FOGAM3

[hazelbark]

Re-doing the points will be a last resort.
Apart from the problems of updating all the lists, we won't know if the points values are an accurate reflection of the troop values until after the rules have been released and a number of competitions have been played...... We thought that the points values for V1 were accurate until at least 6 months after release - and that was after a long period of Beta testing AND a number of Beta competitions.

Now that I think about it, I have never seen Phil B and Terry S standing together. This clinches it, they are the same person using, I must say, very impressive disguises. I knew the English were clever.

The idea that point values were graven in stone and can never be changed makes less sense than anything else recently going on in England.

[Vespasian28]

I would agree with Marty that the performance of the relative troop types defined as Superior, Average and Poor is about right and changing that status so Superior and Poor move closer to Average seems an odd way of promoting the use of more Average and Poor.

The issue appears to lie with the lists and points values but redoing and re-publishing those in their entirety seems unlikely for various reasons. As Marty said keeping a ponts system out of the main rulebook and publishing it online may be the way to go. I have a dozen or so armies that I could manually adjust in the Companions but many of us use the Army List spreadsheets to build armies and points changes could easily be incorporated into those.

Any amendments to the army list definitions could follow online at a later date if necessary when their is a proven take up of V3.

[zoltan]

Maybe I've missed something but I don't see any analysis of the fundamental reasons why players have left FoGAM and started playing other rule sets and how Terry's work will 'fix' these fundamentals, resulting in those players coming back to a FoG AM or new players suddenly picking the rule set up.

"Oh you've fixed the issues with MF/HF etc so we'll come back to FoGAM now." I just don't see it.

For me two fundamentals that have contributed to loss of interest in FoGAM are:
1. boredom with the 3.5 to 4 hour 800 point game (it just takes to long for ageing players)
2. non-themed open competitions which lead to min max army list optimising and perceived 'unfair' match-ups e.g. there's absolutely no point fielding a Madigan NKE army in an open comp no matter how pretty it looks on table.

I suspect Terry's work won't address either of these points and therefore the current ancients/medieval rule set diversification will remain (and all power to it). The DBX guys won't suddenly move to FoGAM as a result of V3 and the ADLG guys won't switch back.

Zee 'orse, she 'as bolted.

[Plainsman]

geoff wrote:
I have the opposite opinion. Fog AM V2 suffered from too much input from the online community. There was no way the rule writers could keep everyone happy. In attempting to I think it diluted what they were trying to do. I'm happy for the rule writers and their trusted testers to have a crack at delivering the best they think they can. I'm fairly confident that after all the lessons learned, it will be a winner.

I tend to agree. Too many people and too many nonsense ideas were allowed to float in V2. Then 80% of the valuable stuff that smart people though worth considering was dumped on the floor in the rush to publish. So V2 basically was just enough of a change to be a mess and not enough to be positive. There was no vision for V2 it was managed quite incompetently and the result was a lot of damage to player support. The whole e-reader bolt on top of it just underscored that no one actually gave a rip about gamers of FOG.

A new version needs a vision. The principles should be written down. i.e we want the game to now reflect the following new philosophy. Then they should set to work with their elite beta team and iron out the details. When there are mostly satisfied they should add a couple new groups of people whose job isn't to come up with new ideas, but evaluate the new changes only. Take onboard any feedback, then publish. Then vision blossoms or fails, but at least it is coherent, thought through and planned. Something all involved can take pride it, instead of insulting the gamers the way V2 did.

That is certainly the approach we are taking.
We have a core 'review' team of 5, and each has a number of contacts for testing and comments. These include existing players, lapsed players and some who've never played before.
The feedback can then be filtered more easily so that each iteration of the proposed changes will be a step forwards rather than something that tries to please everyone.
V2 suffered from that problem, and was heavily watered down in the end, so that the final number of changes didn't justify the cost of buying the new book.

We currently have about 36 core proposals, with another 20 being reviewed. Some of the proposals are heavily dependent on being used in conjunction with others, so we have to be careful about how we react to feedback on individual ones.

I like seeing how this revision is organized! Good luck and I look forward to the end result!

[terrys]

"Oh you've fixed the issues with MF/HF etc so we'll come back to FoGAM now." I just don't see it.

For me two fundamentals that have contributed to loss of interest in FoGAM are:
1. boredom with the 3.5 to 4 hour 800 point game (it just takes to long for ageing players)
2. non-themed open competitions which lead to min max army list optimising and perceived 'unfair' match-ups e.g. there's absolutely no point fielding a Madigan NKE army in an open comp no matter how pretty it looks on table.

I suspect Terry's work won't address either of these points and therefore the current ancients/medieval rule set diversification will remain (and all power to it). The DBX guys won't suddenly move to FoGAM as a result of V3 and the ADLG guys won't switch back.

1> There is a definite move towards shorter games all round.
In the main, FOGAM is easily concluded in 3 hours - if both sides are interested in playing.
Certainly at my local club games normally finish within 3 hours. The problem occurs when one player decides early on that he is unlikely to win and plays for a draw. DBx is no better than FOG when this happens. At the BHGS Challenge recently, FOGAM, FOGR, DBMM and DBM all scored about 50% wins - if you consider a win to be 'breaking your opponents army'.
ADLG gets around this problem by using less figures on a smaller table. I've never played a game, but from a distance it looks more like a FOGAM game played at 650pts on a 5x3 table (for those who've played in one of those competitions). Those games had a time limit of 2.5 hours.

Page 156 of the rules states:
Recommended table sizes are as follows:
15mm 650-800pts 5ft x 3ft
-------- 800-1000pts 6ft x 4ft
Recommended playing time is 2.5 hours for 65pts to 3.5 hours for 1000pts

Competition organisers have long recognised that player like to get lots of figures on the table and gone for the 800pts on a 6x4 table as standard - and that playing time should be around 3.5 hours.
We are, however, expecting FOGAM3 games to be concluded quicker - mainly because we'll be reducing the options for players to 'play for time', but also by other means - including an increase in attrition and speeding up combat resolution.

2> Don't blame the rules for the reluctance of competition organisers to theme a competition - although the only 2 truly 'open' competitions are the Challenge and the Worlds. All UK competitions (other than the challenge) have restrictions of some kind. I agree with you about the min/max list optimising, and that is one of the main issues we are looking at. Too many armies 'pick themselves' because of the range of permitted troops and that fact that superiors are always the first on your list. We want 'average' to be the first on your list, with superiors an option to be used for specific tasks. We're also improving poor troops so that, on occasion, they may even be used as front-line troops.
.. With an improvement planned for LCH and 'average' troops in general, we MAY actually see a Madigan NKE army back on the table.

Don't 'suspect' anything about the new version until you're read it!
However, I do agree that once someone has 'switched off' from a set of rules it will be difficult to persuade them to return. All we can do is to ensure that FOGAM remains an enjoyable experience for those who do play it, while addressing as many problems as possible perceived by those who no longer play it.

[hazelbark]

ADLG gets around this problem by using less figures on a smaller table. I've never played a game, but from a distance it looks more like a FOGAM game played at 650pts on a 5x3 table (for those who've played in one of those competitions). Those games had a time limit of 2.5 hours.

So this is an example of how you are wrong and don't understand the other games. And I don't mean that personally I mean over several rule systems and will explain because I think it is also linked to the group of people that resisted FOG v1 originally.

More accurately:
ADLG is more like an 1800 point FOG game played on a 6x4.
FOGv1 is like DBA played on a 4x3 instead of the DBA 2x2

DBA = 12 maneuver pieces
DBM = 55-65 average maneuver pieces. Yes initially it is clumps of say 6-14 maneuver pieces, but in the battle phase and Terry you know this better than most the Reigate skill was to see the 55-65 maneuver pieces what each could do in their allocation of command options.
ADLG = 21-25 maneuver pieces. Again like DBM starts off with 6-8, but breaks down even quicker than DBM into seeing them all
FOG = 12-14 maneuver pieces. Never changes.

Your BG size doesn't matter "figures on the table" is nice for a certain kind of appearance but don't justify it backwards. Having 48 figures in a Napoleonic unit looks cool, but that doesn't answer the question do you have 12-14 units or 30-80 units or whatever.

So many of these other systems have a denser troop-to-table space ratio. Certainly more troop decisions in a tighter space. Still ADLG still has a maneuver game that doesn't burn 2 hours of playing time.
Also one catastrophic impact roll in FOG costs you 10-12% of your battle troops. In DBM it was 3%. In ADLG its about 5-6%

Now I am not saying FOG needs to follow this. But I am laying this out so you understand what FOG is. It is DBA with more maneuver and step losses. So in one sense a better solution to FOG would be to make EVERY SINGLE BG 4 bases. You would increase the maneuver units by at least 4-6, but that is probably too radical.

I think one of the big problems of FOG has always been the troop-to-table space ratio. And posting that the rule book says whatever is bollux, because no one ever supported that in the UK tournament scene. We experimented with it in the US and liked it, but having 8-10 maneuver units was less that DBA.

The space ratio has always been a giant bias in favor of mounted armies. It is very unclear to me that simply increasing HI to 4 MU will solve that sufficiently.

[vexillia]

So this is an example of how you are wrong and don't understand the other games. And I don't mean that personally I mean over several rule systems and will explain because I think it is also linked to the group of people that resisted FOG v1 originally.

....

Also one catastrophic impact roll in FOG costs you 10-12% of your battle troops. In DBM it was 3%. In ADLG its about 5-6%

....

Now I am not saying FOG needs to follow this. But I am laying this out so you understand what FOG is. It is DBA with more manoeuvre and step [steep?] losses.

A truly though provoking post. I'd never considered that I was playing a DBA variant with added morale and lots of extra dice but this article has convinced me.

[philqw78]

Or a WRG first to seventh edition variant

[zoltan]

Or a WRG first to seventh edition variant

Being back Phil!

My experience is that FoG AM at 650points is fun and fast - particularly if it is themed.

[marty]

Your BG size doesn't matter

Really? 5-6 elements frontage compared to 1-2 (along with a range of other differences) doesn't matter!? Is a 4 element unit of HI functionally the same as a 12 element one? I think your analysis is deeply flawed by your exclusive focus on "manouver elements".

Also one catastrophic impact roll in FOG costs you 10-12% of your battle troops. In DBM it was 3%. In ADLG its about 5-6%

This may be true but the "Catastrophic" roll is always going to happen more often when the whole thing is resolved by a single die versus single die. ie it may matter less but it is going to happen a lot more often.

Martin

[madaxeman]

This may be true but the "Catastrophic" roll is always going to happen more often when the whole thing is resolved by a single die versus single die. ie it may matter less but it is going to happen a lot more often.
Martin

Playing the pedant card here surely a "bad" 6-1 will happen once in 36 rolls, but a "natural 3 or less" in a cohesion test (which is the most clear-cut "Catastrophic" result in FoGAM) will happen far more often, ie 1 time in 12?

(assuming that all sets of rules have mechanisms where superior troops mitigate this type of result, but that they are too different and complicated to work out)

[marty]

True, but the valid comparison is not between DBX/ADLG combat roll and FOG cohesion test. It is between DBX/ADLG combat roll and the entire FOG combat mechanism. ie you have to of already lost the fight to take the cohesion test and even a snake eyes will still not necessarily be a "catastrophic" (double drop) result depending on the situation (including whenever you have only lost by one).

So, once you have excluded all the fights you don't lose by more than one (probably in the vicinity of 2/3rds given wins, draws and minor losses) the odds will be much lower. There will also be fewer instances to generate extreme results from because you are playing with fewer units and thus generating fewer combats.

Martin

[hazelbark]

A truly though provoking post. I'd never considered that I was playing a DBA variant with added morale and lots of extra dice but this article has convinced me.

Appreciate it. And to be clear it is not a criticism it is analysis. FOG has been very enjoyable for me. But there were some of these comments from the get go mostly from people who stayed in other rules.

Now the troop-to-space ratio is criticism. In the US we moved to 900 points

[hazelbark]

Really? 5-6 elements frontage compared to 1-2 (along with a range of other differences) doesn't matter!? Is a 4 element unit of HI functionally the same as a 12 element one? I think your analysis is deeply flawed by your exclusive focus on "manouver elements".

Nothing says you are not entitled to think that. You are still wrong.

OK to be more serious and polite.
A BG is a piece it doesn't matter how you represent it. It is a single significant thing. That's just true.
Now what FOG did (wisely in my view) was to give that thing multi-dimensions. Bases for base loses and cohesion as well. So that single "thing" has a lot of attributes. And to further support your point, let us look a some of the X-wing type games I see the "youngins" playing. They have like 2-4 units/ships/things. But each one has multiple dimensions of status and capabilities.
In the old DBX paradigm that thing really had 2 status options: present or destroyed. So it balanced that out with have lots of elements ie. things.

Terry's specific comment, to my understanding, was to understand the amount on the table. And he was in effect measuring things a la BG. That directly leads to maneuver elements.

There are many paths to take. There are many solutions. But it is unwise to shrug off a critique based on misinformation. It is preferable to make a judgment based on more accurate information.

[hazelbark]

True, but the valid comparison is not between DBX/ADLG combat roll and FOG cohesion test. It is between DBX/ADLG combat roll and the entire FOG combat mechanism. ie you have to of already lost the fight to take the cohesion test and even a snake eyes will still not necessarily be a "catastrophic" (double drop) result depending on the situation (including whenever you have only lost by one).

True, I agree to a point.

But since this is how to improve FOG I am going to just focus on the FOG aspect. One of the frustrating things of V1 and V2 was Knight fights in particular. You had two expensive units roughly 10+% of your points clash. 4 base to 4 bases. equal POA.
8 dice each hitting on 4s. Average of 4 hits. A tiny variation in luck meaning one more hit than the other side. Essentially says this is over. I do 5 to your 4 hits. I have 33% chance of losing a base. you have an 84% chance of losing one. Then lets say you pass our CT test. I now have 8 dice to your 6, odds are I should grind you down. Now if you single drop on your CT. Not totally unreasonable. You have 4 dice to my 8 and you are doomed now.

So it is a lottery with minor variation of luck 4v5 hits on 8 dice average having a very decisive impact on the outcome. Now that may be good history and what you want. But that is the situation that impact game options.

[ethan]

Another key ADLG difference vs. FoGAM is that in ADLG a unit has three states (Good, Hurt, Dead). Units can often lose more than one combat without becoming worse off than "hurt" and many units will often lose two combats and still be "hurt" (albeit close to being dead). Yes, there are multi-hit possibilities that can take something off in one go...but the basic combat mechanism usually means if you are at an advantage and get "unlucky" once, you are now likely to be fighting at about evens and if you get unlucky again you are still fighting at "about evens."

Compare this to ADLG, getting unlucky (losing a combat) can then cause you to lose a base and/or lose cohesion, if you do both of these it takes you from "about evens" to "disadvantaged" and if you get unlucky twice you are almost certainly at a significant disadvantage.

It is also harder to crawl out from getting unlucky as rallying gets harder the more hurt you are and it is impossible to fix base losses. In other words, ADLG has some built-in brakes to slow down bad luck while ADLG has accelerators that increase its effect once things go south. This is especially true and even made worse by the number of fights with virtually no ability to influence the outcome (other than throwing a general in) think 4 bases of super knights fighting each other - whoever wins the impact almost certainly destroys the enemy and then made worse again by the fact that those 4 super knights are 92 or 106 points of your 800 point army (11.5% or 13.25% of your points).

An ADLG equivalent is a single base of knights costing 7% or 7.5% of your points and if you maneuver well you can count your overlaps increasing your chance of success. So FoG forces you to risk almost 50% more of your army on a combat that is likely decisive in one round and you have few tools to impact the outcome beyond rolling well...

[marty]

OK to be more serious and polite.

I appreciate your efforts to be more courteous.

ADLG gets around this problem by using less figures on a smaller table. I've never played a game, but from a distance it looks more like a FOGAM game played at 650pts on a 5x3 table (for those who've played in one of those competitions). Those games had a time limit of 2.5 hours.

This is the section of Terrys post you quote, so your claim..

he was in effect measuring things a la BG. That directly leads to maneuver elements

seems a little odd given he uses the term figures. In fact no-where in his post does he refer to BG's or even elements. It is hard to see how this can be read as a comment on "maneuver element" numbers. I suspect you are, perhaps with good reason, concerned about the number of "Maneuver elements" involved, but lets not pretend that Terry has said anything about it.

Martin

[madaxeman]

ADLG gets around this problem by using less figures on a smaller table. I've never played a game, but from a distance it looks more like a FOGAM game played at 650pts on a 5x3 table (for those who've played in one of those competitions). Those games had a time limit of 2.5 hours.

This is the section of Terrys post you quote, so your claim.....seems a little odd given he uses the term figures. In fact no-where in his post does he refer to BG's or even elements. It is hard to see how this can be read as a comment on "maneuver element" numbers. I suspect you are, perhaps with good reason, concerned about the number of "Maneuver elements" involved, but lets not pretend that Terry has said anything about it.
Martin

All of the rulesets (DBM/DBX/ADLG/FOG) use the same basing scheme, and this has been essentially standard for all 15mm rulesets since the mid 80's ("7th Edition WRG"). To all intents and purposes therefore figures = bases, and in all DBx based systems (which Terry has played very successfully in the past...), bases = maneuver elements.

FWIW the ADLG event at Challenge featured armies which all had between 32-47 "maneuver elements" in a 300 point army, which meant each army was represented by something like 40-60 "DBx/FoG" bases of troops - so not too far off a textbook FoG "12BG" army. There were 18 players, 5 rounds and 45 games, and only 3 non-decisive results, all of which were in the first 2 rounds and 2 of which involved a player who was playing his first 2 games ever. The table size was 150cmx100cm, and move distances were 40mm per "inch" (MU), ie heavy foot move 80mm, MF move 120mm etc. Deployment starts 6 "inches" (MU) apart. The games were originally scheduled to run for 3.5 hours, to fit in with the other DBX/FoG periods, but as all of them ended up finishing early some of the later rounds were started ahead of the published schedule to allow for an earlier finish on both days

[marty]

All of the rulesets (DBM/DBX/ADLG/FOG) use the same basing scheme, and this has been essentially standard for all 15mm rulesets since the mid 80's ("7th Edition WRG"). To all intents and purposes therefore figures = bases, and in all DBx based systems (which Terry has played very successfully in the past...), bases = maneuver elements.

Except of course FOG which uses DBX basing but where bases do not equal maneuver elements. I'm starting to think you guys have had too much of the DBM/ADLG cool aid and now any term to describe a model or group of soldiers just means "maneuver element'!

Martin

[berthier]

900 points DID not become the standard in the US. 900 has been rarely used in the GCC because of the increased time. We have played more 600-700 point games than 900 points by almost double. 800 remains our standard. Getting resolution in games was more an issue in the 900 point games as well. In all of our tournament games, resolution is determined more by who was in the game than the armies or the rules and this is true for ADLG as well. The 25-0 system does not penalize playing for a draw enough but that can be easily addressed by tournament organizers.

FOG 2 was not as good as FOG 1 in my opinion but is still a superior game to ADLG which in essence is DBM with a boob job (and I detest DBM).

Some of the changes suggested so far have the potential to increase the speed of the games but it remains to be seen if viability of some armies will be significantly improved. Hairy barbarian armies fall into this lot but in my mind this is more a list problem than a rule problem.

Christopher Anders
2016-2017 GCC Coordinator