FoG:R Update Forum

[nikgaukroger]

Welcome to the FoG:R Update Forum.

As mentioned before this is not going to be a v2, it is going to be an update to v1 - so think of it as v1.x. You can decide on what the "x" is when the scope becomes clear

There is not going to be a new rules book. This, logically, means that a PDF download is the most likely distribution method. No new army list books either you'll be glad to hear, although there will be a few updates in all probability and it is most likely this will include some points changes.

I'm going to lead on this and have drafted in Kevin Johnson and Stephen Stead to assist. I am very grateful that they have agreed to this. Alas Richard is much too busy with his PC game projects to be involved, however, he will have oversight on what is agreed which will be very valuable.

We will use this forum to publish our ideas about the areas of the rules that we think could do looking at - they are all up for discussion, alteration and even dropping if that is the right way forward. Please bear in mind that the aim is to keep the number of changes within reason - update not wholesale revision is the aim. Of course what is "within reason" is a bit subjective ...

I would also like to point out that this process is not a democracy, and that the update team have the final say - that said we are not going to implement something that has no support, that would be stupid, and we are looking for a consensus on the changes. I'd also like to say that this isn't about competition play (although most regular posters appear to play at least some comps), and that feedback from all players is welcome.

So thanks in advance for your contributions, and lets get to work

It is hoped that players will be able to do some play testing of the suggestions, however, we do recognise that the reality is that for amendments there is likely to be a limited amount of this - it is just the way of things.

[nikgaukroger]

Just a quick note on process.

My intention is that significant topics (subjective I know) will be stickied so they are at the top. Other ideas/comments/suggestions will be left as normal forum topics - but may, of course, be "promoted" to sticky over time, and stickied ones may be "demoted" as well if necessary.

So please don't feel limited by the stickied topics, but bear in mind they are the ones we think are the most important.

[Vespasian28]

Just a general, and probably not particulalry helpful, view at this point in the proceedings.

I have played lots of FOGR since the rules came out and we have a healthy number of players at our club who have welcomed the renaissance( ) in Renaissance gaming the rules have provided. On the whole we are happy with the rules and the amendments provided through the errata to date but have instigated some "unofficial" ones for our friendly games like artillery deployment restrictions.

On the whole we play historical opponents so have been completely unaware( or unconcerned with) problems with Dragoon snipers, mounted armour, light artillery, bows, BG autobreak levels etc. Some of us, me included, have played in the occasional competition but obviously not enough to realise all these issues. Most of our members don't frequent the Slitherine forum and I wonder how many people are out there who are mostly happy with the rules as they are.

Early days yet but I can foresee a time when most people at our club will happily carry on with FOGR as is and myself and others may have to try to retain two versions of FOGR; one for the club and one for comps or stop doing tourneys.

I am similarly uneasy about the FOG3 changes being discussed so maybe it's just me and my inherent aversion to change. Ah well, got that off my chest anyway

[nikgaukroger]

No problem. We like to hear everyone's views - helps us judge things better.

So thanks for taking the time

[charles]

Sorry, in french.
Après discutions avec les joueurs français, ces derniers n'ont pas réellement un souhait de changement, et je rejoint le post de Vespasian28 ci dessus.
Denis