"Force on Force -" Topic

Hi,
may anyone briefly explain me FoF game system?
Is it complex?
Roby

Take a look here:
link

The mechanics, once learned, are pretty simple. The problem is that the rules are not that well written (IMHO). Things appear to be spread around willy nilly and figuring out what the author's intended is hard.

The basics are that a unit activates and then the other side may react, while any overwatch units can also react (only one side is allowed to overwatch per turn). The active player's successful reactions are done first, then the reacting players successes.

So if player A moves and player B declares that 3 units are firing at A. B rolls to see if they can react, A then rolls against each unit to see if it can pre-empt the reaction. If A managed to pre-empt 2 of the 3, A would first at the 2 first, then the survivors would fire at A. (this is a heck of a lot harder to summarize then to play…)

their website also has a free download of quick-start rules so i would recommend getting those first to see if you like the system. agree with Dynaman that the book is a little disorganized compared to some other rulebooks.

Pretty much agree with two comments above. I've played AA, FoF, and TW. I think the best aspect of the rules are the chrome, especially the original Ambush Alley. Great feel for COIN ops.

Downside is lack of contrast in weapon types and, more importantly, a sort of kluge-ish or "Calvin Ball" feel to the mechanics. It feels like bits and pieces got bolted on over time as the author and his group of friends had ideas about new rules or changes. It probably makes sense to them but it's pretty opaque to new players.

That's not the same thing as being complex since the rules are not complicated. They're just not intuitive and it's nearly impossible to understand your odds of success in most situations (eg in opposed die rolls which is better, 3d8 or 4d6?). Games such as FoW are far more transparent and intuitive imo which makes them more entertaining and easier to learn.

It probably makes sense to them but it's pretty opaque to new players.

I disagree.

As a NEW player to FoF/TW (Tomorrow's War), I have only bought the book and playing since early October, I initially thought the same thing.

Then it was explained to me from a friend that the rules have a tendency to go over the same areas a few times to hit core ideas home.

Then it all made sense to me.

I have found only a few rare instances where rules later in the book which have not been explained yet come into play before they are explained. Three total that I have found. Maybe more, but I have not noticed it.

I guess the real issue that players have (in my experience) is the 'reaction tests' to react to an action against you. After that is hammered out, games runs really smooth.

Overall, FoF and TW have become my current favorites.
Which is funny.
I never thought I'd get into 'moderns' gaming.
And either did my club!

Top notch book and game. It turned me into a AA fanboy, I guess.

I'd answer the question yes and no.

The basic mechanics, fire, movement, are very simple.

But the sequence of the actions and reactions-- which is the heart of the system and what distinguishes it from other rules-- is very difficult to sort out.

I'd be willing to bet that no two gaming groups play that sequencing the same.

I tried it. My friends tried it. We went back to our old rules.

I admit, i found reading it a bit daunting. I have not tried a game yet but hope to try it in the new year.

I'd be willing to bet that no two gaming groups play that sequencing the same.

That's not been my experience really. I've played it on my own, with a club, and at the HMGS cons and beyond the usual "house" rules it's been the same game.

I'm not really sure what "confusion" is about. The rules are rather clear cut and easy to me. Granted, the authors tend to repeat things and the book STARTS with the combat sequence THEN goes into detail about what you can do and so on.

A lot of people, who haven't played the game, get confused with the reaction system. It's really not that big of a deal. The side with initiative nominates a unit to activate and declares what it will do. Then the opposing player declares any and all reactions to that unit. Then you carry it out. Even with multiple units involved, which is rare in my experience, the reaction rolls make it very clear when who does what and it is possible for a reaction to fall through! I once played a game where I moved a fire team past an alley with a mg team. They interrupted my team as it crossed the alley and we rolled reaction tests. I beat him and simply chose to move out of his kill zone! Caught 'em napping! LOL! And before you say it, stuff like that happens all the time in real life. That's one of the things that makes FoF such a great game- it can be so unpredictable at times and you really can lose control over things. Not an easy thing for us gamers to do! But that's life on the battlefield which is something that FoF mirrors quite nicely with its reaction system.

But hey, not all games are for everyone. I second pistolpete, go grab the quick start rules and try them out: PDF link

For the record, I've taught 5th Grade students how to play the game and they picked it up very quickly!!

link

Try it out. It's a great game.

> The rules are rather clear cut and easy to me.

I've only watched one other group play, and they (or I) was playing it "wrong". The action/reaction system is never explained in a top down clear cut manner. It took multiple readings before I was comfortable with how it worked – and that was without overwatch thrown in the mix. Where it really gets complicated is when movemement is thrown into the mix and reactions based on not seeing the unit at the start vs seeing it all through the move. We eventually changed the rule so that reactions are done during each inch of movement rather then as written.

> For the record, I've taught 5th Grade students how to play the game and they picked it up very quickly!!

Showing someone is the easy part, reading it is the hard part. A youtube video showing the action reaction system (working up to a complex example) would really have been helpful for me. In actual play it is easy and quick, flipping pages between reaction, overwatch, and reaction and trying to figure out how it would all work together in a complex situation is what took time.

Long story short – follow Tgunner's link to the demo rules, and check the AAG forums, I was able to confirm any rules question there.

I once played a game where I moved a fire team past an alley with a mg team. They interrupted my team as it crossed the alley and we rolled reaction tests. I beat him and simply chose to move out of his kill zone!

The Initiative Unit has to declare what it's doing before it acts and then follow through. So I don't think you can "choose" whether you want to keep moving across that alley. Under those circumstances you either move past them or you're caught by them and get fired on.

Or does the Initiative Unit that wins the Reaction Test get to decide whether it wants to stop in the middle of the alley and return fire? And if it does that does it get to keep moving and if so, does the Non-Initiative Unit get to fire on it before it moves out of LOS?

I don't think it's as simple as you think it is. …

Bede, it all deppends on who wins a reaction.

If a non initiative unit passes the reaction roll and beats the active unit then the non initiative unit can interrupt the active unit and a round of fire takes place. The active unit loses a firepower die until next turn and can continue moving unless it gets pinned.

If the active unit wins then the active unit initiates the reaction and loses a firepower die in the process.

if the active side has overwatch then the overwatch unit can attempt to stop a noninitiative unit from intrupting another active unit.

It can get complex when first playing. I would start with a small game and work up to larger conflicts. The Ambush allet website has good support as well.

> If the active unit wins then the active unit initiates the reaction and loses a firepower die in the process.

In this case it gets to "react" first, one option is to go with a round of fire and another is to continue on and no round of fire, no loss of a firepower die either (other then the one for having moved).

So I don't think you can "choose" whether you want to keep moving across that alley.

Bede, it's almost the example on p. 68 of the rules.

"Example 2: Initiative Unit Wins Reaction Test"

The Taliban player then activates another of his units, a small group of gun men. He declares that they are going to run from one building, across the street to the next building and out of LOS of the SAS. The SAS player announces that the fireteam is going to React by trying to shoot them as they run across the street….

In my game it was an Army fireteam moving along the side of the road and past a gap (alley) between two buildings. The enemy mg team (in cover and with a line of fire down that alley) announced that they would fire at my team as it moved past that alley.

This time the SAS fireteam loses the Reaction Test. The Taliban unit runs across the road into the next building and is now out of LOS of the SAS. They may not, therefore, fire at the Taliban unit.

Which is exactly what happened. I won the reaction test between the two units and elected to continue the movement.. I wasn't going to get into a shootout with a MG team with them in cover and me in the open!

The idea is this: the initiative player announces what he wants to do with the unit he activates. The non-initiative player announces any reactions to that. Then the players dice off with the high die being the player who "goes" first. Now what the non-initiative's player decides to do kind of dictates things. If he was going to move away then I can shoot him before he scoots. If he is going to shoot me then I can either a. shoot first, b. move out of LOS if I"m moving and I can.

Really, honestly, in the actual game it's pretty easy to figure out what happens.

A youtube video showing the action reaction system (working up to a complex example) would really have been helpful for me.

There actually was a great example of this in the original book but it was taken out for some reason in the Osprey edition. And honestly, all of these examples people are pulling out aren't things you usually find in most FoF games. At best, you might have 4-6 units on the board per side and multiple unit interactions are pretty rare, at least in my experience. And usually they are pretty straight forward to figure out and resolve.

And Kyote, if you were in my neck of the woods I would happily show you how to play.

In this case it gets to "react" first, one option is to go with a round of fire and another is to continue on and no round of fire, no loss of a firepower die either (other then the one for having moved).

And the non-initiative unit who tried to interrupt is no longer able to interrupt. That's the thing, if a non-initiative unit ever loses the interruption test then it can't do it again for the rest of the turn. It can return fire, but that's it. Finally that unit is down one die from trying to interrupt and failing. So if it has to return fire then it's at -1 to its fire dice.

Just to repeat the above – as the active player you can't later decide to change the direction of your move just because the opponent interrupted you. The active player is stuck with the move he announced at the outset (unless morale changes things).

If, at the outset, you said your move would end out of LOS then if you win the reaction test you can elect to simply complete your original plan and the enemy can't shoot at you.

But if, at the outset, your plan was to wander down the street staying in LOS then you're stuck with it, even if you win a reaction roll-off.

as the active player you can't later decide to change the direction of your move just because the opponent interrupted you. The active player is stuck with the move he announced at the outset (unless morale changes things).

Yup. Prior to anything happening you have to tell your foe what you're doing, where you're going (if anywhere), and how you're getting there. Then he'll announces his reactions to that, then reaction dice get tossed. I don't know about moving 1" at a time, but I would break it down into stages with the active unit doing it's thing and getting stopped when/where there is a reaction. Honestly though, it isn't that bad. In most games I've played your unit might get interrupted by a unit. Sometimes more jump in if you give them the chance. That's why you've got to be smart about how you move and not set yourself up for really bad things.

The same is true for the non-initiative player. You don't want to go interrupting the enemy all willy-nilly! You've got to be smart about it. If you go for a pot shot then you ruin your ability to use the End Phase and move and shoot with your units… you can't do that if you reacted to the enemy!

One change we have made, so strictly house rule territory, is that a unit can change it's end point if it sees a reaction unit (reaction unit passed test, moving unit then beat it to react first) that it had not seen before.

The reaction chains in FoF can get a bit complicated, no question. But I like that. FoF represents a very complex situation, and it does the best job I have found of rendering fluid, dynamic actions down to turn-sized bites, while preserving the chaotic / desperate feel of modern combat (or at least what I have been able to learn about it from watching youtube). If the system was less complicated, it would thus be a less true (-feeling) representation.

For my money, the FoF rule book is very well laid out and I have had no problem at all figuring out the rules or finding specific rules I need to reference during the game. In my experience with the game, the rules take a fair bit of learning, but the learning curve was softened by the good writing and layout. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

I'd also like to mention the supplements produced for the game – I only own Operation Enduring Freedom, but it's one of the better supplements I've bought for a miniatures game.

I think theses several posts prove my point. The sequencing in FoF can be rather complicated. While not meaning to run down the authors, i think they could have done a better job in the book explaining it. I hope that if there's a 2nd edition they spend more time an space explaining what is, in essence, the heart of the game.

As a THW player I don't find the reaction thing to be too complicated in FoF (both games use reactions, but in slightly different ways. THW reactions I think can get a bit more complex a bit more often but its still pretty straight forward).

My one issue with FoF and related rules is the way that the opposed die roll works for shooting. Namely that its harder to shoot at a big group than a small group. I do think the rules are abstract enough that its not inherently "wrong" for it to work that way but I prefer the more intuitive nature of rules that basically let that sort of thing arise naturally from unit spacing, use of cover, suppression fire, etc.

My one issue with FoF and related rules is the way that the opposed die roll works for shooting. Namely that its harder to shoot at a big group than a small group.

How's that?

The Basic Defense rule should shut that down. If I have two riflemen shooting at 10 insurgents I get two attack die and they get two defense die. The insurgents might also get cover and stuff if those rules apply BUT they start with either one die for each soldier in the unit OR the firepower of the attack against them, whichever is less. That rule is on page. 34.

It is quite disconcerting at first, as a quite unorthodox system full of uncommon stuff for old hard core gamers.
I read a review, liked it,of course had anoverall interest for the subject,and what riveted me was the con playtests.
Here you get VETERANs,(well a bit like if Gudin de la Sablonnière was testing your napy rules?) finding it close to what they lived "back there".
then
it is quite tense and really funny to play so what to ask for?
Yes the rules could have been written in a different way, but they have a big helpful forum and the author and others (players who also did the stuff for real!) answering your questions.
Actually it is tremendously interesting to ferret in that forum.
Beware you will need more stuff to play it than you'd think at first: buildings vehicles choppers etc; it can quickly sky-rocket. If you have not too much space and good eyes, go for GHQ 1/285 you'd have all for cheap.

As to the intuitive thing about 3D8 vs. 4D6 well that's maths; statistics. ;))

I love it. As a trainer of small unit contacts I think it captures the conversation and to and fro of a firefight very well enough to be playable and not be bogged down over who shot who first.

I also have a couple of house rules such as 90 degree arcs and only the guys who can see and be seen can shot or be shot at. Makes it a little more tactical.

Very hard set of rules to get into.

Tried a very times but have given up and moved onto other sets. The way the rules are written is very confusing, like reading a long book.

Actually my suggestion is 'Fubar', they are free. The concepts are very similar to F on F, but Fubar managers to cover the rules in 2 pages.

FUBAR has its problems though. The current activation rules are very frustrating and quite arbitrary. It's a good game though and Craig is in the process of revamping the rules for an Ultra-edition. The current set is playable but it has issues. Here's a battle report I wrote from earlier this year:

link

Tried a very times but have given up and moved onto other sets. The way the rules are written is very confusing, like reading a long book.

Oh please! I read TW, played it two times and then used it to host a participation game for 50- to 10-year olds. The basis rules are such a simple and integrated whole that I did not even have to skip parts of it, just omitted the more complicated weapons and Special rules.

It is not a complicated ruleset. The book is filled to a large extent with examples, fluff and scenarios. But you do have to sit down and really READ it, like any ruleset!

But you do have to sit down and really READ it, like any ruleset!

Have tried reading it a few times and I stand by my comments, if you read the previous comments posted by other you see I am far from the only one.

If you look at the original post it was a question about the rules complexity. To which I gave an answer.

I've got to agree with many of the posts here. the basic mechanics of initiative and combat are very simple and quite elegant. However, the additional rules can be confusing, and the book is not very well laid out. This usually leads to long breaks in games whilst someone flips back and forward through the book to try to find a rules clarification. Same goes for Tomorrows War – which is essentrially a 'copy and paste' version of FoF with added lasers.
Ian

Answer is both yes and no. Concept is a bit different, but play flows well. As always, avoid getting too complex, dont start with a company combined arms op, try a platoon of infantry and simple mission.

IanS

"How's that?

The Basic Defense rule should shut that down. If I have two riflemen shooting at 10 insurgents I get two attack die and they get two defense die. The insurgents might also get cover and stuff if those rules apply BUT they start with either one die for each soldier in the unit OR the firepower of the attack against them, whichever is less. That rule is on page. 34."

Sure, but heres the problem:
I have 10 insurgents shooting at two riflemen.
Now they get 10 attack dice and I get 2 defense dice.
Okay, maybe that makes sense by itself, but what if I have those two riflemen spread out in a big forest, presumably meaning they're trying to reduce the ability to shoot at them effectively by increasing spread and use of cover (in game, those are two separate groups now)?
Now those 10 insurgents shoot at one of the riflemen and he only gets 1 defense die. He's pretty much dead.

Even that may sound fine by itself, but ultimately you come to the point where you realize that a big mob of guys in the open is a better defense than fire teams spread out in cover. Thats just not logical.

"I also have a couple of house rules such as 90 degree arcs and only the guys who can see and be seen can shot or be shot at. Makes it a little more tactical."

Great houserule that simply and effectively gets rid of my one problem with the mechanics (as stated above), at least if I understand it correctly.

Or maybe I don't; Are you saying that if I have one man peaking around a corner (with a whole squad hiding behind the wall and not peaking around the corner) than that one soldier is only getting 1 defense die against the enemy squad that returns fire? Because then you end up with the case that I get better defense dice by having my whole squad run out into the street.

Only poking my nose in because I want to make sure that if we're going to use specific examples to debate the rules' merits, we take the actual rules into account:

The gents in the woods would receive extra dice for:

Being in Woods
Getting in Cover (using the woods to best advantage rather than just walking through 'em)
Any body armor

So a single figure could have as many as 4 defense dice – and in most modern games where body armor is the norm most likely would: 1 die for the figure, 1 for the woods, 1 for being "in cover," and 1 for body armor.

He'd be throwing a defense that was 40% of the strength of the attack against him. Not bad for being outnumbered 10 to 1. ;)

2 figures would throw 5 defense dice (same math as above) for a defense that was 50% the strength of the attack against them.

I designed the rules, so I obviously feel this is fairly reasonable. YMMV. ;)

I will re-lurk now with a reminder that anyone wishing to learn specifics about any of our games is welcome to PM me here, post on our forum at ambushalleygames.com/forum or contact me through the "Contact Us" button on our website (or e-mail me directly at shawn (a t) ambushalleygames (d o t) com!

Thanks for the interest in our game, robpask!

Shawn.

I am getting into modern and I am liking Fof rules, if nothing else as a diversion from Fow. It is a great skirmish based game, it gets a little complicated for bigger battles. Also, it can be a little annoying keeping track of the different types of dice. A GM really needs to make sure he has enough dice of D6, D8, D10 and D12 to go around otherwise it bogs and confuses the whole game.

"So a single figure could have as many as 4 defense dice – and in most modern games where body armor is the norm most likely would: 1 die for the figure, 1 for the woods, 1 for being "in cover," and 1 for body armor.

He'd be throwing a defense that was 40% of the strength of the attack against him. Not bad for being outnumbered 10 to 1. ;)

2 figures would throw 5 defense dice (same math as above) for a defense that was 50% the strength of the attack against them."

True, I was simplifying. The fundamental point is the same, though; being bunched up is a better defense.

That said the rules are abstract enough that its not really unrealistic per se, it just might feel wrong to some people (myself included). Not a big enough problem to make it a bad game, to be sure, but it does mean that you kinda have to turn off "tactical mode" for managing the fireteam/individual level tactics.

That is, at the "squad level" (thinking about where squads are and what they're doing) it makes perfect sense (squads can work together to put suppressing fire downrange, cover each other, etc) but if you are used to managing individual soldiers or even fire teams (as you do in most similarly scaled games, and in theory can do in FoF) then you'll find it jarring that you aren't spreading your troops out to avoid getting hit.

"The fundamental point is the same, though; being bunched up is a better defense"

Not really – if your two-man team is together they both stand a chance of getting killed as a team by the opposition (5D vs. 10D). If you actually spread them out into two separate units, one will have a 100% chance of survival and the other also still might survive (4D vs. 10D).

If your 10D opfor splits fire, the separated team is still better off than sticking together – now it's 4D def vs. 5D fire for each individually.

We play Tomorrow's War with Force on Force open at the table! Force on Force is far more clearly laid out than TW. Interestingly, my son's have no problem with who shoots first – they don't try to put it into English in their head. I really struggle as I try to formulate the different participles (there really aren't 7 different participles for to smash!)

SMASH is an accepted effect verb that means to employ kinetic action to achieve a decisive result. Examples include 'SMASH an enemy tank', 'get SMASHED in a bar', 'SMASH out a FragO'…SMASH and ladies should probably not be mentioned too closely together on a public forum

"Tried a very times but have given up and moved onto other sets. The way the rules are written is very confusing, like reading a long book."

"Oh please! I read TW, played it two times and then used it to host a participation game for 50- to 10-year olds. The basis rules are such a simple and integrated whole that I did not even have to skip parts of it, just omitted the more complicated weapons and Special rules"

@Pijlie, insulting someonse opinion is not always the best way to get your point across. I agree with Madmike that after several reads of the rules, I still find them a bit daunting.

The difference for you is that you showed a bunch of 10 year olds how to play. Others who dont have people teaching them the rules (like myself) may have more trouble picking them up. No need to insult us though.

Every set of rules needs to be played a couple of times to work out the details. There are always questions and points of confusion.

If you read the examples and play a couple of smaller engagements then it starts to make sense.

There is a specific order of reactions when a chain of reactions takes place that can make a chaotic situation more organized.

My 12 year old daughter gets it. Can't be too hard to grasp. Really, Tomorrow's War has got me hyped to play minis games like I haven't been in over a decade. There are organizational flaws, sure, but nothing overly jarring. It all works out as you play the game. I bought the rules on a whim and glad I did. They're flexible enough to do just about anything I want in a sci-fi/near future game. Reckon I'll try out FoF shortly as well.

I have to agree with RT's perspective on bunching and it's that sort of thing that ultimately killed FoF/TW for us. It gets this fundamental aspect of modern combat backwards. In the rules it really is harder to hit a large, bunched up unit than a small, stealthy unit. The math doesn't lie. Fans of FoF have made every concoluted argument to justify this but ultimately you end up with the counter-factual (and counter-intuitive) incentive to maneuver in big, loud, bunched up units to reduce the effects of enemy fire.

We did a mod using a fixed number of defense dice and only using team-sized elements instead of large squads which worked well. But there were so many other issues it felt like we were having to re-write the rules to have them make sense.

Saw a demo game at the Festival of History, the young lads ,playing the UK forces, approached the game like a scenario from COD. They were taken apart, piece by agonising piece, veterans looking nodded in approvement. I've played games where you can regally and still muddle through, this game seemd to punish poor play, so realistic in my book. I once read the entire rules waiting for my wife, whilst in Waterstones, it struck me as a set that needed some real games, under the belt, to fully appreciate them.

I don't think my explanation above was convoluted. ;)

@Milites: We hear this a lot. We had a gratifyingly enormous amount of input from veterans of recent wars and had a number (half-a-dozen that I can think of off the top of my head) of such veterans as part of our core design consulting and play test team for Force on Force. We consciously avoided taking the FPS approach to the design of the game, which means some "truisms" from COD won't fare well on the table with our rules. Runnin' & gunnin', sprayin' & prayin', and being the l337 lone wolf won't pay off well in FoF. Some folks see this as a detriment to our rules because that's what they're looking for in a game. Others find it refreshing and challenging to see real world tactics come into their own on the table top.

Different horses for different courses.

Best wishes,

Shawn.

This was an accidental double post. I guess all the COD talk made me twitchy on the trigger! ;)

Shawn.

Actually, Wartopia, a good point is brought up:

If I split up then the enemy either splits his fire (totally ineffective) or only shoots one guy.

I still think that this sort of thing shows why FoF and related games are better at handling games where the player is acting as Lieutenant or Captain, while other, somewhat similar games are better at handling Sergeant, but it is true that its not quite as simple as "more bunching = better defense." This is in part because you only get the cover (and other) bonuses once per group (meaning the more divided you are the more any individual soldier gets from that bonus) and in part because the total number of soldiers the enemy can take out in a volley of fire is less. It does mean that splitting your groups up to take cover has a higher chance of losing somebody, but it also means that you have a lower chance of losing more people. Kinda a net result of zero.

This is why I still view FoF as a "non-squad level tactics game." Squad level tactics basically don't matter, the game is geared towards what the squad does overall, not what the guys within the squad do.

This is not a bad thing; its just a matter of scale.

What was great, was the guy running the demo showed the boys what they should have done afterwards. It was basic stuff, mutually supporting fire teams etc, etc but came as a bit of a revelation, a definite teaching moment.

But splitting up has other advantages in game terms in FoF/TW, remember.

In gaining the initiative (which can be incredibly important, as the non-initiative player will find it hard to achieve anything proactive) the more "units" you have the better. Eight two-man "units" are way, way better than two eight-man units.

WOW!!!!!
Thanks a lot!!!

Roby