"Au Revoir Field of Glory - Hello Warrior" Topic

A few of us have tried FoG. We played half a dozen games. In the end we decided that the system, while having some decent concepts and mechanics, lacks the kind of attention to detail that would make it our default game.

We were surprised at the number of places where the rules are silent on how to handle common circumstances. For instance, the rules are silent on how to properly handle units that impact at angles where the charging unit's stands cannot advance to contact. This is a very common occurance in any game. Imagine one unit charging frontally another at another where the right corner contacts the defending unit's front at a 45 degree angle. How does the unit conform itself in melee? There are no diagrams or explanations. While the basic rule is that units advance the minimum distance to conform in many of our games this would allow the charging unit to essentially wheel two extra turns or more of movement. If this is the intent of the rules then to our thinking it doesn't make any sense.

One good thing is that FoG has encouraged us to take the plunge and try Warrior (which has been sitting on the shelf for a couple years staring at me.)

Can you tell us more about Warrior and why its better? I might give it a try, FoG is a disapointment to me.

There was a very healthy FoG doubles competition at our club ahow last weekend and a few guys in the club are now playing it.

Ancients isn't my cup of tea though

Yeah,

Tell us about Warrior.

mjc

I'm also very curious. I've never heard of it before.

Isn't "Warrior" just the old Wargames Research Group (version 6 or something like that) rehashed???

yes, warrior is the old 6th edition wrg rules amended, i think, and re-published, but which FOG, apparently has taken influence from.

Yep. The old WRG 7th Edition rules, only re-formatted in English instead of Barkerese (and with lots of diagrams at logical points of the text to help with comprehension).

Cheers
Paul.

The Warrior rules are a great set of rules. Not any more complex that what I see FoG as. They are well put together and come with a plethora of diagrams. They are dirived from WRG 7th with out the confusing barker/BodleyScottese. They are cross referenced, and in my opinion easy to use. I was sad when my group drifted into DBM when it first came out, and I was very happy to return to Warrior. Vowed never to leave it again and glad to say I was not drawn to the hype of FoG.

Is there a yahoo Group or something for "Warrior"? Where can you get a copy?

I'm not an expert of Warrior. I can't even recommend them at the moment since I've only read them through a couple of times. We're planning to have a game in the next couple of weeks. I've attached the blurb about the development of Warrior from the website (Four Horsemen.)

link

I'd say the rules seem slightly more complex but more thoroughly vetted than FoG. So for instance, fatigue is a very important concept in Warrior. Interestingly, FoG has no concept of fatigue. A unit of cavalry in FoG, for instance, can charge from one end of the table to the other over several turns defeating opponent after opponent without suffering fatigue or disorder. That can never happen in Warrior. The cavalry unit will begin to fatigue quickly and will likely have a couple of charges available to it before it becomes exhausted.

The link Marcus provided will take you where you can purchase the rules. Fatigue is very important and adds up quickly. Cavalry can grow tired fast if over charged.

There is a discussion group hosted by FHE. It is not a yahoo group. Here is the link

link

Since FHE runs the site they are very active in answering all questions. A search of the archives will probably yeild most answers.

The BIG question (to me, anyway) is are there any basing changes ? Don't mind trying new rules but HATE rebasing armies

Base sizes are the same.

Regular (not Irregular) LMI and LHI in Warrior have the option of being based 4-up or 3-up. The increased density of 4-up makes them a bit better in melee thanks to more figures in contact. In FoG it doesn't make any difference, since combat is by base not figures.

Ah LHI and LMI -that takes me back!

"We were surprised at the number of places where the rules are silent on how to handle common circumstances. For instance, the rules are silent on how to properly handle units that impact at angles where the charging unit's stands cannot advance to contact. This is a very common occurance in any game."
That suprises me because FOG seems unusual it that the rules do clearly cover all such situations.
Marcus Brutus gives an example of a circumstance that he says the rules don't cover and then he quotes the rule that covers it – "basic rule is that units advance the minimum distance to conform". The rules also explain that if the units cannot conform they fight as if they were conformed. There are plenty of diagrams and examples in the rules to explain situations such as this. I haven't got mine in front of me but I'm sure there is a diagram showing an angled contact with bases stepping forward in the Impact phase and then conforming in the Manouvre phase.
Marcus – what other areas do you think the rules don't cover ? Have you asked about them on the FOG forum ?

@ Marcus "would make it our default game"
This implies you have other rule sets you sometimes use.
Could you please tell me which ones and briefly why you like them?
I use DBA at the moment but am looking for something more complex and larger and really value people's opinions on rule sets.

Marcus Brutus and his group appear to prefer another rule set to FoG, and that is perfectly fine. "Different strokes," and all that. :)

However, the FoG rules most certainly do handle instances of opposing units contacting at angles, in the Impact section.

Below are links to just a few instances of new players receiving answers to this very question in the FoG discussion forum:

link
link

Cheers,
Scott

Scott,

The FoG rules cannot be very well written on this point if you post two links and reder to them as "just a few instances" of new players not understanding the rule as written, additionally it is poorly enough written that Marcus Brutus and his group have given up on FoG as their default game.

Since wargames rules are technical expository writing, the purpose of which is to communicate how the game is played to others, this is a hugely significant failure. The book may state how to handle the situation, but clearly it does not communicate it.

I'll stick with Impetus thank you.

I hardly think you can describe a ruleset as poorly written because some people do not understand some of the mechanics. However clearly you explain something in a set of rules, there will always be people who don't understand. I am often amazed by questions people ask (about all rules, not just FOG) when the answers are clearly and explicitly stated in the rules.
Looking at the example Marcus Brutus gave, he thought the rules did not cover a particular circustance yet he quoted the rule that clearly does cover it. Maybe the rule didn't say what he thought it should so he didn't think it was right. But the rules are clear on what happens in this situation.
The FOG rules have been written to be a tight set of rules, covering all eventualities with no "if you're not sure what to do, dice for it" type get out clauses. Any set of rules that does that successfully is going to be fairly complex, and no doubt some people will struggle to understand some of the concepts at first (in some cases because of preconceived ideas about what should happen or what other rules do).

Also, it is indeed true that there are no "fatigue" rules in FoG per se (i.e. troops are not "blown" simply by moving around on the battlefield, as they can be in Warrior). However, units in combat often have to take Cohesion tests, and those failing such a test can fall in state from Steady to Disrupted, Fragmented, or Broken. Here is a thread from the FoG discussion forum on the subject:

link

In the interest of "equal time," here are some discussion threads relating to conforming and fatigue from the official Warrior discussion forum:

link
link

Different rule sets appeal to different gaming tastes and styles, so if Marcus and his group find the mechanics in WRG 7th/Warrior preferable to those in FoG, that's perfectly understandable. But to imply that the authors of FoG have not considered or addressed these issues is simply incorrect.

Cheers,
Scott

Dave,

I think that Mark has responded to your post quite well. I would only add that ALL discussion forums for miniatures rule sets feature questions from new players who have difficulty understanding the rules as written. This is certainly true for the official Impetus discussion forum:

link
link
link
link

Cheers,
Scott

We were surprised at the number of places where the rules are silent on how to handle common circumstances. For instance, the rules are silent on how to properly handle units that impact at angles where the charging unit's stands cannot advance to contact. This is a very common occurance in any game. Imagine one unit charging frontally another at another where the right corner contacts the defending unit's front at a 45 degree angle. How does the unit conform itself in melee? There are no diagrams or explanations.

Let me preface this by saying that FoG is "not my bag baby." I like some of the game mechanics but there is too much in there that I don't like.

However, lets be fair here. I have read the rules through three times. If there is one thing that FoG delivers on, it is a clear and concise explanation of almost everything in the game. Your example is actually fairly well explained in the rules.

So perhaps you are in the camp of this game is too fiddly/complex/just-not-my-bag-baby, but the reasons you give for not liking it don't really add up.

@those who want to know about Warrior Rules, look here.

link

It seems to be a heavily modified version of WRG 7th ed.

John

I've probably read through FoG carefully 7-8 times in learning the rules but it is possible that I've missed something. My recollection is that there is not a single diagram showing how units impact at sharper angles where the bases cannot advance to contact. Yet I would imagine that this is a very common occurance in the game. We had a situation where a 4 stand single rank Knight unit attacked a battlegroup of infantry. The knight hit the infantry at about 60 degree angle with it's right corner. There was no clear direction from the rules as to how to conform an impacting unit that had the vast majority of it's frontage not in contact.

This is not a one off occurance. Surprisingly there are many situations that seemed common to us that weren't adequately explained in the rules.

I'm not trying to sound critical. But considering the hype and the promise of extensive playtesting and editing some of the things we've found in FoG are surprising.

Hi Raducci

We've played a lot of Armati. Armati is a beatifully written set of rules which we found was thorough in it's presentation. But the game itself is a bit dull and becomes quite predictable.

We've played Might of Arms which is interesting but a bit bland too.

I should add that we did find FoG fun and provided some interesting game circumstances. I'd be happy to provide a more thorough critique if others are interested.

The issues of playing only one set of rules seems to be mainly an American situation and is still the common model.

Even back in the 1970s and early 1980s, players in the USA tended to play only one specific set of rules at all conventions. On the other hand reports back then from the UK had the same players playing one set of rules at one show and at another UK show a different set of rules would be played.

My main convention circuit covers the South. In the South,
one small gropup of players play Warrior in East Georgia and North Florida. their tournaments may field 6 players at the ones I have seen. There is one planned for Jacksonville soon. There are FoG events planned to take place at Hurricon in Orlando in September.

On the other hand the major ancient tournament group in the South, played several sets of rules before deciding on an official set of rules. They had even tried Warrior when it first came out but decided to adopt DBM. Recently FoG was accepted over DBMM so well that they drop DBM mid-circuit season and finsihed last season using FoG.

It is clear that one set of rules cannot satisfy every gamer. the preference of the group will always be a determining factor over individual choices.

I'm not trying to sound critical. But considering the hype and the promise of extensive playtesting and editing some of the things we've found in FoG are surprising.

As I have not actually played the game, I'd bet that I might have not envisioned some of the situations that you have come up with as well.

Armati could be a great set of rules by simply getting rid of the draconian setup rules and movement stipulations. I think the combat mechanics are pretty straight forward and sound. I take exception to the way units are moved and constrained.

Armati could be a great set of rules by simply getting rid of the draconian setup rules and movement stipulations. I think the combat mechanics are pretty straight forward and sound. I take exception to the way units are moved and constrained.

You might like Impetus then. Combat mechanisms very straight forward, but the movement rules and setup are much better then Armati IMHO.

I've seen basic Impetus and rather like the concepts. have not played yet but at least the game mechanics have gotten it into the playing queue.

John-So many games! So little time!

Prediction: one game of warrior will lead anyone somewhere else.

Idontbelieveit, could amplify on your comment.

I agree acarhj that one of the main problems with Armati is the draconian movement system that allows only a very rigid command structure. We did modify this by allowing any number of divisions but only being able to move as many as your Army Control Rating allowed. It didn't solve the whole problem however. The other problem with Armati that we didn't like was the, in most cases, the weapons system of the troops didn't matter. Seemed to make the whole game a bit bland in the end.

One thing I really liked about FoG, at least conceptually, is the distinction between the initial impact and the ensuing melee. It reminded my a bit of the old set, Shock of Impact. In the end, I personally don't like how FoG handles the distinction but I applaud the concept.

I'm wondering how different is Impetus from Basic Impetus.

If there is a kind soul that could provide it, I would be very interested in comparison between FoG and Vis Bellica.

Minondas,

The biggest difference between FoG and Vis Bellica is that VB has single element units while FoG has multi-element units. they are really two different kinds of games. There is a need for a unit roster in VB for marking casualties while no casualty roster is required for FoG.

I don't own VB but gleaned most of the information from the VB website.

visbellica.com

Really good site with tons of support for their game.

Hope that helps.

John

Marcus -Impetus adds a lot to Basic Impetus while still being a straight forward fun game withn lots of desision making and wild card stuff. It's not the same as the relationship between DBA and DBM- ie (IMHO) fun game metamorphasising into complex nightmare.
I've been looking for a solid set of rules for a long time now to extend the joy I've had from DBA/HOTT and I've come up with Might of Arms, FOG and Impetus which is by far the winning set.

Especially if you like the thought of a pilum storm…

Hi, Marcus,
thanks for your comments.
If your looking for a rule set these type of threads are invaluable.

ars the only troop type that can be "blown" in Warrior by moving is EHI. Rightfully so since they are heavily armored troops. Other causes of fatigue are for forced marching. Again rightfully so. Otherwise cavalry for example would gain fatigue by charging and fighting only. Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think you could find many circumstances where cavalry can make unlimited charges. In fact I doubt most ancient battles would be long enough for cav to cahrge too many times.

Prediction: one game of warrior will lead anyone somewhere else.

As far as that comment. I have been playing Warrior and its predessesor for quite a few years. I would not change rules for anything.

If Warrior is based on WRG7 I will give it a miss. I played all the WGR rules from 2 up to 7. I found 7 to be the most boring, lots of book keeping. If I was going to revisit the past WGR6 would be the most likely option for me.

Not sure of all the 'excitement' I have read here about Warrior as WGR7 was the defacto standard before DBM came out and most ancients gamers were happy to dump WGR7 when other options became available.

What did 7th in from my point of view (I gamed at a club where a lot of 7th was played but never played myself) was the Barkerese of the rules and the fact that Phil was inconsistent in his rules interpretation (telling one thing to one gamer and the exact opposite to another – kind of making it up as he went.)

I've been reading Warrior and find it roughly comparable in detail to FoG. FoG, DBM and Warrior obviously come from a common family tree.

"Warrior" has a good sized following at the HMGS cons. I have never seen a Warrior player smile during a game. :)

Mike B

The rule you were referring to in your original post is on pages 70-72, under "Conforming to the Enemy in Close Combat". There are two diagrams on page 72. The layout of the rulebook is a bit unusual, which might cause some difficulty in finding rules in the heat of battle. But the color coding and sidebar titles help a lot, and this rulebook is one of the most comprehensive I've ever read. It's far easier to read and understand than Warrior…or DBM, for that matter.

In the UK WRG 7th did a great job of killing ancients gaming, many players dropped out with the advent of 7th. DBM brought many if not all of the drop outs back along with many more and at one point it was not uncommon to have tournaments with 150 plus DBM 15mm players. Over the last 5 years DBM has been slowly on the wane.

All of this time I have never seen as single game of Warrior being played, never mind a Warrior tournament. I realise Warrior is big in the USA but outside I suspect not.

Hey Hammy, the UK never really did go in for 7th. You guys seemed stalled at 6th talking if my ex Brit friends over here in North Amercia are right. Obviously Warrior would not carry a strong following in the UK for this reason. Could it also be a bit of a parochial attitude Warrior being now a US product?

And MikeB, the lack of smiles could be because most games at Historicon are competitive tournament games.

I am a fan of FOG, I used to play WRG and DBM. The thing I have noticed most is that during a game of FOG it is not tedious at all and the rules are really pretty simple IMHO. I have played 8 times and have only found one situations that are not addressed in the book anywhere that I can find, but I am probably missing it. It has made ancients fun again for me. After a game I do not feel like I just took the SAT like I did after DBM or WRG. It is more complicated than Tactica and the mechanics are not that much like Tactica, but after a game I still feel like I had fun like when I used to play Tactica. It is the first rules set in a long time for me that I want to play again as soon as the game is over, in the past I needed a week or two to recharge even though I enjoyed the game.

Talk about retrograde…..

Many Warrior players are goint to FOG simply because they believe it to be almost an evolutionary step from 7th. And fun too.

Having played both (plus Armati/DBM/DBA/6th/VB etc) FOG is the better game IMHO. It is also the most clearly written set of rules I've ever used.

If you think FOG isn't clearly written due to one situation you couldn't resolve then you are in for a headache with Warrior. It's more like a maths test then a game.

And MikeB, the lack of smiles could be because most games at Historicon are competitive tournament games.

………….. So they shouldn't be fun?

I was just kidding anyway …

Mike B

I've played WRG from 3rd up through 7th and then DBM. I've also tried a handful of others like Tactica, Armati, Vis Bellica, WAB, etc. I have Warrior, it's just a rewrite of WRG 7th. None of the locals gamers I play with have any interest in Warrior. Too complex. I recently went back to WRG 6th, but it never caught on with the gamers I play with, though they had less opposition to it than to Warrior.

I was instantly and thoroughly pleased with FoG from my first read and only more so with every game I've played. It has brought about a renewed interest in Ancients in my area. It has all of the "feel" of the older WRG rules without the complication. Where once I loved taking morale tests with 3 average dice and counting through numerous modifiers, I'm more than happy not to do so anymore.

I think that WRG 7th (i.e., Warrior) had some brilliant ideas, but I must agree with others who have said that going from FoG to Warrior is definitely jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. You're in luck that they use the same basing so when Warrior has completely frazzled you, you can always come back to FoG. When you do, you will likely find a deeper appreciation for the simplicity and clarity of the rules.

It is also the most clearly written set of rules I've ever used.

I wouldn't go that far, but they are well written. What tey don't have is a decent index, but I gather someone has written one – don't know where you can get it though.
My main problem with them is they are a bit boring. Played about a dozen games now and none have them have really excited me. Last game after 3 hours 1 unit was fragmented. Much of the combats were indecisive. One infantry combat had been going on for 4 bounds and not showing any sign of a resolution. Lots of dice throwing for very little effect. From that point of view I'm sold on Impetus. Seems a much more exciting game.

We were surprised at the number of places where the rules are silent on how to handle common circumstances. For instance, the rules are silent on how to properly handle units that impact at angles where the charging unit's stands cannot advance to contact. This is a very common occurance in any game. Imagine one unit charging frontally another at another where the right corner contacts the defending unit's front at a 45 degree angle. How does the unit conform itself in melee? There are no diagrams or explanations. While the basic rule is that units advance the minimum distance to conform in many of our games this would allow the charging unit to essentially wheel two extra turns or more of movement. If this is the intent of the rules then to our thinking it doesn't make any sense.

I know what you are saying here. I asked on the FoG forum about what happens when a pike block is hit on its flank at an angle by the corner of an enemy BG and later on has to conform. Apparently it has to take some steps back and some to the side to line up!!! I can't visualise a real pike block EVER doing that. I fully accept it's a game mechanism, I don't have a problem with that, I also believe it doesn't necessarily detract from the rules on the whole, it's still a pretty lame device though.

You are right, it certainly isn't clear what happens in those situations, if it was, I would not have had to ask would I?! I'm not a newbie to Ancients, I've been playing since 1982 so if it isn't clear to me then it won't be clear to others either.

I haven't played Impetus, it's hard to find opponents for any alternative set when your club plays one set almost exclusively (formerly DBM, now FoG)and I really can't be bothered to plough a lone furrow with Impetus as when it comes to wargaming all my non Ancients time is taken up with Russian Civil war, the only other period I play. That's not to say Impetus is a bad set of rules though, for all I know they may be brilliant.

What killed 7th in my neck of the woods was Barkerese, the added complexity of fatigue points and the awful army lists, the Hellenistic ones are dreadful, so bad I didn't buy any more.

I have to say that IMO FoG is a slow burner but I am getting into it now and the more I play it, the more I like it. The forum at Slitherine Publications website is very helpful and you will always get a response to your questions. Even the lists, which frankly are DBM lists rehashed, are growing on me a bit more now. Overall I'd say that yes, FoG were hyped, they aren't perfect, but they certainly aren't bad either. I've enjoyed the games I've played with them and intend to play lots more.

"Even the lists, which frankly are DBM lists rehashed, are growing on me a bit more now"

I have had the same feeling about the lists, but they are an improvement in most cases. The FoG lists make it so that you don't have to rebase or rebuild existing DBM armies to play FoG. It's a smart move and has certainly hastened acceptance of the rules. However, the lists and the rules will mostly change the way you compose the army from how it was in DBM. I am busily painting more Late Roman legionaries because in FoG they're actually good (even *very* good), not the expensive dreck they were as Bd(O) in DBM.