Comparisons of FoG to other rulesets.

[hammy]

Hi Edward,

Why play FoG rather than WAB, hmm that is to some extent a difficult question to answer. Both sets have (or will have) well presented rules and lovely suplements.

What I can say is that the WAB players at my local games club are all enthusiastic beta testers of FoG and are I believe planning to switch from the WAB tournament scene to the FoG one as soon as it appears.

I firmly believe that FoG is written more clearly than WAB and that there are less holes in the rules. But WAB is still a game that is enjoyed by many people. FoG is certainly easy to learn for a set of miniature wargaming rules.

In a lot of ways it depends on who you are likely to play with and where. If they are all WAB (or DBM or DBMM or Warmaster) players and won't look at a new ruleset then you may have problems.

I would read some of the threads on this forum and if you have direct questions ask them in the thread. I am sure you will get prompt answers.

As to your interests all of these are covered by the first tranche of army books and there are loads of companies that make miniatures you could use.

Where are you based?
Are you aware if you have a local games club?

Hope this helps as a starter

Hammy

[AlexandertheGreat]

Where are you based?

I'm actually in Newfoundland, Canada. I don't know of any clubs but I have a couple of buddies that would be interested in game if I ever got started.

Thanks for the info

edward[/code]

[hammy]

Where are you based?

I'm actually in Newfoundland, Canada. I don't know of any clubs but I have a couple of buddies that would be interested in game if I ever got started.

Thanks for the info

What I would suggest is getting the FoG rules and one or two army books that interest you then try playing the game just using blank card bases. That way you can see if the game is fun for you and decide where to invest your time and money to make an army while still playing with your buddies using the bases.

You would not get away with using blank bases outside a group of friends but it is a good way to learn and easy to do.

[GKChesterton1976]

With respect to comparisons with Warrior - the game is more like Warrior than say DBA, DBM or others. I regularly play Warrior and will probably keep it as my principal game. I have enjoyed reading and mucking around with (and once playing a full game of) Field of Glory.

Warrior type tactical sense and deployment is very helpful in FOG I reckon - the differences of mechanics are not overwhelming and each game has things I like (for instance I slightly prefer the somewhat more effective shooting in warrior). The main difference I have noticed is in the army lists - in Warrior there are no restrictions on unit sizes beyond the units must be 2-12 elements. Lists give no guidance as to unit sizes. Knights and a lot of cavalry are typically run in 2 element units. It was something of a shock to see that in FOG Parthian Cataphracts had to be run in units of 4-6 elements.

This is said without criticism, but it is one significant difference.

Adrian

[stevoid]

As a 7th ed player from way back before DBx dominated down under, I'd agree about the similarity and difference mentioned above. Of course some will see it as a ++ POA and others not.

I like the tighter guidelines in FOG as opposing armies are more historically constrained. Power gaming in 7th ed was often about maximizing the number of units, hence Companions as two elements, micro units of an elephant and a LI etc. Exploiting the system IMHO. I think I had 20+ units when I won a nationals with Alexandian Macedonian - units of 4 Agrianians popping out of woods to force waver test... oh the shame

Shooting is definitely less effective from light troops. As non-lights don't test for broken LH there is a major tactical difference in that winning in 7th was often about winning the LH skirmish battle and watching good troops shake when the LH routed past. Not so in FOG.

I like FOG

Steve