"Is "FoG" over?" Topic

Hailed once as the replacement for DBA/M you now hear hardly a word about Field of Glory (or is brother, FoGR) at TMP. Was it just a fad? Is its day over or does it have legs to be a long time contender?

(This does not include FoG Napoleonics which is still fairly new).

I liked very little that was FoG, and still prefer DBA DBMM.

It was a shame that a big company did not approach Phil Barker to make a glossier version of DBA – that could fill the gap left by FoG.

I like DBMM just the way it is!

FoG is on other forums and fansites (slitherine and madaxeman to name a couple) and is all over the blogosphere. I believe the explosion of blogs and the relative timing of FoG's release plays a role in these perceptions.

DBA/X always kept me away from these periods, FoG/FoGR and MoA opened them for me.

Yes … FoG is indeed 'massive' – just not on TMP.

Personally, I like the diversity Ancients offers, and my very busy end of Autumn has seen Armati, FoG and DBA events almost back-to-back, as well as lots of local wargaming.

I find the players and the themes more engaging than the rules themselves (and my preference for 'Doubles' is just because I like to share the game with more people rather than fewer …)..

Sue will have a glossier version of DBA in the New Year, we are led to believe, Maddaz111 (and the drafts I have seen look good), but it will be catering for its own significant market, not any gap left by FoG I think …

'All good' …

Phil
Ancients on the Move

I have never played DBA. I bought FoG when it came out but just on reading alone I found the rules a bit confusing and challenging what with all the various modifications in combat.

I see FoG 2.0 is due out next month or so. No ideas what changes are in it. As I have no regular ancient/medieval rules at the moment I may give them another read.

Interetsing Phil that it is not popular at TMP but is in the rest of the mini world. I wonder why that is?

Plenty of FoG Ancients torunaments being played in the Southern USA. Not much FoG-Ren. I ahve seen a couple of FoG-Nap tournaments too.

Osprey wants to have a series of FoG tournaments linked in a playoff system. A lot of interest has been expressed around the States. I am not sure on the status.

FoG 2.0 is due out the 20th.

Read FOGRen hoping to find something I could use with my 16th centuary Samuria but I found them hopelessly dense and confusing.

It is already available from Slitherine according to their newsletter today.

I think it was about a year ago.

I saw a copy of the rulebook in the local shop for about $5.00 USD, or so used.

An explosion of diehards. Otherwise regular folk moved onto black powder, Maurice and other periods in my area. It was pretty successful of killing off popular interest.

its a question of scael.

TMP seems to me to be predominantly peopled by guys who lean to new rather than old.

new for the last few years has been much more about 28mm

ergo, hardly anything on TMP about a system which is predominately 15mm.

exceptions of course, but for me it always explains why a 'silence' on something decends on TMP after a while.

to really judge FoG, wait for the summer tournament season to start – and look at the numbers of comps offering FoG, and the number which have changed to something else.

FoG was played for a while at out club but has since vanished in the mists of time.

We still play DBA though:)

I think my club is pretty catholic in it's tastes for Ancients games. I see lots of Impetus in 28mm (a couple of games each meeting), a fair bit of FoG in 15mm (at least 1 game each meeting), a couple of games a year of WRG 6th and Terry Gore's Ancient Warfare. I've never seen a game of DBA, DBM or DBMM in over 10 years.

FoG AM got me back into Ancients after many years away, I now play it 2-3 times a month. I find it plays quickly once you get the hang of the system, and use coloured tabs to find the relevant sections instead of the terrible index. I find FoG R a "better" game, and have dusted off a shedload of original Mikes Models armies since it came out, as well as buying a load of new 17th Century stuff. We too usually play doubles to keep more people involved and ease pressure on available table space, so we have about 6 regular and 2-3 occassional FoG players out of a membership in the mid-thirties. Not sure that says anything other than for us at least, FoG is still regularily played and looks like it will continue to be so in the forseeable future. Other clubs may have a different experience.

Interetsing Phil that it is not popular at TMP but is in the rest of the mini world. I wonder why that is?

TMP is more … fun game/fantasy-historical mix/28mm friendly … FoG is more … competition/historical/15mm friendly …

TMP can be quite a caustic forum

FoG is sufficiently big that it has its own forum(s) that are not caustic and where FoG's 'norm' (ancient/medieval etc., historical, 'equal points, tourney-style, predominantly 15mm etc.) is _the norm. So a welcoming, well-informed and comfortable zone for people to post, browse and ask questions.

It's an easy decision with a game as well-supported as FoG if what you want is to access a community of like-minded enthusiasts.

The sub-text, of course, is whether chat on TMP is 'representative' of anything much – well it is (the views of those who post here) … but only a fraction of wargamers read TMP, and only a fraction of TMP readers post. I am sure there are many more areas of wargaming that are much more prevalent than might seem the case from their presence on TMP (and likewise many 'big hitters' on TMP that would reveal themselves as really quite a niche interest all over)

Phil

TMP is not the centre of the wargaming world so just because FOG is not mentioned here means nothing

I know several gamers who don't or won't read TMP but they play FOGAM (and FOGR and FOGN etc etc)

I don't like FOG

We have played DBM forever here so DBMM being a step forward has caught on as a result. FOG(R) is doing OK but as other found we find it a bit heavy to get through.

DBA is still king in our club and we are awaiting the new DBA with baited breath.

I am an avid FOG player. I used to Game primarily WAB but wanted something of a bigger scale and that provided more then one outcome of a melee. (Cohesion drops and fighting quality degradation.) I know that a lot of my fellow FOG gamers do not visit or have stopped visiting TMP for a few reasons. There is an active community on the Slitherine forum and yahoo groups. I am in CT and there is usually a monthly meet up of New England FOG players. I know DBA but have never played but would say FOG and DBA are not really comparably as they are aimed at different game sizes and audiences. DBA is alot shorter game then FOG. 1/2 hour to hour for DBA verse 3 to 4 hours for FOG. I do not think FOG was meant to take away or convert DBA players, but was to allow those seeking a large scale game the opportunity to do so. I do not have any experience with DBM or DBMM but would be willing to take a look at DBMM.

There are 2 – 4 FOG A or R games at my club every week, maybe a DBMM game once a month.

Dont know what they use of 28mm games at the club as all my stuff is 15mm.

Most likely FOG gamers don't feel very welcome here so most don't bother coming here. There are other forums out there that service their rules better.

I still come here as I am more a painter than player.

As stated above, this is NOT the forum for FoG players. Yahoo Groups and the Slitherine forum are where we/they congregate. FoG slowed down in my area because we have been undergoing playtesting of the revised rules set. Changes in V2 are good and bring it more in line with FoGR which is a bit better in game mechanics than regular FoG. The new revision will breathe a bit of new life into the system IMO.

I am not in favor of all the changes but understand the reasoning of such changes. I have to get the new rules set to make sure they have kept one of the changes I don't care for; namely changes to the Roman lists. For the barbarian player, these armies will match up better against Romans. Like any game, it is a rock, paper, scissors game and given match ups will be one sided. I still maintain that Romans do well in the rules against barbarian foot armies precisely because they did well in history. Losses by Romans were due to ambush or being severely outnumbered IMO.

Anywho, there are other changes that are good. I have up to version 3 of the playtest rules and am assuming that the included changes are in there still. As a Roman player, I am not 100% happy with the changes. As a general player with other armies, the changes coming are good.

Regarding rules complexity; yes, they are on the complex side. Also, without the Player Index, it made it much harder to find items in my opinion as some mechanics were not in places I expected to find them when referencing the rules.
The rules are longer than most because they take you step by step through the game mechanics and have lots of illustrations to explain more complex situations. What I like about the rules is precisely that they are a bit more granular, you play with multi-stand units and each individual stand fights at whatever factors influence its combat. In other words if only one stand is in terrain, only this stand benefits/suffers from being in said terrain. Makes a lot of sense but also leads to more complexity and longer rounds of combat. You do get the hang of things quite readily. This is not a game you will pick up in one sitting. However, an experienced player can streamline the learning process and the game does flow logically.

As with any rules system, there are fans and detractors. It isn't for everybody, just as DBM wasn't for everybody either. IMO, there are more people that play FoG than any other rules system of its complexity level. There seem to be more former players of other rules systems that have found something they like in the rules and have stuck with it. Have players gone back to WRG, DBM or other systems? Sure, but I see more people sticking with it than leaving.

I am in the camp as not caring for DBM or DBMM. My opinion is my own but I don't care for the level of abstraction combined with what I feel is unnecessary complication. I find DBA and more importantly DBA Big Battle to have the mechanics necessary to have a good game at the level of abstraction that is in the DBX world. So, I prefer DBA over DBM or DBMM.

I can readily find gamers for DBA or FoG. Your mileage may vary. My overall favorite set of rules though is actually Might of Arms. With some home rules and some optional rules from Bob Bryant's suggestions, they really are a great combination of playability and the right about of complexity. But, I can't easily get a game with an opponent.
I am looking at Impetus but am not sure it will pull me over yet.

With regards to FoGR in the South, it has more to do with player base than the rules themselves. Renaissance is just not as popular in the South or in Texas from what I have seen. FoGR is a great game though. I love the rules for historical unit formations such as the Tercio. Really a very well done rules system and I feel it is the best out there for the period, with the exception that in the very late period, other rules model bayonets, etc. a bit better IMO.

Thanks for the great input. I am interested to see how FoG 2.0 turns out.

In my little group,its our most played game.I would love to play FoGR,but its been slow going painting up my figs.While we used to play DBM,nobody has even mentioned playing DBMM,although I would not be against trying it.

Madaxeman participates in a lot of FoG tournaments and posts them on his website plus usually announces it here on TMP, I really enjoy in humorous AARs.