My decision to attend a tournament is goverend by work and family commitments and travel distance.

I would suggest that if you have players who wont attend because the tournament is not using whatever system they expect, then you are better off without those players.

I would agree with Marty, except instead of no more than 2 pieces of a type, I would say it should be at least 3 pieces of the base type. If you pick hilly terrain you should be placing hills. If you pick forested you should be placing forests.

Also remove the 'maximums'. If both players want to ...

Have you ever tried to use the FOW terrain rules? They are incomplete, unworkable and badly defined.

The terrain setup looks simple until you reliase that after dicing for random terrain you are supposed to add in roads and other bits and pieces. This can result in lots of arguing if one side ...

If you have that much trouble with setting up the terrain, I'd hate to see what happens when you actually play the game ! FOG is not a simple game, and some combats where there are multiple units on each side with different POAs in each file can get pretty tricky. But setting up the terrain is one ...

OK. Lets set up the terrain. Dont forget -- I havent played in 3 months, and have only played 1/2 a dozen games in total.

Where is terrain setup. Lets try setting up the game, P35 in the table of contents.. Hmm -- that says look in the appendix.

OK -- found the section in the appendix. OK -- lets ...

Frankly, I think Fog's current terrain system is vastly better than any of the variants in That Other Ruleset(tm).

As we were playing FOG the other day at our gaming group, we were next to a table playing FOW. They setup, played their game, and packed up before we had managed to decipher the ...

Well, I suggest that only about 25% of battles were straight up fights. Of course, 50% plus of battles were sieges, which FOG does not cover. But I think there were plenty of battles that were assymetric. Think of the march of the 10,000, Teutoberger Wald, Lake Trassimene, Arsuf, Stamford Bridge ...

One thing I strongly suggest for the new FOG is more 'missions', rather than the straight up line em up and charge.

As an example, I have created some missions here: http://fogscenarios.blogspot.com. The idea is to take the essence (or a parody) of a historical battle, and create it as a mission ...

There is a long thread on terrain tweaks. But I want to put out a radical suggestion -- scrap the terrain system and come up with a completely new one.

The problem I am trying to avoid is the syndrome I see all too often in ancients -- beautiful figures fighting over pieces of felt. Why are their ...

I just want to challenge the assertion that most battles were 'line-em-up' affairs. Lets look at some campaigns:

Alexander. One line-em-up (Gaugemala). Two river crossings. One small river crossing (Issus). A bloody great big siege (Tyre). Lots of assaults (not modelled at all by most rules ...

I am not complaining about the rules.

1. But I am complaining about the games that get played. The standard game is 'line em up and march foward'. And while there were historical battles that matched that format, there were also ambushes (Lake Trasimene), desperate last stands (Agincort), attacks ...