"An escape from FoG" Topic

After a handful of unsatisfactory games with FoG, my usual gaming partner and I have just returned to Bob Bryant's "Might of Arms" and had a thoroughly enjoyable and satisfactory game. 1200 boints of Early Imperial Romans v Early germans.

We'd set up the scenary within 15 minutes with none of the faffing about you get with FoG with it's dice for position and ability to slide it about.

We then enjoyed a tight game that was in the balance for the best part of three hours. We had little need to recourse to the rule book.

Quite frankly it's a set of rules that leaves DBM, DBMM and fog standing

I've heard good things about the game. I've even owned the rules at one time but never played.

How many stands is a 1200 point army?

The turn sequence seemed long to me. Did you ever feel lost because of that?

How would it work for historical engagements…uneven match-ups?

How about the Romans? Could you use actual Roman tactics?

John

Do you have a link to where you can find out more about "Might of Arms"?

My first answer….google is your friend.

After 1 second of searching…

home.earthlink.net/~bryantbob

Thanks for the link.

BTW Bob, I think my postmay have come across a little snide. Sorry about that if it did. Added a smiley to soften it up. Barb intended. Snide not so much.

John

I have played MoA for many years and now get to play it regularly with Bob Bryant.

Re: turn sequence. In play it definitely doesn't seem too long to me. Many of the "steps" in the printed sequence are resoved very quickly. e.g. there is a step for delayed shooting, but this only comes into play when an enemy moves into range of a unit that had not previously shot – usually at most a couple of units are shooting in this step so it's over quick. I can't remember a single game (including some pretty big fights) in which we ran out of game time before the fight had reached a decision.

I have played in quite a few historical scenarios, many of which involved unbalanced forces. ALl of these have had very satiffactory results. IMO, the rules really allow the sort of delaying and holding actions that an outmanned army has to use against a superior foe to achieve local superiority somewhere on the battlefield. As for Roman tactics, that does cover a pretty broad swath, but Fairly recently Bob was working on rules for doing line replacement.

There is a nice yahoogroup for Might of Arms that is very helpful and frequented by Bob if you have any other questions.

For a couple of reports on Might of Arms games, you can check out my blog

link
link

Brian

Anything about MOA-2? I saw it mentioned in one of the batreps, but nothing recent I could see in the yahoo group.

Is it just 'in the works', or closely pending for release?

Quite frankly it's a set of rules that leaves DBM, DBMM and FoG standing

Have to agree with this. :D And aesthetically I really prefer the groundscale of MoA for 28mm figures…no 4" bow range here. 1 book to buy, and all the army lists included.

How many stands is a 1200 point army?

Of course depending on the army's infantry/cavalry weighting and "elite" troop makeup this could vary…but an average 1000pt would probably be 60 bases, so 1200pt is probably 75 to 80 bases.

I think the 2ed. are in more of a "in the works" phase.

Teutonic Texan wrote:
And aesthetically I really prefer the groundscale of MoA for 28mm figures…no 4" bow range here.
----------
The groundscale is given as 1" to 20 yards for 28mm, so effective bow range should be about 4" = 80 yards, long range maybe double that.

The range in the rules is 12", which is 240 yards – way too long. Even WRG restricted footbows to 240 paces, which is less than 200 yards.

So I'd class the bow range as a bad point in the rules, because it is too long.

Big Battle DBA is the way to go.

I'm a long time MOA player and it looks like Bob calls me one of the "Old Guard" because I don't want any changes!

This ruleset is EXACTLY what I want – easy to understand, easy to play, no protractors required. Bring "X" number of points and let's smack 'em around. WRG basing is a MUST by the way – my group once did the silly thing with Warhammer basing and I refused to follow them. They ended up rebasing BACK.

One more thing – my group, the Thursday Night Irregulars, bought into this set when Bob was clearing out the garage and selling them cheap. Not anymore though…we take total credit for him ending the "2 for 1" sale! (I'm sure we don't deserve it, but we've been accused of a lot of things we didn't deserve and never cared either).

Great rules Bob. When you get to the last copy of your first edition, sell it to me so I'll have a spare.

The groundscale is given as 1" to 20 yards for 28mm, so effective bow range should be about 4" = 80 yards, long range maybe double that.

The range in the rules is 12", which is 240 yards – way too long. Even WRG restricted footbows to 240 paces, which is less than 200 yards.

So I'd class the bow range as a bad point in the rules, because it is too long.

Ancient/Medieval bow ranges are quite debatable as a recent Longbow thread can attest. But if you're pedantic enough, you could always just reduce the range to your own percieved correct yardage (8"-10" : 160-180 yards) and IMO the aesthetics of missle combat with 28mm figures would still be infinitely more pleasing to the eye than 4".

;) YMMV

Just in passing, in the melee morale test, do you count formed foot unsupported flank with contacted on flank?- net -4 (I suspect I know the answer).

Well, luv a duck!

I didn't expect such fulsome agreement.

I think most of the points raised in the first post have been covered but with regards to the question of the number of stands in the 1200 point army.

The EIR one I used today employed 4 legionary units and 4 auxilliary units of 6 stands each, and 6 skirmisher units and two cavalry units of 3 stands each

That works out at 66 stands.

No problems with the turn sequence. It flowed smoothly

MOA is the best written rules I've ever come across, with plenty of diagrams. You can memorise the sequence and most of the rules quickly, and the only time you need the QRS is the melee casualty table. It's a good, fun, simple game.

It was probably unfortnate that it was published when DBM was at its peak of popularity. I think that if it had been published at any other time it would have become the dominant ancient rule set.

I like FOG. It has a semi-steep learning curve but the results 'feel' right.

I am starting to experiment with Impetus simply because I like the idea of 1 base per unit and I'm willing to take a look at Might of Armies if it doesn't involve rebasing. In any case, I can say with absolute joy and certainty that I'll never play DBM or DBMM again.

To answer all the questions

The turn sequence isn't that long. Basically, its 1)roll for initiative 2) Lower moves and shoots first 3)higher moves and shoots 4) charges. It doesn't get much simpler. If you get hit you may have to take a morale check (depending).

A 1200 point army is about 15 units. Most of us use 6 stand formed infantry units and 3 stand all other units. Generally about 300 figures and this is depending on quality and unit type. Obviously an army of trash is bigger.

Yes, in most circumstances you would count the modifier. I and many other folks just ignore the unsupported foot (it's an optional rule). Bad placement is its own reward.

MOA 2 is in the conceptual phase.

MOA is designed for scenario type gamers (like F&F, JRIII or any non ancient set of rules) rather than like DBM.

1200-1500 point games can be played in less than 4 hours with 8 players. With 2 players that know the rules and aren't out to cheat each other in less than 2 hours.

In all sets of ancient rules the bow ranges are about double reality. All things are relative however and ranged combat works well. These scale arguments are bogus, and usually used to justify the ridiculous. The ranges need to be longer to compensate for time and turn length to ensure that the incoming unit takes a turn or two of fire. It's called abstraction.

If I had to play DBA again I would consider seppeku. If that were all there was to play, I would beat my soldiers into plowshares.

With modifications, MOA works with Samurai as well. It's best for classic era fixed battles.

I have 15 armies, some huge. I've run dozens of convention battles and hundreds of games. This is a really decent well written set of rules.

If I had to play DBA again I would consider seppeku. If that were all there was to play, I would beat my soldiers into plowshares.

About once a day, I find something on this bored that makes me laugh out loud. Today it is you my friend! That was funny. I do rather like DBA so long as it is played with friends who are good sports. In a competition, I share your sentiment.

As for range of a bow, it ultimately does not effect the game if scale is off. Scale is window dressing. So long as the game looks /right/ any scale should work fine.

I like MOA for doing historical scenarios or bigger battles. It is fast and simple and gives believable results. I also love DBA whether played in tournaments or not it is a fast simple game as well but it is an abstract game not simulation IMO. FOG seems to be more concerned with modelling process rather than just outcome and is thus more complicated and not my thing.

Rich Gause

Everyone has their favorite system for ancients. Mine is DBA for small quick battles and FoG for large battles with many castings. I have yet to play in an FoG tourney.

Hi

Might Of Arms is just about the best written and clear ruleset I have for any period (and beware for they are legion !!) and I always enjoy playing them.
Main downside vis other Ancients sets are the somewhat 'generic' army lists and the fact that WRG/Dbm held sway so much it was hard to get a game.
I liked the 'mix and match' optional rules but I suspect it is another factor that goes against MOA from a competition style viewpoint.

Personally I prefer the higher level 'feel' of Dbmm battles but much prefer MOA to FOG as a unit based system

Cheers

Is it possible to add "Might of Arms" to the thread title as its developing useful info about MOA and it's easy to pass over based on the title thinking it's just FOG criticism. An MOA explanation thread might also merit cross post to the Ancient and Medieval products threads.

A good point. I'll build a side road.

By the way, and as another option, a Warmaster Medieval Armies supplement for Warmaster Ancients is soon going to be released …

link

Jeremy, I read your post on the other forum and noticed that you refer to MOA as a variant of DBx. Actually, it is obviously evolved from WRG 6th/7th edition, which goes even further back.

"Actually, it is obviously evolved from WRG 6th/7th edition"

how is it like 7th edition?

Clay,

Quite right. My fault for speed re-reading the references to Barker's work in MoA.

how is it like 7th edition?

"Fatigue" rules, love 'em or hate 'em.

A linked battle report above illustrates units of hastati wearing down their opponents some (and being worn down themselves) and then exchanging with the fresh second line of principes who conclude the matter.

" how is it like 7th edition?" "Fatigue" rules, love 'em or hate 'em. "

Wish someone had said something about the fatigue rule in MOA earlier, save me reading further. I played all the WRG rules from 2nd to the 7th. The fatigue rules put me off ancients for 20yrs.

Wish someone had said something about the fatigue rule in MOA earlier, save me reading further. I played all the WRG rules from 2nd to the 7th. The fatigue rules put me off ancients for 20yrs.

Don't think of it as fatigue per se. Fatigue is the the way units are damaged. When a 6 stand unit takes 6 fatigue for example, it takes a morale hit and makes a morale check (I think). Like in most ancient warfare accounts, when a unit's morale fails, it is destroyed.

Other way round mate.

When a unit of 6 bases takes 6 hits, those hits are removed and replaced by one fatique point. the process then repeats

Each fatique point modifies the units morale grade, so eventually the unit breaks as it can no longer pass any tests from combat or shooting due to the accumalated fatiques and breaks.

I play it like tens and units but working in base 6 or base 3 depending as to whether it's a 6 or 3 stand unit.

I have a number of green and white micro dice mounted on pennies and landscaped.

If the casualties have built up to a five spot green and one more is sustained then it is replaced by a one spot white. Therefore a unit with a white 2 and a green 3 is carryingg 2 worn penalties and is 3 casualties towards the next.

Easily seen and read on the table top without looking too intrusive and no book keeping.

As a game mechanic to allow for deterioration through casualties, tiredness and/0r general loss of morale it works pretty well.

(N.B. These mounted dice have a number of uses in other games. E.G. One gets put on a piece of terraine in P.O.W. games once its difficulty has been rolled for and established)

I 'escaped' from Might of Arms years ago, and have absolutely no interest in playing it again… ever.

Cheers,
Scott

Other way round mate.

Got my terms backward? Oops!

We use different colored casualty markers for hits and fatigue points. Dice were accidentally being picked up and rolled too often!

I like the way morale checks occur in a certain order, depending on conditions. One of the changes Bob was going to take out was the test for being charged by cavalry or fierce infantry (if you already had 1 FP). My group feels that is an important test.

Another rule we like is that routed units are removed from the game. No fooling around with routers. Just remember to NOT remove them before you test for seeing routs!

Actually, fatigue does sound like a good idea. I've been revisiting the PC game Shogun: TotalWar, and do appreciate (sometimes) how marching a unit all over the battlefield can tire it. It provides a very good incentive to be economical with movement, and tends to limit the opportunities for sweeping, heroic flanking movements.

A rule set with complete army lists. Mechanics are familiar so that if you only play 3-4 times a year, it's not a problem. You focus on the gaming rather than the rules. Lot less quibbling. These points balance out the shortcommings.

Clay,

Just a clarification about my dice markers. Bearing in mind they are stuck to pennies, showing a score from 1 to 6 and landscaped it's not that easy to pick them up and roll them. You either get "tails" or the number they are glued to show.

I like the way a units that's gone suddenly evaporates (preferably one of his not one of mine). It creates a very sudden new tactical dynamic. (Actually it's not unlike POW in that respect and come to think of it, it's one of the things I like about the POW system)

I rarely look at TMP, so I'm not familiar with how the mechanics work. This box appeared, preceded by the question "Add Comment from Bob Bryant?" I guess that's an invitation to comment, so I'll be Alice's rabbit and jump down the hole. I'll try to keep a low profile on this thread, probably commenting only about how the rules work. I still regard the "other" e-group as the forum where I will be active, especially with issues for the second edition. If somebody wants to ask me a specific question, let fly.

I did notice someone asking about special rules for Romans. I have a workable set of rules, very simple, for Romans deploying in two or more lines and replacing units in melee. If anybody wants to take a look, email me bryantbob@earthlink.net and I'll send you the latest version. It needs a bit more play testing with gamers unfamiliar with it. I'm not ready to post it in public yet.

One other thing, about shooting distances. The glitch was intentional because I wanted to have a figure to soldier scale that would be suggestive of a large battle while having a ground scale that produced a shooting range long enough to allow infantry to get at least two shots in before contact. In retrospect, that doesn't make sense. My fix is to change the ground scale, probably to 1 inch represents 20 yards for 15mm and 13 yards for 25mm. This also reduces the figure to soldier ratio--but that's variable anyway. Probably reduce longbow range to 10 inches for 15mm. Still a bit long IMO, but close enough for a game.

I don't understand why exchanging lines is important in a Roman army at this scale. It would be represented perfectly well by just adding a rank or two to the depth of the unit, making it MUCH more difficult to fatigue.

Some people like to have line exchange as an explicit mechanism – they are happier that way than an abstraction such as you suggest.

Personally I prefer the abstraction was don't know how the line relief worked so any mechanism that shows it is rather speculative at best :-0

MikeAh wrote:
In all sets of ancient rules the bow ranges are about double reality.
--------------
Not all sets – perhaps just all the ones you are familiar with. FoG, for instance, seems to have realistic Bow ranges.

How can you know that? There's no ground scale for FoG!

no one still alive knows how Roman line exchange worked (except that sometimes it did happen – but not always, and famously not at Zama) – so any rules claiming to replicate it more accurately than others are instantly trying to feed you a line.

About Roman line exchange, I concur with what was said above about the uncertainties. The only reason I've fooled around with this is (1) a poll of gamers playing MOA several years ago revealed that the Republican Roman army was far and away the most popular one, which justifies giving it special attention; (2) Over the years, several gamers have asked for it. I started working on line exchange several years ago, found it very difficult to come up with anything that seemed worthwhile, so it became a challenge. The only reason to use a line replacement system is because you want to, and it's available. Why do people do hang-gliding, climb mountains, etc. Is the line replacement system I finally worked out accurate? How would anybody know? If it's fun, works, and seems plausible, it's not any different from any other mechanism in a set of ancients rules. --Highly unlikely that any rules set produces a game anything like actual ancient warfare. IMO a game is at best fictional. So why do I play? I regard games as theatre, even opera. You don't watch opera because the story makes sense, you do it, if you like opera, because of the music and the spectacle. For me, that's what games are, although I like for a historical game to produce a believable outcome for a battle. Pardon the rant. I'm trying to explain where MOA comes from and why we don't need to know for sure that something is accurate. OTOH, I wouldn't want to include something that I suspect (since I don't KNOW anything) is inaccurate.

Line exchange creates a key tactical decision point for the Roman player, on the timeliness of which the battle may depend. It also gives a distinctive "special move" to the Romans as a tip of the hat to their renowned minor tactical flexibility by explicitly representing a famous example in a way that fits neatly in the game system (due to fatigue). These are sound reasons for it from a design perspective.

The concern, of course, is that other armies may have distinctive aspects as well and their proponents may clamor for special rules for them too, and then you have the thin end of the wedge of the camel's nose in the tent on the road to a slippery slope to a different style of game.

All the discussion about line exchange is EXACTLY why we play MoA as our exclusive ancients rules set. The game is smooth and special rules for special units just aren't there. You gotta' dance with who you brung to the prom. I've read through the FoG rules and watched several games at our games day-Skirmish '08. Not my cup of tea. Too many heated exchanges about stuff that really didn't matter.Line exchanges would work with rules that were scaled down to the cohort or file level. Battles of the Ancien' Regime by Bill Protz does this quite well for small unit actions but with large amount of figures. It's just not necessary for an army scaled game such as MoA IMHO. I'm a proud member of the Old Guard that says leave the damn game alone. It works, works well, easy to learn and gives an enjoyable game in a reasonable time.
Steve Miller
DFW Irregulars

Hi

>I'm a proud member of the Old Guard that says leave the >damn game alone. It works, works well, easy to learn and >gives an enjoyable game in a reasonable time.

I agree I find MOA to have a nice balance of playability vis realism and if I want more detail or whatever I have several other sets that can do the job I dont want MOA to become 'just another set'.

Maybe Bob could consider all his new ideas as an extension to the 'Optional rules' section rather than core stuff ? that way individual gamers can decide only level of 'change' they desire ?

Cheers

Agreed and you know what…we wouldn't see the issue of which version is "official" come up, versions being out of date and "not allowed" like GW's games, plus what's the worst that can happen? The big nada! :)
Have a great thanksgiving

I'm taking all the feedback in and letting it ferment. I don't decide things, I wait for an answer to bubble to the top and pop. I've thought that it might be possible to have "alternative" ways of doing things. A sort of "legacy" track of the original rules or slightly modified original rules, with the new things that I want to see still there. Which would be the standard rules and which optional, it's too early to tell. It's all optional, anyway.

I intend to do just one revision, and then I'm permanently done. I'm getting too old to keep on fooling with MOA, and I have other projects to tend to. So there should be no concern about any more "official" changes once MOA II is out. I've never issued official changes to the original rules. One reason I'm trying to explore possible changes thoroughly and get feedback is that there is just this one chance. It's now or never (meaning the next couple of years) for changes.

The Roman line replacement rules were always intended to be optional.