What KICKSTARTER(S) are you BACKING and WHY?

I think Tainted Grail looks like fucking garbage. That’s my hot take on it.

I looked that game over and genuinely do not understand why it of all things blew up. It doesn't offer anything we haven't seen before outside of maybe the art and presentation, but even that doesn't really stand out. Can't wait for it to crack the BGG top 100 due to sheer numbers and collective asspats from backers.

DarthJoJo, You realise that the Arthurian story as written down several centuries after this guy supposedly lived (and there are many theories who and what this Arthur would have been and when he lived), is not history but highly stylised and polished fiction? More aimed at setting a standard of behaviour than a description of actual events?

It's like complaining that Daniel Craig's interpretation of James Bond is illegitimate because it is different from Sean Connery's (whilst ignoring that there were a few books before that).

Allies on the Frontier. 28mm pewter French & Indian War miniatures, Anglo-American Volunteers Defending the Colonies. www.kickstarter.com/projects/63158181/allies-on-the-frontier

Really nice set of miniatures sculpted with character. These small projects, which essentially help the company to put up the money for moulds up front, deserve all the love they get. No bullshit, no hype, just artisanship

Jur wrote: DarthJoJo, You realise that the Arthurian story as written down several centuries after this guy supposedly lived (and there are many theories who and what this Arthur would have been and when he lived), is not history but highly stylised and polished fiction? More aimed at setting a standard of behaviour than a description of actual events?

It's like complaining that Daniel Craig's interpretation of James Bond is illegitimate because it is different from Sean Connery's (whilst ignoring that there were a few books before that).

Except that Mallory or White or Boorman or Cathala all had compelling reasons to retell this old story in poetry or prose or films or games. They all had enough aesthetic sense to mark their work as distinct, satisfying, and compelling. They were not howling barbarians who just wanted a new way to sell plastic miniatures, and who named their method of doing so something that sounds like a euphemism for a toilet.

Sorry, but that name really bugs me: Tainted Grail. “I ate some week-old shrimp yesterday, and now I’m praying over the old tainted grail, if you know what I’m saying.”

Jur wrote: DarthJoJo, You realise that the Arthurian story as written down several centuries after this guy supposedly lived (and there are many theories who and what this Arthur would have been and when he lived), is not history but highly stylised and polished fiction? More aimed at setting a standard of behaviour than a description of actual events?

It's like complaining that Daniel Craig's interpretation of James Bond is illegitimate because it is different from Sean Connery's (whilst ignoring that there were a few books before that).

Yes, I am aware.

We can quibble over legitimacy, but I will say this: the Arthurian works of White and Tennyson and Malory have persisted years, decades, centuries. No one even remembers Guy Ritchie made an Arthur movie last year, much less that Clive Owen/Keira Knightley bit from a decade ago. And no one will remember Tainted Grail two months after it’s delivery except for the discrepancy between eBay and pledge prices.

What kills me is they could have played it straight as Knights of the Round confronting challenges in their search for the not-tainted grail. They were already flawed men (not Galahad, but you know) as the Kickstarter likes to say about its own player characters. Or they could have told their story about what happens when the brightest light of the Dark Ages falls and what little safety it provided is lost. But why give Camelot the HATE treatment? It deserves better, and honestly, a straight story of heroism would be the more daring in this landscape.

Semi-related, whatever happened to HATE? It looked and sounded horribly unpleasant. Did anyone actually play it?

I think one of the reasons Tainted Grail blew up was because they did Nemesis last year and started delivering really gorgeous games this fall. I didn't back TG, but after having played Nemesis I considered it because I believe they have a good grip on how games can create interesting stories.

Did any of you asshats who are crying over someone allegedly re-writing on old work of fiction actually read/watch the reviews of what the game does and how it works ?
I did, and I had never heard of this company before or the previous games they had done (I don't follow KSers - well I might now) but coughed up for it because it sounds a very unique game that I wanted to play - not full of miniatures by the score but an actual game system that looked pretty fucking good.
But even after checking reviews and looking at a preview of the rules this game may well end up a pile of shit, my wasted money will then be due to me being a poor appraiser of rules and mechanics rather than being someone who followed the crowd.

No, I haven’t read the rules or watched a live play, but none of those matter to me here. They could have done the whole post-cataclysmic thing a lot of more interesting ways. Aztecs have just barely repelled Cortez, and the empire is fractured as the Spanish prepare a second, larger expedition. The Israelites at pretty much any point after Solomon. But no, they went with a faux-edgy take on a legend I care about. I probably still wouldn’t have backed it as I have plenty of games I know are good that don’t see enough play, but they could have tried a not asinine setting.

DarthJoJo wrote: We can quibble over legitimacy, but I will say this: the Arthurian works of White and Tennyson and Malory have persisted years, decades, centuries. No one even remembers Guy Ritchie made an Arthur movie last year, much less that Clive Owen/Keira Knightley bit from a decade ago. And no one will remember Tainted Grail two months after it’s delivery except for the discrepancy between eBay and pledge prices.

Yup, which is why I don't understand why you get so bothered with this game. Just like I'm amazed at the time and effort people spend on publicising their hate of Star Wars movies that diverge from their Mary Jane dreams.

I'm a historian, I see the damage people (including game designers) do to things that really happened. It makes me wonder about your life choices.

What kills me is they could have played it straight as Knights of the Round confronting challenges in their search for the not-tainted grail. They were already flawed men (not Galahad, but you know) as the Kickstarter likes to say about its own player characters. Or they could have told their story about what happens when the brightest light of the Dark Ages falls and what little safety it provided is lost. But why give Camelot the HATE treatment? It deserves better, and honestly, a straight story of heroism would be the more daring in this landscape.

Yes, they could have made Junta about a small Caribian state fighting international monopoly and neo-imperialism, but they didn't. Peter Jackson could have limited the Hobbit to two movies and excluded the ridiculous battle of the Five Armies but he didn't. Tough luck for me. I go back to the book. And you should go to Pendragon (board or RPG) or Shadows over Camelot.

Edit: eh, not my fight

It’s okay, Jur. It’s just the tendency of the Internet to inflate everything. These three or four posts I’ve made here are all the time I’ve spent dumping on Tainted Grail. I’m not trolling the Kickstarter comments or BoardGameGeek stirring it up. I haven’t even complained about it to my wife, and I complain about useless things to her constantly. I don’t begrudge any of the backers and hope the game is worth their money.

But it’s still a dumb theme.

DarthJoJo wrote: It’s okay, Jur. It’s just the tendency of the Internet to inflate everything. These three or four posts I’ve made here are all the time I’ve spent dumping on Tainted Grail. I’m not trolling the Kickstarter comments or BoardGameGeek stirring it up. I haven’t even complained about it to my wife, and I complain about useless things to her constantly. I don’t begrudge any of the backers and hope the game is worth their money.

But it’s still a dumb theme.

At £70 (with the Pound weak) for three games plus a Steam key I don't think money's worth is going to be an issue.

DarthJoJo wrote: No, I haven’t read the rules or watched a live play, but none of those matter to me here. They could have done the whole post-cataclysmic thing a lot of more interesting ways. Aztecs have just barely repelled Cortez, and the empire is fractured as the Spanish prepare a second, larger expedition. The Israelites at pretty much any point after Solomon. But no, they went with a faux-edgy take on a legend I care about. I probably still wouldn’t have backed it as I have plenty of games I know are good that don’t see enough play, but they could have tried a not asinine setting.

Once again why is anyone getting upset over a boardgame that rehashes a myth ????

What is so offensive about this ?
"Tainted Grail is a solo or cooperative survival exploration game for 1-4 players, set in a dark universe that blends Arthurian legends and Celtic mythology with the unique, dark vision of Awaken Realms artists."
It's likely it has little, if anything at all, to do with Arthur and Camelot.
Next thing you'll be having all the Celts in the UK raising an uproar on disparaging their heritage