the same merc combo solo in a separate guild save, through the scenario "Angry Djinns" on normal difficulty, both mercs @ lvl2 on the final two attempts.

It took me three attempts to win, and when I finally did, I did so without any "time" to spare. My Scoundrel had become exhausted the previous round, and I literally played the last remaining ability card of the Brute (before he too would have become exhausted and l lost the scenario) to kill the last mob and win.

The only reason I was able to win on my 3rd run through - besides having decent luck with attack modifiers which helped a lot - was because as a solo player I was able to coordinate initiative between the two mercs while being able to perfectly coordinate and synergize their play. I quite literally had to play a perfect game with perfect synergy between the two with NO time to spare, not a heartbeat, in order to win.

Again, both mercs were level two, w/several items each (including two piercing shot hand items for the Scoundrel).

Winning this scenario was absolutely the most exhilarating and rewarding gaming experience I've had in a long time.

But I have to admit that I don't see any way possible for a 2p MP team running a Brute/Scoundrel pair while maintaining the "fog of war" by only speaking in generalities and not specifics, to win this scenario. In fact, I think it would take astronomically good luck and fortune to do so.

Keep in mind neither of us are new to the game and both own the tabletop version. So now we have a decision to make. Do we allow ourselves to completely coordinate our moves (which I think would make the game turn into a real slog and chore where we spend more time talking about how to play rather than actually playing), or do we forget about trying to run this particular pair of mercs through the scenarios and allow ourselves to customize our two merc party for each particular scenario?

Or should we start playing two mercs each and custom pick which foursome we'll take into each scenario?

All I can say is that I'm very glad to have time with the ea version of Gloomhaven, to sort things like this out before embarking on the campaign when it's released.

TLDR: I agree with you OP, but I'm not so sure that I like the idea of being forced to play in a specific 2p MP configuration (x2 mercs per player, customizing our party of 4 for each individual scenario) in order to have a reasonable chance to win some scenarios.

e.g., The "Angry Djinns" scenario on normal, is extremely difficult for a Brute/Scoundrel pair to win that is not fully and completely coordinated, and has at least decent luck during a play through.

[Shad]

You are not locked with 1 character on the game board. You have bought it and can do whatever you like, including telling each other the initiative even if the rule state otherwise.

You can also increase the difficulty by adding monsters. The objective of a game is to have fun so if you want custom rules, just do it.

[Greyhawke]

Originally posted by Shad:

You are not locked with 1 character on the game board. You have bought it and can do whatever you like, including telling each other the initiative even if the rule state otherwise.

You can also increase the difficulty by adding monsters. The objective of a game is to have fun so if you want custom rules, just do it.

Exactly! Couldn't agree more. How we are going to houserule and play the campaign is precisely why I do appreciate having the ea version to test run with before starting a campaign run.

My post wasn't intended as a critique of the game, I was merely trying to make sure other users (especially new ones) knew that under certain circumstances there will probably be a real need to consider all your options when it comes to playing some scenarios, especially if you are trying to stick to "mains" or favorite mercs for all the scenarios you play.

It didn't take long at all for it to become obvious that it will be required with this version of the game. Not having played all the scenarios yet I can't say for sure, but based on my 25+ hours of play so far it's pretty obvious that some scenarios (at least one for sure) don't really offer a reasonable challenge and chance to win on normal difficulty - if played with the "wrong" pair of mercs and/or no houserules about communicating with your other MP player in a 2p game.

These things might not be so obvious to new players who haven't played the tabletop version already, was just saying. This is not a "set it and forget it, then play strictly according to the rules" version of the game, especially so with some party configurations and difficulty settings.

Game on!

[SpicyCrab]

I really don't think directly coordinating with your teammate is a problem at all, the game plays fine with it and I don't even think it really bogs down with just two people. I've always hated fuzzy rules like that anyway. If it's too easy, just raise the difficulty.

Play the way you want, I think you're over-estimating how bogged down the game would be by such conversation.

[KevinH]

@Shad. Good point. The board game was all about leveling up one character and retiring that character. I think I do not enjoy that as much, and I hope there is an option to not do that in this version of the campaign.

@Greyhawke. For us, most of the the time, we can play two mercs each very quickly and smoothly. And yes, we decided to share all information including init values. That is how we like to play the game. It is only slow why we get defeated and decide that we are going to try it again, but try hard to win. That is not very often,

[KevinH]

I am thinking that my op is only possible because I have played the board game completely to the end. The original board game had mystery (sealed boxes) and a story. That is done and over with now for me. But I suspect that I would want that if I had never played the game before. I enjoyed that.

Anyways, it is great to have two different ways to play this awesome game.

[Tormey01]

I like guildmaster a lot as well, with the options it gives you, but I still want the full campaign as well hopefully later this year

[weird flex]

I'd like more flexibility with the Guildmaster; options for house rules. At the moment it is just a tad unforgiving. My party swapped mercs at lvl5 and even though the missions are supposedly back to lvl1 they suddenly seem pretty much impossible for our new pairing (multiple elites per mission etc). Perhaps it's just a balancing issue, but lvl1 with our starting mercs was a relative cakewalk...

[mal_kav]

Originally posted by KevinH:

I am playing a multiplayer game with two players, two characters each, on hard level. We had a tough mission, and failed it. We talked about which characters were best suited to the mission for about ten minutes, came up with a very specific plan, and then swapped out two of the four characters. We easily defeated the mission. It felt really, really rewarding to come up with, and then implement a perfect plan. It made us appreciate the depth and variety of the scenarios, and the synergy of the different character combinations.

Nothing like that happened in the board game version since we were locked into one character. The Guildmaster version has so much more tactical depth. I love it!

Actually even the board game rules tell you can create a new character when ever you want to try something new. (It is under creating a new character during the campaign.)

[Iduno]

Not having characters retire ever has some benefits, but the number of (non-relic?) items really needs to be increased for that to work well. Potions are always sold out, armor unavailable, only the worst weapons (weighted net, etc.) left. Even a 50% increase would make sure everyone has *something* to equip, and still force you to find uses for the lower-end stuff.

[BiffMan]

I really miss the sense of progression the board game gave you. Guildmaster is very satisfying for pick up and play, but it's not nearly as... epic?

[Les White]

Originally posted by Iduno:

Not having characters retire ever has some benefits, but the number of (non-relic?) items really needs to be increased for that to work well. Potions are always sold out, armor unavailable, only the worst weapons (weighted net, etc.) left. Even a 50% increase would make sure everyone has *something* to equip, and still force you to find uses for the lower-end stuff.

I have every character at 9 and have no problems getting items. Everyone has useful gear and the only thing I'm using suboptimal stuff on is small items, actually. Platemail, Splintmail, robes of evocation, invis cloak, cloak of phasing, cloak of pockets, second skin, steam armor are all in the game. Jagged sword, reaping scythe, tower shield, heater shield, battle axe, piercing bow, war hammer, volatile bomb, ancient drill are all in the game. I even have the light wand and sword. You have boots of speed, dashing, sprinting, striding, quickness, and something that I never picked up on tabletop - Serene Sandals. Holy cow those are great! I never would have considered them on tabletop before this, but turning literally ever bottom action into a move 4 is absolutely incredible for Tinkerer/Cragheart.

Do more jobs, you unlock more items. My entire party is what I would consider to be "Well equipped" and aside from only having one elemental wand and sword, I actually don't have any complaints at all about itemization, but since those are random finds in tabletop anyway, it doesn't bother me much.

[Dandadandan]

Playing 2 player each controlling 2 mercs, find it quite fun to spend a few minutes discussing each turns plans including initiatives, recently bumped the difficulty up to insane and find the level of challenge to be hard enough that our strategy and plans really do matter on each turn. Maxed out a few characters along the way but a few like the tinkerer and soothesinger still have a couple of levels left to go... the new characters were just too cool not to try out immediately. I'd love to try the board game but it's super expensive to ship internationally and I haven't found a local shop that has it in stock... I'm also pretty doubtful that I could get my kids to sit down and play it.

[KevinH]

Hmmm.... My group all thought that you had to retire one adventurer in order to switch. I take a look at the rules about that again.

@Dandandan Insane?? That is insane! Seriously though, that is inspiring. I will suggest that we try insane level to the person that I am playing with.

[SpicyCrab]

I have played the board game extensively and I definitely prefer the digital version. I wish there was some kind of high-stakes /rogue like mode. Other than that this is perfect.

3 Player is really hard to do in board game form and ends up being a bunch of book keeping,I have to keep a tablet/app open at all times and we still mess stuff up occasionally.

This is very complex game so having the CPU to do all the boring stuff is honestly just hard to give up.