Damn Light Horse again

[madaxeman]

Many other players here told similar experiences, but I don't know their grade of experience with FOG

Actually, that isn't the case. Apart from Peter, Tim Porter, Ethan and yourself then I haven't heard anybody else moaning. Perhaps four counts as many?

all the others have evaded off table.....

Seriously though, given both you and RBS have said in this very thread that there should be some changes to the LH rules, and that FoGR will see some of these changes being implemented I'd suggest that the balance between those suggesting the rules are/aren't perfect is not quite as one sided as you make out.

[peterrjohnston]

and in Italy players are limiting LH bases in armies, an attitude which, if confirmed, would drive soon to disaffection to FOG.

That would be a misrepresentation. One competition in October will be doubles limited to Storm of Arrows and Oath of Fealty. The LH limit to 8 bases is just to stop armies like Mongol Conquest being used; the intention being a western medieval armies only competition. There is no intention to limit LH in any other competition.

[peterrjohnston]

Actually, that isn't the case. Apart from Peter, Tim Porter, Ethan and yourself then I haven't heard anybody else moaning. Perhaps four counts as many?

If your argument is now limited to denigrating the opinions of others, frankly you've lost the argument.

[gozerius]

. My Thracians love the stuff.

Lt Sp LH. Dead men walking

That was not nice.

See? LH aren't as invincible as people say. Just limit them to the spear chucker variety.

[dave_r]

If your argument is now limited to denigrating the opinions of others, frankly you've lost the argument.

I didn't denigrate anybody's opinion. Just that four relatively vociferous people do not constitue what "many people" may or may not want.

[azrael86]

Many other players here told similar experiences, but I don't know their grade of experience with FOG

Actually, that isn't the case. Apart from Peter, Tim Porter, Ethan and yourself then I haven't heard anybody else moaning. Perhaps four counts as many?

As those familiar with the writing of Mr Adams* will already be aware, 4 is not many, but MORE than four IS not only many, but a thousand (hrair).


*no, not that one, the other one.

[dave_r]

Is that from the Orcish counting system which goes along the lines of:

one, two, some, more than some but not as many as lots, lots, lots and lots, zogging lots and lots.

I presume you refer to Richard Adams rather than Douglas Adams?

[azrael86]

I presume you refer to Richard Adams rather than Douglas Adams?

Indeed, one, two, three, four, many (thousands). Herodotus, Arrian etc had a similar principle, but they could count a bit higher than rabbits.

[marioslaz]

Actually, that isn't the case. Apart from Peter, Tim Porter, Ethan and yourself then I haven't heard anybody else moaning. Perhaps four counts as many?

If your argument is now limited to denigrating the opinions of others, frankly you've lost the argument.

I think this is even worse than denigrating. Denigration don't bother me, and offenses bounce against me. I think this is sufficiency. I play wargame since 30 years, but when I organize a campaign I listen the request of other players and not only because they are friends, but because a different point of view from mine enrich my works. Who don't understand this lives a very limited experience.

[marioslaz]

and in Italy players are limiting LH bases in armies, an attitude which, if confirmed, would drive soon to disaffection to FOG.

That would be a misrepresentation. One competition in October will be doubles limited to Storm of Arrows and Oath of Fealty. The LH limit to 8 bases is just to stop armies like Mongol Conquest being used; the intention being a western medieval armies only competition. There is no intention to limit LH in any other competition.

The competition in October is the convention we are organizing, but it isn't for such reason I don't agree with the idea to limit LH. I know there are players who love to play with such armies and I put in their shoes and I think I will not be happy with such limitation. What would you think if someone would decide to limit the number of knights, for example?

[peterrjohnston]

Actually, that isn't the case. Apart from Peter, Tim Porter, Ethan and yourself then I haven't heard anybody else moaning. Perhaps four counts as many?

If your argument is now limited to denigrating the opinions of others, frankly you've lost the argument.

I think this is even worse than denigrating. Denigration don't bother me, and offenses bounce against me. I think this is sufficiency. I play wargame since 30 years, but when I organize a campaign I listen the request of other players and not only because they are friends, but because a different point of view from mine enrich my works. Who don't understand this lives a very limited experience.

You seem to be arguing exactly the point I made. If Dave had expressed a point of view on the issue, I would have read it. Saying people are just moaning is not very helpful.

[dave_r]

You seem to be arguing exactly the point I made. If Dave had expressed a point of view on the issue, I would have read it. Saying people are just moaning is not very helpful.

I have stated my viewpoint on this matter on many, many occasions. On the other Light Horse thread currently going as well. I guess expecting people to read a 20 page thread is asking for too much though.

I will re-state for clarity.

- There is not a problem with the rules, there is a problem with players playing for draws
- This appears to be easier with LH than with other troops, therefore inexperienced players tend to blame the Light Horse rules rather than oher factors
- If people took a balanced army capable of taking out Light Horse then this would be a non issue anyway
- On the other thread I mentioned around 40 armies which can comfortably deal with Light Horse
- I have dealt with light horse using only Heavy Foot - why can't you?

I argued prior to publication that BG's evading of table should be 2AP, but lost that argument, however, that isn't a large problem.

Richard has said that some changes are going to be made regarding manoeverability (which won't _just_ affect LH, but Cav and MF as well) which I am in favour of. I think the 90 degree turn and move is quite a large abuse of the game.

[peterrjohnston]

The competition in October is the convention we are organizing, but it isn't for such reason I don't agree with the idea to limit LH. I know there are players who love to play with such armies and I put in their shoes and I think I will not be happy with such limitation. What would you think if someone would decide to limit the number of knights, for example?

There have been competitions in that past where the number of knights has been limited...

(This is for a 900AP doubles competition, to explain to those who obviously won't know).

Originally Andrea Castagnini proposed the theme to be only Storm of Arrows. I suggested using Oath of Fealty as well, as it is similar armies and would give more variety in choice. He didn't want armies like Mongol Invasion in the theme. Rather than him having to comb through the books saying which armies could be used, I suggested a LH base number limit, which he adopted. It's a simple way of cutting out armies like Mongols. Personally I'd have preferred a 12 bases limit to allow for the Spanish armies, he wanted 6. The compromise was 8.

I agree with his decision, the idea was to have essentially a western medieval theme. Themes work best when there aren't armies creating a disjoint in styles. We've had two recent competitions where the theme has had essentially western medieval and near-eastern cav/LH or Kn/LH armies at the same time. It not a good mix, in my view. Personally I prefer the near-eastern armies, like Abbasid that I used in the last competition, but I still think this is a good theme.

But there is certainly no intention to have a blanket limit on LH numbers in Italian competitions as you extrapolated. This is a one-off themed doubles competition at 900AP. If you are unhappy with this, take it up with Andrea. He's the ultimate decision maker for FoG for the Italian Wargames Federation.

[peterrjohnston]

I have stated my viewpoint on this matter on many, many occasions. On the other Light Horse thread currently going as well. I guess expecting people to read a 20 page thread is asking for too much though.

I've read it all, I have just stopped posting until now as I'd be just restating the same opinions. Like I said, if you write something (like this), I read it. Just saying people are moaning contributes nothing, frankly.

- There is not a problem with the rules, there is a problem with players playing for draws

I agree. As I've said, I think FoG makes this too easy. In summary, many players prefer not losing to winning and the rules encourage this to a degree.

- This appears to be easier with LH than with other troops, therefore inexperienced players tend to blame the Light Horse rules rather than oher factors

But very experienced players players are saying it's a problem...

- I have dealt with light horse using only Heavy Foot - why can't you?

Is that a general question to everyone, or myself? If it's myself, I don't use heavy foot armies very often... unless you count Dailami as heavy foot.

I argued prior to publication that BG's evading of table should be 2AP, but lost that argument, however, that isn't a large problem.

Richard has said that some changes are going to be made regarding manoeverability (which won't _just_ affect LH, but Cav and MF as well) which I am in favour of. I think the 90 degree turn and move is quite a large abuse of the game.

I agree with all of these, and the 2AP off the back of the table.

[hammy]

I have no problem with the proposed package, I don't think that 2 AP for evading of the rear edge is important. I have never played in a game where more than a couple of BG have evaded off the rear edge. I have played games where BG's have chosen to evade off the side or even the enemy base edge so as to only lose 1 AP after the other player put a lof of effort into catching them.

Given the choice between themed and open events I would take thenemd events every day of the week. I have yet to find a set of ancients rules where a light horse army vs a Hellenistic pike army was a fair fight for the pikes. Heck in DBM I regularly used armies with large amounts of light horse to very good effect. I also played out a lot of games where my opponent started out from the very first move or even before that looking not to lose and not to play a game. IMO FoG is far better than DBM in terms of allowing players to be able to force a result against a draw minded player.

[hoodlum]

Dave

I have posted once on this thread. I agree that the issue is more about people playing for a draw and using LH type armies to achieve this. It is also true that this is compounded by people not being experienced or having the right army to combat it.

I do not agree that we can just say harden up the game is fine. The risk is and I have seen it happen in my gaming circle that people will walk away and cannot be bothered to learn how to herd cats and will play a different game.

IMHO when the contest is between two average or inexperienced players the game is weighted to the player playing for the draw with LH. My thoughts are to restict the table depth to 36 inches to balance up the odds. We have played a tournament of 600points on 5x3 tables . This was won by a Mongol army but he had to work a lot harder for the victory.

To maintain players and interest in our club we are promoting local themed tournaments of 600point on 5x3 tables, and themed one off encounters. We get more interest on the themed historical battle - over 12 than those who have registered to play in our National Convention on 800pt open comp.

[hoodlum]

I would also comment that after Lh, issues regarding 90 degree turns and movement and the wheel of cheese (turn 180 and then run from the enemy are more poisonous to the game. Again this is about players attitude but the rules do permit such behaviour. Even more so when pretty much every army list permits a player to buy an IC.

There may only be a few people who have voiced their opinion, on these issues but there are more that are voting with their feet. For example - last year we had 18 people playing at Natcon. We should really have mid 20's playing - given that it is a relatively new system and all the companion books are now out. We have 12.

From my perspective, I am reluctant to purchase any more companion books or to look at FogR or FogN in the current situation.

[Rekila]

First of all I don’t play in tournaments, so I do not consider myself an expert -terrific thing to be - but I like Fog because is a good set of historical rules. i.e. allows for good historical simulation. No problem when you play against historical opponents. Don’t thing the solution should be to change a good set of Historical rules because of unhistorical battles! I have followed this debate with great interest. I think the skirmishing rules are good, also the mechanism or army rout for winning the game. Not need to make changes there. But I also remember what I read about Numidians. They are good in hit and run tactics but “sometimes they run for days!” Skirmishers are highly maneuvrable but also brittle. When they begin to run they may run a lot before stopping. Maybe a simple change of the evade mechanism will be proper: so when a unit evades it will be at risk of go on evading and take other skirmishing units with them. If you come to a battle and run away without fight (losing the camp by the way) you have LOST that battle.

[Cynical]

I am curious to know what system all these players are going to that are leaving FoG? Surely they cannot be throwing their figures away?

As a player who loves the ancient period above all others I’ll use the set of rules that give the best feel for the period and in my opinion that is FoG at the moment.

[timurilenk]

I am curious to know what system all these players are going to that are leaving FoG? Surely they cannot be throwing their figures away?

As a player who loves the ancient period above all others I’ll use the set of rules that give the best feel for the period and in my opinion that is FoG at the moment.

In UK a lot of ex ancients players are playing WWII.