First Game of FOG V2

[david53]

When is the forum open or is it okey to post battle report on here?

[rbodleyscott]

When is the forum open or is it okey to post battle report on here?

JD tells me that Iain will activate it on Monday.

Until then, by all means post here.

[david53]

Here Goes then

Played Paul from the club both quite experienced players.

Since I play LH I brought my Mongols 11 Bgs Paul brought his Dom Roms 18 BG so striaght away Pauls army break was 16 now two less than the old system.

The change to the PBI might work for those armies that arn't to bothered about terrain but want to move first a LH army without terrain maybe or a hungarian type army, or if you play anyone called dave and you want them to move second.

I won the terrain on a PBI of 3 and paul's 1 Paul threw a one I won

Steppes it was the extra brush made me think a bit more than normal but it did'nt cause to much worries.

As we noticed the changes we wrote them down so thats the way its going to come out, we spent 4 hours playing with lots of breaks to talk over some points.

We both took armies as we would have for FOG 1 theres a difference I'll explain later,

The first major thing we noticed was the Light Horse on the flank by the table edge was in trouble very soon with Medium foot closing off the 6mu strip by the table edge. In the FOG V1 I would'nt have bothered about the medium foot if they charged you would be able to evade and move down the table edge. With a Medium foot unit just outside the 6mu table edge they still can charge you off the table edge if you try to get past them.

We thought that this would itself stop the LH using the 6mu to sweep around their enemy? If thats the plan I would say it would work because you have to keep the LH bases in a way that would'nt get them evading of the table and not falling into a enemy flank charge. If this is the case could we have a look at getting rid of the -1 for battle troops being within 6m since it is now the end of the world at least in game terms.

Paul found the turn and move 2mu effected some manovours that he would have done in the past that would have pinned the LH not being able to be done with a 2mu move. I thought the 3mu for the cavalry was'nt so bad as everyone was effected. What it did do was stop me moving 7mu with the lights and then turn 90 degrees on the flank of another enemy BG of LH.

The ability of Pauls HF to move 4 mu made a difference they can now keep up with the medium foot for some of the moves.

The +1 for the test for battle troops being shot at by skirmishers for me is a major change in the game I shot at lots of medium foot armoured troops and only in two case(both average troops) caused a drop, since against armoured troops you need 5 and 6's to hit.

The ability of the cavalry to turn 180 deg and move for 3mu is for me a great thing, it allows shooty cavalry a chance on the table that it was missing in the first versian, this was always a problum after you evaded what would you do then, this allows you a chance to come back in to the fight.(don't know but would the Harassement rule come in here as you are turning away from enemy could someone tell me please)

The ability of the turn 180 and move 2mu is a good move, in the past this was always a problum you'd move to 4mu, shoot the Knights say miss and instead of failing their test to charge they past and they moved right up close to you a mm away what could you do not a lot, now you have a chance(don't know but would the Harassement rule come in here as you are turning away from enemy could someone tell me please)

I know that people wanted the LH brought down a bit maybe its was right but if you count up the effects a bit too much
1. Fall of the table edge any edge
2 lose 1 or 2 points when you fall of the world
3 Enemy +1 against your shooting
4 Loss of 3mu of your turns 90 or 180

Since we were using the Mongols their was only a little combat but the -1 for losing the combat did'nt have a great effect but dropping the extra - for losing by two more hits in the impact seems to give troops with Lances an advantage since if they won the impact would have caused -1 for losing -1 for causing HP2B - for losing against Lancers.

We did'nt come across the auto break on 50% superior, I can see why this was brought in but I can't see more 6 base cavalry units around just cause of the extra lack of manouvre in v2

We played with lists set up for FOG V1 but as Paul said if we were playing FOG V2 a change in the army make up would have cut down some of the problums that I faced using the amendments.

We think the ability of protected cavalry to move about in two ranks allows the use of unprotected cavalry dropping down the requirement for as many LH, we both felt that this was what some of the changes were aimed at, any other things could be worked out in the deployment stage.

This is not a battle report as such, these were the things that came up during the game and i wrote them down, I'm sure Paul will write a bit from the point of view of a medium foot drilled army. i've tried not to go overboard on the comments I have tried to explain things using me past playing experiences.

Still I look forward to the next game this time with a different army make up more cavalry the next time.

[batesmotel]

Here Goes then
We both took armies as we would have for FOG 1 theres a difference I'll explain later,

The ability of the cavalry to turn 180 deg and move for 3mu is for me a great thing, it allows shooty cavalry a chance on the table that it was missing in the first versian, this was always a problum after you evaded what would you do then, this allows you a chance to come back in to the fight.(don't know but would the Harassement rule come in here as you are turning away from enemy could someone tell me please)

Harassment effect only applies if the condition is met before the BG moves so it shouldn't here.

The ability of the turn 180 and move 2mu is a good move, in the past this was always a problum you'd move to 4mu, shoot the Knights say miss and instead of failing their test to charge they past and they moved right up close to you a mm away what could you do not a lot, now you have a chance(don't know but would the Harassement rule come in here as you are turning away from enemy could someone tell me please)

Again shouldn't apply unless the enemy start behind the BG in its starting position before it faced 180.

Chris

[pcelella]

Chris

I see you have the proposed rules too. Are you going to make it to our league startup day on 2/19 at the Hobby Bunker? If so, what do you think about using V2.0 for a game that day?

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[iversonjm]

What's the harrassment rule?

[GHGAustin]

What's the harrassment rule?

I too do not know this term.

[hazelbark]

What's the harrassment rule?

RBS wrote
25. Anti-Benny-Hilling: manoeuvre phase movement reduced by 1 MU if enemy in intercept range of flank/rear or within shooting range from behind.

it is as much anti-benny hill as anti dodge out of the way. It makes the attempt to disengage from a messy figth much harder. Actually it looks pretty profound.

Incidentally I think is going to impact a LOT of situations. RBS I think you need to eye this to exclude skirmishers maybe in the shooting section, will have to see in playtesting.

But essentially if you rear shot within effective range you move 1 MU slower. Also if you could be flank/rear charged "theoretically".

Ironically this slows down your ability to turn to engage newly arriving enemy. I predict this is going to be overlooked a lot for awhile in testing. It means when you close onto the enemy and they turn to fall back, they will not go back as fast as they used to.

Means also that skirmishers have an enhanced ability to slow down an enemy retirement.

[petedalby]

Incidentally I think is going to impact a LOT of situations

Presumably this will apply to BGs that evade - and are still in the intercept zone / shooting range of the BG that charged them - when they begin their own manouevre phase?

Doesn't seem unreasonable - although I share your concerns re skirmishers. Maybe playtesting will see this amended to differentiate between skirmishers and non-skirmishers?

[rbodleyscott]

Incidentally I think is going to impact a LOT of situations

Presumably this will apply to BGs that evade - and are still in the intercept zone / shooting range of the BG that charged them - when they begin their own manouevre phase?

Yes

Doesn't seem unreasonable - although I share your concerns re skirmishers. Maybe playtesting will see this amended to differentiate between skirmishers and non-skirmishers?

Clearly a lot of play-testing is required.

We do aim to make skirmishers a bit less powerful, and a bit less slippery - requiring more skill and forethought to use effectively - but obviously we don't want to go too far the other way and render them useless.

But let's give the current proposals a fair test before we panic.


--------------------

And yes, we are trying to encourage steppe armies to include more of their ordinary horse archers as Cavalry instead of Light Horse, as we think this more accurately represents their historical behaviour.

[iversonjm]

What's the harrassment rule?

RBS wrote
25. Anti-Benny-Hilling: manoeuvre phase movement reduced by 1 MU if enemy in intercept range of flank/rear or within shooting range from behind.

Err, the printed copy I have only goes to 24. Are there additional rules somewhere on a post?]

[grahambriggs]

What's the harrassment rule?

RBS wrote
25. Anti-Benny-Hilling: manoeuvre phase movement reduced by 1 MU if enemy in intercept range of flank/rear or within shooting range from behind.

Err, the printed copy I have only goes to 24. Are there additional rules somewhere on a post?]

The beta rules have a summary of changes at the front (which RBS has posted on the forum). This might be a change in the body of the rules. If it were' it would be an NDA breach to discuss it here.

[petedalby]

Err, the printed copy I have only goes to 24. Are there additional rules somewhere on a post?]

If you have the full version it's on page 50 Matt.

[david53]

And yes, we are trying to encourage steppe armies to include more of their ordinary horse archers as Cavalry instead of Light Horse, as we think this more accurately represents their historical behaviour.

I would agree that Cavalry needed to be upgraded which you've done, and I would agree with all the changes effecting the skirmishers apart from falling of the table edge I think this is one step too far.

[nikgaukroger]

Dave - could you please copy your original post (and subsequent thoughts) to the beta forum now that you have access

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Dave invited me to comment after our first v2 game.

It was interesting to try out the v2 rules with two army types that there had been a lot of noise about (swarm and LH).

The limit of 16AP rather than the 18 I would have had at v1 isnt a major issue but appears a bit unnecessary as I think I the last Britcon showed that hardly anyone has more than 16 BGs now. I would probably tweak the army down to 16 BGs at v2. At Britcon no-one took all 18APs but then I never won a game either (I got between 10 and 12 pts in every game).

i liked the change to make single rank cav more like LH. Normally playing Dave with his LH they can be a blur but with the reduced moves when turning they seemed almost pedestrian. Partially that was because (I gather from previous posts) we were doing the harrassment rule wrong in that we were assuming you knocked off the 1 inch if you turned away from enemy and moved but I gather its only if you start with your flank or rear open.

The end of the world table edge really stopped LH coming down the side as if you pin them towards the table edge a potential 9 inch evade will lose them the unit and potentially cost them 2 pts.

The change to turn and move seriously impacts the Dom Roms as thats what the army is built on but seems reasonable. I noticed that now MF only move faster than HF when making a simple move within 6 of the enemy (turn and move being 2 for both). Therefore, the terrain advantage has to be compared to the POA vs mounted and cohesion test penalties for losing to mounted or HF making it quite likely non bow MF would not be a good choice. I would take my aux as HF under v2 (depending what the proposed changes for drilled MF are).

The changes to Elephants looked fun and may make them viable although we didnt try these.

Also liked the change to superior autobreak levels.

Paul

[iversonjm]

Err, the printed copy I have only goes to 24. Are there additional rules somewhere on a post?]

If you have the full version it's on page 50 Matt.

Got it. Thanks.

[hazelbark]

Incidentally I think is going to impact a LOT of situations

Presumably this will apply to BGs that evade - and are still in the intercept zone / shooting range of the BG that charged them - when they begin their own manouevre phase?

But to be clear does not effect the speed of units as the evade or charge. Only manuver phase moves.

[irondog068]

are there any changes to MF?
That is all my army is

[philqw78]

Also liked the change to superior autobreak levels.

Paul

This is because your army is full of average rubbish Paul.