Share this project


Share this project

A single worker placement, dice placement game set in the Champions of Midgard universe.
A single worker placement, dice placement game set in the Champions of Midgard universe.
5,893 backers pledged $466,224 to help bring this project to life.

What Comes Next FAQ - $1 Pledge Survey - Anticipated 2019

Posted by Grey Fox Games (Creator)

Hey Reavers of Midgard backers,

After a nice night of Monster Slaughter, Key Forge and other games here at the office, we're back here and back to the work of making games. Some updates for you.

Pledge Manager FAQ

A couple of small things that have come up in questions and messages so far that are worth addressing here.

- - 

When will the pledge manager be open?

We are able to send it out approximately two weeks after the campaign ends. We'll be announcing that through an update.

How do I upgrade or change my pledge?

You will do that in BackerKit by clicking on the Switch Pledge Levels button in the Manage My Pledge section.

I need to change my address, how do I do that?

You're able to make address changes in BackerKit, even after filling out the survey, until the pledge manager closes.

I want to add on games. How do I do that?

You're able to choose add-on games in the pledge manager.

When does the pledge manager close?

We anticipate it closing sometime in 2019, likely no earlier than February. That's when additional charges owed for either switching pledge levels or additional games added will be charged. We will let you know in advance when cards are being charged.

Are add-ons available in different languages or for different language editions?

Because our partner companies are responsible for fulfillment in their regions, add-ons other than the playmat are not available for international editions of the game (versions in French, Portuguese and Spanish)

- - 

If there are any other questions that come up, you can always message us. That's the better way to ensure we'll see it.

$1 Pledge Survey

We are happy for every single backer we get on our campaigns. You are either showing interest, appreciation or passion for our games and we love that!

But we did notice an unusual trend with this campaign that we haven't seen before. Here's a list of recent campaigns and the percentage of Donation level backers they each had.

Champions of MIdgard Expansions - 2% of backers (143 total)

Deception: Undercover Allies - 2.2% of backers (100 total)

City of Gears - 6.5% of backers (203 total)

Run Fight or Die: Reloaded - 7.3% of backers (133 total)

Reavers of Midgard - 15.6% of backers (921 total)

As you can see, the number has been steadily ticking up before really spiking for this campaign. There are potential reasons and theories we have for this. 

On a broader level, there are a lot more high quality projects on Kickstarter these days, so competition is fierce. On a more specific level, the timing of this campaign so close to the holiday season makes justifying spending for a pledge for a game that won't be in your hands until next year when there are pressing gifting needs a difficult prospect.

We understand that many $1 backers do this because they'd love to pledge for the game but just don't have the funds and intend to do so later. There are also some who aren't 100% sold on the game just yet, but want to keep their options open. 

But the frustration we hear from full pledgers is that these contributions don't help unlock stretch goals, meaning the $1 backers get the entire benefit of the funds provided by people willing to go all-in and support the game while they don't have to spend much.

We're considering a number of options for how to address this on future campaigns. For now though, we want to hear from you. We've created a brief survey here for you to weigh in on this  if you'd so like.

For those who backed at this level for the campaign, rest assured we aren't making any changes for how we're handling Reavers of Midgard. The pledge manager is open to $1 level backers.

Anticipated Games 2019

There's currently a most anticipated games in 2019 geeklist up right now accepting nominations. We'd be honored if you gave Reavers of Midgard a thumbs up if you're as excited for it as we are! 

- - -

That's it for now!

Thanks again for your support and, if you're here in the US (or celebrating overseas) we hope you and yours enjoy a fantastic Thanksgiving!

Alex - Grey Fox Games

Ben Cook, Emanuele Lillo, and 42 more people like this update.


Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Ben Cook on

      Allot of important points have been made.

      There are currently 2 kickstarters running right now that show ways to motivate/reward people who pledge a significant amount of money during the campaign (compared to the $1 pledge access) =

      Assasins creed:

      If pledging the assasin level ($158) you get a free tower (not available for $1 backers) worth $52


      If you pledge during the campaign (not available for $1 backers) the "Gung ho! All in" will cost you $200, whereas it will cost $220 for those who pledge after the campaign ($1 pledgers).

      These are great reward structures to encourage $1 backers to back during the campaign. These are better structures than just alienating $1 backers completely by taking away the $1 pledge, just because some people (people who back during the campaign) dont like it.

      If you completely illiminate $1 pledges your company would also risk being perceived as siding with people who have money, compared to people who will eventually have the money, but can't afford it.

      Company image & reputstion is very important obviously, this has shown itself especially when it comes to the gaming industry

    2. Max on

      If the total of $1 pledges is 921... that means $921 going to the campaign, What would the people complaining about the $1 pledge option say if for 921 bucks the player board SG couldnt be reached? I mean, it's the full/empty glass discussion.

    3. Kyle Schleich

      Why are we having this conversations? Im baffled why some people are so determined to be so unhappy about anything.

      If you really want to please these whiners (which you should not) then tally up all the post kickstarter funds and if its enough to unlock yet another stretch goal then have another one unlock and send out an update.

    4. Missing avatar

      Or Shimonov on

      Wrote it in the survey, writing it here too; I am really disappointed that the $1 tier is even an issue to some people.

      It’s very unfriendly of some gamers in this community to suggest cancelling a backing lever that allows people who can’t just throw $60-$90 by a certain date to enjoy a game, just because, in some illogical way, it “prevents” unlocking the 37953rd stretch goal (This doesn’t make sense, and also - this project, may I remind everyone here, has hit 31 times the initial target. No one robbed you of anything).

      Whichever way you choose to handle this, Grey Fox, please consider that not all of us have big incomes, but we all love games. Eliminating the lower tier will only eliminate these customers and their money - I think keeping the lower tier open is the more community-conscious option.

    5. Jaffa Brown on

      Just got confirmation on my 'International orders' question and the Add-Ons from GreyFox.... It does not mean that. It's referring to international language versions of the games, so orders with English copies can get add-ons.

    6. Jaffa Brown on

      A question about the add-ons? When it says "Because our partner companies are responsible for fulfillment in their regions, add-ons other than the playmat are not available for international editions of the game (versions in French, Portuguese and Spanish)", does that mean us people in the UK cant get the add-ons, even though we are getting the English versions?

    7. Missing avatar

      Dave Montgomery

      Whether you agree or disagree with the option of removing or changing the $1 backer level, I think it is awesome that Grey Fox is asking us for our thoughts, rather than just making a change and seeing what happens.

    8. Nabend

      Wouldn't be surprised to see a few of 1s thinking they could only opt for CoM addons like the mat and avoid RoM entirely

    9. Thorlight

      1$ pledges with access to PM has been a thing on Kickstarter forever. So no need to change anything at all. Reasons for this is so high on RoM are many: Christmas around the corner, lack of good how to play videos on campaign, large gaps in Streatch goals, Oktober insane anount of good fames on KS as well as November.

      1$ is 1$ and SG’s are a optional thing creators can do or skip completly. Grey fix games gets there cash in pm anyway just think this is a ks culture thing give me more more more. To much curling from parents me thinks.

    10. Missing avatar

      Liam Mulvey


      Why? Can you give me a good reason? Does it benefit you in any way to reduce the $1 pledge? Why does restricting other people make your pledge any better?

      As @devil's says, if you restrict people as you want to do, the only thing that galena is we don't pledge at all and just buy at retail massively reducing the amount that GFG receive. All because you don't like the fact that people can pledge $1.

    11. Greg Sawchyn

      "These contributions don't help unlock stretch goals"... And here I thought every dollar pledged went to unlocking stretch goals, not just ones with rewards. I cannot believe this is even a thing to discuss. The entitlement of some people on Kickstarter amazes me.

    12. Missing avatar

      Mark Heffernan on

      There isn't an ideal answer. As has been noted in the comments, many want in on the Kickstarter because they want the Kickstarter extras, hence the reason they pledge a small amount, and then upgrade during the Pledge Manager phase.

      The way to fix that problem, which is to make the retail and KS versions of the game exactly the same, also means there's no incentive to join the KS, rather than simply waiting for retail.

      If you think this a major concern, I might consider offering an exclusive KS extra for those who commit fully during the campaign. Those who choose to back at the $1 level would get all the KS extras except for that one. For example, the $475K level extra that was still locked at the end of the campaign could have been offered as a "bonus extra" for those who commit in full and not made available in the Pledge Manager.

      As i said, even that isn't ideal but if your motivation is to cut back on the amount of $1 pledges, I think you have to offer an extra incentive to get backers to commit to the full amount during the campaign. Just be aware, not everyone will be able to do so, and many might choose not to back at all if they aren't able to get every KS extra that is made available.

    13. Roman Flores on

      I already answered the $1 pledge survey, but I want to add one more reason, I am having a lot of problems with kickstarter accepting my initial payment; most of the pledge managers allow payment through Paypal. I have not had any problems paying through paypal, that said, allowing me to access the pledge manager at a $1 pledge and then pledging the full ammount with an alternative payment option is highly desirable for me. Hope you consider this further down the road.
      thanks and regards!

    14. Ben Cook on


      Even if only half of the 900 x $1 backers later upgraded to Reavers alone ($69 + $15 shipping) that would be $37,800 (this has shipping included). Also, if half of those backers, who didnt end up upgrading their pledge, would contribute $450 for absolutely no reward (free money towards the campaign).


      I was all-in (1 of everything) at the start of the campaign, then financial situations arose (out of my control), which meant I was not able to afford it right now.
      I WILL be buying everything once I have the money, so if they hadn't had the $1 pledge access option then we would both have missed out (they wouldn't have gotten my money in the end & I wouldn't have been able to get all the kickstarter stuff).

      I was also the person who created the BGG thread (that was referenced in the update) for all backers concerns & feedback. I did this as I am passionate about this projects success. If I knew I wasn't able to eventually get everything in this project (due to unforseen financial circumstances & no pledge access options for me at the current time), I would feel absolutely gutted (working hard on a project that I won't have access to), as I have spent allot of time analyzing this campaign, whilst giving my feedback & working on support this campaign.

      Any social stretch goals in a campaign I also contribute to the most I can (as much as 1 backer can).

      I HATE when I can't afford to pledge the maximum amount (based on what I am pledging) towards a campaign (when the campaign is running), as I LOVE to contribute towards a campaign financially. It feels great when a campaign has done well & you know that your money helped towards it.


      Some people will be in my situation, some people will just tag along, not contributing anything to the campaign & cash in on the funding that campaign backers have done, some people will not know wether they want the game or not, & will stay at the $1 pledge till near the end, as they haven't made their mind up.

      Everyone has their reasons for the $1 pledge, to punish EVERY $1 pledger because SOME use it as a cheap access, & don't contribute anything (not even feedback or getting involved in social stretch goals).

      I look forwards to getting everything this campaign has to offer ;-)

    15. Daniel

      The alternative is people making no pledge (bad) or even make fuld pledges but not actually having the cash (worse). Then you Risk having to Tell paying backers you couldn't actually afford a stretchgoal everyone thought was unlocked.

    16. Simon Beal on

      As I mentioned during the campaign, just because someone has pledged at the $1 level, it doesn't mean they've only pledged $1. I pledged more than $1 but couldn't afford the full amount at the time of the campaign, and I know others did the same.

      Not allowing low level pledges access to the PM would be a very bad idea IMO (as would charging them more for the game). When a KS game has exclusives, a lot of people are in the all or nothing camp and won't buy at retail as they feel they're not getting the full game - to then deny them the KS version at the same cost would probably turn people away.

      Even if those backers only pay the full amount in the PM, that is hundreds more copies sold which is only better for the future of the game (expansions etc.). If people are put out because someone paying later than they did gets the same stuff, then that's on them - everyone has the same choice, but not everyone has a lot of disposable income to drop on every Kick Starter all the time.

    17. Peter Sandbeck Nielsen

      My 2 cents (or rather my 100 cents) on the matter with my utmost respect.

      The TLDR: Take the amount you are offered. It's still money in the bank. Still money towards stretch goals. Money towards the project getting realized or however you want to look at it.
      $900 more... not less.

      Personally I've not have much time to check the project info due to a busy work-schedule.
      I however love Champions of Midgaard and would probably upgrade in the PM just to be able to get the Jarl-edition of the expansions, as it would cost me an additional $100+ to import that expansion-box just on its own.

      The massive amount of interesting kickstarter this close to Christmas have stretched my money a bit thin, so when I discovered this project I was already maxed out. Having to buy present for 13+ family members not helping the situation.
      Sure I could probably just have canceled a few of the still active campaigns and spent the money here, on this game I have not had time to research if I would like or not.

      I despise kickstarter-exclusive content. I feel I'm getting less of an experience if there is content I can never get, or that I would have to pay a fortune for on the second-hand market (not even benefiting the publisher in any way).
      Granted you may not feel this way, and that KS-exclusives are "no biggy" but fact is that it matters to me (and apparently stretch goals matter a great deal to all those who have complained about $1-backers).
      In fact it matters to such an extent that I didn't upgrade my $1 pledge for "Time of Legends: Joan of Arc", simply due to the fact that some content was held exclusive just for the people who had the money to support during the campaign. Making little sense as any backer would still be paying just as much as the other backers when upgrading during the pledge manager, risking just as much on a project not released as any of the other backers. But now with less content due to "not supporting in time".
      It was even a campaign that I was ready to go all in on once the pledge manager opened, set hundreds of dollars aside so that I was ready, that is until I discovered the campaign exclusive stuff. :/
      Good money the publisher will now never see from me.

      Would I support a project I discover last second of its campaign if the minimum buy-in is $10-$15, only to discover later that the game is not for me? Probably not.
      Would I slacker-back anything or upgrade my pledge if I still would miss out on content, definitely not.

      Worst case I don't upgrade in the pledge manager because I'm not interested in the game - take my $1 as a donation towards stretch goals or whatever. Nothing lost for anyone except $1 for me.
      Best case, I like the game and upgrade in the pledge manager.
      I end up paying the same as everyone else, risking the same amount of money on the project. The money doesn't go towards stretch-goals but still goes to the publisher - you know the guys we want to stay in business to develop more awesome games.

      If there was $68 to the stretch-goal, I'm sure someone with the extra disposable cash would be the hero of the day and buy an extra copy to sell later, or that the project-creator would say "to heck with it, we're giving it to you anyways". Remember there's no guarantee that any $1-backer will "definitely" upgrade in the pledge manager. If they do then they probably have a good reason to not have done so earlier. Right now it's an extra $900 guaranteed for the publisher.
      At a $10-$15 minimum buy-in, it could instead have resulted in 900 backers less.
      900 people not helping with the amount they could at the time - even if just $1.
      900 people not helping unlocking "social stretch goals".
      Potentially 900 people not upgrading in a pledge manager, not giving the publisher a bit more cash to work with.
      Could it have meant an extra stretch goal unlocked? Maybe. Probably.
      But it could just as well not.

    18. Missing avatar


      My first theory for the $1 backers would have been the same reason I pledged relatively late: not enough information to base a decision on. On the other hand, Run, Fight or Die already saw an increase in $1 pledges (maybe a lot of existing owners trying to decide if they really need it or not).

      I guess you could try to increase the "Donation" level to $2 or even $5 to see how it affects pledge behavior, though you might end up losing more than you gain.

    19. Merazaander

      Hello, 1$ Backer here. I still don't get the situation and/or the problem!
      Let's look at the numbers again shall we? The first two kickstarters mentioned are expansion products to existing games. You cannot compare backer behaviour regarding expansions with new games. The backer pool for expansions mainly consists of people who own and love the base game. They are far more likely to commit to the project.
      If we take those projects out of the comparison we are only left with Gears and RFoD which have basically the same amount of 1$ pledges (yeah 0.8% difference for such a small statistic doesn't really matter). Lets say they both had around 7% 1$ pledges... that would mean Reavers should only have around 412 1$ pledges. It has twice as much but there are good reasons:

      a) The seasonal effects: Christmas time is hard on the budget so it's harder for people to commit.

      b) The external competition: Reavers ran against so many other big projects like Elite, Everrain, Monumental, Claustrophobia etc.. I have rarely seen a competition like that.

      c) The internal competition: The german version of Reavers is crowdfunded on a different platform as we speak. It sits currently at 174 backers. Those 174 people (and i'm one of them) would have probably backed the english version here without this option.

      So why did i keep my 1$ pledge? I love CoM and so i was on board the minute i saw reavers. However the german version was too attractive to pass on (same game, roughly same price but no shipping cost). But i kept the 1$ pledge to get the updates and just to give Greyfox this small "donation" for their work.


      (sry for grammar/spelling errors... not a native speaker)

    20. Ben Mullen on

      I think the biggest issue was the mad rush of Kickstarters this fall. I would keep an eye on the $1 trend, but personally it doesn't bother me much. I've had to resort to the $1 pledge in a few times this year, so I know how it is for some people. I've also used $1 to just support publishers that I like, but had no interest in the product itself.

    21. Missing avatar

      Liam Mulvey

      @krzysztof I'm still not sure what the problem is. They've contributed $900 to the campaign. That literally could be the difference between hitting a sg or not. The idea that all $1 are just hedging their bets about how it will turn out just doesn't ring true. From experience the $1s either won't back it at all but want to follow the campaign and support the company or physically can't afford to back it at the moment. The people who watch its progress surely just back at the last minute? Especially for an established company. This isn't their first release or KS. The pedigree is there.

      One issue campaigns have now is with UK backers and Brexit. We literally have no idea what shipping costs and taxes will be if it happens. We could face a 50% tariff. I would suggest that a number of $1 are fellow brits, unsure about the future.

      Here's my question for you. How do you benefit from stopping other people getting the game? Does $1 pledges having access to the PM and to purchasing the game at a slightly later date actually damage or hinder your game at all? Bearing in mind that most $1 wouldn't upgrade to the pledge minimum and so the campaign would actually lose money and numbers, how does stopping them actually help you?

    22. Missing avatar

      Krzysztof Huzarski on

      Wrote it in the survey and will write it down here too - I know that y'all 921 1-dollar-ers will want to punch me after reading this but let's be honest. The donation level pledges did not participate in the KS practically at all and thus, in my opinion, should not be available to purchase the game at it's "deluxe version". You can let them get it by paying a little extra just like most of the late pledges out there or just a retailer version of the game at a probably lower retailer price. A true donation is not a thing anymore as it's just a "let's see where how far does it get" card with no actual contribution that might be a risk in some cases

    23. Missing avatar

      Liam Mulvey

      Why should $1 pledges be penalised? Whilst I understand that the number of these pledges have increased, that doesn't translate to missed pledges of that same number. If pledging $1 is actively penalised then why would anyone do it? Also I have been told by numerous creators that the number of backers, and not the amount raised, has a far greater impact on final funding levels. You get rid of that level and suddenly that's potentially 750 less backers.

      I do feel this falls into the KS exclusive issue again. Some people just aren't happy unless other people don't get what they get. $1 pledges are no more harmful than late pledges or increasing your order in the pledge manager.

      I am a $1 pledger because I literally can't afford to back this and pay rent. I'm not harming the campaign. Either it gets my $1 or it doesn't. If I bought this second hand off another backer or got an existing backer to add me to their pledge then ask that happens is the campaign is down a dollar and a numerical backer with no benefit.

    24. Tarrant

      Even though I did not pledge a dollar, I can understand why people do and am fine with them doing so. Creators running campaigns during the November and December months should be aware that potential backers might be very interested in their product but are also saving for the holiday season. The campaign was very successful and will it be less of a game due to missing one SG? If the missing SG affects the overall experience of the game, then maybe that SG should be included in the base game instead of an alternate add/change to the game.

    25. Jason Murphy on

      Punishing the $1 backers would probably mean that instead of 900 potential backers (myself included as I intent to go all in when I can) you would simply have 900 fewer backers. I think the backlash would be a greater hit than those complaining about $1 backers no helping stretch goals.

    26. Adam Fenerty

      People supporting the company in anyway they can are still supporting the company. October/November has been a massive wallet drain for a lot of people. I've never done a $1 pledge myself but came close on a few projects in the last few weeks. Just my perspective.

    27. Devils_Advocate on

      @Justin Watson, if you scratch the SGs from the 1$ pledge, then you would probably need to subsequently do it for Late Pledgers as well (which would be crazy) .

      Otherwise, why should I even bother to pledge 1$ ?
      If you allow Late Pledgers to gain the SGs, then I should simply wait to Late Pledge, thus gaining everything. This would however negatively show the interest for the whole of this game. Sure we 1$ Pledgers may not have accounted for much money but we are still roughly 1/6 of the overall Pledgers, which show GFG how much interest there is for the game.

      If you don´t allow Late Pledgers to get Stretch Goals, then at that time, it simply becomes a Retail Version, and I won´t have any reason whatsoever to paying GFG anything for the KS or PM, and can simply wait for the game to come to my Local Game Store.

    28. Justin Watson on

      Really good response from the company regarding the $1 pledge issue. I've got to say thanks to Grey Fox for its good communication during this kickstarter campaign. First time I've backed one of their games and its refreshing to see how they listened to their backers. That said I'd think a $1 pledge should only be eligible for the base game and not the stretch goals, or have a minimum pledge amount of say $25 to be able to gain the stretch goals. The $1 backers added less than $1000 to the $450k+ that was earnt. People saying they can't afford to because they've backed all these games and money is tight, look I understand, I'm in the same boat and that is why I only back when I can afford to back a game.

    29. Devils_Advocate on

      I filled out your survey, but here again.

      How about giving an incentive for people to go the full pledge BEFORE the PM.

      I suggested making something small (under 15$) as a bonus for everyone who pledges the full amount BEFORE the KS campaign ends, which can also be bought later in the PM for some $ . It could be some Promo Reaver Cards, maybe some token upgrades, whatever fits the theme ^^

    30. Jason Keaney

      So many great games launching this month. I almost didn't get Reavers myself. One of the playthroughs sold me though (;

    31. Emanuele Lillo

      Could the extra funds collected through the Pledge Manager go towards unlocking the last SG? (Sorry if it has been asked before)

      Such a high number of 1$ pledges should guarantee 9k extra funding, once the PM opens.