"DBM player thinking of converting to FOG! Why should I?" Topic

Hi everyone.

I am a long time DBx player, and love the game. However… it has been a few years now since I played. I really want to get back into playing again (I play friendly AND tournaments). I really want to do so with something NEW regarding rules. Now I see we have not only DBMM, Impetus, but also FOG. I think FOG is more my style than say Impetus (I like that FOG really takes care of tournament style play). However, seeing my DBM background, what is it about FOG that will really shine for me, better than say DBMM?

Very curious what you experienced players have to say about all this.

Because basing is nearly if not completely identical, the only harm in going with FOG would be needing to flesh out armies to provide the number of "units" that FOG requires, not a big deal. We game DBx and did not find learning the rules that difficult; though a couple of our group are old WRG grognards.

Yeah… the 'units' thing would take some getting used to. Used to the single base elements. How big do units get, I mean in general whats the min/max units sizes. I imagine each unnit functions alot like a DBx element does, only with all the extra tactical detail. That brings up the question, how big is a typical attle in miniatures compared to DBM?

Units are generally 4 to 9 bases (with very rare 2 base units). We used to play DBM a lot, but it eventually just dies out from inertia. Not getting new players and older players dropped out.

FOG completely regenerated Ancients in our area. Since units are common to most other rules, that was not really a big hurdle for most players. And the concepts in FOG were easily picked up. Remember, Richard Bodley Scott was a co-author of the original DBM.

Armies with high quality troops tend to have small unit sizes, i.e. most Romans units are in units of 4 bases.

Average type drilled armies are in 6s or 8s.

While your warband types are in 8s and 10s.

When I moved from DBMM I had to buy a few bases of figures to pad out some of my specialist units. i.e. only had 3 bases but needed a forth.

One thing I really like in FOG are the morale rules, if a unit breaks you have to check other near by units.

FOG – A version 2 is due out in the next few weeks, from what I have read it will take the game from being very good to excellent.

Hi,

I understand FOG armies are usually slighly larger than DBM armies, so you may play smaller than normal points, or buy a few more elements.

I am a DBMM player and can't really discuss much about FOG, and given this is the FOG Board I'm not going to discuss DBMM. If you would like to know why I think DBMM is better than FOG, please post on the DBx board and I can continue.

However I will say, unless you really dislike something about a particular game, it's probaly best to play something that other people in your area play. Otherwise you may not get enough games to get the hang of it. Any of these games, FOG, DBMM, Impetus needs some degree of regular play or it becomes frustrating leafing through the rules all the time. IMO.

Cheers,
JohnG

I have gone from DBM to DBMM, read FoG and not liked it. A friend recently tried DBMM for the first time, and found it quite good.

He had previously tried FoG, going straight from virgin to competition player. He came second in the competition, against many players who had been playing FoG for a while. I think his preference is DBMM.

But, when it comes down to it, what the Platypus says is usually the most significant contributing factor. For what it is worth, I am a long time DBM player, and I think DBMM is a considerably better (though more complex) game.

My take on the transition from DBMM to FOG – bit.ly/S55i9M

I understand FOG armies are usually slighly larger than DBM armies, so you may play smaller than normal points, or buy a few more elements.

This is certainly true especially at 800 or 900 points for tournament play.

--
Martin Stephenson
blog.vexillia.me.uk
amazon.co.uk/shops/vexillia
twitter.com/vexillia

Both FOG and DBMM are very good games. Both give good results in historical refights.
We abandoned DBMM not because it's a bad game, but because we play ancients relatively seldom (maybe 3 times a year), and none of us could remember the rules properly between games. FOG seemed easier to remember; I think maybe DBMM needs regular play to get the best out of it.
DBMM certainly has a lot more stuff in it – weather, and stratagems, and I think there is probably more tactical nuance, but we found FOG simpler to play (although it is by no means a simple set of rules).

IMO one of the primary considerations with any game is how much easier or harder is it going to be to find opponents/gaming opportunities with any given set of rules.

It is all well and good picking a set that you love to bits but if you can't get games then unless you are a solo player you are probably on a loser.

Personally I used to play DBM exclusively but it was clear that the rules were gradually losing momentum in terms of new players. I became involved in the playtesting of DBMM and then also simultaneously involved in the development of FoG.

For me DBMM is a backward step from DBM. It fixes 'problems' with DBM that I did not have and adds a load of new stuff that I don't like in the slightest.

FoG is a very different game to DBM. I see it more as a step back from DBM then a step or two forwards in a new direction. Essentially I got the impression that the authors of FoG saw DBM as a fully evolved game and not one that could really be improved without wholesale change.

To me FoG feels more like a WRG 6th edition for the 21st century. It is clean, relatively cheese free, flows well and is overall a great wargame.

What I find a little lacking in FoG is the depth of 'game' as opposed to 'wargame'. When I played DBM I was able to beat most if not all my opponents easily simply because I was a better player of the 'game'. With FoG a lot of the sneaky tricks you could use in DBM are not there and the game as a whole makes a lot more sense. FoG is not to everyone's taste and it is not the only game I play. That said I still enjoy playing FoG and attend several tournaments a year.

With the release today of the electronic version of FoG v2 there could well be a resurgence in interest. Time will tell.

We had the opposite experience and found we liked DBMM better than DBM and FOG while good was a bit slow for us due to the addition of the Impact phase. Having said that when you get used to it it wasn't that much slower.

As James said I would choose based on what the others play. We used to have a really strong DBM group here but it has really dropped off as some of the main proponents aren't currently in town.

After WRG 7 I gave up Ancients until the advent of FoG. While I find IGO/UGO too "gamey," it is a playable set. It is the units aspect that I prefer to the DBs. I've had some good games with Rob's crew at GHG.

While I still maintain that WRG 7th/Warrior is my favorite game, nobody I know in my area agrees with me. FoG, otoh, is quite popular, with lots of players, tourneys, game nights, etc. I play a lot of FoG and enjoy it, probably more than I ever did DBM, which I also used to play a lot of.

That is an interesting point by JHH about the rules losing momentum in terms of new players.
Why is that?
Is it because they are bad rules or just because they are old?
Are FOG/H.C/Impetus bettter or is it just the cult of the new?

I play DBMM personally.

For me FOG wins out over the DBx games as the game actually looks like what I expect an ancients battle to look like, e.g. units moving around, no individual bases running off, a unit runs away there is a change that its neighbours will do the same.

DBx system is more about ‘gaming' a set of rules, tricky tactics, order you fight battles,etc, none of which should actually have any impact on a real battle. Someone with minimal experience in FOG can still put in a good show playing the game if they play their army historically.

End result is the best set of ancient rules for you is determined by what everyone else is playing and your personal preference. For me I stopped ancients for many years when everyone in my city moved onto the DBx range. Now FOG has got ancients going again.

Actually if you are new to FOG start with 600pt armies, should have more than enough figures.

FoGAM is sort of Like a game of Duplo DBA (ie DBA with fatter elements), in which every base gets a pip each turn and the simple diceoff combat mechanic has been hit quite hard with a Heath-Robinson shaped stick….

Have played DBM, DBMM and FOG and ended up greatly prefering the DB model.

I've spent most of my adult life immersed in studying medieval battle both as historian and reinactor and found the DB model much closer to the feel of medieval warfare. The use of battle lines and the how they fragmented into individual elements nicely simulated how medieval armies fought and if pressed collapsed. It had a real command control system something that is essential to recreating medeival battles. It avoided the use of units in an era when sub-unit articualtion hardly existed.

Locally some of the tournament guys went with FOG (at least for awhile). I played in several tournaments but it felt like Napolanics with spears. (Evenually a Napolanic version appeared).

Most of the historical guys have gotten involved in play testing DBA3.0. The Big Battle version may end up replacing DBM for those of us who find DBMM a bit too much work.

If you find that DB is your prefered model, I strongly suggest giving dBA3.0 big battle a try.

TomT

INteresting

Well… after being out of ancients for a while, I think I will give FoG a shot! I have the new version, as well as the Roman e-list book. Looks great. Love the lay out and presentation (as I new I would). Huge plus as far as ancients rules go.

Looks great. It will take some getting used to, concerning moving about with 'units' as opposed to 'elements'. But all in all, the differences seem more in name only (although more tactical feel with them).