Beta thoughts from Jaen after playing

[caliban66]

Greetings. It´s been a few weeks since tournament in Jaen was played, but tecnical problems kept me off this topic. But, I´ll answer now to Slitherine´s search for beta feedback.
Well, I really had a good time playing FoG during the tournament. The game flows gently, and after the second round, I could calculate dices for combats quite fluently. The game itself it´s fun to play.

There are other things that I think that can be improved IMO:
a) Terrain.- Well, I won all initial tactical rolls, and so could choose terrain pieces I needed, but, in every game, I had to deploy terrain on flanks and long borders. I had Early Achaemenid Persians, with hordes of sparabara, so I needed rough terrain in the center. Why this happened? In the placement roll, only 1/3 of terrain pieces are placed not in touch with any borders, and still only 1/3 of those can´t be slided by your opponent during the adjustment roll. This made me think that winning tactical rolls is not as useful as it seems. And, thinking of armies very terrain-dependant, like, for example, Ancient Spanish, it make games quite difficult for them. Game after game, this average makes terrain accumulate on borders. I have read some reports in this forum, and "terrain was mostly on borders" is a very common description of the table after terrain setting. Wouldn´t it be possible to give players more control over the terrain that they place rather than the terrain placed by your enemy? At least for the winner of the tactical roll. I love the concept of tactical rolls, but think that with current rules, its effects are under rated.

b) Shooting.- Well, I had the feeling that shooting was a bit useless. Once you get HP2B, the enemy gets -1 for CT´s, and that´s all, folks. I did not expect to shoot down a BG of superior legionaries, but, for example, during my third game, I spent about seven shooting phases with a BG of sparabara aiming a BG of LF, and all I got was a disruption. Even being shot by more than one BG in different directions, BG´s don´t have much problems to pass CT´s. And the +2 bonus for death rolls makes things difficult for archers. Well, I indeed agree with this bonus, but your comments about the benefits of massive shooting concerning only the death rolls are not that realistic. I think that and aditional -1 if all bases in a BG are impacted would help. And preventing from a lucky roll that can be too powerful against cavalry, I´d allow this extra -1 for CT´s only if the enemy BG is shot by more than one BG not in the same BL, Why? Well, this means that arrows would come in different directions (how could you place your shield to protect you? ), so it means that you´ve partially surrounded your enemy. This must be very disturbing for a BG (I´m thinking actually of Carrhae, for example). I think that if you can hit every base of a enemy BG shooting from different directions, your enemy deserves a malus. It´s a kind of price for your tactical decisions that have allowed you to surround the enemy.

Congratulations for the game, mates.

[shall]

There are other things that I think that can be improved IMO:
a) Terrain.- Well, I won all initial tactical rolls, and so could choose terrain pieces I needed, but, in every game, I had to deploy terrain on flanks and long borders. I had Early Achaemenid Persians, with hordes of sparabara, so I needed rough terrain in the center. Why this happened? In the placement roll, only 1/3 of terrain pieces are placed not in touch with any borders, and still only 1/3 of those can´t be slided by your opponent during the adjustment roll. This made me think that winning tactical rolls is not as useful as it seems. And, thinking of armies very terrain-dependant, like, for example, Ancient Spanish, it make games quite difficult for them. Game after game, this average makes terrain accumulate on borders. I have read some reports in this forum, and "terrain was mostly on borders" is a very common description of the table after terrain setting. Wouldn´t it be possible to give players more control over the terrain that they place rather than the terrain placed by your enemy? At least for the winner of the tactical roll. I love the concept of tactical rolls, but think that with current rules, its effects are under rated.

Most ancient battles were played on plains with terrain on the edges. Nevertheless we have aime for system to get terrain inthe middle if you want to. My Ancient brits usually get some pieces there. The triick is to take as many small pieces as possible to max the chance and put them in the middle. Try a few more examples on the table and see. And remember you getto pull your opponents pieces into the centre much of the time.

b) Shooting.- Well, I had the feeling that shooting was a bit useless. Once you get HP2B, the enemy gets -1 for CT´s, and that´s all, folks. I did not expect to shoot down a BG of superior legionaries, but, for example, during my third game, I spent about seven shooting phases with a BG of sparabara aiming a BG of LF, and all I got was a disruption. Even being shot by more than one BG in different directions, BG´s don´t have much problems to pass CT´s. And the +2 bonus for death rolls makes things difficult for archers. Well, I indeed agree with this bonus, but your comments about the benefits of massive shooting concerning only the death rolls are not that realistic. I think that and aditional -1 if all bases in a BG are impacted would help. And preventing from a lucky roll that can be too powerful against cavalry, I´d allow this extra -1 for CT´s only if the enemy BG is shot by more than one BG not in the same BL, Why? Well, this means that arrows would come in different directions (how could you place your shield to protect you? ), so it means that you´ve partially surrounded your enemy. This must be very disturbing for a BG (I´m thinking actually of Carrhae, for example). I think that if you can hit every base of a enemy BG shooting from different directions, your enemy deserves a malus. It´s a kind of price for your tactical decisions that have allowed you to surround the enemy.

If anything there has been the view that shooting was too powerful so good to hear a view from the other side. We have the idea of a CT minus for shot in rear in storaage bit feel after much testing that it is about right for now.
Si

[caliban66]

It seems that you have more control on terrain selected by your opponent that over the one you choose. In fact, you have 2/3 of chances approach it to where you want to, while only 1/3 of 1/3, i.e., 1/9 of placing your terrain pieces where you want. And in the second game, I chose as many small pieces as possible, and what happened is that there were no room enough to place some terrain on borders due to the previously placed pieces. Discarding single game results, just notice the averages. 1/9 of getting the terrain you chose where you want vs 2/3 of moving enemy selected terrain pieces. If he takes the minimum pieces, your chances of affecting terrain just drop down. Have you ever considered bonus for terrain rolls avaible for the winner of the tactic roll? Or giving this winner the chance of denying one adjusting roll to his opponent?

[hazelbark]

I think the terrain on the edges makes sense for the most part. As Simon said, you really didn't have ancient battles with a wood in the center. An army would would swing to left or right.

The one excpetion to this in my view is crests or gentle hills. These should be easier to have in the middle rather than on an edge. And maybe you can argue uneven could be in the center more as its battlefield roll is less and less likely to be noticed until the action is under way and also minor enough to escape the history books.

Lastly I notice an interesting bit under Gully in the appendix. You can see out, but not in. That makes sense. But can you shoot out at archers and not be shot back by them? Is that right or is there a rule somewhere else?

[shall]

The terrain system seems to be giving very good results overall.

I am sure that after lots of gaming we will filter out a selection of improvements for the future so keep them coming.

Dan on the gulley issue that is indeed how it is written at the moment and we may need to slarify that.

Si