Shooting and second moves

[nikgaukroger]

If everyone is playing the rules wrong because it is difficult for anyone to remember they are 6.001" from the enemy, then clearly a change/clarification is required. There is a BIG difference between HF taking two turns rather than three to cover this ground.
Hal

I've never seen it played wrong

Same here.

Can't see a need for an official (i.e. FAQ) clarification either as the definitions make the rules quite clear IMO - I'm actually a bit surprised people have played this consistently incorrectly

[shall]

It seems we have a devaince internationally, and that is easy to understand. I can see how one might read it the other way, even though the rules are absoluteluy clear, and once someone starts playing something one way, it can persist.

It doesn't need any precision to do it correctly at all. All you do is put a 6MU stick down an stay outside it -if outside it you can't be at it. There is no need to be .001" outside, .99" has the same effect. All you are doing is moving somehere ourside 6 but inside 7 and you have the same effect exactly; you don't need to be precise at all. Much more difficult to be at exactly 6MU in fact which does require extreme precision.

It is indeed our intent that it takes 3 moves to close after the march moves which gives the best balance of shooting vs foot attacks and also MF vs HF comparisons. As Richard has said it is pretty clear in the rules; but I can see how a local interpretation can come to pass.

Once you change over you will porbably see a little more benefit from MF troops in the open realtive to HF. It is partly why fast moving armoured troops are the bane of bowmen - as they surely should be. Try 8 MF Dailami Armoured coming in vs 8 HF Protected for instance, and the difference is a bit more than it was with the incorrect interp.

Have fun and stress not!!

Si

[AlanYork]

I read from this string of e-mails that I could move my Jannissaries twice and stop at 6.00001 inches from Pike and make them move three times before hitting me in a charge. I do not plan to do this as it does not pass my smell test and seeing the efforts in these rules to "make common sense" I have a hard time ibeleiving that this was the author's intent.

But it was. The authors are logical people - clearly, if you are just over 6" away, two 3" moves won't get you into contact. The logic is inescapable. You can't seriously believe it escaped our notice.

Sorry that you have been playing it wrong, but no change to the rules is required. They are working as intended.

Richard and Simon, with respect, the rules clearly aren't working as intended as so many people are getting it wrong.

I wargame with a factory manager, a transport manager, a businessman and several other clever guys and they all play it the same "wrong" way so reasonably switched on people are misinterpreting what you believed to be clear enough. There's also a posting on this thread from one of our cousins across the pond (happy 4th of July you guys by the way) and he's saying pretty much the same thing.

I've been ancients wargaming since 1982 and can remember the tortuous debates on definitions, rules interpretations etc that blighted WRG editions and they were IMO a fine set of rules as are FoG. Now they've made a reappearance on a thread, admittedly started by me, asking what seemed a perfectly reasonable question.

If so many people are indeed getting it wrong that would say to me personally that precise language is not the same thing as clear language and a rules tweak and/or clarification is required. If I tried to make my longbows get 3 shots at approaching heavy foot rather than 2, as per this discussion, in a tournament I'd fully expect to be accused of gamesmanship, being a rule lawyer or possibly, in extreme circumstances, trying to cheat.

[devilforrest]

I get to play in the same events as Kal (but never against Kal) and have only noticed the problem when some players try to move too close during a double move.

Instead of trying to squeeze the very last millimeter from the double move, just staying back the thickness of one's measurement device
prevents many problems.


JM

[Dyeeles]

We've never had a problem with this. We've always stopped outside 6" and accepted that it will take more than two moves to get into contact with HF. I think the fact that I use MF Bow encourages this as If I can't shoot you then you can't contact in two moves.

[Blathergut]

Yep..no prob up here...you just stop short of the 6MU by a bit...never had a debate or any question of it.

I would think if the rules have been misinterpreted, it was probably from one or two souls reading/interpreting the rules and then explaining them/playing them with others. Just tweak how you play and stop a bit short.

[batesmotel]

I suspect that a lot of the problem with interpreting this is that in DBM, the prohibition from shooting after a march move was explicit rather than implicit. So when a march move stopped at 240 paces then it was an exact number of maximum distance moves for heavy foot to close with stationary opponents.(Or else we played that wrong on this side of the pond as well .) Without a careful reading of the definition of within in the appendices it was an easy conclusion to leap to that FoG had the same intent. It probably would have been clearer if second moves had to end at 7 MU rather than not within 6 MU but then this would also have an effect on game balance in that the effect of enemy troops in blocking second moves would also be enhanced.

Chris

[shall]

Richard and Simon, with respect, the rules clearly aren't working as intended as so many people are getting it wrong.

I wargame with a factory manager, a transport manager, a businessman and several other clever guys and they all play it the same "wrong" way so reasonably switched on people are misinterpreting what you believed to be clear enough. There's also a posting on this thread from one of our cousins across the pond (happy 4th of July you guys by the way) and he's saying pretty much the same thing.

I can understand you feeling a bit irritated that it has been played the wrong way and perhaps isn't as obviously expressed as it could be. As I said, I can see how a small subgroup might set off on the wrong thing and it keep going until picked up. Its pretty straight forward from now on though, isn't it?

No-one is saying you are all not reasonably switched on - the entire purpose of this forum is allow a lot of switched on people to ask sensible questions. This is one such sensible question; one with an easy sensible answer. Seems the process has just served its purpose perfectly.
There are several 000s of FOG players, so some groups of people get off on slight misinterps of all sorts of things. Its normal. Sorry you didn't find it clear previously and hope it is now.

We could put a 1 liner inthe FAQ but our general policy has been to leave that for solving ambiguities/omissions and to use this forum to correct misintepretation of something that isn't actually ambigous - but easy to mis-understand. This seems to be the latter rather than the former to me.

Best wishes and don't get hung up on this, it's really much less precise the way we have written it. Just stay outside 6MU.

Si

[daleivan]

This seemed pretty clear to me, and part of the price you pay for making a double move

Never hurts to have clarification regardless

Best,

Dale

[petedalby]

If I tried to make my longbows get 3 shots at approaching heavy foot rather than 2, as per this discussion, in a tournament I'd fully expect to be accused of gamesmanship, being a rule lawyer or possibly, in extreme circumstances, trying to cheat.

Not by me you wouldn't.

I've always played it as confirmed by Si & RBS.

The other consideration is who moves within 6MU first. If the HF hold their ground, the enemy archers must advance to within 6MU to shoot. The HF will then be within 2 moves of the archers.

Like others I've not always got things right first time but this forum is excellent for ironing things out and building a common understanding.

Pete

[kal5056]

As one who often presents an opinion of how I read something I have never taken offense at being corrected and would hope that someone else does not feel that they are less than switched on if they are on the wrong side of an argument.

All resonable people can read a sentence and have differing opinions. The beauty of FOG is that we have this forum to discuss these things.

I have found out since my entrance into this thread that several of my teamates read this rule exactly as RBS and Si have pointed out.

I play ottomans of late and my Jannissaries are licking thier chops as we speak waiting for a pike block or some Legos to come our way.

Will probably roll all 3's and the extra round of shooting will do no good but hope springs eternal.

Gino
SMAC

Hoping to rectify the fact that I have yet to play JM....(I think he is ducking me)

[Blathergut]

Nice thing about the rules has also been that there is relatively few points of confusion!

[AlanYork]

Richard and Simon, with respect, the rules clearly aren't working as intended as so many people are getting it wrong.

I wargame with a factory manager, a transport manager, a businessman and several other clever guys and they all play it the same "wrong" way so reasonably switched on people are misinterpreting what you believed to be clear enough. There's also a posting on this thread from one of our cousins across the pond (happy 4th of July you guys by the way) and he's saying pretty much the same thing.

I can understand you feeling a bit irritated that it has been played the wrong way and perhaps isn't as obviously expressed as it could be. As I said, I can see how a small subgroup might set off on the wrong thing and it keep going until picked up. Its pretty straight forward from now on though, isn't it?

No-one is saying you are all not reasonably switched on - the entire purpose of this forum is allow a lot of switched on people to ask sensible questions. This is one such sensible question; one with an easy sensible answer. Seems the process has just served its purpose perfectly.
There are several 000s of FOG players, so some groups of people get off on slight misinterps of all sorts of things. Its normal. Sorry you didn't find it clear previously and hope it is now.

We could put a 1 liner inthe FAQ but our general policy has been to leave that for solving ambiguities/omissions and to use this forum to correct misintepretation of something that isn't actually ambigous - but easy to mis-understand. This seems to be the latter rather than the former to me.

Best wishes and don't get hung up on this, it's really much less precise the way we have written it. Just stay outside 6MU.

Si

The point about being "switched on" was just to illustrate that if reasonably clever people can get it wrong, as opposed to those not so bright, then perhaps there may be a flaw somewhere. I realise that nobody is accusing anybody of being stupid.

A previous poster is right IMO, this misinterpretation is a hang over from DBM days so as a lot of FoG players are ex DBMers, me included, a line or two in the FAQ might be useful. Perhaps something along the line of; "Second moves cannot go within or end up at a distance of 6 inches or less of the enemy, thus it will take at least three moves for heavy troops to come into contact once they are have ceased making double moves." Obviously the wording would need to be tighter and clearer than that but the jist of it is obvious and it is clearly what the authors intended, they have just said so!

[Ghaznavid]

A previous poster is right IMO, this misinterpretation is a hang over from DBM days so as a lot of FoG players are ex DBMers, me included, a line or two in the FAQ might be useful. Perhaps something along the line of; "Second moves cannot go within or end up at a distance of 6 inches or less of the enemy, thus it will take at least three moves for heavy troops to come into contact once they are have ceased making double moves." Obviously the wording would need to be tighter and clearer than that but the jist of it is obvious and it is clearly what the authors intended, they have just said so!

But the rules already say so. P. 75 clearly states that 2nd moves can not go within 6 MU and P. 136 defines 'within' as 'At or closer than.' It could be argued that adding foot notes (or other ways of stating that this term is defined in the glossary) to terms like 'within', might have helped. Still I would prefer not to have the FAQ bloated with needless clarifications.

That said it's my experience that if a small group gets a rule detail wrong (not just with FoG) it's often just that one member of the group got it wrong (often enough while checking in the middle of a game). The others then often never really bother to recheck as it's already 'clear' to them or reading it the same way now.

[david53]

A previous poster is right IMO, this misinterpretation is a hang over from DBM days so as a lot of FoG players are ex DBMers, me included, a line or two in the FAQ might be useful. Perhaps something along the line of; "Second moves cannot go within or end up at a distance of 6 inches or less of the enemy, thus it will take at least three moves for heavy troops to come into contact once they are have ceased making double moves." Obviously the wording would need to be tighter and clearer than that but the jist of it is obvious and it is clearly what the authors intended, they have just said so!

But the rules already say so. P. 75 clearly states that 2nd moves can not go within 6 MU it seems very very plain to me. This is in the rules section and not a reference sheet what part am i missing here it seems clear as a bell to me you can't go within 6mu, within is less than 6mu therefore your at more than 6mu therefore requiring three moves for HF to contact.

[lawrenceg]

... precise language is not the same thing as clear language ...

I agree with this. I also think that FAQ is for frequently asked questions, regardless of whether they are questions about actual ambiguities or questions due to common misunderstanding of unambiguous text.

[kal5056]

David,
The point of the question about page 75 is the definition of "Whitin". Some can take it to include 6mu's other take it (as in the glossary) as 6mu's or closer.
If you read the rules and think you know what 'Whitin" means you will not think to look in the glossary to see what the Author's think it means.

I agree that if it were in Bold Type face in the text on page 75 perhaps that would clue a reader into the fact that it has been found to have varied interpretations and to refer to the glossary for further definition. This should be considered in future printings as it does not change the overall format of the rules but clues readers into extra information provided in the glossary. (The rear support definition is another example that would benefit from this bold face clue).

I have never read a glossary to look up the meaning of a word I beleived that I already knew the mean of.

Gino
SMAC

[dave_r]

Perhaps we should add the following to the FAQ's

"Make sure you read the glossary"

[david53]

David,
The point of the question about page 75 is the definition of "Whitin".

I can't see what the arguement is about.

"Neither the 1st nor the 2nd move can start, end or go within 6mu's"

Within = inside

Whats the problum.

[kal5056]

Before I get flamed on. I know the authors have put thier definition in the glassary and for this game that is what is meant. However, one definition listed by Webster's.com is :

" at or to some point not beyond, as in length or distance; not farther than: within a radius of a mile. "


Using this definition within 6 mus would include 6mus.

Gino
SMAC