Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Frostgrave => Topic started by: Dalcor on February 25, 2018, 06:54:58 PM
-
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 (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 (http://wargamingasp.blogspot.cz/2018/02/first-reading-frostgrave-ghost.html)
-
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
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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! lol
-
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.
-
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.
-
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... ;D
-
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
-
Interesting thread. A minor question. What does RAW signify. I’m probably missing something obvious.
Doug
-
Interesting thread. A minor question. What does RAW signify. I’m probably missing something obvious.
Doug
Rules As Written
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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".
-
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.....
and yet imo etc, there are very few (rulesets)*, if any, that aren't adapted / modified / (interpreted) by players, if only to a minor degree. Would you not agree?
(*I should make a distinction - I appreciate that one doesn't expect to 'mod', say, board-games rules - but somehow with miniatures games, and RPGs - the game in question being something of a hybrid - it's often been the way).
I would say again that the author of this particular set stresses, in so many words, that he's presenting a framework for others to adapt / change as suits them.
As a minor example (and I appreciate it's not his main 'beef'): OP's point about the tick stats: he really doesn't like them, fair enough. But presumably for whatever reason that's how the author wanted them and is happy to use them in his games. You don't like it - change it. That's what he recommends.
In GA, btw, the point is made again that the terrain layout should be dense, with LoS no more than 24" at the most etc.
this is a lightweight set of rules, allowing for great flexibility in scenario design etc ('open world' in crpg terms!) while attempting to keep things very stream-lined and digestible. With that basic approach unavoidably there is going to be some experimentation needed to see how the rules work in a specific context.
Also, implied (kind of!) in connectamabob's post above is that the game should be played only with specific 'dungeon' terrain scenarios tightly dictated by the author so that things 'work' like clockwork etc.
I for one am very glad that approach hasn't been taken. I must admit I am very surprised by the degree to which many FG players only seem to have played the supplied scenarios / campaigns (at least going by the admittedly limited forum browsing I've undertaken).
my pov is that this is a beautifully presented and inspiring set of rules that supplies a rpg-lite miniatures skirmish environment for one to experiment with and adapt as necessary. The cost of entry (if you've bought the book/s at least) is potentially very low, given that the use of exisiting figures and terrain is explicitly encouraged by the author.
It (the rulebook) certainly shouldn't be above criticism, but the original OP post's tone is rather determinedly negative it seems to me - I doubt very much, for example, that I'm going to find it 'impossible' or even difficult to make the rules work for water-based play, as suits me (if I have to change anything at all).
Having said all this, I've played a whole 'one' day's gaming with GA, so probably shouldn't be opining at all ! :D
-
I think it is safe to say that me and Dalcor have a pretty fundamentally different approach to wargaming.
I see rulebooks, and expansions, as tool kits. Their primary purpose is to get players excited about the idea of painting minis, getting them on a table and creating an narrative filled with adventure and fun. If it comes down to a choice between fun and tight rules, I will generally land on the side of fun. For example the critical hit rule - personally, I wouldn't use it, it's just a tad to wild for me, but I know that a lot of people love that big explosion moment of the natural 20, so I included it as an optional rule and I'm glad that I did.
I have never claimed my rules are perfect, though I have claimed the opposite many times, and I feel privileged and honoured that many people have decided that there was enough good in my books to make them worth buying, playing and tinkering with.
They certainly aren't going to be for everyone. I'm sorry that Dalcor was once again disappointed. Am am certainly no Shakespeare, but I am a writer, with my own personal preference, styles, foibles and quirks. Although I hope to improve with each book I write, there are some deep rooted approaches that are unlikely to change. If you haven't liked anything I've done to date, you are probably unlikely to like anything going forward either.
-
:D I like both games AND the crit rule...its...FUN!!!
-
For example the critical hit rule - personally, I wouldn't use it, it's just a tad to wild for me, but I know that a lot of people love that big explosion moment of the natural 20, so I included it as an optional rule and I'm glad that I did.
A lot of the time the critical hit rule is unnecessary. With most armor values being in a 10 to 12 range, if you hit with a natural 20 and then apply your Fight or Shoot bonus to it, the damage dealt will be enough to remove most warband members. That has been my experience in the games I have played. The extra damage of the critical rarely makes a difference. Ten or twenty damage doesn't really make a difference if the model only has 10 health to begin with. LOL
-
Rules As Written
Thank you. Armed with that knowledge, back to the interesting discussion!
Doug
-
I agree with Joe’s design philosophy although that doesn’t rule out getting pleasure from more tightly ruled games either. If the game’s premise appeals then I’m in, at least to the extent of giving it a try.
This reminds me of playing White Box D&D; now there was a rule set which very much left things to the players’ house-ruling skills. It was more or less a concept which you wrote your own rules around. People seemed to like it though, judging by how things turned out😀
Doug
-
if you mean by that Doug, the original 'basic' d&d set that came out in the UK mid-ish 70s I was going to mention that funnily enough (in the sense of a framework of rules that people then adapted / embellished).
where I started this gaming carry-on (trips to the original dalling rd games workshop et al), and not sure I've ever enjoyed it more since ...
-
if you mean by that Doug, the original 'basic' d&d set that came out in the UK mid-ish 70s I was going to mention that funnily enough (in the sense of a framework of rules that people then adapted / embellished).
where I started this gaming carry-on (trips to the original dalling rd games workshop et al), and not sure I've ever enjoyed it more since ...
There was a “basic set” (in an A4 sized, mainly red box) that was late 70’s/early 80’s) but the one I mean was in a White, A5 size box and had 3 books in it. Available as add-ons were two books called Greyhawk and Blackmoor both even more incomprehensible than the boxed ones. Sorry to sound like an old fart (I am one so it’s OK😊) but a lot of the fun and pleasure was in the effort you had to put in to enjoy it.
Doug
-
bit OT, but yes, red box I remember - although we had the greyhawk etc supplements too iirc.
I think one can overstate it, but sketchier rules arguably (can) allow more room for the imagination.
-
and yet imo etc, there are very few (rulesets)*, if any, that aren't adapted / modified / (interpreted) by players, if only to a minor degree. Would you not agree?
(*I should make a distinction - I appreciate that one doesn't expect to 'mod', say, board-games rules - but somehow with miniatures games, and RPGs - the game in question being something of a hybrid - it's often been the way).
Interesting, I never have the need to modify Blood Eagle, In Her Majestys Name, Ronin, En Garde, Lion Rampant, Dragon Rampant, Pikemans Lament, Daisho, Freebooters Fate, Dragonlance ADnD 2nd Edition, d20, or Pathfnder, Scion, A Fistfull of Kung-Fu, Rogue Stars, Chain of Command...
I admit there are certain games I thought about modification. I never played them again.
The biggest question in RPG Gaming is - Does system matter? We shall use same question for Narrative wargaming The meaning is that you can have fun and enjoy almost any game if you want to. The social skills wins over the rules. Or the Narrator matter, because he know how to do fun game for his players and himself no matter the system. I am DMing for more than 20 years now and believe me I know very well how to handle narrative game, keep players interested and how to handle rules properly.
Joe has right, I do not like how he write down the Rules. I really admire his creativity, because the Ideas are great and I like them.
I am not telling you, you do not have to play the game, or that the game is bad. Or you do not know how to properly play Skirmish Games - something you are trying to happily imply on us. (guys you have to use LOS, you are competetives, you are.... blah). I am reviewing how the rules are written so the people can decide. This is something I miss in WSS reviews by the way.
The biggest argument here - the game is a TOOLSET. So you are implying that FGV and GA is like DnD 5E, or ADnD 2nd Adition Players Option?You choose the rules... Well still those games are explicit how to handle the rule. Lets speak about FATE for example. Wonderfull RPG, making great toolset to players with narrative approach with all those modern tools like Priority to Player, Camera on Player, shared role of Narrator... Still the rules are explicit how every rule works and how to hand them. Can you tell the same about Frostgrave. With 106 pages of ruling how to handle the rules?
Well, this is more or less all I wanted to tell.
-
With 106 pages of ruling how to handle the rules?
Is that all :o Clearly you never played WRG Ancients 5th Edition....Now there was a set of rules that needed clarification and some. Yet they were very popular.
Maybe there’s a generational thing here. I guess if you only came into the hobby in, say, the nineties, your expectations of tight rule-writing are higher than those of us who started in the sixties.
Personally, I get a lot of pleasure from interpreting, tweaking, house-ruling etc.; could this be what is meant by “Old School”.
Interesting topic and I enjoyed the review which sparked it off.
Doug
-
Also, implied (kind of!) in connectamabob's post above is that the game should be played only with specific 'dungeon' terrain scenarios tightly dictated by the author so that things 'work' like clockwork etc.
I for one am very glad that approach hasn't been taken. I must admit I am very surprised by the degree to which many FG players only seem to have played the supplied scenarios / campaigns (at least going by the admittedly limited forum browsing I've undertaken)
No, that's not implied at all. Nothing about what I was describing indicates or necessitates any kind of overdesigned, "planned out" linear game. You're assuming something WAY more extreme than what I was talking about.
-
Of all the games Dalcor mentions on his post I probably played a third of them and have modified them all in one way or another lol
Different gamers, different tastes I guess.
Andres
-
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".
There is a similar statement in the GA rulebook, but I do not have it to hand (substituting jungle for ruins I think).
[Edit - oops, I thought I had reached the bottom of the comments, sorry if someone has mentioned this earlier]
-
Lets agree we disagree.
-
Interesting, I never have the need to modify Blood Eagle, In Her Majestys Name, Ronin, En Garde, Lion Rampant, Dragon Rampant, Pikemans Lament, Daisho, Freebooters Fate, Dragonlance ADnD 2nd Edition, d20, or Pathfnder, Scion, A Fistfull of Kung-Fu, Rogue Stars, Chain of Command...
Joe has right, I do not like how he write down the Rules. I really admire his creativity, because the Ideas are great and I like them.
I am not telling you, you do not have to play the game, or that the game is bad. Or you do not know how to properly play Skirmish Games - something you are trying to happily imply on us. (guys you have to use LOS, you are competetives, you are.... blah). I am reviewing how the rules are written so the people can decide. This is something I miss in WSS reviews by the way.
The biggest argument here - the game is a TOOLSET. So you are implying that FGV and GA is like DnD 5E, or ADnD 2nd Adition Players Option?You choose the rules... Well still those games are explicit how to handle the rule. Lets speak about FATE for example. Wonderfull RPG, making great toolset to players with narrative approach with all those modern tools like Priority to Player, Camera on Player, shared role of Narrator... Still the rules are explicit how every rule works and how to hand them. Can you tell the same about Frostgrave. With 106 pages of ruling how to handle the rules?
Well, this is more or less all I wanted to tell.
I certainly haven't suggested in any sense that you don't know how to play skirmish games - and if that what you RAW in my opining, it's time to leave it for sure. All a bit too negative for me (edited for use of 'flipping' .... oops lol ).
-
Of all the games Dalcor mentions on his post I probably played a third of them and have modified them all in one way or another lol
Different gamers, different tastes I guess.
Andres
that was my general impression of the nature of the hobby and rule-sets too.
-
No, that's not implied at all. Nothing about what I was describing indicates or necessitates any kind of overdesigned, "planned out" linear game. You're assuming something WAY more extreme than what I was talking about.
apologies 'bob - that's how the last paragraph in your first post comes across to me, re-reading it again ... just shows how easy it is to get this RAW thing confused.
** - btw, further apologies that I haven't put all my replies of this morning into one post - not up to speed on the multi-quite front.
-
Hello,
I am Dalcor's Brother and one of the founding members or Wargaming Against Serious Play (WASP).
I think some explanation is due:
1) It's not true that we don't like the games Joe writes. On our blog you can see whole narrative serie of story-reports (in czech) playing Thaw of the Lich Lord (we still didn't finished that, unfortunatelly). In every occation we promote Frostgrave in our area and always emphasise that the game is great fun. If I'm not entirely mistaken, even Dalcor never said the game is not fun. In Dalcor's review of Frostgrave he have given the game score of 90%.
2) On this link: http://wargamingasp.blogspot.cz/2015/07/frostgrave-review.html (http://wargamingasp.blogspot.cz/2015/07/frostgrave-review.html), there is Dalcor's review of Frostgrave from 4th July 2015. No need to read it all again but check the disclaimer on top of it.
TL:DR
When Dalcor reviews the game, he reviews if the text of the rules is well understandable and clear to everyone.
We believe in games, which play the same way everywhere. When house rules and modifications are applied, I can hardly play with my friends in other gaming groups. They just applied other house rules. That's why we like to have rules clean and clear.
-
Yes that was my first review of Frostgrave. On that time we have it for two weeks and played about 10 games. Two Months later we go for other games as we did not want to use book, cell phone and houserules and faq printout to keep the game running the same between 10 people.
Let's say that a lot of things came with additional gaming and I got additional experience with other games etc. Now I would grade the rules writting somewhare at 50%. And i am not including the fact that I do not like mathemathical model (if any) behind the rules. Thats my preference, not the issue of the game as thats its intent.
-
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.
Most games are like this, and it's often compounded by the fact that most terrain rules are added on to the core rules rather then being an integral part of the game.
What's weird to me is that:
1) Terrain (and therefore table set up) is effectively the "third player", but is often treated as an afterthought by many.
2) It's not hard to have 3-4 pages showing example tables with some author's commentary on particular features.
3) Terrain rules are often clunky, which leads to players avoiding anything detrimental or complicated - terrain therefore often just functions to make areas of the table no-go areas, rather than providing opportunities for a clever tactic, an interesting choice, or interaction.
For skirmish games, where every model counts, this importance is exaggerated.
-
Most games are like this, and it's often compounded by the fact that most terrain rules are added on to the core rules rather then being an integral part of the game.
What's weird to me is that:
1) Terrain (and therefore table set up) is effectively the "third player", but is often treated as an afterthought by many.
2) It's not hard to have 3-4 pages showing example tables with some author's commentary on particular features.
3) Terrain rules are often clunky, which leads to players avoiding anything detrimental or complicated - terrain therefore often just functions to make areas of the table no-go areas, rather than providing opportunities for a clever tactic, an interesting choice, or interaction.
For skirmish games, where every model counts, this importance is exaggerated.
Regarding point 2 - I'm not sure if it was Joe or someone else who mentioned it in some other thread but my understanding is that Osprey is pretty strict about the page limits on the books which is likely to limit the amount of pictures that can be included when one needs to get everything else in.
-
Most games are like this, and it's often compounded by the fact that most terrain rules are added on to the core rules rather then being an integral part of the game.
What's weird to me is that:
1) Terrain (and therefore table set up) is effectively the "third player", but is often treated as an afterthought by many.
2) It's not hard to have 3-4 pages showing example tables with some author's commentary on particular features.
3) Terrain rules are often clunky, which leads to players avoiding anything detrimental or complicated - terrain therefore often just functions to make areas of the table no-go areas, rather than providing opportunities for a clever tactic, an interesting choice, or interaction.
For skirmish games, where every model counts, this importance is exaggerated.
Yes in GA, the fact that you need at least some LOS block is very weirdly described in descrtiption of bow...
-
In my own defense, using lots of terrain is suggested in both the 'Table' Section in the Introduction and the 'Setting Up the Table' section the the 'Playing the Game Chapter'. The second instance specifically mentions line of sight.
It is mentioned again under 'bows' just for good measure.
With that, I think it is time to lock this thread. Dalcor has made his point. We've all had a chance to respond.
We have reached the point, where, as Dalcor said, we should probably all just agree to disagree.