Not so favourable reviews of FGV-GA

[Dalcor]

Hello in links bellow you can find our not so favourable reviews of Ghost Archipelago as we were realy disappointed by the game. So see the other picture

Review By Dzhuro
http://wargamingasp.blogspot.cz/2018/02/ghost-archipelago-review.html

First view by Dalcor
http://wargamingasp.blogspot.cz/2018/02/first-reading-frostgrave-ghost.html

[zapzook]

First, it is disappointing when a game doesn't suit you. I felt that way with Kings of War. I was so excited to get the books, start painting my army and then after playing a few times I was like, "Rats. This was NOT what I was looking for." (That's one reason I'm really looking forward to Oathmark).

Secondly, I'm beginning to think of rules writers more like playwrights. Some you like, some you don't. I appreciate Shakespeare, but I'd take Tennessee Williams over The Bard any day.

Thirdly, getting into a boat I have always found extremely difficult. Standing in water and getting in is hard. Trying to get in the boat in water where I can't touch the bottom is harder. I mean, I have a hard time even when I'm wearing a lifejacket. Put me in chainmail and I'd be a goner.

Finally, I like playing McCullough's games because his sensibility with rules seems to match mine. I would not build a GA warband to be super competitive. I would build a GA warband with a lot of scantily clad pearl divers, a la Honeychile Rider/Ursula Andress, because they'd be fun to paint.

Best of luck to you guys and the search for new adventures!

Sincerely- Z

[Pijlie]

Too bad to read that GA doesn't seem to be FG 2.0. There was a lot of room for improvement, as the 100+ page rules thread on this forum clearly shows. The fluff for both FG and GA is terrific, you can build terrain and paint miniatures to your heart's content but all that does not make it the perfect game. Or even a very good one, albeit an enjoyable one if you pick your opponents with some care.

I agree it is totally unsuitable for competitive play as it is far too easily broken and risks being bogged down in endless min-max discussions over rules and "clever" reading.

I will probably still give it a go, just not as a competitive game but more as a cinematographic spectacle race-for-the-treasure with a lot of laughs.

I must agree with Zapzook by the way that it would be practically impossible to climb into a boat wearing armour. This should encourage not wearing heavy armour when venturing on boats and watery terrain. If only archery wasn't so deadly. I feel some new house rules emerging.....

[kuba]

Still waiting for my first game after recieving nickstarter (creating terrain takes a long time for me), so I don't have my own opinion about the rules yet, but I hope some issues mentioned in the review could be fixed by ammount of scatter terrain and it's placement (as in other skirmish games with dominant shooting). Also the table I'm working on is jungle forest with some water features, I think that could also make a difference -after reading through scenarios in the book I got the impression that small island fighting was exception to the rule and most scenarios takes place on solid ground, but as it was mentioned in the review, it's not clearly stated by the book.
I think that testing Will for swimming was a way to make that stat more usefull -in regular frostgrave Will was important for quite a few spells that don't appear in GA.

[Bloggard]

robustly voiced opinions - good reads actually (although I would say your group seems a little ironically named given how pissed off you sound playing a game  ).

couple of things: I always expect to meet a set of rules half-way. And with this set the author expressly emphasises (in the intros to both the main book and even more so the recently released expansion) the probable need to do so.
I can't think of any rules I've read feedback on which haven't been breakable by over-competitive attitudes and uber-builds etc.

Some of the things you guys mention sound like they could indeed be 'fixed' with house-rules, and otherwise I expect a (quasi) role-playing approach and sense of narrative co-op is a pre-requiste to getting the rules to 'work' for a fun game and that's fine by me.
some of the problems you list sound entertaining (to me anyway).

having said that, after just one session I doubt we'll use the 'crit' rule again (unless a really short game is desired), and suspect we'll also find archery / ranged over-powered ...

[CPalmer]

I love the game for its fun and cinematic nature!  But I will say, in our group it is the sworn duty of the first Storm Warden who gets to activate (we have 2 in our multiplayer games) to cast Cloud Cover to immediately cut down on those pesky archers! 

[Murawski1812]

Wow.... ummm, ok.... to each his/her own. I can respect that.

I actually fund both FG and GA refreshing, new and fun.. very fun.. easy to get into and easy to learn... especially for kids.... if you are looking for some super detailed game.... Mordheim or Saga might be your choice. I for one love them all.. each has their own draw for me. My kids LOVE FG & GA while they cannot quite grasp Mordheim, etc....

My verdict was win, win for both games. They are simple enough for kids to learn and easy enough to be a great skirmish game for adults.... they are easy to run tournaments with too!

Now, critiques on the game mechanics... I think that the swim stat should be used for both staying afloat and getting into boats ad have it modified by wearing armor. Thus, an unencumbered person could swim all day long....

As for getting treasure off the board? Boats man! BOATS!!! Even if they are paper cut outs (those little buggers are beautiful, but expensive)... and by altering the just ONE rule.... swimming and entering boats is much easier.

If you are in the shallows... that is just counted as rough terrain. And, what did you expect? Being in a boat should be some cover.... but in the open water, you are a sitting duck.

Strategy and tactics man! Going in we knew shooting could be lethal... I have done the island thing once so far.... a short stretch of open beach and then water.. the rest is lush vegetation.... AND.... not all games are lots of little itsy bitsy islands.... at the ground scale used... you could very easily do games of all jungle and ruins and have no water, possibly on an edge or two.... but mostly the table is all vegetation.

I know it is waaaaay cool to want to do water battles, etc.... (have a look at Blood and Plunder).... but the way I do my GA games... the water issues never come into play. I never have islands so small that you could move across them in 1-2 moves.... 

I needed to edit.... yes, boats are very important in our games, but pretty much.. if the table isn't one big island, at most, it is only a couple.... UNLESS we do a pear diving type game.

[Dalcor]

Thank you gentlemens for your comments.

Let me explain that I do not believe in Houseruling as viable option for doing positive review of the rulesets.

In my point of view, when I am buying ruleset I want game, which has been proofreaded, which has been playtested and which is streightforward, explicit and clean in grasp and understanding.


I played and I own a lot of liteweight games that fills my tastes in ruleswriting matter. And I already mentioned them in my First Experience review.  I eve have some of the rule-heavier ones.

Most of the comments here are - if you do not like the game - do house rules. With house rules every single game is good. Well some of them are not good even after house ruling (Draci Doupe). However this is not how the review should work. In review you are trying to see pro and cons of something. I mentioned my pro in FGV reviews. They are the same.

My experience with Frostgrave is, that in order to be playable in long terms and with several different people, you need to make ruling and houseruling a lot. Especialy with spells. By the way - the ruling thread is still here with about 40 pages right? I quit after page 20 and made 8 pages streamlined text of Question/Answers from it. Its still available somewhere on the web.

Dzhuro is from Brno, I am from Prague. And we both see the same rule in absolutely different way, so we established crossover houserules, to play same game. Is that OK? In my pointo of view its not.

By the way, I realy dont like the argument with Shakespear. Rules are rules. There is no difference between rules for game to one for driver licence. It the end the important thing ebout rules is, if they are explicit enough to understand them Style is plus, but minor one.

Let me explain the reason why I am  very unhappy with the rules and their writting in my favourite Movement RAW window in Frostgrave
I believe everybody plays movement we did and as it was probably intended. Half movement for Treasure. Half movement for Rough Terrain. Therefore 1/4 for both. Joe even confirmed they play it that way during playtesting so this is intent of the rules. Now, see how it is written in FGV page 32+page 44. I am not sure it is still in GA, but this is only the sample what I have about Joe's writting. I do not have the book. I refused to spent money for it.
 
You have first action movement is some number (for example movement 5)
You have second action which is half of the first movement (therefore your second action movement is 2.5)
You can do two movement actions so you can move up to 7.5. There is nothing like FULL ROUND ACTION, its not DND. Still two actions.
RAW in case of treasure you half the movement. As there is nothing like full round action, you halve it to 2.5 for first action and 1.25 for second action. So far so good. Now the rough terrain. Every inch, or partial inch, a figure moves through rough ground is counted as 2” for the purposes of calculating total movement. So moving one milimetre are two inches of the movement. RAW.

The rules said that every single partial part of the inch on rough terrain cost me two points of movement. therefore I can move only one inch within the round in rough terrain as even 1mm cost me 2 points of movement. And I have only 2.5 for one action and 1.25ing for second movement.

See? Yes its Rule Laweyring. However thats how the betatest has to be done. And simple rule is written in way, no one can understand it properly - may be even me now - which is the proof of it.

I hoped and expect that this will be different.

And its not

Q: Monsters with flying are not hindered by movement penalty in deep water, however do they still suffer -2 Fight penalty there? RAW it should
A by Joe: An oversight - flyers shouldn't suffer a Fight penalty for being in water.

I found this on first reading, first game? Where was betatest? Where was proofreading? I know you can find mistakes in every game, but this? During game play, we found about ten issues where we need to make ruling as it was not clear in the rules. This is not how the rules should be written

And swimming is so extremely annoing that...well I mentioned it in my First game experience review.

BTW I agree that to put myself into the boar moreover in armor is very very difficult. If you do not know how to do it, what are you doing in Ghost Archipelago? Here I am with GOLD Dungeon Master RULE - no silly dice rolls. In combination with swimming rules its so bloody annoying...

For inspiration, I have just open Freebooters Fate Raging Rivers rules. Those are pretty rules heavy, but they consider to get in a boat as a difficult terain movement, and you have to have enough spare movement points to get your base fully inside the boat. Simply. Nice, still narrative. No silly rolls, ruining the game.

[Dalcor]

but the way I do my GA games... the water issues never come into play. I never have islands so small that you could move across them in 1-2 moves.... 

I needed to edit.... yes, boats are very important in our games, but pretty much.. if the table isn't one big island, at most, it is only a couple.... UNLESS we do a pear diving type game.

Yes the biggest issue of the game about islands is that it can be played on islands with open water, so we will not play it that way... 

[Dalcor]

robustly voiced opinions - good reads actually (although I would say your group seems a little ironically named given how pissed off you sound playing a game  ).

We are not pissed playing it, we are pissed by the rules, thats huge difference. You can make fun from almost every game. Sometimes not as autor willing

couple of things: I always expect to meet a set of rules half-way. And with this set the author expressly emphasises (in the intros to both the main book and even more so the recently released expansion) the probable need to do so.
I can't think of any rules I've read feedback on which haven't been breakable by over-competitive attitudes and uber-builds etc.

We randomized the abilities by the way. And no we are definetely not competetive and we did not play it competetively. Very far far from it ;-)

Some of the things you guys mention sound like they could indeed be 'fixed' with house-rules, and otherwise I expect a (quasi) role-playing approach and sense of narrative co-op is a pre-requiste to getting the rules to 'work' for a fun game and that's fine by me.
some of the problems you list sound entertaining (to me anyway).

Yes thats how did we play the Frostgrave with tons of house rules, eliminating rules for player killing, treasures triggers random encounters as in the tales... And there are a lot of games doing the same without the need for rewriting them to be funy

[Doug ex-em4]

Interesting thread. A minor question. What does RAW signify. I’m probably missing something obvious.

Doug

[steeldragon]

Interesting thread. A minor question. What does RAW signify. I’m probably missing something obvious.

Doug

Rules As Written

[Connectamabob]

I don't have the GA rules myself, so I can't get nitty-gritt with this, but one thing I've noticed about the base FG rules, which seems to be corroborated for GA by your review, is that the balance for movement and ranged combat is actually VERY dependent on the terrain layout.

I've banged on about this before, but vanilla FG rules VERY much take a dungeon-like terrain logic for granted, but a lot of people play it with terrain placed loose as if it were Warhammer or something, resulting in numerous balance issues. In order for the rules for movement and ranged attacks to balance out, the map should read like a roofless dungeon, not a field with loose obstacles. Even if you've got a high density of terrain per square foot on the table, the game won't play optimally if that terrain is placed like seeds on a bagel instead of linked up to form a structure of "halls and rooms".

With all due respect, that you tried to play GA with a set of small islands with elevated connections kinda highlights that you guys haven't figured the above out yet. That kind of map is the exact evil mirror of what a good FG layout should be. You did spot the problem, but only after playing, when the #1 heuristic for how to build FG maps should have prevented it from even occurring to you to begin with.

To be totally fair, this IMO is the fault of the rules. They are written with a particular sort of terrain placement logic in mind, and they never explicitly communicate that. I think there's some throwaway line in there about FG being intended for terrain heavy setups, but that's it. It never actually explains how players should be arranging their terrain or why, and it REALLY needs to. I don't think there's anything wrong with the rules being designed around specific styles of map, but if they are, that NEEDS to be both communicated and emphasized, otherwise lots of people are going to blame the rules when their games play imbalanced because they don't know their map is bad.

[Pijlie]

Let me explain that I do not believe in Houseruling as viable option for doing positive review of the rulesets.

You are absolutely right of course. A ruleset should function by its own merits and not need houseruling.

The fact that FG/GA requires a very particular terrain setup - as Connectamabob rightly points out- but nowhere explains this is one more example of this.

The FG rules thread is by now 109 pages long, by the way.....

[FionaWhite]

The FG rulebook does mention (on page 26 where setting up the table is discussed) that "the ruins of Frostgrave are crowded and maze-like, so there should be lots of terrain on the table, and there should be few areas where the line of sight extends more than a foot or two, if that".