Movement when pinned...

[ChrisTofalos]

Getting back into tabletop wargaming after a break of some fifteen years. One of the reasons I stopped playing was the rules (DBM). I'm a keen, competitive player but just couldn't keep up with the weird and wonderful dodges some players used to gain advantage. IMHO, single elements, rather than units, allow far too many sneaky tricks to be devised. And I'm also not keen on new version after new version being published (Slitherine take note!). I believe a set of rules should be gradually refined until they are perfect - or as near perfect as you can get. Of course, rule writers are entitled to make a living but I'd rather see them do this by their sets becoming popular and universally accepted (and, therefore, good sellers). The hobby might thrive better if there was just one set for each period. Chess, Monopoly & Risk, etc games still sell but do not need the rules re-writing every few years. Instead we have relative 'rule anarchy', which cannot be good. Wargaming, a great pastime, should be extremely popular but the one thing I've noticed at competition games being played at recent shows I've been to is the preponderance of grey hair - mine included! Where are the younger players to keep our hobby alive?

Anyway, I've now played a couple of games of FoG 2.0 and very much enjoyed them. I've come across a few problems but generally been able to eventually sort them (so far!) by trawling the rules. However, there was one instance in my latest game which I couldn't find an answer for and I'd appreciate some advice:

A unit of Cav had been pinned by some HF. It wished to retire out of the way and we weren't sure whether this was possible. Now, the example 'of Options in a restricted area' (P81) shows some LH falling back in front of some infantry. The rules state (P80), "Alternatively, a BG capable of doing so can move straight back perpendicular to its own rear." My question is, what exactly does 'capable of doing so' mean'? Does it mean ANY troops can move backwards IF there is space for them to do so? Or, is it only troops capable of evading (and able to make a 180 degree turn, move, then turn back again)?

The situation wasn't helped by the Cav being backed up by some LF. Would these prevent any withdrawal or can they be burst through?

Help, please!

[MDH]

And I'm also not keen on new version after new version being published (Slitherine take note!). I believe a set of rules should be gradually refined until they are perfect - or as near perfect as you can get. Of course, rule writers are entitled to make a living but I'd rather see them do this by their sets becoming popular and universally accepted (and, therefore, good sellers). The hobby might thrive better if there was just one set for each period. Chess, Monopoly & Risk, etc games still sell but do not need the rules re-writing every few years. Instead we have relative 'rule anarchy', which cannot be good. Wargaming, a great pastime, should be extremely popular but the one thing I've noticed at competition games being played at recent shows I've been to is the preponderance of grey hair - mine included! Where are the younger players to keep our hobby alive?

As a recent rule writer ( FOG(N) not FOG(AM) it certainly does not provide a living I can assure you. Net royalties after tax so far ( over two years )paid for maybe one good holiday and that's it. Average rate per hour of time committed well below the minimum wage Miniatures rules are not Slitherine's core business as I understand it; they do it too for love of the miniatures game . As did I. For me the extra bit of cash was a bonus.

I would never argue for multiple editions just to sell copies and have argued that any 2nd edition should be in order to include errors omissions and clarifications (and some extra lists) be as cheap to buy as possible precisely to keep the current version in play and use and not render it obsolete. As I understand it ( but not having been involved) V2.0 of FoG(AM) was driven as much by users ( who re much more numerous than FoG(N)) as by the writers?

I was pretty happy with v1.0 but I am too with 2.0.So I do hope you enjoy them as much as I do. They are not perfect but individual imperfections are in the eye of the individual user . Having a forum like this does help a lot. But I will let those more expert than I deal with your query as I am not that reliable on that kind of thing

The scale of beta testing before publication is much greater and better structured than in the past. Where one can come up against problems is when the demands, methods and timetables of commercial publishers (not just of rules) prevent or limit adequate editing time post beta testing. Next time I hope we can have bit more control of the quality assurance process.

I don't share your view that any period should have only one rules set. In the Napoleonic era how I would write a rule set for Battalion and Brigade level would be quite different to the Corps level which is FoG(N) for example. There is room for several sets at different levels of engagement. The same applies in armoured warfare where how you handle one model = one tank is quite different to a model= one troop or one company. And "period" is debatable as it is as narrow or broad as you care to define it.

In the ancient and medieval eras I have long been a sceptic of such universal rules sets ,whether the original WRG, or the latest offering. "Sceptic" is to put it no stronger and for over 40 years speaking a as a grey hair. The first set of WRG ancients rules covered a much more limited time period and expanded as much in response to players demands for a wider timeframe and more armies as to a planned process I suspect. Expanded too far I think but not many agree with me on that.

I am not sure that the plethora of rules over the years means the hobby has not thrived. The opposite is true I believe as it reflects a constant striving for a better mix of game play and historical simulation- but there is no " right" answer on that . The latter is also driven by academic research new books and authors etc. I have always written rules whether my own or with others and until recently not with publication in mind. It is part of the hobby for me . New rules and especially lists also stimulate figure makers and I think we live in a really vibrant time for that compared to 40 years ago.

I think the pressure or desire for agreed/common popular sets is partly driven by the tournament culture and circuit which is understandable, as without that it does not work and that seems pretty healthy just now. But as a gaming community we are argumentative ( in the intellectual sense not otherwise as we are a pretty civil lot on the whole) and seldom agree to any core set for very long, even when we do, and seem to want to move on even in the tournament world after a few years .

The cry of where are the younger gamers?" has been around for a while since I was one them. At SALUTE there seems to be lots of younger people . It is not unusual for younger folk to drop out of a hobby ( not just wargaming) to deal with life career families etc and then come back to it later . Not all older wargamers are like me - a "lifer"

[AlanCutner]

I don't agree that wargaming isn't thriving. There are far greater numbers of people wargaming now than ever before. The main reason for this is Warhammer. Us 'grey heads' may prefer more traditional style wargaems but Games Workshop have been extremely successful and popular.

[Robert241167]

Back to your original question...........................

Any units capable of doing so means if they could do it as part of their normal move, i.e. light horse and light foot can about turn and move straight back as their normal move.

Rob

[ChrisTofalos]

Some interesting comments in reply (usefully, one answering my question - thank you, Rob).

As for different rules for different periods, of course, each 'period' can be further broken down into smaller and smaller scale actions, each requiring its own specific approach. But that doesn't mean we have to have lots of different rules, each covering the same 'sub-period'. I repeat my mention of Chess, Monopoly & Risk. Would they be as popular if there were three or four different rule sets to learn for each? Wargaming is a competitive hobby. When playing a tournament game set for armies from, say, 300 BC to 100 BC, a player's choice should be about which army to use and its composition, not about whether or not to learn (yet another!) set of rules. With twelve years of entering the Nationals during the 70s and 80s, I've been there and got the proverbial T-short. Having to learn another set of rules rather than learning to use your army properly and enjoying the game is a pain I could certainly have done without. I'm as convinced as I can be that perpetual rule set changing has held the hobby back.

And Warhammer? Fantasy wargaming in general doesn't really interest me; I much prefer historical wargaming. You could argue fighting ancient Egyptians against dark age Normans has more than a touch of fantasy about it. However, at least there's no magic spells and dragons, etc involved. Now, I'm not knocking Warhammer - or any other fantasy gaming - but it's not for me. And whilst Warhammer might be flourishing, I don't believe historical gaming is. Forty-odd years ago when I started, my local club had lots of younger members (all playing historical games). I was only 23! The club still exists but their regular bi-monthly Sunday gaming days are not well attended - and sometimes nobody turns up at all. And at two recent shows I went to (Phalanx & Britcon) I didn't notice anyone playing under the age of 40 (OK, I might be corrected on that one, but there certainly weren't as many younger gamers as in days gone by). Is that supposed to be progress? Are you telling me (historical) gaming is thriving? I don't think so...

Chris

[MDH]

Some interesting comments in reply (usefully, one answering my question - thank you, Rob).

As for different rules for different periods, of course, each 'period' can be further broken down into smaller and smaller scale actions, each requiring its own specific approach. But that doesn't mean we have to have lots of different rules, each covering the same 'sub-period'. I repeat my mention of Chess, Monopoly & Risk. Would they be as popular if there were three or four different rule sets to learn for each? Wargaming is a competitive hobby. When playing a tournament game set for armies from, say, 300 BC to 100 BC, a player's choice should be about which army to use and its composition, not about whether or not to learn (yet another!) set of rules. With twelve years of entering the Nationals during the 70s and 80s, I've been there and got the proverbial T-short. Having to learn another set of rules rather than learning to use your army properly and enjoying the game is a pain I could certainly have done without. I'm as convinced as I can be that perpetual rule set changing has held the hobby back.

And Warhammer? Fantasy wargaming in general doesn't really interest me; I much prefer historical wargaming. You could argue fighting ancient Egyptians against dark age Normans has more than a touch of fantasy about it. However, at least there's no magic spells and dragons, etc involved. Now, I'm not knocking Warhammer - or any other fantasy gaming - but it's not for me. And whilst Warhammer might be flourishing, I don't believe historical gaming is. Forty-odd years ago when I started, my local club had lots of younger members (all playing historical games). I was only 23! The club still exists but their regular bi-monthly Sunday gaming days are not well attended - and sometimes nobody turns up at all. And at two recent shows I went to (Phalanx & Britcon) I didn't notice anyone playing under the age of 40 (OK, I might be corrected on that one, but there certainly weren't as many younger gamers as in days gone by). Is that supposed to be progress? Are you telling me (historical) gaming is thriving? I don't think so...

Chris

Actually Warhammer does have a purely historical set with supplements army lists etc . Don't care for it myself - too many pointless D Rolls and it does not live up to its production promise .But no magic etc.

I can't imagine that all the wealth of historical figures that are now being made and sold now do so with no market - but us vets have more disposable income when we get to our fifties and sixties and the kids have left ( were relevant) so that may be a factor there.

I would not judge who is at Britcon et al as the indicator myself . They are a niche within the niche but I don't go often to them so cannot say .

However if it is indeed the case that young people are not being attracted, in the UK it may be that education is a factor and the way history is taught, but myself I think it more likely that computer games have totally outflanked us. At is best the Total War series can beat any figure game where dead ground, visibility sound and weather are concerned and I have had games in those that you just could not match with miniatures particularly the early versions. (The later ones I think have sacrificed something .)


Multiple rules are a marginal factor I suspect.

[duncanr]

most people extrapolate from their experience, hence a 5th edition wrg ancients player probably see's a decline in numbers since the DBM/FOG era, I see that so xyx...

but actually I know that wargaming in general is booming - just not the bit I like

[zoltan]

Back to your original rules question.

Some cavalry with a shooting weapon are entitled to form a one element deep line ('skirmish formation'). If charged they are entitled to evade (or stand if they prefer). During the maneouvre phase ('normal moves') these cavalry are also permitted to move their line up to 2MUs straight back if they pass a CMT. If there are any other friendly troops immediately behind them, you would need to move those troops out of the way first before moving the cavalry backwards.

In a situation where friendly LF are hard up against the rear edge of your cav line, I guess your cav could:
- turn 180 degrees
- move back through your LF
- turn 180 degrees again ending hard up against the rear base edge of your LF

However there is a moot point:
- if the depth of your LF is such that your cav would have to move more than 2MUs to clear them (before again turning 180 degrees), some would say you can't make this move as the rules say the maximimum distance the cav can move is 2MUs
- others would say that the interpentration rules allow extra move distance to be added to the 2MUs to enable the cav to clear the LF

[philqw78]

I'm sure there's something about not turning when interpenetrating

[petedalby]

I'm sure there's something about not turning when interpenetrating

There is Phil - Page 50 - last bullet.

So the answer is to the move the LF first.