FoGR changes?

[peterrjohnston]

As some of us weren't involved in the FoGR design, could some kind soul sumarise the changes in FoGR that would be, or might be, applied to FoGAM?

Might save some unnecessary discussion - Richard has mentioned changes already decided by the design team.

[timmy1]

Peter, I would LOVE to but the NDA prevents that. September 12th might see the day when that changes. However be prepared to be pleasently surprised.

[nikgaukroger]

Peter, I would LOVE to but the NDA prevents that.

Don't be silly - no problem with posting the differences.

[timmy1]

Nik, OK. Will do at the weekend.

[timmy1]

Please note that the below list is not conclusive. I have only proposed those that I think make the game better. There are a number of others that I have NOT posted, especially regarding set-up. While they might be important, to me they seem fiddly so I have excluded them. I have asked on the FoG:R forum for other members of the FoG:R Beta Test team to comment. They may pick up on other differences (e.g. the difference between Battle Lines and Divisions).

FoG:R rules differences against FoG:AM that I believe should be included in FoG:AM v2.

Specifically mentions 40mm MU option for big toys on a big table.

Determined foot for some types of shock HF. Gives a faster move. Examples might be some Taxis of Alex Mac or Successor Phalanx, and Spartan / Athenian Hoplites. I believe it should only be allowed for troops that are Unprotected or Protected.

It has the concept of Grand Battle Groups (GBG). They are worth twice as many APs. They have to be BGs with more than 12 bases. For FoG:AM might make the cut-off as greater than 8 base BG. It would counter some of the swarm ideas.

LF, MF, and LH all move 1 less MU in most cases. For LH the 3rd march move concept mitigates somewhat. I would not advocate 3rd moves in FoG:AM.

Difficult Forward Moves removed.

Double wheels removed other than for light troops and columns on roads.

Foot battle troops can’t turn 90 degrees and move – they ain’t Prussian Grenadiers on the parade ground! Most GBG don’t turn 90 degrees, they formation change (i.e. CMT).

Everyone CMTs on an 8.

Shifting limited to ½ a base width.

If something blocks a turn it gets moved out of the way (subject to some anti-cheese exceptions) – the rules will need a bit of playtesting because Battle Lines are different in FoG:R.

Charges involving a wheel specify the wheel prior to opponent’s response (again with some anti-cheese exceptions)

Elephants get a 4 MU ZoI.

When in the restricted area you can place Portable Defences and form the equivalent of Orb.

Bow* effects are explicitly stated everywhere, no looking it up in the glossary every time.

Pike only get the melee +PoA in 4 ranks. I am not totally certain this is right as Pk have other uses in FoG:R. Needs to be playtested for balance implications. Pk would certainly have to drop 1 point per base if this is adopted.

Overlaps get 1 dice per file; not count as they normally do. This is THE most important change IMO.

HW and SSw equivalent get ++PoA in overlap.

HW and SSw can count as Pk ranks in a mixed foot BG. This probably only makes a difference at the very end of FoG:AM’s time range.

Rear Support is made very much easier to achieve and is much less about exact geometry – also 1 unit can support far more units.

Open Fields removed as a terrain type.

Glossary entries that have an abbreviation in the rules include that within the entry in more cases. It includes Partial Edge Contact definition.

Developed removed as a Territory Type.

Terrain choices. The definition of how to choose compulsory types is changed. Some lists have 3 or 4 possible for each player to choose their compulsory from – means in some cases both sides can choose the same compulsory – it certainly feels as if you have a better choice.

The index while it is not perfect is based upon Andy Bascombe’s FoG:AM players index, so it is intended to be more useful. (Sadly if it is not the brickbats will be coming my way as I wrote it!)

This one was Richard’s idea and mightily important; The QRS tables are EXACTLY the same as those in the rules, word for word. All possibility for misunderstanding has been removed.

Superior cost relatively more in almost every case, as does heavier armour in most cases. Makes the superior armies much smaller relative to the table size.

[david53]

Just a few thoughts of my own after playing 2 years of FOG AM and all of 8 games of FOG R. These are the changes I think might help I have only added the chages Tim has'nt put forward:

Roads go down last in the terrain placing for both people so they can't clear a table edge.

Add new terrian piece hedge/wall up to 12mu length up to two FF widths counts as a FF in all respects.

Terrain can go next to rivers.

Deployment only mounted and Light foot can deploy within 12 mu of the table edge ambushs must be made up of the mentioned troops if within 12mu of table edge.

Foot can move inside the 12mu zone but get a minus one on all CT if they are within 12mu of the table edge.

Foot get a minus on all CMT if there are Mounted troops within 12mu of there flank

Drop the minus for mounted anywhere near the table edge ie no minus if shot within 12mu of side edge

I would allow Mounted the ability to move three times if they are in a BL with a general and they don't pick up BG or drop them and stop 6mu from formed enemy.

TBH this isn't going to happen but i would drop the +2 for people shot at ie what you get hit is the death roll

Medium foot and Heavy foot move at the same rate 3mu.

[hazelbark]

Just a few thoughts of my own after playing 2 years of FOG AM and all of 8 games of FOG R. These are the changes I think might help I have only added the chages Tim has'nt put forward:

Deployment only mounted and Light foot can deploy within 12 mu of the table edge ambushs must be made up of the mentioned troops if within 12mu of table edge.

Foot can move inside the 12mu zone but get a minus one on all CT if they are within 12mu of the table edge.

Foot get a minus on all CMT if there are Mounted troops within 12mu of there flank

Drop the minus for mounted anywhere near the table edge ie no minus if shot within 12mu of side edge

I would allow Mounted the ability to move three times if they are in a BL with a general and they don't pick up BG or drop them and stop 6mu from formed enemy.

So you want the game to be even more about mounted armies than it currently is?

[david53]

Just a few thoughts of my own after playing 2 years of FOG AM and all of 8 games of FOG R. These are the changes I think might help I have only added the chages Tim has'nt put forward:

Deployment only mounted and Light foot can deploy within 12 mu of the table edge ambushs must be made up of the mentioned troops if within 12mu of table edge.

Foot can move inside the 12mu zone but get a minus one on all CT if they are within 12mu of the table edge.

Foot get a minus on all CMT if there are Mounted troops within 12mu of there flank

Drop the minus for mounted anywhere near the table edge ie no minus if shot within 12mu of side edge

I would allow Mounted the ability to move three times if they are in a BL with a general and they don't pick up BG or drop them and stop 6mu from formed enemy.

So you want the game to be even more about mounted armies than it currently is?

Only if you think it is now

[nikgaukroger]

So you want the game to be even more about mounted armies than it currently is?

Only if you think it is now

It is certainly currently slanted a bit towards mounted armies.

[philqw78]

So you want the game to be even more about mounted armies than it currently is?

Only if you think it is now

It is certainly currently slanted a bit towards mounted armies.

Strangely it 'appears' slanted towards Cav/LH and MF

[MatthewP]

Strangely it 'appears' slanted towards Cav/LH and MF

Add the word drilled in front of MF and you have the three most manouverable and effective troop types. Manouverability is (with a couple of exceptions - Christian Nubian, Norse irish which make up their lack of manouver with a wide fighting front) the key to success in FOG.

[philqw78]

Add the word drilled in front of MF and you have the three most manouverable and effective troop types. Manouverability is (with a couple of exceptions - Christian Nubian, Norse irish which make up their lack of manouver with a wide fighting front) the key to success in FOG.

But the fighting troops in those are still MF

[MatthewP]

But the fighting troops in those are still MF

I dont deny that they are. But the point I'm making is that manouverability is the most important attribute for an army (with the odd exception) if it is to be successful.

[philqw78]

I dont deny that they are. But the point I'm making is that manouverability is the most important attribute for an army (with the odd exception) if it is to be successful.

But the Nubians and Irish would be much less effective if they were heavy foot, even though they are not manouverable.

[MatthewP]

But the Nubians and Irish would be much less effective if they were heavy foot, even though they are not manouverable.

I dont deny that either. These are the two exceptions I keep alluding too. They are not manouverable but they make up for that with sheer fighting width.

I would be interested to know if anybodycan think of any other armies that are successful but manouver like a three legged hippo.

[philqw78]

Arab conquest don't do too badly

[waldo]

LF, MF, and LH all move 1 less MU in most cases. For LH the 3rd march move concept mitigates somewhat. I would not advocate 3rd moves in FoG:AM.


Overlaps get 1 dice per file; not count as they normally do. This is THE most important change IMO.

Wouldn't this have the effect of making MF barbarians as useless now as HF barbarians? And take away some of the (meagre) advantage that being cheap has - the extra width.

Seems that mounted armies would be even more effective under these changes.

Walter

[marty]

Make MF move 3" and you may as well just rename FOGA "Mounted FOG". HF are already a dying breed in open comp and the only MF I see consistently in any numbers are shooters. If it wasn't for the inherent romanticism/optimism of the ancient wargamer HF would have disappeared pretty much totally from competition gaming. I would suggest that if HF and MF are to move the same distance (and I think this is a fine idea) it would have to be 4".

In fog R the cav need the edge of the world rules because the vast majority of foot are pike/shot (ie much more effective at holding off mounted troops and hurting them from a distance than any anciet foot). They needs no such assistance in ancients.

Martin

[david53]

Make MF move 3" and you may as well just rename FOGA "Mounted FOG". HF are already a dying breed in open comp
Martin

Strange in the open event last weekend on the Saturday there were 6 medium foot armies out of 24 entered 25% of entries, on the Sunday there were 8 medium foot armies out of 24 entered over 30% of armies entered.

I don't believe medium foot are a dying breed on the table I have in the past year seen a large number of such armies.

[waldo]

Make MF move 3" and you may as well just rename FOGA "Mounted FOG". HF are already a dying breed in open comp
Martin

Strange in the open event last weekend on the Saturday there were 6 medium foot armies out of 24 entered 25% of entries, on the Sunday there were 8 medium foot armies out of 24 entered over 30% of armies entered.

I don't believe medium foot are a dying breed on the table I have in the past year seen a large number of such armies.

Yes but they move 4" now. Would they be as effective if they move 3"? And were most of the MF longbowmen?

Walter