Winners Atrittion

[vexillia]

I'm sure he said it just before he shot Doc Holiday at the OK Corral.

But John Wayne wasn't at the OK Corral with Doc Holliday in 1881. Marion Robert Morrison was born in 1907. I think you're loosing your grip on reality. Heavy weekend?

Oh if you get a minute you need to change your signature.

[MatthewP]

Vexilla is right.

It wasnt John Wayne at the OK Carrall, it was Kirk Douglas.

Come on Phill get with it.

[hazelbark]

I think you're loosing your grip on reality.

You cannot lose what you haven't had.

[vexillia]

I've just posted a blog article about FOG AM and the Northern League (UK):

Recently I've been trying to see if there's any evidence in this year's data to support the view that there have been too many drawn games with FOG AM v2. I now have data from 4 of the 5 rounds to be held this year and was trying to see if there were any early indications of trends when I stumbled across an interesting preliminary correlation.

There's some numbers and a few pictures like this:

Looking at all the data I am of the opinion that:

FOG AM in the Northern League has shrunk to a core group who are of similar ability and as a result are more likely to draw their games.

The full article is here.

[hazelbark]

I've just posted a blog article about FOG AM and the Northern League (UK):

FOG AM in the Northern League has shrunk to a core group who are of similar ability and as a result are more likely to draw their games.

The full article is here.

Very interesting I think your point

the rules have very limited retail distribution

is also a problem

[hammy]

I am really late to this thread but thought I might pop this in as another point of view.

As someone who plays a lot more FoW now than FoG I still play FoG from time to time.

For me the main reason I have drifted away from FoG is that most of the big FoG singles events also had FoW comps and I was enjoying FoW more than FoG.

For me my favourite format for FoG is 650 points themed on 5 by 3 tables Sadly most of the 650 point comps are not themed (and as I run most of the 650 point comps in the UK that is largely my fault). Numbers seem to be dropping even in the 650 point comps though, some players have shifted to FoG:R but others have just gone away.

There are plenty of options for doubles play in the UK or at least there were. The BHGS doubles circuit in the end withered and I think that was largely down to there being too many tigers such that new players just got torn to bits but that was the case in the days of DBM and the doubles circuit was almost dead before FoG came on the scene. The Usk and Burton doubles are both good events and get reasonable numbers. I missed Usk this year but played Burton and had a good time. The Northern League is about my least favourite format for a comp as in open, large armies and only 2 games a day. When it was a DBM comp I played pretty much every round but at that point I was not playing FoW and my only game was DBM. With the advent of my interest in FoW I made the choice to cut the NDL from my events list simply because there are only so many comps that even I can get to.

If you look at the Derby 'Worlds' there were loads and loads of historical gamers playing loads of different games. FoG got a reasonable turn out but so did Armati, Impetus, DBMM, WRG 6th and WRG 7th.

Not sure how much use all this rambling is but if someone wanted to attract me to a tournament then themed 650 points on smaller tables with 3 games a day and quite possibly two one day tournament in a weekend would be about as good as it gets. It will be interesting to see how many people attend the Pick 'n' Mix this year because that is pretty much the format of that event but there are other games on offer too so perhaps FoG players may choose to play something else.

[MikeHorah]

Also a late entrant in this thread , I have never been a competition player ( shock horror a heretic? ) and have not always belonged to a local club or other club. But that has never stopped me in over 40 years from playing wargames. There are a lots of us "lone wolves" out there.

Worries about where we are going to get the next generation from have been around as long as I have been a gamer. A counter to such fears I think is the rude health of the hobby today in the numbers of traders, small and large businesses, the rich mix of them and the variety of sites on the web and the perennial success of shows like SALUTE - which has grown hugely over the years. That show always has a lot of young folk there with their dads which is nice to see. Contrast that with the 1970's and early '80s. Today is far richer.

I don't know what the reach of FoG(AM)( or any other popular ancients sets) is in terms of sales and distribution but I suspect it is way beyond those folks who are tournament regulars .

That said I do think the tournaments and their players continue to provide that cutting edge for the development of rules and lists which the rest of us " late adopters" benefit from to a large degree - this forum demonstrates that very well . So I would not at all want to see it flag. So what is to be done? Maybe we need a kind of " Strictly Wargaming" ?

Re FOG(AM) - maybe for those of us who are more into historical than open list competition gaming we could explore whether or how to tweak some eras ,within the mix, to make them less generic , those a bit more at the extreme ends of the bell curve- and share them. As an example in Emperors and Eagles for FOG(N) we included some mods to the rules specially for the 1790's for the French in 1792-95.

I have been looking at chariot warfare pre 1100 BC in the Near East and have concluded that few if any rules sets have succeed in giving it a distinctive flavour ( going right back to WRG 1st Ed in 1969. ). It is very much far left of the bell curve in rules covering 3-4 millennia. Such rules sets do not always manage transition eras well either . The 12th century BC was one such period ( see Prof Robert Drews " The End of the Bronze Age). This not a criticism of rules writers and game designers just an observation on one of the smoothing effects of widely drawn rules systems. You can also get lists that can seem very "samey" as" Mad Axeman" has commented on - for example in " "Oath of Fealty" .

[pyruse]

We still use FoG:AM (v2) and like it very much, but we play in 28mm on a 6x4 table, so tend to keep armies down to 650 points-ish, although we don't usually play straight up equal points games, more often scenarios or refights, so points are just a guide to relative army strengths.
We find the rules very good for this - play to a conclusion usually in about 2 to 2.5 hours.

Maybe it is just equal points matchups which are at fault, not the rules?

[MikeHorah]

We still use FoG:AM (v2) and like it very much, but we play in 28mm on a 6x4 table, so tend to keep armies down to 650 points-ish, although we don't usually play straight up equal points games, more often scenarios or refights, so points are just a guide to relative army strengths.
We find the rules very good for this - play to a conclusion usually in about 2 to 2.5 hours.

Maybe it is just equal points matchups which are at fault, not the rules?

I do think points can create some problems for the balance of rules, necessary as they are for tournament play. Unless the organisers pre-set army shapes and each participant has to try their hand with each of the pre determined armies . Who does best with a legion, a phalanx etc and who is the best all rounder - now that could be fun .

It is not a precise science - matching capabilities to points - and sometimes only a fair bit of play testing of lists reveals issues . In a campaign you can substitute cash. sesterces, talents etc and gear income to match those costs not points and supply to match numbers of men and horses so side step the whole issue.

Asymetrical games need to have some alternative victory conditions to attrition and/ or a set up where the availability of units on both sides is variable and less predictable - as in encounter battles - who showed up? A key thing is what historical military problems do you enjoy being faced with and solving?

But I have met tournament gamers who are gamers first and foremost for whom the history is incidental.

[hazelbark]

Asymetrical games need to have some alternative victory conditions to attrition and/ or a set up where the availability of units on both sides is variable and less predictable - as in encounter battles - who showed up? A key thing is what historical military problems do you enjoy being faced with and solving?

But I have met tournament gamers who are gamers first and foremost for whom the history is incidental.

I think alternative victory conditions is significantly needed in the FOG system. The problem of course historically a battle in the AM era was really nearly always a battle of annhilation. A lot of the alternatives that work well in say a company level WW II game do not translate historically.

Actually I think a lot of gamers, tournament or not, are gamers first. I think the contruct of history vs gamer is not quite fair to most. And I know very few non-tournament gamers who like to lose a lot either. The "history" debate is often absurd in our hobby. The Chambham armour has a much great deflection of angle compared to a legionary scutum therefore Darth Vader could indeed be decisive factor at Gettysburg, but only if he was with Ewell's Corps and not Longstreet's. For me the value of tournaments was first I could get a game where the rules were consistent and I could get games with something that made sense to me.

[MikeHorah]

Asymetrical games need to have some alternative victory conditions to attrition and/ or a set up where the availability of units on both sides is variable and less predictable - as in encounter battles - who showed up? A key thing is what historical military problems do you enjoy being faced with and solving?

But I have met tournament gamers who are gamers first and foremost for whom the history is incidental.

Actually I think a lot of gamers, tournament or not, are gamers first. I think the contruct of history vs gamer is not quite fair to most. And I know very few non-tournament gamers who like to lose a lot either. The "history" debate is often absurd in our hobby. ..... For me the value of tournaments was first I could get a game where the rules were consistent and I could get games with something that made sense to me.

Yes I agree its not one way or the other but some are more interested in " pure" ( whatever that may mean for them) historical engagements than others and many wargamers are not gamers with miniatures at all . But in my own case I hate losing ( and indeed winning) if it is just down to extreme luck ( bad d rolls on one side combined with good d rolls on the other ) and mind a good deal less losing if it is plainly down to my own misjudgements and folly. Indeed I take a kind of ironic satisfaction in those losses and I can learn from them. I can do nothing about skewed luck.

But I know many are more comfortable than me with that as part of the hobby and with gaming in general. For me rules sets that have too many d rolls, or unjustifiable ones, are less than satisfactory ( not FOG(AM) I have to say on that score). I have used random numbers tables ( at staff college) but they are skewed at both ends of the curve and you can see the next number. Better to use 2D10's but only IF you have valid percentile probability data ( mostly 20th century plus see Korner and Dupuy) and not to provide a false sense of the range of variable outcomes.

I use D Rolls to make the point about gaming versus historical approaches. The two have to be in harmony I feel.

And your last point is of course absolutely right for that kind of play.

[Lycanthropic]

After playing FoG:AM for years casually and tournament play. Here are some of my opinions on why FoG:AM (a game I love) is losing players -

Army Viability - most players own only a handful of ancients armies. I personally only own a few ancient armies (Incan, Teutonics, Avar, Vikings, Serbians, Mongols, Principate Roman), of these I only consider 2 viable at a FoG2 open tournament. The financial cost and time modelling investment is too high for me to expand - it took me 3 years to complete the Romans and it is still a work in progress. Compared with other popular gaming systems that make a real effort to ensure all lists are viable. I believe FoG2 needs a tournament army list/rules supplement to address this. Army viability is a real contributing factor to player attrition. If you disagree - ask yourself why you like 650 points on a smaller table.

Contested and unclear rulings - nothing turns a player off more than the "surprise" ruling that ruins their day, and tournament. I believe FoG2 needs a "Tournament Guide to FoG:AM" or "FoG:AM for Dummies" publication that includes 400 diagrams of example rulings written by the authors of the rules that puts to rest confusing rules like "enemy party behind" and "path of the charge".

Tournament Tigers? Please, every game system has more motivated, skilled, successful players that put a lot of effort into wiping the floor with players that only play two games and turn up expecting to be competitive. You reap what you sow.
Some tournaments try to balance skill by introducing "knee-pad" popularity contests (sportsmanship points) or the "who's had their army commissioned" beauty pageant (painting points), or my personal favourite the "write an essay about how historical your army is" to avoid losing points. A tournament of tabletop generals should be won by the best general.

[grahambriggs]

There's a bit of a viscious circle in areas where there are small player numbers. In order to encourage numbers, organisers are tempted to make it an open competition. But many players have armies that aren't good in open competitions. In the UK we are fortunate as there are enough players with enough armies that tightly themed competitions work.

Contested rulings I'm surprised to see in your list. I find these rules clearer than DBM. The rule is normally in the book and clear; albeit it's a big book so can take a while to find. There are areas in the rules that are difficult (for example, the orb rules seem to conflict with the close combat rules) but my experience is there are few umpire calls. Mostly it is inexperienced players who can't find the relevant rules in the book.

[vexillia]

Morning Graham!

Contested rulings I'm surprised to see in your list.

Perhaps inconsistent would be better:

Not sure what I'll do when umpiring if this comes up; probably whatever seems most sensible at the time.

See http://bit.ly/JKIoEY for full context.

[batesmotel]

Morning Graham!

Contested rulings I'm surprised to see in your list.

Perhaps inconsistent would be better:

Not sure what I'll do when umpiring if this comes up; probably whatever seems most sensible at the time.

See http://bit.ly/JKIoEY for full context.

The debate and question of how to handle the rear corner contact seems like both literally and figuratively a corner case. I doubt someone's desire to play or not play in a tournament setting is likely to turn on this sort of situation being refereed inconsistently. Whichever way the base turns or doesn't and fights as if it had, the BG hit in flank or rear is probably in serious trouble however the facing of the bases is finally resolved.

Chris

[gozerius]

Plenty of other cases. Most having to do with different expectations of meanings of terms. But there are several glaring cases where the rules say two different things and a convention has been adopted which is counterintuitive.
But it is way better than DBM.
My favorite aspect of the game is that it did much to eliminate gamey tricks so prevalent in DBM. And V 2.0 is an improvement over V 1.
My biggest complaint is it didn't go far enough. But I think that in a game of this popularity, there will always be those who seek out the loopholes to exploit.
I got in my first game in 4 months last weekend - Thracians vs Galatians. A bloody, bitter fight won by the Galatians. He benefitted from my flank march stumbling on a flock of unguarded sheep and forgetting that they were expected on the battlefield. But I gained a moral victory by killing almost all his generals.

[hazelbark]

Army Viability - most players own only a handful of ancients armies. I personally only own a few ancient armies (Incan, Teutonics, Avar, Vikings, Serbians, Mongols, Principate Roman), of these I only consider 2 viable at a FoG2 open tournament. The financial cost and time modelling investment is too high for me to expand - it took me 3 years to complete the Romans and it is still a work in progress. Compared with other popular gaming systems that make a real effort to ensure all lists are viable. I believe FoG2 needs a tournament army list/rules supplement to address this. Army viability is a real contributing factor to player attrition. If you disagree - ask yourself why you like 650 points on a smaller table.

I think this was a real error in the army lists. There are several places where clearly insufficient thought went into the army list. Or worse a clear malicious attempt to hamstring army. The solution that points would provide balance just doesn't work in practice. Many simple things could have been added to increase variety without crippling the system.

One of the pieces that compounds this is, the technology that is evident in POA and troop types. Here FOG did the right thing generally for history. Evolution of light chariot to Heavy to Cavalry. It really is a nice piece of history. But to gain that technology POA it meant that certain types were overly hamstrung in the open tournaments. Where you see a clear clustering occurring in open tournaments.

[grahambriggs]

I got in my first game in 4 months last weekend - Thracians vs Galatians. A bloody, bitter fight won by the Galatians. He benefitted from my flank march stumbling on a flock of unguarded sheep and forgetting that they were expected on the battlefield. But I gained a moral victory by killing almost all his generals.

I used a Galatian ally in a couple of comps in the past 12 months. A big unit of 12 superior heavy foot warband with it's own general was terrific fun.

[hangarflying]

As someone who has interest in the A&M time period, purchased the rule book, but has yet to actually start painting any armies, my biggest barrier to playing this game is accessibility to source materials. The books are rarely available, and the only electronic format is as an iPad app. I'm glad that I finally found a link to purchase a physical rulebook, because I can guarantee with 100% certainty if my only choice was the iPad app, I wouldn't give these rules a passing glance.

So, you want to get more people involved (or at least, stay interested once they've played the game once at a convention)? Make your material easily available for new players to get a hold of: that means print books are available for purchase, and dump the stupid iPad app and make the books available as PDFs.

[philqw78]

So, you want to get more people involved (or at least, stay interested once they've played the game once at a convention)? Make your material easily available for new players to get a hold of: that means print books are available for purchase, and dump the stupid iPad app and make the books available as PDFs.

Unfortunately Slitherine only come to this forum to try and sell shit, or if someone has been naughty. What you have said would be great and the lack of it is one of the main reasons the rules are dying.

We were lucky the rules were published at all.

Or unlucky, since we are now saddled with them because nobody was forced to write a different set to take over from them