First Game Findings/Report

[Bugle999]

We played our first FOG game Tuesday night and as requested here is our report. We decided to limit the Army Points to 500pts each – we each had 1 FC and 2 TC’s, so 380pts worth of troops. We used 25mm scale on a 6’ x 4’ table with Classical Indians against Principate Romans. We had a number of observations and also some precise questions that we thought needed clarifying in the existing rule set.
General Observations:
1. Having now started to create an Army from the Army lists. It appears that the compulsory point’s portion of the Army List seemed very high with some armies and means that at the suggested 650pts Army size for 25mm, there would not be much room for personal selection of troops over and above the compulsories. We thought that maybe the Army List to date had been created with an Army Point value of 800pts in mind (15mm scale) and that the compulsory minimums might need to be adjusted down a bit to allow for the full variety of troops at the 25mm scale (in proportion to the recommended points reduction to 650pts maybe?).
2. We were using terrain made from ‘covered’ mdf sheets and we found that if one terrain feature had to overlap another it meant that one edge of the terrain piece was up in the air – difficult to use and did not look good! The only solution would be to use flat cut up pieces of felt or similar. This would be a great shame as there are many pieces of well made sculptured terrain already out there being used. Maybe consider that terrain pieces cannot overlap each other?
3. On set up we noticed that, even at 500pts, the table was fairly full with our battle lines plus terrain and the opportunity for the Roman LH and Cav to do any meaningful manoeuvre and have an impact on the game was unlikely (this proved to be correct). We hope this is not the norm as one of the failings of previous sets of rules was that at 25mm scale cavalry and mounted in general were much less used when compared to heavy foot because of lack of space for manoeuvre.
4. We played around 6 turns in 4 hours and the slowness of the game was undoubtedly because of our lack of familiarity with the rules – however this was compounded by the constant flicking back and forth through the rules to try and find answers. I would suggest the final product must ensure that sections are easily identifiable and that answers appear in the obvious places you would expect. I can now see how easy it could be for someone, especially a wargaming virgin, to give upon a set of rules at this early stage just because of frustration in trying to find answers.
Specific Questions:
They may reflect unfamiliarity with the lay out of the rules (i.e. the answer is in there but we couldn’t find it!) so bear with us:-
1. When placing terrain (P89) it refers to ‘own half’ and ‘opponent’s half’. If you are placing a piece touching a side edge it is possible to have it touch the edge in one half but have the majority of its area in the other half i.e. at an angle. Is this permitted or is the intention that each piece should be entirely in one half or the other (before adjustment)?
2. The table on P88 refers to certain terrain types as ‘Broken’ whilst the movement table on P19 refers to ‘Uneven’. We treated these two terms as equivalent but (a) is that correct, and (b) if so should the rules be consistent in the terminology?
3. When dealing with bows in chariots, should they be treated as ‘mounted bows’ for the purposes of the Shooting Ranges table on page 42? That was our assumption, but my understanding was that chariots provided a more stable base for archery than sitting on the back of a horse, plus the opportunity to carry additional ammunition, so we did wonder whether this increased effectiveness should be allowed for by using foot bow ranges?.
4. Overlaps fight in Melee. We assumed that you calculate POAs for Overlaps just like for other bases fighting. We also assumed that for POA purposes you calculated the relative POA as if they were fighting a base of the troop type they are overlapping. Is this correct? We couldn’t find anything that explicitly said this was how it worked. The alternative was to assume no POAs in respect of the overlap, which could work for or against the player with the overlap.
5. We had a slight problem with the following situation. A group of cavalry were threatened by a group of Bow who were at a 45 degree angle to their front and flank. The cavalry charged straight forward in the impact phase but could only make contact with the front corner of one of their bases and this contacted the front edge of just one bow base. No other bases could make contact by stepping forward and they had insufficient move to wheel and still contact the Bow. In the impact combat phase the cavalry inflicted a casualty so the bow base that had been contacted by the front corner of the Cavalry BG was removed. In the subsequent manoeuvre phase we tried to work out what now happened. First we ascertained that the cavalry could not just move because they had charged in the impact phase. Then we looked at ‘Conforming to Enemy in Contact’ but of course there was no longer any contact between the two Battle Groups so we ruled this out. In the end it looked to us as if the Cavalry just sat that and got shot at point blank range. Is that what’s intended? This would mean that they were actually disadvantaged by winning the combat i.e. all the bows now fire and they receive no deduction for being involved in a melee. Maybe a solution would be that once a base is removed any ranks behind (or other rear ranks) move forward to replace the gap that has been created??
6. During the battle 4 HCh in one rank hit 4 Legionaries in 2 ranks. They lined up with Chariots opposite the legionnaires and two other Chariots on right hand side i.e. only one of them counting as an overlap. One of the Chariots was lost and so the one to the far left was removed. This left one pair of legionnaires opposites one chariot, with the two remaining chariots to the right (one overlapping) and the pair of remaining legionnaires providing an overlap against the chariot to the far left (see below)
...LEG.... LEG...
...LEG.... LEG...
...dead.. HCh... HCh... HCh

In these circumstances, do the 2 BG’s stay in this position fighting as an overlap to each other until one breaks? Or are there options for moving the non-engaged HCh into the battle i.e. to fill the whole created by the dead HCh, if so in what phase and how?

Many thanks in advance for your answers/thoughts. We will be looking to watch a game played by more experienced players in the near future before playing our second game and reporting back.

PS - When you post what is the option 'Sticky'...?

[hammy]

PS - When you post what is the option 'Sticky'...?

If you sticky a post it will stick at the top of the list. I suspect that you would not be able to do that as I think to make it happen you need to be a moderator.

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

1. When placing terrain (P89) it refers to ‘own half’ and ‘opponent’s half’. If you are placing a piece touching a side edge it is possible to have it touch the edge in one half but have the majority of its area in the other half i.e. at an angle. Is this permitted or is the intention that each piece should be entirely in one half or the other (before adjustment)?

The latter.

2. The table on P88 refers to certain terrain types as ‘Broken’ whilst the movement table on P19 refers to ‘Uneven’. We treated these two terms as equivalent but (a) is that correct, and (b) if so should the rules be consistent in the terminology?

This query comes up repeatedly, but it isn't true. What am I missing? In the chart on P.88 Open Fields and Broken Ground are both types of Uneven terrain.

3. When dealing with bows in chariots, should they be treated as ‘mounted bows’ for the purposes of the Shooting Ranges table on page 42? That was our assumption, but my understanding was that chariots provided a more stable base for archery than sitting on the back of a horse, plus the opportunity to carry additional ammunition, so we did wonder whether this increased effectiveness should be allowed for by using foot bow ranges?.

They are mounted bows.

They have fewer archers than cavalry bases, but the advantages you list are assumed to compensate.

4. Overlaps fight in Melee. We assumed that you calculate POAs for Overlaps just like for other bases fighting. We also assumed that for POA purposes you calculated the relative POA as if they were fighting a base of the troop type they are overlapping. Is this correct? We couldn’t find anything that explicitly said this was how it worked. The alternative was to assume no POAs in respect of the overlap, which could work for or against the player with the overlap.

It is correct, and is explicitly stated in the next version.

5. We had a slight problem with the following situation. A group of cavalry were threatened by a group of Bow who were at a 45 degree angle to their front and flank. The cavalry charged straight forward in the impact phase but could only make contact with the front corner of one of their bases and this contacted the front edge of just one bow base. No other bases could make contact by stepping forward and they had insufficient move to wheel and still contact the Bow. In the impact combat phase the cavalry inflicted a casualty so the bow base that had been contacted by the front corner of the Cavalry BG was removed. In the subsequent manoeuvre phase we tried to work out what now happened. First we ascertained that the cavalry could not just move because they had charged in the impact phase. Then we looked at ‘Conforming to Enemy in Contact’ but of course there was no longer any contact between the two Battle Groups so we ruled this out. In the end it looked to us as if the Cavalry just sat that and got shot at point blank range. Is that what’s intended? This would mean that they were actually disadvantaged by winning the combat i.e. all the bows now fire and they receive no deduction for being involved in a melee. Maybe a solution would be that once a base is removed any ranks behind (or other rear ranks) move forward to replace the gap that has been created??

They do. When you remove a base all vacated front rank positions must be filled by unengaged bases.

6. During the battle 4 HCh in one rank hit 4 Legionaries in 2 ranks. They lined up with Chariots opposite the legionnaires and two other Chariots on right hand side i.e. only one of them counting as an overlap. One of the Chariots was lost and so the one to the far left was removed. This left one pair of legionnaires opposites one chariot, with the two remaining chariots to the right (one overlapping) and the pair of remaining legionnaires providing an overlap against the chariot to the far left (see below)
...LEG.... LEG...
...LEG.... LEG...
...dead.. HCh... HCh... HCh

In these circumstances, do the 2 BG’s stay in this position fighting as an overlap to each other until one breaks? Or are there options for moving the non-engaged HCh into the battle i.e. to fill the whole created by the dead HCh, if so in what phase and how?

You could have taken off the right hand base in contact and shuffled up the other two bases to retain continguity with the left hand base.

If you had not lost a base, the base on the far right could be moved (in the manouvre phase) to overlap the Romans at the other end - see the section of Feeding more Troops into an Existing Melee.

[lawrenceg]

2. The table on P88 refers to certain terrain types as ‘Broken’ whilst the movement table on P19 refers to ‘Uneven’. We treated these two terms as equivalent but (a) is that correct, and (b) if so should the rules be consistent in the terminology?

This query comes up repeatedly, but it isn't true. What am I missing? In the chart on P.88 Open Fields and Broken Ground are both types of Uneven terrain.

If it comes up repeatedly then I suspect it's because "broken" sounds too much like a class of terrain, as in "open terrain", "broken terrain" etc and not enough like a specific feature.

Try changing the name to "stones or scrub" abbreviation "S" or something else that describes what the feature actually is.

It also avoids using the technical term "broken" for two different things in the game.

While you are about it, you might add a column to the terrain definitions table, to contain only the abbreviation for the terrain. This should be the first column. This is because the table that shows what terrain you can have only gives you the abbreviations and therefore you will want to look up the abbreviation first.

You also might as well add to appendix 2 a note telling us that the disordering effect of terrain on various troops is given in the movement distance table. Even though I already knew that, it was still a bit frustrating that the appendix on "terrain, visibility and disorder" did not tell me what the relationship between terrain and disorder actually was,or where to look to find it out.

I'd also suggest changing the name of "Open Fields OF" (O - Open - it must be open terrain, right?) to "Unenclosed fields UF" (U - also stands for uneven - it must be uneven terrain)

Do you intend to change the colours of the terrain definition table to match the colours in the territory types table? It would make sense. It would also make sense to swap the colours on that table so Open is the palest colour, instead of Uneven.

By the way, why is the "N/A" for heavy and scythed chariots in difficult terrain in red on the movement table? (And if it's supposed to be like that, why do I need to ask?)

Maybe i'm being too picky, but it seems to me that having a colour code for classes of terrain AND having a colour code for disordering effects of the classes of terrain is not very ergonomic for the mind. Couldn't you just add the letter D or SD after the move distance to indicate disorder and severe disorder in the move distance table? Then you could use the same colour code on that table for terrain classes as everywhere else.

The bottom of the movement rate table has a column labelled "Terrain grade" which actually lists the disordering effect of the terrain. The column "effect" is the effect of the effect and only gives information that can be found elsewhere and when we need that information we will be looking in the correct elsewhere place anyway. Plus it does not list all the effects (e.g. on POA of/vs spear/pike (Appendix 2 does not indicate that disorder can affect POA either.) ). All you really need in this table is a heading "effect" which lists "No effect", "Disordered" or "Severly disordered" against the appropiate colour (or if you follow my other suggestion, abbreviation) .


"A can of worms, once opened, can only be closed by enclosing it in a larger can."

[Bugle999]

Bugle999 wrote:
1. When placing terrain (P89) it refers to ‘own half’ and ‘opponent’s half’. If you are placing a piece touching a side edge it is possible to have it touch the edge in one half but have the majority of its area in the other half i.e. at an angle. Is this permitted or is the intention that each piece should be entirely in one half or the other (before adjustment)?

The latter.

I would suggest something is added in the terrain section that makes this clear... how about, '1 = Touching a side edge or coast - ENTIRLEY WITHIN the opponents half'. etc. etc.


2. The table on P88 refers to certain terrain types as ‘Broken’ whilst the movement table on P19 refers to ‘Uneven’. We treated these two terms as equivalent but (a) is that correct, and (b) if so should the rules be consistent in the terminology?

This query comes up repeatedly, but it isn't true. What am I missing? In the chart on P.88 Open Fields and Broken Ground are both types of Uneven terrain.

The confusion is because:-
The table on P. 88 shows 4 categories of terrain (excluding Impassable and Vaiable) - Open, BROKEN, Rough & Difficult.
The table on P. 19 also shows 4 categories of terrain, Open, UNEVEN, Rough and Difficult.
From your reply it appears that for consistency the yellow 'BROKEN' on P. 88 should actually read yellow 'UNEVEN'. Then your statement above that Open Fields and Broken Ground are both types of Uneven terrain would be correct. (currently they are both shown as types of Broken).
Hope that clarifies.
Thanks for the speedy reply to the other points - much appreciated.

PS - I really do think you should consider changing the rule regarding terrain overlapping other terrain (P. 90). I would suggest only allowing the first two bullets i.e. 'terrain under a road' and 'a hill under a village' (and then only if the hill is entirely under the village or the whole width of the road is overlapped - problems if they can partly overlay!!!).
I suggest you drop the other two bullets completely. If there is some strong reason you wish to keep this overlaying I would suggest a compromise that the overlaying can only take place if the center point of the terrain piece can be overlayed, in which case the entire terrain piece is asumed 'overlayed' and therfore its terrain type changed. If the centre point cannot be reach then the terrain remains the same as is not overlayed. I can see it getting quite messy trying to depict partial overlaying terrain (unless using flat poor looking felt as terrain pieces).

[malekithau]

If the terrain models can not physically be overalpped due to construction then they should abut with longest edge against longest ie largest area of both touching. I don't want to go back to pieces of felt for terrain if at all possible.

[rbodleyscott]

The confusion is because:-
The table on P. 88 shows 4 categories of terrain (excluding Impassable and Vaiable) - Open, BROKEN, Rough & Difficult.
The table on P. 19 also shows 4 categories of terrain, Open, UNEVEN, Rough and Difficult.

All is now clear. I was looking at the wrong chart. (The page numbers have changed a bit)

This was corrected some time ago, hence the error was hard for me to spot! (Changed from BROKEN to UNEVEN).