Official clarifications on multiple questions

[keyhat]

I am hoping to see some "official" clarifications on some points and perhaps some fleshing out on others, by RBS ,on such points as "kinked" columns, threatened flanks,shooting in cover,simple moves to avoid enemy within 12 inches versus "complex" moves,and official clarifications on several of the more complicated evade questions which have appeared in the Rules Questions forum. After spending $300 to purchase the rules and all the supplementary list books,I don't believe this is asking too much of the author or of Slitherine/Osprey. This is a great set of rules and deserves active support from the powers that be.

[david53]

I am hoping to see some "official" clarifications on some points and perhaps some fleshing out on others, by RBS ,on such points as "kinked" columns, threatened flanks,shooting in cover,simple moves to avoid enemy within 12 inches versus "complex" moves,and official clarifications on several of the more complicated evade questions which have appeared in the Rules Questions forum. After spending $300 to purchase the rules and all the supplementary list books,I don't believe this is asking too much of the author or of Slitherine/Osprey. This is a great set of rules and deserves active support from the powers that be.

I understand about Kinked coloums

But threated flanks whats the problum?

Shooting in cover again whats the problum?

Simple moves to avoid enemy within 12 inchs(lost me here) unless your talking about fragmented troops?

I'm sure if you had worked your question out there are ample people on here that could have answered it for you. since waiting on RBS who maybe busy working on other things may take a while to get an answer.

I am sure many people me included have bought the rules and all the books as well that go with it but if i require an answer to a querry I put it on the forum for the members to help with? once again there are many people here who have a mass of experience about FOG.

Dave

[timmy1]

OMG, I find myself agreeing with Dave.

The forum has really helped on difficult points (even when it disagrees with my view) and RBS has posted here. Also check out the FAQ and Errata on the Slitherine FoG website - it has answered many of my questions.

[philqw78]

I understand about Kinked coloums

But threated flanks whats the problum?

Could be charged next turn?????? Very ambiguous

Shooting in cover again whats the problum?

Rear ranks shooting out, target BG part in and out.

Simple moves to avoid enemy within 12 inchs(lost me here) unless your talking about fragmented troops?

Yes fragged moves. Your move could end further but pass closer.

I'm sure if you had worked your question out there are ample people on here that could have answered it for you. since waiting on RBS who maybe busy working on other things may take a while to get an answer.

These Q have already been asked Dave. Lots of people have come up with answers but IIRC nothing official.

[gozerius]

It took nearly two years for RBS to confirm that the diagram on page 87 means what it says about blocked conforms.

[david53]

I understand about Kinked coloums

But threated flanks whats the problum?

Could be charged next turn?????? Very ambiguous

I thought RBS answered this one?

[grahambriggs]

It would also be useful if any clarifications from authors were noted as such and in the FAQ. That way people don't have to search through threads on a forum to glean information. Also we know then it's an agreed view of 'the authors' rather than a personal view fro Richard, Terry or Simon.

While the FAQ normally needs a bit of work to get the words exactly right, it would be easy enough to add a "rough cuts" section - to cover "this is how you should play it" without necessarily fine polishing.

For example, on kinked columns, the authors could say: "the facing, flanks and rear of a kinked column is worked out from the front element" and similar. It's not necessarily precise wording, but shows the intent. And it's fairly quick to reach agreement on you'd hope.

[keyhat]

philqw78 did a nice job hi-lighting a few of the "less than clear" points in the rules. Here are another couple of areas which could use clarification; Rear Support- is it really the author's intent to allow rear support from a unit within 8 or 12 (mounted) MUs which is turned at 90 degrees from the unit being supported? What about the case where the supporting unit is turned at 135 degrees and in the restricted zone of an enemy BG? Surely this should not qualify. Shooting in Cover-Why is there no penalty for shooting while in cover? Simply allowing one rank to fire is no penalty, I just expand out prior to shooting and no problem. Yet the cover(trees etc.) should be equally effective in blocking outgoing fire that is delivered from within the cover(not on the edge), as it is against incoming. Threatened Flanks-why should only non-skirmishers be in view here? What about a skirmish unit being bolstered when suddenly a non-skirmisher threatens it's flank? Evading is scarcely conducive to regaining confidence and unit control. Light Horse on anyone's flank would give concern to any unit attempting to improve their unit status. Most of the less well-defined areas are those which appear in the only in the glossary and/or the QRS. This may indicate that it was a more -or-less last minute decision as to whether to include these rules. It is amazing to me that two years after publication no" official" personage has bothered to spend the two or three hours necessary to clarify the most commonly debated points and that the players are left to argue out the intent of the author. Perhaps if enough of us ask for this, someone might respond.

[david53]

philqw78 did a nice job hi-lighting a few of the "less than clear" points in the rules. Here are another couple of areas which could use clarification; Rear Support- is it really the author's intent to allow rear support from a unit within 8 or 12 (mounted) MUs which is turned at 90 degrees from the unit being supported? What about the case where the supporting unit is turned at 135 degrees and in the restricted zone of an enemy BG? Surely this should not qualify. Shooting in Cover-Why is there no penalty for shooting while in cover? Simply allowing one rank to fire is no penalty, I just expand out prior to shooting and no problem. Yet the cover(trees etc.) should be equally effective in blocking outgoing fire that is delivered from within the cover(not on the edge), as it is against incoming. Threatened Flanks-why should only non-skirmishers be in view here? What about a skirmish unit being bolstered when suddenly a non-skirmisher threatens it's flank? Evading is scarcely conducive to regaining confidence and unit control. Light Horse on anyone's flank would give concern to any unit attempting to improve their unit status. Most of the less well-defined areas are those which appear in the only in the glossary and/or the QRS. This may indicate that it was a more -or-less last minute decision as to whether to include these rules. It is amazing to me that two years after publication no" official" personage has bothered to spend the two or three hours necessary to clarify the most commonly debated points and that the players are left to argue out the intent of the author. Perhaps if enough of us ask for this, someone might respond.

How many of the above have appeared in your games?

BTW I know Phil same club and all mind you could ask Phil about Cavalry moving through Lights if you fancied another discussion or ask Dave R about LH for a longer discussion.

Its strange how FOG seems to have taken off with wargamers looking at your post its all gone bad.

I am sure there arn't any rules written that someone thinks there are parts that could be done better myself included nI think medium foot are way to strong?.

I do find it strange that someone feels it right to accuse someone ie RBS they may have never met or have you that they can't be 'bothered' you never know he might be doing something elese still since you been on the forum for such a long time I bow to your experience.

Lets be honest half of what you have written is your impression of what the rules should be take the threatened flank you say it should also be skirmishers who suffer but its on page 136. The problum people was discussing about threatened flanks was something elese and was about charging.

Look back over the forum there has been vast amounts of disscussion over vast subjects thats what keeps FOG alive people like FOG or elese why are the numbers up at least here in the UK example 32 enteries for the event in Birmigham sold in three days.

Constructive discussion is great everyone who plays FOG will have aspects that they would like changed thats what wargamers do best. Don't mistake constructive discussion for something different?

[keyhat]

Both the desicion as to whether or not to allow rear support from a battle group that is askew and the threatened flank example are from real games. Neither of these things are particularly rare. Another example,(this one hypothetical, I admit ):Should rear support be granted for a BG that has a friendly mounted group passing laterally behind it (presenting it's flank to the group needing support) 12 MUs away, particularly if the needed support is in the impact phase and the mounted BG moves away in the ensuing manuever phase? Probably not. My intent is not to denigrate an extremely fine set of rules, or their distinguished author.My only real point is that there is no reason why someone "in charge" can't spend the time it takes to play a game of FoG and expound on some of these situations through the official errata so that all of us can have a common understanding of some of these situations.

[hammy]

In the games I have played against the authors I can say that there have not been any issues with rear support even when it is cutting the definition of rear support fine. There is a clear definition that is the way the game should be played. Granted there are situations where it looks a little odd. I would however be impressed if you could achieve rear support with a BG 12 MU away and at an angle of 135 degrees. IMO any rule has a limit and as long as the limit is clear I have no issue with that.

I am not toally sure what you are worried about with threatened flanks. Certainly skirmishers ignoring them at any rate. Do you really want to play a set of rules which say things like "skirmishers if steady or dirsupted ignore threatened flanks in their own turn unless the flank is threatened by bow armed troops with a higher movement rate that are not in the restricted area of a BG of your own troops". The rule for skirmishers is nice and simple.

There has been a recent debate among players about what constitutes "capable of charging". In my book I have always played that a BG must be capable of declaring a charge at that point that cohesion test is being made to threaten a flank. Thus a BG of fragmented troops cannot threaten a flank as they cannot charge (and an IC plus rear support on elite troops does not change the capacity of a fragged BG to charge that flank).

As for rules that only apear in the QRS you have lost me there. There are a few places where the wording on the QRS is not the same as that in the rules but that is only to aid the formatting of the QRS. There are (or at least should be) NO changes to the rules in the QRS and if there are I have done my job wrong as I laid out the QRS.

What rules defined in the glossary are not clear?

As for last minute changes I can assure you that there were no changes to the rules for almost 6 months prior to going to print.

[hammy]

Light Horse on anyone's flank would give concern to any unit attempting to improve their unit status.

Why?

If I have say a BG of disrupted knights and your LH 'threaten' my flank surely the knights would know that if the LH actually attacked them they would deal with them in short order.

OK, a fragmented BG of knights is fair game but then what is the problem with the light horse charging them? If they hit the flank the knights have to take a CT or break, then there is an ipact with the LH having double the dice of the knights and a ++ POA so they should win and cause another CT.

The authors have clearly chosen to reduce the impact of light troops compared to other rules. You might not thing that from reading some of the other threads but if light horse for example could threaten flanks they would be even better than they are at present and many people think they are a bit too good as it stands.

[philqw78]

....Here are another couple of areas which could use clarification; Rear Support- is it really the author's intent to allow rear support from a unit within 8 or 12 (mounted) MUs which is turned at 90 degrees from the unit being supported? What about the case where the supporting unit is turned at 135 degrees and in the restricted zone of an enemy BG? Surely this should not qualify.

The key thing with the rear support rules is they are easy to understand and implement. There perhaps could be a lot more conditions, but there would also be 200 more pages of rules.

Shooting in Cover-Why is there no penalty for shooting while in cover? Simply allowing one rank to fire is no penalty, I just expand out prior to shooting and no problem. Yet the cover(trees etc.) should be equally effective in blocking outgoing fire that is delivered from within the cover(not on the edge), as it is against incoming.

Again simplicity. There are different types of cover as well. Look at the later Japanese lists. Some of the archers in there are uparmoured because the carried some cover with them. I think its a case of you can pop out from behind, shoot, pop back in, reload and pop out again. As for it being equally effective both ways thats where the visibility rules come in. If in a wood you cannot shoot at anything beyond 2MU.

Threatened Flanks-why should only non-skirmishers be in view here? What about a skirmish unit being bolstered when suddenly a non-skirmisher threatens it's flank? Evading is scarcely conducive to regaining confidence and unit control. Light Horse on anyone's flank would give concern to any unit attempting to improve their unit status.

Why should skirmishers not have their flank threatened. Because they do not have a cohesive front. They turn to face any direction easily, and face most directions at any point in time, circling around and making best use of terrain/escape routs. LH and LF do not threaten the flanks of battle troops because they are not designed to fight battle troops HTH. If they were they would be MF or unprotected cav. Not sure if this is in the explanation of troop types but should be.

Most of the less well-defined areas are those which appear in the only in the glossary and/or the QRS.

There are some very important parts of the rules in the glossary. I understand the authors did not wish to keep repeating themselves. But there is nothing new in the QRs. Because it is just quick reference. Go to the main rules for full explanation.

This may indicate that it was a more -or-less last minute decision as to whether to include these rules. It is amazing to me that two years after publication no" official" personage has bothered to spend the two or three hours necessary to clarify the most commonly debated points and that the players are left to argue out the intent of the author. Perhaps if enough of us ask for this, someone might respond.

DBM started in about 1993. Got to DBM v3.1 or maybe further by the time it, IMO, died a natural death. Then came DBMM a complicated reincarnation that tried to address a lot of the problems, but made some new ones. You can please some of the people some of the time.

I do, however, agree that some more time needs to be put into the FAQ, or what the rules are supposed to mean page on the slitherine fog site. It may help that we get to complain about those interpretations before they print FoG2, The Return

[ShrubMiK]

>Shooting in Cover-Why is there no penalty for shooting while in cover? Simply allowing one rank to fire is no penalty, I just expand out prior to shooting and no >problem. Yet the cover(trees etc.) should be equally effective in blocking outgoing fire that is delivered from within the cover(not on the edge), as it is against >incoming.

a) you may not be able to "Just expand out"...e.g. complex move tests, units in the way to either side, the cover not being wide enough and you don't want to expose your shooters in the open
b) your unit may now be counting all of its bases able to engage in shooting, but that shooting may now be split over more target units, so although that's not a bad thing per se, it may well mean that you do not have the concentrated firepower needed to have a significant effect on any one of those target units
c) you might regret being in one rank if charged
d) and anyway, if you expand out into one rank, surely you should be happy that all of your troops are now shooting from very close to the edge of the cover. why is it so hard to believe that they could be behind a wall but shooting over it and exposing less of their body to incoming fire (e.g. in an enclosed field), or shooting between the trunks of a few rows of trees with little impediment, possibly even taking cover behind trunks and shooting around them, whilst incoming fire from a further distance is not going to be able to aim accurately between those same tree trunks.

I have no problem with rear support being provided by units facing at an angle. IMO it represents the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing there are friends behind you guarding your rear, and who can potentially come to your aid if you get into trouble. Why should it matter if they are not facing directly towards you? My quibble with the rear support rules is that they more or less require you to use narrow columns and precise placement to make it generally cost-effective, which seems a bit gamey, but I do it anyway.

[keyhat]

I am very glad to see the responses generated by my request to see some kind of official clarifications on a number of points. Simplicity is always preferable to undue complication. It is in the spirit of simplicity that I made my request for some clarifications and offered myideas . Regarding Threats to Flanks,Hammy, rather than adding more words, the answer is to simply drop the word "non-skirmisher" from the glossary definition. If a unit is able to charge the flank of another unit it clearly represents a threat to a unit which is undergoing a cohesion check. By definition ,these are units which are taking a check because they have lost a round of close combat,suffered abnormal stress due to shooting,or have already lost some of the cohesion needed to stay in the fight. Troops in these conditions would regard any threat to charge their flank as a major distraction to the recovery of good discipline. This would also be consistent with the idea that Light Horse charging Fragmented troops from any direction is a big enough threat to cause a cohesion check.
Similarily, as Hammy , and many others, have freely admitted, the rear support rule can sometimes look a little" gamey". The obvious solution doesn't require two hundred more rules: simply require that in addition to the conditions already given, the supporting line would be able to contact , with it's front edge, the flank or rear edge of the supported line, by a straight ahead advance of no more than the maximum distance currently allowed(8 or 12 MUs),this would solve virtually all the "less than realistic" situations.
Incidentaly, the statements by Philqw78 were particularly enlightening regarding shooting from cover. (Thanks).
I was very encouraged by the knowledge that all of these rules were in place and thoroughly play-tested for at least 6 months before publication. This should make it very,very easy then to give us an official clarification on the complex move requirement for fragmented troops within 12 inches of the enemy. Does this apply to where the unit starts, where it ends,what if the move neither begins nor ends 12 MU away but passes closer than that as it moves? What if there is an enemy within 12 inches but it is not visible? What if there are friendly troops between the unit in question and the enemy?What if the enemy were Light Foot?I ask these things not to be difficult ,but simply to point out that a few sentences of clarification from RBS or his representatives would be helpful.
This will be my last post on the subject,thank you all sincerely for taking the time to respond.[/u][/b]

[hammy]

Regarding Threats to Flanks,Hammy, rather than adding more words, the answer is to simply drop the word "non-skirmisher" from the glossary definition. If a unit is able to charge the flank of another unit it clearly represents a threat to a unit which is undergoing a cohesion check.

But skirmishers can evade..... Why would they care if a charge was coming from a flank, especially when their flanks are to some degree amorphous. If the skirmishers are actually a 'cloud' or multiple small groups dashing here and there they really don't have a flank in the first place.

Similarily, as Hammy , and many others, have freely admitted, the rear support rule can sometimes look a little" gamey". The obvious solution doesn't require two hundred more rules: simply require that in addition to the conditions already given, the supporting line would be able to contact , with it's front edge, the flank or rear edge of the supported line, by a straight ahead advance of no more than the maximum distance currently allowed(8 or 12 MUs),this would solve virtually all the "less than realistic" situations.

I suspect that while your definition is also clear and concise that it would actually result in too much of a swing the other way. With the near compulsary conform that FoG uses to tidy up melees there would I am sure be situations where a BG that was solidly rear supported is pulled sideways and at an angle so that it loses rear support whithout any real justification.

This should make it very,very easy then to give us an official clarification on the complex move requirement for fragmented troops within 12 inches of the enemy. Does this apply to where the unit starts, where it ends,what if the move neither begins nor ends 12 MU away but passes closer than that as it moves? What if there is an enemy within 12 inches but it is not visible? What if there are friendly troops between the unit in question and the enemy?What if the enemy were Light Foot?

For the this one if I was called as an umpire then I would rule that the move must end further from any enemy than it started. Enemy includes all troops and the camp. It can pass closer to enemy if the end result is further away. FWIW it is not a common thing for there to be any doubt on further away, at least in my experience

[philqw78]

if I was called as an umpire then I would rule that the move must end further from any enemy than it started. Enemy includes all troops and the camp. It can pass closer to enemy if the end result is further away. FWIW it is not a common thing for there to be any doubt on further away, at least in my experience

I would say that it cannot move close in any part of its move, even if it ended further away.

[kal5056]

Keyhat,
I am affraid what you are doing is not asking for clarification of ambiguous rules or wording. You are in fact, offering your opinions on rules which are clear but with which you disagree. These are two very different things. I do not dispute your right to do this and hope you get explanations but please do not confuse this with efforts to get "Official Clarifications" into the FAQ that some of us are undertaking.

Gino
SMAC

[Mehrunes]

We shouldn't discuss the rules here again but stick to the topic. I second keyhat's request, FoG really deserves and needs active support.
There ARE some unclear things in the rules and while it is feasible to bring a rule book and some printed pages FAQ to a game, it is not to bring endless pages of printed topics from this forums with lots of unofficial -and often enough wrong- answers.

[hammy]

We shouldn't discuss the rules here again but stick to the topic. I second keyhat's request, FoG really deserves and needs active support.
There ARE some unclear things in the rules and while it is feasible to bring a rule book and some printed pages FAQ to a game, it is not to bring endless pages of printed topics from this forums with lots of unofficial -and often enough wrong- answers.

If you think there are particular rules that are unclear then I suggest you start a thread for the rule in question and add an entry to the FAQ request thread.

I have to admit there are a number of entries in the FAQ thread that do need something but there are IMO a lot where the rules are perfectly clear but as we have been asked not to debate within the thread it is difficult to comment.