1. Pre-set terrain with initiative winner (attacker) choosing side.
2. Defender moves up to two pieces of terrain as per rule (6 becomes 5)
3. Defender places camp followed by attacker
4. Attacker places 4x4cm objective marker within 50cm of defender's camp.
5. Defender places 4x4cm objective marker within 50cm of attacker's camp and more than 50cm away from attacker's objective.
6. Objective markers are controlled by the last player to have moved over them with a BG. Each player starts the game controlling the marker placed by his opponent on his half of the table. When a player controls the objective he placed, his opponent immediately loses 4 attrition points until he recovers control of it.
7. If a player controls the objective marker he placed and captures the enemy camp, he wins the game automatically scoring 25 points minus losses.
The following picture shows the situation after army deployment with myself defending using Sassanid Persian with Early Arab allies (14 MF,ls, sw, pro, ave) and my opponent bravely fielding Early Scots.
The river turned out difficult. Without objectives my opponent would have deployed behind the river and that would have been that. As it was, I placed my baggage far enough from the river so my opponent couldn't place his objective (black square in the middle) behind the river. I just managed to place my objective on the same side of the river thereby forcing my opponent to deploy and fight in the open. He could have placed his camp nearer to the table edge to ensure the objective was placed behind the river but he then faced the very real risk of a flank march taking the objective and camp and ending the game. The game itself was straightforward with my cataphracts and MF eventually prevailing over his lighter troops.
s
The remaining three games were far more entertaining as two of them saw my losing opponents achieving a solitary breakthrough right in front of the objective and capturing it in the pursuit. In the first case, I had placed my camp near the flank and left no troops to defend it nor did I have a second line to defend the objective. Amazingly I failed to anticipate a flank march and I only just managed to stop it when it arrived. In the other game I learnt from one of my mistakes and cunningly placed the camp nearer the centre. This time it was my opponent's BG breaking through onto the objective which nearly did for me as it was three moves away from the camp and I had no reserves to stop it. This left me no choice but to win by KO in two turns or face ignominious defeat through my own repetitive stupidity.
All in all the objectives were a resounding success and all the Spanish tournament organisers in attendance confirmed they would use it in the future. Paradoxically, the non-historical objectives gave the games a more historical feel to them than vanilla FOG. The main advantages we agreed on were:
1. Combined armies (ie with terrain troops) have an advantage over air+grit armies. Personally, it's the first time I've fielded non-archer MF since I started playing FOG.
2. Flank marches are a real threat. Again, it's the first time I've actually had to deal with one.
3. Second lines or at least a reserve are a must to protect the objective and potentially the camp.
4. 90% of the games finished with a victory and most of theses well within three and a half hours.
5. No Benny Hill.
6. More compact lines, specially near the obectives.
My only concern was that pre-set terrain made life very difficult for players using MF armies like my first opponent.
If anybody wants to have a go, the system will be used in open tournaments in Pamplona at the end of October and in Barcelona in November.
Julian
