"Au Revoir Field of Glory - Hello Warrior" Topic

It should be remembered that the main author of FoG was one of the designers of DBM, so the similarity of mechanics and some army list troop types should not be a surprise.

If the main FoG designer had had nothing to do with DBM, then the similarity of lists might raise an eyebrow.

From my experience reading the army lists, the DBM army list is like an initial blueprint but not the final one. If the data is solid then, there may be few changes from DBM to FoG. But if there has been additional research to provide an alternative troop type, then several or many posts of the issue can occur. The number of messages between list design team members on minor issues of a list, would easily eliminate the notion of a cloning of DBM lists.

"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."

The index in the FoG rules was created by a professional indexer, not a wargamer. Unfortunately where a reference to something actually matters is not clear to a non gamer. The player index can be downloaded from the field of glory website fieldofglory.com in the "On the field of glory" section.

As to army lists, they aren't simple rehashes of the DBM lists. Granted where DBM lists differ from current research there have often been options left to allow backwards compatibility. The problem with lists is that if the DBM lists are reasonably accurate which seems likely then the FoG lists will be similar.

Look at lists like Medieval Danish or the later medieval Spanish lists if you want something very different to the DBM ones. Heck even the slave revolt list was reworked from first principles (and the backward compatibility principle), I should know, I wrote it.

I thought 7th was a great step up from 6th – the waver tests and fatigue system struck me as being much better than the old 3-d6 (or d5) reaction tests, and I never did like eth exactitude that removing "x" casualties implied – we have no idea how many casualties were actually caused by any given ancient combat with maybe a handful of exceptins, so any set of ruels that says that a specific nubmer of men are killed & need to be removed is already not doign well IMO.

That said 7th still retained "casualties" for combat calculations, and in this light DBM is really 8th – taking eth abstractions and hte simplificatins 1 step further whilst still giving the same results.

I'll never understand why people want to roll bucket loads of dice to achieve effects that are just as "accurately" achieved roling a couple.

Fred, how does Impetus stack in complexity with other sets.

Where does Impetus fit into the scheme below (assuming you know the other games)

Warrior
FoG
Armati
DBA

First of all my apologies for the multiple deletions, I was struggling with the quote formatting.

As to army lists, they aren't simple rehashes of the DBM lists. Granted where DBM lists differ from current research there have often been options left to allow backwards compatibility.

Point taken but nevertheless many lists do come across as simply having transfered the troop classifications from DBM speak to FoG speak and then keeping numbers of bases as near to DBM as possible. If that's not a rehash then I don't know what is.

I can see why you would want to keep them similar to the DBM lists, especially if those are accurate, I'm not knocking you or anyone else for that.

Frankly James I'm not the only person who thinks this, many others do too. That isn't to disrespect or to deny your hard work and I'm sure it would be an exageration and very unfair to say that every single list was rehashed from DBM. That is obviously not the case, but I do feel you are overstating the amount of "original thought" that has gone into them or at least that has been perceived to have gone into them by us Ancients "old hands".

AlanYork – I think you are being a bit unfair with complaining that FOG army lists are too much alike to DBM. Its like complaining that one publishers maths book has copied someone else's if they also state 1 + 1 = 2.

In this case of army lists its 1 historical fact plus another historical fact = certain portion of Roman heavies to lights.

AlanYork – I think you are being a bit unfair with complaining that FOG army lists are too much alike to DBM. Its like complaining that one publishers maths book has copied someone else's if they also state 1 + 1 = 2.

In this case of army lists its 1 historical fact plus another historical fact = certain portion of Roman heavies to lights.

It's not a complaint as such Mike. There are valid reasons why the two sets of lists should look similar, I understand that and have no problem with it.

What I am saying is that the FoG rules were hyped to be the new wonder set, again fair enough, the companies that produce them have a profit to make, but IMO the majority, though certainly not all, of the lists seen so far are heavily based on their DBM equivalents, some to the extent it's almost a copying exercise.

Maybe we were naive to have expected anything different. I certainly like FoG as a set, I play them, I enjoy them, I want to play them some more and expect to be using them for the next decade to come. I don't see the situation with the lists as being a fault as such or even plagiarism. I don't have any problems with them per se and I accept that some lists have much new thinking gone into them.

But please, spare me any claims that the lists are as "new" as the rules (which themselves have many old ideas, when you've been Ancients gaming for 26 years you see a lot of stuff coming around the block again, nothing wrong in that.)

FoG are great, a good set with a support forum full of nice, helpful people of which jameshammyhamilton is one. So far, from what I've seen of them, I'd say "yes, buy FoG and give them a go" but there just seems to be a tiny bit of "The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome occasionally.

Hype is a dangerous beast. I don't think that the expectation of a best rules set ever, totally inovative mechanisms and startlingly new army books was a result of anything comming from Slitherine or Osprey.

A number of people seemed to hop onto a bandwagon and claim all sorts of things. In the end whenever anything is hyped it won't live up to expectations.

For me FoG is more than different enough from what came immediately before to be fun, historical and challenging. Yes it is more complex than DBA but it was never aimed to be a DBA style set. What FoG does do IMO rather well is provide an attractive, well supported and enjoyable set of rules that has the potential to attract new players to Ancients wargaming as well as bring back some of the players that have drifted away.

It isn't to everyone's taste but then neither was DBM. I know a number of seemingly die hard tournament DBM players who have told me that actually they didn't really like DBM that much but just played it because everyone else did. I suspect that on the UK tournament circuit FoG will end up very much the dominant set for the next couple of years at least. What will happen elsewhere is anyones guess.

One very interesting point that I have noticed recently on the FoG forum and mailing list are people complaining that X or Y doesn't work right only to haveit explained that what they have been playing has been incorrect and on reading what the rules actually say the original posters have realised their error and that the 'problem' was not infact there.

FoG isn't perfect, no ruleset will ever be perfect for more than a couple of players. What it is is a good compromise.

I like FoG, as i indicated in the other Fog sucks thread. Its problem is, imho, the way it has been formulated. In the rules you do not have a section for each game phase, which would make 100% sence to me, rather you have to search bits out cos they are not with the 80% of other information relevant to what you are doing at that moment.

For example, the POA for all circumstances have been lumped together, as has the cohesion tests for all circumstances.

This is the same problem in DBM, DBMM and many other rules i have read. Rule writers seem scared to use more tables in the pursuit of clarity, which is odd.

Imho you need all the information for a particular phase or aspect of the game to be together without irrelevant information clouding the situation.

I have done cheat sheets with abridged versions of all of the above grouped together with all the other relevant tables, for shooting, impact and melee (which are the bits which have caused my game buddies the most problems). I have also re-hashed a cohesion test table without the above information on it.

It is a far clearer read. I would rather have 4 clear cheat sheets than 2 jumbled and confusing ones any day.

I may cross reference them with the book at some point, we shall see.

I keep reading comments about FOG hype and not delivering on expectations.

""The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome occasionally.""

Who exactly has been doing all this hyping? I have read most of the FOG forum and anything at TMP related to FOG and I can't remember reading anyone hyping up FOG. Lots of players have posted that they enjoy FOG over other alternatives, just like others are claiming other rules are better.

Could some actually point out all those hyping posts either at TMP or the FOG forum? By hyping I assume you 'lots' or 'many posts'.

In answer to the original assertion about how FoG handles angles and conforming in combat:

"My recollection is that there is not a single diagram showing how units impact at sharper angles where the bases cannot advance to contact."

See pages 54-57, "Charging to Contact and Stepping Forwards," and diagrams on pages 55 and 56.

"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."

See pages 70-72, "Conforming to the Enemy in Close Combat," and diagram on page 72.

Both of these are clearly listed on the Contents page, and also in the Index.

Cheers,
Scott

Stewbags -

If you have not done so already, you may want to check out the excellent QRS posted on the official FoG web site: PDF link

Cheers,
Scott

I am a full supporter of FoG. So even though my posts are limited to only limited short posts and I try not to banter back and forth on small issues, I do strongly advocate the FoG system.

This does not mean that I no longer support DBA which I do. Both address Ancient scenarios and competition from different levels of simulation.

Why the strong position on FoG? Even though it has only been on the scene, literally only a few months, it has already had an impact on my retail sales. While my sales of rules and supplements are not as heavy as some stores may like due to the deep 'Amazon' style discounts, I sell all related books that I take to a show.

The big bump for me is in my sales of terrain and mostly 15mm miniatures. I have sold ancient miniatures and FoG rules at shows and to clients who have never bought pre-firearm items in the past.

Another issue is to see the new vigor injected into Ancietn tournaments. This coupled with what many tournament players regards as more balanced battles at events has resulted in a marked increase in client satisfaction in gaming among FoG players.

Scott, my original comment was the following:

"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."

The operative words are "cannot advance to contact." Both of your suggestions fail to answer my basic concern. All the pictures on the pages referred by you show units in direct front on front contact. There is no picture or text that has anything approximating a 45 degree contact. No picture or text that shows one what to do with stands unable to step forward into contact.

I'm left puzzled by your latest comments. Are you being serious in your text references (which clearly do not do what you suggest they do) or are you simply an apologist for FoG?

Please point me to anywhere in the rules where there is clear direction on how to handle sharp angle impact contact where the majority of stands cannot step forward into contact?

Hi Marcus,

Are you talking about bases stepping forward? Because if they cannot step forward they don't.

The rules say you can and must step forward (by file up to 2MU) if you can make contact, therefore, if you can't you don't. There is no expectation in the rules that mean all bases _must_ be able to contact. If no files can step forward you only fight at Impact with the base(s) that actually contacted.

Personally I've found pages 54 and 55 to cover this. I wonder if your expecting some mechanism to be there that just doesn't exist in FoG?

Apologies if I've not understood your question.

Marcus,

I think Nik's response covers the situation very well, i.e. bases that cannot step forward as described simply don't so so. They can of course be moved normally in subsequent phases.

My apologies… I thought that the text on the pages in question was clear enough on its own.

Cheers,
Scott

I am confused on this one too. I thought the rules were fairly clear on angled contacts. What would help would be a diagram or photo of such an unclear situation.

Nic and Scott

How does FoG handle a situation in which a unit impacts another unit frontally at a 45 degree angle where the only contacting point of the charging unit is a front corner? In the above case, the remaining stands of the charging unit are beyond 2 MUs so cannot step forward as per the rules. How are the two units to conform during the Manoeurve Phase?

And James, if the rules are clear on angled contacts please direct me to the appropriate section.

I am willing to be corrected. But I can assure you that several of us who have read the rules carefully could not determine how to handle this situation. And what I describe above is a very common occurance.

Mark

As laid down on pages 70 and 71 in the Manoeuvre section – again a section I find pretty clear so I'm struggling as to how to better describe it to you. The section is Conforming to the Enemy in Close Combat.

You would move the contacting BG to that the base which has contavted with just its front corner was in full front edge contact (and corner to corner) with the base it has hit.

So the BG that charged pivots on the corner that contacted so it is parallel with the BG it hit and then slides so that a full base is in contact.

No need to worry about the 2MU stepping forward when you conform, that is an Impact only mechanism.

Does that help?

Mark,

According to the first complete bullet point on page 71, following a charge that does not qualify as a flank or rear charge, "the battle group must pivot to conform with the front edge of of the enemy battle group, sliding the minimum necessary to contact the front edge of at least one enemy base."

This is reinforced by the first diagram on page 72, entitled "Simple Conform," which illustrates a 6-base BG of cavalry that has charged into the left front corner of an opposing 6-base BG of infantry. Since the charge did not qualify as a flank charge, the cavalry BG subsequently pivots and slides to its left in order to conform with the front edge of the infantry, ending up with two bases lined up in Melee contact for each.

Again, both the text and diagram seem very clear, at least to me.

Cheers,
Scott

And the duplicate "of" in the quote is my typo, not from the rules. ;)

Cheers,
Scott

Nic, where in the rules do you find what your are describing.?

Scott, the first full bullit begins with the following

"If the bases are in contact with the flank of enemy bases ……" In my example above, the charging unit impacts the front of the receiving unit with a corner edge. It is not in any way touching a flank. I quite understand what the first bullit is attempting to deal with.

The beginning line on pg. 70 of Conforming to the Enemy says "…. the active player's battle groups already in close combat with the enemy ….. pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to enemy bases." So perhaps we have the solution. But the game circumstances I'm describing required the 4 stand Knight unit to pivot 2x their normal move (ie. about 8 MUs). Is that what FoG expects to happen? And considering how counter-intuitive that would be (even if it is a reasonable gaming mechanism) a simple picture showing this would be most helpful (considering how common this situation would be in gaming.)

Not to be difficult, but in exact circumstances, the Knight unit's pivot would be blocked by another unit. So would the Knight shift over to avoid the other unit as it pivots to conform or would it contact both units?

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative at all. It's just that I expected FoG to be clear about these kinds of circumstances. And this was only one example of what we found.

I really wanted to make FoG my Ancient rules set. I bought the game and 3 army list books. So I have some investment in making these rules work!

In my example I was incorrect about the length of the Knight unit's pivot. It was actually about 5 MUs.

It should be remembered that the main author of FoG was one of the designers of DBM, so the similarity of mechanics and some army list troop types should not be a surprise.

Really?! It is my understanding that much of the FOG mechanics were already written before RBS came on board. However the army list books were not! :-)

Fred, how does Impetus stack in complexity with other sets.

I would say around the complexity of Armati. Half way through my first game I'd got the basic idea of how to move and fight sorted and could concentrate on the game. It seems a very easy system to pick up, but with quite a lot of depth.

"But the game circumstances I'm describing required the 4 stand Knight unit to pivot 2x their normal move (ie. about 8 MUs). Is that what FoG expects to happen?"

And…

"Not to be difficult, but in exact circumstances, the Knight unit's pivot would be blocked by another unit."

With all due respect, now we appear to have gone completely off the rails. If there is another unit in the way (interesting that you never mentioned that before), why would you think that the charging unit ought to be able to pivot THROUGH them? Unless the blocking unit is friendly light foot, the cavalry cannot interpenetrate, and so would simply have to stop when they came into contact with the blockers.

Besides, on page 71, bullet point three quite clearly states that "troops that cannot conform by any of the above methods do not move but continue to fight in an offset formation. They may however be able to conform at a later stage."

Does that help clear things up for you?

cheers,
Scott

Scott, you didn' answer the main point! Arrrrgh. The above example that I have been describing happens all the time in games. Units hitting at hard angles but whose stands cannot step forward because the distance is beyond 2 MUs. Please don't use the extra information to duck the essential question. I provided the extra information only to make the point that conforming in those circumstances brings with it even more problems. So let's assume that the 2nd unit doesn't exist. What do the rules say!!

Impetus is, in a way, Volley&Bayonet for ancients. Big stands, rolling multiple dice for 6's, bonuses (in Impetus' case, bonus for charging instead of V&B's stationary bonus), etc.

I'm not saying Impetus is a V&B variant, but it definitely has a similar air about it.

"Scott, you didn' answer the main point! Arrrrgh. The above example that I have been describing happens all the time in games. Units hitting at hard angles but whose stands cannot step forward because the distance is beyond 2 MUs."
Mark,

I'll try one more time to answer your question, and please forgive me for being repetitive.

On page 71, bullet point three quite clearly states that "troops that cannot conform by any of the above methods do not move but continue to fight in an offset formation."

This means that if a unit hits at a hard angle and cannot step forward because the distance is beyond 2 MUs AND the pivot distance is beyond its maximum movement allowance, then it "does not move but continues to fight in an offset formation." And the reason for this would be that it "cannot conform by any of the above methods."

Arrrrgh, indeed! ;-)

Cheers,
Scott

Fred is the person's name that you listed with initials, I did not list one, listed as a contributor to the rules in the main rule book?

That is all you or I can really go by, as any other assumption about coming on board timelines and mechanic contributions without being on board ourselves is just that an assumption.

Other contributors to the lists have commented on the forum about working on both DBMM and FoG lists as well.

Thanks Scott.

I forgot to ask Scott. What would happen to Knights in the next active players turn. Could he move the Knights again or are the Knights stuck in that position until the melee is resolved?

Hi Marcus, do I take it that Scott has solved your issue?

As to your last question when it comes to the next players turn the knights stay where they are as it is only the active players BGs that conform – again on page 70 right at the start of the Conforming section. However, the BG the knights hit will have to conform if it is able as they are mow "active".

If that is not possible they just carry on fighting offset.

Fred is the person's name that you listed with initials, I did not list one, listed as a contributor to the rules in the main rule book?,/q>

Yes he is.

That is all you or I can really go by, as any other assumption about coming on board timelines and mechanic contributions without being on board ourselves is just that an assumption.

It is you that are making the assumptions – namely that I don't know what I'm talking about, when in fact I've known one of the contributors for many years.

Conforming in FoG is not always possible. The player who's turn it is must at the start of their movement phase conform BGs that are in combat (P70-71). There is no restriction on the distance that conforming troops can move, if friendly troops are in the way and these friendly troops are not in combat then they must be moved sideways to allow the conform (top bullet right hand column P71).

If it is impossible to conform then troops stay where they are and fight in an ofset possition (second bullet right hand column P71).

If one player is unable to conform then in the next players turn their troops will most likely conform instead.

Conforming in melee is priamrily to simplify things but is not in practice required for the game to work.

One of the fundamentals of FoG is that players should not be able to gain advantage as a result of 'clever' micro moves such as occur in DBM or the older WRG sets where IIRC charging in with an overlap of exactly the right size on the corner of an enemy unit produces a significant advantage.

You're welcome, Mark.

Scott

Marcus
The situation you describe is certainly not one that "happens all the time in games". Impacts at an angle greater that 45 degrees rarely happen. I have not had one happen yet (in about 10 games). The reason it doesn't happen is if you are approaching a unit from such an angle you would normally contact the flank (at an angle less than 45 degrees) rather than the front. Or you would wheel to hit the target unit more head on so you get more bases in contact at impact.

Okay, first lesson I got from this thread – continue to avoid ancients like the plague.

Too bad because it was one of my first interests back in the 1970's.

Wow, who would have thought a simple meeting in melee could be so difficult? (Okay, I know better but a lot of things that appear simple in history book turn out more complicated in a set of rules.)

Second thing – Indexing of a rules set should be automatic as part of the design/publishing process. That should apply to all eras/genres where the rules exceed 10 pages…after the fact just doesn't seem as professional as we like to think our rules are.

Gracias,

Glenn

Marshal

They do happen a lot in our games. One can certainly contact someone frontally at a 45 degree + angle with relative ease. The important point in FoG is what happens when stands cannot step forward.

"The important point in FoG is what happens when stands cannot step forward."

And the answer is that if they can't they don't. You fight the impact with only the base(s) in contact. Then in the melee phase the charging BG conforms (with no limit on how far it 'moves'). If this conform is blocked by friends not in contact they are moved sideways out of the way to allow the conform. If it is blocked by enemy or friends in contact then the conform does not happen and the bases fight "as if they had conformed" then in the other players turn his troops must if possible conform.

Where is the problem? This is all clearly spelled out in the rules.

Marcus

Why do they (extreme angled contacts) happen so much in your games when I have yet to see one happen ?
Why aren't you hitting the flanks instead of frontally, or wheeling to get more bases in contact ?

Mark

Didnt the old Tactica solve this problem by having the units stop at first contact and just fight with everyone in the front rank, plus any bonus dice for depth bonus. When did they reinvent the wheel? Must be a government project.

I still don't see a 'problem'.

FoG has impact combat where bases in contact fight. If you hit at an angle then the rest of the battlegroup can step forwards and as long as you are not at an acute angle you will normally get more bases in this way.

During the impact everyone fights just as they would if they were lined up.

After impact where possible troops are moved to conform. If this isn't possible then they aren't. Either way the melee is fought as though the troops involved were confirmed.

It is IMO perfectly clear in the rules how this happens. I am sure that with a bit of work you can setup a situation where conforms are impossible but what you can't do in FoG U(unlike DBM) is setup situations where contact and hence combat is impossible. Also in FoG there is no benefit for trying to squeeze the extra figure in or arrange odd overlaps at angles to play with geometry. All of this is IMO a possitive, you have to win with sensible play rather than micro measuring.

Jiminy freakin' Christmas… more than 90 posts in this thread, and all because the person who started it turns out to have read the rules with considerably less care than he claims to have done, and seems incapable of admitting it.

Having gotten that off my chest, I am now walking way from this smoldering wreck of a discussion. Have fun, y'all!

Scott

Scott,

I don't blame you!

"those that can do so do. Those that cannot do so don't" Seems pretty clear to me.

Glenn, not all Ancients games (nor players) lead to this level of frustration and argument over minutiae.

I am sure FoG can be played to a satifactory conclusion, without argument, by players who have read the rule book and are just looking for a fun game. The problem comes when people try to play the rules instead of the game.

I really wouldn't wound up over it – people are always finding bits of rules (any set) that they don't quite get for whatever reason, but that other people find quite obvious. Its just one of those things.

"I am sure FoG can be played to a satifactory conclusion, without argument, by players who have read the rule book and are just looking for a fun game. The problem comes when people try to play the rules instead of the game."

Actually if you read the rules rather than skim them and then make things up pretty much everything is covered. That is why this thread has me frustrated. Angled contacts are a non issue if you actually read the rules rather than play what you think the rules might be if they were unclear.

The stepping forward is one of my fav things about FOG.
Every time I do this I can't help thinking of the dog in the FOGhorn ( hey just a minute!!?) Leghorn cartoon that rushes after the rooster only to come to grief at the end of his (very long) leash – guess he ran out of movement.

Wow 100 posts- awesome.