Newbie Questions

[philqw78]

I dont get how ++ vs + will turn into + vs -. Seems like it should go to + vs ~ (No POA).

It doesn't make any mathematical sense to me either. But if one side is on plus the other is on minus. The thing is, being on plus in melee you still need a 4 to hit, the same as evens. So in effect it is like ~. But then on ++ you need three which is only really like + so I try not to think too much.

[philqw78]

unit of Light Horse that had broken and fled from melee

Are the cavalry in the way friendly or En to the LH? But yes read the evades.

If the LH cannot shift/drop back bases to avoid the Cav they burst through friends, dropping the friendly troops burst through by a cohesion level,

or stop at contact with enemy, being destroyed at that point. can't remember when they are removed though and haven't got my book at work.

[lawrenceg]

How about + vs -?

turns into ++ against --

Ok, I am reading that in the rules.. but it still just doesnt make sense.

I dont get how ++ vs + will turn into + vs -. Seems like it should go to + vs ~ (No POA).

They spell it out, it just doesnt make any sense.

The underlying maths of the close combat system is as follows:

You have a numerical combat strength.
Your basic combat strength is zero.
Each + POA gives you +1 to your combat strength.
Each - POA gives you -1 to your combat strength.

Subtract your opponent's combat strength from your combat strength to get the strength differential.

Differential = +2 or more: to hit you need 3
Differential = +1 or 0: to hit you need 4
Differential less than 0: to hit you need 5

This is a simple system. The authors, however, expressed it in a rather obscure way (by taking the numbers out), making it harder to see the underlying logic.



Alternatively:

There are only 5 kinds of close combats. Imagine them laid out on a scale:

(you) ++ vs -- (opponent)
(you) + vs - (opponent)
no POA
(you) - vs + (opponent)
(you) -- vs ++ (opponent)

The combat starts at no POA.
Every +POA for you moves the combat up the scale 1 step.
Every negative POA for you moves the combat down the scale 1 step.
Every +POA for your opponent moves the combat down the scale 1 step.
Every negative POA for your opponent moves the combat up the scale 1 step.

[Omar]

Alternatively:

There are only 5 kinds of close combats. Imagine them laid out on a scale:

(you) ++ vs -- (opponent)
(you) + vs - (opponent)
no POA
(you) - vs + (opponent)
(you) -- vs ++ (opponent)

The combat starts at no POA.
Every +POA for you moves the combat up the scale 1 step.
Every negative POA for you moves the combat down the scale 1 step.
Every +POA for your opponent moves the combat down the scale 1 step.
Every negative POA for your opponent moves the combat up the scale 1 step.

Now that makes sense to me.

I re-read it last night, and I mostly get it, but it seems like alot of things were written in the most confusing fashion. I wonder if thats more of the 'wargaming tradition' or what.

[lawrenceg]

Alternatively:

There are only 5 kinds of close combats. Imagine them laid out on a scale:

(you) ++ vs -- (opponent)
(you) + vs - (opponent)
no POA
(you) - vs + (opponent)
(you) -- vs ++ (opponent)

The combat starts at no POA.
Every +POA for you moves the combat up the scale 1 step.
Every negative POA for you moves the combat down the scale 1 step.
Every +POA for your opponent moves the combat down the scale 1 step.
Every negative POA for your opponent moves the combat up the scale 1 step.

Now that makes sense to me.

I re-read it last night, and I mostly get it, but it seems like alot of things were written in the most confusing fashion. I wonder if thats more of the 'wargaming tradition' or what.

More likely that the authors knew exactly what they meant and couldn't imagine that anyone else wouldn't. Which is a failing common to most authors, hence the need for editors.

[Omar]

More likely that the authors knew exactly what they meant and couldn't imagine that anyone else wouldn't. Which is a failing common to most authors, hence the need for editors.

That seems the most plausible reason so far.

Oh well, I will continue to muddle through it. Glad there are these forums so I can ask about it.

[rogerg]

I did some editing of the text. The authors were so used to seeing the rules that they needed 'new eyes' on the text. As soon as I had read the rules sufficiently to fully understand them, I had the same problem. It is very difficult to see them as a new reader might, particularly one from a different wargaming tradition. I always find it interesting to read the views expressed here to see new ways of looking at explaining the rules (and new ways to misunderstand!). I very much like the 'up and down' scale way of describing the combat PoA's.

It might have been better to describe combat by files rather than ranks as well. If only that had been so obvious eighteen months ago.

[Polkovnik]

"lawrenceg wrote:

More likely that the authors knew exactly what they meant and couldn't imagine that anyone else wouldn't. Which is a failing common to most authors, hence the need for editors. "

I agree that is the case with many sets of wargames rules but I don't think it applies to FOG. The FOG rules were read and playtested by lots (hundreds I would guess) of people before the final version was produced. I think they are pretty clear and easy to understand - I certainly never had a problem understanding the POA system.

[hammy]

No matter how many times a set of rules gets rewritten you will still find people who either missread based on preconcieved opinions or simply don't fully grasp what is there.

The POA thing I never had a problem with but I know of a number of players who didn't grasp the fact that the two are linked and then wondered why almost every combat they fought both sides needed 4s to hit.

The great thing about a forum is that people can ask questions and get things explained again in different ways.

Just be glad you are not trying to understand the (S) grading in DBMM

[Omar]

Ok, as long as it wasnt just me.

I started with Battletech back in the mid-90's. Went from that to 40k, to Warhammer Fantasy, then to Warmachine, AT-43, and later to other miscellaneous miniatures games (Monsterpocalypse being the most recent). It was never quite like this.

But, I can see the point. Some things which are clear as day to folks who know it or who have played it would make no sense to others. Another factor is that we have no one here who plays any sort of historical (other than DBA), so we are all kinda muddling through with our mix of experience in different games.

Thanks for the help everyone! I am going to be playing my first, from start to finish, game this weekend. English starter from rulebook vs either Nikephorian Byzantine or Principate Roman (havent decided yet).

[hammy]

I am rather looking forwards to finding out what people are having issues with when we run the FoG "bootcamp" in Manchester in a couple of weeks time.

Picking up a completely new ruleset in isolation is always a challenge, I am lucky in that I play in a large club and with FoG I had a direct help line to the authors while I was picking the game up.

In general the rules mean exactly what they say and what they say is written in English that is reasonably easy to fathom.

[Omar]

In general the rules mean exactly what they say and what they say is written in English that is reasonably easy to fathom.

Spend some time on the various Games Workshop forums and you might start to question that.

English, as a language, leaves alot of room for interpretation, especially with gamers (who like to 'interpret' it into their favor). Then you get different versions of english (which reminds me of a nice conversation I had with a beautiful Scottish lass who was here in the states for work on the subject of language), and it gets interesting.

Its all good, I would MUCH rather a set of rules where its all in there, somewhere, and I have to dig for it.. rather than rules that are so simple that it leaves gaping holes that the company refuses to answer in an intelligent fashion.

[hammy]

Its all good, I would MUCH rather a set of rules where its all in there, somewhere, and I have to dig for it.. rather than rules that are so simple that it leaves gaping holes that the company refuses to answer in an intelligent fashion.

Well hopefully FoG does follow the "all in there somewhere" approach. Granted things are normally only in the FoG rules once but everything (near enough) is there.

[lawrenceg]

"lawrenceg wrote:

More likely that the authors knew exactly what they meant and couldn't imagine that anyone else wouldn't. Which is a failing common to most authors, hence the need for editors. "

I agree that is the case with many sets of wargames rules but I don't think it applies to FOG.

It certainly did apply until the play testers got to grips with it.

The FOG rules were read and playtested by lots (hundreds I would guess) of people before the final version was produced. I think they are pretty clear and easy to understand - I certainly never had a problem understanding the POA system.

True, but the final version was never tested by people who had no knowledge of the game, only by people who were involved in earlier testing or at least had access to this forum. In fact, I'm not sure if the exact final version actually printed was tested at all.

The volume of postings on this forum should tell you that not everyone finds them clear and easy to understand, or they think they do but get them wrong. The latter category includes one of the editors at Osprey, who changed a sentence to a more elegant wording without realising that it changed the meaning (hence at least one of the errata).

The final version is pretty good though, and many queries on here are from people who can't find the relevant rule, rather than failing to understand it.

[Omar]

Well, if its ever re-printed, I would vote in favor of a more 'tech manual' layout.

To be able to open a book, and play a whole game as you flip through the pages, in order, is a very easy way to learn.

[BrianC]

"lawrenceg wrote:

More likely that the authors knew exactly what they meant and couldn't imagine that anyone else wouldn't. Which is a failing common to most authors, hence the need for editors. "

I agree that is the case with many sets of wargames rules but I don't think it applies to FOG.

It certainly did apply until the play testers got to grips with it.

The FOG rules were read and playtested by lots (hundreds I would guess) of people before the final version was produced. I think they are pretty clear and easy to understand - I certainly never had a problem understanding the POA system.

True, but the final version was never tested by people who had no knowledge of the game, only by people who were involved in earlier testing or at least had access to this forum. In fact, I'm not sure if the exact final version actually printed was tested at all.

The volume of postings on this forum should tell you that not everyone finds them clear and easy to understand, or they think they do but get them wrong. The latter category includes one of the editors at Osprey, who changed a sentence to a more elegant wording without realising that it changed the meaning (hence at least one of the errata).

The final version is pretty good though, and many queries on here are from people who can't find the relevant rule, rather than failing to understand it.

lawrence, I fall into the category of new player having a hard time with the wording in the FOG rules. And your comment sheds some light on the fact that some players were saying "the rules are very clear" . Well if you have experience with them they would be. Heck I played Fire in the East and found those rules way easier to understand right from the start. But with FOG I had to read and read and ask and ask. But I too now find them clear now that I have spent some time on the forum and playing games. Osprey should not be able to change any wording unless they get approvals from the authors as it will more than likely change the meaning of what is being said. The changing of one word can alter a meaning to potentially mean more than one thing and that leads to confusion.

It would have been nice if the authors had a few focus groups of non FOG players to see what they thought of the way it was written and played. Then made any alterations from that before releasing it. But not knowing what was happening behind the scenes I can't judge negatively. I'm just glad that I am not the only one who found the rules hard to understand and not feel stupid anymore Even some of the more knowledgable players on here I think need to take a step back when answering posts and realize that not everyone has the same understanding of what may seem basic to them.

Now that I have my head around most of the rules I still love the game and am buying more and more 15mm figures to build more armies.

Brian

[BrianC]

Well, if its ever re-printed, I would vote in favor of a more 'tech manual' layout.

To be able to open a book, and play a whole game as you flip through the pages, in order, is a very easy way to learn.

I totally agree Omar. But I highly doubt a re-write is in the near or intermediate future.

Brian

[scomac]

In my group we have an IT specialist with undergrad degrees in computer science and history, an accountant who writes his own rules for fun, and a teacher of both English and History. We're a pretty bright group of guys, and we usually pick up rules very quickly. Still, we've struggled to understand the FoG rules well enough to play the game properly. Once we do understand the rules, I think we'll do fine, but it's definitely an uphill struggle.

I think our biggest problem is with the rules layout. The section on "victory and defeat" for example, lists how many attrition points each side needs for victory without actually defining attrition points. The effects of battle group disorder are explained only once, in "battle groups" rather than "maneuver." Why do "maneuver" and "general movement rules" have different sections? We end up shuffling back and forth between them a lot. For a long time, we thought references to "disordered" and "severely disordered" in the tables must have been mistakenly included from earlier versions of the rules. Like others, we had a tough time getting that both sides applied the net POA to combat.

As I wrote, once we become more familiar with the rules, we won't have to look things up as often, and the organization won't be as big a problem. But it makes for a steep learning curve.

Still, the writing could be tighter. Why have two different unit states, one called "disordered," the other called "disrupted," and both caused by different things? Why not change "disrupted" to "shaken" for clarity? A unit can be in good order, disorder, or severe disorder, based on how severely terrain disrupts its formation, but that quality of a unit (how well it's keeping its formation) doesn't have a name in the rules. That seems more like cohesion to me, and what is now "cohesion" seems more like morale state.

[rogerg]

The tech manual approach unfortunately doesn't work for FoG. Some things are needed in several sections. This doesn't give a linear pattern. A basic principle of the layout was to avoid, as much as possible, 'forward referencing', not referring to things that will be in the later chapters. This allows you to read through more easily. The next problem was to try not to repeat sections. This might be helpful on a first read, but it makes the text so long it is difficult to find rules quickly during a game.

The final version has a reasonably logical layout. It starts with the basic equipment and definitions, bases BG's and formations. Next come the common manouver rules. How to wheel etc., which are needed in several parts of the game. Finally, the bulk of the rules follows the order of play in a game, impact, movement, shooting. The actual combat mechanisms are kept together, because the same techniques are used in all the combat sections.

If a reader keeps the above in mind it might make things easier to find.

[johno]

I find simply thinking in terms of advantages works for me.

If, when we've worked it all out, my unit has an advantage (+), or a big advantage (++), then it seems logical to me that your unit has a corresponding level of disadvantage.

One of the things I liked about FoG when I'd played it a couple of times was that it doesn't try to assign numerical values to things that are inherently hard to quantify. Our favourite source may well tell us that Hoplite shields gave them an edge when compared to the wicker shields of Persian opponents, but they don't quantify it. So simply saying Hoplites have an advantage for better armour covers it nicely.

Many earlier rule sets tried to imply they had the measure of all these imponderables, what with their "+3 for shooting at shieldless medium cavalry", and such like. Looking back, it seems to have been so much illusion, but we all bought into it, and took part in endless discussions as to whether this or that was worth +1 or +2. (Light lance? one or two-handed romphaia? Overarm/underarm? No, wait, that was a different discussion...)

johno