Game: Stratego: Legends

Thread: Re: Reveal and action sequence

gavtyler — 2008-07-31T05:38:30+00:00

Yes, one of the vampires - we had no idea how to play that piece and figured we would just have to remember...

I suppose as it was a basic assumption from the original game (which I have never played btw) then they let it out of the rules - with my limited rules writing experience I know who difficult it is just to remember everything - but this is a fundamental part of the game and should have been done correctly...

Thread: Re: Reveal and action sequence

Salt-Man Z — 2008-07-31T00:36:11+00:00

I was in the middle of writing a post about how the rules didn't really clarify one way or the other, but that a temporary reveal only made sense.

Then I thought to check the rules for a normal attack. Sure enough, it says both players "reveal" their pieces and decide who wins the battle. It says nothing about turning the winning piece back. But we all know that in Stratego, you don't leave your piece exposed after winning a battle; you turn it back around. Ergo.

(Besides -- and I don't feel like digging the rulebook out for a third time here -- I believe that your pieces are basically defined as those facing you. Isn't there a character that lets you capture an oppenent's piece and use it on your team?)

Thread: Re: Reveal and action sequence

gavtyler — 2008-07-30T06:14:45+00:00

That makes sense now - we thought you left the piece revealed...

Thread: Re: Reveal and action sequence

Salt-Man Z — 2008-07-29T03:11:15+00:00

(Assuming I understand the question):

The reveal, I can only assume, is simply to curtail cheating. If my piece has a "slashing" action, I have to show my piece before making my diagonal attack. Revealing the piece allows my opponent to verify that, yes, that is a legal move.

You don't keep the piece revealed, you just give it a quick flip so your opponent can see it, then turn it back and do the action.

Thread: Reveal and action sequence

gavtyler — 2008-07-28T10:47:39+00:00

We played this yesterday for the first time and we found the rules for "reveal and ... " action a bit open ended: if the piece is already revealed can it still use it's ability or has the fact it's been revealed already means they can't?

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

Bwian — 2008-04-15T16:44:57+00:00

Dave wrote:
I think the main reason is because, in the end, it's still Stratego.

This was also my reasoning. IMHO, if they had made mid-level pieces more useful, by giving them good utility or supporting powers, the game could have risen beyond it's roots. Instead, it remained a game about the four biggest pieces on the board, with paltry influence from the little guys. I can just use regular Stratego to play that game.

Or at least so it seemed to me: I never bought much, so I may have missed the utility pieces.

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

Lego My Ego — 2008-02-22T07:56:30+00:00

I have also wondered why this game is not popular. But then I think about how poorly this game was marketed and sold by Hasbro. It had to be the worst and most greedy marketing campaign ever that destroyed what I think it is one of the best games ever made.

Hasbro tried to milk this game for all the money they could be making it an annoying collectible. If they wanted to make an extra buck they should have just sold complete sets of armies rather than random boxes. This is not the type of game where you just throw random pieces together and have fun. Plus the starting set was just a mishmash of pieces that did not show off the wide range of possibilities of this game and the full scope of fun and strategy that can be had.

I actually got totally hook on this game when it came out and went nuts. I was younger dumber and a little extra coin in my pocket so I bought countless booster packs. I would literally sit in the store opening them as i bought them until I got what I wanted. I ended up with one of the most impressive sets in the world, i think. Over 700 pieces, 2 custom table top board holders (one is almost a table in itself) 16 standing armies and so on.

I had a couple friends in my area that played and we played all the time. We tried to bring more people in and were moderately successful, but were scared to learn all the new stuff. So we would only let them play one army at a time fore a while until they got used to it then would let them graduate to the next army to use. Soon they became masters of all the standing armies and began to develop their own army combinations - some pretty impressive that we still use today. Unfortunately, many of these friends moved away, got married, had babies, so now there is only one friend left to play.

Thank the gods that there is that www.strategolegends.com to play. A few of our crew still battle via the internet on this site. I has no bells or whistles or much of anything, but it works and you can play anytime (when the server is not down which it is a lot) against anyone you want. Real Cool.

So you fellow BBG'ers who like to play we should meet up on the site and see who is the grandmaster legends player is.

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

Colorado_Jeff — 2008-02-07T00:07:37+00:00

If you enjoy "Stratego-like" games, (I see you already have Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation), you might also like Hera and Zeus.

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

cheng — 2008-02-06T21:19:44+00:00

My wife and I love this game, so when Wizards of the Coast closed all their stores and the price dropped to $6, I kept going back for more copies to get all the armies.

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

Tyveil — 2007-12-27T15:03:00+00:00

HuckmanT wrote:

Seems to me you have a good thing going here! A collectible game you really like has been shunned by the gaming community at large. Sounds like you should be able to get about as much cheap Stratego Legends stuff as you could want. Game on and forget what other folks have to say. You think it's fun to play? Guess what, it is!

You may have something going here I'll have to do some looking for the pieces online, my main concern was that they'd be hard to find (since they're out of print now).

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

Engineer Dad — 2007-12-27T03:44:17+00:00

Jormi_Boced wrote:
I didn't buy any of the boosters when it came out because I didn't have the money, but I bought a whole sealed case at Gen Con this year for like 12 bucks
That is great. Gaming finds like that are wonderful. I use Gencon as a spot to dump my SWM/AAM/WaS extra's.

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

Jormi_Boced — 2007-12-27T03:03:59+00:00

I didn't buy any of the boosters when it came out because I didn't have the money, but I bought a whole sealed case at Gen Con this year for like 12 bucks

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

HuckmanT — 2007-12-27T01:30:33+00:00

Tyveil wrote:
I played the game once last weekend with a friend. Impressions: Fantastic Game! The special abilities add lots of flavor, there seems to be quite a bit of depth to possible strategies, setup is simple, it's a well known publisher (Hasbro), the collectable and customizable elements should add to the selling power (similer to trading card games)... so I don't get it. Why is this game out of print and why was it apparently never much supported? I was looking forward to purchasing add on packs and customizing my own army but I doubt I'll want to invest much in a game that is shunned by the publisher and the bgg gaming community.

The only downside I saw was it was slow our first game because we had to constantly look at the reference cards.. but I was learning my army pretty well and I think by the 3rd game with the same army I would know my pieces very well. I don't look at this as a negative. Also why the random setup?? (just for simplicity?) I think once both players know their pieces a non-random setup would be prefered. That makes setup longer but on the other hand players would be more likely to learn their pieces during setup and less reference card needed during the game.

Seems to me you have a good thing going here! A collectible game you really like has been shunned by the gaming community at large. Sounds like you should be able to get about as much cheap Stratego Legends stuff as you could want. Game on and forget what other folks have to say. You think it's fun to play? Guess what, it is!

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

B Weage — 2007-12-27T01:05:51+00:00

I consider this to be a rather good game. I think there are three main reasons for many people to dislike the game. One is needing to remember the special power of every character. Another is the random set-up. The third was the whole collectible aspect.

I have to agree with those who find the memory element problematic, though not enough to cause me not to play this game. I think this would be less of an issue for those who really get into the game and play it often enough, and less of an issue for the kids who can remember every power of every pocket monster without reference to the cards, a much larger set than used here. I think the separate reference sheets - because they have all the possible characters - don't solve the memory problem very well. I think if you have just one set and can create or find a reference sheet that will cover just the units in each player's army it would be much more manageable.

It took me several plays to decide I like the random set-up. One of the features that I initially had problems with was the tight arrangement of pieces as compared to a standard Stratego layout with space between the armies. I quickly discovered that part of the skill is knowing how to use up some units to open up space for the ones that benefit from distance. I like having to examine the layout and figure out how I can best activate all my pieces and I like the interactions on the front line that would probably never occur if both players set up their armies as they desired. I've only tried the pre-set armies, but those have enough variety in the mix that I haven't randomly hit a starting layout where one side had a distinct advantage based on a really beneficial arrangement of pieces.

I've also explored a (more traditional Stratego) layout using a 3x2 set of boards with 33 usable starting squares on each side and a pair of empty rows running through the center. Each water square must be positioned outside the central two rows. Each side uses a 33 piece army (an extra 9, 1, and tower) and you have to take out both towers. I've really enjoyed non-random starting positions in that environment, but the maneuvering space between the armies helps minimize an instantly lop-sided game merely because someone badly guessed what the other person would do.

I will admit that I was initially bothered by the collectible aspect. It prevented me from trying the game until later when it went on sale. That shouldn't be an issue now. A few years ago there was an on-line store that would sell you any army sheet you wanted and any terrain tiles that you wanted. They may still be around, or someone else may be offering such a service. So you should be able to get into this game as deep as you desire at a reasonable cost.

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

Jormi_Boced — 2007-12-27T00:48:57+00:00

I like it!

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

GSReis — 2007-12-27T00:38:56+00:00

the collectable and customizable elements should add to the selling power (similer to trading card games)...
I doubt that. Buying packs of random cards is one thing (not my type of stuff, but I can see why some people like it). But I suppose that blindly getting two full armies, possibly the ones you already have, is utterly annoying to most people. That was a very stupid marketing scheme and certainly backfired.

Thread: Re: Why is this game so unpopular?

Dave — 2007-12-26T23:06:03+00:00

I think the main reason is because, in the end, it's still Stratego.

I bought one box of it. I (and others) found the lookup really annoying at the time. I think with so many games being published multi-language these days, we have become inured to the use of icons (see Roma, Race to the Galaxy, etc.).

I did want more at the time, but I was turned off because I didn't know which of the six boxes I was going to get, and I didn't want a repeat. If they had taken a more randomized approach (e.g., Dreamblade starters), I probably would have bought more of them.

Thread: Why is this game so unpopular?

Tyveil — 2007-12-26T22:47:41+00:00

I played the game once last weekend with a friend. Impressions: Fantastic Game! The special abilities add lots of flavor, there seems to be quite a bit of depth to possible strategies, setup is simple, it's a well known publisher (Hasbro), the collectable and customizable elements should add to the selling power (similer to trading card games)... so I don't get it. Why is this game out of print and why was it apparently never much supported? I was looking forward to purchasing add on packs and customizing my own army but I doubt I'll want to invest much in a game that is shunned by the publisher and the bgg gaming community.

The only downside I saw was it was slow our first game because we had to constantly look at the reference cards.. but I was learning my army pretty well and I think by the 3rd game with the same army I would know my pieces very well. I don't look at this as a negative. Also why the random setup?? (just for simplicity?) I think once both players know their pieces a non-random setup would be prefered. That makes setup longer but on the other hand players would be more likely to learn their pieces during setup and less reference card needed during the game.

Image

lordzogat — 2007-04-25T01:52:46+00:00

Various Pieces Received.

Image

lordzogat — 2007-04-25T01:52:10+00:00

Various Pieces Received.

Image

Jormi_Boced — 2007-04-23T02:00:50+00:00

My castle was well guarded.

Thread: Re: Stratego Legends game

kkrieger — 2007-02-19T17:09:15+00:00

I have a brand new copy of Qa'ans Resurgence for sale/trade if anyone is interested.

Check for it under my games for sale.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geekstore.php3?action=viewuser&...

Thread: Re: Stratego Legends game

norseman1066 — 2007-02-19T16:37:13+00:00

As already stated there were 6 different groups of boards/armies put out in the Base set. The two expansions noted above were the only set armies each coming with 2 Battle Boards. There were 15 piece boosters as well that were random (Good or Evil) and in Europe there are still some 14 piece boosters put out by Jumbo that have 7 Good and 7 Evil pieces. I have 3 Base Sets and at least 2 of the Jumbo boosters and 3 or 4 of the 15 piece Good Army boosters. I also have 2 Copies of both the Celestial and Mutant Armies as well. I found out about this game after it already was dropped by Hasbro/AH and have had a very difficult time trying to find the Boosters and some of the Promo Pieces that were handed out at the Cons in the late 90's early 00's. If enough people have this game on this site pehaps we can get some trading done.

Thor

Thread: Re: Stratego Legends game

sdonohue — 2007-02-19T02:41:58+00:00

There were six different boards and I think there were different mixes of pieces depending on the board you got. twilightgamesinc.com used to sell singles when they were twilightcards.com

I think the Qa'ans Resurgence and Celestial Vengeance packs were fixed and everything else was collectible.

Thread: Re: Stratego Legends game

Coyotek4 — 2007-02-19T02:40:06+00:00

I bought one copy of the 'base' SL game, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly certain that the base games come with different sets of pieces.

Thread: Stratego Legends game

dgc327 — 2007-02-19T02:11:42+00:00

Does anyone know if the original game came with the same pieces in each game? Or were the playing pieces different in each game as it is with the booster packs?

Thank you,

Darwin

Image

mcross — 2006-11-28T06:30:02+00:00

Magic swords and floating heads -- a few of the white pieces

Image

mcross — 2006-11-28T06:28:15+00:00

I wish more games had a custom molded insert

Image

mcross — 2006-11-28T06:28:07+00:00

White destroys the dark castle

Image

mcross — 2006-11-28T06:27:58+00:00

The rules are easy, but the summary charts can be a pain to flip through

Image

mcross — 2006-11-28T06:27:42+00:00

A few well-placed magic pieces should stop the white hordes...

Image

Phreedh — 2006-11-23T21:36:07+00:00

Stratego: Legends in action. Marie gets analysis paralysis...

Thread: Stratego Legends on a stormy sunday afternoon

Phreedh — 2006-11-13T17:35:17+00:00

I won this game Real Cheap Like (tm) in an online auction. It has taken me a while to get around to it, but yesterday me and my girlfriend sat down and tried it out.

I won't go into the mechanics of the game, as they have been described in other reviews. Instead I'll concentrate on our experience during our first and second games ever.

We first assembled the pieces. Quickly found out two pieces were missing. No wonder it was cheap. =( A bit disgruntled we decided to play with two pieces less for each side and removed two similar pieces from my side. "Look, these two have stars instead of numbers too - I'll put them aside." None of us had played the game before and to tell the truth we weren't overly enthusiastic.

The game board's art looked cheap and uninspiring. The game pieces felt sturdy enough, but it was a bit fiddly to mix them around on the table without turning them over by accident. First reaction to the stickers was "Oh look, generic stock fantasy images." and the next was "Why are the backgrounds metallic?". We quickly found it was hard to tell the colours apart. For instance, green and gold look pretty much the same from certain angles and the silver and purple pieces sometimes use the same colours in the illustrations. All a bit confusing for a newbie.

We went through the rules while setting up the whole thing and while they were a bit unclear at times, it worked fine and we were soon set up and ready to go. The first turn went to Marie and she was completely stumped. "So uh... What do I do now?". After a few agonizing minutes of cross referencing the front line pieces with the reference sheets, she decided to draw first blood. We had no idea if any of the surrounding pieces affected the two pieces in battle. None of us have played vanilla Stratego either so it was a bit of a trial and error run our first game.

It wasn't long until we started developing some basic tactics though, and the fact that the pieces were randomly placed during setup heightened one of the enjoyable factors - you have to make the best of the situation. We both agreed after a while that this was probably the main charm of the game. You had little to no control over the board layout and playing pieces, so instead you had to make the best out of every situation that arose. Sometimes you got shafted, sometimes you got lucky. Another good thing, especially according to my girlfriend, was the complete lack of dice and peripherals. You have the game board and the reference sheets and that's it.

Our biggest gripe during our first play through was the constant reference card flipping and turning and shuffling. Also, it was a bit hard to tell the pieces apart. The metallic foil stickers really doesn't add anything but trouble reading the pieces. These are more or less minor quirks though.

When we played our second game, we were actually quite enthusiastic and we quickly got into the action. We house ruled the amount of pieces you can switch after setup, instead of two we did three. This allows you not only to put your HQ in safety, but you can put that 10 strength piece and a defensive magic in better positions too. A few rules questions had been cleared up and all in all it was a quick and enjoyable game. We stuck with the same army, but shuffled the game board around a bit. This made a huge difference in play experience and I must say this is another benefit of the game. With just the basic set the combinations are limited ofcourse, but I think it's a contributing factor to the life span of the game. Especially if you play more than one game in a row. We also found that the referencing was less strenous during the second game.

Our final verdict after playing was "What a nice find!". We enjoyed both games, even Marie who lost both. I would never pay full price, but if you can find it for a bargain I'd say get it. It was perfect for a sunday afternoon with a storm outside. I can defenitely see it getting more play time and it would be fun to have all the pieces to play with. That probably won't happen unless I get a really good offer somewhere, but I'm thinking about doing proxies for all game pieces in the basic set. After all, I already have all the stats for them on my reference sheets.

Positives:
+ Quick and easy to play
+ Modular game board means bigger versatility
+ The possibility to expand and customize the armies
+ Quick setup
+ No dice and other bits, just the playing pieces and the board
+ Randomized chaos is fun in my book
+ Hilarious translations in the Swedish edition =)

Negatives:
- Having to check reference sheets constantly
- A bit too basic to be engaging in the long run
- Probably loses the fun when armies are optimized
- Hard to tell pieces apart
- Probably too random for most

Image

Drew1365 — 2006-10-06T20:02:06+00:00

Kralc's Horde Booster Pack for grey army.

Thread: Re: Ancients (elvish "green" race) BROKEN?

havoc110 — 2005-07-05T22:30:36+00:00

Ok,

Upon second playing I would say "not broken"

Armed with the knowledge from our earlier posts, I was
able to trounce the dark side.

But what is broken is the random setup. For example,
in the game where I played light, 3 of my bombs were in
front, whereas my opponents bombs were all in the back.

In future games we will increase the # of switches
you can make during the set-up. I will suggest to increase it
to 3 or 4.

Don.

Thread: Re: Ancients (elvish "green" race) BROKEN?

havoc110 — 2005-07-05T19:49:09+00:00

Hey Nate,

Just played the game for the 1st time, and I was the beige army,
and just as you say, I was victorious due to the death curses that you mentioned.

Next time I play, I will be the bad guys and see what can be done.

I am playing the basic set, so I don't think all of them are present, but I know that at least 4 of them are.

Some observations: The curses say to reveal "all" pieces on a certain terrain type. This means your opponent's pieces as well (from AH FAQ page). So the Ancients must give up as much knowledge as they gain.
Especially use this to identify whereabouts of other Magic pieces.
Once you know where they are, either avoid them like the plague, or run pieces with death curses into them so that the two curses "cancel".

Also, you know what type of terrain is vulnerable, get your pieces to safer ground. Better yet, move ALL your pieces off the vulnerable terrain and force your opponent to remove one of THEIR pieces when the curse expires.

If I was to play against only the Ancients, I would emphasize Vision, Distance Strike and Dispel Magic into my Army.

Good luck,

Don.

Thread: Ancients (elvish "green" race) BROKEN?

Natus — 2005-06-16T03:19:02+00:00

I've played 3 games so far with the full set, and last night I fought two battles with The Qa'ans against The Ancients. In both games, the outcome wasn't even in doubt. The Ancients won overwhelmingly. Why?

1) Strangling Vines
2) Flood Bringer
3) Quicksand
4) Earthquake
5) Eruption

If all of these pieces die, the Ancients player will be able to see 50%-85% of an opponent's entire army AND will be able to kill 5 opposing pieces of whatever value, not to mention having already destroyed the three units that attacked the Magic pieces listed above.

My opponent did this twice, and both times my castle was revealed (I hadn't yet figured out to set it up on a Desert or Town space), and both times I was sunk due to my opponent's superior knowledge not only regarding the whereabouts of my castle but also of the disposition of my forces. This seems SERIOUSLY unbalanced to me and I wonder that no one has mentioned this before.

Yes, one can deny a Death Curse through luck or take out a Magic piece with a Dispel Magic creature, but chances are the majority of these pieces will "go off." It gives the Ancients player an inordinate amount of power and knowledge, especially with casual players, who don't know how to protect against it. In my games, not only were my castles revealed, but my 10, 9, and 8 characters were removed, at little cost to the Ancients player. Now, if the Ancients were weak otherwise, and had these very powerful pieces, I might understand, but they are just as strong (it seems) as every other race. Being a CCG player, we have a term for this: broken.

Is there an easy way for an amateur opponent of the Ancients to overcome this, or are these pieces overpowered? Is there any errata that I might have missed? I like the game a lot, but I won't play with the Ancients again. Too frustrating and too unfair.

Thread: "Forests are everywhere" strategy. "Adjacent to water" strategy.

ebridge — 2004-06-08T03:44:13+00:00

Just in case you didn't notice, in the entire set of all of the terrain boards there are AT LEAST 20 MORE FORESTS than any other terrain. Only 8 of the original 24 boards have only 1 forest on them. Even though this is 1/3 of the boards, it is actually MUCH better than the rest. For the other terrains close to HALF of the boards have only one of that terrain type. I only mention this because if you play with random boards, as we do, you can count on there being more forests out there than any other terrain. I am currently constructing a Blue and Green army that utilizes all of the "+ X on forests" pieces, and the blue expansion has made this strategy even more powerful. Throw in some pieces that can move from forest to forest and you're in even better shape!

On a second strategic note, a piece with an "adjacent to water" ability will be the most consistently versatile piece in the game. In the worst case scenario, where all four corners are water (and I don't even know if this is possible), you still have 12 spaces where you can use this advantage. In the case where NONE of the water spaces are on the edge of the board you can have as many as 32 SPACES(out of 60 playable spaces) where that ability helps. In short you are looking at a 20-50% guarantee of using that ability every game. Did you think that Blue's Spirit of Water was a weak piece (move him from adjacent to water to adjacent to water)? Not anymore. And if you like Silver don't overlook Neptilion (STR 5 +2 adj to water) AND Mist Giant (STR 4 +2 adj to water). Put a bunch of these guys in your army and make your opponent weep. Just food for thought. Use it if you can. Take care.

Thread: Scrapped

maelic001 — 2004-05-25T01:24:34+00:00

According to AH's message boards, Stratego Legends is now out of print and there are no plans to reprint or repackage it. They have removed the product page from their website, but will maintain the FAQ, the downloadable rules, and the forum folder for the time being.

Thread: Session Report

beaslera — 2004-04-13T01:44:16+00:00

I played two games of Stratego: Legends recently. We randomized the boards, but not the setup of the pieces. I ended up with an awful lot of marsh, a handful of cities, and most of the rest as mountain. My opponent had mostly forests and mountains.
I took the Good pieces and in the interests of time we decided to choose all of our pieces out of one army list each. We've found that significantly cuts down on the amount of time spent looking up what each piece does during the game. So out of the Good pieces I settled on the Valorians (Gold). I avoided the Blue pieces because I've found that I can't hardly win with them; their abilities seem to mostly be movement oriented (e.g., teleport) and that just leads to me *quickly* rushing my pieces to their deaths. I like the Green army for their range and how they work together, but played them last time.
----------
For the first game, my opponent took the Gargans (Gray). It had been a while since either of us had played so I glanced over his roster before choosing pieces. I remembered he could use Dumas to attack one of his own Magic pieces and thereby kill two of my pieces on the front two rows on his first turn. I missed one other important piece.
I took Sir Urgwaine (10) to pump my paladins by +1, Tiera (9) because if she succesfully attacks my opponent would have to kill one of his pieces (his choice), and one Oreld (8) which could give me another turn. I also took the Psychic Devourer (1), because it can kill any piece as long as I already know what piece it is; useful for when my opponent's 10 is already gone.

First turn, the Dumas trick takes out two of my pieces, including one of my Lamoraks (7, dispel magic, charging). Later on I would run out of pieces that could dispel magic and be forced to become overly cautious. Then on subsequent turns my opponent unleashed his Rock Giant (5). I had forgotten about that ranged attacker. My two front rows were mostly low-value creatures (so I wouldn't lose high value pieces to the Dumas trick). He decimated my front and scouted several of my Magic pieces. Eventually my front was empty enough that he moved up to go for the third row and my other Lamorak from the side was able to charge the Rock Giant. The Rock Giant had been guarded by Namhel (9, +1 to ajacent Giant) who killed the Lamorak. Then Tiera died to Gnarak (2, +7 on mountain), and the game quickly degenerated into my opponent scouting my pieces with Girr (8, Giant, Vision) and killing them with Namhel. The game ended with a suiciding Medusa killing my castle and four other pieces. I never even saw his 10 piece, Ultimadus.

From this game I remembered just how powerful the Gargans are and I remembered just how important Vision and Ranged attacks are. Unfortunately, the Valorians have neither Vision nor Ranged attacks, so I had to come up with a plan that could lead to victory with normal attacks even if I didn't know what piece I was attacking. I realized that I could get better results if I played with pieces that helped each other instead of having a mix of clerics, wizards and paladins. I also decided to make good use of my Death Curses, noting how few the Gargans had.
----------
For our second game, I switched a few pieces in/out and my opponent took the Qa'ans (Purple). We kept the same boards. I ditched almost all the paladins on the rational that even though they seem somewhat more powerful they aren't as plentiful. I set up with one Redillian Evoker (charging, Death Curse: wizards +1) on the front line with the intention of suiciding to pump about half of my pieces by 1. With so much mountain on the board I also put my Humble Clergy (6, Death Curse: all 2 pieces get +6) on the front row, and put my two Hillstone Acolytes (2, +2 on mountain, charging) on the second row. My two Lamoraks went on the sides and I placed high level pieces in the remaining gaps on the front rows. Magic pieces went in the back, figuring most of my opponent's pieces with Dispel Magic would be dead by then.
My opponent attempted the second row ranged attacks again, but this time all he hit were high level creatures. My 10 and 9 were revealed almost immediately. Meanwhile my Redillian Evoker attacked and died. My Lamoraks then practically rampaged through the board. Before dying, they each killed 6 or so pieces out of the front rows. A Nazint (2) suicides to pump a Perplexon (7) up to tie with a Lamorak, and then the other Lamorak runs into my opponents 10, Bremnuk. I then make a risky assault; Saravannus (10, but +1 due to the Death Curse) chases Brenmuk deep into opponent territory and kills him. Later, I found out I was one square from losing Saravannus to my opponent's 1 piece. With the 10 gone and the Lamoraks dead, the Humble Clergy attacked an unknown piece that turned out to be a Magic piece, and suddenly my Hillstone Acolytes were worth 8 (10 on mountains) and were charging every which way. Thankfully, two of my opponents 2's were already dead, but one of them took out one of my Hillstone Acolytes. After my 2's were dead, I attacked with my other Redillian Evoker to pump up my wizards again.
Good won in the end, with much fewer and less significant losses.

The differences in my setup and play style between the two games were significant. Removing one of the three races from my army helped all the pieces work together. Putting higher level creatures on the front row was devastating. With the Lamoraks to clear out many Magic pieces, I felt my 10 and 9 were relatively safe and they basically prevented my opponent from attacking until half his army was dead and he had room to maneuver. Finally, death curses were vital.
The Death Curse imbalance tipped the 2nd game. The Mold creatures have Death Curses, but they are on more powerful pieces. Meanwhile, the Valorians were able to attack wildly using low level pieces with Death Curses and the intent of dying and pumping up half of their remaining forces. If a Mold Death Curse happened, I would just throw out another piece with a Death Curse and let my opponent put a dead piece or two back on the board for ending a Mold Death Curse.

From my opponent's viewpoint, Ranged attacks and Vision were still important, but in this case he couldn't kill my nearby pieces...he just knew whether they were Magic Pieces or not. Next time I'm sure he'll put a few higher level pieces up front.

Thread: User Review

TomVasel — 2004-02-10T00:27:34+00:00

I’ve always had a soft spot for Stratego. Although I rarely play the game anymore, it was the first game I ever played where I felt total control over whether I won or lost the game. My father bought it for me when I was about ten, I think, and I beat him soundly in our first game – only adding to my fascination of the game. I whooped up on all the neighborhood kids, thinking that I ruled the world, until an elderly gentleman soundly defeated me several times, putting me in my place. I still enjoy the game, but see more limitations on it as I get older – but will always remember it with a smile.

Therefore, when I was just exiting the CCG era of my life, I was extremely excited to see Stratego: Legends (Avalon Hill: Hasbro, 1999 – Craig Van Ness), a game that combined a collectable element with a board game. Not only did the game have a fantasy theme, but offered special abilities for the different pieces – something that reminded me of Cosmic Encounter – one of my favorite games. After playing the game, I really enjoyed it, but found that looking up the reference cards was a bit of a pain. The expansions for the game promised some replayability, but support quickly faded. I still play Stratego: Legends from time to time, but it just doesn’t have the same fun as it did the first couple times I played it.

Game play is similar to regular Stratego, with quite a few exceptions…
- The numbers have been changed, so that the higher number (usually) defeats a lower number. Now, frankly, I think that’s a good idea, but it still takes some getting used to.
- The board no longer has a river dividing the two armies, with entry points between them. Instead, there are only sixty-four spaces on the board, and each army can immediately attack the other army. Each square is now one of seven terrain types (plains, marsh, forest, mountains, desert, water, and town), and they affect how certain pieces attack, etc. Water spaces are impassable, and one is included on each board. (Four boards of sixteen squares each are shuffled to form the playing board for the game.)
- The armies are customizable. While the numbers for the pieces stay the same, each piece has different special options, which do a variety of things. However, each army has certain restrictions placed upon them when customizing. First of all, the armies must be either of the good or evil alignment. Each of these alignments is made up of three races – which really don’t affect game play much, except that they all share certain characteristics. Armies also cannot change the amount of pieces for each base number of the creatures. For example, you can only have 1 “10”, 1 “9”, and 3 “8”’s. Instead of bombs, the pieces are called “Magic”, and “Castles” replace flags.
- Setup for the armies is now random. I think this is to deter “undefeatable” setups and to better emulate the randomness of a CCG deck. All the pieces are shuffled face down and placed on the boards (which are also randomly setup). After setup, the players may make two switches, each involving two of their pieces.
- Special abilities are used on almost all pieces. Some of them involve terrain, giving them an innate ability (such as +1 on desert spaces). Others allow certain actions, like flying (moving over any number of pieces or water spaces orthogonally). Some pieces have a “Death Curse”, which goes into affect when they die (ex: “All pieces with Flying ability get +1”). Only one “Death Curse” can be in affect at a time, so new ones replace the current one in play. Other special abilities include: Slashing (moving diagonally like a bishop), Teleporting, Charging, etc. All these abilities are not printed on the pieces, but rather included on large reference cards included with the game.

All other rules of Stratego are in affect, and the first player to capture the other’s castle is the winner!

Some comments on the game…

1.) Components: The components for this game are top-notch, with a few exceptions. The pieces are really nice, and the sticker sheets that are used to be put on the plastic playing pieces have some really good artwork on them. I really like that the plastic tray inside the box has the numbers of the pieces in each army – which really helps when customizing your forces. The pieces are designed like all good Stratego pieces, which do not allow viewing of the back unless you are looking directly at it. The boards are nice, although they do not fit together as well as I would like, even with a puzzle-type frame to hold them in place. Everything fits well in a very nicely designed box, with great artwork.

2.) Components, part 2: HOWEVER, and this is by far my biggest complaint about the game, are the reference sheets and pieces. There are six double-sided reference cards included with the base game (and two more come from the expansions). The only way to match the pieces with the reference sheets is to match color, picture, and number. The pieces have NO text or symbols on them, other than their base number. Unless one has a photographic memory, this means that the reference sheets will be used in every attack of the game. This can get frustrating and slightly annoying. You would think that they could have put something on the pieces, like a small winged symbol to stand for Flying, but there’s nothing. After several plays, I’m sure that players can get used to this – but it’s really annoying the first couple of times, and I’m sure will turn off some people.

3.) Rules: The rules are done nicely, although I still would have liked a small section explaining the differences between this game and regular Stratego – which would have helped veteran players. But they are clearly written in a large 12 page book – one that gives attention to some special abilities, explaining them further. I found that the game is simple to teach, but it takes new players a while to get used to all the special abilities. Fans of Magic the Gathering will feel right at home, however, and should pick up the game quite quickly.

4.) Collectable: This is an evil to some, a joy to others. I bought two copies of the game (got one really cheap – extremely so), and some of the expansions. I don’t have all the pieces, but every game comes with two complete armies, and I don’t see how any of the pieces are more powerful than others (except for the obvious – a “10” is invariably better than a “3”). The only thing that brings out the sheer power of armies is when they are combined in the best combos. And I really haven’t seen too many of these. Of course, I’m not going to play the game a hundred times to find out. Still, this game could be used as a portal for CCG and collectable miniature gamers, to bring them into the world of board gaming. Then again, since Hasbro hasn’t produced any more expansions, what’s the point?

5.) Strategy: As with many CCGs, the strategy is not so much in playing the game, but in building your army. (Which, if you only buy the basic game, isn’t much of an option.) Having your army randomly placed adds HUGE random factors to the game, and we usually play with a house rule that we set up our armies. This of course, could lead to abuse of the system, but we don’t play the game enough to run into that problem.

6.) Theme: The story is actually quite interesting, and I enjoyed reading the back story. It helps fit in with the theme, and the special abilities of each army do reflect a certain uniqueness.

7.) Expansions: There are two expansions for the game: Qua’ans Resurgence and Celestial Vengeance – both of which add a complete army. They are nice, but are unfortunately, the only expansions added.

8.) Fun Factor: The fun factor in this game is high, if and only if both players are familiar with the special abilities. Otherwise, too much time is spent looking them up on the reference cards. I enjoyed the game quite a bit, but found that this was too much of a distraction, so it doesn’t see much play nowadays.

So I really can’t promote this game, unless you are a huge Stratego fan or a Magic: The Gathering fan who is converting over to board games. Maybe somebody will figure out a way to get around using the reference forms, but I find them awkward and unwieldy. I like chaos in games, but this one may go just a little too overboard. Yet, at the same time, the quality in components and the idea of the game is very enticing! If you don’t mind the extra work in looking up abilities, this may be your cup of tea. I just doubt that most people want to put in that effort.

Tom Vasel

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

I absolutley hate this game. Perhaps I haven't given it enough time to learn what each of the individual pieces do, but in the time it would take to do that, I'd know a boatload of other 2 player games I'd rather be playing.

My two biggest concerns are these. One, as stated above, each piece is unique and you must pour over hoards of "quick" reference cards to find out what you do. In addition, making the game 'collectable' adds a money sink which could be better used buying better games.

Second, and the biggest, is the way the board is set up.. setting up the board in stratego was a phase of the game. You setting up your pieces, watching your opponent set up his, trying to bluff where things are while trying to set up a good strategy. In Legends, you place the pieces randomly, then get to switch two before the first move. This randomness really turned me off the game.

Final rating: (3)

Thread: User Review

BoardGameGeek — 2001-05-15T19:29:24+00:00

The Legends version of Stratego is a new way of jazzing up an old game. By intermingling a large set of abilities to all the pieces, the creators have taken the basic and somewhat boring concept of stratego and spiced it up while complicating it quite a bit. This game is easy to learn, but also takes a long time to learn (which sounds contradictory, but will be explained later.)

Those who know how to play the original stratego will immediately recognise how the game is played: numbered pieces are placed on the board so that only you know what your pieces are, and the two armies battle it out until one of them makes it to the other's base/flag. There are a lot of familiar pieces in the game as well, though they are generally under different names : you have to find your opponent's castle instead of his flag, the bombs are replaced with various magical effects that still kill anyone but certain pieces instantly, and instead of engineers to defuse bombs, you have certain pieces which can dispel magic. For some reason they flipped the numbers, however, meaning that now 10 is the most powerful unit while 1 is the 'spy' unit that almost anything can kill.

The difference in this game is that aside from the number strength of each unit, there are also a myriad of abilities for each unit. Each unit has at least one ability, most have two. Very few have three. This means that every piece is unique and can be used in a unique way. For example, some pieces can move two spaces at a time, some can "charge" (move like a chess rook), "slash" (move like a chess bishop), or fly over a series of pieces as long as they land on an empty space.

There are also some abilties that are completely unique abilites, such as a medusa piece that lets you kill all adjacent pieces, or a dragon piece that lets you give another piece the ability to temporarily fly. There are also death curses, which are only active once the unit dies. These death curses stay in place until another unit with a death curse replaces them. These curses range from benifiting one side heavily to just causing odd effects, such as causing every creature to fly.

There are 206 different, unique pieces in the game, 103 of them being the 'good' side, and 103 being the 'evil' side. However, you only receive 30 pieces for each side with the original game (although you can buy additional pieces in boxes of 15 apiece for about 10 dollars a box.) The uniqueness of each game makes the game a lot more interesting than the original stratego, and with the option to collect and add new pieces, the game can take on a whole new meaning just by putting in different pieces for each side.

However, the game's greatest strength is also the game's greatest weakness. Each unit's abilities are placed on 6 separate cards that contain about 34 units apiece, 3 cards for each side (each side is divided into 3 races, hence the reason for 6 cards instead of 2.) Thus, every time it is someone's turn, they must look at their pieces, think of which ones might be useful at the time, and then look up what those pieces to do to see which is the best move. This means that those unfamiliar with the game are in for a very long first game. After about 3 or 4 games, however, a person can quickly memorize their pieces (especially the ones that they found to be extremely useful previously.) Thus, as I explained, the game has basic rules of stratego, and is therefore easy to learn, but at the same time it takes a long time to learn what each individual piece does so that you do not have to constantly refer to your reference cards. However, this is still simpler than some games out there (particularly wargames) that have novels for instruction booklets and require 4+ hours to play.

The game as a whole looks fantastic, with artwork for each individual piece. The gameboard itself randomizes with each play, but the framing could use a little work (you can just as soon ignore the frame as long as you don't bump the board too much, though.)

The instruction manual has an optional story you can read, which helps the theme a bit, but is in no way essential for play. Because the basic rules are pretty simple, most of the time required to learn the game is done during the first game, checking reference cards to see what each unit does.

The game has a lot more replay value than the original stratego, since one can collect new pieces for either side, and improve one's army. Also, the board is somewhat randomized each time two people play, and since the pieces are also placed on the board randomly (with some minor swapping aloud so your castle isn't on the front lines and such) the game is different every time it is played.

Thus, the final verdict for this game is that although it's complex in the beginning, it remains fun even through the complexity. The game becomes more fun each time it is played, as less referencing is needed. Plus, this game is good for collectors who want to create the best army, or even collect every single piece. Thus, if you want a game you will play over and over again and can improve over time, you should definately choose this game over the original version of stratego.

Thread: Session Report

gamemark — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

STRATEGO has always been an intriguing if flawed concept. (In David Parlett's "The Oxford History of Board Games," he puts these games in the L'Attaque [sp?] family.) Variants on this idea of hidden pieces at war range from Columbia Games block system to the face-down cards of ZOON to the magnetic stand-up board of ZOMAX. At their worst, these games become static wars of attrition... at their best, they simulate the fog of war in a novel and attractive way.

So let's start with the look of the game... as advertised on r.g.b., the board is simple but functional. (The artwork is small blocks of stylized territory symbols set against a black background.) The frame for the board is cheaply done (imagine a Seafarers-like puzzle piece frame out of lighter cardboard). OTOH, the pieces are beautiful... the artwork on them is stunning. (It's borrowed from some defunct CCG... and it's an excellent choice to establish the atmosphere of the game.) Each piece has a single symbol which denotes it's strength... the plastic part looks like the STRATEGO pieces we grew up with (as opposed to those in the Winning Moves edition).

And that leads us to both the heart of the revision AND the real problem with the game: the battle rosters. Each side has three double-sided reference cards with the abilities, actions, death curses, and innate abilities of the creatures in their army. Thankfully, each army is divided into 3 'races', each of which has a different background color on the pieces and the reference charts. There are a wide variety of game-changing/rule-bending things that can happen, depending on which characters you move and/or reveal. IF (and that's a big "if", mind you) you played this game often enough to learn the characters for both armies, these effects would make for an interesting game, especially when you add the collectable aspect of adding different characters to your army mix. ("Hey, I didn't think you'd bring Clevut against me again...")

However, Greg and I spent mucho time flipping our reference cards over and over and over to find particular pieces... I had help from Calvin & Ariel & Zane (all age 10 and under) which let me move in less time. I managed to free up a couple of powerful pieces early and decimate the front couple of lines of Greg's evil forces... and, to the game's credit, he was able to work his back into contention through some careful play. But my early lead proved insurmountable as I found his castle some 4-6 moves before he would have found mine. Evil evidently isn't as tough as it used to be... as the forces of Goodness and Light defeated the Dark Greg!

I didn't start out wanting to like this game... I mean, it's (a) collectible, and it's (b) STRATEGO, a game I'll play only under duress from my nephew. But I have to admit that the interesting powers and terrain variations could make this fun to play. OTOH, I won't ever buy a copy as I'm unwilling to spend the time (5-10 games) to learn the game properly and the money (6 boxes?! $24 each?!) to acquire a full set.

The biggest question for me is "Why didn't Hasbro come up with a better way to do the same thing?" Perhaps symbols on the pieces for flying creatures (which all work the same) or terrain bonuses... or (my suggestion), a bigger board with bigger pieces (imagine stand up ZOON cards) that contain all the necessary information. It'd be harder to make it collectible...but I'd pay the $40 for a big game with 100 pieces like that.

Well, all that is moot... we have what we have... if you're a fan of STRATEGO or M:tG, this might be right up your alley. And, hey, I'll play a game with you if I can be the Good Guys. :-)

Rating: 5 (7 if they did something/anything with those reference cards)

---

The next game we played was "Mark & Greg Go To The Airport". Directions from the hotel sent us the wrong way... although stopping at a convience store for directions did allow Greg to (a) find his razor, and (b) use it. After dropping off my rental car, we returned for more gaming!

Thread: Preview

BoardGameGeek — 2000-07-09T18:09:36+00:00

[Rating: 5 (7 if they did something/anything with those reference cards)]

Precisely my impression. The local store was kind enough to put together a full set for me (they do that sort of thing when you spend outrageous sums of money on their inventory) and give me a discount, so I have the whole thing. No surprise there.

James and I sat down to a game and ran headlong into the [reference card] problem. There are no good cues to help you remember what each piece does. So you spend tons of time looking up info to make sure you can use your pieces effectively. As a result, our first game was very long for
Stratego, ~1.5hrs.

That said, I rather like the mechanics. I dearly loved M:tG when it first came out, as James and I played with just the random starter decks, so the mystery and surprise level was a lot of fun. I don't care nearly so much for playing carefully tuned, precision kill types of decks.

Similarly Stratego Legends has a lot of that mystery ("You get to do *what*?!") that I find fun. The game does allow for constructed armies within the confines of regular Stratego limitations--e.g. one "10" piece, 2 "8" pieces, that sort of thing--but each box set is sufficiently well balanced that tuning is not at all necessary. I like that.

The rules are also very clear and very tight. There have been a few questions arise on r.g.b as to certain interactions, but to me they seemed quite obvious. There's not nearly the same problems with timing and multiple effects that many CCGs have.

In short, good game with one problem (the look-ups). One set is quite sufficient if you're interested but are not a compulsive collector like me.